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

Revision as of 03:01, 1 March 2022

Revision as of 13:44, 1 March 2022

Line 75:

:{{u|Tryptofish}}, the pseudoscience DS wouldn't have applied to any of the topics I was involved in, as they didn't pay themselves as science. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still surprised to see that we have:

'''Principle:''' {{tq|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.}}

'''Findings of Fact:''' {{tq|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... 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).}}

'''Remedy:''' Nothing that addresses this, not even a reminder to adhere to [[WP:COI]].

Does Arbcom judge that this COI editing was not an issue? If not, why are there FoFs and a principle relating to it? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

== Comments by DGG==