Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW) Arbcom case

[Hemiauchenia]

Thought it was worthwhile making a thread on this given that is it going to be accepted. Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (henceforth GSoW) is an offwiki Facebook group who make edits regarding skeptical topics on Wikipedia. The membership of the group is undisclosed, though some members are known, including Sgerbic (T-C-L)(who is Susan Gerbic (T-H-L), a photographer turned skeptic activist), and Rp2006 (T-C-L), who's identity is anonymous on Wikipedia, but I think Rob Palmer, for reasons I will explain later. Both of them are associated with the Skeptical Inquirer (T-H-L) a magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (T-H-L).

GSoW has been accused of both creating promotional biographies of people associated with the Skeptical Inquirer and related organisations, as well as adding negatively slanted material sourced to the Skeptical Inquirer to fringe-adjacent BLPs, like psychics etc. They first caused some major drama back in November at ANI surrounding Havana Syndrome, see:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Havana_syndrome_and_guerilla_skeptics (T-H-L)

In December there was another major ANI thread surrounding the group, Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Outing attempt (T-H-L), where Rp2006 complained that he had been outed because A. C. Santacruz (T-C-L) correctly deduced their identity from an article Rp2006 wrote in the Skeptical Enquirer that Rp2006 was asking people to read as part of a talk page discussion. This was followed up by an extremely long COIN thread: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006 (T-H-L) that ended without resolution.

Some of the editors making statements at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla_Skepticism_on_Wikipedia (T-H-L) are trying to make it into a broader case about the conduct of skepticism associated Wikipedia editors generally (who, to be fair, are an abraisive bunch), but I just don't see that going anywhere.

[Captain Occam]

On this forum I've sometimes seen the Guerilla Skeptics discussed in the same way that people discuss the Freemasons: a group that presents itself as harmless, but that allegedly is secretly in control of everything. (Or in control of all skepticism-related Wikipedia articles, in this case.) I've never been able to tell whether that's really true of the Guerilla Skeptics, or whether it's only the paranoid speculation that people always engage in about large organizations that are secretive about their methods and membership. I hope this ArbCom case will finally provide a clear answer as to whether it's true or not.

[ArmasRebane]

I don't think they're secretly in control of anything, but there's a blatantly obvious problem with having an advocacy organization with opaque membership running its own training for the purposes of influencing Wikipedia. Unfortunately absent stuff like EEML getting leaked I don't think there's any way to tell if their edits violate policies against votestacking, canvassing, etc.

Susan Gerbic's article was pretty much the perfect example of their impact on Wikipedia, though—before the late SlimVirgin cleaned it up, it was filled with puffery and promotion, using primary sources heavily, and I'd say that's the most obvious and transparent problem with them on Wikipedia—I highly doubt a lot of the Skeptic publications are actually reliable, and Wikipedia should really be relying less on them and more on more mainstream reliable publications, especially when it comes to justifying topic inclusions (it also seems like this is one area where the skeptics work against their own interests, because a bio that's a hatchet job complaining about some snake oil salesman is probably still more valuable to that snake oil salesman than having no Wikipedia bio at all.) A lot of their sphere of coverage feels like it's RationalWiki stuff, not for Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

How are they worse than WikiEdu?

[ArmasRebane]

How are they worse than WikiEdu?

Well, if nothing else they're even less transparent about training, and they've basically got a built-in POV to push.

[Vigilant]

How are they worse than WikiEdu?

Well, if nothing else they're even less transparent about training, and they've basically got a built-in POV to push.

The first seems debatable and the second is on par for WikiEdu.

At least the GSOW aren't getting paid for this and aren't getting college credit and aren't indiscriminately shitting up the wiki...

[Hemiauchenia]

The case has now been opened, under the broader title "Skepticism and coordinated editing" Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing (T-H-L).

[Vigilant]

A public case with an evidence page and everything.

Will wonders never cease?

[Captain Occam]

If the Guerilla Skeptics really have as many members as they're reputed to have, it's a bit strange that the case has only seven parties. Has ArbCom already decided they aren't going to do anything about the rest of the Guerilla Skeptics' members, regardless of what they ultimately decide about whether the organization is violating Wikipedia's policies?

[AndyTheGrump]

If the Guerilla Skeptics really have as many members as they're reputed to have, it's a bit strange that the case has only seven parties. Has ArbCom already decided they aren't going to do anything about the rest of the Guerilla Skeptics' members, regardless of what they ultimately decide about whether the organization is violating Wikipedia's policies?

Clearly not doing it right. What they need is to set up an un-Wikipedian Activities Committee, and have anyone who might possibly have shown signs of ever being skeptical (and/or sceptical) about anything attend, to quiz them under oath and demand they hand over the names of anyone else they know who didn't believe something or other.

[owl be it]

"No, you don't understand -- we're socking to make CORRECT arguments! That means the rules don't apply to us!"

[Capeo]

The GSoW definetely isn't secretly in control of everything. The most active editors dealing with fringe and pseudoscience are old timers that predate GSoW. Maybe some of them are members now, but they don't adhere to the "backwards editing" style. GSoW doesn't seem to even get into editing the truly contentious articles. They seem more intent on highlighting other skeptics (sometimes of questionable notability) and cutting down marginally notable psychics, pseudoscientists, etc. which can end up creating what amounts to a BLP, about a barely notable subject, that is nothing but criticism. Even then, you can't really tell if the editor is came to that article through interaction with the GSoW anyway.

That's the inherent issue. Obviously Gerbic is known (and Rp2006 is almost definitely Rob Palmer) but aside from them it gets blurry. GSoW amounts to any other private social media discussion space as far as "membership" is concerned. ArbCom can't ban it. That's why I'm a bit confused by NG, and Arb bringing a case, saying,

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.

What "standards of openness" could ArbCom possibly enforce about off wiki social groups if they don't have access to said groups communications?

Gerbic is likely going to take the brunt of this case. This blog post basically asks people to REFSPAM SI. It actually would be looked upon as no big deal if not for increasing exposure of SI as one of the intents.

Something that needs to be understood is that all these skeptic publications (of which SI is the best and is an RS IMO) regularly deal with experts refuting the fringiest of the fringe claims, that permeate WP, where no other expert would bother. It's a matter of picking battles. For instance there's thousands and thousands of places on WP that say they are "haunted." For many it's it the only reason someone randomly made an article. The right course is just to AFD the article or remove the content rather than attempt to refute it. The Queen Mary article, that Gerbic mentions, is a good example. The paranormal section is cited to an old Time Mag listical, a San Diego Inquirer puff-piece, and tour guides. It should just be removed, not attempted to be refuted.

Side note: this S. A. Santacruz editor blew up out of nowhere. Only started editing in earnest a few months ago and quickly got a partial block from ANI for sticking their noses into everything,

[jf1970]

Refuting obvious bullshit is unimpressive and elevates the bullshit from obvious bullshit to bullshit that requires refutation.

[Vigilant]

Some fairly clear double standards being exhibited.

Laura Hale, Maria Sefidari and the HOPAU gang were caught red handed coordinating off-wiki for the purposes of pushing a customer's articles.

ARBCOM refused to do anything about that even with incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing.

[Alexbrn]

The GSoW definetely isn't secretly in control of everything.

Yes. I do quite a bit of editing of FRINGE content and have hardly ever (so far as I know) run into GSoW types. My impression is they focus largely on paranormal topics (a niche within FRINGE), promoting fellow "skeptics", writing bios of scientists and doing translation work. Mostly harmless.

That said, it does appear from some of the evidence presented that some of them have been unduly promoting their in-house magazine/journals, which is not great. though again, mostly harmless: I'm not that worried if Wikipedia is mean to some "psychic" fraudster even it is off the back of less-than-stellar sourcing.

Of course there was the conspiracy theory during the whole Rupert Sheldrake affair that the GSoW was the secret force opposing Sheldrake and controlling his article, and someone claiming to be Rome Viharo has appeared to prod A. C. Santacruz(T-C-F-L), who is one of the chief witchfinders going after the GSoWer's. The "Viharo" messages on Santacru's userpage of 8 December 2021, have since been rev'del'd.

With that in mind something feels off about a lot of this case, with some accounts which seem too new to have an axe to grind, apparently very zealous in wanting to see some punishment meted out to GSoW or (better still) all the nasty "skeptics" generally. A certain sock-y odour is in the air.

[Capeo]

A. C. Santacruz certainly doesn't seem to be a new user. Aside from a couple edits in 2020, they started editing in earnest on June 26th of 2021 which was to make a draft article. The next day they joined a bunch of projects, made a large user page with multiple subpages and jumped right into Wikicup, DYKs and GA reviewing and have edited nonstop since. It doesn't appear that their main interest was fringe or skeptic stuff though. It looks like they started frequenting COIN which drew them to the Rp2006 thread and the Sharon A. Hill article in December and they just went full bore into GSoW from there. The Rome Viharo stuff is really weird. I don't even know what to make of that.

As far as the overall case with the evidence I've seen so far, yeah, it's (mostly) overzealousness in calling out woo and promoting skeptics and skeptic publications. Some of which I understand simple because of the reality of sourcing on WP when it comes to a lot fringe crap. Even if the fringe stuff meets the WP bar of notability, there often aren't any experts that bother to refute it outside of skeptic publications.

[Beeblebrox]

Some fairly clear double standards being exhibited.

Laura Hale, Maria Sefidari and the HOPAU gang were caught red handed coordinating off-wiki for the purposes of pushing a customer's articles.

ARBCOM refused to do anything about that even with incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing.

The committee does not operate on precedent, thankfully. I haven't taken a deep look at this yet, but just as a general principle, I am quite glad that we do not need to look to previous arbcom decisions as some sort of precedent-setting "law of the land" that must be explicitly refuted in order for the current committee to take whatever action it deems necessary.

[Vigilant]

It isn't about precedence.

It's about privilege.

[Alexbrn]

A. C. Santacruz certainly doesn't seem to be a new user. Aside from a couple edits in 2020, they started editing in earnest on June 26th of 2021 which was to make a draft article. The next day they joined a bunch of projects, made a large user page with multiple subpages and jumped right into Wikicup, DYKs and GA reviewing and have edited nonstop since.

This user self-identifies as being one of Wikipedia's "High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors". It seems to me that this is more a case of such a user experiencing a taste of ANI and getting intoxicated by the sheer wonderful DRAMA of it all.

I'm more interested in the tag-alongs the case is attracting. I notice Clash of the Teepies (T-C-L) appeared with this call for punishment, and was swiftly checkuser blocked.

[owl be it]

Of course there was the conspiracy theory during the whole Rupert Sheldrake affair that the GSoW was the secret force opposing Sheldrake and controlling his article, and someone claiming to be Rome Viharo has appeared to prod A. C. Santacruz(T-C-F-L), who is one of the chief witchfinders going after the GSoWer's. The "Viharo" messages on Santacru's userpage of 8 December 2021, have since been rev'del'd.

Well, if they don't want a witch hunt, they should probably stop flying around on brooms and casting hexes on people.

[Vigilant]

What does ARBCOM hope to accomplish with this case?

They can ban a couple of people but there's nothing preventing them from socking back immediately.
They can't go off-wiki to get the member list, so they can't really dig at the roots.

Further, GSOW seems to mostly be in the right here fighting back against various dingbats and woo practitioners, so who will take over the job GSOW is doing now?
Won't any action taken against GSOW end up making the 'project' worse off in the long run?

[Anroth]

Further, GSOW seems to mostly be in the right here fighting back against various dingbats and woo practitioners, so who will take over the job GSOW is doing now?

The same people. Socking. /cynic

To add what Alexbrn said, in terms of Fringe topics, they tend to stick to the obvious paranormal fringey crap. And there isnt a shortage of editors in that area unrelated to GSOW who can handle the occasional wingnut who wanders in.

If anything, this case has come about precisely because they stuck their head above the parapet into more significant topic areas. And none of the major editors there who help keep the woo away are related to GSOW.

[Ming]

Ming suspects that it's going to end up being focused on the few originally targeted folks who do seem a bit drama-mongering. Ming has been active in FT/N for years and doesn't recognize any of these people, so Ming doesn't see this putting a serious dent in the fringe policing regardless of anyone's desire otherwise.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Be wildly uncivil and make piles of personal attacks while reverting changes with no discussion in a topic area everyone has been saying should go to arbcom since November.

Get listed as a party in the obviously coming arbcom case. diff

surprisedpikachu.jpg.

[Vigilant]

Opening up a giant can of worms.

[Jim]

Opening up a giant can of worms.

As mentioned above by Capeo, this A. C. Santacruz construct is certainly not a new user, and has rapidly inserted itself into numerous shitfights with a certain amount of relish, a huge dollop of drama-seeking, an absolutely astonishing number of words, and very little discernible nuance or skill.

I suspect that "Opening up a giant can of worms" is more than likely their main raison d'être. I also suspect that it won't all end for them in anything like the way they seem to hope that it will.

The Rome Viharo stuff is really weird. I don't even know what to make of that.

Perhaps you don't; if I'm honest I don't either, but you just wrote an entire, workable BLP for Mr. Viharo in only 16 words, and that's got to be worth a

[jf1970]

The hat in that video is worth 1000 diffs.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I think Wikipediocracy quite rightly has a policy about not gratuitously outing people, so if anyone wants to know the real life identity of "A. C. Santacruz", they will need to pay me. Start the bidding!

[Vigilant]

If I make a youtube video of IRC logs, can I submit that to ARBCOM as evidence in a case?

[Smiley]

The hat in that video is worth 1000 diffs.

Not sure which hat you mean.



I quite like the second one.

[Capeo]

Be wildly uncivil and make piles of personal attacks while reverting changes with no discussion in a topic area everyone has been saying should go to arbcom since November.

Get listed as a party in the obviously coming arbcom case. diff

surprisedpikachu.jpg.

Looking at your evidence you appear to have an overly broad definition of BLP. There's a couple Rp2006 difs in there that I'd agree with but the vast majority would be arguments about UNDUE, not BLP. I don't get where you think them calling known snake oiler peddlers and quacks on their UP are BLP violations due to SPS. That's not even what SPS currently says.I'm not seeing how QW wouldn't fall under that exemption.

Also, say, if you Google Gwyneth Paltrow + snake oil you will find plenty of RS using that term, and also begging that women don't stuff rocks into their vaginas. She sells stickers. Literal stickers for $60 a pack that cure all your woes.

Then you difed Braverman, who is a full-on quack, who tried to profit off his quackery with a radio show, and subjected his patients to fucking hormone replacement treatments that were not called for and, more importantly, not properly consented to, and lost his license because he cared more about publicity than his patients.

That's where it all falls into the morass of utter bullshit and where the profile of the quack looking for profit changes the available sources. Paltrow and Tom Brady and other celebrities charge exorbitant prices for utter nonsense. Some get called out in national media, most don't. The other charlatans that GSoW tends to call out aren't making millions but they're making a living by preying on people.

[ScotFinnRadish]

As for the UNDUE vs BLP argument, BLPBALANCE is still part of BLP. Looking at the totality of edits, and seeing that you end up with 90% of an article as criticism sourced mostly to one publication, when the balance of sources is (unfortunately) relatively positive coverage, somehow in in RS, you're left with a BLP violation. Even the see also spam that was stuffed into a bunch of medium articles violates BLP, per ""See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person."

For the Braverman and Paltrow diffs, I checked their articles to see how they were portrayed, and to see if there was any sourcing in the articles to support those labels. There wasn't, so those labels are BLP violations.

A not-so-obvious issue with this style of editing is it's not going to convince anyone who's on the edge or neutral as far as the article subjects go. When something is an over the top hit piece, it stands out as non-neutral, and in the best case readers will disregard it, and in the worst case they'll be galvanized against the attacker's POV. If they're already leaning to or siding with the belief that drag queens speak to the dead, then it's going to harden them against Wikipedia and cause disruptive editing, which we've seen on a bunch of these articles.

I look at it similarly to vaccine and mask promotion in the media. The more hard line and aggressive it is, the less effective it is on people who were in the "able to be convinced, but not yet convinced" group, and the more it aggravates those already sure the vaccine is going to poison their blood and make them sterile, or that masks will cause them to breathe in too much of their own CO2 and make them sick. Then you end up with protests in the streets, spreading move covid, and no one benefits.

[iii]

I look at it similarly to vaccine and mask promotion in the media. The more hard line and aggressive it is, the less effective it is on people who were in the "able to be convinced, but not yet convinced" group, and the more it aggravates those already sure the vaccine is going to poison their blood and make them sterile, or that masks will cause them to breathe in too much of their own CO2 and make them sick. Then you end up with protests in the streets, spreading move covid, and no one benefits.

There isn't a lot of good evidence whether aggressiveness is less "effective" or more "effective" (also, there is little agreement as to what "effective" means -- I would define it as desired measurable outcomes which in the case of vaccination rate and public health mandate compliance rate is pretty straightforward to determine but in the case of encouraging critical thinking is less clearly delineated). There are arguments that aggressiveness can trigger a version of cognitive filter that is similar to Broadbent's filter model of attention (T-H-L), but the evidence that this happens is essentially nonexistent, as far as I can tell.

Blaming aggressive skepticism for protests by the aggressively ignorant seems a bit too convenient and nearly a red herring. What, you think that if we just stopped saying things forcefully people would line up for vaccinations and no longer yell about MUH FREEDUMBS in the store when the minimum-wage clerk politely asks them to either mask up or leave?

[ScotFinnRadish]

Blaming aggressive skepticism for protests by the aggressively ignorant seems a bit too convenient and nearly a red herring. What, you think that if we just stopped saying things forcefully people would line up for vaccinations and no longer yell about MUH FREEDUMBS in the store when the minimum-wage clerk politely asks them to either mask up or leave?

No, I think roughly the same number of people would be lining up to get vaccinated, and a small number of people would still yell in public like morons. But, I think the larger protests and demonstrations would lose steam, and be looked upon less favorably by neutral or on-the-fencers. Most people don't have Oppositional defiant disorder (T-H-L), but a lot still don't like being told what to do, and will chafe at it, even if it's objectively the correct thing to do.

[iii]

But, I think the larger protests and demonstrations would lose steam, and be looked upon less favorably by neutral or on-the-fencers. Most people don't have Oppositional defiant disorder (T-H-L), but a lot still don't like being told what to do, and will chafe at it, even if it's objectively the correct thing to do.

As I intimated above, I have found essentially no data to support such a belief. As such, I have a hard time arguing that this is a rational basis for criticizing people's approaches in general let alone in the context of a website that is as dysfunctional as Wikipedia.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Eco-Leftists and the Far Right: Vaccine Mandate Forges Unlikely Coalition of Protesters in Germany: link

Most of the science on messaging about covid, at this point, is contradictory. link link

I was speaking entirely anecdotally. I work in an industry with a fair amount of anti-vax and anti-mask sentiment. All the messaging just hardens most of them against it. However, make them need a vaccine in order to go onto their kid's college campus and they'll do it to avoid the bother. From where I'm at, it certainly appears that the main opposition is messaging bothering them to do it, and government mandating it. I could be wrong though, as I said, it's purely anecdotal.

[Jim]

The hat in that video is worth 1000 diffs.

Not sure which hat you mean.

Probably the first one, since, tracking back the conversation, that's the first video linked in "Lucky Louie"'s "evidence". With the additional "documentation", though, I'm a little concerned that Ms. Gerbic might be viewed as a "hat-collector", which is, I believe, frowned upon...

The guy introducing her mentions "Sea Cruises". I don't think that's in any way related to "Santa Cruises" or Santa Cruz, but who knows?

And "hard G"... I had the name closer to "Gerbil" in my head - we live, we learn...

[Smiley]

Interestingly, though, now that we have the additional photographic documentation, perhaps Ms. Gerbic might be in danger of being seen as a "hat-collector", which I believe is somewhat frowned upon...

Commons File:Last Chemo Today.JPG

[Jim]

Commons File:Last Chemo Today.JPG

Ah, my bad. I should have followed your link.

I like the second one too.

[iii]

I was speaking entirely anecdotally. I work in an industry with a fair amount of anti-vax and anti-mask sentiment. All the messaging just hardens most of them against it. However, make them need a vaccine in order to go onto their kid's college campus and they'll do it to avoid the bother. From where I'm at, it certainly appears that the main opposition is messaging bothering them to do it, and government mandating it. I could be wrong though, as I said, it's purely anecdotal.

"make them need a vaccine in order to go onto their kid's college campus" is construed by many as an argumentative position. To get such policies in place, after all, requires somewhat strident extremely limited exceptions policies that are going to get your industry friends in the same tizzy as that bothersome messaging. Before vaccine mandates happen, there is usually some sort of strident messaging to let people know about them, after all.

On the other hand, and rather to the point of what I was trying in vain to make above, I have yet to see evidence the non-argumentative approach works as claimed (The New York Times article certainly doesn't do that, the AAAS news release on which your second link is based includes this choice quote: "There should not be just one type of message for promoting COVID-19 vaccines because again and again, we see that different messages resonate with different people.", and the PNAS paper throws its hands up in exasperation about what may or may not be possible to move the needle in any circumstance). If we were all just nicer to the reality-refusniks then they would grumble but not complain when we told them that they need to get jabbed to do this or that. It's a nice story, but it isn't one that holds up under scrutiny and it is certainly not a principle that Wikipedia needs to implement.

[Anroth]

I have a list I work through.

You should get a vaccine because it helps keep other people (including vulnerable people in your family) safe.
You should get a vaccine because if you do catch it, it will heavily lessen the chance you will die.
You should get a vaccine because if you dont, you will be denied access to certain activities you have thus far in your life, enjoyed without a care for anyone else.

There are only three ways you convince someone to do something they dont want to do. Convince them its the right thing. Convince them their personal health is at risk. Convince them of the long term consequences of their actions.

Most people understand the first, or failing that, trust the person telling them. Of the rest, a significant % are motivated by self-interest. The remainder? You need to use the ongoing consequences of not doing it and still having to living with them. And if they dont respond to that, there is little more than can be done except to follow through on it. There is no further discussion that leads to a productive end. They are now a threat and get dealt with accordingly.

[Randy from Boise]

GSoW needs a name change.

Their name sounds like an organized brigading and content skewing faction. That will not end well for them.

"Cooperative Science Folks Wikipedia User Group" wouldn't get the ban-hammer.

t

[Ryuichi]

"Cooperative Science Folks Wikipedia User Group".

Not certain I can suspend disbelief long enough. Scientific Skepticism likes to wear the robes of science, but it is not science. It has its own religiosity; its own bigotry; its saints, and its sinners.

Reading through the Workshop, I'm left with an overwhelming sense of the self righteousness of the Gerbics, the Gronks & VdSV9s. Its fair dripping off them.

Quacks and woo are wrong; but that doesn't make Skeptics right.

[Vigilant]

Quacks and woo are wrong; but that doesn't make Skeptics right.

I do think it does make them right.

The problem is...




The underlying question should be, "If you're trying to build an encyclopedia, why do you coddle the woo types?"

[AndyTheGrump]

Science, properly conducted, is organised scepticism.

[Smiley]

Another one for the Hall of Fame for Cringeworthy Wikipedia Quotes:

Roxy's aggression is not apparently confined to online posts. He posted about deciding to confront the Colonel in real life. An aggressive editor talking of physically confronting others could exert a chilling effect on those who lack the Colonel's exceptional physical courage

Feyd has his own separate annex festooned with Baroque paintings and Classical Greek sculpture...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11009&p=297870#p297870
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11009&p=297676#p297676
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11009&p=297691#p297691

[Jim]

Feyd has his own separate annex festooned with Baroque paintings and Classical Greek sculpture...

Feyd is an absolute legend of bizarre oratory. As a comedy poster in that area Feyd is almost unmatched.

Feyd even has a cat page, bob bless him.


[sic]

[Vigilant]

I think I'll insist on joining all of the women's groups.

When do we get a member list from the LGBTQ+ group that's asking for $100K on meta?


Outing and stalking much?

Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is a GSoW member (private evidence) who joined Wikipedia in 2006.

Wow. This is going to be a case that crosses some lines.
Did whoever gave these training materials steal them from GSoW or violate copyright law?

The Arbitration Committee was provided a portion of GSoW's training materials (private evidence).

While this is going down to defeat, it's beyond hubris to even posit such an overreach by ARBCOM.
Un-fucking-believable.

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

GSoW membership

1) The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to establish a process by which a list of GSoW members can be made available to trusted community members (perhaps checkusers or administrators) for auditing purposes.

What did they do wrong?
How is it any of en.wp's business who does what off-wiki if no rules are violated on-wiki?
This is some disturbing shit you guys are into here.

GSoW onwiki presence

12) GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.

[owl be it]

What did they do wrong?

As far as I understand, Rp2006 was writing hitpiece BLPs and then citing his own blog posts as sources. This seems like it is against the rules to me.

[Smiley]

What did they do wrong?

As far as I understand, Rp2006 was writing hitpiece BLPs and then citing his own blog posts as sources. This seems like it is against the rules to me.