Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Incivility: better word |
Pyrrho the Skipper (talk | contribs) Adding evidence of canvassing |
||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
* Chip Coffey [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Coffey&type=revision&diff=650155180&oldid=642014234] |
* Chip Coffey [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Coffey&type=revision&diff=650155180&oldid=642014234] |
||
* Suzane Northrop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzane_Northrop&type=revision&diff=1008164668&oldid=999590016] |
* Suzane Northrop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzane_Northrop&type=revision&diff=1008164668&oldid=999590016] |
||
==Evidence presented by Pyrrho the Skipper== |
|||
===Canvassing of a select group of editors to weigh in on a Talk Page discussion and poll=== |
|||
I believe this is relevant. Evidence of what appears to be [[WP:CANVASSING]] by an editor highly active in skeptic/pseudoscience to a small group of editors also active in skeptic/pseudoscience, to weigh in on a Talk Page [[Talk:Ginkgo_biloba/Archive_2#Removal_of_medical_information|discussion]] and straw poll. I do not know if any are members of GSoW, but I’m sure you will recognize the usernames. The consensus of the [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive337#Blatant_vote_stacking|ANI discussion]] was that the editor should have used neutral noticeboards to solicit outside opinions, rather than Talk Page requests to a small group of editors that were likely to agree. It resulted in a logged warning. |
|||
Canvassing diffs: |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog&diff=prev&oldid=1042236563][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psychologist_Guy&diff=prev&oldid=1042236739][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Girth_Summit&diff=prev&oldid=1042237047][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexbrn&diff=prev&oldid=1042237275] |
|||
[[User:Pyrrho the Skipper|Pyrrho the Skipper]] ([[User talk:Pyrrho the Skipper|talk]]) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
Revision as of 18:12, 21 January 2022
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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 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 arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.
Word and diff limits
- The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
- 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 Evidence talk page.
- 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 page history, an editor's contributions, or a 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 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 tit-for-tat on this page.
- Analysis of evidence should occur on the /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 incivil or engaging in 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.
Evidence presented by A. C. Santacruz
Roxy
- Roxy makes constant comparisons between other editors behaviors and those of violent political groups, something that I see as a personal attack. Examples: making a reference to Nazis [1], lynch mobs [2][3][4], witch hunts[5],
- Reverted without reading the justification for the edit [6]. This is concerning for a user that reverts as a large proportion of their editing and has a block log of edit warring and incivility stretching over many years.
Rp2006
RP seems to engage in behavior that could be considered canvassing, and per the first two links has in my opinion a likelihood of doing so off-wiki through Facebook or other means. Additionally, statements they have said on-wiki seem to conflict with paid-en-wp evidence.
- Possible off-wiki canvassing [7][8]
- Canvassing [9]
- Statement conflicts with paid-en-wp evidence (Won't quote due to OUTING concerns) [10][11]
Has not disclosed COI(s) affecting his editing
Sgerbic
Sgerbic has made accusations towards other editors of harassment. I don't believe she has provided the evidence to back those accusations and so consider them to be personal attacks towards others. In the diff below she mentions 2020, but I am unaware of discussions regarding GSoW that happened before I started participating actively in WP in June 2021.
- [12] Accusing Bilby of hounding.
Target of harassment/PAs
I have personally been the target of personal attacks and what I would consider harassment from Rp2006, Sgerbic, and Roxy.
From Rp:
- [13]
[...] means either you don't have a good enough command of English to be editing Wikipedia, or you choose to take everything out of context to play the victim. I can't say which.
- [14]
[...] This is why I refuse wasting my limited time looking over your multitude of edits in detail.
and [15][...] because I had no time to go point by point, but a quick read of her edits [...]
admitting to basically not reading either the large edit he reverted or justification for it in detail. - [16]
For some reason I am laughing at your "unintentional" claim. I am done with you.
Right below a message where I used {{admin help}} to get the outing edits revdel'd. The later thread at ANI shows just how nuanced the possible outing was in this case, especially for a new editor like myself. - [17] Calling for me to get topic banned and misconstruing the reason for my temporary block (ANI and not skeptic articles as well as due to good-faith mistakes (CIR) and not bad-faith behaviour), which is public in my block log.
- [18]
The above editor has assigned themselves as Wiki's NSA agent, and has been WP:Hounding me, and now I see I am not alone.
- [19][20][21][22] Bad-faith accusations and reaction to a neutral template I placed on his page due to the notice he placed on WP:Skepticism not being neutrally worded. His frequent mention of my act being
libel
,I am one step away of bringing you up on libel charges (or the equivalent here at WP)
, etc. is perhaps too close to a legal threat for my comfort. - [23] Accusing me of WP:NOTHERE
- [24] Calling me a detective? Huh?
- [25][26] Attack after I very nicely asked him not to misgender me
- [27] Same as ethical Sgerbic comment, see below.
From Roxy:
- [28] The matter had already been resolved, this is just an excuse to harass me for a nuanced mistake I had already done all the steps necessary to fix.
- [29] Not only calling my edits bad without justification, but also making false accusations as to my motives for editing.
- [30] Calling my work "silly" and being extremely patronizing.
- [31] WP:BITE
- [32]
Nominated by editor who doesn't like GSoW and went ape at ANI over it.
- [33]Misconstruing my ban from ANI due to WP:CIR as a topic ban.
- [34]
see [link] for your antagonism toward GSoW
in an article not about GSoW or someone involved in GSoW sounds like Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR - [35]
bluntly
accusing me of hounding - [36]
why they are being a huge drama queen about it escapes me. Bottom line, for those playing along, is that ACS thinks that the slightest disagreement with their editing is a gigantic personal attack, causing much pulling of hair and nessectitating (sp) drama fests and TLDR hand wringing at Dramah boards.
- [37] Unnecessary when I was trying to be nice with Sgerbic about a terrible message I received.
- [38]
Perhaps you should read WP:BRD and try to justify your Bold removal of sourced material on the Talk page, [...]
Even though I already had provided a justification for the bold edit, which - [39]
Does anybody know what to call a load of people attacking apparantly innocent people, for unspecified reasons, without incurring the ire of fringe sympathetic people on wikipedia? I have some ideas.
- [40]Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR
From Sgerbic:
- [41] I don't know what to call her saying me having a page watchlisted where I just started a discussion is "Interesting".
- [42] See above point.
- [43] I see this as an unnecessarily uncivil and personal response to a professional assessment.
- [44]
That's just wrong and creepy.
- about me looking for off-wiki evidence of undisclosed COIs (literally the only way to find such evidence). - [45] Accusing me of hounding and claiming that me finding nominating a valuable contribution is "unethical".
- [46] Assuming bad faith on my part.
- [47]
Fringe is fine I suppose as the only way to counter it is to use experts writing in R/S and it seems that ACS and her ilk don't think that is R/S, so I guess we throw that out. [...] Hound people to distraction I suppose is the new way.
- [48][49] Unnecessarily negative response to me literally just asking for clarification because she was making vague accusations.
Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish
How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: [50] [51] [52]
BLP/NPOV/DUE/Coatrack
There is a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE negative and defamatory content into BLP articles of psychics, alternative medicine practitioners and the like(PAMPATL). On the flip side, there has been a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE positive and fluffy content into the BLP articles of skeptics and those involved in the skeptic movement. There is also a clear disregard for WP:BLP applying to non-article space when dealing with PAMPATLs. I'm focusing on the BLP issues, as they're of the greatest import to me. Just because someone says they're a psychic or says the earth is flat does not give carte blanche to ignore BLP.
Thomas John (medium) was a BLPvio hit piece full of coatracked negative information
- [53] Creates a coatrack, over half the article negative, severe BLPvio in lead and body.
- [54] Just a formatting edit, makes it clear he's using a blog for negative information and quote mining.
- [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] COI source, used to coatrack more negative material in article.
- [66] Adds a SPS source
- [67] Cites WP:JEZEBEL for contentious info in a BLP
- [68] Restoring BLPvio and negative content to lead
- [69] Restoring negative content from a COI source
- [70] Restores BLPvio to lead after it was removed for BLP reasons
- [71] At this point, more than 90% negative information, clear violation of WP:UNDUE, [72] Rp2006 is responsible for 45kB of additions, next editor is only 8kB.
Susan Gerbic was a puff piece that had negative information about other BLPs coatracked in
Rp2006 and Khamar are the top two editors. Khamar seems likely to be affiliated with GSoW, per [73]. Collectively they are responsible for over two thirds of the edits to the article.
- [74] [75] [76] Roxy the dog removes COI template three times, despite on-going BLP thread outlining the COI.
- [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Attacks on other BLPs, in her article, sourced to her by an editor with a COI
- [84] Inserting puffery sourced to a non-independent source, added by an editor with a COI
- [85] [86] Inserting attacks on other BLPs into the article, sourced to SPS
Attempts to fix COI/puffery
- [87] SlimVirgin does a full rewrite in April 2021.
- [88] Myself in March 2021.
- [89] Drmies in March 2017 and a smaller edit[90] March 2021.
Rp2006 commits BLPvios in non-article space
- [91] "Only legitimate thing the subject does"
- [92] labels article subject "Medical quack" on his user page. Article states "Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery." This itself is BLPvio, using SPS in a BLP for negative claims.
- [93] Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page.
- [94] Pointy edit after initial evidence posted, retains BLPvio.
Battleground/Civility/Stonewalling
It is incredibly difficult to make any headway in discussions about issues in this area due to incivility and stonewalling during discussions.
Incivility and Stonewalling at the COIN thread
- [95] [96] [97] Witchfinder/witch hunt
- [98] "campaign against GSoW"
- [99] [100] "fringe sympathetic"
- [101] Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation), even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons
- [102] [103] [104] I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense?
- [105] Attacks editor's contribution percentages "you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it."
- [106] "I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama."
- [107] On Rp2006's user page, pointy PA during case related to the two prior diffs.
- [108] When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple."
- [109] Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV.
- [110] Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here.
- [111] It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well
- [112] More stonewalling and mild incivility.
Incivility discussion about possible COI on Rp2006's talk page
- [113] "Witchfinder General behavior"
- [114] Witch-finder, harrasment, hounding, obsessive accusations
Rp2006 makes personal attacks and is incivil
- [115] Calls DS/alert template harrassment
- [116] "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe."
- [117] "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere"
- [118] "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim."
- [119] "Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material"
Roxy the dog makes personal attacks and is incivil
- [120] "Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It does mean false accusation. Good grief."
- [121] general incivility
Stonewalling At Sharon A. Hill
This is the clearest example of what happens in the topic area when cleanup work is attempted.
- [122] Discussion on edits started on Nov26.
- [123] Revert with no discussion.
- [124] Revert again with no discussion.
- [125] Revert again with no discussion.
- [126] [127] [128] Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility.
- [129] Clear consensus close of a discussion about part of the edits made, showing they have merit. Another RFC is open, awaiting closure.
Evidence presented by tgeorgescu
There is WP:CONSENSUS to oppose edits contrary to: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. So, this isn't a case against organized skepticism. Organized skepticism is highly valued in societies based upon science and technology. Skeptics are in this respect welcome to edit Wikipedia, since they endorse science well-done and scholarship well-done. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Vaticidalprophet
Sgerbic and Rp2006 have made edits to and about BLPs that demonstrate an inability to understand WP:RS and WP:V. One element of this that shocked me at the time was proclaiming a source's content without reading it or a source's reliability without looking into its background; the degree to which this doesn't accord with the virtues of skepticism and scientific inquiry is one reason I have serious qualms about GSoW BLP editing.
- Special:Diff/1013867251: Sgerbic calls a source a "press release" advertising its subject; the actual source is highly critical
- Also this diff: Sgerbic refers to The Guardian and The Australian, both national newspapers of record, as unreliable sources
- Special:Diff/1013908195, Special:Diff/1013910356: Rp2006 repeatedly removes sources for being behind a paywall, in brazen violation of WP:PAYWALL (a subsection of WP:V)
- Special:Diff/1013910120, Special:Diff/1013914142, Special:Diff/1013912952, Special:Diff/1013913622: Rp2006 defends WP:V violations
- See further comments on this behaviour by DGG in Special:Diff/1014020791 (
I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable
), Epicgenius in Special:Diff/1014041726, and Vami IV in Special:Diff/1014067158 (On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever
).
- See further comments on this behaviour by DGG in Special:Diff/1014020791 (
This intersects with the issues regarding the Susan Gerbic article diffed by ScottishFinnishRadish.
This level of misunderstanding of basic content policy is questionable at the best of times. For people writing marginal BLPs on hot-button topics, it's wildly outside the bounds of acceptability. I've seen topic bans from BLPs for less. The tricky part here is that because Sgerbic and Rp2006 have an unknown number of private confederates who assist them in writing such BLPs, a tban alone couldn't be properly enforced by the community; this is why we've ended up here at all.
Evidence presented by GeneralNotability
Sgerbic encourages "backwards editing" to cite Skeptical Inquirer
As I mentioned in the case request, there is an oft-cited blog post in which Sgerbic encourages people to go out of their way to cite Skeptical Inquirer in Wikipedia articles.
Rp2006 has engaged in WP:SELFCITE
Since the evidence involved would out them, it cannot be shared publicly. See ticket:2021123110004401. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Tryptofish
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
Jimmy Wales famously said "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.
"[130] It's interesting to consider "lunatic charlatans" in the context of civility evidence in this case. Of course, that isn't policy for our purposes.
But WP:PSCI is core policy. And in the 2020 Jytdog case, ArbCom affirmed that policies (then, the harassment policy) can override guidelines, which include WP:COI and WP:CANVASS. Now, ArbCom needs to distinguish between very real misconduct, and mere differences in opinion on content among non-GSoW editors.
Case implications
A recent lengthy discussion at WT:AC, WT:Arbitration Committee/Archive 23#Requesting feedback from Arbitrators, dealt with challenges to the present-consensus about skepticism, and the decision in this case will influence what happens there.
Dispute at Sharon A. Hill
Incivility
In the context of closely-related evidence presented by other editors, the following should be included: [131] ("What the fuck?"), [132], [133]. I note the apology, and do not necessarily think it requires sanctions, but we seem to be showing how difficult the discussion environment was, so let's be even-handed.
Edit war
(placeholder for now)
Evidence presented by Bilby
GSoW is involved in off-wiki activism
The main focus here are the "sting" operations targeting mediums to discredit them, as described in: [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]
GSoW editors have been editing BLPs where they have COIs due to their off-wiki activism
In particular, GSoW members have extensively edited the BLPs of subjects who they targeted in order to include the result of their off-wiki activism, often sourced to publications by GSoW members and supporters.
Evidence presented by Pyrrho the Skipper
Canvassing of a select group of editors to weigh in on a Talk Page discussion and poll
I believe this is relevant. Evidence of what appears to be WP:CANVASSING by an editor highly active in skeptic/pseudoscience to a small group of editors also active in skeptic/pseudoscience, to weigh in on a Talk Page discussion and straw poll. I do not know if any are members of GSoW, but I’m sure you will recognize the usernames. The consensus of the ANI discussion was that the editor should have used neutral noticeboards to solicit outside opinions, rather than Talk Page requests to a small group of editors that were likely to agree. It resulted in a logged warning.
Canvassing diffs: [146][147][148][149] Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
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.
{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.