Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.

If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by A. C. Santacruz

Rp2006 has not disclosed COI(s) affecting his editing

Roxy the dog has reverted without reading the justification for the edit

[1]

This is concerning for a user that reverts as a large proportion of their editing.

Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish

How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: [2] [3] [4]

BLP/NPOV/DUE/Coatrack

There is a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE negative and defamatory content into BLP articles of psychics, alternative medicine practitioners and the like(PAMPATL). On the flip side, there has been a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE positive and fluffy content into the BLP articles of skeptics and those involved in the skeptic movement. There is also a clear disregard for WP:BLP applying to non-article space when dealing with PAMPATLs. I'm focusing on the BLP issues, as they're of the greatest import to me. Just because someone says they're a psychic or says the earth is flat does not give carte blanche to ignore BLP.

Thomas John (medium)

[5] Creates a coatrack, over half the article negative, severe BLPvio in lead and body.
[6] Just a formatting edit, makes it clear he's using a blog for negative information and quote mining.
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] COI source, used to coatrack more negative material in article.
[18] Adds a SPS source
[19] Cites WP:JEZEBEL for contentious info in a BLP
[20] Restoring BLPvio and negative content to lead
[21] Restoring negative content from a COI source
[22] Restores BLPvio to lead after it was removed for BLP reasons
[23] At this point, more than 90% negative information, clear violation of WP:UNDUE, [24] Rp2006 is responsible for 45kB of additions, next editor is only 8kB.

Susan Gerbic

Rp2006 and Khamar are the top two editors. Khamar seems likely to be affiliated with GSoW, per [25]. Collectively they are responsible for over two thirds of the edits to the article.

[26] [27] [28] Roxy the dog removes COI template three times, despite on-going BLP thread outlining the COI.
[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Attacks on other BLPs, in her article, sourced to her by an editor with a COI
[36] Inserting puffery sourced to a non-independent source, added by an editor with a COI
[37] [38] Inserting attacks on other BLPs into the article, sourced to SPS

Attempts to fix COI/puffery

[39] SlimVirgin does a full rewrite in April 2021.
[40] Myself in March 2021.
[41] Drmies in March 2017 and a smaller edit[42] March 2021.

Rp2006 non-article space BLPvio

[43] "Only legitimate thing the subject does"
[44] labels article subject "Medical quack" on his user page. Article states "Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery." This itself is BLPvio, using SPS in a BLP for negative claims.
[45] Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page.

Battleground/Civility/Stonewalling

It is incredibly difficult to make any headway in discussions about issues in this area due to incivility and stonewalling during discussions.

Incivility and Stonewalling at the COIN thread

[46] [47] [48] Witchfinder/witch hunt
[49] "campaign against GSoW"
[50] [51] "fringe sympathetic"
[52] Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation), even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons
[53] [54] [55] I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense?
[56] Attacks editor's contribution percentages "you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it."
[57] "I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama."
[58] When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple."
[59] Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV.
[60] Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here.
[61] It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well
[62] More stonewalling and mild incivility.

Incivility discussion about possible COI on Rp2006's talk page

[63] "Witchfinder General behavior"
[64] Witch-finder, harrasment, hounding, obsessive accusations

Rp2006

[65] Calls DS/alert template harrassment
[66] "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe."
[67] "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere"
[68] "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim."
[69] "Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material"

Roxy the dog

[70] "Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It does mean false accusation. Good grief."
[71] general incivility

Stonewalling At Sharon A. Hill

This is the clearest example of what happens in the topic area when cleanup work is attempted.

[72] Discussion on edits started on Nov26.
[73] Revert with no discussion.
[74] Revert again with no discussion.
[75] Revert again with no discussion.
[76] [77] [78] Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility.
[79] Clear consensus close of a discussion about part of the edits made, showing they have merit.

Evidence presented by tgeorgescu

There is WP:CONSENSUS to oppose edits contrary to: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. So, this isn't a case against organized skepticism. Organized skepticism is highly valued in societies based upon science and technology. Skeptics are in this respect welcome to edit Wikipedia, since they endorse science well-done and scholarship well-done. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Vaticidalprophet

Sgerbic and Rp2006 violating policies/guidelines related to BLP editing

Sgerbic and Rp2006 have made edits to and about BLPs that demonstrate an inability to understand WP:RS and WP:V, and quite ironically for soi-disant skeptics, behaviour such as by proclaiming a source's content without reading it or a source's reliability without looking into its background.

Special:Diff/1013867251: Sgerbic calls a source a "press release" advertising its subject; the actual source is highly critical
- Also this diff: Sgerbic refers to The Guardian and The Australian, both national newspapers of record, as unreliable sources
Special:Diff/1013908195, Special:Diff/1013910356: Rp2006 repeatedly removes sources for being behind a paywall, in brazen violation of WP:PAYWALL (a subsection of WP:V)
Special:Diff/1013910120, Special:Diff/1013914142, Special:Diff/1013912952, Special:Diff/1013913622: Rp2006 defends WP:V violations
- See further comments on this behaviour by DGG in Special:Diff/1014020791 (I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable), Epicgenius in Special:Diff/1014041726, and Vami IV in Special:Diff/1014067158 (On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever).

This intersects with the issues regarding the Susan Gerbic article diffed by ScottishFinnishRadish.

This level of misunderstanding of basic content policy is questionable at the best of times. For people writing marginal BLPs on hot-button topics, it's wildly outside the bounds of acceptability. I've seen topic bans from BLPs for less. The tricky part here is that because Sgerbic and Rp2006 have an unknown number of private confederates who assist them in writing such BLPs, a tban alone couldn't be properly enforced by the community; this is why we've ended up here at all.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.