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

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)

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

Clarification on the scope

Hi! The scope mentions "editing behaviour" and I'm a bit unsure what this means. Does this include editor conduct, such as in noticeboards or interacting with other editors on talk pages, or just edits themselves? If it is the latter, does this also include discussion of edits/reverts? Thanks, A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone official will answer but it includes all of the above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz, John is correct. All of the above can be submitted as evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, Johnuniq and Barkeep49 :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So I'm confused - the accepts sure looked like the arbs wanted to restrict this to behavior of editors, and the case title is in line with that, but the case scope adds on "editing behavior," which basically expands the case to the entire topic area. We see this on the evidence page - mostly discussions of possible coordinated editing, but also two sections focusing on Roxy. So is the intent to examine behavior of the topic area as a whole now? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My section on Roxy is from discussions in the recent GSoW/COI/NPOV dust up, just diffs from outside of the few discussions I was outlining the issues with. I assume that keeps it topical. That's why I didn't include their incivility and edit warring over Ariel Fernandez in the same time period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will reply in #Scope?. Izno (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Gronk Oz be added to the case as a party?

Hi! Based on this past discussion on Rp2006's talk page, Gronk Oz (from what I understand) admits to being a member of GSoW. I was wondering if it would be appropriate then for them to be added to the case or not. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to know who ever member of GSoW to decide this case. It is possible that being a member of GSoW will found to be a problem. If so, I would expect there to be a way to apply whatever remedy is chosen to new editors either at WP:AE or WP:ARCA. It is also possible that being a member of GSoW will not be found to be a problem. In that case we definitely do not need to know all of its members. To the extent that an editor wishes to make the argument that GSoW as an organization has acted improperly, evidence can be submitted to show editors doing X, including evidence that the person doing X was a member of GSoW. In that case each arb can consider the evidence and decide how to weight it for themselves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Barkeep49. I just asked in case it was useful to get their perspective rather than because they might have acted improperly (not as far as I know, really) :). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, as discussed elsewhere on these case pages, if there is evidence that Gronk Oz has edited without our mission coming first, then we can consider adding Gronk Oz as a party. Izno (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to provide my perspective as a GSoW member if that will help. I have never been involved with ArbCom so I am not sure what is the correct way to do that - should I add a new section in Evidence? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it's for evidence (with links to verify assertions made). You could show evidence of bad edits (bad = contrary to policies or guidelines), or evidence of good edits. A central question concerns whether GSoW is, on balance, disruptive or helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq. Similar to Sgerbic below, I struggle with understanding what the term "skepticism topics" is intended to cover. If we take skeptics' conventions as an indication, I have only been to three and the invited speakers included a Nobel-winning astro-physicist, archaeologist, historian, consumer protection advocates, medical practitioners, religious academic, school teacher, private detective, and even a guy who solved two Rubiks cubes at once behind his back. Where then are the boundaries of what is being called "skepticism topics"? It seems to me that skepticism is not a topic area as much as a method of investigation. So I would appreciate some clarification of what that term means, in order to make a meaningful submission.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

See my comment below and browse the evidence already presented. That evidence intends to show unhelpful editing by GSoW members. We cannot know how Arbcom will assess that or how they would react to positive evidence. Nevertheless, and if wanted, you could state whether you consider to be part of GSoW, perhaps informally, and assert that you have created good content (link to examples). I haven't examined much but have seen diffs of dubious edits (easily correctable problems IMHO), but have also seen good edits. Some of those should be presented in evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic questions

So wait, what is the scope of this? According to the title "The scope of this case is: Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics" So is GSoW on trial? I'm confused. And is it all editing behavior from any editor that has posted in skepticism topics? What is the scope of skepticism, does that include pseudoscience topics? And science? I hate to be pedantic but as this is the first ArbCom I've ever been to, and my name seems to be the main one mentioned, I would like to be clear. What is the scope? If I have no evidence of coordinated editing, then I guess then I say nothing about that? Am I the main one on trial? Am I allowed to respond to each piece of evidence against me? Do I get to see the private evidence? I've read the instructions several times but this still isn't clear to me. Sgerbic (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding coordinated editing, I believe evidence that GSoW is not engaged in coordinated editing would also be relevant - to be clear, you are stating that GSoW is not engaged in coordinated editing? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by coordinated editing? Sgerbic (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors closely collaborating, across multiple articles or talk pages, using public or private methods, for ends that align with our purpose or for ends that do not. However, it might be a good idea for ArbCom to clarify what they mean, as my definition likely differs. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How would that be shown or not shown? Yes, I don't see how I will be able to respond to all of this until I receive some clarification. What about all the other questions I asked? By editors, do you mean me? Do you mean GSoW? Do you mean just any editor anywhere? Sgerbic (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No one is on trial. Coordinated editing would be if editor A is reverted, then A gets like-minded editors B and possibly C to assist restoring A's text. That might happen in fact (A did canvass B and C), or it might happen because A, B and C watch each other and cooperate. The case request is archived at Preliminary statements. It shows the claims that were made such as whether inappropriate off-wiki coordination has occurred and whether GSoW has violated any Wikipedia policies. Other claims concern possible violations of WP:COI. That has been summed up in the scope of "Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics" shown on the main case page. Anyone can respond to claims made at the evidence page but responses should be brief and focused on edits that have occurred, with links. Private evidence will not be shared. It's obvious what that is about, namely an editor has (it is claimed) linked to a reference that they themselved wrote. The private evidence will contain opinions regarding that. In principle, it could be any information that would not be suitable for public hearing. When anyone's history is examined, defects are always found. The question for Arbcom will concern the big picture of whether GSoW helps or harms the development of articles that comply with policies such as WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Others will list every claimed defect, so you may like to show some edits that are good, or refute some of the claims. A key question will be whether there are recent defects (in the last few months) and whether attempts to remove defects have been hindered by GSoW participants. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So to be clear "Statement by GeneralNotability" with the three questions that I answered in my first statement is what this is all about? The evidence that is presented is to answer those questions? And do I address each of the pieces of evidence, one at a time? So you say that no one is on trial, but it does sound like GSoW is on trial. Sgerbic (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to help with the general questions; I just wished to note that I believe any evidence you might have that GSoW does not engage in coordinated editing would be as relevant as evidence that they do. My definition was intended to be general, so I meant editors in general - note that while coordinated editing can be bad, if done in the wrong way or with the wrong intent, I don't believe that it is inherently bad. BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How in the heck am I going to present evidence that it does not happen? Sgerbic (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"If done in the wrong way"? Can I get something to read that explains this? Sgerbic (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Probabilistic evidence might be helpful, though difficult to produce without access to a list of members and articles. As for the wrong way, I don't think there is anything to read, but I would say that in general it is done in the wrong way if it is not done in accordance with our policies and guidelines. As an extreme example, these companies are doing coordinated editing in the wrong way.

However, I think I will leave this discussion here, as I worry that I am confusing the matter rather than helping. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

But BilledMammal aren't you one of the people producing evidence against me? I thought you understood all this, you just wrote that you don't feel qualified to help with the general questions, so I really don't understand now. Who can answer these questions? I have to come up with a statement by the end of the month and have no clue what I'm responding to. Am I supposed to asking these questions somewhere else? And is there something I can read a policy or something that would make it clear? I don't want to respond to something that sounds like "we know it when we see it". Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Is GSoW being accused of being a group of paid editors? No one is paid, how would I prove that? Sgerbic (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the best people to answer those questions are ArbCom, although I believe Johnuniq's answers are generally correct. Before leaving the discussion, I will just clarify that as far as I know GSoW is not being accused of being a group of paid editors; the example I presented was just an extreme example of improper coordinated editing. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So where do I go to get the answers? Sgerbic (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You're at the right place, just need to wait now. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sgerbic, I've seen these questions. We (the drafters) will try to have some answers for you tomorrow (as I need to sleep). --Izno (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Susan. There is no one right way to present evidence and the general principles of good writing tend to apply: be concise and clear and backup your writing with evidence. In terms of scope, I think you're aware of the concerns expressed about GSoW and your editing in past discussions. You can also see the evidence others are providing. Focusing on responding to those, and providing evidence of any misconduct you've seen from the other parties, would be' one reasonable approach. You start with 1000 words and 100 diffs for your evidence, which would include any rebuttal evidence. Traditionally the committee has been fairly willing to grant reasonable exceptions (for instance we're about to grant an extra 250 words to someone), you would just need to ask. In terms of private evidence, I will need to get back to you. I think I've touched on all your big questions, but I'm sure I might have missed something important or you might have follow-ups. Please ask. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So PLEASE can you answer my questions here? #1 Who specifically is on trial here? Sgerbic (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly am trying to answer your questions. We are not a court, so trial is not the right word. But the editors listed as parties are having their actions examined. So are the actions of GSoW as a group. We are also open to evidence of broader issues with-in the topic of skepticism. You had noted at one of the noticeboard discussiond that you would be happy to lay out your full case to the appropriate people. ArbCom are those people. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Which GSoW are you talking about or do you mean ALL GSoW, known and unknown? I will lay out all the evidence when I'm given some clarity. Sgerbic (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The specific people we're talking about are parties. There is also organizationally the GSoW to consider. For now efforts to figure out who all is a member of GSoW doesn't feel necessary - if GSoW hasn't done anything wrong what difference does it make who is a member? In terms of how we are looking at the GSoW there has been a lot of attention given to the kinds of training being given (i.e. backwards editing) and whether there has been inappropriate attempts to coordinate efforts to manipulate Wikipedia processes (i.e. Article for Deletion discussions). So there are the actions of individuals, the actions of GSoW as a group, and potentially broader actions within the skepticism topic area to consider. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

So this is a giant non-trial against myself and a group of unknown editors? Arbcom is evaluating GSoW training based on one article I wrote years ago to a an non-GSoW audience. Sgerbic (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I should add, a non-trail but evidence is being asked for, and there may be disciplinary sanctions. How is that not a trial? Sgerbic (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an examiniation into the conduct of you and six other specific editors you can find here. It is an examination into whether the actions of GSoW as an organization have violated any policies and guidelines. The answer might be no. If it is your critics will have a much harder time making future accusations that gain traction. If the answer is yes, I would presume you would be willing to make changes. If you would, privately, like to share the list of editors who are GSoW members, so that it's not a group of unknown editors that option is open to you. I am hoping that these answers are useful in helping you understand what is going on here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some distinctions between this and trials in western democratic systems, include the fact that there can be more than two sides (as in this case as I don't think the parties can be cleanly split into two sides), the expectation is that people represent themselves, and past cases don't form a binding precedent. Interested parties can also give input into the resolution, both by proposing it (at the workshop), and commenting on it before it is enacted (at the proposed decision). All that said if it helps you to think of this as a trial, rather than an examination (the word I have been using) I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise but I did want to set expectations that not everyone will be thinking of it that way. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How I think of it is a number of people consulting a council of elders regarding a problem (my understanding of that is based on my New Testament upbringing, but the concept should be understood in the general sense). The point is not to punish anyone or split the people into two sides, but rather for the elders to use their wisdom and experience to resolve the issue and clarify what the PAGs mean. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. How do I know that any information given privately is going to be kept privately to Arbcom members listed here only.

I completely understand that this is a line in the sand that after what ever ruling comes down, the accusers will be told to leave well-enough alone. Going forward this is a new world. I get that. Of course we will make changes, we already have as I have already said in my statement at ArbCom. But how can there be a examination of the training when the training is private and unknown? I'm not understanding the scope.

Question #2 What is meant by being related to skepticism? Is this any interaction from the beginning of an editors edit history? Only the last six months? What? And what is meant specifically by skepticism. I seem much of this "evidence" is from talk pages, COIN, user pages, threads that escalated into drama from all over WikiMedia. I thought we were talking about main pages and the specific talk page at question. Are we talking about pseudoscience pages, fringe pages, science pages ... what? Sgerbic (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a place that I can have a private conversation with ArbCom members only? Sgerbic (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You are a skeptic and I don't blame you for being skeptical about private information. That said, I think ArbCom's track record is strong in this area for a number of years. Every member of the committee has signed a non-disclosure agreement and also takes this quite seriously. I obviously can't share what the committee receives that doesn't ever get made public, but if you read through the archives of the ArbCom noticeboard you can get a sense of some of it. Some of the information we receive is of far more public consequence than this case and that information doesn't leak. Ultimately you will need to make a choice about your trust level.

As for how we will proceed with incomplete information, we will make decisions based on the evidence we do have. If we don't receive access to the full training, we will make the decision based on the evidence submitted that gives some insight into that training. We're trying to gather as much evidence as we can, which is why we're accepting private evidence which is quite unusual for cases. Then we're going to examine how that evidence shows compliance with policies and guidelines, report our findings, and issue any remedies we think appropriate.

In terms of what evidence can be submitted, basically everything you listed could be submitted. In general the newer something is the more weight it will be given. Something from a few years ago will probably be considered stale, unless it can be shown to be part of an ongoing pattern.

As to related to skepticism I agree it's some what ambiguous; it is intentionally so. We don't want to preempt evidence that would help illuminate the core issues at hand, but we also don't want to do a complete examination of the topic area (like some suggested we do as a sort of follow-up to pseduoscience). And those core issues are the conduct of the named editors and the actions of GSoW. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I have a private conversation with only ArbCom. I will answer questions there. Sgerbic (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As you know the default on Wikipedia is public and transparent. ArbCom is special in that we have the option of doing some things privately. But even still there is the community expectation, codified in policy, that we will be public and transparent as much as possible. As I noted above even accepting private evidence in this case is unusual (but also necessary in order to comply with other policies and guidelines, with WP:OUTING being foremost among them). Further, it is not practice for Arbs to have conversations with parties about matters of substance; this is why there hasn't been any comments from Arbs about the evidence submitted so far. Even an extended conversation like this about procedure is a little unusual. That said, our email is most definitely open to you (for instance for private evidence). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This is so frustrating. I'm supposed to defend GSoW training and the great editing by GSoW but my hands are tied. Surely you have seen what happens when someone attempts to out a GSoW editor? I can give you diffs of harassment I'm experiencing from editors, but why? If the scope is skepticism, then why bring in harassment on user and admin pages? It's all out there for everyone to see and there have been no repercussions, it keeps on and on and on. I am adverse to encouraging more drama, it is not healthy for Wikipedia and divides us into two camps. it is hateful and ugly and I want no part in it. I'm told I need to show good edits for myself, and I suppose the GSoW team members, but if I show anything then I've outed them here and the harassment starts. "Evidence" is being pulled from areas where tempers and frustration rages, diff's are picked without context. People are being called GSoW and their edits picked apart but they are not GSoW, I've never heard of them before.

There are over a hundred editors in GSoW today, and hundreds have passed though training over the years and they have gone on their own path, how am I to speak for everyone? We have created 1,012 English pages and tens of thousands of edits outside of that. ArbCom is going to evaluate that body of work without knowing what that body of work is? You want me to list 1,012 English pages? Even though doing so will reveal the GSoW editors that created the pages? Without that information then you are left with the cherry-picked few pages from the detractors giving "Evidence" here.

Are you expecting me to answer each piece of "evidence" that is given here within 1000 words? And you say everyone mentioned is open for me to give evidence of, even if they don't normally edit pages concerning "skepticism" and even if the evidence I'm providing is from a talk, user or admin page? Even if it has nothing to do with coordinated editing, but harassment, tone ect? That seems really far reaching. And I can give all this evidence privately to keep from creating more drama? But then they can't respond to it how is that fair to them?

I understand you are bending the rules to explain this to me. I am taking this very seriously, GSoW is a very important project. I care very strongly that I am able to continue to edit and train. So I need understand, there may be sanctions for me and to unknown editors based on the decision of ArbCom. A decision that is made up from three or four detractors giving their "evidence"? This is far-reaching and stressful. Sgerbic (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lastly - this "evidence" I'm seeing from my detractors keeps saying "The GSoW did this or that" When they don't know who GSoW is? I don't control Wikipedia, so how am I expected to control what edits are put on what page by editors I've never heard of before? Sgerbic (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Comment from someone who isn't an Arbcom member) They would have to show evidence that the edit is from a GSoW member and that the rest of the GSoW knew about that person breaking Wikipedia's rules and either approved or did nothing.

How to prove that someone is a GSoW member? They could freely admit it of course. There could, for example have a conversation on the GSoW facebook page saying something like "Date X is wrong and name Y is misspelled, I just fixed it" shortly after a particular Wikipedia editor made those exact changes. The point is that the evidence has to be in the accusation, otherwise it will be discounted as not being supported by evidence.

Then, of course they would have to show that this person made some sort of bad edits. Off-wiki coordination is allowed if it doesn't harm the encyclopedia. For example, I am part of an informal group who sometimes discuss improving our coverage of ARM microcontrollers, but we follow the rules.

Even then the above doesn't prove that "The GSoW" did something wrong, just the individual who made the bad edits. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Guy - I wasn't aware that it was okay to visit the GSoW Facebook page (which is public - so much for hiding our edits) and making a list of who is responding to comments. That gives the "investigator" the personal name of the editor. I can't obviously stop someone from doing this, but it does seem bad faith. One editor did so in 2020 and was told to knock it off, and apparently did so. But it started up again in November 2021 and continues, I'm not seeing any repercussions to that editor, so I suppose this is considered okay?

Also it is not uncommon for an editor such as Jessica Wise (I hope that is her name) to post pages she had written to Twitter and ask people to improve the article. Those responding to her request are not necessarily a part of her "team" but just other editors. That is NOT canvassing in any stretch of the imagination. So listing people that correct spelling on a page I have "announced" I just wrote does not mean the spelling fixer is GSoW.

I hate to keep harping these questions but I need to know, am I supposed to respond during this evidence phase to every thing listed here by my detractors? What are we at now? Over 100? And then I'm supposed to show evidence of good editing for myself and GSoW with my remaining 1000 words allowed? ArbCom can look at my edit history and those of the few GSoW editors that have chosen to out themselves, yet they are asking for me to supply evidence. AND do I need to respond to every diff that is listed here that is from a talk, user, admin conversation where the conversation might have become heated and the whole context is missing? And still do this within my 1,000 word limit? Sgerbic (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy already disallows an editor from connecting a second editor to the second editor's offwiki or real identities without the second editor first adding that connection themselves onwiki (see WP:OUTING). If this has happened, you may request oversight for permanent removal from view of most users with any of the methods described at WP:Oversight.

However, as noted at WP:OUTING, editors may still connect the dots in a case of potential conflict of interest, in which case they are allowed to submit those dots to an administrator or arbitrator. (As further noted, that should not generally extend to "investigation" offwiki.)

In general, our policy on harassment, of which OUTING is a part, is not okay, but the definition of harassment does not always extend to editors who are believed not to be here in good faith. In the context of a group of editors, it can be difficult to tell whether the group is here collectively or individually in good faith when the group is not transparent about their membership and activities (for whatever reason). (For an ancient community-resolved case of interest, Esperanza is notable, and I see you've been linked to the previous arbitration case regarding IRC.) You can perhaps see why the activities that GSoW has taken would be of primary interest in this arbitration case, and also why we are accepting private evidence for this case.

Regarding claims of canvassing, we will evaluate such claims as part of our decision, the relevant policy pages for which are WP:canvassing and WP:meatpuppetry. Izno (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I know from personal experience as a party that it is stressful. So you have my empathy on that. ArbCom is going to evaluate the evidence we receive. And we are going to do so in a deliberate and procedure bound way. It's kind of up to you how much you would like to share. I certainly understand why you choose not to train onwiki because it is, as you note, intimidating for many. But that is going to raise questions because Wikipedians are, by their nature, skeptical when something lacks transparency. Part of the value of ArbCom is in having people trusted by the community to characterize information that can't be made transparent. Either way, ArbCom will evaluate the evidence we do have, including how strong we think evidence is that someone is a GSoW member. Might we get some of it wrong? Perhaps which is why if you want to share evidence with us privately, that remains open to you and if not, well as someone bound by strict confidentiality agreements, I will understand without prejudice. ArbCom will absolutely evaluate evidence showing that you and other GSoW members have been harassed or otherwise treated in ways that violate behavior expectations. That is part of this process. As to word counts, we are in general quite open to extensions where they make sense. We want to make good decisions and the purpose of word counts is to make sure we're not overwhelmed with evidence, that we don't miss things because it was buried amidst lots of usefulness information. Given the amount of information you have that is pertinent to this case I would expect we'd be particularly open to reasonable extension requests from you. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict Barkeep - So can you please explain if I'm responding to everything during the evidence phase? Or do I wait till the non-evidence (whatever criteria that is) is removed? Otherwise this is going to become quite tedious and me generally saying, "that's not how it happened and here is the context of the issue" and that will get even longer. I've tried to explain our training procedure on one of these giant lists of text on one of these admin groups - I believe it is also listed on the Sgerbic user page. I may present evidence of the pages that I have written, but I can't out my team, so it is up to them if they want to do so. But I expect it will be done privately as we mainly edit in main space and rarely deal with admin areas, thus avoiding drama. Already with all these comments my percentage of edits to main space is dropping. I have a page sitting here on my desktop that badly needs a rewrite, but I have lost all appetite for getting work done. Sgerbic (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You should not feel a need to respond to every piece of evidence. A couple of strategies are you can respond to representative examples or group by a theme and respond to those themes. If something would be apparently baseless you can also trust that the arbs will see that. If you feel like you've explained certain things, like training, it is worthwhile to link to that diff. Beyond that I'd encourage you to take a (re-)look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Open_cases and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence_and_argumentation which have advice for you on topics we've been discussing. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Extending the time for evidence?

Hi! I think perhaps the case would be benefitted if an extra week is given to the evidence gathering period so that Sgerbic can fully participate in the case. I understand that this process is being incredibly stressful to her, and think that if she thinks 31st of January is too close a deadline for her to first learn more about how Arbcom works and then provide evidence/participate in the Workshop, it would be in the interest of the community that this deadline is extended. Her perspective in this case is of the highest value, and if she is impaired in her ability to express her opinions on the matter fully then that will have a negative effect on the quality of the case's resolution. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No - I think I have it now - last thing I want is for this to continue a day longer than necessary. Sgerbic (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. Just thought I'd ask :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Right? What's worse than an arbcom case? A more drawn out arbcom case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 155#Wiki editing organisation --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope?

Re: "The scope of this case is: Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics.":

I read the above as being about coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing.

Some of those who have presented evidence seem to think that the scope includes any editing behavior in skepticism topics whether or not the editors are involved in coordinated editing.

Which is it?

Some of the evidence is simply a list of objectionable edits by a person without any claims that they in any way coordinated their editing with anyone else. In my opinion, such behavior should be handled by an ANI case naming the editor. The reasons given for accepting this case (private evidence and outing concerns) simply don't apply to a lone individual's edits. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The same way a clear cut COI case with an arb saying they had received convincing evidence of COI editing would be handled at the COI noticeboard in a discussion naming the editor? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If the evidence of COI is public, then the arb should indeed post it on COIN and let one of our non-arb admins handle it. If instead the evidence is only available to arbcom, then arbcom would have to handle it. Arbs are a scarce resource. They should not be wasted on anything that can be handled by an ordinary admin at COIN, BLPNB, ANI, etc.

You (and anyone else offering evidence) can help the arbs by making clear whether the editor you are discussing is known to be part of GSoW, that you suspect they are, or that you have no evidence that they are. And of course the arbs may have private evidence and already know whether the editor is part of GSoW even if you and I don't. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean something like this? I feel you may not be fully aware of what led up to this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that I am fully aware of what led up to this case.

The diff you just posted shows GeneralNotability (who is not an arbitrator) posting on COIN (which is not arbcon) about evidence of Rp2006 having a COI which cannot be posted without outing. Now Rp2006 is named in this case, as is GeneralNotability, and arbcom has the evidence. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence#Rp2006 has engaged in WP:SELFCITE. All perfectly normal and expected behavior is such cases. Clearly something arbcom has to deal with.

Now compare the evidence posted about the behavior of Roxy the Dog. I see all sorts of claims about behavior but unless I am missing something nobody has posted a shred of evidence of GSoW membership or coordination with GSoW. Even if everything said about Roxy is true, why can't they be dealt with at ANI? The admins at ANI have been able to deal with Roxy just fine so far; see the block log at [1].

So again, if the scope of this case is any editing behavior in skepticism topics whether or not the editors are involved in coordinated editing, Roxy (and a couple of hundred other people) are in the scope.

But if the scope of this case is coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing, where is the evidence that Roxy has engaged in coordinated editing?

Arbs, which of the above is the scope of this case? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether he is a member or not, the character of his actions and the context in which they happen makes me believe that there is no practical difference whether he's a 'card-carrying member' of GSoW or not when determining if his actions are co-ordinated with GSoW members. I wish to analyze that further in the Workshop as part of the evidence analysis but thought it best to do so after the deadline. If your only issue with the evidence provided so far is the Roxy case I think that the current scope fits the case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Tell me if I am reading the above correctly. As I understand the answer, the scope of this case is "coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing", and the scope is not "anyone editing in skepticism topics", and the arbs want to evaluate whether Roxy has de-facto coordinated with GSoW members. Which seems quite reasonable. Did I get that right?

So what if the decision is "absolutely no co-ordination with GSoW or anyone else, but definitely unacceptable behavior"? In that case does Roxy get arbcom sanctions for the bad behavior or do you refer him to ANI so the arbs can focus on GSoW-related behavior? I suspect that in a case that came back to them from arbcom ANI would give Roxy much harsher sanctions than arbcom would, but ANI sanctions are easier to appeal.

Given the above hypothetical, I can see the appeal of "while they are in front of us, might as well sanction them", but I can also see the appeal of "We all agree that there is no hint of GSoW coordination so let's not waste time even discussing out-of-scope behavior that ANI can handle just fine."

Also, there is a possibility of opening the door to gaming the system some time in the future. Let's say I think that User:example is being a real jerk, but ANI disagrees. I see an upcoming My Little Pony arbcom case, make a bogus claim that example is involved in MLP, and post evidence of a bunch of non-MLP wrongdoing. Arbcom decides no MLP involvement but sanctions Example for the unrelated misbehavior. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the scope is more like "Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics." They're have been a number of discussions, none with any clear outcomes. It's clear the community cannot handle this. Every thread becomes a morass, whether or not GSoW is the topic.

I don't find your example very persuasive. Take, instead, for example a situation where a user takes part in a number of discussions over two months, offering little but personal attacks and incivility. In many of these discussions other editors note that the topic should go before arbcom. The topic ends up at arbcom, and after opening statements saying that one of the reasons there are problems in the topic is that incivility and personal attacks are common. The example user is added as a party.

There's a pretty clear thread to follow through how things moved along. The community can't address the COI editing, or any other issues in the topic, because attempts are immediately met with attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding it is not unusual for Arbcom to give out individual sanctions (e.g. topic bans) in cases such as the one you are describing above. Regarding your example, I think that arbs would quickly dismiss that claim. The only reason why I see analysis of Roxy's actions in the topic area as reasonable within the case's scope is his addition as a party to the case. The same way that I see the diff of my misbehavior that's been added to be warranted and beneficial to the case (although I myself am not connected to GSoW nor engaging in a "witch-hunt"). I think in this case as well it is quite clear that the community wouldn't be able to handle sub-issues going to ANI. I believe this because in the latest ANI thread ("Outing") and the COIN thread many experienced editors said they believed this should be dealt at arbcom due to how branching and contentious the discussions get, so I'd expect a similar response to say, discussing Roxy's behavior in ANI. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think that you asking for the case scope to be clarified is a good initiative, Guy Macon, so I hope I don't sound dismissive in my reply. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. Very helpful. I still would like a definitive answer from an arb, of course. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We had some discussion before opening the case (hence the delay) on the best title and way to scope this case.

1. The scope of the case is not all skepticism topics. This is for two reasons: 1) that's a broader scope than was evidenced as necessary in the request statements, and 2) we did not see a need to revisit WP:ARBPS, which would have a strong overlap with skepticism as a whole.
2. The scope of the case includes GSOW per the case request. This is the predominant reason for the "coordinated editing" in the case name and scope as well as the reference to skepticism in the case name.
3. The scope of the case is not just GSOW. We saw in the case statements that there were other editors whose behavior needed to be examined (later named as parties) that indicated unresolved conduct disputes. This is the predominant reason for the "editing behavior" in the case scope and skepticism in the case name and scope.

At the end of the day, named parties are directly in scope, in so far as their editing crosses into topics related to skepticism. We are particularly interested in evidence of (problematic) coordinated editing in the topic area (regardless of whether it concerns a named party). Beyond that, we welcome evidence of problematic conduct if it is near the locus of items 2 and 3 above.

We realize that's not the brightest set of lines. If other evidence indicates other problematic conduct in the area exists, it is reasonable to submit it as part of the arbitration process, part of which is to let people submit what they think is important for the arbitrators to review for issues.

I hope that sufficiently answers questions of scope. Izno (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Very clear, and answered all of my questions. Thanks! --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

L235 added as a drafter

Just wanted to formally announced that L235 has joined Izno and I as a drafter for this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

PD extended one week

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)

Added principles of this case

Just as a note, I have added the principles from this case to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles. Feel free to edit the index to correct any errors I may have put accidentally. Thank you. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Block of Rp2006

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of Rp2006 (talk · contribs).

Enacted - Aoidh (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support:

1. A consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. Seraphimblade, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has no objections to us doing this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
2. my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - Aoidh (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
5. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
6. Cabayi (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for SCE in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.