Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Responses: ce |
replace {{Casenav}} with {{subst:Casenav/closed}} |
||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Arbitration case phase closed}}
{{Casenav|case name=Skepticism and coordinated editing|clerk1=Dreamy Jazz|clerk2=Amortias|clerk3=MJL|draft arb=Barkeep49|draft arb2=Izno|draft arb3=L235|draft arb4=|active=12|inactive=3|recused=0||scope=Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics}}
__TOC__
Line 218 ⟶ 188:
===Case scope and implications===
The scope was changed from GSoW to skepticism, and ArbCom needs to be aware of potential knock-on effects.
====Skepticism per WP policies====
Line 272 ⟶ 242:
Under [[WP:COI]], a COI can be formed by "any external relationship". Previously ArbCom found that COI "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Conflicts_of_interest|also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing]]".
===
The main focus here are the
===GSoW editors have been editing BLPs
GSoW members have extensively edited the BLPs of subjects who
* Thomas John: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=887554479&oldid=884098925] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=900801101&oldid=898089323] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=987944187&oldid=979425852] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=1035190826&oldid=1029107677]
Line 282 ⟶ 252:
* Suzane Northrop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzane_Northrop&type=revision&diff=1008164668&oldid=999590016]
Editors: Rp2006,
===Campaigning against BLP subjects===
===Creating sources to support POVs===
Sgerbic has described how sources were created to add POVs in articles. In one case, she used a fake name to join a webinar by a BLP subject she was in a dispute with, asked questions related to the dispute, then provided a recording to a journalist. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4fsjrosUsk 28:00-32:44] The resulting article was added by a GSoW member. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeanette_Wilson&diff=960799259&oldid=960797448] (Rp2006)
===Responses===
I agree with Shibbolethink that a COI should not be a concern in regard to a skeptic simply writing about topics of interest to skeptics. However,
In regard to Johnuniq, a) this is a long term problem, so diffs displaying how this has been an issue for an extended time make sense; b) in regard to stings, the problem is not writing about them, but writing about them when there is a
==Evidence presented by TrangaBellam==
Line 361 ⟶ 335:
I have mostly used the GSoW FaceBook group to ask technical questions, or to request that somebody reviews a draft article I have written: sometimes Rp2006 or Sgerbic helped out with such proof reading ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Duffy_%28astronomer%29&type=revision&diff=797776926&oldid=797742139], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Duffy_%28astronomer%29&type=revision&diff=797670405&oldid=797666755], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alastair_MacLennan_%28obstetrician%29&type=revision&diff=864502491&oldid=864467047], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Cowman&type=revision&diff=901258476&oldid=901244810], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcello_Costa&type=revision&diff=881918186&oldid=881909961]). I have also used the FB group to post lists of new [[Order of Australia]] winners as a source of ideas for articles. If a particular topic is about to hit the news, somebody might request that people review associated articles to be sure they are in good shape (e.g. [[Cupping therapy]] before the last Olympics).
I have never seen any inappropriate co-ordination at GSoW (e.g. [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]], [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]], or [[WP:TAGTEAM|tag teaming]]) – on the contrary, when there are contentious issues or votes (AfD, DYK, etc.) members are regularly reminded NOT to pile on with votes. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any way to provide evidence of what did not happen.
===Responses===
Thanks Bilby and BilledMammal for removing implications against me.
Bilby gives the impression that most GSoW members are involved in off-wiki activism. AFAIK that is not true. Before my time I understand Susan Gerbic started an activist organization called "Guerrilla Skeptics", who did stings and other activism. When Susan started the Wikipedia project, she used that "familiar brand" by calling it "Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" As RP2006 says, the two groups are separate. So when Susan talks about "my team of volunteers" for the Thomas John sting, there is no indication how many, if any, of them are related to GSoW.
==Evidence presented by Geogene==
Line 383 ⟶ 362:
===Members of GSoW have coordinated to promote CSI and related entities===
Susan Gerbic [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/learn-to-edit-wikipedia-like-a-gsow-editorndashbackwards-editing/ states] "We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists." GSoW has done exactly that; they have added references to CSI publications throughout Wikipedia, they have written articles on CSI entities and affiliates, and they have linked these articles wherever possible, to "improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer".
This 2015 post was made when [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ten_distinguished_scientists_and_scholars_named_fellows_of_committee_for_sk SI hired Gerbic as a consultant], and the evidence I present suggests that GSoW continues to operate in this manner.
====References to CSI Publications====
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Preliminary_statements#Statement_by_BilledMammal|Reviewing 100 of the articles with links to Skeptical Inquirer]], 54 were
Considering these references in the context of [[WP:PARITY]], three addressed an existing unaddressed fringe claim, seven added and addressed a fringe claim such as at {{diff2|1001838330|Immune system}}, while eighteen were used within skepticism broadly defined but did not relate to fringe claims. Of the remaining fourteen, two were superfluous references, while twelve were used outside skepticism.
====Articles relating to CSI====
Considering the article [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] and five linked from it that appear to be closely related to CSI, five have significant collective contributions from various coordinated groups of GSoW associates - the sixth, CSI's parent entity, has some contributions, but these are not significant.
{| class="wikitable"
! Article !! Portion contributed by GSoW !! GSoW associate
Line 502 ⟶ 485:
==Evidence presented by Johnuniq==
A lot of the evidence on this page shows what is already known, namely that GSoW exists. There is no evidence of edit warring other than a skirmish noted at [[#Dispute at Sharon A. Hill]] above. The only evidence of bad edits are those concerned with accurate but excessive BLP negativity regarding sting operations—Bilby [[#GSoW editors have been editing BLPs
Given claims that GSoW is a significant problem, there is remarkably little evidence of recent issues apart from bickering resulting from the 250 KB [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006|COIN mega-discussion]]. Taking the evidence at [[#Links to articles on CSI and its affiliates]] as an example, the edits concerned are: 1 in 2014, 1 in 2015, 3 in 2016, 3 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 5 in 2019, 1 in 2020.
Line 514 ⟶ 497:
===A. C. Santacruz’s behavior===
*While I’m aware of [[WP:2WRONGS]], examples
*This started with a disagreement with A.C.Santacruz on
*But the damage was done. Before the purge, editors read the info resulting in my (assumed) IRL identity being openly discussed.[https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12429] Note that just 1 of the 11 citations involved alleged SELFCITE material, which another editor had added long ago. This snowballed into claims I generally engage in SELFCITING, and have COIs with most anyone ever affiliated with CSI, (skeptics and scientists), and even the broader scientific/skeptic community and topics. (See claims by others here, including BilledMammal's complaint [[Debunker]] and [[Mediumship]] should be off limits to me.)
*Her claims of contrition for the OUTING seems questionable due to harassment of me on my Talk page, including a second OUTING attempt. (“the article that started this whole mess says Hill '''thanked him''' for an edit on her page”) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard?diff=prev&oldid=1063983684&diffmode=source]
*She justified her actions based on my lack of ‘taking proper precautions’: “How is it my fault they didn't take proper precautions before deciding to base the overwhelming majority of their edits in articles … I will never know.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._C._Santacruz&diff=1060686858&oldid=1060686488]
*Inappropriate behavior regarding
*She asked questions on my Talk page she characterized as "friendly," but which were
*
*
:*Accused me of “misgendering” her over a
:*Accused
===Response to A. C. Santacruz evidence===
*Alleged “statement conflicts with paid-en-wp evidence” and a friendship with the Sharon Hill are false. Is my denial
*Claimed that functionary indicated “receiving credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits.” What is this evidence? Do I get to
*Canvassing accusation: I thought it was proper to post on a concerned WikiProject. I did so
===Response to Geogene evidence===
*Regarding “A fresh COI edit by Rp2006”: I do not believe I have a COI with
*Plus, tracking my “fresh” edits is [[WP:HOUNDING]], defined as “following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=1067488719]
===Response to Bilby evidence===
You (and others) conflated those who do stings (Guerilla Skeptics) with those who work on WP (GSoW team). You made corrections, but others may have not.
===Response to ScottishFinnishRadish evidence===
*I was unaware
*
===Conclusion===
*I was only able to address a portion of the evidence, but must note that it has been gathered by people going through my large body of work to find things to present negative things in support of their own POV. This is the epitome of [[Cherry picking]].
*My work includes writing two BLP Good Articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rp2006#My_two_%22Good_Articles%22], and in all I have created 7 articles from scratch, and substantially rewrote ~20 others.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rp2006#My_most_significant_articles] Six ran as DYKs in 4 separate years.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rp2006#My_six_DYK_articles]
*I have not been previously blocked/banned, and avoid admin issues
*When these facts are considered, I hope it is determined that an admin action against my WP account would be a net deficit to the
==Evidence presented by Sgerbic==
Line 631 ⟶ 618:
I prefer to stand on my actual editing records than to try to prove that my personal goals and biases are 100% pristine. I do my best to edit in good faith, but yes, off Wikipedia, I am biased towards science (as is Wikipedia). Please know that a lot has changed over the years. Around 2019 we did a big overhaul of our program, and with the recommendations of the ArbCom decision, GSoW will continue to improve. These are old, but I think they stand up well.[https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/09/is-wikipedia-a-conspiracy-common-myths-explained/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/vandalism-on-wikipedia/]
There has been some talk about me having a COI with CSI because I am a CSI Fellow. I encourage
I have never been banned, rarely participated in admin conversations, and only want to continue training and improving Wikipedia science and pseudoscience pages. Wikipedia has brought me a community of hard working, truth loving nerds. The last thing I or the GSoW community would want is to hurt Wikipedia which makes all of this possible. At the end of the day, we have edited alongside everyone just like any other editor, as that is what we are, editors.
Line 637 ⟶ 624:
Thank you.
===Response to claims GSoW is the same as Guerilla Skeptics===
GSoW has nothing to do with psychic stings, other than probably someone from the group has proofread articles I’ve written before they went to editorial. In the quote Bilby found, I meant “we” as in the collective skeptical world “we”. Reporters ask me questions, they are interested in the Wikipedia angle and I answer them, they print what they print and I do not get to approve beforehand nor am I allowed to ask for corrections. Back in 2012 I would have never dreamt in 2022 that the similar names would be a problem, otherwise I would have been much clearer. Sometimes I speak off the cuff and sometimes I find the audience isn’t interested in details, they just want to hear the story of how a medium is talking to children about their dead family members. Look at these articles and you will see I use the phrase “Guerilla Skeptics” or “the Guerrilla Skeptic investigations” not GSoW. I have a handful of people who research mediums, I plan the stings, and I have worked with members of various skeptic groups like the Las Vegas Society of Skeptics that attended the Thomas John Vegas show. I use various people depending on the ___location. In my most recent sting, Operation Onion Ring you can see the people I used, and they have nothing to do with GSoW.[https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-onion-ring-thomas-john-and-the-children/][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alm39HCC0No][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/right-turns-only-circling-back-to-seatbelt-psychic/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/click-click-click-thomas-john/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/the-thomas-john-experience-review/]9[https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/suzane-northup-operation-lemon-meringue/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/maria-verdeschi-and-thomas-john-operation-lemon-meringue/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/thomas-john-and-kimberly-meredith-operation-lemon-meringue/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-lemon-meringue-thomas-john/]
==Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable==
===Aggressive editing by Roxy the Dog===
Dozens of diffs had been submitted showing un-collegial editing by Roxy and other skeptics – e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vernon_Coleman&diff=prev&oldid=1063597685 I'm just messing with your head.] These [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FSkepticism_and_coordinated_editing%2FEvidence&type=revision&diff=1066486133&oldid=1066482482 were] later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=1067535627 retracted]. Yet the aggressive editing took place. Roxy's aggression is not apparently confined to online posts. He posted about deciding to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051633189 confront] the Colonel in real life. An aggressive editor talking of physically confronting others could exert a chilling effect on those who lack the Colonel's exceptional physical courage, and who might otherwise wish to edit from different perspectives.
This is not to argue for severe sanctions. While CSI style scepticism is not always aligned with mainstream science or the wider Wikipedia community -
{{Collapse top| Links showing what I mean for the curious, does not have to be evaluated by Arbs as not fully in scope }}
[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139| Here]] is an example of a well attended 2018 RfC where a skeptic attempt to strengthen policy against Alt. medicine was roundly rejected by serious editors, including some of the leading lights from MEDS. Mainstream scientists know it's false to assume fellow scientists can always be trusted to honestly report empirical findings. One of the most widely cited papers among sicentists over the last decade is [[Why Most Published Research Findings Are False]]. Our [[Scientific misconduct]] article understates the extensiveness of dishonesty – even in the UK [https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e377 "One in seven UK based scientists or doctors has witnessed colleagues intentionally altering or fabricating data during their research or for the purposes of publication"]. For over a decade our article on [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry|CSI]] has highlighted incidents where they appear to have suppressed results that don't align with their mechanistic world view. While some whole life science departments may agree with CSI style materialism, few physicists do. (For non scientists, the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yis7GzlXNM Bill Nye v Newton] rap is nice source showing how out of their depth sceptics are against a top rank "Woo" believing scientist. Especially if you know how feeble Nye's Incel insult is considering Newton had a relationship with Lady Alchemyda. As even the atheist Lord Keynes knew, even if you see her as a mental construct rather than an entity with supernatural reality, she is far more sexually keen than any human partner.) Sceptical editors have also been over aggressive in confronting mainstream scientists who try to add content that doesn't even vaguely challenge materialism, e.g. as described [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence#Beall4_a_mainstream_scientist here.]
{{Collapse bottom}}
- the oft repeated view that skeptical editors are hugely valuable in protecting us from harmful fringe is true. Extensive engagement with fringe pushers is liable to be frustrating. Hence there is a case for being less quick to sanction skeptics, even if they let their stress cause them to be uncivil to mainstream editors. And I see no reasons why they cant be allowed a reasonable amount of off-wiki coordination, as afforded to several other groups. But Roxy could benefit from a reminder about WP:Civil, or possibly even a caution.
==Evidence presented by Roxy the dog==
I am not, and have never been, a member of "GSoW" or "Guerilla Skeptics".
Much of my editing could be said to be co-ordinated by Talk pages, Noticeboards and Projects. I often vote at AfD's where I was canvassed by notifications on Project pages, as do many others. I do not co-ordinate off-wiki.
Note that in my "messing ... " comment, recently highlighted, I responded to an accusation of being in the pay of Google or Government. In full, it read - "Neither Google nor Government, I'm just messing with your head." -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 15:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
==Evidence presented by Alexbrn==
; On COI and "backwards editing"
# [[WP:COI]] says a conflict of interest on Wikipedia exists when an editor's external relationships "[[WP:EXTERNALREL|could reasonably be said to undermine]]" an editor's primary purpose of furthering the interests of Wikipedia.
# [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] recommends as a key way of achieving [[WP:NPOV]] is basing content on the "best respected and most authoritative reliable sources".
# Until this drama, the ''Skeptical Inquirer'' has not been an especially controversial source on Wikipedia (it has no entry on [[WP:RSP]] which would indicate frequent controversy). It has its opponents, but has also been approved by established (presumably non-GSoW) editors.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=1059382089&oldid=1059379927][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=828978032&oldid=828976653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=700950435&oldid=700940351] as {{u|JzG}} comments (last preceding diff), "reliable for their areas of specialist interest".
# The much cited Gerbic [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/learn-to-edit-wikipedia-like-a-gsow-editorndashbackwards-editing/ blog post] says "Not always will a backwards edit fit cleanly into a Wikipedia article, it is a matter of opinion in some cases, and if you are unsure it is possible to discuss the edit first ...".
; Labelling editors and acting on content
# ''Background'': In March/April 2021 in one of her last substantial editing actions, {{u|SlimVirgin}} performed a substantial cleanup[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Gerbic&type=revision&diff=1016406945&oldid=1014315771] of the [[Susan Gerbic]] article to make it BLP and generally policy compliant, removing the <nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki> tag in the process.
# In November 2022, {{u|A. C. Santacruz}} on [[Talk:Susan Gerbic]] proposed that "This article must be permanently tagged w COI tags", giving as part of the rationale a long list of "major contributors", including SlimVirgin who "have strong interests in Skepticism".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Gerbic&diff=1053337451&oldid=1053331875] ACS twice tries to add the COI tag accordingly.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Gerbic&diff=1053328430&oldid=1049929811][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Gerbic&diff=1053329660&oldid=1053328670]
== Summary of private evidence received by ArbCom ==
The Arbitration Committee accepted private evidence in this case. Like with all evidence, Arbitrators, including the drafters, will make individual decisions on how much weight to give to each piece of submitted evidence. In making this decision Arbitrators will consider how the evidence complies with the [[WP:ARBPOL|Arbitration Policy]] on private evidence and the community feedback offered in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Anti-harassment_RfC#Request_for_Comment|2020 anti-harassment RfC]].
The Committee has received the following categories of private evidence:
*The identity of specific editors and their membership in GSoW. This includes both first-person disclosures (noting that they are a member) and third-party evidence (suggesting another editor's identity and/or membership).
*GSoW training materials and methods
*Accusations of GSoW coordinated editing
*GSoW structure
The following evidence was received privately as part of longer evidence submissions but involves public information:
*https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=1Veertje&ilshowall=1
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allianz_vun_Humanisten,_Atheisten_an_Agnostiker&oldid=689850580
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amardeo_Sarma&oldid=791622403,
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSICon&diff=prev&oldid=1019298549
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Hyde&oldid=688382014
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deej&diff=prev&oldid=1062789746)
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doris_Bither_case&diff=prev&oldid=1053010312
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Loftus&diff=prev&oldid=1052843975
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enlightenment_Now&type=revision&diff=838089810&oldid=837824756
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_Braeckman&oldid=681273455
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johan_Braeckman&type=revision&diff=681273455&oldid=664771577,
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonora_Piper&diff=prev&oldid=835595885
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Momo_Challenge_hoax&oldid=855911813
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&type=revision&diff=852831405&oldid=849325378&diffmode=visual
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dybbuk_box&diff=prev&oldid=1002398320
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Goop_Lab&oldid=934458671
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=1053760591
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=1053869334
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053594455
*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053598519
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenny_Biddle
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dybbuk_box
*https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=JohnnyBflat&users=CatCafe&users=Sgerbic&users=Rp2006&users=Wyatt+Tyrone+Smith
*https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Rp2006&users=Poorlyglot&users=KoKoCorvid&users=Sgerbic&users=ScienceExplains&users=Dustinlull&users=Boneso
*https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Rp2006&users=Sgerbic&users=Alhill42
*https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Skeptical_Inquirer/?q=pensar
*https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Skeptics%20in%20the%20Pub/?q=skeptical%20inquirer
*https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Stichting%20Skepsis/?q=Inquirer
Under policy and procedure we are unable to provide other information about private evidence at this time and may not be able to answer questions about this information.
| |||