Talk:List of Internet kooks

Jason Gastrich

LOL, Jason Gastrich, founder of "Louisiana Baptist University" which is in a suite between Tattoo Alley and Teriyaki Time in a suburban strip mall. I had 3000 AfD actions back before I came down with Wiki Burnout and I helped show him the door. Half of the users registered on Wikipedia are Gastrich socks. Francine 18:52, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

• I don't doubt what you say about socks. (Well, hyperbole, but...) I haven't looked in on the situation lately, but do they even bother documenting his incursions anymore? I thought they'd just instituted a shoot-on-sight policy. Anyway, the only difference between Gastrich and the song "Jesus He Knows Me" is that Gastrich is too penny-ante to nail the secretary and a male hooker in the same night (because he can't afford the secretary). He is of the slimiest variety of evangelist -- no lie is too big to bring people to Jesus. He is a disgusting human being even by fundevangelist standards and he's only an internet kook because he's too odious and venal to get a hearing anywhere else. EVDebs 01:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

The "K" at the least should not be capitalized, and probably the "I" either. Minor titling issues... ħuman 00:04, 30 November 2008 (EST)

that's weird...I'm on this list, but the edit history shows that I was before I even made an account on this site. Unless I am reading it wrong.Cade Skywalker (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Without even checking, I'd say look at the source (click "edit"), it's an exploit people use all over this place to confuse others... ħuman 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GodGunsGuts is most likely not Ted Holden. Ted Holden is posting as wendy1946 on FR; the styles & content are quite different.^{— Unsigned, by: 74.131.226.36 / talk / contribs}

Any reason why I'm listed among the kooks?Ryantherebel (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously because you are an internet kook, anonymous reader of this site.. (hint: check the source) -- Nx / talk 00:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, cool. I'm in a mainspace article. That's just plain awesome. Honestly couldn't ask for a better one either. --Danfly (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I started off as a DARPANet kook and worked my way up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When I google DARPANet, I get either ARPANET or DARPA. What's DARPANet? --Danfly (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A term DARPANet kooks like me use for ARPAnet, of course. :P Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Awww. That's the boring research one. Why can't it be about the cool defence agency? That's where all the good conspiracy stuff is. Dreaming up seekrit stealth weapons and all that. --Danfly (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, does my name being on this page actually predate my account creation? Surely I would have noticed it before now. You're all in on some sort of very dark conspiracy, working for the NWO/trilateral commission/illuminate/NASA etc. Repent for your sins and accept Jesus now so you can be saved! Can I has an article about my kooky beliefs nao? --Danfly (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding me to this page. I consider it a great honor. However, I thought it was for people who propagate woo. While I admit that the RationalWiki entry on anarchism is not flattering and implies that it's illegal (which it is not), it doesn't portray it as "woo." FrancoisTremblay (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You thought wrong. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on this page that portrays anarchism as woo. I do however see a reference to authoritarianism, which is portrayed negatively, which would tend to make my point. FrancoisTremblay (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the entry? No? I thought not. Scream!! (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't accuse you of promoting woo, Franc. It accuses you of acting absolutely batshit with people you disagree with. EVDebs (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Internet kooks -- people who have widely disseminated their woo across the intarwebs" - I thought that was pretty clear. Also, how can I be accused of being batshit with people on internet forums when I haven't been a regular on any internet forum in years? I have nothing against being called a kook (heck, alt.atheism did it too, so you're not the first), but at least give good reasons. FrancoisTremblay (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Franc, I'll level with you. I love Insolitology. Great site. You're even welcome to stick around. Just, you know, don't get all frothing at people who disagree with you. EVDebs (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

But it is it an honor?

Just discovered myself listed as the Antichrist, but saddened to find that it was none of the usual suspects. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Bahahahahaha yep same here, well at least us anonymous readers don't feel the need to insult everything and everyone in sight. I'll only get an account when they stop calling naturopathy "pseudoscience". Seriously, I bet none of the editors have the balls to walk into my college and say that.^{— Unsigned, by: 123.211.216.11 / talk / contribs}

I would, trust me. - π 02:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is your college?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

hmm... The Australian Institute of Applied "Sciences" or the Endeavour College of Natural Health (or something else)? Should be fun. Only problem is the 3000 kilometres or so of sea between here and the place the IP of the BoN reveals them to presumably be :( Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit far away then. Perhaps our anonymous editor would be satisfied with somebody emailing his college?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey that second one has a campus about a 30 minute walk from my apartment, I should stop by sometime and tell them they are quacks. - π 02:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehehehe yay! They did the magic trick with my name again....now make a large statue disappear....or just marry a supermodel...all three are fuckin magic to me!GhostOfJoshJoad (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

the recent move

Does "internet" need to be capitalized? I'd like to remind clear-headed vulpini that mediawiki's search doesn't get along too well with capital letters.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ray Martinez entry

Entry: Self Described "Old Earth Young Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Paulinist."

More accurately I am a Old Earth Young Biosphere Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist. The "Protestant" portion simply means I am a Protestant Christian, like tens of millions of other Americans.

Entry: Troll at talk.origins

More accurately I am a long time regular poster at the Talk.Origins Usenet.

Entry: as well as the CvE forums

More accurately the forum name is "EvC Forum" (Evolution v. Creationism). I am permanently banned from posting there.

Entry: Tried his hand at Conservapedia for a while but took his ball and went home after his particular brand of wingnuttery was found to be unacceptable.

More accurately I was invited to create the Charles Darwin bio page with editing disabled. But after I labelled Darwin an Atheist site owner reneged and banned my name and IP. One can confirm by clicking on my name in the main page entry; taking you to a new page that contains a piece written by me against Conservapedia. In the piece these facts are confirmed and the entry quote above is shown to be completely false.

Entry: Believes that the Bible is innerrant, that the Great Pyramid is a physical representation of the Bible

Correct. But I would change to "Believes that the Bible, once translated correctly, is innerrant; and that the Great Pyramid is a physical representation of major Bible claims."

Entry: that Atlantis exists in the Atlantic Ocean and that its existence is proven by the fact that eels return to the Atlantic to spawn.

A very trivial claim that I made, but opponents have latched onto.

Entry: Has been on the verge of publishing a paper that will demolish Darwinism for about 5 – 7 years now.

More accurately I have been writing and researching a book since the Spring of 2005 that will falsify Darwinism by proving species immutable.

Entry: A Ray Martinez Dictionary is available to translate his various positions.

The link was written by an enemy, beware.

Ray Martinez

pyramidial@yahoo.com

Look At All The Fucks I Give. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Will you please restore my corrections?

Sincerely

Ray Martinez

207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, Bro. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like most of your "corrections" are more like a different interpretation of your actions than actual corrections. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Meryl Dorey

Should Meryl Dorey, the President/Treasurer/Editor/Spokeman of the Australian Vaccination Network be added to the crank list? Shot info (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if she's primarily known for her internet presence, which doesn't seem likely if she's president of an organisation. We already have an article on the Australian Vaccination Network. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

She's known a lot for her internet presence, especially outside Australia, but if she wasn't the Great Leader of the AVN she wouldn't be nearly as well known. Peter ^{Rapidly running out of marmite} 21:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Yes, he's a Randriod, but I would hope that a project like Wikipedia that, at least in theory, demands adequate sourcing and hopes to hold the people editing it to some sort of standard wouldn't qualify him as an Internet kook. 147.138.90.129 (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think Jimbo's inclusion was just for the lulz. I mean... RationalWiki has a level of snark.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure his is a parody entry. Also, for someone who sepf-identifies as an Objectivist, he seems to be a very moderate one. He's stated in the past that he thinks he does "a better job" than most objectivists of not pushing his views on other people, but his actual views themselves don't seem to match up all that well with those of hardcore Randroids, either. He's definitely one of the tamest and sanest Ayn Rand-admirers I've ever seen. 173.75.137.33 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On "Probably all of the above-gers"

This is probably about the following three things:

• The fact that I'm a Catholic (well, approximately 80% of the Portuguese population is, so...) - although it should be noted that I'm not a practicing Catholic (again, exactly 80% of the Portuguese don't go that often to church);
• The fact that I refered to myself as "RW's home conspiracy theorist" on my user page (this is a reference to my first ever RW article and parody conspiracy theory, Essay:A conspiracy theory on the origin of conspiracy theories - well, there are mentions of Poe's Law here, and that's the law that's in action);
• The fact that I have some opinions that overlap those of MRAs (well, I'm definitely not a misogynist, and some factions of that particular movement - although not all, nor even the majority, unless you of course go to the slanted views of the ManBoobzters, and you know who are the ManBoobzthers - are misogynist and traditionalist), although I don't consider myself an MRA nor a feminist; however, I am for the equality of the sexes. (BTW, here's something I found on Google Books about the history of the men's rights movement, including its beginnings as a pro-feminist movement of sorts - Uneasy Males: The American Men's Movement 1970-2000 - jump to page 70, although there might be important info on the chapters before that.)

That being said, I'm not a "transphobic radical feminist", nor a creationist (I believe in theistic evolution), nor a racist, nor a homophobe, nor anything else in that list (parts of which are contradictory with other parts.)

And so, please take my name away from the list.

Thank you for your attention, Faunas (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Dude. It's a script that inserts the username of whoever is looking at the article into the page. You're not really on this list. Blue (pester) 16:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn, Blue beat me to it. :D Technically, it's a MediaWiki "magic word", not a script, and it's used on several other pages. Do we keep a tally of people suckered, or this talk page will suffice? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what a gaffe. I hadn't really noticed that part of page 'till today. Sorry for this. Better suggest that book to the men's rights talk page. Sorry. :) Faunas (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

John Duffield

Moved to Talk:John Duffield#John Duffield. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this guy is anything more than a forum poster with weird ideas. Nobody is ever going to go searching for him and learn anything meaningful from his inclusion on this list. Seems like he's only here because one editor has a hardon for him. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Remove him. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I see he's been on the list for quite some time so I withdraw reference to the editor's hardon for Duffield. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's gone now, so no difference. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on inclusion criteria

This list presently contains a number of nobodies who look like they were added as a grudge and without any consideration of a. whether anyone cares and b. whether it's fair. Considering too many people have rollback buttons and brook no dissent, so nobody included on this list will ever succeed in getting off on his own, I think we ought to have more coherent criteria for inclusion than some editor's perhaps flawed understanding of what woo actually is and his own negative opinion of a person. In addition to listing nobodies,, some of these people don't meet the stated criteria. This list is growing to look as peurile as Pissed at Us, but cut way way back to people who actually matter, I can see it having the merit the original authors intended. Thoughts from sane adults? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the page as of now should die. Any people that fit the current criteria of "does stupid things on internet" that we wanna list, there is always a place that fits them just as well and more specifically.

Cloggers? Clogroll or webshites. Vloggers? Vlogroll. Wikis? Wiki page or webshites. Psoggers? Clogroll or webshites. Evangeloggers? Clogroll or webshites. Economic doomers? Clogroll or webshites.

If we make the page more selective (I would go for "does stupid things on internet and people actually care") it might be not terrible, in that it distills the worst of the clogroll or webshites or vlogroll. Currently, I'm tempted to AFD.

(sorry for responding, neither sane nor adult) FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was, of course, thinking of you in particular, since you appear constitutionally incapable of shutting your mouth.. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nutty. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty petty. Pretty damn petty. Ikanreed (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Any suggestions for criteria? Limit it to people who maintain a website? People known chiefly for the a website they maintain? People known for their participation in online communities, e.g. Usenet groups? Not counting posts on social media and blog comments?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here would be my criteria:

• Operates almost exclusively on the internet - Right now we have people like Glenn Beck who's known more for the foolishness he spouts on radio and TV than anything he says on the internet.
• Should be the originator (or most prominent advocate) of the crank ideas they are promoting - otherwise we'll just end up cataloging every Truther with a blog.
• The kook should hold views that we have either already debunked/refuted (or are prepared to do so) - There's no point of shining a light on someone for being a crank, and then when we get challenged on it we start hand waving and navel-gazing.
• Set a minimum subscriber/views threshold for YouTube personalities - who cares about the ideas of a crank that nobody listens to.

That's about all I got. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would generally agree with Inquisitor's criteria, but isn't Glenn Beck quite the internet kook these days? I mean, since he got kicked from Fox he seems to mainly operate through the internet (incl. web TV). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wingnut cloggers

Should be distinguished from wooden-cloggers [1]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

TheInterlang

TheInterlang is a YouTuber and Redditor who rants against evolution, atheism, abortion, and (most of the time) homosexuality. He has recorded a song called "Why Be Gay" with 2000+ views, and he disguises hinself behind a fedora and dark sunglasses.

AAE (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you think that 2000+ views on YT is even close to notable? By that criterion (as well as wearing a disguise) we could start listing endless amounts of obscure YT nuts. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You know that might as well be Poe's Law if the guy is hiding behind a fedora and sunglasses of all things. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Removal

I don't consider myself a biblical inerrantist. I don't affiliate with religious groups and I do not consider myself a fundamentalist Christian or a young earth creationist.

I think everyone is a proud liar, occasionally unbeknownst to them. The pastor. The atheist. The athlete. The actor. The politician. Every single human being.

I would like to be removed from this dumb list because I'm not an Internet kook. I would remove myself now, but I think a moderator might revert the deletion because I just created this Rational Wiki account.

If you want to criticize the way that I acted about a decade ago, put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you are a minority (fundamentalist Christian Wikipedia editors were very rare) and imagine that people you literally know are being written about in an unfair, inflammatory way. When bitter European atheists, for instance, wrote tabloid-like things on American fundamentalist Christians' Wikipedia pages, I tried to bring some balance and proper perspective to the articles. Instead of writing about their education, years of unselfish service or even the nuances of their beliefs, those editors would only write about rumors and alleged controversies. That's not journalistic.

I have atheist friends and I think some of them are great people. I keep in touch with atheists/skeptics that I debated like Eddie Tabash, Dan Barker, etc. I don't think any of them would consent to me being on this list now because I don't fit the criteria.

Jason Gastrich, June 13, 2015

For the sake of research to have you removed, is this your website? 184.97.209.166 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That's my website.

Jason Gastrich, June 14, 2015

T'was a Trap!

Dammit I was tricked!

Roy Schestowitz

David Gerard and I are discussing this over on the FB page. EVDebs (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Edit: For reference, this is the entry I wrote:

Roy Schestowitz: A German academic in the UK, Schestowitz is one of the more prominent members of a small group of free software advocates that somehow manage to be more extreme than Richard Stallman himself. He started with the blog Boycott Novell, which became Techrights.org, and has been a nuisance in the FOSS community since 2006, when Novell made a (arguably involuntary) deal with Microsoft to avoid patent litigation. He portrays Microsoft as even more evil and influential than it actually is (quite an accomplishment even in the Nadella era), and, like any good tinfoil hatter, considers his favorite targets (Microsoft, Apple, Novell, anyone Richard Stallman hates) as beyond redemption no matter what they do (ie open sourcing Swift, .NET Core, etc). He has the same facility for anvilicious, unfunny wordplay as the FSF, not only adopting their terminology like "digital restrictions management", but creating a couple of his own (like referring to every version of Windows as "Vista XX").

• Also, I left out Schestowitz' fondness for the shill gambit. EVDebs (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)