The Evidence phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Case scope and implications

The scope was changed from GSoW to skepticism, and ArbCom needs to be aware of potential knock-on effects.

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:
  • [140] A. C. Santacruz revert.
  • [141] IP revert.
• 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.

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". Previously ArbCom found that COI " also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing".

Sgerbic is involved in off-wiki activism

The main focus here are the "sting" operations targeting mediums to discredit them: [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] According to Sgerbic, they focus on psychics that "have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page". 2:30

GSoW editors have been editing BLPs targeted by Sgerbic's sting operations

GSoW members have extensively edited the BLPs of subjects who were targeted through stings run by Sgerbic, often sourced to publications by GSoW members and supporters.

• Thomas John: [159] [160] [161] [162]
• Matt Fraser [163]
• Suzane Northrop [164]

Editors: Rp2006, Efefvoc2/CatCafe (BilledMammal's analysis) Noguarde

Campaigning against BLP subjects

Prior to his first TV series, and before he had a Wikipedia page, Tyler Henry was targeted by Sgerbic. 10:36 Sgerbic wrote multiple negative articles (7+), then organised for others to write additional negative articles. The initial BLP created by a non-GSoW editor about Henry was then expanded by at least seven GSoW and closely related editors to create a highly negative BLP heavily reliant on these sources. [165] (Self disclosed: Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Rp2006, Robincantin, VdSV9, Krelnik; per BilledMammal: Efefvoc2/CatCafe, Drobertpowell)

Creating sources to support POVs

Sgerbic has described how sources were created to add POVs in articles. In one case, she used a fake name to join a webinar by a BLP subject she was in a dispute with, asked questions related to the dispute, then provided a recording to a journalist. 28:00-32:44 The resulting article was added by a GSoW member. [166] (Rp2006)

Responses

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, this involves a close connection between off-wiki and on-wiki actions.

In regard to Johnuniq, a) this is a long term problem, so diffs displaying how this has been an issue for an extended time make sense; b) in regard to stings, the problem is not writing about them, but writing about them when there is a COI; and 3) due to the nature of Wikipedia any problem can be fixed, but this does not mean that we should allow the problems to occur.

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) reply

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 [167], 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 [168] [169]. 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

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 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: [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

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. [175] [176] [177] [178] [179]; 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!)). [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]

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 ( [185] [186] [187] [188]).

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

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 ( [189]).
• 64.8% of my edits used the AWB tool( [190]), 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 ( [191]).
• I answered questions at the Teahouse (990+ edits there, but some of those were me asking questions), earning barnstars from W.carter ( [192]) and Cullen328, kindly saying “You are one of the best of the Teahouse hosts, in my opinion.”( [193])
• I uploaded 96 photos to Commons ( [194])

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,( [195], [196]) 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 ( [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]). 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.

Responses

Thanks Bilby and BilledMammal for removing implications against me.

Bilby gives the impression that most GSoW members are involved in off-wiki activism. AFAIK that is not true. Before my time I understand Susan Gerbic started an activist organization called "Guerrilla Skeptics", who did stings and other activism. When Susan started the Wikipedia project, she used that "familiar brand" by calling it "Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" As RP2006 says, the two groups are separate. So when Susan talks about "my team of volunteers" for the Thomas John sting, there is no indication how many, if any, of them are related to GSoW.

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 [202]. Gerbic is also a CSI Fellow, and Bartholomew is closely connected to the Guerilla Skeptics, they interview him [203], [204]

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. [205] 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.

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.

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".

This 2015 post was made when SI hired Gerbic as a consultant, and the evidence I present suggests that GSoW continues to operate in this manner.

References to CSI Publications

Reviewing 100 of the articles with links to Skeptical Inquirer, 54 were linked since 2018 of which 42 were by a 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.

Considering these references in the context of WP:PARITY, three addressed an existing unaddressed fringe claim, seven added and addressed a fringe claim such as at Immune system, while eighteen were used within skepticism broadly defined but did not relate to fringe claims. Of the remaining fourteen, two were superfluous references, while twelve were used outside skepticism.

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 collective contributions from various coordinated groups of GSoW associates - the sixth, CSI's parent entity, has some contributions, but these are not significant.

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.

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.

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. [206]

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.

• Children's Health Defense Talk page [207] [208]

• Thomas Cowan's Talk page [209]

• Momo Challenge Talk page [210]. 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.

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

The "backwards editing" column mentioned above [211] 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

A. C. Santacruz’s behavior

• While I’m aware of WP:2WRONGS, examples of improper behavior by A.C.Santacruz are needed for context; she is a named party here and part of the scope. [212]

• This started with a disagreement with A.C.Santacruz on Sharon A. Hill between her and three editors, including me. Her edit concerned a seemingly unjustified deletion of a large block of text with 11 citations. [213] Confronted with resistance to her deletion attempt, A.C.Santacruz then "investigated" me, took it to ANI [214] with 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. [215]

• But the damage was done. Before the purge, editors read the info resulting in my (assumed) IRL identity being openly discussed. [216] Note that just 1 of the 11 citations involved alleged SELFCITE material, which another editor had added long ago. This snowballed into claims I generally engage in SELFCITING, and have COIs with most anyone ever affiliated with CSI, (skeptics and scientists), and even the broader scientific/skeptic community and topics. (See claims by others here, including BilledMammal's complaint Debunker and Mediumship should be off limits to me.)

• Her claims of contrition for the OUTING seems questionable due to harassment of me on my Talk page, including a second OUTING attempt. (“the article that started this whole mess says Hill thanked him for an edit on her page”) [217]

• 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.” [218]

• Inappropriate behavior regarding admin response: [219]

• She asked questions on my Talk page she characterized as "friendly," but which were not: "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” saying "There is no planet on which these questions would be regarded as friendly". [220]

• Her demand for editors (including me) to respond on her schedule, showing lack of consideration for other editors' availability, seems a pattern. [221] For example, there was her opening and closing of two RFCs in 1 and 4 days respectively (over major holidays), plus her dismissal of this concern when it was pointed out to her in relation to other articles. [222]

• Unjustified accusations made over a typo, and literal interpretations of figures of speech:

• Accused me of “misgendering” her over a single typo (I typed “he” vs “she” once, and had used “she” or “they” in all other instances). [223]

• Accused one editor of calling her an ape over the expression “went ape over it”, and another of calling her a hound when accused of WP:HOUNDING. (See "...calling me an ape and a hound...") [224]

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 evidence of guilt? [225]

• Claimed that functionary indicated “receiving credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits.” What is this evidence? Do I get to 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? [226]

• Canvassing accusation: I thought it was proper to post on a concerned WikiProject. I did so at the only one I was a member of. I now understand that all tagged projects need to be notified, and will do so going forward. [227]

Response to Geogene evidence

• Regarding “A fresh COI edit by Rp2006”: I do not believe I have a COI with Bartholomew, but if I did, there would be nothing wrong with suggesting (on the Talk page) that recent TV news interview as a relevant citation. Presenting this as “advocating” for a person misrepresents the situation. [228]

• Plus, tracking my “fresh” edits is WP:HOUNDING, defined as “following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.” [229]

Response to Bilby evidence

You (and others) conflated those who do stings (Guerilla Skeptics) with those who work on WP (GSoW team). You made corrections, but others may have not.

Response to ScottishFinnishRadish evidence

• I was unaware that BLP rules applied to userspace, but have reviewed the guidelines. I believe that the descriptions I had used can be backed-up by the articles, but I have changed to less controversial descriptions anyway, and intend to be more careful in userspace. [230] [231] [232]

• Regarding your complained here that “[he] calls DS/alert template harrassment”: I stand by that in this instance. I have edited BLPs extensively for many years, but the first time anyone ever added this to my page was in real-time during a dispute on Thomas John (medium) page. Ironically I am the originator of this article. In context it seemed the intent was to scare me off, and win the edit argument. When challenged I was told it was just SOP. I did not observe the several editors representing the other side of the argument add this warning to one another’s pages. Hmmm. [233]

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. Examples were selected from my 13,200+ edits made over 6 years. This involves 1,880+ pages, ~67% in article space, with ~90% being still “live”. [234]

• My work includes writing two BLP Good Articles: [235], and in all I have created 7 articles from scratch, and substantially rewrote ~20 others. [236] Six ran as DYKs in 4 separate years. [237]

• I have not been previously blocked/banned, and avoid admin issues/debates, preferring to spend my time actually improving and creating articles. In fact, 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 project.

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) 
[238]
[239]

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”. [240]

Santacruz approached/pinged other editors for help making a case against GSoW. [241] [242]

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. [243]

Accused of canvassing. [244]

Santacruz proposed sanctions. [245] [246]

Santacruz asked for help from other editors to take me to ArbCom. [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252]

It continued to accusations over Peter Gleick. I had ONLY added a photo to in 2019 (that I took in 2011). [253] Nothing she claimed about me was accurate. [254] I have never "participated in the talk page for years". [255]

In the middle of this [256] Santacruz WP:PROD this, a page I had reverted vandalism in 2011. [257] 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, reporting (or threatening to report) people, putting up AfD’s, deleting large chunks of pages, and writing 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.

• As ScottishFinnishRadish has said several times, an article’s issues should be discussed on that article's talk page. [258] [259] [260]

• 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. [261]

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.

• Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital 2022 from stub

• Mee Memorial Hospital 2022 new

• Luis Elizondo 2021 new

• Tasmania Zoo 2021 from stub

• Rhododendron Species Foundation and Botanical Garden 2021 from stub

• PPE Portrait project 2020 new

• COVID-19 party 2020 from stub

• Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy 2019 from stub

• Fremont Peak Observatory 2017 from stub

• Michael Eisen 2017 from stub

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. [262] [263]

There has been some talk about me having a COI with CSI because I am a CSI Fellow. I encourage ArbCom 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.

Response to claims GSoW is the same as Guerilla Skeptics

GSoW has nothing to do with psychic stings, other than probably someone from the group has proofread articles I’ve written before they went to editorial. In the quote Bilby found, I meant “we” as in the collective skeptical world “we”. Reporters ask me questions, they are interested in the Wikipedia angle and I answer them, they print what they print and I do not get to approve beforehand nor am I allowed to ask for corrections. Back in 2012 I would have never dreamt in 2022 that the similar names would be a problem, otherwise I would have been much clearer. Sometimes I speak off the cuff and sometimes I find the audience isn’t interested in details, they just want to hear the story of how a medium is talking to children about their dead family members. Look at these articles and you will see I use the phrase “Guerilla Skeptics” or “the Guerrilla Skeptic investigations” not GSoW. I have a handful of people who research mediums, I plan the stings, and I have worked with members of various skeptic groups like the Las Vegas Society of Skeptics that attended the Thomas John Vegas show. I use various people depending on the location. In my most recent sting, Operation Onion Ring you can see the people I used, and they have nothing to do with GSoW. [264] [265] [266] [267] [268]9 [269] [270] [271] [272]

Aggressive editing by Roxy the Dog

Dozens of diffs had been submitted showing un-collegial editing by Roxy and other skeptics – e.g. I'm just messing with your head. These were later retracted. Yet the aggressive editing took place. Roxy's aggression is not apparently confined to online posts. He posted about deciding to confront the Colonel in real life. An aggressive editor talking of physically confronting others could exert a chilling effect on those who lack the Colonel's exceptional physical courage, and who might otherwise wish to edit from different perspectives. This is not to argue for severe sanctions. While CSI style scepticism is not always aligned with mainstream science or the wider Wikipedia community -

- the oft repeated view that skeptical editors are hugely valuable in protecting us from harmful fringe is true. Extensive engagement with fringe pushers is liable to be frustrating. Hence there is a case for being less quick to sanction skeptics, even if they let their stress cause them to be uncivil to mainstream editors. And I see no reasons why they cant be allowed a reasonable amount of off-wiki coordination, as afforded to several other groups. But Roxy could benefit from a reminder about WP:Civil, or possibly even a caution.

I am not, and have never been, a member of "GSoW" or "Guerilla Skeptics".

Much of my editing could be said to be co-ordinated by Talk pages, Noticeboards and Projects. I often vote at AfD's where I was canvassed by notifications on Project pages, as do many others. I do not co-ordinate off-wiki.

Note that in my "messing ... " comment, recently highlighted, I responded to an accusation of being in the pay of Google or Government. In full, it read - "Neither Google nor Government, I'm just messing with your head." - Roxy the dog. wooF 15:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

On COI and "backwards editing"

1. WP:COI says a conflict of interest on Wikipedia exists when an editor's external relationships " could reasonably be said to undermine" an editor's primary purpose of furthering the interests of Wikipedia.
2. WP:BESTSOURCES recommends as a key way of achieving WP:NPOV is basing content on the "best respected and most authoritative reliable sources".
3. Until this drama, the Skeptical Inquirer has not been an especially controversial source on Wikipedia (it has no entry on WP:RSP which would indicate frequent controversy). It has its opponents, but has also been approved by established (presumably non-GSoW) editors. [273] [274] [275] as JzG comments (last preceding diff), "reliable for their areas of specialist interest".
4. The much cited Gerbic blog post says "Not always will a backwards edit fit cleanly into a Wikipedia article, it is a matter of opinion in some cases, and if you are unsure it is possible to discuss the edit first ...".

Labelling editors and acting on content

1. Background: In March/April 2021 in one of her last substantial editing actions, SlimVirgin performed a substantial cleanup [276] of the Susan Gerbic article to make it BLP and generally policy compliant, removing the {{COI}} tag in the process.
2. In November 2022, A. C. Santacruz on Talk:Susan Gerbic proposed that "This article must be permanently tagged w COI tags", giving as part of the rationale a long list of "major contributors", including SlimVirgin who "have strong interests in Skepticism". [277] ACS twice tries to add the COI tag accordingly. [278] [279]

The Arbitration Committee accepted private evidence in this case. Like with all evidence, Arbitrators, including the drafters, will make individual decisions on how much weight to give to each piece of submitted evidence. In making this decision Arbitrators will consider how the evidence complies with the Arbitration Policy on private evidence and the community feedback offered in the 2020 anti-harassment RfC.

The Committee has received the following categories of private evidence:

• The identity of specific editors and their membership in GSoW. This includes both first-person disclosures (noting that they are a member) and third-party evidence (suggesting another editor's identity and/or membership).
• GSoW training materials and methods
• Accusations of GSoW coordinated editing
• GSoW structure

The following evidence was received privately as part of longer evidence submissions but involves public information:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=50&user=1Veertje&ilshowall=1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Allianz_vun_Humanisten,_Atheisten_an_Agnostiker&oldid=689850580
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Amardeo_Sarma&oldid=791622403,
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=CSICon&diff=prev&oldid=1019298549
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deborah_Hyde&oldid=688382014
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deej&diff=prev&oldid=1062789746)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Doris_Bither_case&diff=prev&oldid=1053010312
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Elizabeth_Loftus&diff=prev&oldid=1052843975
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Enlightenment_Now&type=revision&diff=838089810&oldid=837824756
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Johan_Braeckman&oldid=681273455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Johan_Braeckman&type=revision&diff=681273455&oldid=664771577,
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Leonora_Piper&diff=prev&oldid=835595885
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Momo_Challenge_hoax&oldid=855911813
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sharon_A._Hill&type=revision&diff=852831405&oldid=849325378&diffmode=visual
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Dybbuk_box&diff=prev&oldid=1002398320
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Goop_Lab&oldid=934458671
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=1053760591
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Rp2006&diff=prev&oldid=1053869334
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053594455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053598519
• /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenny_Biddle
• /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dybbuk_box
• https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=JohnnyBflat&users=CatCafe&users=Sgerbic&users=Rp2006&users=Wyatt+Tyrone+Smith
• https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Rp2006&users=Poorlyglot&users=KoKoCorvid&users=Sgerbic&users=ScienceExplains&users=Dustinlull&users=Boneso
• https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Rp2006&users=Sgerbic&users=Alhill42
• https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Skeptical_Inquirer/?q=pensar
• https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Skeptics%20in%20the%20Pub/?q=skeptical%20inquirer
• https://xtools.wmflabs.org/blame/en.wikipedia.org/Stichting%20Skepsis/?q=Inquirer

Under policy and procedure we are unable to provide other information about private evidence at this time and may not be able to answer questions about this information.