Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:38, 31 January 2022

Latest revision as of 04:16, 3 March 2022

(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Arbitration case phase closed}}

{{Casenav}}

{{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}}

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Header notice}}

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

'''Submitting evidence'''

* Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.

* You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.

* Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks|arbitration clerks]] by e-mail or on the talk page.

'''Word and diff limits'''

* <u>The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 [[help:diffs|diffs]] for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users.<u> Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.</u>

* If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Evidence talk page]].</u>

* Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

'''Supporting assertions with evidence'''

* Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a [[Wikipedia:Edit history|page history]], an editor's contributions, or a [[Special:log|log]] for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.

* Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the [[Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide|simple diff and link guide]] if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

'''Rebuttals'''

* The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions '''in your own section''', and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in [[wikt:tit-for-tat|tit-for-tat]] on this page.

* Analysis of evidence should occur on the [[../Workshop|/Workshop]] page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

'''Expected standards of behavior'''

* You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being [[WP:Incivil|incivil]] or engaging in [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], and to respond calmly to allegations against you.

* Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

'''Consequences of inappropriate behavior'''

* Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.

* Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.

* Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.

* Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

__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. (How can one describe the DS topic area for skepticism? I'm having a hard time with that.)

====Skepticism per WP policies====

Line 659 ⟶ 629:

==Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable==

===Aggressive Evidence presentedediting by Roxy the dog 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 {username}Roxy the dog==

I am not, and have never been, a member of "GSoW" or "Guerilla Skeptics".

Line 665 ⟶ 643:

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''']] 15:3845, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by {your user name}Alexbrn==

; On COI and "backwards editing"

==Evidence presented by {username}==

# [[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

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

# ''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.

==={Write your assertion here}===

# 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]

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

== Summary of private evidence received by ArbCom ==

==={Write your assertion here}===

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]].

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

The Committee has received the following categories of private evidence:

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==

*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:

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

*https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=1Veertje&ilshowall=1

==={Write your assertion here}===

*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allianz_vun_Humanisten,_Atheisten_an_Agnostiker&oldid=689850580

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

*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.

==={Write your assertion here}===

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