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

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

Main case page (talk) — Preliminary statements (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the Committee in arriving at a final decision.

PD extended one week

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all. Due to the press of business, the drafters are extending the estimate for the posting of our proposed decision in this case by one week. For the Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice. Thanks for y'all's diligence on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not a formal announcement but my personal sense is that we may be a few additional days late. Most of the PD has been circulated for internal review but there may be e.g. privacy-related blocking issues. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@L235: you or another clerk might want to re-protect the proposed decision page for this period, as the previous protection auto-ended about an hour ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

PD now posted

The proposed decision has now been posted. A reminder for all that this is a proposed decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by A. C. Santacruz

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

• The proposed remedy on GSoW membership recommends a well-publicized discussion happen but does not outline where it would be best to hold the discussion (as opposed to RfC on SI, which Arbcom suggests happen at RSN). I think outlining what noticeboard or talk page would be best for this discussion would be helpful. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Usually, the kinds of places might be the appropriate WP:VP or the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline. I'd probably personally tend to the appropriate VP for this remedy since it lies at an intersection of a couple of policies and guidelines. Izno (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for the clarification, Izno :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I'm somewhat confused as to Roxy and I both get simple reminders. I entirely agree with both of us deserving remedies, but am confused as to why Roxy isn't at least warned. I don't see our conducts as equally uncivil or disruptive at all, especially when Roxy's been blocked for incivility and edit warring repeatedly in the past. I would appreciate some clarification on this point. I would also appreciate some explanation of what conduct of mine was exemplary of battleground editing so I can avoid that in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Bilby

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'd like to thank the committee for their work in writing this - it is a complex issue and difficult to manage, and I think as a list of proposals that this is an excellent way of threading through the issues. My only real concern is that it leaves the problem of a group led by an editor seemingly acting on behalf of that editor untouched although raised, even if that editor is ultimately sanctioned by the committee. I'd like to suggest a statement along the lines that GSoW editors are regarded to have a conflict of interest in regards to the work of Sgerbic (and possibly Rp2006) as that would address the sorts of problems we saw with Tyler Henry without needing any specific sanction. I think that would be in keeping with he common reading of COI that members of an organisation have a COI in regard to the actions of that organsiation and the leadership of the same. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

One of the issues the drafters saw that we'd like to prevent is further attempts to identify editors in the group of interest, both for the concerns regarding privacy and for concerns that that activity isn't particularly productive (as opposed to identifying editors who are here with the intent to promote, for example, which can be shown more easily and which doesn't require substantial digging offwiki and sometimes not even onwiki). What do you think about those concerns, and does such an FOF help or harm?

As for a finding of fact in that regard, I am not sure of the utility, as FOFs should generally be written with the objective of providing a remedy. What remedy would go with such an FOF? Izno (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The remedy would be a simple statement that GSoW editors should regard themselves as having a conflict of interest in regard to the work of Sgerbic and GSoW in general. In regard to digging up identities, even if the remedy was effectively was limited to those who are self-disclosed it would be a step forward, and if the proposal for a list to be provided to an independent party was to go forward that would solve any issue. However, I don't believe that GSoW editors are acting in anything but good faith, so I would be very confident that they would follow any remedy without ever needing to be identified. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that simply by being trained you automatically have a COI with your trainer. Our COI guideline is, in my reading, more nuanced than that. Now I am sympathetic to the fact that the lack of transparency makes it hard to evaluate and causes some level of mistrust to exist where more transparency may not. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It isn't the training per se, but the membership of a non-profit group run by Sgerbic. If I'm the member of a nonprofit, I'd be regarding as having a COI in regard to the actions of that group and the leadership/membership of the organisation. (Which is, clearly, why I don't write about nonprofits which I'm part of). - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Bilby. I'm open to such a remedy. I noted to my fellow drafters earlier that I think there is room for a few more "reminder" remedies clarifying the bounds of our conduct requirements in this area, which is also one of the principal reasons I voted to accept this case. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by Gronk Oz

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please excuse me for raising this same point again, but I am concerned about difficulties in interpreting and implementing the decision as it is currently written, because terms like "skepticism trade publications" and "skepticism topics, broadly construed" are so ambiguous. If I look at WikiProject Skepticism, the topics they list as being in the scope of skepticism include all of valid science, pseudoscience, valid philosophy, pseudophilosophy, cults, and pseudoarchaeology. I cannot read the minds of the drafters, but I would be surprised if they intended the remedies to extend as broadly as that. So it leaves the question of just what is intended to be included in the scope of the remedies - more clarity would really be appreciated.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Skepticism topics, broadly construed", in my opinion does indeed include the scope at WikiProject Skepticism. "Skeptical trade publications" is much narrower and specifically describes publications using the "skeptic" label or are otherwise closely linked with scientific skepticism. Do you think that's still ambiguous? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with L235's takes. I'd be willing to consider and propose something of lesser scope than that described at the WikiProject, perhaps 'scientific skepticism' or 'the skeptical movement' as defined at 'scientific skepticism'. Izno (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by ScottishFinnishRadish

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Three things come to mind after reading the PD.

1. I think it's bananas that the same reminder would be given to someone who called another editor "dear" once and got a bit heated, and the whole finding of fact written about Roxy the dog, who referred to her as part of a lynch mob.
2. A topic ban for CSI, it's publications, writers and members eliminates the COI editing, and still allows other productive edits in the topic area.
3. Does pseudoscience DS apply to the topics of skeptics, skepticism, and psychics?

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re #1: A reasonable argument could well be made that more gradation is needed, and I'm open to arguments that it's necessary. How important do you think it really is in the long run? The ArbCom FoFs and remedies should be sufficient in the event of any further threads on the users, and honestly, their conduct was somewhat peripheral to the core questions involved in this case. But I'm open to being persuaded. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think no reminder is fine in ACS's case, as her behavior wouldn't raise eyes in any discussion I've seen. There was plenty of other low key incivility and heated discussion that didn't warrant a reminder, her's was more of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, in response to your comment on the Roxy remedy, I don't think warnings or admonishments are actually more stern. Either they're on notice from arbcom, or they're not. Whichever verb you choose doesn't much matter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are of course welcome to see it as you wish. But if ArbCom is stating "this behavior is worse than this other behavior and the way we're saying that is by using these different words" that doesn't change the fact that ArbCom is saying that one set of behavior is worse than the other even if they're all "on notice". Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding item 1, yes, I think I might still propose a 'harsher' remedy for Roxy the dog's behavior. I have of course supported the existing remedy in the interim. As for 'warning or admonishment' being sterner, the committee has been split on that topic for some years (and even whether such remedies should exist), but in practice it does serve to say 'yes, there was a difference between these two editors, even if we don't find that they should have had a remedy of meaningful consequence'. They are indeed on notice regardless.

Regarding item 3, I had four reasons that I did not propose a remedy/FOF on whether PSDS applies:

1. We explicitly said we were not interested in discussing ARBPS on the case talk page.
2. I had a sense that I might have disagreed, personally, with whether it does apply (I don't think it does). So I have an interest in not expanding it. If you think it's a problem that needs resolution, I would recommend WP:ARCA for that anyway, since it would be a modification of an existing regime.
3. The majority of the (severe) issues of interest that ended up being presented in the evidence could all have been as easily solved with BLP DS (hence my proposed reminder).
4. My observation is that the committee and community would rather have DS which are fewer in number and lesser in scope, and adding scope to an existing DS did not look necessary additionally per #3.

I cannot speak for the other drafters regarding item 3. Izno (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by DGG

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was a little surprised not to see a remedy related to principle 8, Editor groups with restricted membership. I see the proposal to confidentially provide a list of members, but that does not address the finding about the general unacceptability of such groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

@DGG: What kind of remedy were you hoping for? My sense is the Committee is not going to prohibit GSoW from existing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Comments by {username}

Comments by {username}

Please make a copy of this section for the next user.