Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD extended one week

Hi all. Due to the press of business, the drafters are extending the estimate for the posting of our proposed decision in this case by one week. For the Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Thanks for y'all's diligence on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a formal announcement but my personal sense is that we may be a few additional days late. Most of the PD has been circulated for internal review but there may be e.g. privacy-related blocking issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@L235: you or another clerk might want to re-protect the proposed decision page for this period, as the previous protection auto-ended about an hour ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

PD now posted

The proposed decision has now been posted. A reminder for all that this is a proposed decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by A. C. Santacruz

• The proposed remedy on GSoW membership recommends a well-publicized discussion happen but does not outline where it would be best to hold the discussion (as opposed to RfC on SI, which Arbcom suggests happen at RSN). I think outlining what noticeboard or talk page would be best for this discussion would be helpful. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Usually, the kinds of places might be the appropriate WP:VP or the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline. I'd probably personally tend to the appropriate VP for this remedy since it lies at an intersection of a couple of policies and guidelines. Izno (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, Izno :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat confused as to Roxy and I both get simple reminders. I entirely agree with both of us deserving remedies, but am confused as to why Roxy isn't at least warned. I don't see our conducts as equally uncivil or disruptive at all, especially when Roxy's been blocked for incivility and edit warring repeatedly in the past. I would appreciate some clarification on this point. I would also appreciate some explanation of what conduct of mine was exemplary of battleground editing so I can avoid that in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  My issue with the examples of battleground editing is that to my understanding starting 5 separate discussions/RfCs open to the community, requesting WP:3O, and requesting advice at relevant noticeboards (such as the RSN thread) to gain more community input on the changes I wanted to implement is not indicative in my eyes of me having a battleground mentality when editing Sharon A. Hill. These were acts to engage in the dispute resolution process and/or build consensus. I even attempted to de-escalate or fix misunderstandings with those I disagreed with in the spirit of consensus-building (e.g. [1] [2]). I'm not judging y'all's opinion, as y'all are much more experienced than I and I trust your expertise on what is and isn't battleground editing, it's just that it's hard for me to understand how my actions as a whole can be characterized as battleground-minded. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  I took a close look before supporting that FOF regarding your behavior; it wasn't the talk page discussions and active learning that I saw in the December/early-January timeframe that I agree did seem to move the page forward ultimately but the several reverts that occurred beforehand that I considered in the 'battleground' territory. Like my colleagues, I think you did pretty well at handling yourself and I've been seriously considering dropping my support for the remedy accordingly. Izno (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Izno, that's the clarification I needed. As a small aside, perhaps the COI vs anonimity proposed principle I added in the workshop may be useful for y'all to include, judging by some of the comments made by Opabinia regalis throughout her votes. Link for convenience: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Workshop#Anonymity_and_conflicts_of_interest A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that would be a nice principle. There comes a point of diminishing returns though, and that one at best says to me that none of our remedies are going to work perfectly if at all. So I guess future ArbCom might see it and think we might have possibly had a reasonable inkling of the future. Izno (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Bilby

I'd like to thank the committee for their work in writing this - it is a complex issue and difficult to manage, and I think as a list of proposals that this is an excellent way of threading through the issues. My only real concern is that it leaves the problem of a group led by an editor seemingly acting on behalf of that editor untouched although raised, even if that editor is ultimately sanctioned by the committee. I'd like to suggest a statement along the lines that GSoW editors are regarded to have a conflict of interest in regards to the work of Sgerbic (and possibly Rp2006) as that would address the sorts of problems we saw with Tyler Henry without needing any specific sanction. I think that would be in keeping with he common reading of COI that members of an organisation have a COI in regard to the actions of that organsiation and the leadership of the same. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

One of the issues the drafters saw that we'd like to prevent is further attempts to identify editors in the group of interest, both for the concerns regarding privacy and for concerns that that activity isn't particularly productive (as opposed to identifying editors who are here with the intent to promote, for example, which can be shown more easily and which doesn't require substantial digging offwiki and sometimes not even onwiki). What do you think about those concerns, and does such an FOF help or harm?

As for a finding of fact in that regard, I am not sure of the utility, as FOFs should generally be written with the objective of providing a remedy. What remedy would go with such an FOF? Izno (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The remedy would be a simple statement that GSoW editors should regard themselves as having a conflict of interest in regard to the work of Sgerbic and GSoW in general. In regard to digging up identities, even if the remedy was effectively was limited to those who are self-disclosed it would be a step forward, and if the proposal for a list to be provided to an independent party was to go forward that would solve any issue. However, I don't believe that GSoW editors are acting in anything but good faith, so I would be very confident that they would follow any remedy without ever needing to be identified. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that simply by being trained you automatically have a COI with your trainer. Our COI guideline is, in my reading, more nuanced than that. Now I am sympathetic to the fact that the lack of transparency makes it hard to evaluate and causes some level of mistrust to exist where more transparency may not. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It isn't the training per se, but the membership of a non-profit group run by Sgerbic. If I'm the member of a nonprofit, I'd be regarding as having a COI in regard to the actions of that group and the leadership/membership of the organisation. (Which is, clearly, why I don't write about nonprofits which I'm part of). - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. I'm open to such a remedy. I noted to my fellow drafters earlier that I think there is room for a few more "reminder" remedies clarifying the bounds of our conduct requirements in this area, which is also one of the principal reasons I voted to accept this case. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm really concerned about the situation that arose out of Tyler Henry, as it was an extremely serious BLP problem and an inherent weakness with our system. The harm that can potentially do to living people who then have no recourse under our policies makes me very concerned. Being clear that a COI applies for members of a group when writing about group member activities won't end it, but it will reduce the chance of it reoccurring by making it more difficult to recreate. - Bilby (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Gronk Oz

Please excuse me for raising this same point again, but I am concerned about difficulties in interpreting and implementing the decision as it is currently written, because terms like "skepticism trade publications" and "skepticism topics, broadly construed" are so ambiguous. If I look at WikiProject Skepticism, the topics they list as being in the scope of skepticism include all of valid science, pseudoscience, valid philosophy, pseudophilosophy, cults, and pseudoarchaeology. I cannot read the minds of the drafters, but I would be surprised if they intended the remedies to extend as broadly as that. So it leaves the question of just what is intended to be included in the scope of the remedies - more clarity would really be appreciated.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Skepticism topics, broadly construed", in my opinion does indeed include the scope at WikiProject Skepticism. "Skeptical trade publications" is much narrower and specifically describes publications using the "skeptic" label or are otherwise closely linked with scientific skepticism. Do you think that's still ambiguous? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with L235's takes. I'd be willing to consider and propose something of lesser scope than that described at the WikiProject, perhaps 'scientific skepticism' or 'the skeptical movement' as defined at 'scientific skepticism'. That said, the WikiProject itself only claims some 5k articles of interest to it, and I doubt many of the legitimate sciences are all covered by the project, so I would suggest that every kind of valid science is probably not of broad interest in context. Izno (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the clarification. I'm happy with the description of the publications. If the topic bans on skepticism are intended to include the entire field of science, that seems excessive - I think Izno's suggestion is more in line with the scope of the case.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And adjusted to scientific skepticism, with relevant link. If another arb wants to propose the still-narrower skeptical movement TBAN I have no qualms. Izno (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ScottishFinnishRadish

Three things come to mind after reading the PD.

1. I think it's bananas that the same reminder would be given to someone who called another editor "dear" once and got a bit heated, and the whole finding of fact written about Roxy the dog, who referred to her as part of a lynch mob.
2. A topic ban for CSI, it's publications, writers and members eliminates the COI editing, and still allows other productive edits in the topic area.
3. Does pseudoscience DS apply to the topics of skeptics, skepticism, and psychics?

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Re #1: A reasonable argument could well be made that more gradation is needed, and I'm open to arguments that it's necessary. How important do you think it really is in the long run? The ArbCom FoFs and remedies should be sufficient in the event of any further threads on the users, and honestly, their conduct was somewhat peripheral to the core questions involved in this case. But I'm open to being persuaded. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think no reminder is fine in ACS's case, as her behavior wouldn't raise eyes in any discussion I've seen. There was plenty of other low key incivility and heated discussion that didn't warrant a reminder, her's was more of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, in response to your comment on the Roxy remedy, I don't think warnings or admonishments are actually more stern. Either they're on notice from arbcom, or they're not. Whichever verb you choose doesn't much matter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to see it as you wish. But if ArbCom is stating "this behavior is worse than this other behavior and the way we're saying that is by using these different words" that doesn't change the fact that ArbCom is saying that one set of behavior is worse than the other even if they're all "on notice". Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding item 1, yes, I think I might still propose a 'harsher' remedy for Roxy the dog's behavior. I have of course supported the existing remedy in the interim. As for 'warning or admonishment' being sterner, the committee has been split on that topic for some years (and even whether such remedies should exist), but in practice it does serve to say 'yes, there was a difference between these two editors, even if we don't find that they should have had a remedy of meaningful consequence'. They are indeed on notice regardless.

Regarding item 3, I had four reasons that I did not propose a remedy/FOF on whether PSDS applies:

1. We explicitly said we were not interested in discussing ARBPS on the case talk page.
2. I had a sense that I might have disagreed, personally, with whether it does apply (I don't think it does). So I have an interest in not expanding it. If you think it's a problem that needs resolution, I would recommend WP:ARCA for that anyway, since it would be a modification of an existing regime.
3. The majority of the (severe) issues of interest that ended up being presented in the evidence could all have been as easily solved with BLP DS (hence my proposed reminder).
4. My observation is that the committee and community would rather have DS which are fewer in number and lesser in scope, and adding scope to an existing DS did not look necessary additionally per #3.

I cannot speak for the other drafters regarding item 3. Izno (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of BLPs, maybe a reminder/warning/admonishment to Rp2006 about that. That behavior, in my eyes, was at least as bad as the incivility and battleground conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I can take another look but my recollection is that much of the BLP stuff was older and we tried to focus on newer stuff. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, there was restoring a BLPvio to the lead of Thomas John (medium), the BLPvios on the talk page of that article, the BLPvios on their talk page. That was all recent. I'm pretty sure that was all in my evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, from evidence I submitted: 18 Jan 22, 12 Jan 22, 5 Nov 21. The 5 Nov 21 diff is during the big Havana Syndrome thread at ANI, and directly re-adds a BLPvio that should probably have been revdelled. This and this were my removals of the BLPvio, where I outline in the edit summary undue and BLP violating. No felony conviction mentioned in sources... Removing BLP violating prose that is not in sources. No source for felony conviction, no source for sentencing date. remove repetition of the same information in the same paragraph. I don't think a reminder of "Hey, don't do that," would be out of line, especially as the ACS reminder is based on these two diffs in evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for a better fit than a topic ban, a reminder to observe the best practices in outlined in WP:COI might be what you're looking for. No topic bans, just use edit requests for edits you have a COI with, and disclosure. That allows the good editing in the topic area to continue unabated, isn't really a sanction, and addresses the FoF. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by DGG

I was a little surprised not to see a remedy related to principle 8, Editor groups with restricted membership. I see the proposal to confidentially provide a list of members, but that does not address the finding about the general unacceptability of such groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

@DGG: What kind of remedy were you hoping for? My sense is the Committee is not going to prohibit GSoW from existing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you could say that its existence is against policy, not just discouraged. To have a closed membership group is intrinsically to give them an advantage in editing in the field due to the enforcement or at least predisposition to of a common viewpoint; I regard it as meatpuppetry (even though I agree about 95% with its goals and the edits of those I suppose to be members). The failure to make a more unequivocal statement will encourage others with a common POV to form similar groups, and thus lead to the division of WP into competing factions; Even if we cannot enforce the prohibition, we should at least prohibit it--probably most of what we prohibit we cannot actually enforce.

I further think arb com could say that any member of the group editing in the field is in a situation of conflict of interest, and must be disclosed, and that failure to do so is a violation of the TOU. This is admittedly considerably stronger than just saying it is against policy, and I agree that the present committee is not very likely to say something that positive.

@Enterprisey:, you said at the PD " it's reasonable for GSoW to require training" -- but the need for training is the same for all articles in all areas of WP: Competence is Required, but we do not require any particular method of acquiring it. If training is offered , or required, should it not be offerred by those without an interest in promoting a particular POV? Do you think required training is justified in other subject areas? If so, should it be run by a group with hidden membership?

@Beeblebrox:, You mentioned you knew of the existence of another semi-secret group operating similarly but more obscurely. Do you think this is a direction that must be resisted as strongly as possible, or one that should be tolerated?.

@Opabinia regalis:, you said you had "no issue with affinity groups wanting to be open only to people with particular identities, backgrounds, or experiences". This is obviously correct in the world in general, but do you see no problem with such groups organized for the purpose of editing WP? If so, would you extend the ability to have such restrictions to on-wiki groups? Are you saying we could have an on-wiki Wikiproject open only to those of a particular identity? DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I gave serious consideration to a principle regarding meatpuppetry (link for my convenience) but was not personally sold that it was appropriate for this case. We have some evidence that the bad behavior's not intended and insufficient evidence to show that there was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of our editing process directly in the vein of clear and obvious meatpuppetry. Several cases of reasonable collaboration (alluded to in FOF 10) were identified in the evidence additionally. Of course, there also were cases in the evidence where some line citing Gerbic or another in SI was added to a half dozen BLPs. We also cannot say that was done by those editors without their own independent thought as to whether it was correct. Especially, I interpret WP:MEAT to be time-limited or specific-page limited (or both) in sense or spirit, though I am sure it has been applied otherwise (as I noted elsewhere on the PD, I didn't think at all about this case's parallel to Scientology here). You have to argue successfully that it comes under meatpuppetry to say that a closed group broadly is against policy, and I honestly don't see it for this specific group and the changes we have in evidence.

All that said, I'd be willing to vote on a principle in this regard, I'm just pretty sure there is not strong evidence of bloc action.

I further think arb com could say that any member of the group editing in the field is in a situation of conflict of interest, and must be disclosed I do not think this is supported by WP:COI, in multiple ways. First, disclosing a COI is not a must. Second, this position that being a member of the field is enough solely to produce a COI, much less one that is actionable, is one that is extreme and which I faintly recall at least one recent RFC or major community discussion which did not find support for it. ArbCom needs something more firm than that.

I think my comment on the principle speaks to the questions to the others, so I won't attempt to answer them :^). Izno (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I saw this, and I'm thinking about it. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

As the case seems about to close, I will ask one further question:

Would it be legitimate for me to offer training, but only to those who are willing to support my view in disputes?"

and the practical corollary:

Just as it is sometimes reasonable to ask in context of a discussion about an article if someone has a coi, is it reasonable to ask if they are members of an organized group supporting their POV? DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Re above: As a practical matter, I don't think a wikiproject open only to those of a particular identity/background would work at the moment. But as I said on the flip side of this page, I don't think it's arbcom's business to create a precedent saying so, because that may well change and I'd have no problem with that.

As for offering training to those of your POV, that just sounds like a more in-depth version of what we already do. When I see a new editor making constructive edits on science articles, I leave them a welcome note and invite them to the Teahouse and to a relevant wikiproject and maybe offer to help them with their work. When I see a new editor POV-pushing obvious garbage I give them the sternest warning template I can find and don't offer to help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, if there is a topic in genuine dispute where the people on both sides are good faith editors, will you offer help only for those on the same side as your own? DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Me, individually? I'm just a volunteer like anybody else, and can help or not help whoever I want for whatever reason. As for what we as a community should do, most people who come to push their POV are genuine in their beliefs, and believe in good faith that the article is better with their POV in it. But that's not really the same as sharing our goals. It's fair to give everyone a chance to read up on those goals, as we usually do with welcomes and warnings as appropriate. If they're not in alignment with that effort and make no effort to improve, then I don't think it's generally a good use of our time to keep trying. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Sgerbic

 Clerk note: Moved from § Comments by Gronk Oz

Science Based Medicine? Where would that fall? Sgerbic (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Per KevinL on GSoW training: Background (8) I think you hit the nail on the head in your first two comments about our retention and community. While every volunteer group has issues with staying power - we have had pretty good success. On (9) we aren't novices anymore. Some of the team are tens of thousands of edits in, good articles, DYK and hundreds of pages written. Our work speaks for itself, KevinL you saw some of the work from a few of the team in the Evidence stage. We understand that "consensus can be established only on-wiki." We make the article live, and the page stands on its own merit or it does not, we can't force a page to exist when it is not notable. Skill comes from doing, and GSoW is doing a lot of doing.Sgerbic (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Guy Macon

Re:

"...and may not make requests to change mainspace pages using such sources."

There is an overwhelming community consensus to welcome such requests by COI editors (for example, "Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space" from WP:PSCOI).

Why is this case of possible COI being treated so differently? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

---

On another topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

...and someone created an RfC on the same page. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Re:

"Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic."

Be very, very careful about the wording of this FoF. This can be a between Scylla and Charybdis situation.

On the one hand we have professors of physics editing physics pages, which we want to encourage with no hint that such edits involve a COI.

On the other hand we have Ayurveda practitioners editing pages such as Mercury poisoning and Lead poisoning to insert claims that they have the ability to "purify" (Shodhana) organic Lead/Mercury compounds[3] and make the Mercury and Lead safe for human consumption.

Ayurveda practitioners (but not necessarily the particular Ayurveda practitioners hammering on Wikipedia this week) freely admit that they oppose any restrictions on using Lead or Mercury as a medicine for financial reasons.[4] These Ayurveda practitioners are very likely to selectively quote any FoF that they can twist to appear to support their behavior.

So how do we create a FoF that on the one hand encourages the physicists without weakening the protection against COI by people who make their living be giving people poison and calling it medicine?[5] The main differentiation between the two is the reliability of their sources. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is from Longevity via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Conflicts of interest. Izno (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the rise in COI editing by people selling Covid cures, magic cancer pills, and ancient medicines that put little girls in the hospital with kidney failure,[6] might I suggest carefully choosing the wording of this FoF rather than just copying what was written in 2011? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Should I assume from the lack of a response that the committee has decided to reject my advice and copy what was written in 2011, or should I keep asking? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest in a topic. They might have a conflict of interest for other reasons. Or they might be incompatible with the community because they are advancing Fringe ideas or trying to create spam. I do not see a reason that the 2011 idea is longer correct principles and am not as concerned as you are by the effects that this principle could have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will drop it now. I would note in closing that I never implied that "the 2011 idea is longer correct principles" but instead asked for a careful rewording without changing the basic meaning. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Outdated FoF

The FoF "Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source" contains the following statement, based upon previous RSNB discussions:

• "There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability."

A new RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer is currently at:

• Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact: 11 votes
• Treat as self-published: 2 votes
• Other considerations apply: 1 vote
• Generally unreliable and blacklist: 1 vote

Please update the FoF to reflect the above claim no longer being a fact. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by BilledMammal

Guy Macon, I think this is where the principle addressing promotion and advocacy becomes important, as it separates the two groups; the Ayurveda practitioners are here to promote and advocate for Ayurveda, subverting the purpose of Wikipedia, while professors of physics are generally not here to promote and advocate for physics but to educate about it.

It is possible for the two to overlap, but I don't believe that is an issue as the purpose of Wikipedia becomes subverted when an editor starts promoting or advocating for a topic, regardless of what that topic is, instead of writing about it in a neutral manner. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Worm's questions about the methodology for the list of sources: the sample was chosen by selecting the first hundred results returned in an insource source, and I believe I selected 2018 as the number of additions per year was significantly lower before that point - possibly related to the fact that in 2018 Gerbic published an article documenting efforts by GSoW to add a reference to every article in an edition of Skeptical Inquirer. If it helps, I can review the current top hundred, and document every article, including who added the source, and when the source was added.

Editors were classified as GSoW based on their broader editing patterns, such as adherence to GSoW methods, including training methods (for example, following TWA, then adding a gallery to an article, then adding an author-link to an article, and finally writing an article in their sandbox), and their interactions with identified GSoW members in sandboxes. This was reduced to a single interaction diff to keep the evidence concise, but additional evidence can be provided if requested. BilledMammal (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account:, you miscounted. 10 for "generally reliable", not 11, and 3 for "other considerations apply", not 1 (Boynamedsue, and Bilby) BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Usedtobecool

• "may not make requests to change mainspace pages using such sources" is ambiguous enough to cause drama later. I would suggest clarifying whether this only includes active template edit requests or all comments made to article talk pages proposing or supporting such usage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool: It's intended to be 'all'. However, if I insert the word 'any' or 'all' (which would be the smallest change to make it clear), it doesn't change the plain reading of the sentence for me. I can add a "this covers both the edit request systems explicitly as well as more informal requests for change" if you really think it's necessary. Izno (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  Izno, maybe, something like indefinitely banned from using or suggesting the use of Skeptical Inquirer as a source to support changes to mainspace pages, assuming it doesn't make other aspects worse? Indeed, if all arbs are clear on the scope, and/or if pointing to this section would be enough to address any future confusion (instead of needing WP:ARCA), leaving it as is may well be the best. I wanted only to bring it to attention so arbs can decide what if anything needs to be done. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Tamwin

I was very surprised not to see an IBAN along the lines of the one requested by A. C. Santacruz. There's a long tradition of no-fault IBANs. Such IBANs can both remove the stress of unhealthy conflict and protect the encyclopedia from harm. Furthermore, findings of fact 4, 5, and 6 show that there is definitely a history of conflict between these editors, rising in some cases to policy violations. In this case, one of those involved is even asking for an IBAN, presumably desiring to prevent future conflicts from arising. Would it make sense for the committee to consider an IBAN? Tamwin (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have become personally convinced that an IBAN would be inappropriate. I personally don't subscribe to "no-fault" IBANs except in narrow circumstances, and these don't fit. There is insufficient misconduct on ACS's part to justify a substantive sanction, which would carry a number of collateral consequences. And a one-way IBAN would be inappropriate because one party would have the ability and incentive to unintentionally game the IBAN. The issues also aren't serious enough to justify an IBAN; I believe that the parties can work together notwithstanding their differences, and if they can't, the ones causing issues in the future will face more serious sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I'm glad to know that the option was considered and to hear the reason for rejecting it. That's enough to resolve my confusion. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to a non-party such as myself. Tamwin (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Levivich

I just want to speak up for AC. If arbs think she has shown the ability to stay calm in the face of uncollegiality, then she doesn't need a reminder to be collegial. If she's calm 75% of the time and loses her cool 25% of the time, she doesn't need an adverse finding, which is a big deal--it's extremely rare for an editor to have an adverse arbcom finding, even a "reminder", and it stays with an editor forever. Don't ding her for not being perfect in challenging circumstances.

If you find that AC's efforts brought an important issue to light, we should thank her for those efforts, especially in the face of adversity, rather than criticize her for not being flawless.

Ask yourselves if you would have done better had you been in her shoes. And since you've all had experience with on-wiki conflict and being on the receiving end of uncollegiality, ask yourselves if you did do better when you were in her shoes. Levivich 05:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Trends matter. If an editor acted in a way that violates our policies, is called out on it, and then does better, that's different than an editor who violates our policies, is called out on it, and then doubles down. Levivich 05:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Johnuniq

As noted in my brief evidence (which does not account for any new evidence after the date in my signature), there is remarkably little evidence of recent bad behavior or bad editing apart from excessive BLP negativity regarding sting operations. Any future BLP problems will be easily correctable—those with BLP concerns should be assured that an Arbitration case draws a line in the sand and there are plenty of admins who would warn/sanction anyone pushing coatracked negativity. If anyone sees a problem, post at WP:AE requesting an WP:ARBBLP remedy, and link to this case.

I don't see sufficiently strong evidence to justify topic bans and I would ask that if those proposals proceed that mention of the evidence be included in the decision.

Regarding the possible source ban for "skepticism trade publications", unfortunately there is little else to counter WP:FRINGE claims. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Bishzilla

Little users perhaps not realize how petty looks to complain about one's opponent not being admonished harshly enough. Not dignified. Note Bishzilla herself "admonished" by little committee some years ago.[7] Remain proud (compare proud userbox), always remain dignified. bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 09:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC).

Comments by PaleoNeonate

I have noticed some early hesitation in relation to the source/topic bans. I understand that this would be a type of sanction, but the proposed source ban includes the inability to suggest these sources on talk pages, which appears to be contrary to normal COI practice (disclose, suggest). The topic ban remedy seems more standard (no opinion from me if it's warranted or not).

My other comment is in relation to the "Training" finding of fact: I see support votes but with comments that appear vague or even conflictual. Just a note in case arbs may want to read again and/or clarify what they mean there. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding another in response to SGerbic and notability: this also came to my mind when reading the page. It's one thing to create an article that is later deleted for lack of notability, it's another to build a reputation as a spammer for constantly doing so. I agree that it's also the rest of the community's work to evaluate and nominate articles. If some stress is felt in relation to this a suggestion may be to encourage the use of WP:AFC. —PaleoNeonate – 12:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Guy Macon: Hmm yes, and we have parapsychology and pseudoscientific creationism advocates claiming that they're the experts on the topic and that WP should reflect the view of what they post in advocacy journals. —PaleoNeonate – 12:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Jehochman

Your findings seem a little awkward. Try these two principles, and one finding of fact:

1. Freedom of association is a human right. Nevertheless, when Wikipedia editors choose to associate in off-wiki groups, they must exercise care not to engage in improper collusion or canvassing that disrupts the formation of consensus on Wikipedia. Failure to exercise proper care may lead to sanctions.
2. When an off-wiki group is not transparent in its membership, this may naturally lead to heightened suspicions.
3. In the present case there ( was | was not ) improper collusion (by list of editors).

Thanks, Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Nosebagbear

[Moved comments from other sections, can never remember which arbcom bit has which ruleset, apologies (and apologies for double-pings)]

• As a non-arb, @Tamwin:, I'd also just note that there's a growing number of ways on Wikimedia where "No-fault X" is not actually possible. That is, different groups using the existence of any sanction as making an editor not be in good-standing, and imposing limitations thusly.

Examples include the wikipedia library offerings and WMF-created committees. Yes, we aren't them, but when a sanction does have significant collateral scope, i do find it harder to argue one should exist on a "no-fault" basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• @DGG: I'm not sure it is against policy. If their editing would be otherwise identical, but disclosed, then either both would be prohibited or both would be allowed. However, it is harder to tell whether issues are occurring, and that position I have strong sympathy for. I get the lack of group-wide action here, as there's not a great deal of intermediate action that can be taken. As GSOW certainly appear to operate in far better GF than most equivalent groups, it may be the case that this process itself will encourage a better degree of behaviour in this regard, though I freely admit this may be unwarranted optimism. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Tryptofish

I agree with Bish that it's a bad look for editors to complain in that way. It's time to drop the WP:STICK. This is WP:NOTAVOTE.

I'm puzzled by the BLP DS reminder (Remedy 13). Please look back at my section of the Workshop page, where there was a lot of discussion of how editors were confused about which DS could be used, and some agreement that Pseudoscience would apply. I've read and understood what some Arbs have said on the PD about BLP covering most of the cases of disruption here, but it's important to consider that pages about various manifestations of pseudoscience may be points of dispute in the future without being BLPs. You could have both BLP and PSCI, but omitting the latter is confusing.

Remedy 1, about GSoW membership, smacks of keeping a secret dossier about particular editors who have not yet done anything wrong, and goes against community norms.

Remedy 2, about SI at RSN, is a bad idea. The community can decide for ourselves what we want to discuss, without ArbCom giving us a homework assignment. There have been times in the past where there was a compelling need for ArbCom to encourage community discussions after a case; this is not one of them. This isn't a typical RSN case of whether or not to deprecate a source, and it may well be better to consider citations to SI on a case-by-case basis.

It's not made as clear as it should be, how the Findings about Sgerbic lead directly to the Remedies about her. (I'm not criticizing the substance here, just the clarity of writing.) Typically, Findings that lead to topic bans include specific evidence of disruptive conduct, as opposed to general statements about COI. (For example, how has that COI led to disruptive edits, if any, by Sgerbic?) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Trypto. I have a few things to say on this but it might be a bit before I'm able to write my thoughts. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I assume that you're fine on Remedies 1 and 2 now that they both are solidly failing. Ditto the Sgerbic remedies because we're not enacting any remedies related to her. Regarding remedy 13, I supported this remedy as a drafter (and intend to support it at the PD) because I thought it was an underused tool in the circumstances leading up to the case and unambiguously applied to a lot of the lead-up.

You're right that we didn't explicitly act to clarify the Pseudoscience PD, and perhaps we should have. I would remind editors and administrators editing in skepticism-related topics of the recent ARCA clarification at Special:Permalink/1034695626#Clarification_request:_Pseudoscience. Basically, we said that pseudoscience DS applies only if the topic purports to be scientific (i.e. use the scientific method and/or engage some kind of systematically testable hypotheses) in some way, and absent further committee decision that test should continue to be applied. A skeptic group could fall under WP:ARBPS if for example a lot of their work relates to pseudoscience, so defined above.

Before posting the PD I personally wavered about whether to include a new DS authorization, but ultimately what persuaded me not to was the fact that any disruption presented in this case isn't tied to a particular topic area but rather a particular group of editors, which in my view rendered the authorization of discretionary sanctions (which are generally tied to topic) inappropriate.

Hope this answers your questions, but if I missed anything please ask. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5

In case you're wondering, I'm the IP who participated in the workshop of this case a few weeks ago. All I have to say is to thank the Arbs for taking their time to deliberate on the complex situation that was put in front of them, and for creating a brilliant, creative proposed decision to resolve the case. I especially like the "Principles" section, because the principles are well-crafted, creative, and important standards for future coordinated editing in case something like this happens again. Once again, thank you Arbs for taking the time to resolve this dispute fairly and thoughtfully. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A special thank you to @L235, @Barkeep49 and @Izno who put in a lot of work here Worm^TT(talk) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Rhododendrites

I just want to emphatically object to principle #8: When editors come together to form a group, community norms regarding transparency and open community strongly encourage that group's membership to be open to all Wikipedia editors in good standing.

I'm on the board of Wikimedia NYC. We are a "group."

Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the chapter, I will not be supporting the publicization of our members' names and/or usernames, regardless of whether this passes.

Just mere membership would disclose personal information about our members (where they live). And there are many groups with much more sensitive personal information which would be harmed by forced publication of their membership. Any Wikimedians under threat of censorship, living under oppressive governments, vulnerable/marginalized communities. Apart from what's required by existing policy/terms of service, Wikipedians should not be required to -- or pressured to -- disclose ties that would betray their location, identity, ideology, interests, or really anything else they don't want to share in a public forum.

Ultimately, "group" is woefully vague. Is every group of people at every edit-a-thon subject to public disclosure as a group? Every user group, thematic organization, chapter... informal groups? IRC users? If I grab a weekly beer with a couple local Wikimedians, do we need to put in paperwork? And this isn't even getting into what "good standing" means, which I see is already being talked through.

An inevitable response will be "we don't have authority over what a chapter does" and/or "we're only strongly encouraging it". And that would be accurate, but what this principle would do is create a basis on which anyone could justify a particular form of outing, pressuring, haranguing, and assuming bad faith.

I'm not involved with this case and don't intend to opine beyond this point.

TL;DR - By stating that "groups" should disclose their members, you're creating significant privacy concerns based on a poorly defined principle, and creating a basis for ill treatment of groups/members who do not disclose. It will do more harm than good. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: When I drafted that principle my intention was actually to say that groups are encouraged to allow anyone to join – indeed I used your group and affiliates like it as an example, as you allow any Wikimedian in good standing to join. I recognize that could be ambiguous though. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. We are looking at community norms for transparency here, so not giving away personal information or opening individuals up to harassment, both of which are covered as exceptions by our norms.

What we are looking at is exclusionary policies which create biases. Now, there are some natural ones, such as geographical, or by interest - but if, say, I wanted to join your group, despite only not going to NYC in three decades, would you say no? Would you even ask my location on sign up? That's what we are getting at. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@L235 and Worm That Turned: Thanks for clarifying. I did indeed misunderstand. Makes me wonder why it says "...norms regarding transparency...encourage that group's membership to be open". The ability to join may be in line with "open community" but doesn't achieve "transparency" except insofar as it's still a problem. "Group" is still incredibly broad, and "join" is ambiguous. "Groups" very often involve off-wiki identities. Saying that those groups must allow anyone to join means allowing anyone to determine the off-wiki identity of the people who attend. That's in some ways worse than requiring the group disclose a list of members. Throughout the GSoW discussions, it sure seems like a bunch of people have wanted to join so that they can discover the names/usernames of existing members, for example. I've never been involved with GSoW, but I have been involved with some "groups" that have not been open to the public. Sometimes this is just because it's an event run by a specific organization, a school club, for attendees of an academic conference, in a classroom, an informal "group" of friends who happen to be Wikimedians and might discuss Wikipedia, or, still the most important example, members of a vulnerable community wary of their identities being released. Most of the time, but not all, the activities of that group (if there are any) are collected in a Dashboard page and so are transparent at least in that way, but as long as off-wiki identities are involved, I'm extremely skeptical of chasing very broadly defined "transparency" on-wiki. Skeptics are not, IMO, a vulnerable group in most places (some may dispute that), but the rule you're creating here doesn't just apply to GSoW -- it would apply to everyone. And while I get what you're saying about our existing norms, you're applying them in a meaningful way -- one devoid of nuance -- rather than just gesturing to them.

WikiNYC is perhaps a bad example now. Our events are almost all open to the public. So yes, you're welcome to come (FYI: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for the next one :) ). But if I were running an event that were for/about a vulnerable population, for example, there are people who are in "good standing" in the community that I wouldn't want to invite. Again, GSoW isn't what I'd call a vulnerable population, but just in this case there are new users in good standing who seem to spend much of their time going after GSoW, trying to delete articles related to skepticism, etc. That's not to say there aren't aspects of GSoW that should give us pause, or that this isn't a more complicated case than I'm making it out to be, but according to this principle that person must be allowed access to GSoW meetings. At the end of the day, there are plenty of good privacy reasons a group may want control over its own membership or attendance of its events. It's a big deal to enact a principle effectively saying those reasons conflict with wikipolicy/norms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by {username}

Please make a copy of this section for the next user.