WP:ARBSCE

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed, however lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Case information

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Recuse, of course. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Granting 100 extra words to GeneralNotability for a total of 600. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: You can have 100 extra words for a total of 600, but I suggest you address your comments to the arbitrators rather than to a party. As a general rule it is not helpful to address comments to non-arbitrators here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're working on one last detail and then the case will be opened. Thanks for your patience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/0)

I'm awaiting statements for now before casting a formal vote, but I am inclined to accept this case request, primarily because the potential allegations of misconduct substantially arise from non-public evidence and secondarily because of the scope and scale of the potential issues. I believe each of the three questions presented by GeneralNotability is worth considering.
My initial impression – and this is based on just a couple threads, so it could change – is that GSoW has generally laudable goals and the large majority of its work is helpful. But enough concerns have been raised that some kind of inquiry is appropriate, and given the peculiarities of this case it seems like only ArbCom is in a position to conduct it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept in substantial agreement with Enterprisey. In reply to @Primefac: Based on what I've seen here, I think the scope of the case should be primarily the editors (and GSoW as a group), not the topic.
To all parties: this case is one where it is possible I won't vote for any sanctions; I can see us acting to clarify the bounds of what is acceptable and what is not (possibly with the benefit of private evidence) without stern remedies. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgerbic: Thank you for submitting a statement. I understand participating in an ArbCom request is not enjoyable and not what everyone participating here wishes to be doing. The guide to arbitration linked on your talk page contains some procedural background, but one thing I wanted to let you know from the outset is that the Committee may be emailed (arbcom-enwikimedia.org or Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) in the event that non-public submissions are necessary. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had followed along with the ANI thread as it had seemed somewhat likely at that time that a case request might occur. I have not followed this issue since and so I look forward to reviewing the subsequent discussions, private tickets, and statements by editors here. Let me stress, at the outset, that the kinds of statements I find most helpful are factually worded statements backed up by diffs or similar evidence submitted privately and that the people commenting either have been personally affected by the case request topic or have a new perspective to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Unlike my colleagues below I've found the private evidence on its own insufficient for a case. But I think the community is clearly unable to resolve whether there has been any COI editing (for which the private evidence is of some help), and if there has whether it violates policies or guidelines, and whether there has been any violations of policy or guidelines in regards to the operation of the GSoW. These are both areas with-in ArbCom's remit to examine. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, can you link to some discussions that don't involve GSoW and that indicate issues with the broader topic area of skepticism? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, but to Wyatt Tyrone Smith and the rest of GSoW, I will emphasize that I'm sure GSoW has done some good work and I'm not just here to throw out good edits. As has been said many times, we have editathons and other special-interest groups that don't coordinate onwiki; that aspect by itself isn't cause for concern. Anyway, previous discussions on this topic have been hampered by the need to submit private evidence, so my bar for accepting is lower. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an interesting case, and I'm leaning towards accepting. Not because I believe that Arbcom will be able to sort out the problems, but because a proposed decision with findings on problematic behaviours would allow the community to come together and work out a solution through an RfC. I'm particularly concerned that this includes adding over-egged pro-science material to BLP articles - BLPs should not be used as coatracks for hot topics, they very quickly become attack pages and cause real world harm. That said, I will await more statements, for the time being. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the statements, we should be accepting this case. I'm also considering scope, perhaps something like "CoI around scepticism". I'm sure we'll work it out. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to hear more first, in particular if this is primarily around a topic area (skepticism) or a group of editors/pattern of editing (GSoW). @ScottishFinnishRadish: when you say "responses to Johnuniq", can you be more specific and post diffs? Do you mean this? That's a long thread, and your signature appears 51 times on COIN as it stands now. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept, primarily due to the private component surrounding the GSoW group. I see that there may be some other editors editing the same subjects whose behavior may be contributing to the problem, but I think the primary scope should be narrower than "skepticism" or "pseudoscience 2". Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, mostly because there appears to be a private component to this dispute. – bradv^🍁 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, for much the same reason as Bradv (though there is some indication this has been brewing for a few years without resolution based on email this morning). --Izno (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also leaning towards accept, but like Opabinia regalis I am seeing a bit of a split between the topic (cf. Pseudoscience) and the group of editors (cf. Scientology) as the main point of contention. I do realise that is ArbCom's call to make in defining the scope, but I would prefer it to be a little more clear if we do accept the case what sort of evidence we will be expected to look at. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept following the newest statements. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept --BDD (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I see the scope as being the group of editors rather than the topic area. Reading through the two cases Primefac brings up, WP:ARBSCI seems a better example of the kinds of problems and solutions we'll be discussing than WP:ARBPS. — Wug·a·po·des 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, it appears to me an issue of charting the line between open collaboration and closed conspiracy & spotting where on the continuum GSoW lies, with a side dish of WP:RGW & blindness to one's own WP:COI. Cabayi (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months) are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.