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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

• Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
• Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by A. C. Santacruz

Roxy

• Reverted without reading the justification for the edit [1]. This is concerning for a user that reverts as a large proportion of their editing and has a block log of edit warring and incivility stretching over many years.

Rp2006

RP seems to engage in behavior that could be considered canvassing, and per the first two links has in my opinion a likelihood of doing so off-wiki through Facebook or other means. Additionally, statements they have said on-wiki seem to conflict with paid-en-wp evidence.

• Possible off-wiki canvassing [2][3]
• Canvassing [4]
• Statement conflicts with paid-en-wp evidence (Won't quote due to OUTING concerns) [5][6]

Has not disclosed COI(s) affecting his editing

• Current version of user page

Sgerbic

Sgerbic has made accusations towards other editors of harassment. I don't believe she has provided the evidence to back those accusations and so consider them to be personal attacks towards others. In the diff below she mentions 2020, but I am unaware of discussions regarding GSoW that happened before I started participating actively in WP in June 2021.

• [7] Accusing Bilby of hounding.

Videos:

• 1:04:09 - 1:05:22 uses her network and reach to write through other people, which violates WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV.
• 18:56 - 31:35 uses her and other people in her network being mentioned in article leads as a way to promote themselves and benefit their careers, financially and otherwise, through media appearances, lectures, talks, etc. based on highly visible criticism of psychics/pseudoscience. This is done through GSoW. The timestamp is very long as it deals with two separate cases: Tyler Henry and Cupping therapy. See WP:PROMOTION

Target of harassment/PAs

I have personally been the target of personal attacks and what I would consider harassment from Rp2006, Sgerbic, and Roxy.

From Rp:

• [8]
• [9] and [10] Admitting to basically not reading either the large edit he reverted or justification for it in detail.
• [11] Right below a message where I used {{admin help}} to get the outing edits revdel'd. The later thread at ANI shows just how nuanced the possible outing was in this case, especially for a new editor like myself.
• [12] Calling for me to get topic banned and misconstruing the reason for my temporary block (ANI and not skeptic articles as well as due to good-faith mistakes (CIR) and not bad-faith behaviour), which is public in my block log.
• [13]
• [14][15][16][17] Bad-faith accusations and reaction to a neutral template I placed on his page due to the notice he placed on WP:Skepticism not being neutrally worded. His frequent mention of my act being libel, I am one step away of bringing you up on libel charges (or the equivalent here at WP), etc. is perhaps too close to a legal threat for my comfort.
• [18] Accusing me of WP:NOTHERE
• [19] Calling me a detective? Huh?
• [20][21] Attack after I very nicely asked him not to misgender me
• [22] Same as ethical Sgerbic comment, see below.

From Roxy:

• [23] The matter had already been resolved, this is just an excuse to harass me for a nuanced mistake I had already done all the steps necessary to fix.
• [24] Not only calling my edits bad without justification, but also making false accusations as to my motives for editing.
• [25] Calling my work "silly" and being extremely patronizing.
• [26] WP:BITE
• [27]
• [28]Misconstruing my ban from ANI due to WP:CIR as a topic ban.
• [29]In an article not about GSoW or someone involved in GSoW sounds like Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR
• [30]bluntly accusing me of hounding
• [31]
• [32] Unnecessary when I was trying to be nice with Sgerbic about a terrible message I received.
• [33] Even though I already had provided a justification for the bold edit.
• [34]
• [35]Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR

From Sgerbic:

• [36] I don't know what to call her saying me having a page watchlisted where I just started a discussion is "Interesting".
• [37] See above point.
• [38] I see this as an unnecessarily uncivil and personal response to a professional assessment.
• [39]That's just wrong and creepy. - about me looking for off-wiki evidence of undisclosed COIs (literally the only way to find such evidence).
• [40] Accusing me of hounding and claiming that me finding nominating a valuable contribution is "unethical".
• [41] Assuming bad faith on my part.
• [42]
• [43][44] Unnecessarily negative response to me literally just asking for clarification because she was making vague accusations.

Reply to Tryptofish

His timeline of the EW at Sharon A. Hill is much appreciated. I will add below the timeline for the talk page as well, and as you can see there was basically no meaningful discussion of my justification for the revert:

• 26 November

  I ping Rp2006 asking for a response to my justifications, as shown in Tryptofish's diff. I mention possibly doing an RfC on the matter if there is disagreement.

• 29 November

  I make a WP:3O request and notify the talk page

  It is removed due to no discussion happening beforehand. TransporterMan links to WP:DISCFAIL.

• 2-8 December

  6 Days after I posted the justification, I ping Rp2006 again, paraphrasing text used in WP:DISCFAIL, to inform him that I am going to implement my changes and that if he reverts again without justification I will report him to WP:ANI, per recommendations at WP:DISCFAIL.

  I get PA'd by an IP.

  Rp's response, without replying to the justifications for my edits except to dismiss them wholesale.

  I reply.

  I make a request at WT:AN to discuss the issue in ANI. Participation in this thread is split between 3 editors that tend to strongly defend GSoW in Noticeboards (MrOllie, Alexbrn, Rp2006), myself, 2 admins, and SFR (at a later date). I strongly believe that the presence of the pro-GSoW editors had a strong influence in how the diffs were dismissed and the thread closed.

Evidence presented by ScottishFinnishRadish

How I've been saying this should be handled since the beginning: [45] [46] [47]

BLP/NPOV/DUE/Coatrack

There is a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE negative and defamatory content into BLP articles of psychics, alternative medicine practitioners and the like(PAMPATL). On the flip side, there has been a pattern of severely coatracking WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE positive and fluffy content into the BLP articles of skeptics and those involved in the skeptic movement. There is also a clear disregard for WP:BLP applying to non-article space when dealing with PAMPATLs. I'm focusing on the BLP issues, as they're of the greatest import to me. Just because someone says they're a psychic or says the earth is flat does not give carte blanche to ignore BLP.

Thomas John (medium) was a BLPvio hit piece full of coatracked negative information

• [48] Creates a coatrack, over half the article negative, severe BLPvio in lead and body.
• [49] Just a formatting edit, makes it clear he's using a blog for negative information and quote mining.
• [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] COI source, used to coatrack more negative material in article.
• [61] Adds a SPS source
• [62] Cites WP:JEZEBEL for contentious info in a BLP
• [63] Restoring BLPvio and negative content to lead
• [64] Restoring negative content from a COI source
• [65] Restores BLPvio to lead after it was removed for BLP reasons
• [66] At this point, more than 90% negative information, clear violation of WP:UNDUE, [67] Rp2006 is responsible for 45kB of additions, next editor is only 8kB.

Susan Gerbic was a puff piece that had negative information about other BLPs coatracked in

Rp2006 and Khamar are the top two editors. Khamar seems likely to be affiliated with GSoW, per [68]. Collectively they are responsible for over two thirds of the edits to the article.

• [69] [70] [71] Roxy the dog removes COI template three times, despite on-going BLP thread outlining the COI.
• [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] Attacks on other BLPs, in her article, sourced to her by an editor with a COI
• [79] Inserting puffery sourced to a non-independent source, added by an editor with a COI
• [80] [81] Inserting attacks on other BLPs into the article, sourced to SPS

Attempts to fix COI/puffery

• [82] SlimVirgin does a full rewrite in April 2021.
• [83] Myself in March 2021.
• [84] Drmies in March 2017 and a smaller edit[85] March 2021.

Rp2006 commits BLPvios in non-article space

• [86] "Only legitimate thing the subject does"
• [87] labels article subject "Medical quack" on his user page. Article states "Quackwatch has stated that PATH promotes and sells questionable health products, and has also accused Braverman of promoting quackery." This itself is BLPvio, using SPS in a BLP for negative claims.
• [88] Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page.
• [89] Pointy edit after initial evidence posted, retains BLPvio.

Battleground/Civility/Stonewalling

It is incredibly difficult to make any headway in discussions about issues in this area due to incivility and stonewalling during discussions.

Incivility and Stonewalling at the COIN thread

• [90] [91] [92] Witchfinder/witch hunt
• [93] "campaign against GSoW"
• [94] [95] "fringe sympathetic"
• [96] Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation), even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons
• [97] [98] [99] I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense?
• [100] Attacks editor's contribution percentages "you just love causing drama. Or maybe you don't love doing so, but it is your nature and you cannot avoid it."
• [101] "I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama."
  • [102] On Rp2006's user page, pointy PA during case related to the two prior diffs.
• [103] When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple."
• [104] Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV.
• [105] Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here.
• [106] It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well
• [107] More stonewalling and mild incivility.

Incivility discussion about possible COI on Rp2006's talk page

• [108] "Witchfinder General behavior"
• [109] Witch-finder, harrasment, hounding, obsessive accusations

Rp2006 makes personal attacks and is incivil

• [110] Calls DS/alert template harrassment
• [111] "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe."
• [112] "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere"
• [113] "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim."
• [114] "Yes... Thought that would piss you off. I admit it's not quite WP:RS material"

Roxy the dog makes personal attacks and is incivil

• [115] "Witch hunting is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It does mean false accusation. Good grief."
• [116] general incivility

Stonewalling At Sharon A. Hill

This is the clearest example of what happens in the topic area when cleanup work is attempted.

• [117] Discussion on edits started on Nov26.
• [118] Revert with no discussion.
• [119] Revert again with no discussion.
• [120] Revert again with no discussion.
• [121] [122] [123] Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility.
• [124] Clear consensus close of a discussion about part of the edits made, showing they have merit. Another RFC is open, awaiting closure.

Response to Tryptofish

The IP(s) that was reverting was blocked for harassment after this. Rp2006 has a COI with the article sourcing, and the other reverts came after non-neutral canvassing at WikiProject Skepticism.[125]. Pretty bad showing all around. The only one with visibly clean hands is MrOllie.

Evidence presented by tgeorgescu

There is WP:CONSENSUS to oppose edits contrary to: WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS; WP:LUNATICS; WP:CHOPSY; WP:GOODBIAS; WP:DUE, WP:PSCI and WP:FALSEBALANCE; WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM. So, this isn't a case against organized skepticism. Organized skepticism is highly valued in societies based upon science and technology. Skeptics are in this respect welcome to edit Wikipedia, since they endorse science well-done and scholarship well-done. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Vaticidalprophet

Sgerbic and Rp2006 violating policies/guidelines related to BLP editing

Sgerbic and Rp2006 have made edits to and about BLPs that demonstrate an inability to understand WP:RS and WP:V. One element of this that shocked me at the time was proclaiming a source's content without reading it or a source's reliability without looking into its background; the degree to which this doesn't accord with the virtues of skepticism and scientific inquiry is one reason I have serious qualms about GSoW BLP editing.

• Special:Diff/1013867251: Sgerbic calls a source a "press release" advertising its subject; the actual source is highly critical
  • Also this diff: Sgerbic refers to The Guardian and The Australian, both national newspapers of record, as unreliable sources
• Special:Diff/1013908195, Special:Diff/1013910356: Rp2006 repeatedly removes sources for being behind a paywall, in brazen violation of WP:PAYWALL (a subsection of WP:V)
• Special:Diff/1013910120, Special:Diff/1013914142, Special:Diff/1013912952, Special:Diff/1013913622: Rp2006 defends WP:V violations
  • See further comments on this behaviour by DGG in Special:Diff/1014020791 (I find it remarkable that an experienced WPedian would think that paywalled sources are not reliable sources, and even more remarkable that they should think removing such sources during an AfD is acceptable), Epicgenius in Special:Diff/1014041726, and Vami IV in Special:Diff/1014067158 (On reviewing the talk page, I suspect Rp2006 does not understand WP:V whatsoever).

This intersects with the issues regarding the Susan Gerbic article diffed by ScottishFinnishRadish.

This level of misunderstanding of basic content policy is questionable at the best of times. For people writing marginal BLPs on hot-button topics, it's wildly outside the bounds of acceptability. I've seen topic bans from BLPs for less. The tricky part here is that because Sgerbic and Rp2006 have an unknown number of private confederates who assist them in writing such BLPs, a tban alone couldn't be properly enforced by the community; this is why we've ended up here at all.

Evidence presented by GeneralNotability

Sgerbic encourages "backwards editing" to cite Skeptical Inquirer

As I mentioned in the case request, there is an oft-cited blog post in which Sgerbic encourages people to go out of their way to cite Skeptical Inquirer in Wikipedia articles.

Rp2006 has engaged in WP:SELFCITE

Since the evidence involved would out them, it cannot be shared publicly. See ticket:2021123110004401. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Case scope and implications

The scope was changed from GSoW to skepticism, and ArbCom needs to be aware of potential knock-on effects. (How can one describe the DS topic area for skepticism? I'm having a hard time with that.)

Skepticism per WP policies

Jimmy Wales famously said "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't."[126] It's interesting to consider "lunatic charlatans" in the context of civility evidence in this case. Of course, that isn't policy for our purposes.

But WP:PSCI is core policy. (WP:BLP, WP:SOCK, and WP:MEAT are relevant policies too.) And in the 2020 Jytdog case, ArbCom affirmed that policies (then, the harassment policy) can override guidelines, which include WP:COI (then and now) and WP:CANVASS (now), especially when those guidelines are interpreted overzealously. Now, ArbCom needs to distinguish between very real misconduct, and overblown differences in opinion on content among non-GSoW editors.

Case implications

A recent lengthy discussion at WT:AC, WT:Arbitration Committee/Archive 23#Requesting feedback from Arbitrators, dealt with challenges to the present-consensus about skepticism, and the decision in this case will influence what happens there. Worth remembering: [127].

Dispute at Sharon A. Hill

Incivility

In the context of closely-related evidence presented by other editors, the following should be included: [128] (A. C. Santacruz: "What the fuck?"), [129], [130]. I note the apology, and do not necessarily think it requires sanctions, but we seem to be showing how difficult the discussion environment was, so let's be even-handed while remembering WP:2WRONGS. Similarly, when notified of the edit war below, she calls Roxy the dog "dear": [131], while citing the reply ([132]) here in evidence as what was incivil.

Edit war

In the context of what I said above, WP:EW is policy.

• Nov. 16, 2021: Starting version of page: [133], a month after a significant cleanup (with removals) by Drmies.
• Nov. 24–26:
  • [134] Removal of a large amount of the page by A. C. Santacruz.
  • [135] IP revert.
  • [136] A. C. Santacruz revert.
  • [137] Rp2006 revert. Followed by first talk page explanation, by A. C. Santacruz: [138].
• Dec. 2:
  • [139] A. C. Santacruz revert.
  • [140] IP revert.
• Dec. 7:
  • [141] A. C. Santacruz revert of most.
  • [142] Roxy the dog revert.
• Dec. 15–16:
  • [143] A. C. Santacruz revert.
  • [144] Roxy the dog revert.
  • [145] A. C. Santacruz revert.
  • [146] MrOllie revert.
  • [147] A. C. Santacruz partial revert.
  • [148] Rp2006 revert.
• Revert tally:
  • A. C. Santacruz: 5, plus 1 partial, 1 large removal at start.
  • Rp2006: 2.
  • Roxy the dog: 2.
  • IP: 2.
  • MrOllie: 1.

Failure of Arbitration enforcement

Referring specifically to the on-wiki issue of an incivil discussion environment, discretionary sanctions were already available in pseudoscience throughout the dispute, but appear never to have been made use of.

Evidence presented by Bilby

A negative COI is still a COI

Under WP:COI, a COI can be formed by "any external relationship". In the British politics case, ArbCom found that "the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing".

GSoW is involved in off-wiki activism

The main focus here are the GSoW "sting" operations targeting mediums to discredit them, as described in: [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] According to Sgerbic, they focus on psychics that "have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page". 2:30

GSoW editors have been editing BLPs where they have specific COIs due to their off-wiki activism

In particular, GSoW members have extensively edited the BLPs of subjects who they targeted through their stings in order to include the result of their off-wiki activism, often sourced to publications by GSoW members and supporters.

• Thomas John: [154] [155] [156] [157]
• Matt Fraser [158]
• Chip Coffey [159]
• Suzane Northrop [160]

Response to Shibbolethink

I agree with Shibbolethink that a COI should not be a concern in regard to a skeptic simply writing about topics of interest to skeptics. However, in this situation we have people actively working off-wiki to discredit individual people, and then writing about their activities on-wiki in the BLPs of the targets. That is a clear COI: as in the British politics case, "an editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest", although in this case the COI goes a bit further.

Evidence presented by TrangaBellam

To add. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to Apaugasma

Editor points out that academic expert Edzard Ernst concedes (here) that "the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven" [205]; other editor states "Any statement to the effect that the existence of meridians/qi "can neither be proved nor disproved" is facilely incorrect and does not belong in Wikipedia" [206]

Please understand the source. Ernst is ridiculing qi using the (antique) Popperian notion of Falsifiability — qi cannot be science since no empirical test can be designed to contradict it. A lot of pseudo-profound BS fails Popper's criterion but Wikipedia cannot go on claiming that they can be neither proved nor disproved, impressing all the wrong ideas on an average reader not acquainted with Popper.

The response is not indicative of ignoring academic experts, when read in the proper context.

gullible, anti-vax, xenophobic, Trump-voting morons

I am sure that I can find you about a-dozen peer-reviewed articles from the finest of journals claiming that those who vote Trump are much more likely to be xenophobic, anti-vax, conspiracy theorists etc. The essay—why is it even on wiki?—is in the wild conspiracy theory regime which argues not to exclusively rely on "peer-reviewed scientific journal articles" for sourcing purposes in contravention of fundamental policies and abuses statistics to make a point. I am willing to give leeway to essays to make pet points but not advocate violating policies on RS.

The response was valid; it attempted to impress upon why the invoked logics were actually fallacious. And, the particular string was not directed at anybody (incl. any editor) either.

Proposal based on multiple top-quality sources [210] is rejected in favor of counterproposal that is based on no source at all but deliberately frames it more wishy-washy ("inexact")

Covered under editorial discretion. jps was hardly out of lines with policy/guidelines. Arriving at a lead-definition for a controversial topic with sources differing among themselves cannot be resolved by a single "top-quality source".

"Fringe is part of NPOV; the best part."

Best does not mean non-important; I thing highly of fringe since it keeps pseudo-historians etc. off articles in articles I regularly patrol. Editors shall be allowed to voice such opinions without the risk of being misconstrued and thought-policed absent strong evidence that they are ignoring other parts of policy, which they do not find similarly appealing.

Such evidence is lacking here and as such, this cannot be considered to be relevant evidence in itself.

Editors chased away from the topic area

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they have minimum competency levels and a willingness to abide by policies. Else, all admins blocking editors shall stand accused of the same offense.

I can go on and on but almost nothing in Apaugasma's evidence section stands barest of scrutiny. Non-reflective of contexts in which they were spoken, a string of EVIL® words is all that exist. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LuckyLouie

These are not behavioral diffs, however they may help contextualize the background of the dispute by illustrating for the committee the extent that GSoW is subject to off-wiki harassment from fringe and pseudoscience proponents. Examples:

• How "Guerrilla Skeptics" hijacked Wikipedia - Astrology Shop
• Wikipedia Hijacked by Dogmatists - Rupert Sheldrake
• The Guerrilla Skeptics: Taking Creepy to 11 - Craig Weiler, Psychic
• Guerrilla Skeptics - Paranormalia
• 'Science skeptics' use guerilla warfare tactics and racketeering behavior to infiltrate Wikipedia and spread corporate propaganda - Natural News
• WikiLies: Paranormal Skeptics - Alixus
• How the Guerilla Sceptics are undermining Wikipedia’s neutrality - Michel Bauwens

I believe GSoW could benefit by integrating more closely with the Wikipedia community and increasing transparency by migrating to a WikiProject similar to WP:WPWIR, however I can understand their reluctance to do this, given the level of animosity from the fringe science community. FWIW, I am not a member of GSoW, but I have volunteered at WP:FTN for many years, have edited in pseudoscience and fringe science topic areas, and approve of GSoW's general mission of writing and improving skepticism and science related articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Shibbolethink

Response to Bilby

I have some qualms with how Bilby has framed their argument above. For one, they claim GSoW users have inherent COI due to "off-wiki activism."

They provide diffs where presumed GSoWers have added content about skeptical criticism of BLP subjects, sourced to publications that are, according to RS/N [161], reliable. AFAICT, no diffs involve an editor citing their own work. Rather, they cite RSes to discuss the skeptical movement's criticism. There is nothing wrong with this, and these diffs do not violate any WP:PAG AFAICT. There is no evidence provided that any off-wiki coordination took place.

By way of analogy, suppose I am a devout Catholic. And I edit articles to provide content, based on RSes, the catholic perspective on the First Council of Nicaea. Suppose I am providing sources from Catholics who believe Saint Nicholas was not present at the council in 325. Am I editing with a COI, simply because I am a Catholic? What if I'm a catholic historian? Suppose I attend conferences where these papers are presented, and meet the authors and discuss the religious theology and history with them in great detail, calling them my friends and acquaintances. Do I have COI, simply because I'm aware of the authors in real life?

I would assert that this is absolutely unfounded, and no such COI exists. "Skepticism" is a loosely connected, disorganized band of lone wolf pedantic nerds which has existed as long as there have been charlatans to debunk [162] [163]. The mere fact that one calls oneself a "skeptic" does not create a COI in citing other skeptics, and indeed no PAGs are violated as long as NPOV, DUE/UNDUE, etc. are followed. It would be absurd to suggest that simple self-proclaimed membership, or reading of a magazine, or even having met an author in real life, creates COI in citing their work. Replace "historian" or "geologist" for "skeptic" and the relationships are the same.

How could Wikipedia function if that was COI? We would be impeding the contributions of any academic in a particular field from citing their colleagues. We would be obstructing rugby player editors from citing other rugby players in articles about rugby. Consider the ramifications!

A COI is only created when one cites oneself, or one's business associate, or in any way stands to directly gain from the citation, or edits in a way in which the purpose of an encyclopedia is subverted. If RSes are used, if encyclopedic content is added in line with the five pillars, then it is difficult to see how the membership of such a group could be considered a COI. See also: WP:COINOTBIAS. This loose connection of calling oneself a "skeptic" is not enough. Not in my assessment. Not from the diffs provided thus far.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As well, I wanted to add: I think there may be DUE/UNDUE issues wrt including skeptical viewpoints in certain medium/charlatan BLPs. E.g. examples included by shazjmd below. But those are problematic because they are UNDUE, and UNDUE inclusions are hardly a burden borne by GSoW alone. WP:2WRONGS applies and also WP:PARITY, so yes I do think there should be some admonishment to follow WP:UNDUE more closely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Schazjmd

Undue impact of GSoW on BLPs

Sgerbic writes about psychic/fringe individuals on csicop/skepticalinquirer sites, then those write-ups are added by others to BLPs, often giving Gerbic's articles undue weight in the wp articles through excessive details. This edit, for example, gives Gerbic a lengthy quote in someone else's article, then a follow-up edit on the same article adds her reaction after the show is aired and another lengthy quote from her. Other concerning diffs of edits to BLPs:[164][165][166][167][168]

Here, an editor adds that Gerbic wrote that the BLP hadn't predicted COVID. The same blurb about not predicting COVID was added to several BLPs.[169][170][171][172][173]; creating "news" specifically to discredit BLPs. Different editors added almost the same text, including the Gerbic quote, which supports coordinated editing.

Another example of likely coordinated editing is different editors adding the same "clickbait" article by Gerbic (Ten Tricks of the Psychics I Bet You Didn’t Know (You Won’t Believe #6!)).[174][175][176][177][178]

Gerbic was interviewed on The Skeptic Zone (podcast #541, 3 March 2019) and said (00:19:45-00:20:12), I'm not really so much into educating the population. I'm more interested in making sure this psychic is really uncomfortable and that the people who want to hire him for another TV show understand this guy has been busted, big time, and when they do a google search or find his wikipedia page, which is right there for everybody to find, they're gonna go 'oh, maybe we don't want to work with this person, maybe this isn't such a good idea'. As laudable as the goal might be, I'm uncomfortable with the intersection of her online columns and the editors feeding them into BLPs on Wikipedia to further that activist goal.

Inflating skeptic BLPs

There's also inflating skeptic BLPs with content sourced to SI and related groups ([179][180][181][182]).

GSoW activies in general have been supported

On WP over the years, there seems to have been general approval of GSOW's goals of debunking fringe activities and psychics/mediums and tacit acceptance of their methods in pursuit of those goals. Enough editors have been in favor of GSOW edits to often outweigh and revert editors who have objected. Anything that can be used to discredit fringe beliefs seems to be fair game, which is understandable considering WP's stance on pseudoscience/fringe. And some of the challenges to their BLP edits have succeeded in removing questionable content. (I'm afraid this para is just my general observation, I don't have diffs of specific discussions.)

I think GSOW has been editing under the belief that their edits are welcomed and in accordance with WP's PAGs. And much of their past work is good. But the BLP edits that appear to me to edge toward OR (by Sgerbic) and what I perceive as the overzealous promotion of Gerbic are troubling. Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Gronk Oz

I have been a member of GSoW since 2014. As a GSoW member who is not specifically an "involved party", I offer my perspective.

My contributions

I understand that ArbCom wants to assess GSoW members' contributions; I hope I have been a worthwhile Wikipedia editor. My contributions are a mix of a few large items and lots of small ones, relatively quiet in the last 2-3 years due to medical issues.

• Articles I wrote from scratch or substantially expanded are listed here.
• That list also indicates the 11 articles which were highlighted in "Did You Know", and two more are currently awaiting review here and here.
• I have made over 34,000 edits, 84.5% were to Article space ([183]).
• 64.8% of my edits used the AWB tool([184]), mostly to fix typos etc. I also used AWB to fix incorrect demographics in thousands of Australian geographic articles, earning a barnstar from Kerry Raymond ([185]).
• I answered questions at the Teahouse (990+ edits there, but some of those were me asking questions), earning barnstars from W.carter ([186]) and Cullen328, kindly saying “You are one of the best of the Teahouse hosts, in my opinion.”([187])
• I uploaded 96 photos to Commons ([188])

Look over my history and reach your own conclusion. I’m sure you will find things there to challenge: I will be interested to learn what I have done wrong, and particularly whether you think it is a simple mistake or a pattern of misconduct.

Skeptical Inquirer magazine

This case specifically mentions concerns about promoting this magazine in Wikipedia, so I confirm that I have absolutely no relationship to Skeptical Inquirer, nor to its publisher, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. I can only find two places I have ever used it as a reference,([189], [190]) and I still think they are both reasonable for their uses. I have never been asked to do so.

What co-ordinated editing does GSoW do

I have mostly used the GSoW FaceBook group to ask technical questions, or to request that somebody reviews a draft article I have written: sometimes Rp2006 or Sgerbic helped out with such proof reading ([191], [192], [193], [194], [195]). I have also used the FB group to post lists of new Order of Australia winners as a source of ideas for articles. If a particular topic is about to hit the news, somebody might request that people review associated articles to be sure they are in good shape (e.g. Cupping therapy before the last Olympics).

I have never seen any inappropriate canvassing at GSoW – on the contrary, when there are contentious issues or votes (AfD, DYK, etc.) members are regularly reminded NOT to pile on with votes. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any way to provide evidence of what did not happen.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Geogene

Possible coordination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen T. Chang

Likely GSoW accounts Rp2006, Sgerbic, and JohnnyBflat, and non-GSoW Roxy the Dog, !voting Delete

Possible coordination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayman Mitchell

Likely GSoW accounts JohnnyBflat, Sgerbic, Wyatt Tyrone Smith, CatCafe, and non-GSoW Roxy the Dog, !voting Delete. Will email behavioral evidence linking accounts to GSoW to ArbCom.

A fresh COI edit by Rp2006

As of today, Rp2006 is still advocating for CSI Fellow Robert Bartholomew in the Havana syndrome Talk page [196]. Gerbic is also a CSI Fellow, and Bartholomew is closely connected to the Guerilla Skeptics, they interview him [197], [198]

On transparency

GSoW is said to fear harassment if they were to migrate on-Wiki. But Guerilla Skeptics appear to seek publicity, publicizing their activities and specific edits off-wiki. [199] Recently, Susan Gerbic appeared to out one of her own editors by name on a live talk show (link sent to ArbCom). Off-wiki they seem to casually refer to each other in public fora by their real names, even when discussing specific edits.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.