Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Preliminary statements

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed.

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, 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:
 * 2021123110004401
 * 2022010510009653
 * 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 ., 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 Sgerbic
Greetings Arbitrators, I am Susan Gerbic the leader and founder of GSoW. I don’t think I have ever participated in ArbCom so not sure what I’m responding to. I will address the 3 questions GeneralNotability raised in their statement. We mainly work on fringe and science topics. Over a thousand of these pages do not use SI because it was not necessary to do so.
 * 1) No
 * 2) Not that I’m aware of other than there seems to be upset that SI is being over-used and looks like POV pushing. I see their point and GSoW will attempt to use SI only for Fringe topics or where no other R/S is available.
 * 3) I know that if the arbitrators were to see the total of our work, (today 1,951 pages completed) the quality of that work and our people you might understand better the pain the hounding and attacks have caused me.

I started compiling a list of diff of attacks and hounding from Nov 3-5 and had 22 diffs, I had to stop as compiling it stressed me out again. I have no energy for more drama.

I’ve been told that admins will “protect” me from Fringe characters, maybe so. But there has been little effort to protect me from attacks and hounding from current editors. The threads evolve into drama and split off onto User pages and other venues.

We work on FRINGE and I will not list my team members. It’s one thing to be attacked by Fringe (happening for years), totally another by people who profess to be pro-science. Yes, at times our team might have become over-zealous adding content to BLP, and I think these discussions have been productive and I doubt that Arbitrators will see much more of that. I do feel strongly that discussions should happen on the talk page of the article at dispute and not spill into generalizations of groups of people.

To end let me say that I have always edited using my real name, my user page is clear, to say I’m hiding who I am is silly. I have an extensive edit history, never been banned, rarely participate in admin conversations and have only the desire to continue training and improving pages concerning science and pseudoscience. Thank you. Sgerbic (talk) 21:34, 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * and possibly some canvassing.

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 &#8258; Please ping me! 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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 &#8258; 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 &#8258; 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 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 &#8258; 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, 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. 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
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 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 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)


 * , 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 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)
 * , 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)

, 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)

, 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:

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.

Uses a primary SPS to add information to a BLP

Adds a SPS blog as a source for negative information in a BLP

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

Adds negative information to a BLP using a source they have a COI with.

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

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

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

Restores BLPvio after being informed it was a BLPvio.

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     

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

, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 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)

, that's my concern as well. All of the diffs I've provided are independent of GSoW. I would like to see a look at the broader topic of skepticism, rather than focusing narrowly on something that requires off-wiki research and digging. Handling bad editing in the topic area solves any issues with GSoW. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 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 Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 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 Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (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)


 * Response to 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)


 * Response to User:Vaticidalprophet: If the only thing that GSoW was doing is being a offwiki canvassing group to add and maintain BLP-violating content then I would agree with you, but the vast majority of the work done by GSoW can't be classified that way.

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, though some still exist including 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)

Statement by Hob Gadling
There are methods for defending a worldview that work only if the worldview fits the real world: Reasoning. Experiment. Collecting evidence in a responsible, honest way. Science. Quoting reliable sources.

Other methods don't depend on your worldview's quality: Cherry picking, strawmen, exaggeration, overgeneralization, all other fallacies, vague accusations, smear campaigns, political and legal harassment, propaganda, boycotts, violence... Wikipedia has rules forbidding individual things from this method group.

Fringe proponents cannot use the first group. Skeptics opposing them need to be familiar with both groups of methods. The first to use, the second to recognize. Although they could also use the second group, they should not, because Unfortunately, sometimes, they do. I guess skeptics are human too. Here is one of those positive feedback loops:
 * 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 generates a positive feedback loop.
 * It should not be normal to make lists of uses of a reliable source to collect evidence against editors who did. Adding links to reliable sources to an article is not wrong. When users make such lists or otherwise try to hunt down potential GSoW members, they create an inimical atmosphere. This is in the second method group.
 * Calling that "witch hunt" is overblown rhetoric and an exaggeration and belongs in the second method group. (Not specifying what action exactly was supposed to constitute a "witch hunt" is a vague accusation - second method group.) 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 the gist of some contributions in the discussion this is about. The probatio diabolica problem mentioned above is not a good reason to extend suspicion to everybody whose viewpoint lies in a certain range. The groups used for comparison had the same problem and used the same solution: we cannot find proof for our accusations, so we have to be less strict with the criteria of what constitutes "proof". Again, second method group.
 * If you express concern [..] you're labeled a harasser, witch hunter [..] is too generic because of the vague accusations, but would have been avoidable. Nobody called SFR a witch hunter; other members of his group did things seen as a witch hunt by people from the other group. If you express concern [..] is an overgeneralization and a strawman and belongs in the second method group.

If everybody omits, retracts, and condemns 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
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). — Paleo Neonate  – 09:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma
I'm not familiar with the issues for which this case was filed (GSoW and COI issues affecting BLPs), so I will not comment on this. What I am concerned with, however, is the broader background that seems to drive the animosity, summarized in the VP thread linked to by GN. I'm not sure how realistic it is to go into that while simultaneously trying to sort out the specific COIs, but I do think that it would be helpful if Arbcom were to make a statement on the core issue. It is this:

Wikipedia is great at holding back fringe stuff, which given the nature of the project is no mean feat. But Wikipedia is also rather bad at representing fringe topics in an NPOV manner. Some editors come here to edit against fringe, which often means they lose sight of the encyclopedic goals of this project, and are effectively here to further an outside agenda. The reason why ' backwards editing piece stirs so much protest is not because it calls upon its readers to add citations to Skeptical Inquirer, but because it so unapologetically calls for the promotion of skepticism as a worldview on Wikipedia, using an opinionated magazine rather than peer-reviewed academic sources. Some find this hard to imagine, but articles really do suffer from this.

A second aspect is that those who point out the NPOV problems caused by this unencyclopedic focus are often met with incivility, and with aspersions of being pro-fringe. This regularly functions as a kind of stonewall, in which the mere suggestion of being pro-fringe is used to avoid engaging in argument. I will just relate my personal experience with this:


 * After making a good-faith proposal and engaging in constructive discussion about it with another editor, I was told So you think that playing such silly sophistic word games is an improvement over actual reasoning and Well, you have come to the exactly wrong place. We know all the tricks people use to defend crazy ideas, and we will not "reconsider" science in favor of bullshit.
 * I argued for using Edzard Ernst (see link); other editors insisted we instead use Harriet Hall (see link) writing on the skeptic blog Science-Based Medicine. When I pointed out this being contrary to WP:NPOV, I was told No-one here is stupid or confused enough to actually believe that and that you should go edit conservapedia, instead.
 * After raising concerns about the exclusively off-wiki nature of GSoW, I've been declared fair game to be made fun of and basically told that I deserved to be made fun of because my reasoning is bad.
 * I showed that a contradiction pointed out by another editor in the ways astrology is being considered pseudoscience has also been observed by Sven Ove Hansson (see link). I was reported to WP:FTN with the message Profringe editors teaming up on the Talk page, untoward consequences expected. After objecting to this characterization, I was met with Why dont you take a long walk off a short pier?

's original statement here, with its dichotomy between people whose worldview has a good fit with the real world because based on valid reasoning, and 'the others' who seek refuge in all other sorts of fallacies, is a fair demonstration of the usual battleground mode. In reality of course most people are neither fringe nor scientific skeptics, but there's simply no room for that. In particular, there's no way to criticize one 'side' without being cast as belonging to the other, which means criticism of the very real NPOV problems is often difficult.

I think it would be helpful if Arbcom would make a statement similar to WP:ASPERSIONS that specifically deals with the type of pigeonholing that is at play here. In addition, it would be great if we could have some kind of statement about how NPOV applies to the encyclopedic treatment of fringe topics, in particular how sources written by activist ('guerilla'!) skeptics carry less weight than academic sources written by relevant experts. This may seem as a tangent away from the original filing, but I suspect that much of the drive to 'expose' GSoW et al. derives from these underlying problems, for which reason I believe they also merit some attention. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 16:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since this has come up here a few times: No, we are WP:NOTBIASED. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Pyrrho the Skeptic
I’ve only recently learned about GSoW, but anecdotally I’ve had numerous bitey encounters in the pseudoscience/skeptic space when I was still learning about those topic areas. The ferocity of the comments and Talk Page warnings that came from what I believed were fairly innocent, good-faith attempts to improve articles left me really discouraged about Wikipedia in general. I know I’m not the only one. I do believe the zealotry of some editors comes from a well-meaning desire to do right by the public, especially when it comes to medical topics. But without checks on behavior, some editors will believe that the ends always justify the means. But when the means include violating guidelines, process, and civility, Wikipedia suffers. It’s also troubling to see the impulse to label editors who show any effort of neutrality or critical thinking as “pro-fringe”. Fear of that scarlet letter can cause people to let bad behavior slide, or not speak their opinion. The presence of the GSoW, and their tactics, seem to embolden and legitimize the bad behavior at worst, and stoke the flames of incivility at best. For these reasons, I believe the committee should accept this case, or a broader, skepticism case, as a step towards making Wikipedia a less hostile place. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Vaticidalprophet
I encourage ArbCom to accept this case. I had a bizarre run-in with the GSoW back last March, chronicled at Talk:Craig Hamilton-Parker (+ Articles for deletion/Craig Hamilton-Parker) and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326. My takeaway from that series of events was that Sgerbic and Rp2006 were fundamentally unable to write neutral BLPs. Highlights (lowlights?) included the accusation of a source negative towards a subject being claimed to be a "press release" (apparently without reading it, given the most cursory skim would've revealed it said the psychic claims were fake), edit-warring to remove content for having paywalled sources (with the excuse "I've never needed to use paywalled sources in any article" -- not something to be proud of!), and claiming The Guardian and The Australian were unreliable sources. The BLPN thread on Sgerbic's own article that spun off the Hamilton-Parker discourse was another area of disruption; the article (written by apparent GSoW members) was in serious violation of BLP policy as endorsed by multiple uninvolved functionaries, and rewriting it ended up being the last major contributions of SlimVirgin before she passed away. For her work, she was rewarded by Roxy the dog edit-warring to remove a COI tag. The BLP issues in GSoW-related articles are fundamental, wide-ranging (given the breadth of the project), and attempts by the community to resolve them result in GSoW pushback. One particular concern is the involvement of GSoW at DYK -- a concentrated effort to put potential BLP violations on the main page is exactly as bad an idea as it sounds. (Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier is instructive of the issues with forcing "criticism of fringe BLPs" on the main page, and is Ritchie333's favourite example of DYK's issues rejecting bad hooks. Due to GSoW's refusal to disclose its membership, I have no comment on its connection to the organization rather than as an illustrative example of the broader issues in this content area.)

GSoW's issues are also difficult for the community to resolve because of the aura of secrecy. Sgerbic refuses to publicly disclose GSoW membership or what articles it impacts. For someone familiar with GSoW it's not hard to get an idea -- they have quite characteristic hallmarks (e.g. the aforementioned "backwards editing", a distinctive pattern of voice clips labelled "The voice of [Name]" for the positive articles they write on people associated with skepticism, a strong focus on DYK as a way to 'raise awareness' of fringe material) -- but this is ultimately parts and pieces. If there is an offwiki canvassing group to add and maintain BLP-violating content that refuses to disclose its membership, that rather sounds like something ArbCom needs to step in for. Vaticidalprophet 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bilby
There are three sets of COI problems here. The first, as discussed, concerns editing about groups editors are part of, publications they write for, and adding articles they have written as references. The second revolves around writing about friends, members and supporters. The third is, to refer to one of the principals of British politics ArbCom case, that "the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing". GSoW are both a WP editing group and, off-wiki, an activist group working to discredit people they are ideologically opposed to, and these two activities unfortunately merge on WP.

For specific examples: Combining off-wiki activism, (specifically campaigns against individual living people), with WP editing about those people was the core issue with the British politics case, although then it was an individual, and here it is an organised group.
 * GSoW have run a series of "stings" to discredit individual mediums, then written about their stings in BLPs.
 * Sgerbic described a campaign she ran against Tyler Henry, with multiple negative articles being written by Sgerbic and people who they approached, which were then used to develop a negative BLP. Video 10:34 WP article
 * In another case, Sgerbic described being in a dispute with the subject of a BLP. Sgerbic responded by using a false name to enrol in a webinar presented by the subject in which she asked questions relating to the dispute, recorded the responses, then provided the recording to a journalist so that they could publish an article about the subject. GSoW members used that as a reference to support what Sgerbic wanted to add to the article. Video 28:00 |WP diff

Regarding User:Wyatt Tyrone Smith's comments, as an example of a possible COI, the translation of Brian Dunning into Afrikaans. Brian Dunning is a supporter of GSoW and friend of people in GSoW. In making the translation all negative content about Dunning was removed, including that he was arrested and incarcerated for wire fraud, even though that was a significant part of the original article. That would be the sort of editing I would expect to see when a COI unduly influences edits. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by JPxG
I suppose I ought to say something here, since I was one of the people saying we should have a proper arbitration case about this. Of course, many of these editors do lots of great work in other subject areas (and, indeed, in this subject area) wholly separate from the issues brought up here. But there have been issues that do not get resolved. Discussions about GSoW conduct, and of pro-skepticism advocates in general, typically circle for a while then stalemate (no action can be taken because we don't have evidence of COI editing, because we don't know who the group's members are, because they won't divulge them, because there's no evidence of COI editing that would make it necessary, because nobody knows who their members are, because etc etc). A good example of this is the monstrous 207,939 character AN/I thread from November, which was closed with a specific recommendation that an arb case be opened. Most of what I have to say about this issue, I said in the thread linked above (or in others that are linked to from this case request).

The idea that GSoW only makes helpful, above-board edits is somewhat hard to square with the insistence on nobody being allowed to see them (the "1,951 pages" mentioned above doesn't seem to come with a list). As others note above, there are some other obvious concerns. They have a mandatory "training" process because "experienced editors have a very different experience as a team like ours". There was an extremely flattering article about GSoW's founder on Wikipedia, mentioning a "We Got Your Wiki Back" project to "improve the Wikipedia pages of skeptical spokespeople, especially when they are in the media's eye".

There also seem to be broader issues with pro-skepticism editors in general, not just GSoW members (as noted above). The idea seems to be that, since they are opposed to something bad, any conduct is acceptable. While Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources and against trash sources, and our "house POV" tends to be pro-science and anti-pseudoscience, this is not really the issue here. My personal opinion is that free software is good for the world, and many here agree with me. Still, there'd be a problem if I created a group called "Slayers of Micro$haft" whose secret list of members convened on Facebook to "improve" biographies of Linux developers and write negative coatracks on Microsoft executives featuring "sting operations" that we conducted on them (sourced to websites affiliated with us) and a chronicle of every time some blog had called them an asshole.

I don't think that people need to be run out of Wikipedia for doing this kind of thing, but this kind of thing should certainly not be permitted to occur here. Of course, if everything going on is above-board, no action needs to be taken, but we should certainly make an attempt to find out what is going on. jp×g 05:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by 5Q5
I'm not a member of GSoW and sometimes edit for and against fringe topics. I'm concerned the group's name implies secret strategizing off of Wiki against the larger community of editors to promote a particular POV and sourcing. The def of Guerrilla implies an enemy to be defeated or non-normalcy in actions and GSoW members may feel they have the okay to do that, backed up by other secret members. Wiki is built on a goal of cooperation & neutrality, so I think a review is warranted and perhaps its founders should consider changing to a less controversial name to help resolve this, in the same way that CSICOP changed its name.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; — Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 13 January 2022‎ (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
I would encourage the arbitrators to keep the scope of this case strictly around GSoW, and avoid issues of skepticism on wikipedia, generally speaking. The latter is basically asking for a do-it-yourself Can(TM), insert worms.

The issues of COI are worth discussing in my opinion (even if I ultimately air on the side of probably mostly fine 99%). The broader skepticism issues, however, in many many cases, boil down to fundamental disagreements about WP:FRINGE as a PAG. Or, even more broadly, complaints about people who don't properly follow WP:FRINGE and don't balance it with WP:V and WP:DUE. See the substance of many comments in the Village pump discussion including these:   And then comments which exactly encapsulate why this is kvetching and not particularly good fodder for an ArbCom case:

To summarize overall, '''this entire thing about "skepticism on wikipedia" is a witch hunt in search of a witch. a McCarthyist crusade in search of some communists'''. Summary is the death of nuance. So let's just say I think this problem exists but it is more complicated and likely not something ArbCom can solve. In some ways, it is inherent to the way wikipedia works.

Having editors who aren't very good at following WP:PAGs and are editing on one or the other side of a POV is not a particularly new phenomenon, nor is it particularly a skepticism-specific phenomenon. And I actually believe WP:FRINGE was well-written to tackle this issue. It just isn't being applied in many of these situations, which are far more fun to argue about using extreme positions than they are fun to discuss calmly and specifically using WP:PAGs. This is very similar to what we see in other areas like religion, law, crime, etc. Hot button topics.

Where there are strong opinions to be had, talk pages are liable to become WP:FORUMs. And therein editors ignore what WP:FRINGE says: represent DUE fringe viewpoints and contextualize them with the mainstream view, and ignore/de-emphasize unDUE ones. Because they A) want to erase views they don't like or B) want to increase the prominence of views they like and want others to like. A and B occur both frequently on every skepticism-adjacent talk page. Constantly. It is the never ending onslaught of POV on all sides for all reasons. And it is the burden borne by anyone who finds keeping these articles encyclopedic to be worthwhile. But I don't think an ArbCom case is going to fix that any more than it did the first few times this topic has come up. I actually think we do a pretty good job on these articles.

That's my take anyway. And why I think discussing Skepticism overall is a massive rabbit hole that is entirely separate, and intractable, in comparison to this much smaller and more workable GSoW COI issue.

As a helpful non-disclaiming disclaimer, I often edit pseudoscience and science-related articles (as a card-carrying scientist myself), am aware of GSoW's existence (via podcasts about science/pseudoscience I've listened to since I was 12), but am not a member of GSoW and am not aware of its membership. (edited 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Chess
I've had interactions with GSoW before and have been somewhat following them. I thought I'd post some of their "training videos" that are visible to all. Given that sgerbic has publicly stated on Wikipedia their affiliation with the "GSoW team" and mentions the GSoW YouTube channel on their page this would be fair game. Anyways here's the full publicly accessible playlist which consists of 34 videos at the time of posting: Most of it is boring minutiae of editing but it appears the main goal of "training" is to get editors involved in promoting the skeptic movement on Wikipedia by creating articles on people/subjects in the skeptic movement, as well as discrediting enemies of the skeptic movement. The idea of this is that by editing Wikipedia, they can recruit more people into the skeptic movement. This obviously isn't compatible with Wikipedia's goals as it goes against WP:BATTLEGROUND. Given that these are the indoctrination videos that members of the GSoW may be forced to watch (I am unfamiliar if they've switched training methods) it's certainly highly problematic that GSoW views Wikipedia in this manner. I really just skimmed the training videos but I'm sure editors with more time than I can dig more into the meat of the issue.Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 03:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) "Obviously, we're leaning towards the skeptics and we do want them to look good and we would like to make the page look great because obviously we want to influence other people." at 40:04 of the following:
 * 2) "We do have an agenda and we are very concerned with good citations and making sure they're in great shape. We want them to be respectable because of course we think it reflects well on our community" at 5:14. The narrator goes on explaining how to build a history to not be viewed as an SPA as well.
 * 3) In their own words, this is the video on "backwards editing".
 * 4) "It's a mindset that GSoW encourages: Creative thinking to improve the hit rate of our world" at 4:40

Statement by Hemiauchenia
The correct place to deal with uncivil conduct surrounding scepticism is Arbitration Enforcement. The Pseudoscience case was in large part about the uncivil conduct of scepticism aligned editors, and there is no need to relitigate that case here. The discretionary sanctions apply equally to them as it does to those who push fringe theories. GSoW on the otherhand appears to be a topic worthy of ArbCom attention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I see that the ArbCom is about to accept this case, and will make a statement about what should be within the scope of the case. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and a Verifiability policy and a policy about reliable sources, which almost always winds up being a Scientific Point of View because sources in the scientific community are the reliable sources. Wikipedia also has a guideline on fringe scholarship that it should be identified as fringe, and reported only to the extent that maintains due weight. To enforce these policies and guidelines, the ArbCom has imposed discretionary sanctions in the area of pseudoscience and in related areas. This regimen of sanctions may have been primarily intended to deal with unscientific or anti-scientific editors who are disruptive in their efforts to describe fringe views (or lunatic views that are not even fringe) as mainstream. However, Wikipedia also has editors who take a scientific viewpoint but are disruptively antagonistic or uncivil to other viewpoints, either fringe viewpoints or non-mainstream scientific views. ArbCom should clarify that civility and balance apply to editors who are both supporting and disagreeing with mainstream viewpoints. There have been cases in which editors supporting mainstream views on medicine who were disruptive toward alternative medicine have been sanctioned. ArbCom should restate that tendentious or otherwise disruptive editing either in support of or against mainstream science is not permitted.

I have not reviewed this case request in detail, but it appears to involve off-wiki coordination in support of a so-called skeptical outlook that is hostile rather than merely skeptical to pseudoscience and non-mainstream scholarship. ArbCom should reaffirm that disruptive editing is not permitted either in support of or in disagreement with mainstream science. ArbCom should address the question of how to deal with off-wiki coordination that has aspects of harassment and that encourages disruptive editing.

ArbCom should affirm that disruptive editing is not permitted, even in support of mainstream scientific viewpoints, and that fringe editors must be treated with civility and respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
A number of users above have said that we can't effectively confront GSoW; this may be true. But something that I feel ought to be considered, which ArbCom could theoretically do, is add Sceptical Inquirer itself to the spam blacklist. This could in theory be done by the community but in practice might be better done by ArbCom - it does not meet the normal criteria for the blacklist (because legitimate uses for it do exist), but given how minimal its usage is outside of the additions by COI users, and given its overall obscurity, it is hard to see those uses as a compelling reason to keep it when weighed against the way it is being intentionally and systematically spammed. We need to confront and discourage such spam somehow in order to prevent Wikipedia from being used in a promotional fashion, and adding Skeptical Inquirer to the spam blacklist (after removing every cite to it, outside of perhaps whitelisting the article on the magazine itself) seems like the simplest solution. It would not resolve all issues but would set a precedent that would discourage people from trying to spam obscure sources in a promotional manner in the future. Alternatively, ArbCom findings of fact could, of course, also be used to support community RFCs to take such an extreme step in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

 * Regarding Aquillion's comment above, I see no legitimate rationale for adding SI to the spam blacklist simply because some editors may have misused it. I would be adamantly opposed to such an action, as I think would numerous other community members, especially considering that Wikipedia itself shares numerous beliefs and objectives with SI, CSICOP, and the skeptical movement in general.  Further, such a ban instituted by Arbcom -- and not the community -- would be outside Arbcom's remit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by VdSV9
Just making it known to whomever that I have joined GSoW in 2016 and have been open about it in the several times when it seemed relevant. My WP account is 10 years older than that, although I wasn't active for most of that time. Lately I've been doing more editing in pt.wiki than here at en.wiki. So if there are questions that arbitrators want to ask members, or if my edit history is to be checked for any egregious mistakes I have made that might have to do with being part of the group, here I am.

About some of the complaints or accusations I've seen here, two points: 1. I feel like some people might be failing to see the distinction between a COI and a bias. Everyone has biases and one can be very biased but not have a COI. 2. I don't think this is the place to point out grievances or occasions where you think one or a couple of us made bad edits. Everyone makes mistakes, I don't think that is what ArbCom is about.

I will also state that I usually appreciate Bilby's efforts. Some of us can go overboard and he helps keeping us in check. As much as it can be frustrating to have someone going over our work all the time without being asked to do so, and although I often strongly disagree with him, I have learned a lot from his input. And even though on a couple occasions I thought his actions were trout-worthy, the overall result is very positive.VdSV9• ♫ 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
This is a procedural comment. I know that Alexbrn and Roxy the dog are not named parties, and from what I understand of preceding statements by other editors, I do not believe that they should be. But because there have been diffs presented of edits each of them has made, and the diffs have been presented here in a negative light, I have given both of them notifications that this case request is taking place:,. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by NightWolf1223
I do have a concern that this could turn into a witch hunt if ArbCom decides to ban GSoW. The simpler option would be to not and instead authorize DS for skepticism and deal with it instead.

Statement by Bilorv
Creating a toxic atmosphere is not a helpful way to keep crankery off Wikipedia, because you find that only the fervently deluded are able to withstand the environment. I have found areas such as pseudoscience very taxing to engage with, as there is no assumption of good faith (if you get something wrong you're a crank or a crank apologist), and there is a lot of patronising, edit warring short of WP:3RR and action aiming to dance on the WP:NPA line. This is the sort of testament for which it is difficult to produce evidence in the form of diffs: how best can I prove the claim "editors like me have been scared away from contributing to these areas by their normalised abrasiveness"? — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Celestina007
Although I’m not familiar with fringe topics, as I consciously avoid such topic areas, and only just becoming aware of Gsow (I’m sorry if I didn’t get that right) speaking from an objective stance, there are a plethora of issues I am concerned with, namely POV-pushing, meat puppetry(which is most troubling) conflict of interest editing, gaming the system, WP:TAGTEAM & (possible) PAID unethical practices. No matter the rationale of editors being part of such a group or organization, I honestly do not see how the aforementioned wouldn’t apply to them, consciously or sub-consciously. Furthermore, I do not see how this isn’t a time bomb or an existential threat to our TOU & other conventional policies. I haven't the time to pedantically observe all diffs neither have I even read all entries, but a quick glance of 's opening statement is enough for me to make an informed decision, I find it quixotic & utterly improbable that editors can belong to such a group and edit without bias which totally goes against the spirit of WP:CONCENSUS, Furthermore I believe WP:TE may also be a factor to consider as well, all this put together is definitely in variance with most of our policies and guidelines and I’m deeply concerned about this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

 * - Here Sgerbic responds to an accusation by one of contributors that Trying to paint this as anything other than promoting a magazine is untenable. (in the end of comment on top). No, this is definitely not about promotion, and hardly a case of WP:COI. I think she (and probably others) are completely sincere trying to fairly describe and debunk pseudoscience and junk science, which is definitely a good thing, even when they are using the source they are most familiar with. A "team"? It seems she is an excellent organizer, and collaboration is always great if it serves the improvement of content. Do their contributions and discussions serve the improvement of content? After quickly looking, I would say "yes", but this is obviously a highly complex case. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)