Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia		10 January 2022	1/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Initiated by GeneralNotability (talk) at 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Involved parties

• GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Sgerbic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Sgerbic
• Rp2006
• A. C. Santacruz
• Geogene

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#Center_for_Inquiry_sources_on_CFI-related_articles
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Havana_syndrome_and_guerilla_skeptics
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive326#Susan_Gerbic (not specifically about GSoW, but several of the major players here appear there as well)
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_170#Fringe,_Anti-fringe,_and_Turning_Wikipedia's_Values_Upside-down (does not directly discuss the GSoW issue, but I believe the topic of this discussion is quite relevant to the case)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Outing_attempt (central to the problem of this case - the undisclosed COIs cannot be proven without outing the subject)

Statement by GeneralNotability

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia, or GSoW (also known as "About Time", but I think GSoW is the best-known name), is an off-wiki group whose name says it all - they're here to remove fringe content and promote skepticism. There have been several community discussions about them, their actions, and whether or not their coordination breaks any rules. There are also concerns with whether the group is engaged in undisclosed/laundered conflict-of-interest editing - several high-profile members of GSoW, including Sgerbic, are affiliated with Skeptical Inquirer, and this frequently-cited blog post directly encourages editors to stick Skeptical Inquirer sources into existing articles as "backwards editing". Evidence submitted to the paid queue (linked below, this isn't suggesting that these are paid edits - it's just the best venue available for the evidence) suggests that multiple editors affiliated with GSoW are also affiliated with SI and have engaged in a good deal of WP:SELFCITE. Further, it is difficult to tell whether any of our rules on coordinated editing have been broken, since the membership is largely undisclosed and the training is off-wiki. I believe that the community can no longer handle the GSoW situation, and it is tangled up with OUTING concerns, so I bring this case to ArbCom to ask that they review the activities of GSoW.

I believe the following will be the key questions:

• Has GSoW engaged in inappropriate off-wiki coordination? (that is, coordination beyond normal discussion such as meatpuppetry or vote-stacking)
• If not, has GSoW in fact violated any Wikipedia policies?
• Are organizations like GSoW (that coordinate primarily off-wiki) acceptable? If not, how do we draw the line between this and, say, an edit-a-thon?

I have named as parties four editors who have had significant involvement with this discussion: Sgerbic (founder of GSoW), Rp2006 (a name I have seen come up a few times in these discussions, subject of the aforementioned COIN thread), and A. C. Santacruz and Geogene (editors who have been particularly active in the GSoW debate). No objection to modifying the party list; the problem, of course, is that the case is about a whole organization.

In closing: I am quite sympathetic to the goals of GSoW, not so much their methods, and based on the available evidence I believe there are COI issues here at the least. I believe that banning the organization would be a net negative to the encyclopedia. I also emphasize that I see nothing wrong with editors collaborating off-wiki; at our heart, we are a collaborative encyclopedia. There is just a fine line between people working together and people collaborating in a way that is not compatible with our standards of openness.

Paid queue tickets:

• ticket:2021123110004401
• ticket:2022010510009653
• ticket:2022010510007601

One more comment: we do have a previous case in the topic area with DS (pseudoscience), but I do not believe that case's DS is sufficient - there are deeper issues than DS can address. Also, using pseudoscience DS to deal with skepticism seems like it stretches "broadly construed" too far, but maybe that's just me.

Arbs & clerks: 100 more words to address ScottishFinnishRadish's scope concern, please? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks L235. ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not entirely opposed; I agree that there are larger issues in the topic area. I am focusing on GSoW because it is the most visible group in the topic area and because I think it is where ArbCom intervention is most necessary due to the private evidence concerns. I haven't engaged much in the topic area as a whole, I'm only involved in this one particular incident; I'd like to see more community input before making a scope change, or even just leave the scope to the arbs. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by A. C. Santacruz

I will list some issues for now:

1. Rp2006 has not disclosed his COI on his user page, even after functionary evidence
2. Sgerbic has refused to engage in constructive conversations on how to increase GSoW's transparency on-wiki through a WikiProject or similar structure
3. Sgerbic has refused to engage in constructive conversations towards ways for non-GSoW editors to analyze exactly what is the effect of GSoW on Wikipedia, either through lists of articles they've heavily edited or otherwise
4. Sgerbic has frequently cited off-wiki harassment as an excuse to not be transparent on-wiki, without engaging in constructive conversations on how to improve the personal security practices of GSoW, rev-deling of personal information, etc. [1] [2]
5. It is impossible to know the extent of GSoW's COI or coordinated issues due to the lack of transparency
6. The backwards editing philosophy taught to GSoW members runs at odds with WP:ADVOCACY
7. GSoW defenders (for lack of a better term) have used WP:FRINGE (or pro-science) as a justification for ignoring other rules of wikipedia (see WP:RGW) or to dismiss concerns about GSoW. [3] [4] [5] [6]
8. There has been gross incivility in talk pages, lack of following WP:BRD in relevant articles (most recently in Sharon A. Hill, where I have been forced to now run a series of RfCs due to their unwillingness to properly discuss my proposed edits due to WP:OWN and stonewalling behavior) [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

   and possibly some canvassing. [18] [19]

I agree completely banning the organization would be unhelpful to the project, but without resolving 2, 3 and 4 I strongly believe the ability of non-GSoW editors to appropriately engage in ways to resolve the concerns within this topic is hampered. Additionally, it is not like this is a minute group with limited reach, their 1,899 pages have been viewed ... checking now ... 101,189,830 times. Please tell me if any diffs are needed for any statements above and which statements, and I will gladly provide them. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Enterprisey ScottishFinnishRadish Roxy the dog has repeatedly denied being part of GSoW, but is probably the most uncivil (in my opinion) of the radical skeptic bunch (a recent reference to the night of long knives as well as reverting my edits without reading my justification for them come to mind), so I agree this is more of a skepticism-wide issue rather than just a GSoW issue. However, I believe the issues of dealing with GSoW and dealing with skepticism-related BLPs are quite different (the nature of off-wiki organizations like GSoW's relationship with wiki and COI concerns vs. advocacy editing and battleground mentality in skepticism topic), so I feel combining the two might make untying the knot harder. However, I trust more experienced editors to have a wiser judgement than myself on this.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Clerks, I request 100 words to reply to Hob Gadling, if that's alright. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In this thread and many others there have been comparisons between those of us concerned with non-transparent off-wiki activities within skepticism and GSoW to many political groups that suppress human rights (Nazis, lynch mobs, witch hunts, McCarthyism). This is the type of behavior that has prevented the community from reaching a constructive consensus before and one of the reasons why we need arbitration. Additionally, I urge Hob Gadling to retract the accusation of McCarthyism and remove mentions of torture, etc. I take it as an unwarranted personal attack that does nothing to benefit the arbitration process or the wiki.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene

Wyatt Tyrone Smith has made a statement acknowledging being a GSoW member and praising the quality of Gerbic's training. I dispute the credibility of that endorsement. Here in their early edit history are diffs of contentious BLP content [20], [21] related to Scientology, citing a self-published source. I believe that reckless BLP editing toward their ideological enemies is one frequent criticism of GSoW. Geogene (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Rp2006

There is danger in non-scientists and non data-analysts (and people who fancy themselves as private investigators) trying to prove their point at any cost, being engaged in the sort of investigation and analysis which is on display here. This is evidenced by the table constructed and presented here by BilledMammal. Making such a table showing the use of a citation source in the edit history of a targeted group of people is Cherry picking pure and simple. (For those who didn't click that link, let me summarize here: "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally.")

This tactic ignores anyone else not being investigated who may be doing the same or a similar thing with a different source or group of sources. (Like people interested in astronomy using Sky and Telescope as a source to enhance astronomical Wiki articles.) Worse, the presentation of such data ignores the targeted people's use of other sources and all their other edits which have nothing to do with the faulty case that is being made. It ignores all of the other edits those targeted people have made that does not fit the pattern being sought to be validated.

Speaking for myself, what percent of my 13,000+ edits have anything to do with adding citations from SI? Someone needs to figure it out and present that here. I lack the skillset, but I know it is insignificant.

Also… even if that number is high on an individual basis for some of the targeted individuals, all it shows is that editor is trying to add the skeptical/scientific perspective to pertinent Wiki articles. As SI is the preeminent source for that POV, it would be surprising if skeptical-minded folks would use some other source to do so.

And yes, Gerbic writes for SI, and (publicly and vocally) encourages using it as a source to fight pseudoscience on Wikipedia, but she a promoter of SI before she was an author for them. Would she think less of them once she started writing for them?

Finally on this subject, let me say that assuming an editor - even Gerbic - adding material from SI to applicable WP articles is doing so to promote SI for the sake of promoting SI, and thus is some form of COI, is assuming bad intent. (This is the exact opposite of assuming good faith.) Including input from the SMEs published in SI is the best way available to promote the scientific/skeptical perspective on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell this is doing this encyclopedia a service in line with this perspective.

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Collapsed original statement and replies to stay under word limits

This should probably just be Skepticism on Wikipedia, because, for the most part, we'll never identify all the GSoW editors, or even a small number, if Sgerbic is to be believed about their numbers. Will we have to prove an affiliation to present evidence? Should we go digging off-wiki? Or will this be a situation where if it looks like it's close enough, that's good enough? The COI issues can be addressed through a broader skepticism case, and then we won't be in a position of having to do off-wiki opposition research. There's enough battleground conduct, incivility, ABF, NPOV, BLPvios and clear COI for a case without GSoW being the focus, just Skepticism itself. As seems to be the necessary disclaimer, I also share the general POV of skepticism, I just don't think it's an excuse to make piles of hit job BLPs and promote publications and groups. I'll post more, likely tomorrow, with diffs outlining the type of problematic behavior, or you can look at my responses to Johnuniq in the COIN thread. There's over a dozen there. For now, I have to burn some sage and do some magnet therapy to prepare for what is sure to not be my worst on-wiki experience yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC) GeneralNotability, would you be open to changing the request or scope or what have you to Skepticism? As I see it the issues are: Battleground behavior makes the area toxic. If someone sees you as a "fringe supporter" gloves are off and you're deserving of whatever you get. If you express concern about obvious and factual issues you're labeled a harasser, witch hunter, or Nazi allusions are made about you. There are huge NPOV issues that lead to stuffing every article on a "charlatan" with negative information, most often sourced to skeptic sources, or not sourced at all. If you're a person involved in internet skepticism you'll have a glorious puff piece filled to the gills, most often sourced to skeptic sources. COI issues, which are only a part of why the topic area is so horrible. Skepticism is the house POV, so no one wants to be seen as being on the other side. Look at the Rp2006 situation. An editor was self citing, citing a source they have a COI with to insert negative material in BLPs, and lied about it. They're not blocked, not topic banned, not warned, still calling the people who discovered it or tried to repair the damage witch hunters and harassers. Where else would that slide? I've been saying since the first ANI thread focusing on GSoW is a lost cause. We can't ban an anonymous off-wiki group, and targeting them with a case is asking for off-wiki shenanigans. We should be focused on the behavior of editors on Wikipedia. Sure, a principal that says "please don't canvass people off-wiki" is fine, but it won't address editor behavior where it matters, and we'll never know if it's effective anyway, so who cares. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Enterprisey, the whole Rp2006 debacle. As far as I know there's no evidence he's a member of that group. It's who he writes for that created the COI. People, as often on the "skeptic defense" side as they other, keep bringing up GSoW, but it's a red herring. There's no way to prove anyone's COI with respect to that. The COIN thread was started due to self citing, and citing a publication they have a COI with. Not all, I assume, skeptic writers are part of GSoW. The only reason I bring it up in respect to Sgerbic is because her article about backwards editing is her admitting to COI and promotional editing. The group itself is secondary to her writing a column saying "I use Wikipedia to promote the magazine I write for, and other skeptics." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC) A. C. Santacruz, you don't need to untie the knot. Literally just set up discretionary sanctions and remove editors who have NPOV, BLPvio, battleground or COI issues from the topic area. If they're not editing poorly, who cares? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, here's a concise list of diffs. As far as I know Rp2006 is not a member of GSoW, nor are Roxy the dog or Alexbrn, who are referenced in the Battleground/incivility section.

These are all from one article and one editor, just to show the type of editing that is a problem in the topic area. It is not an exhaustive list:

[22] Creates an article as a coatrack. Contains a severe BLPvio, calling the article subject a felon in the lead, and in a large section of the article. Over half of the article is negative information.

[23] Uses a primary SPS to add information to a BLP

[24] Adds a SPS blog as a source for negative information in a BLP

[25] Adds Jezebel WP:JEZEBEL as a source for negative information in a BLP

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Adds negative information to a BLP using a source they have a COI with.

[32] Adds negative information back to the lead, and restores a removed BLPvio, cites sources they have a COI with.

[33] Attacks the New York Post in an article about an unrelated BLP using a source they have a COI with.

[34] Reverts removal of negative information using a source they have a COI with.

[35] Restores BLPvio after being informed it was a BLPvio.

[36] This is how the article looked before Bilby and I did some cleanup. More than 90% of the article are attacks on the BLP and negative information. The lead contains "A decade earlier, in 2009, John pleaded guilty to felony fraud for posting fake apartment ads on Craigslist and stealing the security deposits from renters." The shortdesc is "Claimed psychic medium and felon caught in sting operation using social media information in readings." There is a section labeled "Felony fraud conviction and other legal problems." There is no sourcing saying he was convicted of any felonies.

Imagine someone who writes for The American Conservative (fine for facts, use with attribution on WP:RSP) created an article on a democrat that was more than half about a felony conviction that did not exist, then spent years adding articles from their publication to coatrack more and more negative information about stings they ran on that democrat into the article until it was 90% negative material.

Battleground/incivility [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Reping Opabinia regalis, as I forgot to sign the first time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Enterprisey, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Paul Thacker is currently going on, in part dealing with inserting negative information to a BLP sourced to a Skeptic blog. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I don't see how Arbcom can make a ruling on this case. The fact that certain editors are associated with an off-wiki group is obvious, as is the fact that many of them have added over-egged pro-science material to BLP articles. The question concerns whether any recent edits show a problem that the community cannot resolve. For example: Is there edit warring to restore dubious material in BLPs? Are systematic distortions being added to articles? (The answer appears to be no.)

The recently closed COIN mega-discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 was mentioned above. The COI is obvious although the question of whether it is a serious problem is unresolved. Accordingly, I tried to focus attention to find any examples of recent bad editing in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Section with evidence of bad content (permalink). The first reply talked about OUTING which perplexed me since I wanted diffs of edits showing bad content, and I raised the issue at the user's talk (permalink) to avoid further derailing the section.

I mentioned problems at COIN but maintain that they are typical of inexperienced editors and are fixable with normal community processes. There are lots of diffs of probably WP:UNDUE material but I still have not seen any diff of something with a real problem such as original research or a misleading presentation.

Rp2006 might regard themselves as independent of GSoW because Rp2006 has been editing since February 2006, while Sgerbic started in April 2010 and GSoW started (I think) later than that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Wyatt Tyrone Smith

I am a member of GSoW and my user name matches my actual name. I live in South Africa. I joined Wikipedia and GSoW at about the same time as I went through Sgerbic’s training. Look at my contributions to both English Wikipedia and Afrikaans Wikipedia. I believe I have made a valuable contribution (and a fairly significant one to Afrikaans Wikipedia). I have made mistakes, as we all do. I think my contributions show the value of my GSoW training.

I think this arbitration case is flawed and should not have been brought. My reasoning: I think the conflict of interest as defined in Wikipedia is problematic and should be more clearly defined. There are clear cases where conflicts of interest have a negative effect, the most obvious being paid editing and self-promotional editing.

However, cases of conflict of interest claimed by A. C. Santacruz are not such. For example, if a person at a university writes a paper about a topic it is not a conflict of interest if another person not related to that paper at that university writes a Wikipedia articles about that topic, or adds information from the paper to another Wikipedia article. There shouldn’t even be a discussion about who did the edit in this case. The only discussion should be on the merit of the edit.

If the author of the paper made the edits that would be self-citing and possibly self-promotional.

BUT if those edits were valid and would stand on their own if somebody else made them then isn’t complaining about who made the edit a waste of everybody’s time? Aren’t we here to improve Wikipedia?

Having long, pointless discussions about who made edits if those edits are fine is a waste of everybody’s time. Wikipedia works because anybody can edit it, and anybody can revert any edit they don’t agree with, and anybody can revert the reversion.

As a final note: I translated Susan Gerbic's English Wikipedia page and other sceptical pages such as Skeptical Inquirer into Afrikaans. Saying that I have a conflict of interest in these cases would be the same as saying I have a conflict of interest editing Einstein's page after studying General Relativity.

I think this arbitration case shows that a small number of people have lost sight of what we are supposed to be doing: building an encyclopedia. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Geogene. By pointing out how my controversial edits on Tony Orgtega were reverted you have shown how Wikipedia works without bringing up conflicts of interest. If an edit is good it will stand. That is what counts. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal

Regarding the use of Wikipedia to promote SI and associated entities through "backwards editing", I would like to present some information about the scale of this issue. Specifically, considering one hundred of the articles with links to Skeptical Inquirer, 42 had the most recent such link added by an editor who appears very likely to be associated with GSoW based on editing patterns and user interactions, compared to 12 added by other editors. The remaining 46 were added prior to 2018 and weren't reviewed.

The issue with these isn't necessarily with the quality of the edits, though some are bad edits (how many is difficult to determine, as most such edits have been corrected (example), though some still exist including this edit which adds a superfluous non-MEDRS source) and many of the rest are of ambiguous quality, but with the pattern, purpose, and COI, and on this basis I ask that the committee accepts the case and as part of it consider whether GSoW editors are encouraged to add references for the purpose of promoting SI and associated entities, and whether such additions under such encouragement are appropriate.

Finally, I would like to supplement the blog post provided by General Notability with this post, which documents efforts by GSoW to include a reference to every article in an edition of SI. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Table of SI references added by GSoW associates for verification of the above claim

Article Diff User GSoW Connection Conspiracy theory 18:03, 19 November 2021 Drobertpowell Edit by Sgerbic to Drobertpowell's sandbox COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil 14:16, 4 July 2021 Drobertpowell See previous Elizabeth Loftus 12:15, 31 October 2021 SojoQ Edit by Sgerbic to SojoQ's sandbox MMR vaccine and autism 14:48, 8 August 2021 Drobertpowell See previous Atlantis 18:39, 23 July 2021 Drobertpowell See previous Flood geology 16:53, 4 March 2021 Drobertpowell See previous Diatomaceous earth 16:14, 4 March 2021 Drobertpowell See previous The News Tribune 07:28, 8 February 2021 Sgerbic Connection assumed Immune system 16:26, 21 January 2021 Drobertpowell See previous COVID-19 misinformation 19:28, 11 January 2021 Drobertpowell See previous Popular Mechanics 21:05, 3 January 2021 Rp2006 Connection assumed Misinformation 19:32, 31 December 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Coaching 17:02, 26 November 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Millennials 13:43, 21 June 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Chernobyl (miniseries) 19:53, 21 March 2020 Drobertpowell See previous World Health Organization 16:59, 1 March 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Martian canal 15:44, 23 April 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Electronic voice phenomenon 19:13, 22 April 2020 Sgerbic Connection assumed Hippocampus 20:40, 20 March 2020 Drobertpowell See previous National Geographic Society 15:59, 23 February 2020 Drobertpowell See previous Brian Dunning (author) 07:12, 22 February 2020 Tigerlily323 Edit by Sgerbic to Tigerlily323's sandbox Tinnitus 16:13, 15 January 2020 Rp2006 Connection assumed Post-industrial society 19:10, 6 December 2019 Drobertpowell See previous Haunted house 14:17, 20 November 2019 TheDragonHypothesis Edit by Sgerbic to TheDragonHypothesis's sandbox Strategic lawsuit against public participation 04:03, 16 November 2019 TheDragonHypothesis See previous Activism 16:57, 10 November 2019 Drobertpowell See previous Opioid epidemic in the United States 15:57, 27 October 2019 Drobertpowell See previous Criticism of Walmart 00:19, 18 August 2019 Jimgibson1 Edit by Sgerbic to Jimgibson1's sandbox CVS Pharmacy 00:15, 18 August 2019 Jimgibson1 See previous Genealogical DNA test 15:19, 8 August 2019 Drobertpowell See previous Marianne Williamson 00:37, 11 July 2019 Rp2006 Connection assumed Miracle of the Sun 17:56, 21 June 2019 Drobertpowell See previous John de Lancie 01:02, 20 June 2019 Robincantin Edit by Sgerbic to Robincantin's sandbox Modern flat Earth beliefs 14:10, 24 February 2019 Rp2006 Connection assumed Planetary protection 14:52, 18 November 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Statin 20:22, 6 October 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Polygraph 23:44, 28 July 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Michael Shermer 19:06, 1 July 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Wireless device radiation and health 15:19, 25 June 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Superstition 12:33, 3 June 2018 Drobertpowell See previous Andrew Wakefield 02:13, 6 May 2018 Sgerbic Connection assumed Pizzagate conspiracy theory 19:31, 26 January 2018 Elwood P. Dowd Edit by Sgerbic to Elwood P. Dowd's sandbox

Statement by Hob Gadling

There are methods for defending a worldview that work only if the worldview has a good fit with the real world: Valid reasoning. Experiment. Collecting evidence in a responsible, honest way. Science. Quoting reliable sources. (This one requires that you can reliable identify reliable sources.)

And there are methods that do not depend on how good your worldview is: Cherry picking data, red herrings, strawmen, exaggeration, overgeneralization, all other sorts of fallacies, vague accusations, smear campaigns, political and legal harassment, empty propaganda, boycotts, violence. Lots of other stuff. Wikipedia has several rules forbidding individual things from this group of methods.

Fringe proponents do not have the option of using the first group of methods; they need to use the second group. Skeptics, whose defining quality is that they oppose those fringe proponents, need to be familiar with the first as well as the second group of methods. The first in order to use them, the second in order to recognize them when used against them. And although they could also use the second group, they should not, because

1. they do not need it because the first group is available,
2. if they use it, one cannot tell the difference between them and their opponents,
3. it gives their opponents a way to use methods from the first group,
4. it provokes more responses from the second group of methods, generating a positive feedback loop of increasing intensity which confuses the matter further.

Unfortunately, sometimes, they do. I guess skeptics are human too. Here is one of those positive feedback loops:

• SI is a reliable source, and it should not be normal to make a list of uses of it in order to collect evidence against the editors who did. There is nothing wrong with adding links to reliable sources to an article. When users make lists of edits adding SI cites, as User:BilledMammal does here, or otherwise try to hunt down potential GSoW members, as User:A. C. Santacruz did, they create an inimical atmosphere. Making such lists to use them as a weapon is in the second group of methods.
• Calling such things a "witch hunt" is overblown rhetoric and an exaggeration and belongs in the second group of methods. (Doing it without specifying what action exactly was supposed to constitute a "witch hunt", is a vague accusation and belongs in the second group of methods twice.) I would rather compare the list-making and user search with McCarthyism, because it does not include torture, imprisonment, and execution. "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of...?" is what has been going on in some contributions in the discussion this is about. (Since ACS has called the McCarthy comparison "ad hominem": it is not, because it is not about people, it is about the methods they use.)
• User:ScottishFinnishRadish said, If you express concern about obvious and factual issues you're labeled a harasser, witch hunter, or Nazi allusions are made about you. This is too generic, obviously caused by the vagueness of the accusations, but avoidable with a little thinking. Nobody called SFR a witch hunter; SFR is part of a group, other members of which did things that were seen as a witch hunt by people from the other group. Saying, If you express concern [..] is an overgeneralization and a strawman and belongs in the second group of methods.

I think that if we all omit, retract, and condemn second-group methods, we avoid positive feedback loops like the above, and all this will be solved in a way satisfying everyone. Except fringe POV pushers, of course, because a first-group-of-methods-only environment robs them of all their weapons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

This should probably just be Skepticism on Wikipedia I'm not sure that is a good idea, WP:ARBPS doesn't need to be repeated. As has also been mentioned, WP also has academic bias. Editors can be participants at WP:FTN and WP:SKEPTIC without having any relation to GSOW, its members, possibly affiliated publications, etc. I'm an example and don't feel involved with the COI accusations that appear to target two editors (my only link is Wikipedia). —PaleoNeonate – 09:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse, of course. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Granting 100 extra words to GeneralNotability for a total of 600. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz: You can have 100 extra words for a total of 600, but I suggest you address your comments to the arbitrators rather than to a party. As a general rule it is not helpful to address comments to non-arbitrators here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I'm awaiting statements for now before casting a formal vote, but I am inclined to accept this case request, primarily because the potential allegations of misconduct substantially arise from non-public evidence and secondarily because of the scope and scale of the potential issues. I believe each of the three questions presented by GeneralNotability is worth considering.
  My initial impression – and this is based on just a couple threads, so it could change – is that GSoW has generally laudable goals and the large majority of its work is helpful. But enough concerns have been raised that some kind of inquiry is appropriate, and given the peculiarities of this case it seems like only ArbCom is in a position to conduct it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• I had followed along with the ANI thread as it had seemed somewhat likely at that time that a case request might occur. I have not followed this issue since and so I look forward to reviewing the subsequent discussions, private tickets, and statements by editors here. Let me stress, at the outset, that the kinds of statements I find most helpful are factually worded statements backed up by diffs or similar evidence submitted privately and that the people commenting either have been personally affected by the case request topic or have a new perspective to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• ScottishFinnishRadish, can you link to some discussions that don't involve GSoW and that indicate issues with the broader topic area of skepticism? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Certainly an interesting case, and I'm leaning towards accepting. Not because I believe that Arbcom will be able to sort out the problems, but because a proposed decision with findings on problematic behaviours would allow the community to come together and work out a solution through an RfC. I'm particularly concerned that this includes adding over-egged pro-science material to BLP articles - BLPs should not be used as coatracks for hot topics, they very quickly become attack pages and cause real world harm. That said, I will await more statements, for the time being. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Would like to hear more first, in particular if this is primarily around a topic area (skepticism) or a group of editors/pattern of editing (GSoW). @ScottishFinnishRadish: when you say "responses to Johnuniq", can you be more specific and post diffs? Do you mean this? That's a long thread, and your signature appears 51 times on COIN as it stands now. Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Accept, mostly because there appears to be a private component to this dispute. – bradv^🍁 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)