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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Skepticism and coordinated editing

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sgerbic (talk | contribs) at 05:39, 29 January 2022 (ArbCom statement of evidence for Sgerbic - Susan Gerbic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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

Submitting evidence

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

Word and diff limits

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

Supporting assertions with evidence

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

Rebuttals

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

Expected standards of behavior

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

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

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

Evidence presented by A. C. Santacruz

Roxy

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

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:

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.

Ray Hyman

[86] The entire problem distilled to one diff. Sgerbic expanding the article on a CSI founder with CSI/SI sources, adding extensive puffery. At the same time adds sections attacking other BLPs sourced only to the article subject's writings in SI.

Rp2006 commits BLPvios in non-article space

  • [87] "Only legitimate thing the subject does"
  • [88] 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.
  • [89] Labels Gwyneth Paltrow a "snake-oil salesman" on his user page.
  • [90] 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

  • [91] [92] [93] Witchfinder/witch hunt
  • [94] "campaign against GSoW"
  • [95] [96] "fringe sympathetic"
  • [97] Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation), even if not a Nazi reference, none of these are acceptable comparisons
  • [98] [99] [100] I used the phrase "lynch mob" 36 times in about a dozen years" as if that is a defense?
  • [101] 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."
  • [102] "I thought maybe I had the wrong idea; Santacruz does actual work and isn't just here to cause drama."
    • [103] On Rp2006's user page, pointy PA during case related to the two prior diffs.
  • [104] When informed of copyright issue "This is harassment, plain and simple."
  • [105] 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.
  • [106] Stonewalling, before closing. Close matches their views expressed here.
  • [107] It's hard to find single diffs that show stonewalling, but that's a decent example. Little bit of incivility mixed in as well
  • [108] More stonewalling and mild incivility.

Incivility discussion about possible COI on Rp2006's talk page

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

Rp2006 makes personal attacks and is incivil

  • [111] Calls DS/alert template harrassment
  • [112] "at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe."
  • [113] "intentionally or not, you folks are handing a huge win to con-men everywhere"
  • [114] "And now A._C._Santacruz is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim."
  • [115] "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

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

Stonewalling At Sharon A. Hill

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

  • [118] Discussion on edits started on Nov26.
  • [119] Revert with no discussion.
  • [120] Revert again with no discussion.
  • [121] Revert again with no discussion.
  • [122] [123] [124] Roxy the dog complaining about RFC after not discussing reverts, with incivility.
  • [125] 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.[126]. 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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."[127] 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: [128].

Dispute at Sharon A. Hill

Incivility

In the context of closely-related evidence presented by other editors, the following should be included: [129] (A. C. Santacruz: "What the fuck?"), [130], [131]. 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": [132], while citing the reply ([133]) 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: [134], a month after a significant cleanup (with removals) by Drmies.
  • Nov. 24–26:
    • [135] Removal of a large amount of the page by A. C. Santacruz.
    • [136] IP revert.
    • [137] A. C. Santacruz revert.
    • [138] Rp2006 revert. Followed by first talk page explanation, by A. C. Santacruz: [139].
  • Dec. 2:
  • Dec. 7:
    • [142] A. C. Santacruz revert of most.
    • [143] Roxy the dog revert.
  • Dec. 15–16:
    • [144] A. C. Santacruz revert.
    • [145] Roxy the dog revert.
    • [146] A. C. Santacruz revert.
    • [147] MrOllie revert.
    • [148] A. C. Santacruz partial revert.
    • [149] 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

GSoW editors work as a team

GSoW operate as an editing team, watch each other's articles [150], coordinate through Facebook [151] and are led by Sgerbic. [152] GSoW does not generally accept experienced editors to the team as they "tend to be lone-wolf editors".

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: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] 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.

Editors: Rp2006, Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Gronk Oz (self disclosed) Efefvoc2/CatCafe, Nederlandse Leeuw (BilledMammal's analysis) Noguarde

Campaigning against BLP subjects

The major case here is Tyler Henry. Prior to his first reality TV series, and before he had a Wikipedia page, he was specifically targeted by Sgerbic as he had no prior criticism. 10:36 Sgerbic wrote multiple negative articles (7+) about Henry, then organised for others to write additional negative articles to increase the amount of criticism. The initial BLP created by a non-GSoW editor about Henry was then edited and expanded by at least seven GSoW and closely related editors to create a highly negative BLP heavily reliant on these sources. [164] (Self disclosed: Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Rp2006, Robincantin, VdSV9, Krelnik; per BilledMammal: Efefvoc2/CatCafe, Drobertpowell)

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

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:

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)[reply]

Evidence presented by Shibbolethink

Response to Bilby

Some qualms with how Bilby has framed their argument above. 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 BLPs, sourced to publications that are, according to RS/N [165], reliable. AFAICT, no diffs involve an editor citing their own work. Rather, they cite RSes to discuss skeptical criticism. These diffs do not violate any WP:PAG AFAICT. No evidence is provided that off-wiki coordination took place.

E.g. Suppose I am a devout Catholic. I edit to introduce the catholic perspective on the First Council of Nicaea using RSes. I edit 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? Or a catholic historian? Suppose I attend conferences where papers are presented, and meet authors and discuss theology and history with friends and acquaintances. Is this 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 [166] [167]. 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"; the relationships are the same.

How could Wikipedia function if this was COI? It would impede contributions of any academic in a particular field from citing 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 of the diffs provided thus far.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think there may be DUE issues re: skeptical viewpoints in certain medium BLPs. E.g. those noted by shazjmd below. But those are problematic because they are UNDUE, and UNDUE inclusions are hardly a burden borne by GSoW alone. WP:2WRONGS & WP:PARITY apply. I do think there should be some admonishment to follow WP:UNDUE more closely. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:[168][169][170][171][172]

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.[173][174][175][176][177]; 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!)).[178][179][180][181][182]

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 ([183][184][185][186]).

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)[reply]

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 (13) or substantially expanded (12) are listed here. All but three are biographical.
  • 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 ([187]).
  • 64.8% of my edits used the AWB tool([188]), 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 ([189]).
  • I answered questions at the Teahouse (990+ edits there, but some of those were me asking questions), earning barnstars from W.carter ([190]) and Cullen328, kindly saying “You are one of the best of the Teahouse hosts, in my opinion.”([191])
  • I uploaded 96 photos to Commons ([192])

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,([193], [194]) 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 ([195], [196], [197], [198], [199]). 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 co-ordination at GSoW (e.g. canvassing, meatpuppetry, or tag teaming) – 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)[reply]

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 [200]. Gerbic is also a CSI Fellow, and Bartholomew is closely connected to the Guerilla Skeptics, they interview him [201], [202]

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. [203] 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 5Q5

GSoW is a legal nonprofit with a bank account and will take donations, which could influence editing. I agree that there should be a disclosed list of its member editors via its own WikiProject. Source for the following quote is Skeptical Inquirer online, March 8, 2013, by Susan Gerbic: Wikapediatrician Susan Gerbic discusses her Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project One of the projects the GSoW team is best known for is the We Got Your Wiki Back project. This is where we write (or rewrite) pages of our skeptical spokespeople. When they are in the media's eye, we know that their Wikipedia page views are going to spike.

Evidence presented by BilledMammal

Members of GSoW have coordinated to promote CSI and related entities

Susan Gerbic states "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." GSoW has done exactly that; they have added references to CSI publications throughout Wikipedia, they have written articles on CSI entities and affiliates, and they have linked these articles wherever possible, to "improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer".

References to CSI Publications

Reviewing 100 of the articles with links to Skeptical Inquirer, 54 were made since 2018. Of these, 42 were added by an GSoW associate. This disparity, combined with Gerbic's previous statements on this matter where she documents a coordinated effort to add a reference to every article in an edition of SI, suggests a deliberate and coordinated effort to increase the exposure of CSI.

Articles relating to CSI

Considering the article Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and five linked from it that appear to be closely related to CSI, five have significant contributions from various groups of GSoW associates - the sixth, CSI's parent entity, has some contributions, but these are not significant.

Article Portion contributed by GSoW GSoW associate
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry 45.3% Nederlandse Leeuw, Sgerbic
Skeptical Inquirer 77.6% Sgerbic, CatCafe, Rp2006, Wyatt Tyrone Smith
CSICon 66.5% Nederlandse Leeuw, Rp2006, Sgerbic, Drobertpowell, Boneso, Jonwnz
Barry Karr 91.4% Sgerbic, Gronk Oz, SojoQ
James Underdown 79.0% Sgerbic, Robincantin, Jimgibson, Rp2006, CatCafe, Elwood P. Dowd

Links to articles on CSI and its affiliates

Reviewing 20 of the links to the article Susan Gerbic, we find that 19 have been added by GSoW associates, suggesting that this is part of coordinated efforts to promote CSI, made more inappropriate due to the editors having their own direct COI with Gerbic.

Article Diff and editor
James Randi Rp2006 (GSoW)
James Randi Educational Foundation Nuretok (GSoW)
Psychic Drobertpowell (GSoW)
Salinas, California Nederlandse Leeuw (GSoW)
Susan Blackmore 330highflyer (GSoW)
Puzzling World LaCivettaViola
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Nederlandse Leeuw (GSoW)
Strategic lawsuit against public participation TheDragonHypothesis (GSoW)
Cold reading Sgerbic (GSoW)
Skeptical Inquirer Sgerbic (GSoW)
Scientific skepticism Rp2006 (GSoW)
Hot reading Drobertpowell (GSoW)
Ray Hyman 330highflyer (GSoW)
Debunker Rp2006 (GSoW)
Rex Morgan, M.D. Vanessa Quinlivan (GSoW)
Mark Lynas 330highflyer (GSoW)
Christchurch Arts Centre Jane Percival (GSoW)
Skepticality Onlydemi (GSoW)
Mediumship Rp2006 (GSoW)
Carl Zimmer Matjazgregoric (GSoW)

Note LaCivettaViola; the evidence indicates that they added the link at the start of GSoW training, suggesting that training includes encouragement to promote CSI, though their connection is not proven.

Editor connections to GSoW

  1. Sgerbic - Connection assumed
  2. Nederlandse Leeuw - Sgerbic editing Nederlandse Leeuw's sandbox
  3. CatCafe - CatCafe editing TheYarnBender's sandbox, Sgerbic editing TheYarnBender's sandbox
  4. Rp2006 - Connection assumed
  5. Wyatt Tyrone Smith - Self disclosed
  6. Drobertpowell - See preliminary submission
  7. Boneso - Rp2006 editing Boneso's sandbox
  8. Gronk Oz - Self disclosed
  9. SojoQ - See preliminary submission
  10. Robincantin - See preliminary submission
  11. Jimgibson - See preliminary submission
  12. Elwood P. Dowd - See preliminary submission
  13. Nuretok - Sgerbic editing Nuretok's sandbox
  14. 330highflyer - See preliminary submission
  15. TheDragonHypothesis - See preliminary submission
  16. Vanessa Quinlivan - Sgerbic editing Vanessa Quinlivan's sandbox
  17. Jane Percival - Rp2006 editing Jane Percival's sandbox
  18. Onlydemi - Sgerbic editing Onlydemi's sandbox
  19. Matjazgregoric - Sgerbic editing Matjazgregoric's sandbox

Note: Additional connection evidence is available. Editors are only listed when their connection relates to the evidence presented. LaCivettaViola, ProperStanger, MCaronNZ, Jonwnz, and 1Veertje relate to the evidence presented but are not counted in totals, as association is likely but unproven.

Evidence presented by Robincantin

I’ve been active on Wikipedia for five years and with GSoW for just as long. The usual newbie curve: my enthusiasm exceeded my skills, got some sense knocked into me by senior editors (within GSoW and outside), settled into a better rhythm. I’d like to thank those who helped me along, present company included.

Most of my edits have nothing to do with skepticism (I de-orphan), but I’m a very active, visible GSoW member. Given the level of scrutiny we’ve been subjected to in this case, if a pattern of disruptive behaviour could be inferred from my edits, it would have been presented here. I don’t feel presenting dozens of diffs of good edits on skepticism topics would be particularly useful.

Still, some context and a few examples.

On coordinated editing

A lot of diffs presented date back to 2018 and 2020 and involve only two editors at a time. I submit that if GSoW engaged in coordinated editing as a matter of practice, that would result in a large number of recent cases, involving several GSoW editors.

I have cited Skeptical Inquirer only a handful of times, typically when a particular article neatly brings together information from scattered sources, or present actual new information in a clear, professional manner. The most recent example is my rewrite of the Doris Bither case. [204]

This is typical of the work GSoW editors do: review a poorly-sourced article, add better sources, try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Asking for feedback, advice and sources from the private Facebook group is often an important part of this process. We constantly cite and link to WP policies and the Manual of Style within the Cabal. My interactions with fellow editors within the group have been a great source of motivation to keep editing. It’s a much more active environment than the Wikipedia projects I’ve joined, where it’s very rare to get feedback or advice.

Editing behaviour

I’ve been careful to be collaborative and helpful on Talk pages, even when it’s apparent editors are engaged in whitewashing controversial pages. I submit these diffs as being representative of my tone generally. I understand why it’s ok to point here to examples where GSoW editors show impatience, but I invite ARBCOM members not to confuse cherry-picking with sampling. I believe GSoW members exhibit a range of behaviour similar to a random group of any 100 Wikipedians.

  • Thomas Cowan's Talk page[207]
  • Momo Challenge Talk page[208]. Also an older conversation about the use of a photo I think I handled rather well.

I’ve seen GSoW get better over five years; I think that is why many of the diffs presented here are years old. We’ll get better still, as a group and individually. We very much see ourselves as part of the Wikipedia community, not separate from it.

Evidence presented by Johnuniq

A lot of the evidence on this page shows what is already known, namely that GSoW exists. There is no evidence of edit warring other than a skirmish noted at #Dispute at Sharon A. Hill above. The only evidence of bad edits are those concerned with accurate but excessive BLP negativity regarding sting operations—Bilby listed examples above. However those examples are from 2015, 2019, 2020 with only two in 2021 (February + July). BLP problems are correctable—I am one of many admins who would ensure that such problems do not recur. I don't believe a community discussion would be needed, but if necessary there could be an RfC on whether BLPs should record sting operations.

Given claims that GSoW is a significant problem, there is remarkably little evidence of recent issues apart from bickering resulting from the 250 KB COIN mega-discussion. Taking the evidence at #Links to articles on CSI and its affiliates as an example, the edits concerned are: 1 in 2014, 1 in 2015, 3 in 2016, 3 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 5 in 2019, 1 in 2020.

Considering the GSoW edits listed at #Susan Gerbic was a puff piece that had negative information about other BLPs coatracked in shows 3 edits in 2017, 1 in 2018, 6 in 2019. Regarding the reported clean-up of Susan Gerbic, there was no attempt to revert the changes, and there was not even an objection on talk (apart from some unrelated back-and-forth at article talk regarding an attempt to add a permanent COI tag). Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by XOR'easter

The "backwards editing" column mentioned above [209] describes taking an existing citation that you have run across in a noteworthy source, and then adding it to a current Wikipedia article. It does talk up the virtues of Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source, which may be in poor taste, but it does advocate casting a wider net: This style of editing is really just a matter of browsing through notable magazines, podcasts, books, and journals, and then finding a way to add them correctly to an existing Wikipedia page. It also says that joining GSoW is not necessary: you can help out without joining my Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project; and later, But you don’t really need GSoW to make these kinds of edits. Pretty tame, all told. And, since it's from 2015, it's of dubious relevance to how anything is done now. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Rp2006

A. C. Santacruz’s behavior

  • While I’m aware of WP:2WRONGS, examples of instances of improper behavior by A.C.Santacruz are needed for context; she is a named party here and thus part of the scope. [210]
  • This started with a disagreement with A.C.Santacruz on the Sharon A. Hill article between her and three other editors, including me. Her edit concerned a large, seemingly unjustified deletion of a large block of text with 11 citations.[211] Confronted with the resistance to her deletion attempt, A.C.Santacruz then "investigated" me and made a COI (should be SELFSITE) allegation, and attempted to OUT (WP:DOX) me. When I reported this violation to WP administration, they purged her posts. [212]
  • But the damage was done. Before the purge, many read her posted info, which resulted in my (assumed) IRL identity being assumed as accurate, and openly discussed on at least one website. [213] Note that just 1 of the 11 citations involved alleged SelfCite material, which, in any case, another editor had added to the article long ago. This seems to have snowballed into claims that I generally engage in SELFCITING, and also have COIs with most anyone ever affiliated with CSI, (skeptics and scientists), and perhaps even the broader scientific/skeptic movement by extension. (See claims made by others here.)
  • Her claims of contrition for the “unintentional” OUTING seems questionable due to her harassment of me on my Talk page, including another OUTING attempt. (“the article that started this whole mess says Hill thanked him for an edit on her page”) [214]
  • She justified her actions based on my lack of ‘taking proper precautions’: “How is it my fault they didn't take proper precautions before deciding to base the overwhelming majority of their edits in articles … I will never know.” [215]
  • Inappropriate behavior regarding the admin response: [216]
  • She asked questions on my Talk page she characterized as "friendly" but which were in reality threatening: "I'm being friendly and giving Rp an opportunity to disclose his association willingly before taking another route."talk page An admin responded, calling this “creepy” plus "There is no planet on which these questions would be regarded as friendly".[217]
  • The demand for editors (including me) to respond to her quickly, showing lack of consideration for other editors' WP availability, seems a pattern of behavior, which she has misrepresented.[218] For example, there was her opening and closing of two RFCs in 1 and 4 days respectively (over major holidays), plus her dismissal of the concern when it was pointed out to her in relation to other articles. [219]
  • Repeated accusations made over a typo and literal interpretations of figures of speech:
  • Accused me of “misgendering” her over a one time typo (I typed “he” vs “she” once, and had used “she” or “they” in all other instances). [220]
  • Accused an editor of calling her an ape over the expression “went ape over it”, and accused another of calling her a hound because she was accused of WP:HOUNDING. (See "...calling me an ape and a hound...")[221]

Response to A. C. Santacruz evidence

  • Alleged “statement conflicts with paid-en-wp evidence” and a friendship with the Sharon Hill are false. Is my denial somehow evidence of guilt?[222]
  • Claimed that functionary indicated “receiving credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits.” What is this evidence? Do I get to discuss or dispute the instances before they are deemed “credible”? Such evidence was not presented to me. Also “...has been making…”? is broad. Which other edits supposedly involve COIs?[223]
  • Canvassing accusation: I thought it was proper to post on a concerned WikiProject. I did so in the only one I was a member of. I now know that all tagged projects need to be notified, so will do so in the future.[224]

Response to Geogene evidence

  • Regarding “A fresh COI edit by Rp2006”: I do not believe I have a COI with Robert Bartholomew, but if one existed, there would be nothing wrong with suggesting on a Talk page the TV news interview of Bartholomew (along with another topic expert) as a relevant citation for the article. Presenting this as “advocating” for a person completely misrepresents the situation. [225]
  • Plus, following and commenting on my “fresh” edits is evidence of WP:HOUNDING which is defined as “following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.” [226]

Response to ScottishFinnishRadish evidence

  • I was unaware of BLP rules applied to userspace, but have now reviewed the guidelines. I believe that the descriptions I used can be backed-up by material from the associated articles, but I have changed to less controversial descriptions anyway, and will be more careful in userspace.[227][228][229]
  • You complained here that “[he] calls DS/alert template harrassment.” I have edited BLPs extensively for years, but the first time anyone ever slapped this Warning on my page was during a dispute on the Thomas John (medium) page as an ANI was in progress. Ironically I am the originator of this article. In context it seemed this was done to scare me away and thus win the edit argument. When challenged I was told it was just SOP. Did the editors on the other side of this argument add the template to one another’s pages? Guess.[230]

Conclusion

  • I was only able to address a portion of the evidence, but must note that it has been gathered by people going through my large body of work to find things to present negative things in support of their own POV. This is the epitome of Cherry picking. The targeted examples are selected from the 13,200+ edits made over 6 years. This involves 1,880+ pages, ~67% in article space, with ~90% being still “live”. [231]
  • My work includes writing two BLP Good Articles: [232], and in all I have created 7 articles from scratch, and substantially rewrote ~20 others.[233] Six ran as DYKs in 4 separate years.[234]
  • I have not been previously blocked/banned, and avoid admin issues and debates, preferring to spend my time improving and creating articles. I think this represents my first involvement with ArbCom, ANI or any other admin action since I created an account in 2006.
  • When these facts are considered, I hope it is determined that an admin action against my WP account would be a net deficit to the WP project.

Evidence presented by Sgerbic

GSoW has no meat-puppets or sock-puppets. We are volunteers and do not canvas votes. Respect for the WP:PAG is an integral part of our training program. I’m proud of this program. It’s what I wish had been available to me when I started editing in 2008. It has changed over time - someone starting in 2010 or 2021 would see a different program. Sent private link to ArbCom.

I understand that there is concern about our transparency. However, we are actually as transparent as any group of editors. Many of our editors are on WikiProject:Skepticism, and others. As for my part, I edit using my name, my user page and edit history are all public. Yes, many but not all of us choose to be anonymous, because our editors are concerned about being doxed for good reason, as you can see from this 2021 document: 

“Parapsychology’s Battle for the Internet: A Critical Insight into the Wiki Problem”. They understand the importance of Wikipedia, and apparently GSoW is, in their estimation, the thing keeping them from having pro-Fringe Wikipedia pages. In the “What can be done?” section, they say it clearly -  “Wherever possible, they should challenge the anonymity of Wikipedia editors … “ (emphasis mine) [235][236]

In Summer/Fall 2021 we discussed making a list of all then 1,800+ pages public in one place as we are very proud of our work. Doing so would have made the GSoW members public.

However, my position changed in November 2021 when a fire that started on the Havana Syndrome talk page jumped onto an admin page. A brand new editor to me, A. C. Santacruz, on November 4th created a subpage to “build a case to show evidence of GSoW coordination” and discover who GSoW editors are. She was admonished and deleted the page but stated, “Decided to take it offline and will move it to a new user page once I'm done …that perhaps there is something to gain from poking around a bit, but I'll wait until I have a very detailed case”.[237]

Santacruz approached/pinged other editors for help making a case against GSoW.[238][239]

The next day, she spent 29 minutes putting up four pages I had worked on using WP:PROD saying she expected WP:SNOW. Pages from 2012 and 2016.[240]

Accused of canvassing.[241]

Santacruz proposed sanctions.[242][243]

Santacruz asked for help from other editors to take me to ArbCom.[244][245][246][247][248][249]

It continued to accusations over Peter Gleick. I had ONLY added a photo to in 2019 (that I took in 2011).[250] Nothing she claimed about me was accurate.[251] I have never "participated in the talk page for years".[252]

In the middle of this[253] Santacruz WP:PROD this, a page I had reverted vandalism in 2011.[254] That's weird, suddenly it makes sense. The top of my Facebook/Twitter accounts and many of my lectures mention Spontaneous Human Combustion as my greatest childhood fear, but now favorite pseudoscience.

All this transpired over three days

Hopefully ArbCom understands why I am suspicious and wary of editors who zealously and suddenly enter the picture, making lists of GSoW editors, investigating on social media and reporting (or threatening to report) people. Putting up AfD’s, deleting large chunks of pages, endless discussions on talk and admin pages. It’s exhausting.

Now to answer evidence

  • This campaign against me and our group went on for days, and thousands of words. The frustration led me to curt replies, I will try to do better.
  • I have apologized to Vaticidalprophet and I will try to do better in the future.
  • Geogene I’m sure you can find any number of editors grouped together often when we work in the same interest areas and are members of the same Wiki:Projects.[258]

At times our team might have become over-zealous in adding content to BLP, and I think these discussions have been instructive. In fact, we have already altered our training. However, I feel strongly that discussions should happen on the article's talk page at dispute.

I have an extensive edit history; across WM, I have 9,093 edits. I am at 57.9% on Article Space.

As evidence that I am here to improve Wikipedia, these are my last ten creations.

Our detractors claim that Skeptical Inquirer is overused, we will try to cut back, however it is often the only available source for WP:PARITY, in which case we use it.

I prefer to stand on my actual editing records than to try to prove that my personal goals and biases are 100% pristine. I do my best to edit in good faith, but yes, off Wikipedia, I am biased towards science (as is Wikipedia). Please know that a lot has changed over the years. Around 2019 we did a big overhaul of our program, and with the recommendations of the ArbCom decision, GSoW will continue to improve. These are old, but I think they stand up well.[259][260]

There has been some talk about me having a COI with CSI because I am a CSI Fellow. I encourage ABICROM to check the date I was made a Fellow, vs the date of my supposed COI diffs.

I have never been banned, rarely participated in admin conversations, and only want to continue training and improving Wikipedia science and pseudoscience pages. Wikipedia has brought me a community of hard working truth loving nerds. The last thing I or the GSoW community would want is to hurt Wikipedia which makes all of this possible. At the end of the day, we have edited alongside everyone just like any other editor, as that is what we are, editors.

Thank you.

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Evidence&oldid=1068573139"