Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
All ready for the next person's evidence |
ArbCom statement of evidence for Sgerbic - Susan Gerbic |
||
Line 559:
*When these facts are considered, I hope it is determined that an admin action against my WP account would be a net deficit to the WP project.
==Evidence presented by
GSoW has no meat-puppets or sock-puppets. We are volunteers and do not canvas votes. Respect for the [[WP:PAG]] is an integral part of our training program. I’m proud of this program. It’s what I wish had been available to me when I started editing in 2008. It has changed over time - someone starting in 2010 or 2021 would see a different program. Sent private link to ArbCom.
I understand that there is concern about our transparency. However, we are actually as transparent as any group of editors. Many of our editors are on WikiProject:Skepticism, and others. As for my part, I edit using my name, my user page and edit history are all public. Yes, many but not all of us choose to be anonymous, because our editors are concerned about being doxed for good reason, as you can see from this 2021 document:
“Parapsychology’s Battle for the Internet: A Critical Insight into the Wiki Problem”. They understand the importance of Wikipedia, and apparently GSoW is, in their estimation, the thing keeping them from having pro-Fringe Wikipedia pages. In the “What can be done?” section, they say it clearly - “Wherever possible, they should '''challenge the anonymity''' of Wikipedia editors … “ (emphasis mine) [https://pure.northampton.ac.uk/en/publications/parapsychologys-battle-for-the-internet-a-critical-insight-into-t][http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/14907/1/Cyber_Wiki_Para_BPS_Poster.pdf]
In Summer/Fall 2021 we discussed making a list of all then 1,800+ pages public in one place as we are very proud of our work. Doing so would have made the GSoW members public.
However, my position changed in November 2021 when a fire that started on the [[Havana Syndrome]] talk page jumped onto an admin page. A brand new editor to me, [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]], on November 4th created a subpage to “build a case to show evidence of GSoW coordination” and discover who GSoW editors are. She was admonished and deleted the page but stated, “Decided to take it offline and will move it to a new user page once I'm done …that perhaps there is something to gain from poking around a bit, but I'll wait until I have a very detailed case”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Please,_do_not_discourage_editors_from_investigating]
Santacruz approached/pinged other editors for help making a case against GSoW.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby&diff=prev&oldid=1053513468&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._C._Santacruz/Archives/2021/November#Collaboration_on_a_case_regarding_the_Guerrilla_Skeptics]
The next day, she spent 29 minutes putting up four pages I had worked on using [[WP:PROD]] saying she expected [[WP:SNOW]]. Pages from 2012 and 2016.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053717292&diffmode=source]
Accused of canvassing.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053659886&diffmode=source]
Santacruz proposed sanctions.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053738047&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053707792&diffmode=source]
Santacruz asked for help from other editors to take me to ArbCom.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053753647&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._C._Santacruz&diff=prev&oldid=1053764659&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._C._Santacruz&diff=prev&oldid=1053772313&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=1063974429&oldid=1063973326&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=1063975498&oldid=1063975130&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=1063980079&oldid=1063979633&diffmode=source]
It continued to accusations over [[Peter Gleick]]. I had ONLY added a photo to in 2019 (that I took in 2011).[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Peter_H._Gleick#/media/File:Peter_Gleick.jpg] Nothing she claimed about me was accurate.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053695239&diffmode=source] I have never "participated in the talk page for years".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053691852&diffmode=source]
In the middle of this[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=A.+C.+Santacruz&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2021-11-05&end=2021-11-05&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions] Santacruz [[WP:PROD]] this, a page I had reverted vandalism in 2011.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Michael_Faherty&oldid=1053694231] That's weird, suddenly it makes sense. The top of my Facebook/Twitter accounts and many of my lectures mention [[Spontaneous Human Combustion]] as my greatest childhood fear, but now favorite pseudoscience.
'''All this transpired over three days'''
Hopefully ArbCom understands why I am suspicious and wary of editors who zealously and suddenly enter the picture, making lists of GSoW editors, investigating on social media and reporting (or threatening to report) people. Putting up AfD’s, deleting large chunks of pages, endless discussions on talk and admin pages. It’s exhausting.
Now to answer evidence
*This campaign against me and our group went on for days, and thousands of words. The frustration led me to curt replies, I will try to do better.
*I have apologized to [[User:Vaticidalprophet|Vaticidalprophet]] and I will try to do better in the future.
*As [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] has said several times, an article’s issues should be discussed on that article's talk page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053518583&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=1053684382][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&diff=1054775924&oldid=1054774317&diffmode=source]
*[[User:Geogene|Geogene]] I’m sure you can find any number of editors grouped together often when we work in the same interest areas and are members of the same Wiki:Projects.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism/Article_alerts/Archive]
At times our team might have become over-zealous in adding content to BLP, and I think these discussions have been instructive. In fact, we have already altered our training. However, I feel strongly that discussions should happen on the article's talk page at dispute.
I have an extensive edit history; across WM, I have 9,093 edits. I am at 57.9% on Article Space.
As evidence that I am here to improve Wikipedia, these are my last ten creations.
*[[Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital]] 2022 from stub
*[[Mee Memorial Hospital]] 2022 new
*[[Luis Elizondo]] 2021 new
*[[Tasmania Zoo]] 2021 from stub
*[[Rhododendron Species Foundation and Botanical Garden]] 2021 from stub
*[[PPE Portrait project]] 2020 new
*[[COVID-19 party]] 2020 from stub
*[[Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy]] 2019 from stub
*[[Fremont Peak Observatory]] 2017 from stub
*[[Michael Eisen]] 2017 from stub
Our detractors claim that ''Skeptical Inquirer'' is overused, we will try to cut back, however it is often the only available source for WP:PARITY, in which case we use it.
I prefer to stand on my actual editing records than to try to prove that my personal goals and biases are 100% pristine. I do my best to edit in good faith, but yes, off Wikipedia, I am biased towards science (as is Wikipedia). Please know that a lot has changed over the years. Around 2019 we did a big overhaul of our program, and with the recommendations of the ArbCom decision, GSoW will continue to improve. These are old, but I think they stand up well.[https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/09/is-wikipedia-a-conspiracy-common-myths-explained/][https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/vandalism-on-wikipedia/]
There has been some talk about me having a COI with CSI because I am a CSI Fellow. I encourage ABICROM to check the date I was made a Fellow, vs the date of my supposed COI diffs.
I have never been banned, rarely participated in admin conversations, and only want to continue training and improving Wikipedia science and pseudoscience pages. Wikipedia has brought me a community of hard working truth loving nerds. The last thing I or the GSoW community would want is to hurt Wikipedia which makes all of this possible. At the end of the day, we have edited alongside everyone just like any other editor, as that is what we are, editors.
Thank you.
==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
| |||