Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Skepticism and coordinated editing
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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision

edit

Proposed principles

edit

Jurisdiction

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the sense that the remedies we enact only have force on the English Wikipedia. We can of course consider off-wiki conduct in our decisions and even condition certain decisions on ceasing prohibited off-wiki conduct. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Echoing L235. --BDD (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with L235 WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Training

edit

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.

Support:
  1. For me the way WikiEd does training both in content and format is best practice and others looking to do training would be wise to learn from them. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I care quite a bit about the training here and will expand in the relevant FoF. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Honestly, it doesn't even have to be incorrect or insufficient. If you treat training as a one-and-done thing rather than continuously learning and updating your expectations, you'll eventually find yourself out of alignment with the community. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Concur with Opabinia regalis; off-wiki echo chambers are not always helpful. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. OR puts it better than I could, there's more to this than "incorrect or insufficient", but I do support this. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If the training's good it would be useful for all new editors on-wiki. If it's bad it would benefit from experienced eyeballs on-wiki. Either way, on-wiki is better. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

On-wiki and off-wiki behavior

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Standards for BLP articles

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conflicts of Interest

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Importantly, GSoW members are expected to be Wikipedians first and skeptics second, where the two conflict. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor conduct

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Neutral point of view

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editor groups with restricted membership

edit

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.

Support:
  1. I understand the hesitation but I think the community does indeed encourage editor groups to be open, all things being equal. This is a descriptive statement about the community's position and I therefore support it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get why arbs are opposing but I still think this is an accurate description of community norms. Perhaps the opposing arbs would be willing to support a narrower principle? The spirit of Wikipedia generally discourages establishing groups (certainly large organized groups with trainings) with an application required to join, with membership restricted by POV, even when it's not expressly prohibited. And if there was ever a time to establish that as a principle, it's now. I'd be disappointed if this principle passed 7-5 or failed 5-7 – principles ought to be as close to unanimous as we can get because they should represent fairly deeply- and widely- shared standards in the committee and community. So if there's a compromise that more arbs can support I'm all for it. (Also, not sure to what extent the "good standing" issue is causing problems but I'm happy to talk more about it or find different wording if it's a big sticking point.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per L235 again. I understand why this isn't as much of a slam dunk as the other principles, but as a principle, yes, I endorse it. --BDD (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this connects nicely to the FOFs #GSoW's use of Facebook, #GSoW training: background especially, #GSoW training: contents, and the remedy #GSoW onwiki presence. It would be good to have a principle on the books that reflects our general history of how we expect groups of editors to interact with the community, something we found lacking in the case history (c.f. EEML for an arbcom/offwiki example and WP:Esperanza for a community/onwiki example). Of course we can't mandate how offwiki groups on Facebook or elsewhere operate, nor impact the logistical difficulties of going to South Africa for an editathon, but onwiki, we do have the general requirement that anyone can join a group if they want. Exclusivity breeds resentment which leads to conflict (if only over silly decisions like "which WikiProject gets to lay stake to a talk page" [answer, any of them +- a consensus discussion], never mind more serious concerns of offsite coordinated editing). Izno (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If GSoW were open, transparent & on-wiki would the situation have escalated to an ArbCom case? Cabayi (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There are some groups that may wish to restrict their membership. As long as the restrictions are reasonable, and the group behaves, I have no issue and think we should be hands off. This principle could easily apply to various semi-private Discords, IRC channels, email groups, and other such off-wiki groups with limited membership that exist. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think I settled on this one. As below, while I think this is an accurate read of current community feeling, I don't think it needs to be turned into an arbcom principle. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Eek. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Eek. Comments by DGG and Rhododendrites on the talk page also have worthwhile points of consideration. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Opabinia regalis and Primefac. The wording is far too vague and creates uncertainty around editor privacy and safety. It's based in policy that is unwritten, and the practical effects on off-wiki behavior are well beyond our jurisdiction. The only remedy logically connected to this (Remedy 1) is unanimously failing, so there's no real purpose for this (facts are facts, we can find facts without needing to intuit a principle) and in my eyes this proposed principle is a net negative. Transparency and openness are community values, important ones, but there are practical realities that must be understood when talking about peoples' off-wiki lives. It's easy to say anyone should be able to join an editor group, but realities of geographic location, political oppression, experience level, privacy expectations, leadership capacity, and financial support demonstrate how vapid that sentiment is when we actually try to apply it in reality. Potentially exposing people to off-wiki harm by passing a vaguely defined principle justified by a community discussion (on a different topic) from 2006 is not something I can support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm afraid I end up here too. I do support the intent - but I'm a little too concerned about the wider reaching repercussions for such a principle to be accepted. WormTT(talk) 10:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I agree that such things should be open and transparent, but we can't mandate that they have to be, and I am aware of at least one quasi-official user group that deliberately obscures who the participants are, so I'm not sure where this is headed as far as findings and remedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to support this, and I might anyway, but I feel like it's reasonable for GSoW to require training, and I'm not sure if that would work well with this principle. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this principle says anything regarding training. Izno (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on second thought, I don't really know what I was thinking. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I balked at this when reviewing the PD earlier, and I'm still undecided. I really have no issue with affinity groups wanting to be open only to people with particular identities, backgrounds, or experiences, and validate that as they wish. It's the preference for off-wiki communication that sticks in my craw, more than the membership. And, separately, I'm not sold on "in good standing", which always seems to cause arguments over whether minor sanctions like partial blocks, or recent but expired blocks, really count. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if the principle might be rephrased to a negative? Something along the lines of "should be non-exclusionary by belief or ideology" or associated requirement. I believe that people have said elsewhere, that groups are naturally exclusive, eg by physical location - but we should be careful about how people are being excluded. WormTT(talk) 11:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was framed as the negative "discourage closed groups" in the private version of this PD originally. The current inversion to a positive statement was an attempt by the drafters to soothe what were OR's concerns related to the original wording (clearly she still isn't a fan :). (I do see the new issue regarding 'good standing', so maybe some word smithing on that point is necessary.)
Regardless, I think the core statement made in this principle is true: the community does encourage editing groups to have open membership, and for the onwiki ones, I might go so far as to say the community requires it. As I noted in my support, there is Esperanza directly as an example, but even in the case where someone were to propose a "WikiProject Only Video Gamers" where the membership was limited to people who play video games, the community would send that project straight to MFD and it would be subsequently deleted. Probably because of WP:NOTSOCIAL (our objective is to write pages and the groups we form here [at least] are coincidental to that objective) and because of WP:HARASS or the like (people may disclose as much about themselves as they want), never mind the lawfully-discriminatory divisions (in many places) like race and gender. Izno (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of the "good standing" thing till mulling it over here again. I agree that this is an accurate description of the general community feeling. But since this is a principle, I'm hesitant to elevate that feeling into a citable precedent, because I don't really think it needs to be true and can think of good reasons for restricting membership or participation. A project gatekeeping about true gamers would just be silly, but I have no issue with a project trying to say "we want participants to have lived experience as minorities" (even if that project would be immediately overrun by people insisting it was unwikilike if it started up next Tuesday). Or if someone wanted to start up WikiProject Verified Experts and get people to voluntarily identify their credentials in private - a system I remember being suggested back in the day, and which I'm sort of surprised never existed - I wouldn't join but I wouldn't try to kick them off to the dying embers of Citizendium. I think we already do have some groups that have de-facto participation requirements - e.g. in-person editathons taking place in a specific location, or student editing through a class, or projects where meaningful participation requires a specialized skill like speaking another language. And, long story short, I don't think this is necessary to make the decision fit together. Communicating about controversial issues primarily via backchannels is enough of a problem, regardless of how exactly you get into the backchannel. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

edit

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW)

edit

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]

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Further general comments will be forthcoming. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Accurate, but Worth noting that Wikipedia "house POV", while aimed at neutrality, does err on the side of scepticism. WormTT(talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sgerbic

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also want to thank Sgerbic for engaging with the Committee by email during this case and providing answers to questions as needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Concur with L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Susan Gerbic's writing for Skeptical Inquirer

edit

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.)

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is a concerning dynamic, even if the negative material is true. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is a concerning dynamic, indeed. This isn't a self-published blog, it's (to the best of my knowledge) a reliable source which is clear about which way it leans - indeed, it is something we should be considering as a source when writing an article. However, subverting the content building process by co-ordinated pushing of these sources, especially in a way that can cause real world harm to living individuals, well, a line has been crossed. WormTT(talk) 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is not the first time someone has gotten an article published with the intent to use it to influence Wikipedia's coverage of a subject, and it won't be the last, but the coordinated nature of it is alarming. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Rp2006

edit

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).

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that I find the NPOV/BLP editing issue more compelling than whether or not he has a COI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The NPOV/BLP issues are crucial for me as well. The COI issue for me is a bit of a multiplier - without something else going on it doesn't amount to much but with it the NPOV/BLP problems become that much worse. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per OR, and noting that simply adding a person's work as a reference does not inherently mean promoting them. Context matters. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WormTT(talk) 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. More detailed comments to follow. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one of the compounding issues was that unlike other case participants there wasn't a sign that Rp2006 was engaging in much self-reflection during this case. The core value we all are expected to live by for the sake of a functional community is that even when we don't like a Wikipedian we must treat them with respect and collegiality, and especially refrain from treating others as opponents or enemies. Every party to this case is pro-science, pro-Wikipedia, and contributing in good faith. It's in this context that the civility issues are significant. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Roxy the dog

edit

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]).

Support:
  1. On the balance, yes. --Izno (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I could actually go further, that Roxy has an unfortunate habit of aggressive lashing-out when not getting his way - it's not just ACS on the receiving end. But I don't think that will actually change the result much. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

A. C. Santacruz

edit

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.

Support:
  1. I am not totally certain of battleground editing here on ACS's part, but I agree the behavior on the page directly has been suboptimal there regardless. Regarding collegiality, I see a couple misses here and there on the talk page and in edit summaries, and elsewhere these two have interacted. So yes, I think this is a reasonable FOF. --Izno (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would also like to acknowledge that ACS has also in many interactions conducted herself impressively in the face of uncollegial behavior by others. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, concur with L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You can be mostly polite and still battlegrounding. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I certainly appreciate the exasperation here, and am in two minds on this finding especially per Barkeep's comment, but ultimately I support this statement. WormTT(talk) 18:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. While I think there was battleground behavior at Hill, I think that happened early on in the dispute and other methods were tried after that. I also think that this initial behavior painted a target on ACS that was grossly disproportionate to what had happened and that ACS handled this subsequent editing with as much aplomb as we can reasonably expect. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I am on the fence on this one. The mistakes that were made by ACS strike me as the kind that normally get resolved at a much lower level than ArbCom. Further ACS made real attempts, in my reading, to de-escalate this situation more than once. But also what is written in the FoF is true and you can't tell the "story" of this dispute without ACS. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GSoW's use of Facebook

edit

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).

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The excerpts that were provided to us confirms my belief that GSoW isn't doing anything malicious and indeed generally tried to avoid canvassing. We weren't offered the full contents of the Facebook group, though, so there's limited info to go on. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My general opinion of Facebook is "just don't", but this is accurate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think using a platform people are familiar with to train them in an area they're not - Wikipedia mainspace - has a lot of virtues over using a platform they're unfamiliar with and need to learn (our talk page system) to train them further on something they're not familiar with. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm struggling with this. I cut my wiki-teeth in the days that canvassing was a great problem, and got to know the notification table very well - so discussions of topics on a Facebook group would fall under the "secret" notification area, as would it fall under the "partisan" audience area. In addition, we've seen public evidence that similar edits with similar wording were made by multiple editors, which implies canvassing. However, it is true that we have not received specific evidence of wrongdoing on Facebook, indeed, we've seen good advice in some evidence that has been passed. More, we cannot be dinosaurs and must evolved - understanding that other systems work better as social networks than Wikipedia and to be a community we need people. In the end, I do not disagree with the statement as written, so support. WormTT(talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

GSoW training: background

edit

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).

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With comments below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Honestly, organizers of other events like editathons could learn a thing or three from this group as far as organization. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BDD (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As someone who has done training, both on-wiki through ADOPT and off- through training courses, I have generally been impressed with how well put together GSoW's training is, and the retention level it's getting. WormTT(talk) 18:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I was also impressed by the training materials; I've certainly seen worse. I do share concerns about the need to apply and be admitted. While this isn't unheard-of, the general lack of experienced editors makes oversight hard, but also limits the kind of peer support available. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I have some supplemental thoughts:
  • GSoW's work in recruiting new editors as indicated by their numbers (which ArbCom has not independently verified) is impressive. Most outreach efforts have little long-term effect: e.g. very few WikiEd students stick around after their course. And GSoW leaders correctly point out that onboarding/training for new editors is a nightmare for people trying to start editing on their own. So far as I can tell, the training is geared towards people who absolutely wouldn't have the technical familiarity to read through a rabbithole of projectspace pages to learn how to add a citation or something.
  • The training process also seems to center around community. Outside of GSoW, while there are many communities of editors that interact off-wiki to make the experience feel more fun and collaborative (e.g. IRC, public Facebook groups, Discord, meetups/affiliates, etc.), they mostly aren't accessible for new editors. The sense of collaboration and camaraderie that GSoW appears from the outside to share with new editors is great and we can learn from it.
  • One thing touched on in this FoF that does concern me is the GSoW application, which I assume Sgerbic controls. To join GSoW, people have to apply, and it doesn't look like everyone gets in – especially experienced Wikipedians who seem discouraged or almost prohibited. Aside from going against our general norm of openness, it deprives the community of some normal accountability. One of the things that normally keeps off-wiki groups (such as IRC channels and mailing lists) from straying too far from policy/norm compliance is the regular addition of experienced editors who are familiar with norms. And ultimately, if any member finds their group to have gone too far, they raise the issue through dispute resolution (e.g. the WP:EEML case when email chains were forwarded to ArbCom). This is one of the reasons the community is generally somewhat confident that there aren't large editor cabals running around in violation of policy. In GSoW's case, experienced editors who are already familiar with policy aren't joining which deprives us of that informal check and certainly made me a bit uneasy. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GSoW training: contents

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With comments below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I mentioned this earlier, but it applies here too - treating training as a thing you do, pass, and then move on from is a problem independent of the content. The training may well be oversimplified, but all "training"/beginner teaching material on just about any subject is. It's the lack of engagement with the community on an ongoing basis that causes problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed with Opabinia regalis; the training and materials may be oversimplified, but if you're trying to get someone involved in editing Wikipedia it might be a good thing to have a few lies to children to get someone "hooked" on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ok, but I'd point the "blame" here at the Wikipedia community (myself included) which could do better at explaining itself. We have many terms we use which do not reflect their use in "normal English", our help pages, policies & guidelines are monolithic and impenetrable. Even today, I received a talk page message suggesting that someone found it easier to re-familiarise themselves with Wikipedia editing through an adoption course I wrote a over a decade ago than trying to read our actual pages - how an outsider must find this must be excruciating, and I commend GSoW for being able to break through. Hopefully, they will take on board the feedback on their interpretations based on this case. WormTT(talk) 18:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Worm puts it well. We may see this training as inadequate, but those who go through it may well be better equipped than most newcomers. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I am unconvinced that the training was truly inadequate. Any training is better than none, and GSoW has apparently trained many effective editors. I could wax poetic, but since this has majority support I will simply park myself as an abstain. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Largely agree with CaptainEek; the training seems to produce fine editors so clearly it is adequate to some degree. I'll agree that there are major simplification in the training (that's what training is, after all), but finding it to be "inadequate" on those grounds seems like itself an oversimplification of the issues. Training needs to meet people where they are, and I think this characterization of "inadequate" wildly overestimates the level of media literacy in the general population (consider xkcd 2501). The training is not perfect and makes simplifications that I personally would not have made, but if this training were truly "inadequate" why haven't we seen more general competence concerns? Why are the content issues we've seen largely realted to conduct and POV pushing? I think we all agree that there are problems with the training, but the reasons discussed here, to me, don't seem to be the reasons used in the FoF which makes it difficult to support. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I'm quite worried about the training. We didn't see the details of how GSoW explains notability or reliable sources or primary sources or COI or anything like that, other than a very broad outline of the motivations/principles behind the notability guidelines. But from what was on YouTube, I think a generous interpretation is that the trainings oversimplify the policies, which worries me. That feeds into my worry on another front: about whether GSoW members, either individually or as a group, are overconfident when they believe one thing and others in the community are telling them another thing. I know GSoW members often ask each other for advice about questions like notability, which in some cases can be helpful, but policy says consensus can be established only on-wiki. Experienced Wikipedia editors can articulate the community's interpretation of policy even if they personally disagree, and that important skill comes from calibration through asking these questions on-wiki. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting to Wugapodes on "general competence concerns" that AfD participation by members of GSoW, both presented in evidence and through a look at AFDSTATS, was what first prompted a close look at the content policy training. It's a bit outside the core scope of the case, but because we are the only body with access to the training materials sent to us by GSoW, we're the ones who ought to express this concern. If you think there are more problems with the training I would be quite open to supporting a supplemental FoF discussing those. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to summarize my concerns is that the way we are going about evaluating teaching materials doesn't make sense to me; I can see what you're trying to do but from my perspective it's non-sensical which prevents me from supporting. It's not that I disagree with the facts, it's that I find the method of evaluation flawed.
    Teaching materials are generally evaluated in terms of learning goals and objectives which are specific to students and contexts. The learning goals of WP:REFB and WP:REF are wildly different because they target different levels of experience; WP:REF is inadequate for educating newbies, but that does not mean it is "inadequate" without qualification. Similarly, what constitutes "misunderstandings or oversimplifications" depends on the learning goals and objectives. If we are attempting to describe the movement of an electron, teaching Newtonian mechanics alone is an oversimplification, but most high school students aren't doing things that go into the quantum realm. Does it make sense to say that high school physics students "misunderstand" physics? To quote my initial abstention, that "seems like itself an oversimplification of the issues".
    This gets at the AFD issue you bring up: competence at AFD is not a reasonable learning goal for most beginner-level training. AFD is one of the hardest things to do on this website, is one of the quickest ways to get bitten as a newbie, and requires a depth of policy knowledge most people don't care or need to develop to achieve their goals on Wikipedia. We've variously pointed to WikiEd as a good example of how to conduct trainings, but even their participants are not universally good at AFD (Signpost). In all the edit-a-thon's I've run, I haven't taught newbies about AFD because it's a waste of time when most people don't even know what a talk page is. Sure, from the perspective of a committee comprising Wikipedia's biggest policy wonks, we would want new editors to understand the process, but the practical reality is that it's not a reasonable learning goal for newbies. Newbies are bad at AFD, almost universally. Is that their fault? Is it ours? Is a curricular choice to avoid it reasonable or not? These aren't simple questions, and it's hard to generalize (especially in this context where a major concern was actually canvassing, e.g. Geogene's evidence describing "possible coordination" at AFD). It's easy to claim that things are inadequate, oversimplified, or misunderstood when we don't lay out any criteria or definition for making that evaluation.
    So to get back to this FoF, I don't actually think we're clear on what our evaluation metrics are, and I'm not sure it really matters. Our job isn't to give lessons in curriculum development, and if we decide to go that route then there's an open question of whether we should evaluate the materials on the basis of GSoW's own goals and objectives or on the basis of ones we construct ourselves (or some mix). I can see what you're going for, and I agree to most of the factual claims, but the normative claims are not well motivated for me. Personally, I don't really know where to begin with addressing my own concerns, so I think it would be unfair to hold this up. You all seem to have a sense of what it is you're trying to say, so I'm content noting my confusion for whomever needs clarity in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly agree with OR that training isn't a "do this and then you know everything forever" situation but I don't think GSoW thinks that. I base this on their continued use of Facebook as a community point from what we've seen. My real problem with the GSoW training is that it seems to give users false confidence about their editing abilities relative to the skill level that I perceive. There's nothing wrong with the skills that GSoW editors have and it can help them be productive Wikipedians, without a doubt. But training to competent or even good is not the same as training to excellence. It strikes me that GSoW trained editors think of themselves as excellent rather than competent or good which creates problems when a cohort of GSoW editors come into contact with other Wikipedians (i.e. editors who have a similar viewpoint of science) and run roughshod over them, especially because they suffer from a tendency of all patrollers to see the ill they're fighting against everywhere and thus have a harder time assuming good faith it situations that it's called for. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GSoW transparency

edit

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]).

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I suspect that if something doesn't change on the transparency front this matter will end up before ArbCom again. I hope not. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't really care about disclosing participation per se, but once you're in an on-wiki conversation or process with your fellow members, it's at best distracting not to acknowledge that some participants in the conversation are also connected elsewhere. We have all had conversations like this, where some of the participants were backchanneling with each other. It raises suspicions even if the backchannel conversation is about nothing more than the weather. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This project and indeed the global movement behind it is by and large supportive of transparency whenever possible. The very name of this organization seems antithetical to that. I don't see any compelling reason for the secrecy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'd strongly advise this is done. WormTT(talk) 18:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree with most of this. I'll note that while your typical WikiProject indeed has lists of editors and articles, there's no expectation that either be comprehensive, nor (I hope) would we read anything sinister into their being incomplete. My support here simply means I want to see more transparency. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think some sort of informative page about GSoW on-Wiki would be helpful in recruiting and retaining members, as well as enlightening to others. But I'm not pressed about a list of participants. I think a page like that of a WikiProject would be useful. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't particularly care about an on-wiki list of member; I don't even think that's the core problem. The top-to-bottom secrecy and organizational name referencing a type of asymettrical warfare creates a culture of suspicion that is not conducive to a productive editing environment. The lack of transparency and battleground goals make everyone suspicious and opens the door to speculation. Any steps to resolve the transparency issue would go far. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source

edit

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.

Support:
  1. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As a statement of fact, and with no comment on whether it should be considered a reliable source, which should be a fully community matter. WormTT(talk) 18:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Given the comments of Guy Macron and Billed Mammal on the talk page I have added a sentence noting that there is now an RfC that will perhaps reach more of a consensus about SI's reliability. I think this is a pretty uncontroversial add and so I have just done it but pinging arbs who have voted @Izno, Enterprisey, L235, BDD, Opabinia regalis, Primefac, Cabayi, Worm That Turned, CaptainEek, and Wugapodes:. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 any reason not to include a link? WormTT(talk) 17:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that and because it's going to be ongoing when the decision is posted, giving a diff to an incomplete discussion didn't seem great and linking to a live section that will disappear (which is why I am glad I have User:SD0001/find-archived-section.js) also didn't seem ideal. So that's why I didn't do it but not really opposed to it being done either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial. Izno (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me; I also support a link; no link is also fine. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
edit

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)

Support:
  1. Izno (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Numerically, it does appear that Skeptical Inquirer links are added more frequently by GSoW and otherwise "skeptical" editors, regardless of motivation. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. More detailed comments to follow. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ultimately, I'll support this since I believe it's a good summary of the situation. I see the oppose votes as reasonable caveats. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I have troubles with this, and will consider, but "large percentage" and "likely to be GSoW" makes me shudder. What percentage is large? On what basis are we suggesting they are GSoW members - is it because they add those articles? That seems cyclical. Confirmation bias will account for a portion of this, from both the sceptical editors and those looking at the additions, and I'm concerned that this isn't a good finding because of that. I'm also not happy that the evidence for the statement is BilledMammal's - I'm not happy with the maths. They state "considering 100 articles with links to Skeptical Inquirer", how is the sample chosen? They then go on whittle the number down to show that 42 out 54 added since 2018 are by a GSoW associate. Why 2018? (GSoW was set up in 2010 and revamped in 2019, either would make more sense) By what definition is an editor a GSoW associate, declared or guessed? At present, I cannot support this. WormTT(talk) 19:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm with Worm: I don't think we have an appropriately scientific process to make this claim. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Coming back to this since yesterday, I think I find myself down here. I believe it's true enough - the evidence does suggest that most of the people doing this were GSoW members - but I don't think it's nailed down to the point that it becomes a "finding of fact" (a "finding of probably true", sure :) and I'm not convinced it's really significant enough of a problem to be in the final decision anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't believe this is adequately supported by the evidence. FoF 11 points out that the community beleives SI to be at least somewhat reliable; evidence says that GSoW does not pressure editors to use it; and we have editors interested in skepticism who are not part of GSoW. It seems entirely reasonable, based on the evidence, that many editors adding SI are just regular people adding citations to a relevant, reliable source. I just don't see how we can claim that editors adding this source are "likely" GSoW members. I agree with the rest though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I'm out of time for tonight, so I guess I'll come back to this. For some reason I'm not convinced it's necessary to call out "likely" GSoW members here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also parking here for now. The idea that a publication aimed at skeptics would mostly be cited by skeptics is not at all remarkable. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the question Worm That Turned posed and {[u|CaptainEek}} echoed, BilledMammal in their evidence submission during the case as well as their preliminary statement says exactly on what basis we're suggesting various people are GSoW members. I find the evidence compelling but also acknowledge there can be a degree of error in such analysis which is why I phrased it as "likely". As for a large percentage it's also in those two places - I avoided specific numbers (which can be found there) owing to the fact that I don't give the membership list 100% credit (in either direction) and so it seems false to report those numbers as fact rather than find a way to describe them. So if you want to change that wording based on the evidence that was submitted we can do that, but that's why that more nebulous wording found its way into the decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

edit

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.

GSoW membership

edit

1) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a process by which a list of GSoW members can be made available to trusted community members (perhaps checkusers or administrators) for auditing purposes.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. See my note in proposed remedy 2 for why I dislike these in general. This is, as Beeblebrox notes below, also hard to enforce and completely out of line with how we treat other offwiki forums. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. I fully support GSoW creating a WikiProject, and members who feel comfortable associating with GSoW signing up there. I'd even suggest having a way of marking trainers and individuals who have completed the training for better communication. But an enforced list, to trusted community members or not, is not something we should be doing without evidence of collusion. WormTT(talk) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think I must oppose this as well along 'unease' lines. Additionally, as a certain arb recently suggested to me in private, the community is currently willing to make the tradeoff between transparency and privacy that allows for such a list to continue to exist unpublished for Wikipedian eyes. Separately, editors with a clear promotional bent can still be reported to WP:NPOVN or WP:ANI and editors with a clear bent on editing BLPs to insert negative material can still be reported to WP:BLPN or WP:AE (with an appropriate alert). Izno (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Worm. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No, no, big no. This would be a terrible precedent to set. Only bad could come of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think it would be a good idea for GSoW members to identify themselves on-wiki, and for the organization to have a transparent public presence on the website they're supposed to be volunteering for (which, ahem, is not Facebook). But I don't think we should be trying to force it, nor do we have any mechanism to do that. And sharing around a list semi-privately like this (there are a lot of admins!) would be a giant mess regardless, while CUs are too small a group with too much other stuff to do and didn't sign up as babysitters of off-wiki wikiprojects. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. What conceivable good use could be made of such a list? Cabayi (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm willing to be persuaded, but my initial reaction is that this makes me uneasy, and it also feels like it is basically impossible to enforce if GSoW doesn't feel like providing such a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding enforcement particularly, we might consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology as interesting (the more general remedies at least). I didn't think to look there, but it has some parallels (in addition to some of the obvious cases already mentioned at workshop and elsewhere like EEML and Economics). Izno (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on status of Skeptical Inquirer

edit

2) The Arbitration Committee recommends the community more wholly discuss (via a well-publicized request for comments) the status of the Skeptical Inquirer as a source of information on Wikipedia, particularly with respect to its use for biographies of living people. This could be held at the reliable sources noticeboard or other reasonably public location.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. These ArbCom recommended discussions rarely happen. I am not sure if we did a formal or informal survey of this last year but I do remember the results being that such recommendations rarely (maybe even never?) get carried out. ArbCom itself struggled to do an RfC it assigned itself. I don't think that it's outside our scope to actually do an RFC ourselves, if we believe it'll help dispute resolution, but we just had a discussion in January that was pretty well attended. I'm not sure recommending another discussion, even a more formal RfC, so soon is good advice. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The community can do this if we want. Indeed a single user can put this all together - but since it's about content, I'd rather Arbcom wasn't recommending it. WormTT(talk) 19:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't mind recommended-RfC remedies, and think we could make them more useful by actually following up (ie "if not started in a month an arb will start it with the text of the remedy" or something). I did try to do a survey like Barkeep suggested once, but I had trouble actually finding the discussions even when they did happen - I don't think there was ever really any recordkeeping in past cases to reflect community follow-ups other than enforcement (draft of my past attempt in my sandbox). But, I think this is a much smaller-scale question than most of those past recommended RfCs, and I think the community is capable of handling this one, so I don't think we need it as a remedy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strays a little to close to arbcom getting involved in the content side of things, and isn't really necessary for us to suggest when literally anyone can do it whenever they feel like it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with Beeblebrox. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I neither recommend this nor recommend against it. I have supported FOF #11 above, and leave it to the community at large to determine whether more clarity on the source's reliability would be helpful. --BDD (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Its up to the community. I think we should only be forcing discussion in rare circumstances. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I will abstain as I don't feel strongly about it. However, a recommendation is not forcing the discussion. It's a call that we would like to see more clarity for the future. The community can indeed take it up as they wish. --Izno (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm more concerned with GSoW's use of Skeptical Inquirer than with Skeptical Inquirer itself. In other contexts I'd be thinking of WP:REFSPAM. Cabayi (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No strong feelings. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per BDD. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
The discussion at RSN was not widely advertised even though at the established noticeboard for such questions, and only so well attended as the majority of the parties to this dispute showed up plus a couple others. The utility of an RFC or other actually-advertised discussion (as in watchlist or CENT) is to draw other eyes, which is the intent of this remedy. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic source ban (Skeptical Inquirer)

edit

3) Sgerbic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the use of Skeptical Inquirer and may not make requests to change mainspace pages using Skeptical Inquirer as a source.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. As editors have noted on the talk page of this proposed decision, talk page requests are what we usually prescribe for editors with conflicts of interest. I would need to see stronger evidence of malfeasance or ill intent to consider such a step, and realistically would be more inclined to block the editor outright than place such restrictions. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A skeptic using Skeptical inquirer seems perfectly sensible to me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This doesn't seem like it gets at the core issue to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't believe a source ban for Sgerbic is the right solution, based on the findings. If there is evidence that she has, in particular, been misusing the source - then a fresh finding should be raised. I understand the intent, I'm just not happy with this as a solution. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As WTT notes, I don't think this gets at the issues out there and I agree with BDD on not loving the idea of taking away edit requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per BDD. Cabayi (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Of the three Sgerbic remedies, I'm closest to supporting this per FoFs 3 and 12 (I opposed 12 but it's currently passing so might as well point to it). I can see the case for it, but I'm not sure how effective it would actually be in preventing misconduct. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Part of the intent with the proposed source bans (in both cases) and the specific wording is to avoid arbitrary GSOW editors WP:PROXYING (or in its colloquial sense) directly onwiki. (Yes, I note the tension there; "black markets" will always exist, but this particular case has some indication that they do exist already in some limited measure.) It's also to encourage the use of more sources that would clear the bar of quality that we expect when writing about WP:BLPs and otherwise. These were somewhat inspired by Poland's 'high quality sourcing' DS, though I think they would be novel for specific editors.
If "can't make requests for change" is a particular sticker, I am willing to discuss further. --Izno (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic source ban (skepticism trade publications)

edit

4) Sgerbic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the use of skepticism trade publications (including audio and video works) and may not make requests to change mainspace pages using such sources.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I think the intent behind this remedy is reasonable but writing it in a way to be enforceable is quite difficult. I think passing the straight topic ban would be better than trying to tailor this kind of restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Similarly to my previous comments. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Sgerbic topic ban

edit

5) Sgerbic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from scientific skepticism topics, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I am mulling over most of these remedies; I very much doubt I could support this one. --BDD (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sgerbic has been an incredible asset to Wikipedia. It would be absurd to remove her from the topic area she cares most deeply about. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I really don't see much to support a sanction for Sgerbic. She seems to need some "train the trainer" type advice, more than anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per OR, a bit of training the trainer, a bit more transparency and the hope that she will take on learnings from this case. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think Sgerbic needs to adjust her editing slightly in light of the COI described in the FoF. That does not need to be a topic ban at this time. And as OR notes elsewhere I think she has a lot of value on things to teach us. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per OR, Cabayi (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per OR and BK. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Rp2006 warned

edit

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

Support:
  1. At a minimum. Continuing to contemplate the others. Izno (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I haven't seen a willingness of Rp2006 to take a look at their actions in the events surrounding this case unlike most of the other parties to this case. I hope if this passes that will change. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Rp2006 source ban (Skeptical Inquirer)

edit

7) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the use of Skeptical Inquirer and may not make requests to change mainspace pages using Skeptical Inquirer as a source.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. As with my opposition to the same for Sgerbic. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same reasoning as for Sgerbic. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I might support a version of this that still allowed Rp2006 to make normal talk page edit requests (I'd have to think) but the inability to do so is a dealbreaker for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Until/unless the source is found to be unreliable, why should he not cite it? Cabayi (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Revocation of edit requests doesn't make much sense to me here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Per my vote in R7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
@Cabayi: because he has a conflict of interest with the publication and might seek, more than an equivalent editor without a conflict of interest, to inflate its prominence and value by using it as a source. There is some small, but non-zero, amount of value that sources get for being included in citations. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the REFSPAM issue above, #RFC on status of Skeptical Inquirer? Any GSoW "backwards editing" which veers into WP:REFSPAM or WP:SELFCITE is its own issue which can be dealt with through normal processes whether done by Rp2006, Sgerbic, or any other GSow editor. Cabayi (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban is a normal process response to this kind of misconduct. I'm not sure I support it in this case, yet, were one to be proposed that was worded differently but I do think it's reasonable response in-line with community practice to over use by someone with a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006 source ban (skepticism trade publications)

edit

8) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the use of skepticism trade publications (including audio and video works) and may not make requests to change mainspace pages using such sources.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I think the intent behind this remedy is hard to define and if it's what people think we should just pass the topic ban as something we have lots of experience in enforcing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree with Barkeep WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prefer topic ban. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This is closer to what I would've liked to see, but I respect my colleagues' concerns. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Rp2006 topic ban (1)

edit

9) Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from scientific skepticism topics, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I note in my comment supporting the warning that I think Rp2006 needs to change the way that they edit. I think they should be afforded the chance to do so before a topic ban - which given their editing is closer to outright blocking them - is imposed. But if they don't take heed, a topic ban seems highly likely to be in their future. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Barkeep. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comment below. --Izno (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In favor of BLP TBAN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In favour of the BLP topic ban (9.1) below. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Behaviour does not reach TB level, and 9.1 does alleviates my BLP concerns. WormTT(talk) 10:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Worse option than R9.1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I am minded to propose a lesser TBAN from BLPs and information associated with specific people who associated with scientific skepticism. After some consideration, I do not think I can support this specific proposal. Rp2006 has not been a frequent flier in the places that would indicate he would cause continuing disruption, but I do think there is sufficient evidence that his behavior on BLPs particularly in this area has been enough that removal from the area for BLPs is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided at this stage. Like my comments in the FoFs, I think the BLP/NPOV issues are concerning, though I'm not sure this topic ban gets at that problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I like the idea of a topic ban from BLPs - both of sceptics, and pseudo-scientists. I'd rather that than such a wide topic ban. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just holding off here for the moment to see if another remedy is proposed. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006 topic ban (2)

edit

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.

Support:
  1. I will support here, per my comment in 9. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This works for me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WormTT(talk) 10:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd usually prefer this sort of thing to go through the already extant BLP DS at AE. But since we're here, no need to pile even more bureaucracy on. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With some regret. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. There have been issues with Rp2006's BLP editing. My preferred outcome is to warn him at this stage, which obviously doesn't take a topic ban off the table (and as it would likely be levied through AE would also be a bit easier for an eventual repeal). But given the evidence we do have I'm not actually opposed to such a topic ban and so I will put myself here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Barkeep, maybe a bit closer to oppose, but we have a majority here. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I do not think the wording is perfect, so I welcome editing. --Izno (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: I tried to simplify the wording, feel free to remove the markup if it's in-line with your meaning. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: "of interest to" was important to me at least because the issue is not just those people who are skeptics but also the people they try to discredit. The rest of the reword looks good. --Izno (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno:, restored. I assumed that would be covered by "associated with" but I can see how that might actually be less clear. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: Is the intention here to limit it to mainspace, as "content" would suggest? Or do you mean "content" in the broader meaning of "page content" in any namespace? If the latter, I would suggest the more standard "edits related to ..." language (rather than "editing content related to ..."). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Izno (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that Rp2006 is clearly a dedicated Wikipedia editor and I genuinely hope that he continues editing Wikipedia after our decision here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz reminded

edit

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

Support:
Izno (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BDD (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A reminder, sure, though everyone should be reminded of this regularly. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Based on their conduct later in this dispute I'm not sure this is a necessary reminder. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neither do I, also per talk page. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am coming down here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I don't really see what this accomplishes, but I also don't see a downside to giving a reminder. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Roxy the dog reminded

edit

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

Support:
Izno (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. At least. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think I am landing here given my comments in the warning remedy proposed below. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No preference between this and 11.1 — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to R11.1. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. as insufficient (mildly) WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. superfluous given that #Roxy the dog warned is passing. Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Roxy the dog warned

edit

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

Support:
  1. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice for Roxy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BDD (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Roxy, play the ball and not the man. Cabayi (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No preference between this and 11 — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As always, editors should focus on the content, not the contributor. Roxy, as an accomplished veteran, should know that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • The Roxy stuff is all around one incident and one editor. How much did Roxy contribute to the breakdown in collaboration in this situation and does this accurately address that? I'm still thinking but my initial thought is no. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I see two incidents, one with Apuagasma, and a second with SFR. Cabayi (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi I believe that the Apuagasma evidence was withdrawn. So in terms of unretracted evidence I'm only aware of the stuff with SFR. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GSoW onwiki presence

edit

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.

Support:
  1. This is the most important remedy to me. I understand the desire of GSoW to situate itself primarily off-wiki, but I think this case shows the shortcomings of that approach, especially with regard to editors' privacy. Transparency is such an important community norm, and fosters collaboration and good faith. As noted in the first principle, we can't meaningfully compel GSoW to change its off-wiki activity, but I fully recommend moving activities on-wiki wherever appropriate—while noting that external venues such as IRC and Discord can still be healthy places for socialization. This would be to everyone's benefit. --BDD (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This group of editors should be associated onwiki directly. --Izno (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Certainly. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If there's one thing that can happen to help with this conflict in the longrun, it's GSoW finding a way to make this happen. Like BDD it's probably the remedy I feel most important. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We can't make any group do these things, but we can ask, in the spirit of collaboration and transparency that are cornerstones of the Wikimedia movement, that they be more open and engaged with the broader community. An us-vs-them mentality is not in anyone's best interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is the core remedy regarding GSoW as distinct from any individual GSoWer. Cabayi (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree we can't make this happen, but GSoW members, please do. There are two ways this case could have been nipped in the bud, one a stronger adherence to BLP rules, and the other is more transparency - to stop the fear of the unknown. WormTT(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As I wrote above, I think this will be very helpful in recruiting and retaining members, and improving Wikipedia in general. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Honestly, we're likely to be back here again sooner or later if there's not more transparency from the group going forward. On the upside, as above, I think there's also a lot to learn from the group on recruiting and getting relative newbies up to speed, which is something the enwiki community has historically struggled with. So I'd think of this as a valuable exchange of knowledge. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I believe this is simply a best practice for organizations doing sustained work on-wiki. It helps everyone involved share knowledge, builds trust, and avoids misunderstandings. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

BLP DS reminder

edit

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.

Support:
  1. BDD (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Izno (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC) ... including the amended wording. Cabayi (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BLPs are where the most real world harm can be done by Wikipedia. I would happily see them all semi-protected, or with pending changes - but what we have is DS for when things go wrong. Please use it. WormTT(talk) 19:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#Comments by Tryptofish. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
For purposes of DS awareness I'd like to see anyone named in this decision considered indefinitely aware of this DS - as if they were named in the original BLP case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. If this passes we could also have clerks drop DS notices on their talk pages, just to insure the point is made. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. BDD? Izno (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. WormTT(talk) 19:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --BDD (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the remedy above given the consent of everyone here. I am not picky on wording if someone thinks there's a better way to implement this intent. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

edit

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.

Per 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
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 discretionary sanctions 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.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motion to close

edit

Implementation notes

edit

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 04:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC) by MJL.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jurisdiction 12 0 0   ·
2 Training 12 0 0   ·
3 On-wiki and off-wiki behavior 12 0 0   ·
4 Standards for BLP articles 12 0 0   ·
5 Conflicts of Interest 12 0 0   ·
6 Editor conduct 12 0 0   ·
7 Neutral point of view 12 0 0   ·
8 Editor groups with restricted membership 5 6 0   Cannot pass
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) 12 0 0   ·
2 Sgerbic 12 0 0   ·
3 Susan Gerbic's writing for Skeptical Inquirer 12 0 0   ·
4 Rp2006 12 0 0   ·
5 Roxy the dog 11 0 0   ·
6 A. C. Santacruz 11 0 0   ·
7 GSoW's use of Facebook 12 0 0   ·
8 GSoW training: background 11 0 0   ·
9 GSoW training: contents 8 0 2   ·
10 GSoW transparency 12 0 0   ·
11 Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source 11 0 0   ·
12 Skeptical Inquirer links and use 7 4 0   ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 GSoW membership 0 10 0   Cannot pass
2 RFC on status of Skeptical Inquirer 0 5 6   Cannot pass
3 Sgerbic source ban (Skeptical Inquirer) 0 7 2   Cannot pass
4 Sgerbic source ban (skepticism trade publications) 0 8 1   Cannot pass
5 Sgerbic topic ban 0 9 0   Cannot pass
6 Rp2006 warned 10 0 0   ·
7 Rp2006 source ban (Skeptical Inquirer) 0 8 1   Cannot pass
8 Rp2006 source ban (skepticism trade publications) 0 8 1   Cannot pass
9 Rp2006 topic ban (1) 0 6 0   Cannot pass
9.1 Rp2006 topic ban (2) 6 0 1   ·
10 A. C. Santacruz reminded 6 3 1   ·
11 Roxy the dog reminded 5 2 0   1 Three votes second choice to 11.1
11.1 Roxy the dog warned 9 0 0   ·
12 GSoW onwiki presence 11 0 0   ·
13 BLP DS reminder 10 0 0   ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0   · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0   · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

edit

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Everything is passing or failing. I appreciate Kevin is disappointed about the final principle, but I believe we should be moving towards closing this down. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Izno (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With some concluding thoughts at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_L235. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. BDD (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Proposed_decision&oldid=1074965228"