User talk:Sgerbic/Archives/2022/01

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the environment of Wikipedia of a decade ago, and how little has changed, and so I am sympathetic to your observations and assorted explanations. But you probably also need to appreciate how much Wikipedia has in fact changed since you created your group.

The Wikipedia of today has things like WikiProject Women In Red. It is a highly active and solid community, where editors are working together toward a defined goal, for the obvious benefit of Wikipedia, in a mutually supportive way. This includes the most necessary task of onboarding and training new editors, with a specific mind toward their specific task. It's all done out in the open, with a clear membership list. There is plenty of real world engagement with the media and academia, all the principle actors are self identified and appear to be fully engaged movement members, in both the online and real world sphere. There are associated meet ups and editathons, where everything is done in a transparent way.

Administrators are very protective of members, arguably too protective, but everyone can see that they are acting as unaffiliated Wikipedia Administrators, not WIR bouncers. And informed observers can also see that WIR et al can't ever really become a vehicle whereby members can fully divorce their goals and thus outcomes from established Wikipedia policy, as tempting as it may be. The only way a project like that could ever seriously go against Wikipedia policy and prevent the perpetrators from being held to account, is if it had the full support of ArbCom and the Foundation in doing so. And I think it is clear that there's as much support at those rarified levels for a cause like equality, as there is for the cause of basic truth in articles.

Harassment is obviously still a problem, but Wikipedia's policies and procedures and indeed general mindset are markedly different these days. Harassment of WIR members in particular, for reasons of mere affiliation or gender, is taken very seriously. It is given the highest attention, and is met with the most serious consequences. As tempting as it must be for these people to operate as an actual cabal, given there is still a large contingent of Wikipedia editors who oppose their very existence, it appears their very public manner of commiting to established Wikipedia principles, chiefly transparency, seems to have persuaded them that going down that path would be counterproductive.

With all that in mind, I would ask you to reconsider whether it really is any longer possible to argue that your group's desire to organise off wiki, in a private way, with an unknown membership and unclear effects on Wikipedia content, is still justifiable on the grounds you have put forward. You are certainly entitled to claim you're not doing anything wrong and people must assume good faith unless or until a smoking gun appears. But given where Wikipedia is today, people are entitled to ask, for example, if it's good enough for a group like WIR, why would it not be good enough for the Guerilla Skeptics?

I'd certainly be interested to know for example of you think I've made any significant errors in the comparison. Arguably there are perhaps more people out there aiming to skew Wikipedia content toward the woopov, but they certainly don't appear to be as any less commmitted or dangerous as those who might disagree with a project like WIR. And by all accounts, you have more experienced editors in your ranks than they do, which sbould mean you would find it even easier to use the established methods to deal with such problems.

You are entitled to tell me to go boil my head if you wish, but I should note I only came here after seeing you say how open and receptive you are to anyone who comes to you with sensible queries about why your group operates the way it does.

A Voice of Reasonableness (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there - read this message this morning (hours ago) and have been thinking about how best to answer you. Also I've spent most of my time reading responses at ARCon and making my statement. Now that I have posted there I'll think about how best to respond to you. But wanted you to know that I have read it and will respond. Thank you. Sgerbic (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has indeed changed, for the better. What a world of difference.

The GSoW is involved in multiple Wiki Projects including WIR. We are off-Wiki because we are training brand new people who wouldn't have the slightest idea what button to click if you showed them a Wiki Project. People on Wiki Projects already know how to edit. We are also off Wikipedia because we enjoy the social aspects of being on a team, something that Wikipedia isn't even close to becoming. We socialize, we talk about our vacations and pets and all the things that social groups do. We also have long discussions about trivial things concerning a Wikipedia page someone is writing, often times it becomes very funny with puns and kidding around. Again something that is difficult on Wikipedia as someone seems to not always understand the humor and can take offence.

Harassment is not much of a problem on Wikipedia by the fringe as it is in the real-world. I've been doing this for over a decade and it's down right scary at times. The fringe are reading this and waiting to figure out who else they can reveal. I'm not kidding, there are far more lurkers than editors reading the talk pages. This Christmas we had a troll reveal themselves to an editor here and offer up dirt on myself and team. Wikipedia banned that troll but it is a sock-puppet that has been back over and over again for years. There are lots more out there besides that one.

But the real issue is that the problems of harassment and hounding are from a very small group of editors here, mainly just one person at the moment. They hound and hound and hound and canvass and then raise "concerns" in different venues here on admin areas and also talk pages. They say they are gathering evidence to report, they are going off Wikipedia to find it, when they are called out for this (rarely) they say something like, "oh, I'll do it privately and report back" or "I'll put that on hold for now" meaning to me that this threat is ever near that more drama is in store. It's exhausting. What they seem to want is a list of editors. Why? They want to make it easier to harass? They want to review each edit that has been made in their entire career here? If I were to disclose that editor X was a GSoW editor, then they would go into their edit history to find something, anything to discredit them. It just happened, today. One of my editors stated that they are GSoW and BAM just like that an editor pulled up something that was made in 2019 and used it as an example of bad editing. 2019? Seriously? The editor accused has thousands of edits.

So I would not agree with your statement that WIR shares the same kind of or amount of issues that Fringe would. Not even close. Besides no one would ever be happy, I could pull the whole thing down and tell my team to only speak to each other on Wikipedia and all it would take is for an editor to complain that they think they are still talking to each other, and there would be no way to prove that. And if it is okay to communicate with people off Wikipedia, then what is the problem with an off Wikipedia group? I just don't understand why people are so worried about conversations I have with people off Wikipedia? I don't venture into their world and accuse them.

Let the work stand on it's own and discussions about issues happen on the talk pages.

I would never tell someone to go boil their head. Thank you for your letter. I'm happy to clear up other questions if needed.

Susan Sgerbic (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I just want to pop in to add that "boil your head" is a pretty funny phrase. Somehow, I've never heard that before. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's regrettable, because there's nothing you have just said that doesn't seem to also apply apply WIR. They do train complete newbies, on and off wiki. They are quite sociable, on and off wiki. They do get harassed, on and off wiki. But it is all transparent. The level of obscurity you are seeking, isn't even afforded to human rights activists living in oppressive regimes, as far as I can see. Even they will be asked to provide a list of their edits, if it can be shown there is at least a problem with some small amount of their editing, as it seems can be done with some of your members. It won't matter if it is deliberate wrongdoing or good faith mistakes, the fact that nobody can predict such issues and head them off in future due to the closed nature of your group and your training methods, will be the issue that presents itself as needing a resolution. Your lack of familiarity with the Arbitration process might be your blindspot here. If you need to know one thing about them, it's that they won't want any part of something like serving as a trusted go between, an ongoing means to issue your group a clean bill of health, while maintaining your privacy. They're also not above issuing rulings that on the face of it seem unenforceable if not a little absurd, if it is in pursuit of an important principle, such as transparency. A Voice of Reasonableness (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well this is the first I've heard of WIR having a social group and training for beginners? I'm looking at their site now and not seeing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red and checked out their Facebook page and seeing a comment from someone other than their account once in awhile, but no discussions. With GSoW I work with the new person one on one if needed. You seem to not understand that even if I provided a list of editors in GSoW they would insist that there are others not on the list, if I provided a list of work completed, it would be scrutinized beyond normal standards, anyone that edited the page would be seen as GSoW on or off the list. Any work that was not on the list would be sought out and we would be accused of hiding our work. GSoW only counts some of our work as GSoW work, we write many pages that do not fall under the umbrella of GSoW. We make thousands of just normal edits, would they need to be listed, if not then then we would be accused of hiding something. Current editors here have been looking up my editors in real life - how would that be stopped? It isn't being stopped now, so I can only assume it will continue and escalate in the future. I don't know what else to say, any decision to change the venue of GSoW will be made by GSoW members.

I'm curious why you created a brand new account to contact me? Sgerbic (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert or even a member of it, I'm just relaying what I believe is common knowledge among reasonably well informed Wikipedians about what they do. You would probably get more specific information if you asked them directly on the project talk page. I am quite sure nobody is going to ask you to stop socialising in private, and I am quite sure plenty of WIR members do this. Nobody can promise you perfection, but if you arrive at a Case without apparently having any real appreciation of what Wikipedia can and has done to protect WIR members and generally support their efforts, you will probably not get far in your aims. I long ago retired from Wikipedia, but have followed its internal debates ever since. This seemed like an issue worthy of un-lurking, as it were. Take it as you find it. A Voice of Reasonableness (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the unlurking. If it is common knowledge that WIR have a training program (outside of the edit-a-tons) then I can't find it. And doubt anyone else will either. I see no socializing other than normal Wikipedia discussions about pages. I see lists and lists and text heavy pages of instructions. I've been clear that I think a good chunk of people (including myself) runs away when they see information presented like that. Wiki Projects might be wonderful for some editors, others not so. Why run off people?

As I keep saying, if the WIR editors get some kind of special protection none of my team who has been involved in WIR has been offered that option. And I'm not seeing any help against the harassment and hounding from current editors. Sgerbic (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh and I'm SURE that socializing in private would be frowned on. Sgerbic (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Some people from WIR do or at least did have some interaction off-wiki but that's not necessarily relevant to GSoW. Our anonymous friend has made their point and does not need further answers unless something new comes up. I wouldn't put further energy into it. The arbitration process will involve hundreds of comments and it's best to not even think about answering them, and the one great thing about arbitration is that even questions you want to answer do not need a fast response. I don't recall any great fuss about WIR beyond a little misogyny when it started. They would be "protected" in the sense that anyone being a persistent nuisance would face a dozen admins willing to remove them due to social sensitivities around that topic. GSoW is different because while the goal of opposing fringe views is desirable, reasonable people would see problems with undue negativity in BLPs, and might think that at least some of the group are "here" to promote Skeptical Inquirer. I don't share that view, and I think even it were true it is a correctable problem. However, that conclusion is available. No need to reply, now is a good to start not replying to everything! Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is where I think Susan will get her best information by asking WIR directly. You may not recall, but the Committee will certainly remember for example that the predecessor to WIR attracted a level of hate that rose to a Wikipedia editor posting revenge porn off site (fake, we presume), necessitating their Global Ban, the most serious sanction you can get (and we can also presume, a referral to Johnny Law). More recent incidents are probably wisely left to private channels (and I don't even really feel comfortable airing that past incident, but it is hopefully far enough in the past), but when the motive is misogyny, I doubt anyone thinks there is much of a limit to what their attackers try to do.

It is certainly good advice to be pragmatic and just ignore most of what is said at Arbitration (but don't ignore the Arbitrators, obviously!). But Susan certainly needs be aware of and alive to potential banana skins like this. She needs to know now, before the avalanche, how she would respond, if someone asked her what it is about her group that shows it is different in any significant way, to the likes of WIR. Different enough to allow the extraordinary good faith of assuming that no significant policy violations are resulting from their off site coordinating.

I never meant to imply WIR get special protection, I meant it exactly as you conveyed it. Unaffiliated people see their manifestly good works, and understandably feel motivated to help using the tools they have. The would surely do the same for an open and transparent GS group, perhaps even more so. That could unlock even more benefits, such as Affiliate status. If that still isn't enough for Susan, she may be disappointed in the conclusion of ArbCom, who would I presume regretfully inform her that while they sympathise, there can't really be any exceptions, and for entirely pragmatic reasons.

If word got out that anti-woo efforts were seen as somehow more worthy than say equality or human rights or the not unrelated but distinctly separate task of ensuring general quality in media topics, Wikipedia would be under an even bigger assault from the forces of darkness than it currently is. ArbCom surely cannot allow it. Susan's group will presumably be told that they will have to either live with the downsides that come with being Wikipedia editors, or they will have to become, if it's not too dramatic a way of putting it, wiki out-laws. Which she may well prefer on balance, even though it would seem to me to come with huge downsides. Chiefly, the overnight loss of the ability to claim they are acting within Wikipedia policy. The ramifications are huge.

So if she does want that, for her own reasons, she would be wise to be preparing herself and her group for such an outcome now, rather than be side swiped by an unexpected Proposed Decision that she had perhaps never even thought was possible due to her unfamiliarity with this particular body. And as I think we both know, it can be incredibly difficult to alter such a thing if you dislike it once it has dropped from on high, that being the phase of Arbitration which is most anticipated and most hectic. Especially if you have up to then taken a combative and aloof approach.

It genuinely worries me, how confident Susan is in expressing some of her clearly incorrect views (seriously, nobody is going to even try stopping them socialising in private, and anyone who does will be severely reprimanded). If it starts to look like she is saying these things not out of ignorance but something worse, it will be picked up on by the Arbitrators. They are human, they don't like being manipulated, they have a sworn duty, and uniquely among Wikipedia editors, they have the power to be merciless. They exist to make the hard choices.

Outcomes of Arbitration are by design, often seemingly cruel, but necessary. It might seem cruel and even bizarre to tell Susan she can no longer run what is essentially a WikiProject in private, but it might be seen as necessary, absent any compelling reason for its existence, and in the face of evidence that it does result in policy violations. Especially if they are unwilling or simply unable to prove these violations are indeed insignificant in the context of their claimed benefits (greater participation, better articles overall).

It certainly isn't going to fly, for example, claiming a group that has already overseen problematic editing, can be allowed to police itself going forward. That is not the Wikipedia way. Albeit, ironically, it is also the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia polices itself, but it is open book, privacy only being afforded where a need exists. Can she establish that need to their satisfaction? If she doesn't like whatever the Arbitration Committee finds and rules, there's no appealing it other than to the very same body. The theoretical appeal to Jimmy Wales is worthless these days, he will merely rubber stamp their findings. And it would have to be an extremely obviously unjust outcome, to forment a grass roots revolt. And if that's the play, that's real Hail Mary on February 29th type stuff.

The potential issues that could come up in the preparation of a Proposed Decision are surprisingly similar to WIR. There is a natural tendency for WIR members to avoid including negative material, and take a more relaxed approach to the use of sources they see as suiting their agenda. Conversely, a temptation exists to add negative material about perceived ideological opponents. I am quite sure even a situation such as the close connection to members to sources they intend to use, has come up. But because their group is transparent, nobody has any real cause to see conspiracies and collusion where there probably isn't any. Issues there, if they exist, can probably be explained with simple reference to a lack of training and an over enthusiasm. Easily corrected through normal channels. As such, I really do fear, when Susan tries to make the case that her group is somehow different to WIR, on this basis, she will fail.

But yes, I certainly won't feel offended if Susan feels there's better things for her to be doing than replying to me here further, I think she has enough information to be making an informed decision about how best to proceed in the forthcoming Case. A Voice of Reasonableness (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is all good, thanks. My point was that Sgerbic has to start rationing her time and energy and understand that there is no need to reply to everything (except, as you say, always reply to Arbitrators although that does not need to be done immediately). Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Inquiry Investigations Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Inquiry Investigations Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Susan. My name's Kevin, and I'm a member of ArbCom. Regarding "where do I go to get the answers": Rest assured that the questions have been seen by the drafting arbitrators, who are responsible for managing the case for the committee, but it often takes a bit to get a response – there are only two drafters after all. I see that others have also been responding to you on the talk page, which seem generally helpful and for which I'm grateful, but note that those responses are not from members of ArbCom and shouldn't be relied on as the Committee's position. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that this would have been clear before the case started, the scope and who is being accused and what exact questions and I supposed to answer. Why are people giving evidence without knowing what they are giving evidence for? I'm extremely confused. And Kevin, I am very worried after looking at some of this "evidence" that this is going to evolve into a drama fest. I'm very afraid to address each of these statements as I don't see how I can do so without it looking bad. I'm very adverse to doing so. Sgerbic (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit of advice from someone who has been editing Wikipedia since 2006 (I am also the author of WP:YWAB and WP:1AM, so you can see where my sympathies are):

Arbcom was created by Jimbo as the final resort for issues that have not been able to be solved though discussion, WP:ANI, WP:RFC, etc. The arbs have seen a lot of cases, ranging from Scientologists trying to destroy the Internet in general and Wikipedia in particular to befuddled and completely innocent parties who have been dragged over to arbcom by their enemies. It has the following easily-observable properties:

• It is slow. Questions and accusations lay there unanswered for long periods of time as the arbs and clerks work behind the scenes. As you have seen, non-arbs try to help by giving you non-authoritative answers, but these are just opinions and educated guesses.
• It is designed to not allow most kinds of "drama". Unlike ANI, clerks enforce rules and remove comments as needed.
• Evidence is everything, opinions are usually ignored.
• It is usually far better to not defend yourself and instead sit back and watch as someone uninvolved refutes any unfair accusations. Which never happens as fast as you think it should.
• Correcting factual errors with diffs is almost always worthwhile, but the optimal strategy is to lose all humanity and act as if an unemotional robot is posting the correction.
• Reading through past arbcom cases is very helpful. Pick one and read only the preliminary comments. Then see how things evolved in the evidence phase. Then read how the decision is slowly hammered out in the workshop phase. Then and only then read the final results. Make sure you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture, but some recent cases from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All on other topics are worth studying.

(To those who might wonder, I have no connection with GSoW other than an interest in many of the same topics.) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, of course I know who you are, I've been here since 2008 and have never been involved in anything like this before so this is way over my head. Thank you for reaching out, but this still does not clear up my questions. You say it happens slowly but there is a deadline Jan 31st, so I really need to get answers to my questions soon. I want to have a conversation in one place where someone can answer my questions. Is this the place or do I need to talk to ArbCom on that specific page? Which one, Evidence, Worksheet, Main, Proposed? You are advising me to "sit back" but I'm supposed to correct factual errors? Sgerbic (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Deadlines get extended and cases get put on hold all the time. The deadline usually fires only when all the evidence is in and it is clear that more time won't change the end result.

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing is a good place to ask questions. What you are doing there is fine.

By "sit back" I mean:

• Don't respond minutes after the claim is made. Wait a day. See if someone else responds. If the claim doesn't contain supporting evidence in the form of diffs, ignore it. The Arbs certainly will. If it has diffs but the accompanying comments aren't supported by the diffs, ignore the comments. The Arbs certainly will.
• The Arbitration Committee was elected by the users for their ability to handle this sort of thing fairly. They have seen every rhetorical trick in the book. Again, study previous cases. Notice how the Arbs seem to be selectively deaf to everything except diffs showing a particular behavior. This is a Good Thing.

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

So do I respond to what is listed as evidence before the evidence phase is over, or while? Is ArbCom going to remove things that don't pertain or do they just ignore it? How will I know until it is all over if it was ignored or not?

And about harassment. I have started to gather all the diff for harassment, but I really don't want to use it. It's ugly and I don't want to increase the heat. Should I give it to Arbcom in private? Barkeep just said that they "ArbCom will absolutely evaluate evidence showing that you and other GSoW members have been harassed or otherwise treated in ways that violate behavior expectations" So I have to give it to them, they don't automatically know it is happening? How much should I give, just the basics or do I need to get into the back and forth and drama of it? Isn't this case about coordinated editing and not harassment? Should I wait till there is another case against a specific editor? The detractors are mentioned as a pertaining to the case, but no one is listing anything against them, only against us long time editors. I know I should sit and wait for a response, but that is not my nature, I want to have conversations and work though issues, I want to fight my own fight and not let others get in the way of harm. And I seriously do not get why such a wide net, and for editors they have no idea is or is not GSoW? And skepticism topics is just .... well too broad. Thank you Guy Sgerbic (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to let an arb answer the question about private evidence. I do know that making it short and to the point (fewer words, more diffs, limit the diffs to clear violations), helps them a lot, but deciding what to make public and what to keep private is over my pay grade. :)

One option is to give evidence to them privately but to stipulate that they have permission to reveal some or all of it publicly. That balances goal of not inflaming the situation with the goal of arbcom not ending up saying "We decided X based on evidence we are not allowed to reveal publicly". At the very least, you should consider opening up a private dialog with an arb (with the understanding that they will share what you write with other arbs and no one else).

If you look at previous arbcom cases you will notice that pretty much no argument posted by the accused or the accuser ever helps their case. Diffs are everything, and the more emotionless and more of a brief description you wrap around the diffs the more they help. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to add more commentary but Guy's advice is golden. Also, please re-read my comments at case talk because they say what is needed. Arbitrators are smart and do not need to be given detailed rebuttals of weak evidence. As Guy says, if an editor has given evidence that you think does not show what is claimed, state that and give one or two examples with an explanation of how the claim is misleading or incorrect. Do not overdo it—brevity wins and Arbitrators do not need more than a hint. Apart from brief rebuttals, don't post negativity about others because that would be of no help to you. There should be evidence of a few good articles (proper sourcing, no piled-on BLP negativity, neutral text) with an assertion that GSoW work has benefited Wikipedia. You might consider whether to concede some of the points made against GSoW. Wikipedia does not do punishment for past mistakes—the question is whether certain identified problems may be repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've had some caffeine, a nice hot shower, pet a cat and read your comments. I think I'm going to throw out most everything I was writing and I have a completely different approach. I'll have something ready by the 31st. This has been very stressful for me, I care a lot about what GSoW has done and the importance of Wikipedia. Sgerbic (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, and this is entirely optional, you could write a draft of whatever you want at, for example, User:Sgerbic/Case. When satisfied with the draft, you would copy it to the evidence page. You would use a new user subpage that no one else edits. When it's all over, you would replace the contents with {{db-user}} which would result in it being deleted because pages like this are not kept. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean everyone could see it? Or would this just be for ArbCom to look at so they could see I was on the right track for giving my evidence? Sgerbic (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Everyone would see it and would see the edits that you make. Arbitrators would not look at it as they are too busy and will only read what is on the main page. The only reason for making a draft is that it is surprisingly easy to mess up a complex comment with diffs and you would possibly feel better about fixing typos, wrong links and other problems in your draft rather than on the main evidence page. It's a matter of taste. Some people are happy to let it all hang out on the main page and make twenty or so edits until they get it right. Another approach would be to keep a file on your computer with the wikitext that you intend to post. Then preview it in your sandbox or any other page, but don't save the edit. When satisfied, you would post it at the evidence page. I don't recommend that as it is easy to make a mistake and fail to save changes in your local file which would result in work being lost. The draft is entirely up to you. If wanted, others could comment here about the draft but it's mainly to reduce the tension of making dozens of edits on the main page to fix minor issues. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Susan. I read your user page with interest, and ironically, a bucket load of skepticism. I am, in a word, confused. I'm not sure if you are perhaps too close to it to see it, but if what you wrote is an accurate assessment, you have achieved quite the thing. As anyone can see, although it exists and even functions, after a fashion, Wikipedia as a project to create an encyclopedia, is largely a failure. Accepting the whole "there's no deadline" nonsense, failure is the depressing conclusion of it having existed for twenty plus years, and examining the product and the culture of a literal generation of editors that has resulted.

Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia in any real sense, and the reason is clearly, lack of resource and credibility. It can't attract and retain editors, or at least not the right kind, and that's cleary because of experiences like yours. The instructions are baffling, the culture, terrifying, the editing experience, frustrating. And on the flip side, it sucks at identifying and removing the unwanted kind of editor. As a result, the oft claimed core characteristic of collaboration and even harmony of common purpose, is a myth, and in reality, in daily practice, Wikipedia editors are indeed, lone wolfs. Grizzled, hardened, paranoid. Since aggression and gaming works better than collaboration to get an edit to stick, the latter is far more prevalent than the former.

I was therefore intrigued to read of your claimed success. You say you attract and retain the right kind of people, you say you work together, producing quality content, in an efficient but traceable manner. Wholesale revision while being open to having that work edited post publication, is arguably the way Wikipedia should and would be built, if it had the right kind of editors here.

But is it true? If it was, and if you had a genuine love for Wikipedia, and I ask this in all seriousness, why would you have remained as a rather small group focused on a rather small thing? And a rather pointless thing I might add. There can't be many bigger wastes of intelligent people's time, than trying to use Wikipedia of all things, to convince potential victims that mediums are con artists. If they haven't figured that out from the decades worth of publicly available material on things like cold and hot reading, they certainly won't be convinced by Wikipedia.

I was never a believer, certainly, but even without seeking it out, as a child raised in a good education system and on popular culture that includes the likes of Derren Brown and Penn and Teller, there wasn't a chance I would have ever fallen for it. But many will. They want to believe. There will always be a constant stream of potential suckers, many are in my own family. You can't reason with them. It won't change until such things are made illegal, and sadly, like many things in this world, the absurdity of US ideas of freedom means this is never going to happen. These are, ironically, the same laws that say Jimmy Wales can call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and never live in fear of being fined or even jailed, for fraud on a grand scale (perhaps he would have, if he had ever dared charge money for the advertised product!).

So why bother? It seems an absurd waste of time, debunking mediums in any form, but especially via Wikipedia. What wouldn't be a waste of time, if you really are as successful as you claim, is to take what you have learned about Wikipedia, to make Wikipedia better. Maybe you are under selling how much work your group does outside the narrow field of skepticism, but it clearly isn't manifesting yet. An article here or there, even hundreds, is but a drop in the ocean.

I wonder if you have the confidence of your claims to expand or even franchise your work. Teach other teachers. Tell them how you do your work, how you train people, how you show them to work together to be better, more productive, more useful Wikipedia editors. The obvious barrier to this happening, is your apparent belief that Wikipedia is a hostile environment for your group. And I would suggest this is perhaps a self fulfilled prophecy. Your apparent preference for working in the shadows (I assume that when you say you collaboratively identify projects and draft rewrites in your own space, what you meant was in your closed group) means you will always be a pretty small fish in a pretty big pond. To take a lesson from evolution, advantageous mutations need to be replicated.

You can't be unaware of the rather obvious conclusion that if the vast majority of Wikipedia editors were graduates of training schools and operated as social groups modelled on your own claimed success, then your original goal, keeping the nonsense out of Wikipedia, would happen by default.

Are you up for the challenge?

I am Skeptical. ;-)

I would certainly like to see some proof that your group can and does have the ability to write a genuinely high quality Wikipedia article, and if you can't provide that without breaking any confidences by pointing to work you have done in the past, you can certainly prove that in other ways going forward. I fear your assessment of your abilities is far below what an objective observer would say was your true level of capability, in some imagined future where external grading of the competence of Wikipedia editors and trainers exists and is accepted by Wikipedia.

Outside experts have in the past produced detailed and robust examinations of what a Wikipedia editor often considers their very best work. Unsurprisingly, there was little engagement, and the existence of such things, given what Wikipedia grew into over twenty years, typically have absolutely no effect in any way (least of all, for example, in convincing people to trust what Wikipedia says about mediums). At its worst, I fear your group exists to do what it is claimed it exists for, to hide the fact a group of rather mediocre editors who aren't really exceptional in ability or attitude, are also occasionally getting together in secret to do useless things like sting mediums and gleefully report the results of Wikipedia, for cheap thrills. At its core, a simple power game. This isn't what you claim you do, and the better angels in me hope it isn't (and you certainly don't read as a super villain!).

Although I have sent this message in my private capacity out of simple curiosity, if you are as good as you claim, and you can prove it, and you did have a mind to pursue what I outline, and inspire hundreds of thousands, rather than mere hundreds, and affect millions of article, rather than a few thousand, I might be able to assist you in my professional capacity. But with the situation as it is, I am naturally, and again, ironically, a little reluctant to reveal who I am to a person who claims to have a hundred or so anonymous editors behind them, with the allegations of revenge editing coming in thick and fast. I hope, for your sake, these allegations are proven wrong, and conclusively, and the loyalties of those you train are found to indeed lie solely with building a better Wikipedia for the next generation.

I want to believe.

Farad Mashouri (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Farad. Interesting message, I was told that this case would mean people coming to talk to me that would have never done so before. That has been correct. I enjoy people and conversation. Let me get some breakfast in me and I'll give you a nice long response. Sgerbic (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've had my breakfast and looked over my email so here I am to respond to you. So lets see where to start. It is always fascinating to see yourself though another persons eyes. You have only looked at my user page and the content on ArbCom? Actually your message does help as I'm still fussing over my ArbCom statement and last night I had an AhHa moment, something that I thought was obvious apparently isn't obvious, and you said the same thing, so I guess I'll try to clear it up.

Let's move though your message and I'll respond in chunks.

I don't think Wikipedia is a failure. I think it is amazing. It should not work, it is a crazy project that I would never in my wildest dreams expect to work, yet it is still here. Twenty years is a long time for something of this sort, but then also just a blip in time. IF Wikipedia was unchanging, then it would have failed years ago. But it evolves, I've been here since 2008 and the difference from then to now is incredible. And it is all because of the people that edit and administer, it's truly not the code or software (though that has made it so much easier to edit) but the people. The volunteers that are here like I am because they believe in open-source knowledge and getting the best information to people, with the citations linked so that others can make their own decisions.

Now WikiMedia Commons is another story. It's text heavy instructions on how to upload, categorize and find answers if one of a hundred things go wrong is unreal. But that is another rant for another day.

I'm not a clever bear or gorilla, I'll leave the discussion of whether or not Wikipedia is a true encyclopedia to brighter bulbs.

"It can't attract and retain editors, or at least not the right kind, and that's cleary because of experiences like yours. The instructions are baffling, the culture, terrifying, the editing experience, frustrating." So I'm not sure how best to answer this. It is attracting and retaining editors, I've been here since 2008 and have worked along beside some of the same people that whole time. When I read though old discussions I see editors that have a long relationship to each other and long histories. "Long" is relative.

YES, to a major chunk of people, all you say is true. Baffling, Terrifying, Frustrating. All that and more, it runs off people every day, maybe tens of thousands looked at making their first edit and ran away screaming after their first try (group 1). But another large chunk of people do get it (group 2), they love the environment, the rules, humor, coding and lack of having a social aspect (though it is here if you look in the right places).

I'm told by people in that second group that new people should just post a message asking for help, or read the training instructions or sign onto a project or whatever, blaming the new person for not getting help. This group 2 seems (to me at least) clueless. Group 1 has no idea how to post to ask a question, they might be able to find the edit tab, but which edit tab, the one at the top of the page, the one in the middle, or bottom, or what? Why don't the citations appear under references. Some people have never ever used Ctrl-F or Ctrl-C, some people can't decide should they use a fake name when they sign up for a Wikipedia account, or use their real name, what repercussions will happen if they do? Who do they ask to check their work when they have their first edit? And on and on. This is the basics and group 1 needs a human to walk them though this stage, they don't know who or where on Wikipedia to ask, and very possibly they would not understand the answer. So many editors speak this weird language and respond to every conversation with these weird WP:Something links. And when clicked on they are a wall of text, with almost nothing visual and clearly no area to ask for help, with more jargon and every possible text heavy example possible. Again back to WikiMedia Commons, this is the first message that greats you when you have selected a photo to upload "EXIF metadata in this file may contain location or other personal data automatically added by your camera. Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata." I've been a photographer for decades and I have no clue what EXIF means. When you hit "info" you are greeted with this text document https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Exif. This is WikiMedia Commons and there is not a single image on this page to explain. I would be long gone by this point. Again I need to get away from this rant and back to answering your message.

But I hope I have made my point, some people love this stuff, they write this stuff and totally get it. But there is a world of people who do not. I understand that. I do not have the time or knowledge of how to change this (therefore I rant, mainly quietly in my head)

"I was therefore intrigued to read of your claimed success. You say you attract and retain the right kind of people, you say you work together, producing quality content, in an efficient but traceable manner. Wholesale revision while being open to having that work edited post publication, is arguably the way Wikipedia should and would be built, if it had the right kind of editors here." I attract people from Group 1 and 2, they all bring uniqueness to Wikipedia and to our community. I don't attract the "right kind of people" I just attract "people" and they have chosen for whatever reason they they want to learn in the fashion that I have put together. What some tell me is that they attempted to edit and it was Baffling, Terrifying and Frustrating. That is exactly what happened to me back in 2008. I have no idea why I stayed, probably because I believed in the goals of Wikipedia, that maybe I could figure it out, I made a ton of mistakes (still do) but somehow stumbled though. There were some kind editors who took pity on me and walked me though some things.

One of the things I hear most from my team is that they love getting feedback from other team members, sometimes in minutes after asking. Quality feedback, given in a fun and helpful way. I know this is possible here on Wikipedia, but not quickly and not by people who are necessarily going to joke with you about it (well maybe). I know I have stared at an error, trying this or that for hours, wanting to pull out my hair knowing that it is probably something very easy to fix, or maybe I've ruined everything, I can't tell. Two minutes after asking for help, someone will say "Susan you just need to capitalize the word Mirror and it will be fixed". And that is powerful to know you have someone who understands and can show you how to fix it.

Now here your message starts to get to what I mentioned at the beginning. You start out asking about Wikipedia and then move to talking about Psychics. And that is where I'm starting to understand that what I thought was obvious from all the talks I've given, interviews, videos, website and so on, that people are completely missing this. Also GSoW has evolved over the years, pulling any context out of anything over a couple years old is just strange and inaccurate and then saying that this is what I preach. Yeah, maybe in 2012 I did say that, but things change.

GSoW is the Wikipedia project. And that is completely separate from the psychic stuff. The last sting I did, Operation Onion Ring had nothing to do with GSoW, not a single overlap, no one. I am the only common factor and I don't add the articles written by me, or the articles written about the stings to Wikipedia. Once an article is out there in the public, I have no control over it, no one is assigned to add it anywhere. They can be ignored and never read, I don't have that kind of power. YES, I might have talked about the power of Wikipedia, it depends on the audience, I want people to understand that they need to get off their butts and stop complaining about the misinformation in the world and do something. I have done many many lectures on what people can do to, reviewing podcasts and books, sharing books and links, offering to create graphics and music for groups, and even learning to edit Wikipedia.

So now that I hopefully have cleared that up, on to your questions about psychics (whom I call Grief Vampires).

I don't feel that doing something you feel passionate about is a waste of time, even if it means you are just digging up dandelions from your own front lawn. If it is important to you, then it is important to you, and no one should feel comfortable telling them that they should be doing something else. (Yes I know in the above paragraph I did say that, but I meant, stop complaining about things and get to work to improve/change things) Yes, a friend could say, "hey Susan, I was thinking about this and think you might be more effective if you try this". Sure that's cool, I learn, all the time. But I have decided that people preying on the grief and vulnerability of others is worth my time, even if I may never have an impact. You might think that I should be doing something else like protecting baby seals from being clubbed or helping get bills passed or something. Many things are important, and grief vampires are one of them. And I happen to have been doing it for so many years that I've learned a lot.

Putting on a sting is much more difficult than people think. There is a ton of work that goes into it, lots of over thinking and a lot of investigation. Not only to finding the right people but being sure you have done enough research that you aren't flippant about the harm you might cause the people who believe. Also when you play along with the psychic, you are going to enforce to anyone watching the ability of the psychic, causing more believers.

And the work completed already has been powerful, not because it is or is not on Wikipedia, but because it is happening, people are learning, people are learning how to become more active and doing more things. Maybe not stings against psychics, but they are organizing meetings in their local areas, putting together videos, writing articles, explaining to others. All kinds of things. Being informed is probably the most important.

I can't tell you the stories I hear from people who have written to me about being taken advantage of these grief vampires. They are stories just to me, I can listen and I understand and that is as far as it goes, except if they want me to explain a bit more about how the psychic appeared to know what they said they knew. Many many people have been helped from the work I've done with psychics. I just can't talk about it, though there are some I can tell, and have, check out some of the articles I've written about them.

Of course there will always be these con-people, looking to take advantage of someone else. You can be a professor with four PhD's and still fall for the simplest tricks. Randi did not live to publish his book "A Magician in the Lab" but I've heard many of the stories that would have been in those pages. People can be vulnerable for a moment and that gives the con-person the time to slip in and get their hook in. Read/watch Nightmare Alley.

But because you will never completely solve the problem, does not mean that we shouldn't try. You think it's a mess now? Imagine the nightmare we would be in right now if we had this attitude?

When I was growing up, there was no Internet, we only had a couple channels on the TV (black & white) and really no way to check things out. I was terrified of Spontaneous Human Combustion. Sounds stupid right, not to me, I had been shown some photos and it was in newspapers and people I trusted said it was real. How do you check? The library didn't have anything. The encyclopedias didn't either (I have checked several years of them) so now what, just remain scared? My friends if asked would have said "see that shoe Susan, that's all that is left of Sally who used to live her before you, then one day she caught on fire, and we couldn't do anything about it because the flames were inside her".

NOW, that same child has a lot of resources. The first place is Wikipedia, which not only sums up the stories and the reason those photos look that way, but it cites people who have written about the subject. It is a completely different world now. Yeah Wikipedia!!! And Yeah Wikipedia editors for making that happen! YEAH people who research and publish articles so Wikipedia editors can cite them!

But because of the Internet and social media, these stories are coming at people fast and furious. You can't explain everything, Wikipedia isn't that powerful. What needs to happen (IMO) is to teach the skills of critical thinking at the youngest ages. We have to inoculate them before they get misinformation. I receive messages all the time asking for help with a friend/family that has fallen into the well of conspiracy theories and psychics. They want me to tell them the magic words to pull them out of the hole, to give them a link to an article their friend/family could read. I tell them all, there is no magic pill or link. They are in the hole till they can pull themselves out. You can be there for them, to help and love them, calling to them from the top of the hole, but you can't unreason them out of something they didn't reason themselves into. When it comes to grief vampires, they are after people in their most vulnerable times. Missing children, unexpected deaths, that kind of thing. You have to teach people BEFORE they get in this situation what to look for, how to avoid the hole.

Yes, I am a drop in the ocean. But all these other editors are also drops. And look at what they have done, together. Wikipedia (even WMC) is amazing! It's here and will remain for generations, evolving as needed.

About GSoW training. The only people who think it's excellent are the people who have gone though training. The people who are already editors and who fall into group 2 probably don't see a need for anything like how I teach. I've explained our training at least a couple times, but no one ever responds, they just move on to whatever attack they have in store for me next. As you can see from this response I tend to explain a lot, and when doing so, I'm sure something will be pulled out and taken out of context. Sigh

I'm not interested in expanding training to the bigger world. If WikiMedia was really interested they would have contacted me years ago. And they would need to really get it, understand that people are the most important part of training, something that can't be scaled. I'm a silly person, with silly lessons. I don't want to be taken though the grinder by people who would find my methods simplistic. Seriously, anyone could make training like I have, they just need to write it for someone who is not high in the tech skills. Lots of screenshots, humor and no jargon. I will probably be including some of our training in the ArbCom statement.

Working in the shadows, boy that sounds scary. We are not scary folks. We operate alongside other editors, every day for years.

Obviously I'm skeptical of anyone offering to help, especially during a ArbCom trial (yeah I know they don't want to call it that, but it is that) and then see messages that I will be taken to the next trial and then the next one. OMG I have lost so much sleep over this. I'm answering you in this way to keep me from having to get back to the statement I'm preparing. :-)

One of the GSoW has just released examples of his work on ArbCom. I probably will be doing so also. So you will get to sample some. We are all independent people and editors, and once we make our work live, it is just like any other editors work. Open to being changed. Most of us don't keep the pages we worked on, on our watchlists, we move on because there is so much more work to do and we fully expect that what we publish will be changed.

When a group has published almost 2 thousand pages and people can find only what, five pages as "evidence" of bad edits, then what does that say about the quality of our work? If we were so powerful why would I be losing sleep over all this drama? If we were such a powerful group of editors keeping other editors from changing our work, then why would our work ever get changed? That happens every day, I've have some of my early work Afd and I just tagged one of my early work as probably should be AfD. We edit and move on, no page is the hill to die on. If there are problems with a page, then fix it! Don't drag people to admin discussions.

Okay, on to the next statement. Sgerbic (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate to the above, one minor critique, which rather stood out from the page, is this passage....

We spend almost no time on discussions and almost never in talk discussions that argue ad nauseam about trivial nonsense. We avoid those discussions and move on to actually getting real work done. We have limited time after all. 

I am hoping you didn't mean that to read as if your group are deliberately aloof, if not supremely arrogant. It is widely accepted, in my circles at least, that setting aside the time to participate in discussions here that are necessary, is a must. For example, if after one of your rewrites, someone posts a question about a potentially important issue (such as, perhaps, why a certain paragraph was removed), you are obligated to respond. Failure to respond, or a response that is glib and dismissive, if less hostile measures fail to elicit a better response, can and must lead to a wholesale rejection of the revision, as evidence of a manifest failure on your part to be what a Wikipedia editor is supposed to be. The people who don't think they have to answer such questions, should not be allowed to be Wikipedia editors (and the fact many are, is why Wikipedia is what it is). This is separate from you refusing to participate in debates you see as trivial or circular. Wikipedia editors have the freedom not to have their time wasted like that, chiefly since they are unpaid volunteers. But even there, you are treading a very fine line indeed, if you do so in situations where a reasonable observer could say you are simply stonewalling or just being plain rude, as if somehow your time is more valuable than others. Best practice in such a scenario, is to not just disengage, but proactively ensure a satisfactory resolution, using all the means available to any Wikipedia editor. I am sure this is what you meant to say in this part, so an edit for clarity may be in order. If this isn't what you meant, this is probably what would make people wonder if your training really was all that. Farad Mashouri (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly I need to be more clear. My work is public, of course I and others participate in talk discussions. But beyond what is necessary, hum that's where we get into splitting hairs. If the discussion becomes unproductive then possibly it is time to move on. No edit is worth it. There are thousands of other pages that require help.

"Aloof ... supremely arrogant" Hardly. Just want to not get in drawn-out discussions with someone not interested in having a discussion.

I would add, that I am happy to explain and discuss with someone who really is open to it.

We are unlikely to ever take someone to anything admin related. Sgerbic (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: Farad Mashouri has been permanently blocked. --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh interesting! Sgerbic (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed they have been globally locked[1] for long-time abuse. Bishonen | tålk 22:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

Why did he reach out to me then? Sgerbic (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of shenanigans going on around the case. I had one person email me, which I forwarded to arbcom, and another reach out on my talk page today. Both are now blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of it going around. Not sure if it's this common during all arb cases, or if this on case is worse than usual. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What do they want? One of my team received a message that wanted to hire him to edit for a company, he was reported and blocked. But this feels like people are watching this unfold like a who-did-it. Is this in the best interests of Wikipedia? Sgerbic (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Over its years Wikipedia has attracted all manner of people, and a fair number just like to stir the pot. It's probably mostly that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sgerbic, I'm here purely in my role as a functionary. I'm the one who blocked "Farad". Basically, an editor privately informed me that recent edits to ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page (by Critter73P) looked like a particular Wikimedia Foundation-banned editor. I agreed with their assessment and used the checkuser tool to compare them to past known socks. The technical data matched past socks, "Farad" also turned up during the check. I blocked both and requested that they be globally locked, standard practice for editors banned by the Foundation.

As for why they're doing this? In the end, only they can say for sure, and I've found that it's best not to speculate on these things. I do know that this particular banned editor likes opining on these insider sorts of discussions. Arbitration cases are very much "inside baseball" and often turn into drama-fests, so they attract a certain kind of (blocked/banned) editor. My advice (and again - I'm speaking purely as a functionary here) is that if you get weird contacts like this, especially from brand-new accounts, just ignore them. If they make you concerned in some way, you can contact the Arbitration Committee via email. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"I encourage ABICROM to..."[2]

I checked the above with my trusty spellchecker and it suggested changing it to "I encourage Abercrombie Kids to..." :) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

JaJaJa - fixed! I think that is how I pronounce it in my brain. Or maybe it a Freudian slip as it almost looks like GerBICcon. :-) Just as long as it isn't what the next variant of Covid is. Sgerbic (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Please edit your new "Response to claims GSoW is the same as Guerilla Skeptics" section and insert an extra equals sign before and after (it will appear as === Response... ===). That will make it a subsection of your statement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 

Hello, Sgerbic. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)