Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) & Amortias (Talk) & MJL (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Barkeep49 (Talk) & Izno (Talk) & L235 (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Case closed on 04:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Case amended by motion at 21:21, June 21, 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Preliminary statements.

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/0)

  • I'm awaiting statements for now before casting a formal vote, but I am inclined to accept this case request, primarily because the potential allegations of misconduct substantially arise from non-public evidence and secondarily because of the scope and scale of the potential issues. I believe each of the three questions presented by GeneralNotability is worth considering.
    My initial impression – and this is based on just a couple threads, so it could change – is that GSoW has generally laudable goals and the large majority of its work is helpful. But enough concerns have been raised that some kind of inquiry is appropriate, and given the peculiarities of this case it seems like only ArbCom is in a position to conduct it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept in substantial agreement with Enterprisey. In reply to @Primefac: Based on what I've seen here, I think the scope of the case should be primarily the editors (and GSoW as a group), not the topic.
    To all parties: this case is one where it is possible I won't vote for any sanctions; I can see us acting to clarify the bounds of what is acceptable and what is not (possibly with the benefit of private evidence) without stern remedies. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sgerbic: Thank you for submitting a statement. I understand participating in an ArbCom request is not enjoyable and not what everyone participating here wishes to be doing. The guide to arbitration linked on your talk page contains some procedural background, but one thing I wanted to let you know from the outset is that the Committee may be emailed (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) in the event that non-public submissions are necessary. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had followed along with the ANI thread as it had seemed somewhat likely at that time that a case request might occur. I have not followed this issue since and so I look forward to reviewing the subsequent discussions, private tickets, and statements by editors here. Let me stress, at the outset, that the kinds of statements I find most helpful are factually worded statements backed up by diffs or similar evidence submitted privately and that the people commenting either have been personally affected by the case request topic or have a new perspective to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept. Unlike my colleagues below I've found the private evidence on its own insufficient for a case. But I think the community is clearly unable to resolve whether there has been any COI editing (for which the private evidence is of some help), and if there has whether it violates policies or guidelines, and whether there has been any violations of policy or guidelines in regards to the operation of the GSoW. These are both areas with-in ArbCom's remit to examine. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ScottishFinnishRadish, can you link to some discussions that don't involve GSoW and that indicate issues with the broader topic area of skepticism? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept, but to Wyatt Tyrone Smith and the rest of GSoW, I will emphasize that I'm sure GSoW has done some good work and I'm not just here to throw out good edits. As has been said many times, we have editathons and other special-interest groups that don't coordinate onwiki; that aspect by itself isn't cause for concern. Anyway, previous discussions on this topic have been hampered by the need to submit private evidence, so my bar for accepting is lower. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly an interesting case, and I'm leaning towards accepting. Not because I believe that Arbcom will be able to sort out the problems, but because a proposed decision with findings on problematic behaviours would allow the community to come together and work out a solution through an RfC. I'm particularly concerned that this includes adding over-egged pro-science material to BLP articles - BLPs should not be used as coatracks for hot topics, they very quickly become attack pages and cause real world harm. That said, I will await more statements, for the time being. WormTT(talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the statements, we should be accepting this case. I'm also considering scope, perhaps something like "CoI around scepticism". I'm sure we'll work it out. WormTT(talk) 08:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to hear more first, in particular if this is primarily around a topic area (skepticism) or a group of editors/pattern of editing (GSoW). @ScottishFinnishRadish: when you say "responses to Johnuniq", can you be more specific and post diffs? Do you mean this? That's a long thread, and your signature appears 51 times on COIN as it stands now. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, primarily due to the private component surrounding the GSoW group. I see that there may be some other editors editing the same subjects whose behavior may be contributing to the problem, but I think the primary scope should be narrower than "skepticism" or "pseudoscience 2". Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, mostly because there appears to be a private component to this dispute. – bradv🍁 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, for much the same reason as Bradv (though there is some indication this has been brewing for a few years without resolution based on email this morning). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also leaning towards accept, but like Opabinia regalis I am seeing a bit of a split between the topic (cf. Pseudoscience) and the group of editors (cf. Scientology) as the main point of contention. I do realise that is ArbCom's call to make in defining the scope, but I would prefer it to be a little more clear if we do accept the case what sort of evidence we will be expected to look at. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Accept following the newest statements. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept --BDD (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I see the scope as being the group of editors rather than the topic area. Reading through the two cases Primefac brings up, WP:ARBSCI seems a better example of the kinds of problems and solutions we'll be discussing than WP:ARBPS. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, it appears to me an issue of charting the line between open collaboration and closed conspiracy & spotting where on the continuum GSoW lies, with a side dish of WP:RGW & blindness to one's own WP:COI. Cabayi (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Jurisdiction

1) The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction only over the behavior of editors on the English Wikipedia. While the Arbitration Committee may take note of off-wiki behavior for the purposes of settling on-wiki disputes and in its remedies, restricting the off-wiki behavior of users is not within its remit.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Training

2) Off-wiki training can help new editors by providing support and guidance to complement what's available onwiki. However, when training is incorrect or insufficient, it can bring those trained into conflict with the community by fostering false confidence, misplaced expectations, and misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

On-wiki and off-wiki behavior

3) Behaviour of editors on-wiki and off-wiki are not subject to the same standards. Conduct which may be considered acceptable in the open and transparent atmosphere of Wikipedia (i.e., on-wiki) may be controversial and even unacceptable if made off wiki, due to the lack of transparency. In a similar vein, off-wiki disclosure of personal information does not allow, or excuse, a third party to post it on-wiki.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Standards for BLP articles

4) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

5) Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. 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.

Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor conduct

6) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

7) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW)

1) Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) is a group founded in 2010 by Susan Gerbic. According to Wired, the group's purpose is to recruit and train editors to write about topics of interest to the Skeptical movement. [1]

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic

2) Sgerbic (talk · contribs) is Susan Gerbic (permalink of user page), an activist for scientific skepticism who has a focus on exposing people claiming to be mediums, and who is a columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer (permalink of her Wikipedia page). She joined Wikipedia in 2010 and has not been previously sanctioned. Because of her work off-wiki, Sgerbic has a conflict of interest with respect to the people and organizations Gerbic is involved with, which notably includes her work in Skeptical Inquirer and the people she has written about therein, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, where she has been awarded a fellowship and which publishes the Skeptical Inquirer.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Susan Gerbic's writing for Skeptical Inquirer

3) Susan Gerbic has written articles in Skeptical Inquirer, and has stated an intent of having those articles be used as sources on Wikipedia, especially for biographies of living people. GSoW members have edited BLPs to include negative material sourced to Susan Gerbic's articles. This has created the appearance of collaborative editing to create negative BLPs. (Bilby evidence, Schazjmd evidence.)

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006

4) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is a GSoW member (private evidence) who joined Wikipedia in 2006. He has not been previously sanctioned. Rp2006 has a conflict of interest with respect to the Skeptical Inquirer and the Center for Inquiry (private evidence) and has promoted Susan Gerbic directly (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence) as well as indirectly by citing her work. (Schazjmd evidence). Rp2006 has displayed incivility in several discussions (A. C. Santacruz evidence, ScottishFinishRadish evidence) including one pertaining to his conflict of interest,[2][3] and at least one offwiki instance during this case (private evidence). Rp2006 has edited biographies of living people without appropriately observing neutral point of view, both negatively for individuals associated as fringe topics and positively for individuals associated as skeptics (Schazjmd evidence, ScottishFinnishRadish evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog

5) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) was at times uncollaborative with A. C. Santacruz. This included dismissing content concerns A.C. Santacruz had raised simply because of who was raising the issue [4][5], attempting to discourage A.C. Santacruz from finding consensus during a content dispute[6][7], mockery [8], and claims that A.C. Santacruz was "dissembling" [9]. This behavior is not justified by any legitimate issues Roxy the dog raised of A.C. Santacruz's conduct (e.g. [10]).

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz

6) A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) has failed to remain consistently collegial when interacting with Rp2006, and she has engaged in battleground editing when editing the article Sharon A. Hill.

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GSoW's use of Facebook

7) Guerilla Skeptics of Wikipedia (GSoW) uses Facebook as a platform for training, communication, and community building (private evidence, Robincantin evidence, Gronk Oz evidence). The Arbitration Committee received no private evidence that any kind of canvassing was done on Facebook, and some evidence was provided suggesting that when discussing events still happening onwiki, members are discouraged from joining in onwiki (Sgerbic's evidence, private evidence).

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GSoW training: background

8) New GSoW members must apply to join the group. Once accepted members participate in a training program for 3-16 weeks (depending on the trainee). The training was developed over several years, with a major redevelopment in 2019 (Sgerbic evidence). Training consists of assignments intended to be hands-on, comprehensive, and accessible for new editors to learn how to write successfully on Wikipedia (private evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GSoW training: contents

9) The Arbitration Committee was provided a portion of GSoW's training materials (private evidence). Of that portion, there is a substantial focus on the technical skills needed to edit Wikipedia articles (e.g., navigating the Wikipedia website and using citation templates). Trainees are given outlines of Wikipedia's core content policies and encouraged to explore project-space on their own. Trainees ask questions in the private Facebook group. The training process concludes with an assignment to rewrite a stub into a comprehensive article (private evidence).

Passing the GSoW training does not appear contingent on any particular demonstrated level of policy knowledge. Public GSoW YouTube videos reflect misunderstandings or oversimplifications of Wikipedia's notability requirements, and in particular a misunderstanding of the differences between notability, reliability, independence, and primary/secondary sources. The Arbitration Committee has not received evidence suggesting that the GSoW training conveys different content regarding Wikipedia's content policies than the public YouTube videos.

Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GSoW transparency

10) There currently exists no formal on-wiki presence for the GSoW though some GSoW members participate in WikiProject Skepticism. Consideration was made to listing onwiki all GSoW edited articles but the start of the events that led to this case meant that this was not done (Sgerbic's evidence). Through self-identification, examination of editor contribution histories, and the editor interaction tool some GSoW members and likely members have been identified (e.g. Billed Mammal initial statement and evidence). The lack of a list of members and articles worked on by the GSoW has increased suspicion of GSoW and its members from some editors. Further, it has meaningfully disrupted the ability of the community to use its typical dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus about allegations of canvassing, including vote stacking, point of view pushing, and conflicts of interest (e.g. [11][12][13]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source

11) Historically the use of the Skeptical Inquirer has received little attention and has been generally viewed favorably by the editors who have commented on its reliability (Alexbrn's evidence). By contrast the most recent discussion in January 2022 attracted a larger number of editors and was quite extensive. In that discussion, there was a general consensus in that discussion that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a self-published source and that columns should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. There seemed to be no community consensus on its general reliability. Large parts of the discussion focused on its suitability as a source for biographies of living people and with the lack of coverage by other sources of many fringe topics ([14]). A formal RfC on the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer was launched after the proposed decision for this case was posted.

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

12) Since 2018, a large percentage of links to Skeptical Inquirer articles have been added by editors likely to be GSoW members (BilledMammal evidence). GSoW members report using it occasionally as a reference with no organizational pressure to do so (Gronk oz evidence, Robincantin evidence). Sgerbic has said the GSoW will evaluate its use of it as a source and said it is sometimes the only source available to maintain a parity of sources. (Sgerbic evidence)

Passed 7 to 4 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Rp2006 warned

6) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006 topic ban (2)

9.1) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Passed 7 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz reminded

10) A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.

Passed 6 to 3 with 1 abstention at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog warned

11.1) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GSoW onwiki presence

12) GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.

Passed 12 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

BLP DS reminder

13) Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

Passed 11 to 0 at 04:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments

Amendment (April 2024)

For violations of their topic ban and for continued editing which violate the conflict of interest guidelines, Rp2006 is blocked for 1 month. This block may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 14:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Block of Rp2006

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 21:21, June 21, 2024 (UTC)

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing&oldid=1230291881"