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

Repeating evidence put forward when requesting the case
Hi! It is not clear in the guide to arbitration as to whether we should or should not repeat the evidence we included in our preliminary statements as part of the evidence section. My intuition is that we should repeat it using the more structured format available on this page, but thought I should check in order to use the 1000 words more efficiently. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of a judgement call but repeating it is the safest option. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notifications for mentioned editors
What is the policy or practice for notifying editors when you submit a diff to evidence of an edit they made? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Evidence should always be related to the scope. Parties to the case are already considered notified and alerting others is nearly always unnecessary. To the extent you think it might be you can post here asking. Ifan arb or clerk agrees they could then notify. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I ask because I hope to show a pattern of editing of BLP violations and coat racking on one end and significant puffery and coat racking on the other end, as well as showing incivility, battleground conduct and stonewalling in the topic area. I believe that is in scope. I could confine diffs to just parties, but that wouldn't show the extent of the issue in the topic area.
 * Should I confine it to just parties, or is it acceptable to show diffs from a variety of editors in the topic area? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as it is within the scope of the case as specified in the box at the top of this page (Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics), then the evidence is both acceptable and welcome. This is not dependent on the editor who made the edit being a party to the case. Arbitrators regularly in case requests consider evidence / diffs relating to non-parties for the purposes of DS and other non-editor-specific remedies. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Should I let them know that I'm using a diff of their edit in an arbcom case, like I would of I was mentioning them at a noticeboard? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Arb, but I want to express my view that, while it's true that evidence can be presented about anyone within scope, it would be just plain wrong to present evidence of a non-party doing something wrong without their knowledge. It's like talking about someone behind their back, but with the possibility of consequences. (Whether that requires a formal notification using the template, or just a message on user-talk, is above my pay grade.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my concern. It's unnecessary, but I'm interested in not being a huge jerk. There's already animosity, and using someone's editing as an example of problem editing will only create more. I'm not interested in heaping even more on top of that by not mentioning anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, if an editor is going to face possible sanctions they will be added as a party to the case and notified by the clerks. If everyone mentioned in an evidence submission was notified it may also lead to problems with canvassing. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dreamy Jazz: OK, so there is no firm requirement. But there is room within all of that for common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm considering adding some evidence in which I might cite favorably some comments by editors who are not parties. I'd like to drop each of them a courtesy note, letting them know about it, but if I'm going to be accused of canvassing, I'd appreciate knowing about it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going with what the Arbs said on this, and when I get called a jerk, I'll point out that I did at least ask. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I hope is obvious, I for one am not calling you that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, yes. I did try to keep diffs and mentions of people who weren't aware of this whole brouhaha to a minimum. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish, I refer you to Barkeep49's answer (in that alerting others is nearly always unnecessary). Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the basic principle that alerting those not named is nearly always unnecessary is solidly based upon the basic principle that arbcom never sanctions those not named without first making them named parties and notifying them. There was one incident in the past where multiple arbs suddenly proposed sanctions against two editors who were not named parties long after the evidence phase had closed. Neither party was notified or had any way to respond or dispute the allegations (which contained a finding of fact that was based upon zero actual evidence and was factually untrue for at least one of the editors). The good news is that in that case a majority or the arbs ruled that this was unfair and not allowed, the offending arbs stopped being arbs long ago, and I am not aware of anything similar ever happening. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ^Yes, exactly that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to exceed diff limit
I would like to request permission for an extra 50 diffs. The diffs will be used as in my preliminary statement to allow verification of my claims and will not need to be reviewed. They will include the 51 diffs from my preliminary statement per this, as well as evidence of GSoW contribution patterns on articles related to CSICOP or Sgerbic. BilledMammal (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging that this request has been seen and we'll get back to you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal if you would like to link to the table from the preliminary statement we won't count that as one of your diffs. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a short addendum, the table in question amply demonstrates that the editors in question have added the source in question as a reference. Izno (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Barkeep49, I will do so.
 * Izno, just to clarify; the intent of the table was to allow verification of the claim that GSoW editors were disproportionately likely to add the source, but I'll go into more detail in my submission. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional 25 diffs and 250 words
I have compiled some evidence related to incivility and POV problems in the skepticism area. It is for the most part extremely straightforward and easy to parse (brief quotes supported by diffs), but to clearly show the breadth of the problems I need some additional space. I therefore request to be able to post 75 diffs rather than 50 and 750 words rather than 500. I have no objection to becoming a named party in the case if this should be required. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Apaugasma, your request for 750 words and 75 diffs is granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional 25 diffs and 250 words
Hi! I would like some more diffs in order to provide more context to the EW diffs provided by (which has done so in a commendably neutral and disinterested manner). I've asked for a bit more than is necessary for this case so I don't have to ask again in the future, but if the clerks/arbs feel it is better to do so as-needed, about 12 diffs and 150 words should be enough I think. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * according to Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, as a named party (see here) you can post about 100 diffs and about 1000 words. By my count you are presently at 44 diffs and 911 words. Maybe it's worth revising some text to free up the 61 words you're short before requesting an extension? Please consider the guideline at the top of the evidence page: ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, for some reason I thought it was 50 diffs. I should be able to do with my current limit unless something changes. So consider this request withdrawn for now. Thanks, ! A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Can lectures/talks/videos made by SGerbic/GSoW be used in the case as evidence?
just linked to some articles from fringe sources and the first one had a few timestamps on a lecture SGerbic gave on editing. What's the consensus on using these lectures as evidence in this case? I assume if they are to be used they must be timestamped, but I'm not sure how the videos fall within the evidence. Can/should they be used? Curious on what the arbs/clerks/other editors have to say on this. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My take is that this is a different situation than for content where WP:RS would apply. My reading is that it is evidence that those fringe websites post things that are hostile to GSoW, and therefore ArbCom should be aware that GSoW editors face such off-wiki hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant the videos themselves. Like if there is a youtube video where SGerbic is talking about GSoW, can its timestamps be used as diffs? I have no doubt in my mind that the fringe sources are worth using as evidence to show GSoW receives harassment from fringe believers. The talk page message I got leaves no doubt in my mind that this is the case. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I better leave that question for the Arbs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, videos which provide evidence about wiki activities in the scope of this case are admissible. We would request that you include specific timestamps / page numbers for both beginning and end of interesting content. Izno (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a side comment, do remember that (at least as far as YouTube videos go) you can link to a specific timestamp, which is more beneficial to "go to 4:34 of the linked video". Primefac (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did both. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal's list of purported GSoW editors
How does one square BilledMammal's list with the fact that they have added these entirely as "noping" template mentions? Does mentioning them as supposed members of GSoW not implicate them as parties of the case? Shouldn't these editors be notified of their involvement/mention? I know if it were me on that list, I would want to be notified. Clerks or Arbs, please advise. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that the conclusion from applies, but if, per Barkeep49, an arb or a clerk believes a notification would be beneficial then I am happy to post on their talk pages. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a difference between merely using somebody's diff, and alleging that they are part of a coordinated effort to subvert the goals of the project. The latter, in my opinion, is much more arguable for requiring a notification. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but I will hold off on issuing them until I hear from an Arb or Clerk. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your recent comment is better suited for Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Workshop? BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree on this point. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll go ahead and move it there. Thanks for the heads up — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If evidence is posted near the deadline
I notice there is a dearth of evidence provided by three of the named parties. Is there a rebuttal period if evidence is posted hours before the deadline, or is that handled in the analysis of evidence section of the workshop? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no rebuttal period if evidence is posted just before the deadline. Analysis of evidence, including analysing evidence you wish to dispute, is performed on the workshop. However in cases of large additions of evidence within hours of the deadline, an extension to the evidence stage may be considered by the arbs. Minor clarifications or small additions are likely not going to affect the deadline though. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary of private evidence
We are still working out the details but there will be some kind of public summary of the private evidence while still respecting appropriate confidentialities/policies. This summary will be posted to the Evidence page before the phase concludes. We are considering past practice as well as the anti-harassment RfC in deciding how to do this. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional 100 words
In order to rebut Sgerbic's claim that GSoW typically uses SI as a WP:PARITY source and that her COI only started when she became a fellow in 2018, and to address XOR'easter's claim that her 2015 post has limited relevance to how GSoW operates today. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * An extension of 100 words is granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional 100 words
To respond to false claims by Bilby that I took part in stings, that I added such off-wiki activism to the article, and by BilledMammal that I made "significant contributions" to Barry Karr.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying that "significant contributions" were by GSoW in general rather than individual editors; apologies if this was unclear. BilledMammal (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I would appreciate the opportunity to make that clear to everybody else. Otherwise it could give the impression that I was involved in co-ordinated editing when I was not.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've made a small clarification to that section. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An extension of 100 words is granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Gronk Oz (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed your name. The claim wasn't that you individually took part in stings (although Sgerbic describes how GSoW members from all over the world created the fake Facebook profiles that they used, so location is not the concern), but that GSoW conducted the stings and GSoW editors worked on the BLPs. But I think you are correct, and so I've limited it to only editors who added the sting-related content. - Bilby (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your base assumption is incorrect. "but that GSoW conducted the stings" These are two different groups of people. I have added a comment in my evidence. Rp2006 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was based on the NYT article, but I'll add some more diffs to clarify. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional 124 words
I need at least 124 words please to respond to Bilby. Sgerbic (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This request has been sitting here a while and I'm only mentioning it because I'm wary to respond to Bilby's claim about GS and GSoW are the same group. We are getting really close to the 31st deadline and I don't want to go a minute over schedule. I don't want to post a response to Bilby and then he not have the time to respond should he would want to. Perhaps I should withdraw my request? Bilby's last statement was that he was going to follow-up which I'm sure I would want to address. So not sure what to do. It's almost the evening here on the 30th. Sgerbic (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it something that could be handled in the analysis of evidence section in the workshop? I'm not sure exactly where the line is as far as rebutting on the evidence page, or the workshop page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No idea. This is my first rodeo and I'm just trying to keep on schedule. I felt if I was able to add to my statement, possibly Bilby would not need to add whatever it was he was going to add and we could be done with it, but then again he might. Whatever I'm told to do. But we are getting close. Sgerbic (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sgerbic, could you please post a short summary on your talk page explaining the basis of the claim that GS and GSoW are not the same group? The New York Times say that Susan Gerbic is the leader of the group that conducted the Mark Edward / Operation Pizza Roll sting and that Susan Gerbic is the leader of a "group, which has swelled to 144 members, [which] has researched, written or revised almost 900 Wikipedia pages". This appears to match Bilby's claim "Guerrilla Skeptics are involved in off-wiki activism: The main focus here are the 'sting' operations targeting mediums to discredit them". Also see and . --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not understanding why I'm not allowed additional words for evidence on the evidence page? I wish someone had told me that I was cut off yesterday when I posted here asking for more words. If what I have to do is post on my talk page for someone to review it first, then I guess that is what I have to do. Do I need to tag someone when I'm done? How will Bilby know I've responded? Sgerbic (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sgerbic you're not cut off. But it is the weekend and so our response time is slower. But I can't see Izno having an issue with this so I will go ahead and grant you your extension. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording so that it isn't making a definitive statement that the two group are the same. However, given that there is no list of GSoW members, and that there is no list of people involved in the stings, the lack of transparency here means that there is no method of knowing if the two groups are separate. Something to worry about at the workshop stage, I guess. - Bilby (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence phase is due to close soon
The evidence phase of this case is due to close in around 24 hours time. Editors wanting to submit further evidence should make sure that submission is before the deadline, as evidence cannot be submitted after the evidence stage closes and additions past the deadline will likely be reverted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Any ETA on the summary of private evidence and Sgerbic's request for an extension? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I do NOT want an extension. Sgerbic (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant a extension of word limit. Sorry for not being more clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah LOL, I've got these deadlines in my calendar in pen and I don't want anything to push it beyond. Sgerbic (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The private evidence is still in work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Taunting a Wikipedia editor on social media
About the time the evidence phase closed, one of parties to this case made a post on social media taunting other editors. Can this be entered into evidence? Geogene (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . Please send it to ArbCom by email and we will let you and case participants know whether we decide to admit it. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the information of case participants, the drafters have decided to allow 's submission notwithstanding the evidence deadline. Courtesy ping to parties: . Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * is there anything that can be revealed about this evidence, beyond what was said by Geogene above? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the question. This is about as detailed as we would publicly share at this stage. It's consistent with the level of detail we've given in summarizing the other private evidence that was submitted to us . Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the answer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get this process. Someone can submit "private" evidence" and this is not provided (privately if necessary) to the editors it is against for them to dispute, counter, or otherwise explain? Rp2006 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In general (exceptions discussed below), you either get to see and respond to evidence used to support sanctions against you or the claims are discounted and not used against you. This is often the case when the evidence involved outing. An example of that would be if I sent Arbcom evidence that user:example is actually Vladimir Putin, Example publicly denies it, and there is a question about whether example's edits to various Russia pages are a COI. If I were to publicly post absolute proof that example is actually Putin, that would violate WP:OUTING, but Arbcom would have little reason to not allow example to see and respond to the evidence. They might hide the fact that I was the one who gave them the evidence if there was reason to believe that either example or Putin would retaliate and the evidence stood on its own.
 * Sometimes letting example see the evidence that example was Putin would not make sense. If I worked in the Kremlin and it would be obvious to Putin who I am, Arbcom would be very unlikely to put me at risk.
 * The bottom line is that we elected Arbitrators that we trust to deal with confidential information and to decide who should know what, and even Arbcom's harshest critics have never shown any example of any of them betraying that particular trust. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Rp2006 and all. In the event that we propose a finding of fact or remedy about a user which relies on private evidence, we will share as much of the private evidence as we are able to given our confidentiality requirements with the affected user. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. But that doesn’t really address my concern. In fact it makes things worse. The implication then, is that you will not share the evidence with the accused party and permit a rebuttal or clarification prior to making a determination about what the evidence means. Or am I misunderstanding you? Rp2006 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rp2006 if there are any such remedies, the appropriate private evidence will be shared when the "Proposed Decision" is posted. The proposed decision is not a final determination and there remains opportunities for changes to the decision to be made and for there to be communication between parties (and other interested editors) and Arbs on the talk page of the Proposed Decision. So there is definitely a chance for rebuttal or clarification prior to making a final determination. Arbs must vote on each individual section of a proposed decision, and also vote to close the case, before a proposed decision is made final in part to ensure that all elements of the proposed decision are looked at carefully. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is shared with the accused party will depend on the nature of the accusation. At the broadest level, accusations can be divided into two groups - (1) those that are both credible and relevant, and (2) those that fail one or both of those tests. Those that fall in group 2 will play no part in the case at all, and in most cases nobody other than arbcom will be even aware that the accusation has been made (the only exception I can think of is if the accusing party is being sanctioned for making grossly incorrect accusations). In the case of group 1 accusations, the general principle is that as much information as it is possible to share will be shared. For example if an allegation can be anonymised safely then that will happen and opportunities to rebut will be given whenever they can be. It's worth noting that it is not always possible to determine what is and is not relevant until all the evidence presented is analysed in context - which generally happens concurrently with the proposed decision being drafted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)