Talk:Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Do we have some actual debunking for the claims that WP is run by skeptical puppet masters, aside from a quote from a GSOW leader? (eg., : "Wikipedia is a much more dangerous source of misinformation and defamation, since it is usually considered to be "neutral", all-encompassing web encyclopedia. It gets some special knowledge to understand that is was conquered and colonized by militant skeptics long ago, and is used by them as (covert) propaganda outlet.") Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here:, here: , and here: Leuders (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Factually misleading
Rome Viharo, posting under the username Tumbleman,[21] appeared on the Sheldrake article's Talk page to accuse skeptics of conspiracy, stating his purpose there was to oppose "bias" by members of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (the group Sheldrake claims is conspiring against him).


 * I never once said that in any reference you posted. That is flat out libelous. GSM to me stood for 'Guerilla Skeptic Movement' and i simply asked them if they were involved, a fair question since I was also simultaneously getting hounded by them. I also specifically said that it didn't matter if they were GSoW or not, the facts are they have the same (skeptic) agenda. This charge of some 'conspiracy' against GSoW by me is used to continue the false and misleading narrative this encyclopedia makes about me. Skeptics on Wikipedia actually did try to get me blocked from editing for this same 'conspiracy' charge, and guess what? It failed, with an admin stating that moves to block me were 'jumping the gun'. Publish facts or publish propaganda, but you've been officially informed both of my intentions and my actual language use on Wikipedia. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope, not libelous. Or misleading. RW is not Wikipedia, we are encouraged to do original research and analysis. "Tumbleman"s edit records show him/you ranting to people (editors you disagreed with) about the Guerilla Skepticism group and how you were there to oppose them. "I am here to help edit a page that appears to have a large amount of bias written into it by wikipedia editors whom may present a COI from here http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.ca". And no, "may" doesn't get you off the hook. Leuders (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects
Your article seems to give coverage to everything except how the statements contradict the way Wikipedia actually works. Neither is teamwork forbidden, nor is skepticism a new or isolated field in Wikipedia.

"operate in teams, contrary to Wikipedia rules." There is no mention of the fact that WikiPedia's WikiProjects actually encourage team work. Per the WikiProject page: "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history), a specific location or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages). The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects, each with varying levels of activity. A WikiProject's pages are not used for writing encyclopedia articles directly, but as resources to help coordinate and organize the group's efforts at creating and improving articles. WikiProjects often write advice for editors, use bots to track what is happening at articles of interest to the group, and create lists of tools and templates their members commonly use. The discussion pages attached to a project page are a convenient forum for those involved in that project to talk about what they are doing, to ask questions, and to receive advice from other people interested in the group's work."

In fact there is the semi-active WikiProject Skepticism which is "dedicated to creating, improving, and monitoring articles related to Scientific skepticism, including articles about claims related to science and philosophy which are contrary to the current body of scientific evidence, or which involve the paranormal. The project ensures that these articles are written from a neutral point of view, and do not put forward invalid claims as truth. The project is focused on clarifying the distinction between science and pseudoscience, history and pseudohistory, and between philosophy and pseudophilosophy. ...Some examples of the areas which the project monitors are alternative medicine, magick, psychics, dowsing, Ancient astronauts etcetera. This WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate the efforts of Wikipedians who wish to promote science and reason in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on various topics, while maintaining a neutral point of view, generally with particular emphasis on the Fringe guidelines." It has been active (under other names) since 2006.

It is not that surprising that skeptic editors, whether involved with a relevant Project or not, will find ways to add criticism to articles about fringe science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, paranormal, etch and their proponents. If there are available sources that support the skeptic or otherwise negative coverage, this is not even a violation of the NPOV principle. It requires editors to present opposing views, but not to treat them as equal: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." 212.54.200.204 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In the news
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2018/03/wall-silence-around-lawrence-krauss/ 18:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Factually Misleading/Misquoting a Reference
"One astrologer claimed that Sheldrake and Viharo were "slandered, mocked and ridiculed" by GSoW due to "the Sun opposed by transiting Pluto" and other planetary conditions (which are somehow also connected to Julian Assange)."

Being that astrologer, I would appreciate if you removed this reference immediately for the following reasons:

1/ The link is dead as I have deleted all my astrological writing/website from the Internet due to constant attacks, slandering campaigns and vandalism. That being the case, the link is not much of a "reference".

2/ Being copyright protected, by law, you must obtain prior permission before you are allowed to reproduce, link to or quote any part of my (or anyone's) writing. I do not recall having granted such permission to this website or to anyone remotely connected to this website for such purpose.

3/ It is factually true that Rupert Sheldrake and Julian Assange have been persecuted for their views. Unless of course, the authors of this "article" consider being retained inside the Ecuadorian embassy for six years without being charged of any crime (Assange) a desirable position, or being systematically labelled as a "crackpot" (Sheldrake) does not constitute a libellous attack. As for the USA, since transiting Pluto opposed the USA's horoscope's radix Sun, the country has been breaking up due to untold levels of corruption and the outright lies it has relied on for decades to create havoc and promote illegal wars around the world in blatant breach of the very standards it created to hang a bunch of Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg trials.

4/ It is factually true that there was no mention whatsoever of "Viharo" in my original writing as I had never heard of the man until I came upon this page today. That being the case, this website has not only infringed copyright laws but has also misquoted the original article both of which are punishable criminal offences.

5/ It is factually true that nowhere in my original article do I claim a "causal relationship" between transiting Pluto opposing the radix Sun, as suggested in your misquote (due to "the Sun opposed by transiting Pluto") since it is clear that such causal relationship does not exist. Astrology is a synchronistic phenomena as thoroughly explained by C.G Jung in his book "Synchronicity - An A-Causal Connecting Principle" First Pub. in 1955. That being the case, authors of this "article" would do well to get their knowledge up to date.

MGR Lavenant


 * See the archived page. Your memory may be faulty. Also, pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." This includes the use of short quotes to illustrate the subject of the criticism. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that I am not a US citizen and that US legislation is neither universal, nor globally applicable nor enforceable, I do not accept the authority of such legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the USA itself respect neither International Laws nor even its own laws (such as the US Constitution, no less). Being the lawful owner of the writing quoted on this page, I do not grant this website permission to use, store or quote all or parts of my writing for any purpose whatsoever in any form whatsoever. That being the case, I respectfully request that all records of the web page of my now defunct website be deleted with immediate effect along with any related link and quote.

Should you fail to comply, you will have proved the point you are desperately trying to disparage on this page.

FYI, I have had first hand experience of the Wikipedia editing cabal and there is no doubt that it is acting as team that conducts extremely virulent, biased, concerted and coordinated efforts against topics and individuals it deems unacceptable and undesirable.

One example of such effort can be found in following the George Galloway/"Phillip Cross" saga during which the later "edited" Galloway's Wikipedia page about 1,800 times. Listen to George Galloway here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAN-GoMbMJc Given that "Philip Cross" has, on average, made about 30 edits per day on Wikipedia, 7 days a week, 365 days a year since 2004, it is extremely doubtful that such activity is carried out by a single individual. The same applies to other individual such as John Pilger, Guardian Journalist Neil Clark as well as anyone the Wikipedia editing cabal does not like for one (doubtful) reason or another.

Unfortunately for "Philip Cross", he has now been identified and localised. George Galloway is going after "him" and his sponsors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0UKveD9R3Y As I am guessing my request will be totally ignored thereby showing the total lack of respect that characterises your track record, I am totally supportive of George Galloway's forthcoming action against Philip Cross, Wikipedia and whatever sponsors are behind these despicable campaigns of disinformation. Others will follow. While it is easy enough to ignore isolated individuals all the while hiding behind some ridiculous pseudo such as "Millennium Scallion" and a computer, it won't be so easy to ignore all of us put together.

MGR Lavenant P.S: I keep a copy of this web page on my computer for future reference.

FYI, both my website and the link you provided: the archived page have now been permanently deleted off the Internet. So this website has NOTHING.

ML.


 * got you covered fam - David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible source material
Maybe add material from these articles? https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/guerrilla_skeptics_a_pathway_to_skeptical_activism https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/a_conversation_with_skeptics_guide_rogue_jay_novella_part_1/

This Wikipedia article also has an entire section with info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Gerbic#Guerrilla_Skepticism_on_Wikipedia

GSoW is very likely to be closed down this or next month
I have admin support on Wikipedia and I have privately emailed several admins much of the canvassing and conflict of interest Susan Gerbic and her team have done at Wikipedia for the last 3 years. Through my influence an admin has filed an Arbitration Request against GSoW which has been approved by overall consensus. After investigation by arbcom it is very likely that GSoW is going to be closed down. The case can be seen here A. C. Santacruz (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A.C. Santacruz (the real one, not the troll playing her on RW) is likely to get sanctioned by Arbcom for WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPTION, WP:NOTHERE, etc. ScottishFinnishRadish will also get spanked. The other cranks who just want skeptical sources banned will be totally ignored. Gerbic will probably get a gentle slap on the hand, but she's like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, very paranoid, she's had total control for a long time, her group worships her, and she's not used to pushback. Very likely we'll see Gerbic making a haughty LANCB farewell speech and quitting Wikipedia in a huff. But...GSoW will probably be reformed under new leadership, so cranks and kooks will continue to be unhappy. - 2601:18F:802:E160:A4AE:5712:1E52:769A (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)