Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 186

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rp2006 has made an edit to an article that includes a reference to a source with which I believe Rp2006 has a WP:COI relationship. The content in question was initially added by an editor other than Rp2006, later removed by a second editor, and reinstated by Rp2006. I believe that Rp2006 should disclose their relationship to the source per WP:COI, but Rp2006 does not believe a disclosure is required because the edit was a revert and not adding the source in the first instance. I don't believe the fact that it was a revert relieves Rp2006's obligations under WP:COI, and that if anything, a COI is even more relevant when it comes to reinstating removed content than adding it in the first instance. Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? Levivich 00:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is complicated by the fact that making references to the COI Rp2006 has with certain publishers/magazines/companies is hard to do without outing, even when the COI exists, unless he comes forward and properly discloses the COI both in his user page and in relevant articles (per WP:DCOI). Note the user page is not obligatory, but it would be helpful in discussions to know how another editor might be affiliated with a subject. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is missing in this statement is the timeline. @Levivich is making it sound like this all happened within minutes of the revert. The article in question was added on Feb 7, 2019. And then about twenty changes were made to the page over the next couple years. Then an editor on November 24, 2021 decided to make massive changes to the article that would require a lot of time to go though, and much discussion on the talk page. Then on November 25, 2021 Rp2006 reverts those changes. There were over 10K characters removed from the article and reverting those changes are just a revert. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sgerbic (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last edit is not a 10K character revert, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if it were, I don't think it matters if the COI content is reinstated on its own or as part of a larger revert (both are the situation here, as there were multiple edits). Levivich 01:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You take responsibility for any edit you make, even if it's "just a revert." Maybe if the entire topic area wasn't a minefield of connected editors adding each other as sources it wouldn't be so easy to accidentally step on a land mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you get that SFR (if I'm allowed to call you that) who says that "editors are adding each other as sources"? Sgerbic (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty common knowledge that members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and writers for SI use each other as sources for articles. I believe that's actually one of the actions you promote, per your own writing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a member of CSI? I'm not clear on that, does that mean they have a magazine subscription? Sgerbic (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean something like A columnist for Skeptical Inquirer... and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry adding CSI and SI sources as cites, and training others to do the same. Can we not play this game? If enough people are doing that eventually one of them is going to revert and restore a source they wrote and cross the COI line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, yes. If you make an edit that in some way involves a source that you have a COI with, then you must disclose that COI. The nature of the edit is irrelevant to this, and it should not be relevant - I feel there is a bigger picture that I am missing to this discussion, so I can't comment on the details, but it isn't hard to imagine situations where someone with a COI prefers the former version of a page due to it aligning with their COI, and thus reverts to that version. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The bigger picture is a shitshow, I'll save you some life expectancy and recommend you don't get involved too much, BilledMammal. If interested, however, you can find the relevant thread in ANI under section "Outing attempt". Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I you are sharing links ACS - why not give @BilledMammalBilledmammal the link to the multi-day drama on ANI that got you banned from there? Remember that nightmare where you started outing people? Oh and the thread of you trying to rile people up to work against other editors? Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not responding to what I see as irrelevant to the current discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is obvious at all. Here is a close analogy (as I see it) to the situation as it is CLAIMED to have happened. BTW, I think the issue is a SELFPUB one, not COI. Steven King is a WP editor. Has been for years. Has thousands of edits on all sorts of articles. His WP ID is not his name as he does not want to be outed due to harassment and stalking concerns. He has an interest in, watches and edits tons of Scary as Shit fiction pages... that's what he likes to work on (Not his own books mind you). On one page he is watching, someone(else) - he gets a notice via WP email - added one of HIS own books as a citation (in an appropriate way). Cool. But does King need to now slap a SELFPUB disclaimer on the page? I don't think anyone would say so. But years later, a newish editor (who seems to not understand COI issues) comes in and makes a mess of the page (in his opinion and other editors) by deleting what she sees as COI issues (and they do not) all over the place, including deleting the King citation. So, King reverts the edit restoring the page to its long-standing form. You are telling me King now needs to declare a SELFPUB on that page? Worse - doing so he must by definition out himself? Really? Rp2006 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a COI you must disclose it. I am sure admins can help you by email to find a way to do so without outing yourself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You, as usual, missed the entire point. The scenario where King must claim a SELFPUB situation in that case seems outrageous. Saying it is COI seems even nuttier. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the other editors who thought it was a problem could have reverted, and just like that, there is no issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually other editors did revert the same set of changes, so it seemed clear consensus to not let the changes stand -- as I recall. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why not continue to allow them to revert? Clearly if there were multiple editors reverting a single editor your own edits were unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about King. The point still stands. COIs must be disclosed, and the easiest way to do so is in the Talk page of articles. See Talk:Eindhoven University of Technology for an example of me disclosing my coi in an easy, straightforward way. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If an editor removes a cite to King, and King reverts that editor thereby reinstating the cite to King, then King must disclose the COI, in my view. Levivich 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SELFPUB may apply (though probably not to King), but unless I have misunderstood this situation, you are thinking of SELFCITE? As I understand it, SELFCITE is a form of COI.

As for King, he should note a COI if he wants to make the reversal - and if he doesn't want to mention a COI, he should leave the revert for another editor to do. This is true in general, but particularly true in this example where other editors holding Kings position exist and so it is unreasonable to expect that the edit will go unnoticed by non-COI editors. This is because correcting what are seen as mistakes by a COI editor - regardless of whether the editor is correct about them being a mistake - does and should fall under COI guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A COI is a COI. While WP:COIADVICE does have a section on unambiguous uncontroversial edits, it is very very clear that what has been going on the specific article page is controversial though I recognise that the editors involved may not be able to recognise it. Paraphrasing and expanding upon what I said earlier at ANI, if the author of the source requests an editor to read a source they have written, it is a COI. If that same editor edits that page, to include or restore that source if it is removed by another editor where that edit was made in good faith, it is a COI.

In this situation, if Rp2006 is the author of the source, they must disclose it and self revert. As it is a content dispute, Rp2006 should then recuse themself from that discussion, and allow a consensus to form between the other editors at that article's talk page. If Rp2006 is not the author of that source, then I do not understand why this issue has now spanned multiple noticeboards and user talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the edit over which there is a COI concern is not diffed here? That edit contains a link to an article on an external website which contains a number of statements evincing an approach to Wikipedia editing that I think is problematic from a COI point of view. The external article also mentions GSoW, which is lead by Sgerbic. I think editors here should read that article, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to link it here? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either and that's the reason why I didn't include it in the OP :-) Levivich 02:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because of outing concerns that have essentially been Streisand'd to hell and back at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly if the relevant section in the article talk page would've been collapsed and the discussion continued this whole fiasco could've been avoided. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Well, we have a pretty heated argument very quickly. But why isn't the noticeboard informed of what article we are talking about? What is the source that generates the alleged COI? What are the diffs that demonstrate the allegations? --SVTCobra 04:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, affected pages are Skeptical_Inquirer and Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry (SCI) and all related pages. The article in question here is Sharon_A._Hill.

Also Sgerbic you have an even more obvious COI with respect to SCI. You also need to declare your COI for all matters related with SCI. Mvbaron (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Sgerbic and Rp2006 you both have added your own names and/or citations to your own works at the above mentioned pages. (if anyone want's the diffs, I'm happy to supply them but seeing that WP:OUTING concerns are so prominent here, I won't do it now) Regardless, this is clearly WP:COI editing and you both need to declare your COI either at your user page or the talk page. And you both should only propose edit requests for your COI pages and not make substantial edits yourself. All this discussion above is utterly pointless and a distraction at best, you have a COI and you need to declare it and you should not add content about yourself directly. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have NEVER added content about myself and am not happy that anyone glibly says I have. Sgerbic (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit appears to qualify (see "skepticism" section). Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Special:Diff/746026432. Now that I look, your group is doing a ton of COI editing. Your name appears on 64 mainspace articles [1], and I think all of them were added by you or members of your group. Huh, this is bigger than I thought. Levivich 18:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

During the enormous ANI thread a month ago this came up, written by Sgerbic, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[2] I don't understand how this wasn't cause for immediate sanctions. Any other COI editing of this style, on this scale, would be shut down almost immediately. Imagine if it were another publication organizing off wiki to improve their exposure? After all, Wikipedia is the perfect venue! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this an issue that might need to be dealt with by arbcom? If it is hundreds of COI violations over multiple years as a modus operandi perhaps it goes above just community discussion in a noticeboard. I don't know how these things are handled, and I'd rather give the affected editors the benefit of the doubt, so I'm just asking.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is for issues that cannot be dealt with by the community. If this ends up being ongoing, then maybe, but otherwise it is better if it is handled by other means. - Bilby (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern would be with avoiding outing editors who haven't disclosed their COI onwiki but have talked about their edits (or have been talked about) offwiki, like in the rp case, and do have a coi. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

After reading everything to do with this, both from the current event and the one a couple of months ago, I'm somewhat in favour of an investigation here as implied by Levivich if there's the likelihood of this circular COI editing occurring across a great many articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly unacceptable, and an unambiguous COI; they have explicitly expressed WP:NOTHERE goals (promotional activity in article writing). At the very least, they should be banned from directly using that particular source; if they want to use it, they should do it only through an edit request. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes you have (I said I had diffs): [3] and I am baffled that you say you didn't. Mvbaron (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Straight question. @Rp2006: Would you be willing to disclose whether any of your personal works are (or have been) cited in any page on which you have performed a revert over the last 30 days? I have no power to compel you to do so, and you are free to decline. JBchrch talk 00:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Can we establish who the bad guys are? Very dodgy claims of COI too. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Godwin's law strikes again. Very civil and constructive. Adding content quoting and citing yourself is pretty dodgy, but providing diffs of it and expressing concern is less so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Harold Mcmillan reference was removed so I'll just say that this looks like a Lynch mob attacking some of the very best editors on the project. Usual suspects, dear me. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Lynch mob is much more civil. We've moved from political violence to race based violence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It is slightly more civil, perhaps. But the mob should perhaps aim at tendentious or disruptive editors instead of some of our best. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I searched Wikipedia (all namespaces) for "roxy the dog" "lynch mob"; there's quite a few hits and it's some interesting reading. Levivich 15:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strong counterpoint to diffs of a person adding content about themselves and citing their own work. I wonder if there are any policies about that type of editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's so funny SFR. Did you find any that they added directly, or only to repair the article. Did you know that I have re-added exactly the same diffs as RP. Am I a GSoW member? Do I have a potential COI? Levivich, you'd better tell your check user colleagues about a "tell" for Roxy socks. I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years, shocking. Another "tell" is that I often use the same word twice or more in any one post to a talk page. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you review the thread? There are three diffs of Sgerbic adding information about herself, as well as citing herself. The RP situation is a bit hairier because no one is sharing the obvious diffs due to outing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sgerbic's user page would seem to meet disclosure requirements. And while I would personally agree that Sgerbic should use talk pages rather than writing about herself and/or citing herself, our policies don't actually forbid this. If you start an RFC to get that changed I would probably support, but that's not how things are right now. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

They do forbid using Wikipedia for promotion, which she has said she does. Also, I believe the articles also need to be tagged with a COI notice. It would be easier to get together a list of pages that need a COI tag if she hadn't said she'd never made such edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that articles be tagged with a COI notice - not that I'm familiar with, anyway. Please link it if I'm mistaken. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Article should be tagged with connected contributor, COI should be disclosed via edit summary, or the COI userbox listing articles they have a COI in regards to and have edited. I don't see any of those disclosures made. The articles don't have to be tagged if the COI edits are disclosed another way, but it's better for readers who will never see a user page to know that an article has been greatly edited by someone with a COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That's for places where there's a COI with the topic of the article overall, for example Talk:Susan Gerbic. We typically do not hold self-citers to that standard. Given the ongoing problems we've been having with academic spam, I would probably support efforts to change that too, but the Wikipedia community seems to give much more leeway to self citation for whatever reason. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is not just self citing, as noted above it's adding your name to an article you already have a COI with. Or doing a massive promotional expansion [4] to an article you have a clear-cut COI with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure is required, but it is also required to abide by Wikipedia's policy, which includes not engaging in promotion. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case, per this article. BilledMammal (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how much the actual consensus regarding this is ← I think it depends, and editors need to step back a bit and consider the aims of Wikipedia as a whole before being too keen to don their Witchfinder General hats. If somebody with a COI comes here promoting (say) their diet pills, then obviously that is A Bad Thing that the community will have little tolerance for. But "promotion" of high-quality knowledge is not bad, and even encouraged in a project like (say) WP:COCHRANE whereby editors, and even Cochrane members are encouraged to add Cochrane Collaboration sources to Wikipedia. Granted, this is not entirely without controversy, but there seems to be a lot of black and white thinking in this thread which does not appreciate the history of how Wikipedia actually works. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, if you agree with something it's ok to organize off-wiki to promote it. Editing to draw attention to a magazine you write for, and citing yourself in it can be fine as long as it matches the house POV. Then it's acceptable to ignore the policies and guidelines. Especially if you're using it to add negative information to BLPs. That's the best. Also, we should make sure to attack any editors who express concern about the COI editing by calling them Nazis or witch hunters. That really elevates the dialog. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It is in this area of cognitive dissonance that any number of edit-a-thons, student editing assignments and WP:GLAM efforts exist. MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, one gets the feeling that if some famous gallery made images of its fine art collection publicly available, and a gallery employee had the temerity to add those images to relevant articles, some editors here would be screaming COI and going on a revert spree. Ultimately the aim for everyone is to improve and maintain Wikipedia and, with various shades of COI, sometimes that's not quite so simple as some are suggesting. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be screaming COI if that museum employee said This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. All of these shades of grey arguments fall apart when an editor says they're doing it for promotional purposes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

But you'd be okay if they weren't saying that? I was responding to the suggestion that COI needed to be an absolute rule with teeth. It ain't that simple. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If the situation were different I would have to look at the totality of the situation. Were they still people shoehorning negative information from primary sourced "stings," covered no where but the magazine they have a COI with into BLPs? Do you get still get attacked as a a supporter of Fringe for removing an obvious blpvio? The reason this is such an issue is there is a wide breadth of other issues with the editing, all tied together by the COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish this article also expands on how they go about creating pages for Skeptic organizations, whose members and leaders they meet at conferences. I wouldn't call that a COI necessarily but part of the editing philosophy we should be aware of. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, at least on editor in question did not disclose their COI (rp2006), and all of them are making substantive changes to articles about their COI-topic. Even if it's only strongly encouraged to not edit their COI-topic directly and not forbidden, this noticeboard should at least tell them to do so - otherwise we might as well get rid of the strong language in COI all-together.

And remember that this thread only exists because of a poor discussion on a poor and badly-sourced article connected to the COI topic: Sharon_A._Hill. Mvbaron (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE and the rest of WP:COI has pretty clear rules about how to do this. I don't care if it was the late Stephen Hawking citing his own work, he still would need to disclose it. There is no "high quality" exemption to COI disclosure requirements. (And everyone suggesting I'm engaged in a witch hunt, a lynch mob, or a Nazi purge, should reflect on whether they care about people misusing Wikipedia for self promotion or not.) Levivich 16:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

break

• Speaking of diffs, what do people think about a COIN subpage to collect diffs? Levivich 15:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's asking for a repeat of the outing problem that kicked this discussion off. I think the private evidence / arbcom case route is the only remedy if there is truly a problem worth addressing here. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  How can it be outing to collect diffs of Sgerbic adding content about herself to articles? She edits under her real name. Or outing to collect diffs of Rp2006 doing the same? Or the many other accounts who are obviously students doing the same? It's only outing if we link a username to a real name, which isn't necessary to evidence COI editing. For example, Rp2006 is affiliated with Gerbic and GSoW, etc., and that's evidenced by diffs and such. I don't need to write his real name on-wiki to link to his edits. Levivich 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• My own reaction to all this is "meh". I'm not hugely familiar with the "GSoW" content but from what I've seen of some of it, yes, there are some issues with it be overly self-regarding and self-referential. On the other hand, the one article I'm aware of which was targeted as being predicted a WP:SNOW deletion for its apparently obvious GSoW-derived problems, got an AfD which backfired spectacularly, despite the "COI sources" apparently tainting it. Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles.

Given that Wikipedia has high-profile content under attack from corporations, political movements and even Nation States it's not high on my worry list that some articles are too harsh on fraudsters or too glowing about scienists, but if Wikipedia editors do feel this is a priority I think, given the outing risks, it is an issue that the community cannot handle and they would need to work towards an arbcom case. I'm not sure further discussion here will lead anywhere good. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've never participated in an arbcom case, how can editors work together when making one? Would email discussions be a way to avoid outing on-wiki but gathering the relevant diffs+outside links? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably the best way to sort this out is to raise any issue(s) at the affected articles is not realistic because there are over 100 affected articles (based on my very quick perusal following Sgerbic's claim above to have "never" edited about herself). I'm not going to go through all of this by myself just to send an email to arbcom. Such an inquiry is better off being done collaboratively, transparently, and on-wiki. Levivich 17:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Especially when the editing has been done in this manner over many, many years and the editors are immensely defensive of their edits (and their interpretation of COI) doing it article by article would be an inordinate amount of work and time. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

So if the proposed change(s) are going to impact "hundreds" of articles that will necessarily take a lot of "work and time". Or ... what? Are you proposing to delete "obvious" problem articles like you tried with Taner Edis. Or find some way to edit content without "work and time"? This is not making much sense. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One discussion about 100 articles would take less time than 100 discussions about individual articles. Levivich 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking in hypotheticals, if there is a widespread COI issue spanning dozens or hundreds of articles, at some point discussions on the individual article level will be required. What form those discussions will take will depend on the content of the article. In theory a lot of that can happen in parallel, one editor will not need to copy-edit all of the articles with issues. But the broadstrokes COI issues need to be resolved first before individual article level discussions are warranted.

As has been demonstrated at the Sharon A. Hill article, there is a resistance to change that may or may not be warranted. There have been oblique references to consensus building that clearly did not happen in the article's talk page, or in the article's edit history. On the ANI thread Rp2006 said A glance showed me they at least some of the long list of edits partially involved removing material due to misconstrued COI issues, which were already argued over elsewhere.) Where did that discussion occur? Because it clearly wasn't on the article's talk page. While I don't have the competency in that topic area to definitively state if there is or is not a problem in my opinion with the previously proposed edits, on a surface level it does appear concerning that the response to a detailed and clear summary of a WP:BRD change was silence, followed by status quo stonewalling. If that behaviour is replicated across multiple articles, any attempt at making progress in this issue would be next to impossible. That issue needs to be resolved first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I'd really like answers to two questions that came from this sorry story at ANI: (1) If you self-cite, how can you declare your conflict of interest without self-outing (given that the work you are citing inevitably contains your name); i.e. which takes precedence, COI or Outing? My personal view is that it is far better never, ever, to self-cite. (2) If you don't actually write the self-citation, but someone removes a citation to you, and you revert the removal, do you have the same COI that you'd have had if you added the citation yourself? Elemimele (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you choose to self-cite, you're essentially self outing unless you're published under a pseudonym. I agree, it's better not to self cite. If you revert a removal of your source that someone else removed, I'd say you have the same COI as adding it yourself, as you're deciding that the work should be cited over someone's objection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

1) If you chose to self-cite, then you're choosing to self-out. I don't think there's any way to separate that while maintaining a conflict of interest policy.

2) Short answer, yes. Longer answer, WP:COIADVICE applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:COIE might provide further guidance as well, Elemimele. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks, all, and especially A._C._Santacruz, that sets my mind at rest. I had been worrying that an accusation of COI could be interpreted as a deliberate outing, when basically you're saying "I think you're citing/writing-about yourself" but I'm seeing now it isn't: if the accusation is true, the person had already self-outed, if it's false, then the editor hasn't been outed. Elemimele (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add, it's somewhat easy to avoid this entirely if you're capable of self policing. If you know you have a COI with an article, perhaps the best thing you can do is to avoid it entirely. That way there is no risk of self-outing, because you're not making that link. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As for 1): WP:OUTING prohibits editor A from outing editor B. But if editor A has any form of COI, they generally have to self-out, and that is not prohibited by the policy. A common form of "self-out" is performed by editors who work for a corporation and add an edit request to an article's talk page, which often begin with "Hi I'm Billy and I work for Big Corp Ltd. I would like to suggest the following edits to this article...". JBchrch talk 04:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

An idea

I was doing some meditation and realized that both editors' conduct and article content need to be addressed. The arbcom idea looks promising for the former, but we'd still be left with potentially hundreds of articles within the skeptic topic are that are filled with coi edits, selfcites, and issues of neutrality or undue content. Thus, I had the idea of seeing if we could make some kind of task force with the help of people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview and make note of those with issues. Like that we can know just how many need fixing and maybe get more hands on deck to fix them (since it seems like it will take quite a bit of human hours). What are your thoughts? My original idea was to just track it myself by making a subpage of my user page but uh I have a history of misunderstanding what is and is not allowed or benefitial to be done within user subpages. Is this a good idea? Is there some kind of precedent for these kinds of efforts? Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"people over at the skepticism/biographies/science wps to comb through the articles in the skeptic purview" ← it would take editors who thought this was a good use of their time. But when (for example) sci/med editors are grappling with articles getting tens of thousands of daily views on COVID, the task of "combing through" backwater articles about ghosthunters, etc. might not seem like a priority - especially if there was a suspicion that they were being asked to do somebody else's work fishing for evidence in aid of a campaign against GSoW. Alexbrn (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was for evidence? Additionally, not everyone in sci/med wants to only and exclusively deal w COVID and no one would be forcing anyone to help, so I don't see your point. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"Combing through" and "making note" of what's combed, is evidence gathering is it not? Wikipedia is a volunteer effort so one can't just "make" a task force on command; my point is there's likely to be limited volunteer enthusiasm for a grinding forensic investigation in service of an obscure agenda. Even potentially very serious issues in the Project which need investigation don't get attention, as it happens—and it's not clear there's any kind of serious issue here at all. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I of course understand task force is not something a regular volunteer can do (WPs have task forces organized by their coordinators etc.), it's just the term closes to what I mean. If I hadn't clarified it before, I think the process of fixing those articles should be done after any ArbCom action, not before. I think it's more important not to shake the boat too much and increase the activity in the topic significantly as that would make the ArbCom thing possibly more complicated than it needs to be. I also assume that there will be limited enthusiasm for what I proposed (especially from neutral and quality editors; we need to be careful not to attract the type of agenda-pushing pseudoscience-believer that will misunderstand this cleanup effort as an opportunity to vandalize). However, as editors affiliated with the two editors discussed who have a COI have edited 1300+ articles and have 53+ million views, I think it is somewhat clear that there is an issue that needs to be tackled. I don't necessarily think it's the most serious or pressing of issues, but I think having some organized way to tackle it would be beneficial. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

After watching from afar, let me briefly chime in to say I don't think this sort of approach is warranted. I will put my cards on the table: in many ways I am sympathetic to the goals of the so-called "GSoW," but I think just from evidence presented here it is clear that they have danced along the COI line and occasionally jumped across with both feet. I think that material should, ideally, be reviewed by independent editors as to its level of appropriateness, but I am not seeing major substantive issues. This is not vandalism, even if running afoul of policy. As such, while I think some sort of global decision-making is necessary, once had, I do not believe it necessary to take the kind of regimented approach suggested here. Wikipedia is ever-evolving, and thus, always imperfect. This bit of imperfection is one I see being ironed out in the normal course. As ever, if consensus decides otherwise, I'll not quibble. Happy holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would second this view as also someone who is aware of GSoW's existence, but not a participant or member.

Akin to "if a tree falls in the forest", I would ask... if a user makes a COI edit, but it was a good edit, why would we revert or record it? As SC has said, this isn't intended to gather evidence, so what would be the point? surely there are bad examples of edits which need to be reverted out there, but they should be bad edits independent of any COI issues. So they should be fixed independent of any needs here... The implication is that there are many many bad edits which need reverted. But I have yet to see any actual evidence of this as a large scale phenomenon. Many of Rp's supposed COI edits are of high quality from my perusal. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more like an argument about why we don't need COIN. From what you are saying, editing with a COI isn't a problem. Bad edits are a problem. Therefore, we don't need to worry about COI and the relevant guidelines and policies are unnecessary. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This thread has moved somewhat beyond the scope of initial COI report, unfortunately. As I've said before, I think there may be overlapping but related issues affecting skeptic-related articles, and not all need invoke a COI nor affiliation with GSoW. In theory, the existence of relatively promotional articles showcasing the subject from an overly enthusiastic point of view could be the result of an avid fan—completely independent of GSoW, the subject, or any sources—combined with a relative reluctance or indifference of WikiProject Skepticism editors or other sympathetic Wikipedians to apply WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, WP:SELFPUB etc. to subjects they agree with or view positively (in short, skeptics should apply skepticism to the null hypothesis of "Wikipedia articles are free from editorial bias" or "positive/popular subjects are given equal scrutiny for tone, balance, and BLP-compliance as negative or controversial subjects"). Addressing article content is easier and more straightforward than hunting down clues and sussing out COI or off-wiki affiliations, and less likely to alienate users. I think compiling a list of articles that seem to be in most of need of attention as A.C. Santacruz is proposing—regardless of who created or edited them—and inviting feedback from a broad swath of interested and disinterested editors (e.g. WikiProject Biography, Peer review, WikiProject Skepticism), would be beneficial, even if not everyone considers it the highest priority. People edit Wikipedia in many different ways: some primarily create article content, some primarily revert content and save their paragraphs for talk pages, some gnome here and there fixing grammar or whatever, some engage in formal review and assessment. None are inherently worse or a bigger waste of time than others. Of course, if COI or GSoW editing is found to be unduly promotional (be it of a source, article subject, or idea) then warnings and other corrective (not necessarily punitive) actions should be taken, as correcting a systematic problem is more effective in the long run. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Where do you think the list should be compiled if there is consensus it should be, Animalparty. I'd volunteer to do so as a sub-page of my user page but I'm not sure that's really the best way to do so. I also think before starting the list there should be significant discussion as to the criteria to include an article in the list. This could be done by creating a blank sub-page of my user page (or a more appropriate venue) and having a discussion in its talk page, rather than discussing a matter outside of COIN within COIN. A good division would also be "Articles needing to be checked for issues" and "Articles in need of attention/improvement/clean-up". This is because I would, based on the discussion above and in articles written by Sgerbic as to the editing methods of GSoW, consider all articles citing Skeptical Inquirer (and maybe other CSI sites) as possibly, if maybe unlikely, having issues. Thus, it would be nice to be able to track which articles have been already checked to see if there might or might not be possible issues and then have a separate list on which articles that were confirmed to have issues have been fixed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that tracking which articles might be affected is somewhat difficult, as over 1,200 use Skeptical Inquirer as a source but there are other publications to which at least SGerbic has a COI with (e.g. JREF and GWUP) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Now what?

Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise (or, I suppose, someone offwiki is lying when they take credit for Rp2006's edits). So...now what? It's pretty clear from the above discussion that there is a larger problem than just this one editor. I can block them, but that is a large hammer to use, and that doesn't help with these other "GSoW" folks. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think most of the issues are in article content and fancruft so I support the idea I proposed above. I'm not entirely sure if blocking (outside maybe a skeptic BLP topic ban maybe?) would be the best solution for this (knowing how strongly Sgerbic argues for using wiki as a way of promoting SI content through backwards editing, we might end up causing a persistent sockpuppet/alt account issue). It all depends on how Rp2006 and Sgerbic act right now. I'm sure more experienced editors have better recommendations on what to do now, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of the number of editors that could be involved, I'd like to see some sort of community sanctions set up, where upon if reasonable evidence is provided an administrator can apply a topic ban covering the COI. I'd hate to see us lose all of the good edits in the topic area, so narrow topic bans along the lines of a ban on making edits using sources related to, or about people related to the committee for skeptical inquiry, or skeptical inquirer. That would allow them to continue to be active in the topic area, while preventing COI editing. This would have to be contingent on them admitting the COI and following best practices for disclosure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we would also need to add writing about activities or people connected to GSOW - that should be obvious, but my primary concern has been things like GSOW members writing on BLPs about off-wiki GSOW sting operations against living people while using sources written by GSOW members, or creating articles about members and active supporters. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with that is they are very unlikely to self identify. It's a tough situation. For the time being, how do we normally handle undeclared COI editing, where the editors involved have misrepresented their edits? Maybe we should stop treating these editors as special just because some agree with their POV? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd support a topic-ban for Rp2006 and Sgerbic if they refuse to properly disclose their COIs. I don't see why they are unblockable. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that topic bans are hard to hand out - they need either community consensus, ArbCom, or to be in a DS area (and have all the boxes ticked). For the last one I feel that tbanning someone from "skepticism" would be a stretch of the scope of the Pseudoscience DS. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Given this is based on private evidence, and given that this extends beyond the identified editors, perhaps the best option is to go to ArbCom? Although I believe we need to strengthen our COI provisions and the remedies allowed under them so that we address situations like this more readily. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the pseudoscience DS could be amended to also include skepticism as well as a result of the arbcom case. Of course, I have no experience with Arbcom so I don't know how realistic that is. On one hand, it seems to only be one organized group violating COI (and whatever the backwards editing system is) within skepticism, but on the other they have over 100 million views on articles they've edited so I'm not sure what size the hammer needs to be at this point (if you'll excuse the metaphor).Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: It is probably worth noting here that there was a very long VPP thread about the GSoW a couple months ago. There was also a huge-ass AN/I thread in which closer Wugapodes said that "ANI could handle these things, the thread has grown beyond the point where a viable solution will be found" and recommended an ArbCom case request. In my opinion, both discussions had a lot of fairly major issues brought up. In particular, the AN/I thread encountered some strong resistance to the suggestion that GSoW could have engaged in off-wiki canvassing (because nobody could come up with a list of editors (because GSoW refused to disclose a list of their members (because nobody could show that they'd engaged in canvassing (because nobody had a list of their members)))). This development, if true, would certainly seem to change the situation. jp×g 05:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There was also this RSN discussion from November. jp×g 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: it's a good question. I'd agree with what SFR is calling for as a bare minimum, a topic ban potentially covering the entirety of sceptical inquiry, broadly construed for RP2006. That said, this has somewhat strengthened my concern that there is a much wider COI involving multiple GSoW editors in this topic area. How do we resolve that? We don't know who those editors are, Sgerbic wants to keep them as an anonymous off-wiki group/project for whatever reason, can we even proceed to an arb-com case against potentially multiple anonymous editors? While the current COI honour system works well in an good faith environment, the situation with RP2006 at the very least stretches that concept to its very limits. Especially as RP has been asked if they had a COI, they said no, but you've received evidence to the contrary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also one potential shortcoming with the current guidance at WP:COICOIN. The final paragraph mentions contacting the arbitration committee via email, with a dedicated address listed for paid COIs. At this point, it's unclear at least to me as to whether the COIs we are discussion are paid or unpaid. However more generally, if there is an unpaid COI, who do you contact? Arb-com at the paid-en-wp address? Arb-com at their normal address? Or someone else entirely? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, paid-en-wp goes to the checkusers (I'm one of the few who staffs it). I'm of the opinion that offwiki evidence of both paid and unpaid COI can go there if blocks are needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

How would it normally be handled if a COI editor was discovered, and had mislead other editors about their COI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I started this thread because Rp2006 and Sgerbic denied (1) that they had a COI and/or (2) that they had to disclose any COI and/or (3) that they had made any edits in violation of WP:COI. To answer the question, "Now what?", I'd like to know in the first instance whether they still deny any of 1-3 and if not, how they plan on handling things going forward (e.g., disclosure, avoiding topics, something else?). Levivich 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think an additional question is how willing they are to collaborate with us in terms of other editors in their network who have made edits in violation of WP:COI (e.g. other GSoW members published in SI, what editors are part of GSoW). We are dealing with many unknown unknowns (similar to what JPxG commented on above) that they would be helpful in solving. As I raised previously in Sgerbic's page, much of this should be done through email with paid-en-wp or other, maybe more suitable emails to go about this without outing anyone on-wiki and reducing the amount of time that needs to be spent on this issue. I couldn't care less to know who exactly is in GSoW, but the fact that not even functionaries know is a problem in my opinion, and a big obstacle right now to solving the problem at hand. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that paid-en-wp has been emailed with what I believe is evidence that Nederlandse Leeuw also has a COI with SI, and that Rp2006 has a COI with pensar.org. Whether they think it is credible evidence or not I'll leave up to them. Notifying Nederlandse Leeuw of this discussion now. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Another outing attempt by Satacruz! When will this end? (And BTW, what does Pensar have to do with anything?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp2006 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pensar.org is published by the Center for Inquiry, a parent company of Skeptical Inquirer. Since the thread was originally about Skeptical Inquirer, mentioning a sister publication is relevant. Again, if I actually outed anyone please tell me what information was shared and I will both edit the statement and ask oversight to revdel the relevant diffs. However, stating someone has a COI is not outing. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Such emails are for confidential information so the point of posting that here is ... what? A bit of gentle outing maybe? And am I to understand the witch-hunting has now migrated to a coordinated email effort (ironically) judging from the push back[5] on your Talk page? Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Next person that calls this a witch hunt (or lynch mob or similar) gets a trip to a noticeboard courtesy of me. Levivich 13:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They asked for advice on how to put together an Arbcom case, and used email because some of the information could be sensitive. I have never brought a case to Arbcom but I thought I should take initiative to move the Skeptical Inquirer issue along, as I don't expect Sgerbic or Rp2006 to willfully disclose their COIs. Therefore I was wondering if you'd help me with writing/creating the case. Then, a list of editor's they had emailed paid-en-wiki about, with no real names or links to articles. <irony>It's weird how people can get when there's possible off-wiki coordination.</irony> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Editors don't get to go on a witch hunt by policing the language about what they're doing (though "lynch mob" is an off-colour term to be avoided). Looks like the first Nederlandse Leeuw has heard about their COI is a ping here informing them them that paid-en-wp has been emailed with "evidence" about them. Did nobody even ask - friendly like - if they have a COI? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight there, I should have contacted them on their talk page. Asking on their talk page would not have affected me emailing paid-en-wp, though, as as far as I know there's nothing wrong with emailing them with evidence whether you contact the user or not. Additionally, they are still free to disclose their COI now and that shouldn't really affect anything procedure-wise as far as I am aware. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So right at the top of this page, where it says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period" [my emphasis]. That counts for nothing? Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A google search of "Michael Steinkellner skeptic" shows a possible COI of User:Michael Steinkellner with GWUP. He is inactive, but worth noting here as well as he is one of the major editors of that page. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be offended at your implication that I'm "fringe sympathetic" if I wasn't using my crystals to center my energy right now. Even still, I might have to put on my magnetic copper bracelet to keep my chi in balance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was implying that some of the admins involved, they know who they are, are fringe sympathetic. They've had it pointed out to them in the past. As for yourself, if you feel the cap fits, then OK. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please excuse Roxy, their ISFJ nature leads them to act in this way. Just AGF and keep moving. Or, alternatively, keep talking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with stop signs, but I can't resist making a joke. It's a failing on my part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh god I adore how you mentioned "this time with feeling". Fantastic, very funny! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Roxy, I do not know how to explain to you any more than I already have that a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject. Additionally, please stop assuming I am "fringe sympathetic". That is a baseless accusation and strongly against my personal beliefs. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been tarnished by some early missteps, and goodwill is understandably at a bit of an ebb. paid-en-wp has been brought in, I suggest that we let them do their work, and/or an arbcom case be requested if it proves to be necessary. Rather than flaming each other, can we please just let this discussion fade gently into the archives? MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie: respectfully, the first post in this subsection is from an arb-com functionary, who as they've said above has access to the paid-en-wp inbox, asking for community feedback based on evidence they have received. It may be that a full arb-com case is needed for this, in which case yes this discussion should end. But I don't know if we've reached that point yet? Letting it fade gently into the archives at this point runs the risk of no action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it. Some action needs to be taken here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

COI misunderstanding

There seems to be a misunderstanding in many of the posts above about COI. We hear about

• "action being taken against one or more editors who have both a confirmed COI and have misled others about it"
• "a COI is quite a straight-forward and serious subject"
• "If you have a COI you must disclose it"

To be clear: there is nothing wrong with having a COI; in fact COIs are a positive sign that one is actually doing something in life — the best way to avoid them is to sit in the basement all day doing nothing. There is absolutely no requirement in general to declare COIs on Wikipedia.

There is only an issue when editing activity intersects with a COI. This is strongly discouraged by WP:COI, but not prohibited by policy, except N.B. in the case where it is WP:PAID editing disclosure in necessary under the ToU. Editors are not going to get arbcom blocked just for "having a COI" or even for unpaid COI editing. In the case of GSoW, as the previous megathread at ANI[6] attests, there is no community consensus about which kinds of editing even constitute a COI. In order to show a COI problem it is necessary to show bad edits. The purpose of have WP:PAGs around COIs is to prevent damage to the (running of the) encyclopedia, not to police who people are in real life. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So, again, it's okay to edit with a COI, add information about yourself to articles, add citations to your own works, or greatly expand the article on your employer. As long as a group of editors agree with your position then this editing is A-OK. However, if people don't agree with the position that your COI editing takes you'll be blocked immediately as WP:NOTHERE or as a promotional account. Bonus points if the editors who agree with your position use Nazi euphemisms or witch hunt analogies against the people pointing out your clear COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If the COI is for the content you are editing then no, it's not "okay", it's against the grain of a guideline, and against-the-grain editing is a good way to get the community cross with you, leading to sanctions. But COI on Wikipedia is more complicated than is sometimes appreciated - as has been said before the WMF has partnerships with some organisations who will "enhance" Wikipedia with their organisation's scholarly/scientific content. So in a sense the content does matter - adding great quality stuff can be fine because in such a case the editor interest and the interest of Wikipedia is not in conflict but aligned, in bringing great high-quality knowledge to the world. But adding stuff touting your pyramid scheme, consultancy business or fake cancer cure ... not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot! It's especially okay to lie about having that COI or your editing history as long as your opinion is in the majority. What the heart doesn't grieve the eye doesn't see, as we say in my hometown, or in other words, who cares about your relationship to the subjects you write about affecting article content and consensus about them as long as I think you're anti-fringe. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Never a good idea to accuse people of lying. Unless you can read their mind. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See Sgerbic lying above about not citing herself. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It must be nice to have a perfect memory. Anyway, Sgerbic's userpage counts as a disclosure, and (much to the consternation of some of the COIN regulars) self-citation is not really against policy, and as far as I can tell neither is being mistaken (or lying, if you want to use emotionally loaded language). We can (and have) say 'please stop' but that's really all that policy supports. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, "lying" connotes intent. It's a personal attack. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I will apologize if I mistake others' intent. I have difficulties understanding subtext and/or nuance in personal comments and the like, and I take everything face value. Intent or not, after being shown she was mistaken one would expect her to engage in good faith and apologize. Instead, she (as far as I understand it) stopped interacting with this thread or help us understand the situation better. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Unfounded accusations of lying are a personal attack yes. But when you have proof that editors have not told the truth, as is the case with two editors involved in this discussion, what do you call it if not lying? Do we follow Westminster rules, and instead call it misleading of the noticeboards? Or do we need another euphemism? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, I'm stealing that phrase hope you dont mind. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an archaic word one could reintroduce: "mistake". Useful links here: WP:AGF and Hanlon's razor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also here Rp2006 says he has never discussed WP with Hill although the article that started this whole mess says Hill thanked him for an edit on her page. I would not accuse people of lying if they didn't actually do so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the article say Hill thanked RP2006? Does it say RP2006 is the author? Just read it and don't see that. Again... a blatent outing attempt on your part. And BTW, thanking someone is not proof there was a discussion beforehand. Maybe Hill monitors her own page, saw the change, and made an assumption as to who did it and fired off an email. No "discussion of Wikipedia edits at all." This needs to stop. Rp2006 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Being part of GSoW does not constitute a COI (I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is nothing wrong with people collaborating). The problem (as I understand it) is that several of the major players in GSoW seem to be directly affiliated with Skeptical Inquirer and GSoW appears to be encouraging its editors to extensively cite SI and related publications in a way that goes beyond "here's a good source" and into "cite our publication for us". We also have what appear to be cases of editors engaging in SELFCITE, which puts us in a difficult position since it's hard to call people out on that without breaching OUTING. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that "cite our publication for us" may be controversial, but the community has not decided it's a bad thing for certain publications. The Cochrane Wikipedia Partnership has explicit instructions telling (in some cases Cochrane-affiliated) editors to find Cochrane publications and to add them to Wikipedia. Now, I'm not saying SI is on the same level as Cochrane reviews (it's not a periodical I read) - merely pointing out that adding sources of high quality from affiliated persons in something the WMF has actively encouraged. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't even care about the GSoW thing. It can be ignored, because it doesn't really matter. People keep saying "look for bad edits," well there are people who are publicly fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, writers for Skeptical Inquirer, or writers for their other publications, who are editing about and inserting cites to those same organizations and publications. Often they're using primary sources, i.e. a write-up of a "sting" that was done, which has no coverage in secondary sources, to insert huge swathes of negative content and quotes into BLP articles. The BLP issues are originally what got some of these pages on my watchlist.

Imagine someone was working for a small, but reasonably reliable food magazine. That person went around conducting "sting" operations at restaurants, then their colleagues added the negative information from those "sting" operations to the article of every restaurant "stung."

Imagine creating an article, with a severe BLP violation in the lead, and then adding negative content sourced to the group you have a COI with? This isn't "sure, there some COI, but look at all the science that's being added!!" It's using sources you're connected to to promote an organization and attack other people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the correct way to pursue it: identify/fix the problems and alert the community to any editor(s) who have a pattern of creating such problems. This, rather than trying to reconstruct membership lists of GSoW or engaging in quasi-outing through Google searches about peoples' real life. On Wikipedia, bad editing is a real problem whereas "having a COI" is incidental. Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "quasi-outing"? From my experience in this noticeboard if an editor uses their full name mentioning a search of that name is a valid way to indicate a COI, see threads below: Sennheiser and Engineers India. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The policy is that "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information". That includes work affiliations. Arbcom typically has taken a harder line on this that what might go down at COIN. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not posted anyone's personal information as far as I am aware, Alexbrn. Of course, if the consensus is I have and I misunderstood how to go about making references to searches I'm glad to reword what I wrote and ask oversight revdel the relevant edits. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there ACS - why haven't you mentioned that other talk page you have ventured to? Drawing another editor into the drama. Who is next? When will you stop trying to root people out? Sgerbic (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your question, Sgerbic? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You spend so much time on editors talk pages that you can't remember the message you left on January 2nd? It just got lost in the flood of messages? I just went to archive my talk page, I rarely need to do that because I receive so few messages, I'm not that type of editor, I spend most of my time here ... editing articles. As I cleaned up my talk page I see that there are five different topics, all are from you. Why are you being so shy about the other editor you are trying to draw into your drama? I'm sure others here would be interested. Sgerbic (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No I don't remember that exact message, it's been a busy holiday season and my ADHD is not good at remembering vague references during busy times. Please link a diff, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrFringilla#COI Sgerbic (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the issue with the message? They still haven't replied. I must have forgotten to email paid-en-wp the evidence I think links MrFringilla to Skeptical Inquirer, thanks for the reminder. Your help is greatly appreciated. If there is anyone else who I've messaged about this topic inquiring on their possible COIs with SI or CFI, please do not hesitate to message me about it as well, Sgerbic. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh you have some "evidence" have you? How did you root that out? Sgerbic (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A magician doesn't reveal their tricks to the audience, do they (wiggles fingers in front of me like I'm doing a magic trick). That's for the backstage crew (i.e. paid-en-wp) to know, and then either verify or dispel. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh so you are venturing off Wikipedia to find and out people then? Sgerbic (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And you are accusing them of being a paid editor also. Sgerbic (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I am doing. I am accusing them of having an undisclosed COI. It is a shame that the email to do so is called paid-en-wp rather than coi-en-wp, and I have raised that issue in this thread, which you are welcome to join. Also, I'm curious how you expect people to find out about COIs undisclosed on-wiki through only on-wiki content. Let's just say I'm highly 'skeptical' of any way you suggest doing so. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

SO you have just admitted it, you are venturing off Wikipedia to "investigate" editors. I spend very little time on admin threads. Sgerbic (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

More WP:Hounding by Santacruz. I'm almost glad I'm not alone. But then again, I no longer feel special. Rp2006 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen my talk page? I rarely ever get messages to my talk page and they are all from her. Sgerbic (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that both of you @Sgerbic and Rp2006: are here, perhaps you could answer the questions posed above by other editors instead of trying to engaging in WP:FORUM discussion with Santacruz? If you need pointers, those by Levivich and ScottishFinnishRadish in the previous subsection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I will answer to someone in authority if needed. Sgerbic (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

While that is of course your prerogative, it is concerning given that the concerns over a widespread COI issue are shared with editors other than Santacruz. If you won't address the community concerns, how about those points raised by GeneralNotability then in their duties as a functionary? Again raised in the previous subsection, though at the head this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. The authority we all need to answer to is called WP:CONSENSUS. With respect to conflicts of interest, that consensus is documented at WP:COI. You're not abiding by that consensus, and worse, you have time in this discussion for back and forth with AC while ignoring the real issues of COI. You should consider answering the outstanding questions above. Levivich 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I for one do not feel obligated to answer any accusatory questions while bad actors like Santacruz who has repeatedly attempted an OUTING are let free to harass people and gather others to her cause. I have been perplexed as to why so many of the article I've written from scratch or expanded from stubs (including some deemed "Good Articles"), or even articles I've just made minor edits in, have been recently edited by one such compadre of Santacruz, @Bilby - in not all cases with improvements. Much is personal opinion. Then I found this page, a list of (all?) my 13K plus edits, being used to go over my work - on topics of all varieties - since 2016 or so. So now I know why it is happening. But how this WP:Hounding is being tolerated, I do not understand. This must be addressed. Rp2006 (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rp2006: I would advise you to strike through or remove the personal attacks against Santacruz. They are at the very least inaccurate, as she has only had a single ban, from a single noticeboard.

Also the whataboutism with respect to your editing record, while useful doesn't address at all the issues under discussion. As I said in my reply to Sgerbic, in addition to community questions here, a functionary (GeneralNotability) has received credible evidence of a COI involving yourself. Addressing that would be in order, even if you also chose not to discuss the community concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I believed it was at least twice she was banned, but perhaps was wrong, so I removed that bit. Rp2006 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And it is not whataboutism to point out that Santacruz's effort have led to this unaddressed WP:Hounding action on another editor's part. Rp2006 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006, I was hoping to tackle this without creating drama out of respect to you. I found serious issues with copyright violations in three articles you had worked on, where text was either directly copied into articles or where there were only very small changes made from the original. I worked to fix these, and used edit summaries that made clear what the issue was. Normally I would then raise this at WP:CCI, but I did not wish to do so if this was only an isolated problem, as that meant it would become a bigger and more public issue, even if the problem was later found to be on only a very small number of articles. So rather than make the issue public, I was looking into your edits using a mini-CCI to find out whether or not it was isolated. As you can see from my comments, I was finding only minor issues outside of the original pages, so at this stage I don't see any need for a formal CCI to be conducted, and do not intend to recommend one. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So now we throw in alleged copyright violations. Your take on what constitutes "serious issues with copyright violations" is just your opinion. If in the tens of thousands of edits I have made I forgot a set of quotes or didn't paraphrase well enough (for you) in a few cases, burn me at the stake. If tens of thousands of edits by anyone were examined by someone looking for problems, do you not think you would find some? This is harassment, plain and simple. Rp2006 (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to work this out - it isn't to do with COI, and like many of these cases, it seems you simply were trying too hard to stick to what the original was saying, leading to almost identical wording that creates copyright issues. As a quick example, so you can see where I'm coming from, the source reads: "Shortly after that, she contacted one of the letter’s writers, Jenny Splitter, about possibly making a short documentary about science-based parenting. Splitter then contacted a few other science-based mothers she knew, and thus Science Moms was born." [7] and the text added is "Newell contacted one of the letter’s writers, Jenny Splitter, about possibly making a short documentary about science-based parenting. Then Splitter contacted other science-based mothers she knew, and this chain of events resulted in the production of Science Moms." [8] There are some differences, but the word choice, structure, and bulk of the text is too close to the original. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also be clear about the intent. I found a problem that in three articles was significant, but the last thing I wanted to do was "burn you at the stake". So I looked through some of your other edits - as indicated by the page you linked to - to confirm that this was, as you say, just a few cases. Having determined that this does not seem to be an ongoing issue, I intended to drop it there without causing any drama for you, although I haven't yet worked out what the best option is for one of the three original articles. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilby I guess this means we're friends now? This is news to me and I barely interact with you but glad to know I'm making friends with experienced editors :) always good for when I need advice. Hope you've enjoyed the holidays Bilby. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Section with evidence of bad content

Please use this section to add diffs of edits showing the addition of bad content or the removal of good content, with a short quote of relevant text (so we can find it in the diff), and an explanation of why the change is bad. Please use some other section to report diffs where the editor may have had a COI. The aim here is to determine the seriousness of the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to address this on your talk page before you posted this section, unfortunately I've been travelling most of the afternoon and it slipped my mind.

While I'm certainly aware of a few diffs that demonstrate a COI, and I'd need some time tomorrow to collate them in the format you've asked for in a separate subsection. Unfortunately posting them here could/would OUT at least one of the editors involved, and as I believe you're aware of from the discussion here and on other noticeboard/talk pages that is an ongoing concern in this specific set of discussions. It's entirely possible that this specific set of diffs have already been sent to paid-en-wp by Santacruz, however I don't know what it is that has been sent.

As such I'm not sure how any editor here can provide diffs without outing one or more editors, given the nature of the underlying issue. For clarity the sake of clarity, the COI issue that I'm aware of is of at least one editor writing content for at least one organisation about a third party, and then citing that content on-wiki in that third party's Wiki article. The off-wiki content is somehow able to meet the reliable sourcing guidelines, though my unfamiliarity with the subject area as a whole prevents me from understanding how. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't find SI reliable (certainly not authoritative) except in WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:OPINION scenarios. They seem to mostly post opinion pieces from what I understand, but do have some vague level of editorial process. I started a relevant thread at RSN some weeks back but am on mobile so hopefully someone can link it below.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This one? BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm on mobile, so digging up diffs is a bit hard right now, so in addition to the edits I outlined in the section above, how about this. Adding a non MEDRS source they have a COI with to a medical article, making sure to provide the author's name and quote then extensively. This appears to be an example of the backwards editing, used to promote the publication and author. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, that Radford edit seems like a worthwhile addition to the article. What was the justification for removing it? Rp2006 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Shoehorning a non WP:MEDRS source by someone with no medical training or expertise into the epidemiology section of a disease, while simultaneously promoting a publication they have a COI with? Yeah, seems legit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead says "The cause of anorexia is currently unknown." That seems to leave open commentary ("I found many examples of flawed, misleading, and sometimes completely wrong information and data being copied and widely disseminated among eating disorder organizations and educators without anyone bothering to consult the original research to verify its accuracy...") on the data surrounding the diagnosis by an investigator such as Radford. Rp2006 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

On a pure content level, start with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS. Skeptical Inquirer does not meet MEDRS criteria. SFR also raises the additional COI perspective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A magazine piece by, to quote our article, an expert on the bad clowns phenomenon obviously doesn't meet the guidelines for medical sourcing laid out at WP:MEDRS. Spicy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Way to cherry pick one line! I can do that as well: "Benjamin Radford regularly speaks at universities and conferences across the country about his research, and about science and skepticism. Radford's books and investigations have been incorporated into several college and university courses on critical thinking, including at Western Washington University and the University of New Mexico." Rp2006 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The important part is the "magazine" bit, not the "bad clowns " bit. Ideal sources for biomedical material include literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. It's inappropriate to cite a magazine column for biomedical information regardless of whoever's writing it. Spicy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"...an expert on the bad clowns phenomenon obviously doesn't meet the guidelines..." I guess I just misinterpreted, especially as you took the trouble to highlight that portion and link to the Bad Clowns article. But I still disagree that only MEDRS sources are applicable in this context. A slightly dift analogy: if med folks butcher the data in their study, and non-medical data analyst experts point it out in "a magazine", that seems applicable to be pointed out. Rp2006 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is he a data analyst expert? Any examples of that, or why his opinion on medical studies would be in any way WP:DUE? Have any other sources, perhaps with expertise in a related field, discussed any of this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just stop Follow the direction of this thread and do not discuss each edit. This is for Johnuniq to be able to see the best evidence you have against Rp2006. That's it, nothing more, just list it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• This edit to a BLP would appear to be problematic. It adds significant amounts of criticism in wikivoice sourced solely to what appears to be, based on Sceptical Inquirers editorial policies, an SPS by someone who doesn't appear to meet our definition of a subject matter expert; "In 2020, she was a subject of a sting operation run by Susan Gerbic where, in addition to Northrop's use of standard cold reading techniques, it was also discovered that Northrop's co-host Thomas John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts, a technique known as hot reading, during these group sessions." I'm not certain whether User:Noguarde is affiliated with GSoW, but the editing pattern seems to fit. BilledMammal (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is inappropriate and I left a strong warning at User talk:Noguarde. However, the editor is new and I don't think they have previously encountered the pointy end of Wikipedia where the subtleties of editing WP:BLP articles become clear. They are creating what appears to be a good article at User:Noguarde/sandbox. Examining its history shows contributions from Rp2006 and that is enough (along with Rp2006's good edit at Suzane Northrop) to conclude a GSoW connection. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I overlooked that particular issue; thank you for noticing it. I would note that the "new editor" aspect might be more complicated than that; from what I understand of how their off-wiki collaboration works, the editor submitted the content, but others would have approved it, and possibly written it or edited it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• I suppose I should mention the Susan Gerbic article, which had to be extensively rewritten from the original - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• The Thomas John (medium) article has had extensive issues; the same issue regarding its use of a SPS from a non-SME as above, but with the added issue of appearing to misrepresent the New York Times in this diff by User:Rp2006; "in 2019 it was revealed by a New York Times report that a sting operation found John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts during group readings", when what it reported, unless I have missed something, was that Susan Gerbic believed that the sting operation found that John was using information acquired from audience Facebook accounts during group readings ("Her thinking is that if John knows even more details than she does, then it’s absolute proof that he’s looked through the Facebook posts.") - at no point does it make a statement in its own voice about whether she is correct. The current version, restored by Rp2006, is slightly better, but still a violation in my opinion. Looking through the history, there are also a number of issues with the article that were added by Rp2006 but have since been removed by other editors. BilledMammal (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The article does include this line: "One new source of psychic intel is Facebook, which has become a clearinghouse for the kind of insider, personal detail that psychics used to have to really sweat for." While I am not sure it tips the balance in favor of the noted text, it comes close to the NYT itself endorsing the conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm not sure how many diffs you wanted, so I took a bit of time and got these to start. Some show a clear COI as well as bad editing, some are just bad editing, some are severe BLP problems. I didn't look very hard, or check many articles, so this is a pretty small sample.

[9] - Expands section already sourced to a blog, making sure to link to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, saying As of February 2018 she has published seven articles detailing how she believes Henry's feats are actually accomplished. Then links to seven articles as sources, as if this was discussed in an secondary reliable source. Adds no information, just links to SI and CSI a lot.

[10] - Adds an unrelated video that shouldn't be there per WP:ELNO

[11] - Adds a SPS YouTube video as a source to an article about a BLP.

[12] - Just an advertisement for a podcast. Not providing information and citing, literally saying "Also, this guy did a podcast on it."

[13] - Then just adds two long quotes. 24 words of prose to quote 304 words.

[14] - Creates coatrack article with severe BLPvio in the lead and body. 381 words of "Felony fraud conviction and challenges to veracity" versus around 300 words of everything else. No sourcing to prove there was ever a felony conviction. Incredibly bad sourcing for negative information on a BLP, including Paranormal Herald Magazine, Psychic Review Online and chicago.gopride.com

[15] - Using a primary source of just a name with no indication it's the article subject.

[16] - Adding a SPS blog

[17] - Adds Jezebel for claims about a BLP. WP:JEZEBEL

[18] - Makes a BLP violating heading even worse

[19] - Cites a blog post and a youtube video for "Despite the scientific skeptic consensus that mediumship is a con." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks but examining each of those shows none that are bad. I guess I'm used to seeing nationalist and other kinds of POV pushing where the content is actually bad as in wrong or biased. The examples are by one editor over three articles (Tyler Henry, David Paulides, Thomas John (medium)). There is 1 edit from 2017, 3 from 2018, 5 from 2019 and 2 from 2021. Consider the two from August 2021 ([20], [21]). They are consecutive edits at David Paulides which added everything starting from "In August 2021, science communicator Brian Dunning released a Skeptoid episode ..." in this permalink at 20:04, 29 August 2021. The added text is factually correct and formatted well, with references. The refs are not gold-plated RS but are satisfactory per WP:PARITY. The edits perhaps show excessive enthusiasm for promoting a counter-pseudoscience agenda, but that's not "bad", and is, in fact, much better than leaving dubious claims unchallenged. The text added in the two diffs is still in the article more than four months later. The "coatrack article with severe BLPvio" is from November 2018. The reference used for the negativity is still in the article, three years later, with "stealing the security deposits from renters", almost the same as in the original. It's true that an experienced editor would know that the original article was a coatrack published with an excessive muck-to-content ratio. Claims like "Makes a BLP violating heading even worse" exaggerate the situation—that diff is yet another example of an edit from nearly three years ago and is typical for an enthusiast who has not been schooled in how things are done here. The heading was factually correct, it's just over-egged and inappropriate, and now reads "Legal issues" which is the norm. The eleven diffs given show largely historical problems from one editor. The problems concern a lack of understanding about how BLP articles must be phrased, and an excess enthusiasm for exposing charlatans. That's fixable and is far better than, for example, someone using Wikipedia to promote charlatans which would be bad as it would involve promoting known-false ideas. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I see excessive enthusiasm for promoting as WP:NPOV and promotion. You say the Thomas John link is almost the same as the original, which is not quite true, as it's missing the obvious BLPvio. Sure, it was a while ago when the article was created, but all of their edits, including restoring the BLPvio, after having it explained that it was not found in sources, continue. This is adding some more negative information to the lead, after adding another huge chunk to the article, violating WP:DUE, using a source they have a COI with, and using what is essentially a primary source in a BLP. This is all recent. You say you're used to seeing nationalist and other kinds of POV pushing where the content is actually bad as in wrong or biased. If I were an editor from Armenia, and created an article on a person from Azerbaijan with unsupported claims of a felony conviction making up over half of the article, citing sources that aren't suitable for a BLP, would that be the kind of bad editing you normally see? If I then spent years after the creation adding negative information from sting operations sourced to a source I have a COI with to the BLP, would that be bad editing? If, after being informed of a BLP issue that I created, would it be bad editing if I were then to say the other editor was actively supporting Azerbaijan, before restoring the BLP violation? All of that is wrong or biased That's fixable and is far better than, for example, someone using Wikipedia to promote charlatans which would be bad as it would involve promoting known-false ideas. is a straw man, because no one involved is trying to promote known-false ideas. It's not like there's one side removing controversy and criticism and saying "no, actually they are psychic and a medium and talk to the dead" and the other side is valiantly defending the wiki. One side is saying "Maybe we shouldn't call people felons or have editors with a COI use primary sources about sting operations to load down coatrack articles with incredibly undue negative coverage," and the other side is saying, "but I really want to, and they're charlatans, so it's ok."

If this type of editing was done in any other topic area the editors would be, at the very least, topic banned. If a nationalist editor made the same type of edits, they'd be gone. If a religious warrior made the same type of edits, they'd be gone. If an editor with a strong political viewpoint made these type of edits, they'd be gone.

Imagine someone who writes for The American Conservative (fine for facts, use with attribution on WP:RSP) created an article on a democrat that was more than half about a felony conviction that did not exist, then spent years adding articles from their publication to coatrack more and more negative information about stings they ran on that democrat into the article. We'd be fucking up in arms, as we should be, because that is bad editing.

Just because someone is saying they're a psychic on TV doesn't mean our sourcing, BLP and COI policies and guidelines go out the window. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: In your list of diffs, the oldest is this 18 April 2017 edit at Tyler Henry. The user has made 7034 edits to articles on and after that date. You have highlighted 11 diffs, only two of which are from 2021. The text added in the 2021 diffs is still in the article four months later. At ANI this would be closed as stale with the advice that people should try to engage with the editor and explain how things work. You have now added more diffs—weren't 11 enough? This has to stop. We all know the background, and we all know that GSoW editors generally overstate the case when refuting psychic claims, and they have left BLP articles unbalanced with too much negativity. My point is that the information added by GSoW people is correct, properly formatted, and uses WP:PARITY sources. Of course they need assistance to understand how BLP works and what community standards are. But their edits are not bad in the sense of being misleading or wrong. They are guilty of promoting science. For a contrast, what do you think about this recent edit? That adds correct information, namely that some people believe that disappearances from national parks may be due to a parallel universe or a space/time warp. I have not claimed there is no problem. I'm saying the frenzy is disproportionate. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not claimed there is no problem. I'm saying the frenzy is disproportionate. I think the frenzy might be because admins and functionaries are saying there is a problem, and it's clear COI editing is being done to slant BLP articles, and nothing is happening. Sure, BLP is one of the two things you can break 3rr over, but those editors are guilty of promoting science, so it's fine. You wanted diffs, so I provided diffs. You said they weren't individual bad, so I provided the contract to show that for years an article was used as a coat rack, citing sources the editor has a COI with. You continue to say their edits are not bad in the sense of being misleading or wrong when diffs were provided of saying a BLP was a convicted felon, and then restoring it after it was removed on clear BLP grounds. I guess we just have different definitions of misleading and wrong. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't have worded it better myself. This is the heart of the issue that's being discussed here. No one is unsanctionable, no matter what perspective you have. I'm looking forward to see how the discussion with Levivich and Sgerbic continues below, but SFR's summary here above is really the best way to explain the issue. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I could paraphrase this argument by writing - when this group of people do this thing, there isn't consensus for it and that is bad. But when this other group of people do a slightly different thing, there is consensus for it so it is good. The same sort of reasoning backs analogies about WP:COCHRANE and such. We would need to come to some sort of consensus that anti-fringe editing (or pro-skeptic, or pro-Center for Inquiry, or whatever you want to call it) is a problem before the discretionary sanctions being sought here could happen. I doubt that will happen in this discussion. I'd say start a RFC, but we already have sanctions for "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.", so it would seem this situation is already covered if you can make your case(s) against individual editors at AE. MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure psychics and mediums don't fall under fringe or pseudoscience, as there's no scientific claim. It's pretty much the Santa example at WP:FRINGE. (To be clear, Santa is real though, and he lives in all of our hearts!) BLP discretionary sanctions could be looked at too, but at this point there would have to be notification, and then stalking of edits, and then taking part in the joy and wonder of AE and Arbcom. There's a reason most of the edits I noted above are from one page, that's where I saw the problem. Every time I look further, I see more problems, but I'm not following editors or delving deep into their history. It also seems that they're not fond of people checking their edits, quietly and respectfully, even when there have been demonstrable copyright issues.

And to be clear, you think that creating a BLP calling someone a felon with no sourcing, then using a source that you have a COI with to add more negative information from sting operations run by the source you have a COI to the BLP, and then reverting the BLPvio back into the BLP after being advised it was a BLPvo while personally attacking the person who removed the BLPvio, has consensus as being good? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm speaking only about attempts to leverage individual cases into some kind of broader community sanctions regime, not the merits of any individual edit. And, to be clear, if your main concern is BLP violations we're at the wrong noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It was discussed in this thread, and has been brought up at ANI. If editing issues involve COI editing, BLP problems, personal attacks, and a bevy of other issues, there's really no one place that fits. I didn't start this thread, but expanding on COI issues involved with editing BLPs seems well within the wheelhouse. I was asked to use this section to add diffs of edits showing the addition of bad content...use some other section to report diffs where the editor may have had a COI. The aim here is to determine the seriousness of the issue. I provided diffs showing addition of bad content, which happens to violate a number of policies and guidelines, then provided more information on why they were bad. Not sure what the issue is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure psychics and mediums don't fall under fringe or pseudoscience, as there's no scientific claim. ROFL! VdSV9•♫ 20:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to the Rp2006 diffs, I would add this one; while the source is problematic, that diff goes beyond it by stating "fraudulent techniques", with a link to our article on fraud. It also adds the term "grief vampires", and even in quotes that would appear to be undue. The agenda isn't a particularly problematic one, but the results of the agenda, particularly regarding living people, is. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought I would put a couple more here; this diff, where the editor implies with WP:SCAREQUOTES that the medical licence was not voluntarily withdrawn, contrary to the cited article, and this diff, where the editor added a source that does not support the content it is supposed to support, despite the content already being appropriately referenced. I haven't looked deeply into individual editors though. This diff and this diff should be enough to establish that they are part of GSoW. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your two posts include diffs from April 2018 and January 2019 (stale), and a recent edit with scarequotes ('She "voluntarily withdrew" her medical license in 2015.' at this article). The edit added correct and due information, but the scarequotes are very undesirable although that is hard for inexperienced editors to grasp. It's a correctable problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue I am seeing is that this is a systematic issue in the related BLP's that has been occurring over years, and so while these diffs would be stale in an isolated case, they are relevant here.

However given the request for recent diffs, and the discussion below about backwards editing and whether GSoW editors are taught to add references to CSI publications to promote them, I will add this recent diff, where the user (connection) adds a second source pointing at SI when the claim is both uncontroversial and already sourced to The Guardian.

These seem relatively common, where unneeded or inappropriate citations to SI are added by GSoW editors; for instance, this edit, (connection) which adds a source that doesn't support the content though a source is needed, and this edit, which supplements an existing SI source - though a second source might be appropriate here, as it discusses the paragraph discusses the actions of SI and so SI is not independent coverage, adding a second SI source does not fix that problem. We also find this addition, where the source is both not needed, and used in a location where I believe WP:MEDRS sources are required. I note that these would likely be considered stale in isolation, but again I believe they speak to the general issue. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really disagreeing with you, but the point is that these edits are not bad. For example, if you or I had made them, others might say the edits were not necessary or had some other defect, but those edits do not add false or misleading content. Many here are focusing on the links to Skeptical Inquirer as promotional. That is an interpretation, but IMHO the GSoW editors are not here to promote a website—they are here to combat pseudoscience, and very few reliable sources take the trouble to publish refutations of nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree that these edits aren't bad; I would see edits that don't benefit Wikipedia, and that are added to promote the organization or person being cited, as bad.

I would also add these three; 1 23 (connection) - while they add content, and I've overlooked other examples that add content because the question of whether they benefit Wikipedia is more ambiguous and article specific, these three appear to violate WP:MEDRS, though I am not experienced enough with MEDRS to know for sure. Finally, I will just note that almost all recent citations of SI that I have seen have been by editors that appear to be affiliated with GSoW; this disparity suggests to me that they are being encouraged to cite SI, and given Gerbic's previous comments on the topic, to promote it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Many of the examples in this section show correctable problems—the editors concerned are adding good content, but they need to learn how to fit in with standard procedures here. To illustrate what I mean, above I mentioned this diff by someone not from GSoW. IMHO the content added in that diff is not good, and I would not expect any amount of mentoring to give better results. By contrast, the diff you mention with a MEDRS problem may be bad in the sense that we require better sources for that kind of article, but the content is good and the source (according to the self-bio) shows the author is a research neurologist with an MD and PhD. Finally it is extremely likely that the source is correct (I'm not saying my opinion justifies use of that source, I'm just pointing out that it is not bad other than failing the strict WP:MEDRS). Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Section with other discussion

Looking through GSoW affiliated editors in general, identified by editing patterns and editor interactions, I will note that outside of a relatively narrow range of topics - pseudoscience and similar, as well as where they have COI's - they seem to do generally good work and if they avoided those areas I don't think we would have a problem. BilledMammal (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If they were taught correctly, they'd be a huge asset. It's not their fault they're doing what they've explicitly been taught to do ("backwards editing", which is, indeed, backwards). All of the students are an asset, we just need to provide them with correct information about how to edit. (I think I'll write a book about it.) Levivich 14:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you do, let me know and I'll backwards edit it into every article I can find. Also, I've noted from the beginning of all of this that there is a lot of good editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting - that would explain some of the more unusual references I have been seeing. Looking at that ScottishFinnishRadish I would agree, though I think the scope would need to be slightly broader; at least pseudoscience BLP's, and I've seen a few edits that make me think the list of organizations they have a COI with needs to be expanded. BilledMammal (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[22] That is literally laying out the COI/promotional editing in an easy to digest manner. If it were any other company or group there would be mass blocks over it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's important to contrast that approach with what WP:GLAM does. From WP:GLAM/About: GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public. Unlike GLAM, SI is promoting the institution itself, and not its resources. Levivich 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is opportunistic. I think the calculus is well stated at the head of this very page: "An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia." [my emphasis]. Win/win for the "outside interest" and Wikipedia is okay, but nothing less than that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed that line from the header; it has no basis in WP:COI. Levivich 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

From the top of my head, organizations they might have a COI with are: Center for Inquiry and its publications, James Randi Foundation and its projects (including The Amaz!ng Meeting), European Council of Skeptical Organisations and its member organizations, NZ Skeptics, and Monterey County Skeptics. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and other Dawkins related organizations are unlikely to have a COI due to their only recent merging with CFI, but shouldn't be dismissed as a possibility. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note I haven't really looked at their podcasts/youtube videos though so that's another possible source of COIs that I'm unaware of. I don't plan on listening or watching though, as that seems like an excessive waste of time to me. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear about your position, whom exactly are you saying these COI concerns apply to? I am old and sometimes have trouble following the thread of argument. Thanks and cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't discuss particular individuals due to WP:OUTING concerns, sorry Dumuzid. However, there are multiple sources written by Sgerbic referenced in the wiki articles I have linked (or related ones) that either indicate she has written for them, produced content in some shape or form for them, is associated with them or their members (including leaders), and/or has been featured as a speaker/lecturer at events organized by them. I am sorry I cannot go more in detail or mention the other editors whose names I have brought up in this discussion as I must be careful not to out anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I am not seeking any specific names, but I am wondering about the class of people you think should be encompassed? I mean, I am not sure if we're talking about just the two individuals already named in this thread, anyone who identifies as a member of GSoW, or anyone who considers themselves a skeptic? To my mind, you've shown real concerns. But without context, again, just to me, you can sound troublingly broad. Any assistance along those lines would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think people who write for, or are fellows of, the groups and publications they are citing and promoting. That's a general round-about "class." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also include lecturers and speakers at their conferences or events. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there might be a misunderstanding here; I believe Dumuzid is asking which group of editors would have the COI, not which group of people they would have the COI in relation to; I believe the answer is all current members of GSoW, as I can't see a narrower scope being effective due to how widespread the issues are, due to GSoW policies and article priorities.

I will say that if GSoW commits to altering its behaviour - effectively, a voluntary ban from articles and sources they have a COI with - then I believe we can end this process now and simply observe whether they are able to abide, and whether the BLP issues continue even when they aren't acting with a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that being that you can't really identify members of GSoW, as it's organized and all communication is done off-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found that we can, through their editing and interaction patterns. However, it would take a lot of work - and even more to maintain the list, given they appear to be actively recruiting - and so I would prefer to at least try the voluntary option and with any luck avoid needing to do it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the jump that I was afraid of. Can you explain to me the rationale for including all members of the group (however identified) as conflicted? Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Primarily because the issue extends to their editing, but I also because I don't believe the GSoW leadership will stop encouraging their members to edit articles and use sources they have a COI with, which means WP:PROXYING will become relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So, in essence, Editor X, if they claim to be a member of GSoW, should be considered conflicted without any behavioral evidence, basically because they are assumed to be hearing bad advice? I know I am asking a pointed question, but I hope you'll appreciate that it embodies my concern. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe what you are wrote accurately reflects what I wrote, and I believe it would be more suitable if you explained your concerns rather than asking such questions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine. You believe GSoW members should be considered to have a conflict due to what GSoW leadership might be encouraging, correct? Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No; I believe that they have a COI because of their membership in GSoW, with this membership causing a COI because of what I know GSoW leadership encourages, and evidenced by the editing that the members engage in. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And that COI is because they seek to promote a specific viewpoint? Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's because they seek to promote the work of SGerbic, Rp2006, SI, etc., regardless of viewpoint. This isn't really hard to understand: if an author is training new editors to promote the author's work, and those new editors go about adding the author's work to various articles, those new editors are effectively meatpuppets with COI, regardless of who the author is, or what they're writing, or what the viewpoint is. Contrast this with the approach of WP:GLAM/About (explicit about not promoting the institution) or WikiEd (where teachers do not teach students to promote the teacher' work). Levivich 17:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What's hard for me to understand is trying to apply this COI to editors who have NOT "go[ne] about adding the author's work to various articles." Even if they have been exhorted to do so, this is not a problem if they haven't, you know, done so. This is why membership in any sort of group strikes me as a non-sequitur. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Now you're conflating "having a WP:COI" with "violating WP:COI". An editor has a COI vis-a-vis Gerbic if they are a student of Gerbic, or have any other relationsip with Gerbic (friend, colleague, enemy, family, whatever, per WP:COI). But having a COI doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong; having a COI does not violate WP:COI. Even with a COI, they can still edit, as long as they comply with the requirements of WP:COI (e.g., disclosure). Only those people who have a COI and don't comply with WP:COI are violating WP:COI. So far, we know that's SGerbic and Rp2006 and a number of other students who can be identified via contribs history (without WP:OUTING). Levivich 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If they're going to edit about James Randi, then yes, per the first sentence of WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships (bold added). Randi is the co-founder of CSI, which is Gerbic's institution (of which she is a fellow), and which publishes SI, where she writes. I'm guessing CSI has paid money to Gerbic at some point, but she has a COI regardless of a financial tie, because of the professional relationship. And her students all have COIs with CSI, too, because Gerbic is teaching them to promote SI ("our publications"). Levivich 17:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the "teaching" point with which I have an issue. I cannot support this sort of "COI infection" by the kind of loose affiliation we're talking about. Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is friends with Gerbic is simply too attenuated a "relationship" for me. Again, I think real problems have been presented here, but I think the sort of expansive attempt to bring in an unascertained group of editors is quixotic and a net negative. Reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would put it slightly differently; its that they are a member of an organization that seeks to promote SI etc. How the organization goes about getting them to do that isn't particularly relevant beyond establishing that they do. BilledMammal (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Seeking to promote" a publication, or, indeed, anything else, is not a conflict as far as I can tell absent some sort of relationship, but perhaps I am wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already established that there is a relation. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you'll note my post above, that's exactly what I am questioning. Your response, as I understood it, was "the relationship is established by being part of a group seeking to promote SI." Perhaps I have misunderstood. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing CSI pays Gerbic; Gerbic founded and runs an organization with the intent of promoting CSI etc.

Pretend I have a paid COI with Acme Corp. I then create an organization to promote Acme Corp etc, and recruit Levivich to it. Does Levivich have a COI? BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We should use a more concrete example: I was a member of the Nintendo Fun Club, which was started by a Nintendo employee. Do I have a COI with Nintendo? - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Membership functions too differently for them to be equivalent. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My issue, I guess, is that you're hanging a lot of your argument on what "membership function" in GSoW looks like, and this link in the chain strikes me as very unconvincing. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the Nintendo Fun Club teach you how to edit Wikipedia articles to promote Nintendo? Because if so, then yes, you'd have a COI, due to your relationship with Nintendo (the relationship being that you're a student taught by Nintendo to edit Wikipedia to promote Nintendo). Levivich 18:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, this seems to me to be making several inferential leaps. Let me try it this way: this is your basis for saying all GSoW members need to declare COIs, correct? Dumuzid (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Where are you even getting that idea? I don't even know what a "GSoW member" is. Have I ever even used that phrase? Read what I've been writing, I'm very clear about who has a COI (Gerbic, students of Gerbic taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc.), and why (for Gerbic, because of the relationship; for the students, because they've been taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc.). Levivich 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize; with several conversational threads, it can be easy to get mixed up. Let me put it this way: I agree with you, to the extent it can be shown that someone was "taught by Gerbic to promote Gerbic/SI/etc." But I don't think showing exhortations to that effect are a sufficient proof. If "here's how to edit Wikipedia" and "here's what I think you should do with it" are separate, then to my mind, it's not a conflict. And I am of course mindful that I am not global consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, this is a fast moving and confusing thread. As for how we know someone was a student and what they were taught, it's certainly a good point. There are some behavior tells that I won't get into on-wiki, but I think a better route is what I'm suggesting SGerbic do down below (namely, ask her to help, because she's really the only one in a position to fix the COI concerns without OUTING or blocking/banning anyone). Levivich 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I'll quit complicating matters. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not accurate. It's not Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is friends with Gerbic, it's Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is someone Gerbic explicitly taught to edit Wikipedia for the purpose of "getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned", as she wrote in an article in SI, which is published by CSI [23]. "Our publication" == the publication of the organization Randi co-founded. That's a big difference from "friends with Gerbic". Levivich 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This still radically undervalues personal autonomy to me; I do not like the idea of categorizing editors based on by whom they were "taught to edit Wikipedia." That caa certainly give rise to a conflict with respect to said teacher, but to say a "teacher" passes on their conflicts just seems plainly wrong, in my opinion. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What you like, and what seems plainly wrong to you, are irrelevant. :-) The language of [[WP:COI] is global consensus. And, again, you keep slipping, like subtly changing what we're talking about. Just like it's not "friend", it's also not "teacher", it's "teacher teaching students to promote teacher". I think you can grasp this very key point: to promote teacher, or to promote school (in the Catholic school example brought up), or to promote publication ("our publications", e.g. SI). Nobody is saying "teacher" passes on their conflicts, teacher creates the COI by teaching students to promote the teacher, the teacher's publication, the teacher's organization, etc. Levivich 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because they seek to promote a group of organizations and individuals. But please, get to the point. BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that I hope you have a wonderful day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

[24] To repeat what I said above I'd like to see some sort of community sanctions set up, where upon if reasonable evidence is provided an administrator can apply a topic ban covering the COI.

This way there would have to be evidence of editing issues, rather than topic banning an off-wiki group with no way of ascertaining the members. No maintaining lists, or tracking people down. If the editing matches the pattern, and reasonably convincing evidence is provided, then a topic ban is applied. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea that all members of GSoW automatically have COI with all publications of the Center for Inquiry. There are a lot of analogous citations that we wouldn't have a problem with. For example an IEEE member citing something from one of IEEE's journals, so long as they didn't write the article in question themselves. Or the WP:COCHRANE project mentioned above. Or WP:NIOSH citing CDC reports. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The difference is why they are adding them. The IEEE member is assumedly citing the journal only to enhance Wikipedia; the GSoW member is citing SI to enhance SI. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In every case, you think? Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided, and on the edits I have seen, in enough. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer not to assume that. - MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to assume it, we know it's true, because we have SGerbic's 2015 article in which she explicitly says she tells students to go about adding links to SI for the purpose of promoting SI. Let me quote it one more time for you: We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. And just one more time, with feeling: We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned. The title of the article is "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing" [25]. This is not ok, this is called WP:PROMO, and when you teach people to do it, it's WP:MEATPUPPETry. Levivich 17:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't know it's true. I've been told to do all sorts of things during my life, many of them in school, but I don't repeat those behaviors like a robot. Or are we going to assign a COI with the Catholic church to everyone who attended a Catholic school? That'd be basically every editor we have from Ireland. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the Catholic school teach its students to edit Wikipedia to promote the Catholic church? If so, then yes, the students have a COI. Levivich 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, but it is hard to police that ban without knowing who is a member of GSoW. I'm not sure how saying you're a member of GSoW means you'll be outed (and I have mentioned in the past that I believe Sgerbic should significantly improve its personal security practices training for GSoW members), but functionaries should have access to a membership list for me to really trust GSoW. That way, if there is edit-warring in a related article and the issue is raised at a relevant noticeboard, they can check to see if there are editors who are violating the terms of the ban without needing to out anyone. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedians are opposed to making people register user accounts at all, I doubt you'd ever get the community's support behind keeping a membership list like this. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: There is no "ban" to "police" and no "list of names", and it has not even been established that GSoW members in the round have any kind of COI to "police". This kind of talk takes us right back to the witch-hunting problem. Discussions should be focussed on content, not people. The ANI thread on this was closed saying "Concerns about off-wiki canvasssing or relationships between editors and off-wiki organizations should be addressed through an arbitration case request." So why is it being continually paraded in other venues? Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alexbrn stop referring to what I do as a witch-hunt. I consider that a personal attack. I have already had to ask you to not edit on my talk page, and do not wish to seek an IBAN. You are an incredibly valuable editor in this community. Referring to a COI concern or suggestions on how to address it within COIN as a witch-hunt is below you. The reason why we cannot know what COI GSoW members have is because a) GSoW members have no history of publicly disclosing their COIs (except for Sgerbic) b) GSoW members have been terribly unconstructive until now (Sgerbic I genuinely appreciate you responding to Levivich below. This is the only way I see this thread having any lasting impact.) in regards to discussing potential COIs. I was just saying that I cannot trust who is or isn't a GSoW member as the membership isn't public (this is not a controversial statement) and was just proposing one way to relieve that concern without outing anyone. I'm not saying my concern is one the majority shares, or even one the majority should share (I am inherently less trusting than most people, I'd sure as hell hope people were more trusting than I am).

In response to MrOllie, I personally do not believe IP editors should be allowed to edit but I am perfectly aware that is both a minority opinion and do not seek in any way to convince anyone of my views on the topic. (I'm in this weird state of disliking IP editors but acknowledging it's how most editors make their first edit before joining so it is an invaluable recruitment tool for long-term editors). As I have mentioned numerous times before, I genuinely cannot understand why GSoW cannot be a WikiProject and be transparent. Wikiprojects have membership lists, and if the only reason why GSoW isn't a WikiProject is outing or off-wiki harassment concerns, having some hybrid where there is an on-wiki project but the membership is hidden but available to functionaries seems like a nice way of finding a middle between the two views. That's all I was suggesting. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They could be a WikiProject, but they don't want to. Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and we don't get to tell volunteers where or how they can socialize with each other. MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your use of the word "socialize" is highly misleading. Nobody is suggesting regulating how anyone socializes, and GSoW is not a social club, AFAIK. And I think you know that by now. Please be more careful about avoiding straw man argumentation; it's part of what's made this discussion so difficult. Levivich 23:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact remains, nobody here has any kind of right or authority to regulate what people do off Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to attempt a translation (MrOllie, by all means, correct me if I am wrong): they apparently don't want to be a WikiProject; no one can force them to be a WikiProject; they cannot be penalized for not becoming a WikiProject. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel we might be getting side-tracked here (certainly this is a very complex discussion with many different aspects meriting discussion, but this is COIN and we should attempt to stick to discussing COI issues), discussing how to improve Wikipedian's relationship with GSoW and GSoW's relationship with Wikipedia as projects is probably best to discuss elsewhere. I'm certainly happy for that to happen in my user talk if there is no better venue, although I'd suggest doing so at the WP:Skepticism talk page. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that nobody is trying to force anyone to become a WikiProject, nor is anyone penalizing anyone for not becoming a WikiProject, nor has anyone said that anyone should be so forced or so penalized. It's, in my opinion, not forthright, to characterize a suggestion as "forcing" or "penalizing". In my view, a forthright response would be one that addressed whether the suggestion was a good suggestion (should they be a WikiProject), whereas a straw man response is one that argues it shouldn't be a requirement (must they be a WikiProject). Arguing that it's not required, when no one is saying it is required, derails the discussion (it moves the discussion from "should" to "must" when "must" isn't even on the table), and characterizing a suggestion as a requirement is, well, straw manning. Levivich 23:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I feel people are misunderstanding my opinions/positions/suggestions/views as much more extreme than they actually are because of this type of wrong characterization of what I say. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a bad idea if they don't want to do it. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, I interpreted statements such as " they need to set up an on-wiki WikiProject, and have their discussions there." [26] as attempts to force compliance. I'm happy to learn that isn't what is intended. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The facts will likely make no difference to the folks here set on destroying GSoW's work on Wikipedia, but in an effort to set the record straight on something that’s being put forth to demonize Gerbic and add fuel to the fire, but which is dead wrong, I'm going to do so anyway: It is not at all "Randi created CSI->CSI paid Gerbic->Editor X is someone Gerbic explicitly taught to edit Wikipedia..." It is more like this: science and skepticism fan Gerbic wanted to help the cause of “Science and Reason” and realized Wikipedia was the place to do this (to "preach outside the choir"). She started editing Wikipedia with that goal and created GSoW to help other like-minded people do it too. After years of this, as well as doing activism to debunk psychic mediums and try to prevent desperate people being taken advantage by “grief vampires”, she was noticed by the "powers that be" in the skeptical movement. In the USA, that was/is the JREF/CSI. At some point she began writing articles for SI and speaking about her work, all unpaid AFAIK (per the published policy of Skeptical Inquirer: "The Skeptical Inquirer is unable to pay authors, but authors will be mailed several complimentary copies of the published issue." See here). She was eventually (recently) elected CSI fellow – a totally honorary position without compensation -- given to those who make a significant contribution to “the skeptical movement.” She also was noticed by the JREF and her non-profit (set up to support GSoW and her other skeptical outreach work, such as bringing students to skeptical conferences) was awarded a grant to make sure her work continued. That’s the actual sequence AFAIK. And when she encourages “her people” to add Skeptical Inquirer (and other skeptical media) as references to Wiki articles, it is not to promote CSI for the sake of promoting that non-profit. It is to promote what CSI stands for. It is billed as “The magazine of science and reason,” and in the USA it is arguably the primary media outlet of that type. If you want to promote science and reason as Gerbic has done from the beginning of her skeptical activism and before she was even on the radar of CSI, using the material within SI – written by all sorts of skeptical SMEs – is the only reasonable thing to do. Rp2006 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the facts show SGerbic is explicit about teaching people to edit for the purpose of promoting SI, and not for some greater purpose. Let me quote more extensively that 2015 article in SI, "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing", in which she advocates using "backwards editing" in order to "improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer" (bold added):

Essentially backwards editing means taking an existing citation that you have run across in a noteworthy source, and then adding it to a current Wikipedia article. You may never have heard of the Wikipedia page you are about to edit, which makes this a lot more interesting. This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work. Normally an editor will start with a Wikipedia page and look for citations that can be used on it. Backwards editing appeals to editors with limited time. This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. I call this preaching beyond the choir.

This is what it comes down to and the reason for this article, we have an enormous amount of content in journals, books, lectures, and such, all accessible, and most are citable by Wikipedia standards. They need to be found and used to educate. Getting the scientific skepticism message beyond our choir should be everyone’s goal. Looking at this globally, only a very small percent of the potential readers of SI are even aware of its existence. Every month at my local skeptic meet-up we get a new member who states “I didn’t know that there was a community or podcasts or magazines. I had no idea it was a ‘thing’ until the other day when I found out by accident.” I know that seems hard to believe, but everyone started somewhere, and the majority of people reading this right now probably found SI through a friend or found a mention of it somewhere, often by chance. It is even very possible you discovered SI while reading an article on Wikipedia. We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.

Trying to paint this as anything other than promoting a magazine is untenable. Levivich 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, much of what you highlighted actually makes my point, the main idea being that "Getting the scientific skepticism message beyond our choir should be everyone’s goal." As SI articles represent the field, this is here way to do that. And... nice that you ignored the correction to the claim Gerbic is paid. Also my point that she was doing this herself before having any involvement with CSI. Also... "our" in "our podcasts, and our spokespeople" clearly refers to the podcasts and spokespeople (scientists, etc.) of the scientific skeptical movement, not the podcasts (CSI has just one) and spokespeople (CSI has no one with such a title that I'm aware of) of CSI. Rp2006 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

So now what Levivich? Besides outing my team which I will not do, or disbanding the GSoW (to conduct only on Wikipedia) what do you want from me? What do you and ACS want? Am I to walk away from editing, would that satisfy you? Would you be happy to go back to the Wikipedia from ten years ago? Should the GSoW stop editing on English Wikipedia? I'm sickened by the tone and anger of these threads that keep getting fueled with drama. Good editors are being called pro-woo which is of course nonsense. 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. Throw my body on the pyre, burn me up. How dare I even think that teaching non-editors to edit could work. Hound people to distraction I suppose is the new way. Going out of Wikipedia to look into our real lives is fine, ACS admitted it thousands of words up in this thread and it was ignored, so no problem I guess. Outing people who are only being attacked by the paranormal community, anti-vaxers, tin-foil types no problem, should I just post my address right here to make it easier to find me? Sgerbic (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You could just not edit articles dealing with CSI or SI or the directly affiliated groups, and not use them for sources. No need for immolation or address posting. There's plenty of other editing you've done outside of those narrow topics, and plenty of other sources you've used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That would make you happy SFR? And what about @Levivich he started this whole thread. If Sgerbic never added another Skeptical Inquirer article would that end this? Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this thread was started due to a COI from another user, but since the first ANI oh so long ago (feels like ages!!), that's all I've wanted, and what I've said I wanted. I don't know about everyone else, but I've been pretty clear with my feelings on the topic. I even said that when we had the civil discussion on my talk page. I explained that targeting GSoW was folly, and that single editor behavior should be addressed. I continue to not want to target a whole group, but rather, address what I see as problematic editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you SFR. Let's see what others that are in authority here say. Sgerbic (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bilby I would be very interested in your terms also. Sgerbic (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is asking anyone to out themselves. I speak for no one but myself, and nobody else speaks for me, so don't ask me what another editor wants, ask them. As for what I want, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. Abandon and disavow, publicly, the entire idea of "backwards editing" and the approach you laid out in that 2015 article
   • Backward editing is a poor editing philosophy. It creates non-neutral articles, it creates WP:DUE problems and when the backwards editing is all done backwards from a particular publication, it's indistinguishable from WP:PROMO editing. When it's done backwards from a particular point of view, it's WP:POVPUSHing. When it's done backwards from a particular cause or agenda, it's WP:RGW editing. Basically, backwards editing is always going to lead to policy violations. I have no idea if you agree with that or not, but I'd be happy to have a longer conversation with you elsewhere about this, and about how to properly fight disinformation through "forward editing". (I've decided I really am going to write a book about this that I plan to self-publish later this year. I genuinely thank you for giving me the push I needed, as I believe this whole mess is borne from miscommunication due to a lack of education, and I want to help fix that so it doesn't happen again.)
2. Stop teaching people to take citations from SI (or any other publication with which you have a WP:COI) and add those citations to Wikipedia articles (as you advocate in the 2015 article)
3. Disclose your personal COIs in accordance with WP:COI; that's going to require you to review your own editing history so that you don't make a mistake like the one you made earlier in this conversation when you incorrectly asserted that you've never edited about yourself
4. Ask anyone affiliated with you or GSoW, whether colleagues, students, or otherwise, to also review their own edits and disclose COI. If there is an WP:OUTING concern--if they can't disclose their COI without OUTING--ask them to email (as it says at WP:COI, see WP:COISELF for example, which talks about emailing WP:OTRS) in order to disclose the COI privately or otherwise seek advice about how to handle the COI. (You may want to figure out an email contact other than WP:OTRS, I'm not sure if that's the best email for this particular issue.) I understand you're not responsible for others' actions, but it would be good for you to publicly advocate that others take the appropriate steps, as I'm sure you will do.
5. Going forward, comply with WP:COI. Either don't edit things with which you have a COI at all (if you don't want to disclose), or edit them in the manner that WP:COI requires (which might mean disclosures and talk page posts)
6. Going forward, ask your colleagues/past students/whoever to similarly comply with WP:COI (I understand you're not responsible for others' actions, but it would be good for you to publicly advocate that others take the appropriate steps, as I'm sure you will do.)
7. Going forward, teach your future students about how to comply with WP:COI, in the same manner as WP:GLAM and WikiEd does. Teach them about the judgment call they're going to have to make between being totally anonymous, or editing things with which they have a COI (where they'll have to disclose that COI, which might mean at least some level of self-outing). Teach them how to make those disclosures.
8. Going forward, comply with the usual procedures followed by WikiEd and other Wikipedia training programs (Wiki meetups, edit-a-thons, etc.). That means your students identify themselves as your students and as participating in your training program, when they are making edits as part of one of your training programs. I'm not totally familiar with what the requirements for this are, but I know that there's a standard way that teachers handle it when they're teaching people to edit Wikipedia, and it involves disclosures and notices, so everyone else knows "this edit is made by a student in this class", and they know how to contact the teacher should there be any problems.
9. I still think you should consider moving GSoW from Facebook to Wikipedia and becoming a WikiProject, and having communications on-wiki. Accountability through transparency is the wiki-way, it's how crowdsourced editing works. A lack of disclosing COI is how much "woo" editing (and other POV-pushing) gets done, that's the "black hat" editing; anti-"woo" editing should be "white hat" editing: entirely above-board, a shining beacon setting an example for others, not a shadowy, mysterious organization communicating off-wiki. Levivich 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich - I love that you numbered this. 1. I do not agree that backwards editing is pushing an agenda, I do think that it might appear that way at times, but don't think a blanket ban on adding citations to existing articles is going to fly, how would that even be policed, every editor adds content to an article, from the NYT from Time Magazine that just seems odd to blanket ban that. But I see your point, doing it in mass is scary and will seem like blanket spamming. 2. see above 3. How much more clear can I be with who I am? I am Susan Gerbic my user name says so. My user page says who I am, and there is even a Wikipedia page. How much more obvious can it be? I don't see COI in the same way you do, something that probably will need to be discussed further, but it isn't as clear to me (and others) as it is to you (and others). Just saying "state your COI" is vague and a blanket statement. 4. See above plus you will know that this is a public post and people will be reading and thinking about what you are saying. 5. Again - that is such a blanket statement that it means just about everything. How can I do that, does it apply to schools I've attended, places I've worked, cars I've owned, magazines I subscribe to, that gets pretty broad. As stated with SFR if Sgerbic no longer cited the journal Skeptical Inquirer and did not edit CSI or CFI is that enough to end this drama? 8. How am I going to have students announce they are a part of my training program without them also announcing they are GSoW? You don't seem to be grasping that there are editors reading this right now that are making lists of everyone they think is GSoW, they are doing this for reasons that are not to give them a special welcome to the project, they clearly are planning on making their careers here miserable. Not only the editors who have posted here, but those lurkers, trolls like Tumbledown who just reared his ugly head a few weeks ago and approached ACS, but there are lots of these people who often make my life difficult off Wikipedia would would love to have a list of editors to expand to. We focus on fringe topics as you know, so we get a lot of fringe people looking to cause in real life issues. 9. What I just wrote is the issue here, as I keep trying to make clear, we are on the wikiprojects, we post and edit there also. We edit along side you all all the time, we are just editors like anyone else. I can not stop people from becoming friends and chatting and working on projects off Wikipedia. That isn't manageable and even if we were to try, someone would always move the goal posts to say we are not totally transparent. No one will ever be completely pleased. What I propose is that we stop generalizing GSoW as this "thing" and respond to the edits as are seen on the page we are looking at in the moment and address the issue on the talk page. Pulling in edits made across ten years from hundreds of people (some not even GSoW) is not helpful. In other words, addressing the issue with the edit in the same way that every edit is addressed. Not lumping every person and every edit into a bucket. I look forward to your book Levivich and to working along with you for years to come, I want to work in peace and not have to deal with any more drama from those that profess to be in the science positive world. We have enough division to deal with, we should not be involved in hundreds of thousands of words on an admin thread. Can we at least agree to that? Sgerbic (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: we can certainly agree on that, I'd like nothing more! As to the rest, I'm interested to hear what others think; particularly what their answers are to the very apt question you posed: what do they want to happen here? Levivich 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Side point: there is nothing wrong with starting with sourcing and improving Wikipedia articles from those sources. The only two things wrong with what sgerbic wrote about that are "This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work" (coming across something in a source you read frequently and updating the article is, I would venture, much more common than picking an article and doing a deep dive), and that it should be used to promote a particular publication. If I read a book about the history of basketball, there's a strong likelihood that I'm going to add bits from that book to various basketball-related articles. And there would be nothing wrong with that. So let's leave this part aside, eh, and stick with the COI stuff.

If I can summarize what I see as the valid points here: nobody should be editing articles about subjects they have a direct connection to, and citations to publications one has a connection to should be done sparingly. Neither of these are absolute requirements, but the strong preference of an awful lot of people, and best practices for editing. The issue is, as soon as any such edit is remotely problematic, there is wikihellfire. Nobody within a particular group should be editing about or on behalf of other members of that group, either. I find the efforts to target GSoW through multiple noticeboards, from multiple angles, to be rather suspect, but there can be little argument with "just follow best practices for COI". Of course, it makes things complicated that some Wikipedians are absolutely insistent about what's absolutely necessarily required for COI when our COI policy doesn't actually require those things, but what I've said is, I think, a widely accepted recommendation. No self-outing is required, and as long as one is not editing articles with which they have a COI, no disclosures are needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of Rhododendrites's summary above. On the topic of backwards editing and so on (which I agree on what Rhododendrites stated), I further believe that the current thread at WP:RSN on Skeptical Inquirer columns will help reduce the possible damage done by backwards/promotional inclusion of SI sources. On the topic of why it is very important for me that others disclose their COI's, I believe it is disingenuous to not tell another editor you are connected to the subject of the article when discussing issues on the talk page as it takes advantage of the other editor assuming you don't (per WP:AGF), in my opinion. Additionally, it might cause issues for the local vs. global consensus flavor of conflict that often arises in wikipedia if a sufficiently large proportion of the editors that have a page watchlisted are connected or trained by someone connected to the subject. For example, I have a COI with TU Eindhoven which I disclose both in the talk page of the article and my userpage. I am not concerned about being outed as my username here is a pseudonym. I don't see how it is so difficult to at least engage in a discussion on how to disclose COIs in the skeptic/pseudoscience/fringe topic. Hell, I'm considerably active in editing incredibly contentious topics within Spain (Carlism and Opus Dei) whose supporters are often highly influential within my home country and often in a violent political extreme. Lemme tell you I understand y'all's concerns about off-wiki harassment or damage by religious fanatics (in my country they control the Judiciary branch, various ministries, and government roles to some extent so I don't play around). But the way to respond to this concern is never to skirt around policy and follow the letter but not the spirit of the COI and outing guidelines. The way to respond to this concern is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst: WP:AGF and following optimal personal security practices on the internet. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Break (extended other discussion (GSOW/Rp2006))

I am not going to pretend that I have read every word of this incredibly long thread, but I find the oft-cited "Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing" article to be incredibly damning. I think the main problem with the viewpoint of Sgerbic and Rp2006 is they seem to be convinced that their brand of skepticism is objective truth and fully inline with the goals of Wikipedia and, by extension, promoting SI and related publications and podcasts is just 'helping' Wikipedia and there's nothing wrong with that. (I know, neither of them have written those words, but that's my interpretation of what they have written). One way or another, the behavior of the nebulous group referred to as GSoW needs to be modified. --SVTCobra 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I also think it might be handy for participants in this discussion to read some of the principals from WP:EEML. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Note, (ScottishFinnishRadish feel free to comment otherwise lol) that the link to WP:EEML is not an accusation that GSoW is operating in the exact same way or is equivalent to the EEML case (I'm only noting this due to the the recent supplementary motion at Arbcom). EEML is an important precedent in this area and other editors' increased knowledge of the case will certainly improve the discussion here. If I had to say, Wikipedia is closer to common than napoleonic law. If anyone has any academic analysis of wiki consensus as law, I beg you to send me the link as that is a fascinating thought experiment! Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct, I should have clarified that principals 8 and 9 are reasonably related to this situation. Off wiki coordination has been a problem in the past, and it's not unexpected that some editors are wary of it ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: the purpose of backwards editing is not "promoting SI". Nor is it GSoW's purpose. BTW, the title of the article can be misleading, and I don't know if you realize that in the first paragraph she writes that it is "a Wikipedia editing technique". Backwards editing is just one of the things that are talked about during GSoW training. It isn't the way GSoW operates or something like that. This recent edit I did was a backwards edit. I was reading the book, wondered whether that theory for the origin of the word was on WP, it wasn't, so I added it. It is a way to add information from reliable sources to articles. Skeptical Inquirer is a very reliable source, increasing its exposure in WP (or elsewhere) is increasing the exposure of reliable information, and that is the whole point of it. When information from reliable sources is added to WP articles, that's usually an improvement. It doesn't matter if the editor came by the information by reading a magazine or by doing research and coming across such magazine. Sometimes people do make mistakes and add things they should not, or in ways they should not. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. But you are making this out to be something it isn't. VdSV9•♫ 00:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a "bad edit" IMO, but a great example of exactly what I mean when I say backwards editing causes WP:UNDUE problems. The section Cocktail#Etymology has NPOV problems. It quotes etymologists, but also non-etymologists, without explaining to the reader which is the mainstream view and which are significant minority opinions, and which are just the opinions of mixologists who write books. It gives the reader the wrong impression: that there are multiple competing opinions about the etymology of the word. It also cites DeGroff for DeGroff's opinion, whereas what we want is to cite someone else describing DeGroff's opinion, in order to show that DeGroff's opinion matters, and to allow the secondary source to filter and place in context (is DeGroff's opinion the mainstream view? a fringe view?). This is off-topic, though, so it's all I'll say about it here. Levivich 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and have no intention of arguing here whether or not it was a "bad edit". That's not the point. DeGroff being a reliable source on cocktail matters, it is definitively okay to WP:SOURCEMINE his book. And that's basically what "backwards edit" means in Gerbicspeak, pretty much. VdSV9•♫ 02:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm in no way confused about what "backwards editing" means in "Gerbicspeak". I've read her writing :-) Note that WP:SOURCEMINE talks about mining a source for one article. A source about the Manx for an article about the Manx. It doesn't talk about "backwards editing", i.e., mining a source for use in multiple articles. You may want to read WP:SOURCEMINE#A caution on misapplication. DeGross is not a reliable source for the etymology of the word "cocktail" because he's not an etymologist. He's also not the best source for the etymology of the word; his book isn't even academic scholarship (it's a recipe book, entitled "The Craft of the Cocktail Everything You Need to Know to be a Master Bartender, with 500 Recipes"). Etymology should be sourced to scholarship written by etymologists. The etymology of "cocktail" should not be sourced to an expert on cocktails. That's like sourcing the etymology of the word "hammer" to a carpenter. I wouldn't belabor the point except this is an exact illustration of the danger of backwards editing, and by extension, the danger of teaching backwards editing. Levivich 03:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@VdSV9:. When you cite that article and say "backwards editing" is not to promote SI, I think you are being insincere. Just a few sentences later it says This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. And if you focus just on the words "as well", I think you are missing the point. --SVTCobra 00:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not being insincere. Here is the thing: that article isn't part of GSoW's training. And I'm only quoting it because it has been used as a supposed evidence of misconduct, or of ill intent, or of something. This is the first time I'm seeing that article, as far as I remember, and I've been in GSoW for over five years. It wasn't written for GSoW, it was written for readers of SI as a way to get more people to maybe add good information to Wikipedia. And cherry-picking this one sentence (or other sections) while choosing to ignore the "as well" part, as if it isn't clearly an added benefit (in the sense that it can lead to more people becoming interested in people and publications that publish reliable information), not "the purpose". VdSV9•♫ 02:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@VdSV9:, what are you saying then? You took actual GSoW training from an off-wiki source? But yes, I agree the article is more leaning to recruiting people into GSoW than being written for existing 'members'. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not expect anyone to stop doing backwards editing. Like User:Rhododendrites, it's something I do from time to time. I'm reading a book by the archaeologist Alice Roberts and I plan to make some edits based on her book to edit articles I haven't edited. @A. C. Santacruz: - Wikiproject skepticism is probably the place for lists. And of course the project has Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Discussions. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think intent plays into this. if you come across a great article, and think "that would be a wonderful reference, I should see if I can use this", I can't see a problem. But if the intent is specifically to get as many articles as you can from a publication you write for into Wikipedia as references, [27], then it starts to be indistinguishable from spam. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course. But unless I've misinterpreted, a few editors here seem to think it's a bad idea all around. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, while I agree with you that this type of 'backwards editing' is normal, though I've never, ever heard it described as such. I disagree that this is what the article is actually describing. In my opinion, this article describes a way to pretend it is generic 'backwards editing'. What if Alice Robert wrote in her foreword "If you like this book, please add its contents to Wikipedia and cite me"? --SVTCobra 09:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: we already have mechanisms in place to deal with reference spam and I think they are adequate. Obviously Roberts wouldn't write that in her book, and if she ever did I'd be a bit disappointed. But that shouldn't stop anyone from using her book. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The Robert thing was in jest of course, but I am not so sure about our mechanisms. Have all the CounterPunch issues really been resolved? And even if it was left as deprecated, wasn't it used as a source in thousands of articles? --SVTCobra 10:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• This post has ballooned to the point where it has become unreasonable to expect anyone to read the whole thing. However, having sunk in the hours to catch up on discussion since the prior ANI thread of similar proportion, I am going to add some comments as concisely as possible. Don't want to add to the mess.
  1. Leave Guerrilla Skeptics alone. This is like the third thread of such catastrophic size that I shudder to think of the amount of community time wasted on putting all of these people under increasingly fine microscopes. There would have to be severe disruption to justify this. There is not. It's starting to feel like WP:FORUMSHOPPING until somebody finds a means somehow someway to run them out of project. It has become disruptive to the encyclopedia in its own right, and it has to stop. Below this thread, in another section of COIN, you can see SVT lamenting that this discussion has occupied the noticeboard's attention, effectively blocking action on another topic.
  2. GSoW contributions are a net positive to the project. The back and forth in this thread has gotten so convoluted that one could be forgiven for forgetting that the vast majority of contributions produced by known GSoW users are good work. They edit in the fraught areas of fringe theories, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine. It takes a mental toll to work in these areas; it can make you cynical or bitter over time. We have already lost many great editors who once patrolled and expanded these articles. Some snapped, lost their shit and got blocked; some retired after relentless badgering; some, unfortunately, passed away or disappeared without explanation. You can bicker over the occasional lapse in judgment over the course of tens of thousands of contributions, but if you're going to dispute these facts, then I'm going to question the soundness of your argument.
  3. Assessments of COI are exaggerated. This is the COI noticeboard, and I'd love it if we didn't have to discuss tangential topics outside of COI. Unfortunately, we do have to do that, to some extent, because this thread does not exist in a vacuum. The mental gymnastics I see above, trying to extrapolate some kind of third degree generational COI by way of connection to James Randi are untenably flimsy. There are some valid points regarding problematic COI editing, but they are rare and they look unintentional. Affected users should avoid editing pages, sections and bits of prose that are about them or that cite their work without at least first soliciting a second opinion. This isn't a justification to crucify the whole project. Just do better. There are also some valid concerns regarding WP:PROMO vis-a-vis using SI as a source. In short, I don't think they hold up. We wouldn't be having this lovely chat if we had an editor for, say, The Lancet encouraging students to cite the journal on Wikipedia. Now whether or not SI qualifies as an RS is another matter and will be determined at RSN.
  4. Good faith? What's that? Nobody needs to be accusing each other of lying, harassment, or intentional outing. When somebody says that they've never edited about themselves and then you^#6 find a diff of them editing about themselves, that doesn't make them a liar. People can misremember things. It doesn't entitle you to groveling apologies either. Please be civil. The same can be said about accusations of outing (with malice) and harassment. You can and should express concern if somebody is doing something that negatively affects you. Stirring the pot or threatening escalation is unlikely to defuse the situation.
  5. Finally, I will address just one instance of user conduct, because I think it's important. @A. C. Santacruz: do you remember why you were blocked from ANI? Does this really feel like a good use of your time? Why is your signature showing up 72 times on this page? This is not an accusation of wrongdoing, but I urge you to do some self-reflection. You have a lot of other valuable contributions in your history.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I spent an entire sleepless night on this rigamarole, and I'm going to take the last 2 hours of sleep that remain to me. I'll be back much later. Please try to be kind to one another. AlexEng^(TALK) 13:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I remind you that I neither started this thread (Levivich), the one in ANI (Rp2006), nor the one in RSN (BilledMammal). I don't want to seem passive-aggressive in this comment, as I genuinely appreciate experienced editors making sure I both understand how I can improve my contributions to the wiki and better follow the guidelines. So while being singled out is a bit surprising, I'm thankful for the opportunity AlexEng gives me to reflect positively on this thread. One of the reasons why my signature shows up repeatedly on this page is that I also contribute and comment in other threads.

You (and other editors coming across this comment) can read the justification for my block (which expires soon-ish) in this thread. I remember it well. In this thread and others since the ban I have made sure to be patient, ask for consensus before doing any action, and proposing constructive ways where both GSoW editors and those of us with concerns over the COI shown in this thread can go about improving any possibly problematic articles together. I consider my participation in this thread about as good a use of my time as my other activity on wiki (and the reason why I have been so active lately in wiki is I'm currently quarantined with Omicron so have plenty of free time). Hell, if I'm being compared to (or mentioned in relation with or asked about being) a communist, a witch-hunter, and a Nazi (this sounds like the start of a good bar joke...) but still continue to engage in good faith with the editors I'm disagreeing with in this discussion, I certainly feel the time I'm spending here will improve the wiki. It certainly wouldn't be worth the wikistress otherwise. Additionally, I'm glad I wasn't discouraged by what I consider to be uncivil behavior by others in the Sharon A. Hill article. The talk page there is doing steady progress and I'm sure the end result will be a really great BLP. I hope the improvements there can be mirrored in the many other BLPs affected by the issues raised above in this thread. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Close this discussion as a tempest in a teapot and start a new WikiProject

This is an absurd discussion. GSoW have been active on Wikipedia for years and have done a lot of great work to bring various articles up to a higher quality. They, like the rest of Wikipedians, are human. While I have been extremely grateful for the vast majority of work GSoW has done, there are edits I've seen GSoW affiliates do which I think need to be discussed, changed, etc. But that does not mean that there is a systemic problem with GSoW let alone a concerted effort to abrogate Wikipedia rules. If people are concerned that there is something that needs to be made more transparent with GSoW, they should be encouraging more active and transparent work of this organization on wiki in the WP:WIR model. This will not happen if the kind of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I'm seeing in this discussion continues. We are only as good as the volunteers who edit and there is noting we can do as a community to encourage transparency other than being a community that is welcoming to groups who are doing the work that is inline with the goals of our website.

So I'm going to make a suggestion here. Let's close this mess and start a WikiProject page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Guerrilla Skeptics of Wikipedia. There we can take discussion about how best to support GSoW collaborations, edit-a-thons, and, sure, deal with COI questions in a collaborative rather than WP:PUNITIVE space.

jps (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've also finally gotten caught up on this. Nothing really seems to have changed since the last major thread, other than apparently specific evidence of COI from Rp2006? Like seemingly everyone in this discussion, I think the majority of GSOW edits are positive. If issues with the edits themselves have been this sparse for all this time then their editor training methods must be terrific and should serve as a model for WikiEd (and can y'all please extend your influence to TheCatSite forums where I've literally been cautioned to "not be so abrasive" when telling people not to use Mercola Pet products or feed their cat diatomaceous earth...).
But as I said the last time, the intent behind the "backwards editing" described in that article by Gerbic is indisputably at odds with the letter of COI/refspam/PROMO. It might not reflect the purpose of the group or even its primary editing approach. But it is still an explicit instruction to promote SI/etc. by someone affiliated with SI/etc. and who serves to benefit personally from such promotion. I understand the training probably covers WP:DUE and trainees are probably taught to be much more discerning in what they add and cite here than that article implies. However, neither the general public nor most wiki editors are familiar with how you actually apply "backwards editing", so when we see things like that article or evidence of SELFCITE or UNDUE negative coverage in BLPs it reads very similar to the standard coordinated POV pushing we see every day from groups like OpIndia. Even if an individual editor adding material sourced to SI/etc. has no COI with them, in fact, even if they're not a GSoW member, when your organization is publicly appearing to encourage promotional, agenda-based editing by anonymous editors with undisclosed affiliation it gives fringe proponents that little nugget of justification in saying "don't trust Wikipedia, they have biased articles paid for by _____", or "SI isn't reliable, they pay people to cite them on wiki", or "the skeptic movement is deceitful, they secretly inflate the legitimacy of mainstream POVs on wiki". Susan's agreeing not to edit on SI/etc. or insert refs to them would do a lot to build up the reputability of GSoW, and it would be even better if the whole group publicly agreed not to promote info from/citations to affiliates in mainspace (maybe just suggest on talk pages?). Ultimately, I think it's best for everyone's image to be aboveboard in both actual and apparent COI/REFSPAM/SELFCITE/POV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

the intent behind the "backwards editing" described in that article by Gerbic is indisputably at odds with the letter of COI/refspam/PROMO I categorically disagree with this claim. I have students who add links to The Astrophysical Journal to various astronomy articles in essentially the same fashion. I do not see that as being "indisputably at odds" even with the letter of those PAGs.... and certainly they aren't at odds with the spirit of WP. jps (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

How would adding links to ApJ be equivalent? Are you an editor there and specifically telling students to add refs to promote the journal? Are you telling them to cite close colleagues of yours to boost their reputation? JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a discussion jps and I had about this: User_talk:ජපස#SI/GSoW. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, adding citations to particular papers or journals that you are affiliated with, with the intent to increase exposure of those items, runs a very high risk of introducing UNDUE bias toward one POV. It's why we have REFBOMB in the first place. In the case of CSI, there's the added concern particular SI authors might be writing pieces specifically for inclusion in wikipedia, an issue that definitely does not plague scientific academic publishing. I'm not saying that happens, but that the possibility makes it clearly distinct from editing in relevant citations to a specific journal. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This 'backwards editing' thing is an article in the Skeptical Inquirer that used the Skeptical Inquirer as an example. We've heard from a GSoW member above that it isn't a part of their training materials. I don't think it is great that SI ran a piece that essentially said 'cite us on Wikipedia', but we should be careful not to conflate these two issues even though sgerbic is involved in both of them. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some more explanation on your point, as I'm not sure I fully understand your reasoning, MrOllie.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie, sorry to do it to you again, but feel free to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier -- I think in essence the issue is we have to define what "backwards editing" is. Some seem to define it as "seeing a citation and looking for a place to put it," while others define it as "taking a citation from a source you wish to promote and shoehorning it in." Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: This discussion is nominally about Rp2006, and has grown to be about GSoW in general. The article 'Learn to Edit Wikipedia like a GSoW Editor-Backwards Editing' is an article by sgerbic, that ran in SI, but is specifically written as advice for people who don't want to join GSoW. I think it is confusing for everyone that we keep conflating this with processes taught to GSoW members. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I struggle to believe that. Having looked at edits from a number of GSoW editors, most seem to be engaged in adding links to SI in line with what is taught by Gerbic - if this is disputed, I can provide diffs. This article also seems to suggest that it is not the case, as it discusses in depth how a group of GSoW editors sought to include a link to every article in an edition of SI, and suggested that this was not an unusual occurrence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire long "discussion" across multiple places just seems like a personal crusade from the likes of ScottishFinnishRadish, Santacruz, and Levivich. As an outside observer who has been watching all of this nonsense and sprawling threads go down, that's the only way I can feel to summarize everything. Wikihounding seems particularly prescient in this regard by the editors in question. Silverseren^C 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

jps I fully agree that the GSoW matter is best dealt with through a WikiProject. I have maintained that position since the good ol' initial ANI thread. Is there a better place to discuss this rather than bloat the COIN thread even further? I feel so many subthreads is making the knot harder to untie.Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If I were SusanGerbic I would embrace jps suggestion to make GSoW into a WikiProject. If nothing else, it would be a place to centralize the criticism of GSoW, which seems to be coming from a small but persistent group that has spread it all over various noticeboards and AN/I. If such discussions took place under the aegis of the WikiProject, the temptation to ‘prosecute the case’ would be defused and more collaborative outcomes enabled. I understand Susan prefers Facebook for its user-friendly approach to newbies. She could start by shifting some of the more advanced administrative functions of GSoW over to the WikiProject (article lists and status, etc.), and then gradually transfer more functionality over time, perhaps reserving Facebook for stuff like newcomer orientation and basic Wiki skills. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with LuckyLouie's proposed way of organizing the WikiProject. My biggest concerns have always been transparency and COIs. I believe Levivich and Sgerbic's discussion above will be useful to resolving the second one constructively, and the hybrid WikiProject approach will resolve the first one almost completely in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• 1. This discussion of what would make editors end this drama has been fascinating. I respect most of your opinions and am open to most of the ideas. But hounding is rampant here on Wikipedia by editors that claim they are looking out for the best interests of GSoW. There are currently too many threads to deal with here for a reasonable person to read so I have no idea what I'm missing, even comments are being inserted in the middle of conversations I've already read. Wikipedia is NOT a place to have discussions like this, I don't have a better solution but this has just evolved into showing the lurkers and new editors the worst of the crew that are here on COI. Let me be crystal clear, GSoW is a private group that operates off-Wikipedia on Facebook, it also is very active already here on Wikipedia, every day we are editing along side you, we post and are active in admin areas, teahouse, talk pages, WMC, you see us every day you edit. I train brand new people who have never edited before, some editors I have to work with one-on-one to learn how to make a user page, the most basic edits that you all take for granted are difficult for them at the beginning (some of the beginners) a large chunk of our people are not native English speakers so we have that to deal with also, which requires more hands-on-personal time. All this is NOT contusive for a text heavy platform like Wikipedia. Most instructions here are a wall-of-text and I have difficulty understanding. I started GSoW years ago because it was so confusing for a beginner and editors were so mean to new people making mistakes, we needed a visual way to train people, a safe place for people to make edits, a kind and friendly place where we could train. A GSoW Wiki project located here on Wikipedia would have the very first obstacle of being just another Wiki:Project with text and columns and to-do lists and rankings of stuff. A new person would turn tail and run for the hills. Just imagine someone in your life that is not considered tech literate and show them one of the Wiki:Projects and say "Here you go, figure it out" they wouldn't have a clue where to start, what button to click and much else. You all have the same thing in common, you understand this world, you know how to code, you speak this jargon that only makes Wikipedia more intimidating.
  2. And "IF" I were to have a GSoW Project here, then how would I keep ALL discussions to the project? Force all the 100+ people to unfriend each other on social media, tell them they could no longer discuss the work they are doing off-Wikipedia? How would that work? And even if that were possible, just imagine the day when someone said "I think they are still talking off Wiki to each other". More hounding. We already have Wiki:ProjectSkepticism we are already there. That Wiki:Project and MOST Wiki:Projects are dormant and have almost no work being done. They fail time and again. You will never attract non-tech people here if you do not embrace new teaching methods. There is a world out there that are missing out on telling the stories that explain their music, culture, food, and more. They lack the luxury of having a desktop computer, even having Internet. If they were to appear, they would be run off with this kind of drama, attacks, biting and hounding. You seem to be living in a world of perfection and think only the cream of the crop should be here on Wikipedia. Forget that there are others who have every right to learn to edit, and yes, it takes time to learn, it takes mentorship and encouragement and patience.
  3. I have already had to remove one editor from GSoW when I learned they had a sock-puppet. We didn't go though a trial here, we didn't have a full-on blown out drama fest here on Wikipedia. I asked that person to leave the project and now they are completely gone from Wikipedia. We have standards also, we rarely post in places such as this, they are busy actually working on the projects that they have decided to work on. When I started GSoW over ten years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place. I would like to think that GSoW had something to do with that. We just added page 1,946 last night (now 1,948). 45% of the work we do is in non-English languages. That 1,046 are just the pages we have written or built from a stub to a full-article. We make thousands of edits outside those pages. Anyone here who passes judgement on the quality or our work after looking at a couple pages is lying. That is just a fact. In the ANI drama thread from a couple months ago, I tried to explain our training method and was ignored, people picked apart what I was saying to respond to just a fragment in order to justify their impressions of GSoW.
  4. We also have standards that are ethical - there is one person here in this current drama that I would never allow into our editing team. Claiming over seventeen pages on their user page as their own "significant contributions" is beyond the pale, pages they have not edited at all. Learning that last night just made me ill. Apparently this is okay behavior in this climate. I'm not okay with it.
  5. So when you all have finally decided my fate here on Wikipedia, why don't you let me know. I'm sick of this mess, sick of finding conversations about me and GSoW all over Wikipedia, sick of people not reading this insane thread but still wanting to give their opinion of the matter, sick of people who are looking to cast blame for whatever reasons. I'm frustrated - sorry - but this behavior has run off so many great editors, and scared off beginners and people who can not (or will not) tolerate the drama. As @AlexEng has said, this HAS TO stop. The HOUNDING MUST STOP also. I've also lost too many hours of sleep over this. ENOUGH! Sgerbic (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't respond to the rest. I assume the 17 significant contributions refers to my page. I didn't write those articles, but I did nominate them for DYK. I thought that was clear. Same goes for the FPs. Nominating is still a contribution I'm proud of and which I happily list on my page. I'd have appreciated you reach out to me and ask me about it so I could clarify that in my userpage rather than this way, but alas. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

OMG! I had noticed the long list of DYK's under "Significant contributions" when you started to hound me. Looking no further than to pop some links open, I was very impressed. I have only written from scratch (or expanded) 6 articles that made it to DYK's, and you had done this with over 15. I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama. Oooopps... I was right all along. You nominated them. Significant. And I see that you just added the subcat title "Nominations" above the list after being called out on this. Better late than not at all. Rp2006 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And now that I was curious... I looked... and you sure do spend a shockingly tiny % of you WP effort on mainspace articles! See here vs here. So I'm back to thinking you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it. Rp2006 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I consider them significant. If you don't, that's a valid opinion but there is no need to belittle or insult me in this way. By the way, the reason I hadn't written "nominations" beforehand was I assumed since they were in a separate sections to "articles I've created or been the main editor of" it would be clear I hadn't created or expanded the articles I nominated for DYK. My favorite thing to do in WP is to do DYKs and GARs, and I think it is really valuable work as it helps curate the wiki and bring more eyes to new articles. I consider your points above a personal attack and ask you politely to stop using my contribution percentages as an ad hominem and stop making hurtful remarks on my character which contribute nothing to this thread and actively escalate the situation rather than seek a constructive resolution to this thread. It is unnecessary. You have enough experience here to know it helps no one. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for AlexEng (pings are hard to fix if you don't get them right the first time, see H:PINGFIX). Firefangledfeathers 22:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Susan, re #2, I wasn't suggesting you move all discussion to the WikiProject, just some, a little at a time, beginning with high level stuff like lists of articles being worked on, articles completed, etc. that do not need to be conducted in a private Facebook group. I do understand you are engaging and involving people who otherwise could not handle the technocracy of Wikipedia, but certainly they won't remain frightened novices forever. After they are suitably experienced, they could conceivably navigate AfDs, RfCs, Talk page discussions, etc. on their own. Keeping them in the Facebook bubble forever isn't necessary, IMO. Also, I know maintaining their private identity is crucial and no one wants to encourage outing of GSoW members. But I'm sure there is a way to eventually transition them from a private Facebook group to an anonymous Wikipedia editor account without jeopardizing their identity. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think transitioning the editors would be too difficult - as it is, GSoW publicly names each editor who is responsible for editing an article and provides a link to their Facebook page. Presumably those editors are already comfortable being connected with their work on WP. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some editors and Some articles. That has mostly stopped because of people who are going to Facebook and looking up the editors and then coming back to Wikipedia and then editing those pages. That's called Hounding Bilby, a practice you promised in 2020 that you would stop doing. Are you back to that again? Sgerbic (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Louie - you and I both know that if I provided a list of articles written by GSoW, there are people here would would hound them. ACS has already admitted to going off Wikipedia to learn real identities and report some of them. She will probably say that she only reports those that she has found to be reported, but how many others has she investigated that she didn't report. That's just wrong and creepy. I thought it was wrong, but no one else seems to think so. I've now brought this up for the third time here and it has yet to be mentioned. Frightened novices is one issue, people who don't like (or can't deal with) hounding, attacks, bites and drama is another thing, something that isn't something you become better at as you get more experienced. My team all goes through training that introduces them to all you mentioned. I didn't say they don't know how to use them, but that we choose to use them rarely. We are editing and trying to avoid drama, attacks and long threads like this. I have asked about moving an account to a different account, I was told by several people that it could happen in a renaming but they would always still be linked back to their old account for those who know where to look. The other suggestion is that we create new accounts and wipe our edit history. The editor that suggested this was surprised that my team would care about their edit history, awards, DYK and Good Articles and so on. Why do people keep seeing us as the "other"? For the same reasons you edit, we do also. They are not in a bubble - remember we focus on fringe topics, these people are well-aware. Sgerbic (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But you already publicly list articles GSoW creates off wiki, and people have been been recommended to use that list for peer review. Why is the list ok off-wiki and not on-wiki? - Bilby (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a public list off Wiki that lists all our articles? That's news to me Bilby. Where is this list? Sgerbic (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The public GSoW facebook page where you announce articles you have worked on, ask for donations, and name the editor responsible for the new work. I accept that not all articles are listed there, nor all editors, but that would be a starting point for here. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is NOT a list. I do not have a public list, because it has shown to promote hounding. Only people who are regularly reading these posts and then taking that information and adding them to their own list would have a list. I see you slipped in that "ask for donations" as if it is pertinent to the conversation. Why did you include that Bilby? Sgerbic (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we're playing with semantics. If someone scrolls down, they will see each article that has been posted in turn. If that isn't a "list", then ok. It is still a series of public announcements of articles GSoW has worked on, that could be the basis for a list here. Unless the cocnern is not about posting the articles publicly, but about making then available on-wiki. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Sgerbic then how would I keep ALL discussions to the project You don't have to any more than WP:Women in red keep all their discussions at this site. The problem right now is that there is no centralized discussion place on-wiki for people to talk about GSoW. If there was, this would allow us to keep our discussions more focused on the different initiatives, prevent some of the forum-shopping-lite and endless discussions that are happening. This is also not to say that the WP:Wikiproject page would be required to be the main organizational means for you either. It would just provide an on-wiki home for people from across the project to discuss GSoW. Think of it as a communication portal. jps (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We already have WikiProject Skepticism and WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Science and Fringe and so on for this. Creating a WikiProject GSoW for me to maintain as a place for people to pile on and hound members is asking a lot. Look at the amount of time sunk into this current drama. I'm sure it will start up again in a few weeks elsewhere, it's already going on in various other pages. It's a mess and this COI discussion has evolved into something completely different now. We should end this conversation, I don't have the power to stop it, but someone must. The problem being that it until the problems with hounding are addressed, this will keep happening over and over. Sgerbic (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing we are not short on is space. WP:NOTPAPER, etc. Arguably, WP has WikiProject feminism and WikiProject biographies and WikiProject counter systemic bias, etc., but Women in Red is still a thing! I think it's fine to have more than one space for discussions. You are under no obligation to respond to hounding, but it is doing WP and GSoW no good to have to run from place to place putting out fires like this.

In a separate space we can contain discussions and even shut down those that are unfruitful in ways that are not always possible in these more general noticeboards. And the other two WP: spaces you mention don't really have the remit to be tied down with the specific questions and instances that one dedicated to GSoW would focus on.

It may be that the page gets no use at all. That's fine. Plenty of project pages become moribund. But the status quo does not seem sustainable as you rightly point out. Let's try to just have a place to talk about things and present ideas.

jps (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

COI and activism

In the BLP issues on British politics articles ArbCom case, the first principle that they agreed to read:

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and promotion of political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

That's the core problem here. Things like editing to insert a journal you write for into as many articles as you can, or self-referencing, or whatever, are symptoms, but not the core issue. GSoW aren't just a Wikipedia editing group, they are also activists opposing people they write about here, and Wikipedia is fundamentally a means to further that. When they run stings against BLP subjects, publish their own articles on the stings, and then come here and add those articles to BLPs, we are creating the sorts of problems that we had with had with British politics. When they organise for someone to write a negative review because they thought that there was a lack of criticism so that they could add that review to the article,[28] or in one case after a dispute on WP went and recorded the subject, providing that recording to a journalist so that they could write an article covering what they wanted, and then added that to the BLP to win the dispute [29] - we have activism and WP combining in a way that has the potential to breakdown basic issues of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. That's the core problem for me.

The reason it is so difficult is that I also agree that Gerbic does an exemplary job training editors, I fundamentally agree with their POV, and most editors who are part of GSoW are excellent. I wish they were more open about issues rather than tending to be misleading, but that isn't a GSoW specific problem. But I have no idea how we handle a serious COI formed from combining off-wiki activism with on-wiki actions, where the two are intrinsically connected. - Bilby (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Those words are made of rubber and can be twisted in all directions. I can turn all of them against you too if I want:

• This thread complex is not an example of atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect, but harassment against a group of contributors.
• It is also advocacy or propaganda against those same contributors.
• ideological struggle - sure. You people do not like the "ideology" of skepticism (some of you do not regard SI as a reliable source), and you are struggling against it.

And so on. Put yourself under sanctions now please.

Your contribution is not a viable way of resolving the conflict.

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, and you are undermining it by systematically hounding those who try to enforce it. Wikipedia is a very large and very complex project, and the correct behavior necessarily depends on the situation. When someone tries to rewrite science articles by replacing the consensus by crackpot ideas, one cannot prevent it by camaraderie. As soon as one tries, the Pecksniffs will set themselves of their trail and smell them out as a potential GSoW spy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay - I'm resisting responding to this thread, but I must know, what is a Pecksniff, @Hob Gadling? Sgerbic (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

[30] It's a word Jerry Coyne uses for people who sniff out others who made small mistakes or who do not agree with them 100%, to point fingers at them and publicly agitate against them. I should not have used it, it adds unnecessary complexity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see that as a reasonable response. Do you personally think it is ok for an editor to win a dispute on wiki by providing a fake name in order to meet the subject, asking them specific questions related to the dispute, recording their answers so that they can provide that recording to a journalist, and then using the journalist's article in the BLP? Is the problem really that I'm concerned about this, or that this is happening? - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course you don't see that as a reasonable response. But others may recognize that you are just comparing general remarks that taste of Smile or Die, with the real world. Yes, it would be great if we were all Happy Little Elves who love each other very much and if there were no "detrimental actions", but in order to be asked to refrain from them or placed under sanctions, someone has to do the asking, and that person cannot be a Happy Little Elf at that point in time. You cannot fight off Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal by camaraderie and mutual respect, you must turn into activists opposing people. Look at the history of GSoW. They did not start at Skeptical Inquirer saying "let's manipulate Wikipedia". They started here, improving articles in the spirit of science, and then the organized skeptics outside noticed and embraced them. If the Flat Earth Society or whatever gave you a medal for your efforts to rid Wikipedia of those nasty skeptics, would that turn you into an activist opposing people?

Above, people are collecting links to edits where Skeptical Inquirer articles were linked, and say they are bad edits. Alarm alarm alarm! Someone used a reliable source! Alarm alarm alarm! Let's find out if the user has a relationship with the source! Ah, the user is a friend of someone who is a member of... and so on... Found a connection! Alarm alarm alarm!

I think here is the main motive that started the whole shebang. I quote @A. C. Santacruz: from this page: Personally I don't find SI reliable (certainly not authoritative) except in WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:OPINION scenarios. Why would anyone think that? It's something you can say without giving a reason, but not without having a reason. SI is a good source on fringe ideas; it comes down on the side of science. What is unreliable about it? I suspect it disagreed with one or more of ACS' secret but cherished fringe beliefs, since fringe beliefs is everything SI ever writes about. It will be easier to put those fringe beliefs in articles, or to remove criticism of them, in a climate where people who disagree are seen as part of a cabal to add pro-science content. If I am wrong, I'd like to hear the real reason why SI is unreliable.

To answer your question: No, that is not OK. But neither is what you people are doing here. A few instances of misbehaviour can be handled by themselves. This continuous guilt-by-association screeching and finger-pointing over several months affects not just the person who made that mistake. Your overblown rhetoric, generalizing a few people's mistakes into a McCarthy-like core issue, is detrimental to that goal of creating a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

This thread is an autoimmune disease: Wikipedia's immune system is attacking itself, and it is spiralling out of control. Stop it. Handle the few instances where something went wrong, and stop campaigning against something that helps Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Great - well at least we agree that it is not ok. Is it also ok to be campaigning against people in the real world, and to then extend that campaign here, using BLPs to further that campaign? I don't give a damn about using Skeptical Inquirer articles. I also am fully supportive of improving science articles. But using Wikipedia to further real-world campaigns against individual people is exactly what the British politics arbcom was about. What I want is not to see GSoW gone - I just want to them to separate off-wiki acitivism from their on-wiki editing. - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)