Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Wikipedia, Tumbleman ban investigation thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wikipedia, Tumbleman ban investigation thread

    I've been investigating this since the banning. I thought it would be a good idea to share links and evidence in this case. Yesterday on Craig's blog someone brought up the issue of cyber bullying. The Tumbleman case could be an interesting precedent.

    Since everything is recorded on Wikipedia - the evidence shows that vzaak and others started to conspire to get Tumbleman banned for 'trolling' as early as Oct 1st. The links are coming through in the copy and paste, but Luckie Louie posts a link to an internet archive page from 2003 as evidence that a team of 'Bubblefishes' are running a massive case study.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ific_community

    at the bottom we see
    • I'm inclined to think that someone who has expressed an intention to conduct a social experiment on the Talk pages of controversial Wikipedia articles might be best ignored rather than fed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
      Yep, anyone considered going to AE about the admission by the tumbleman about being a troll? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
      Their current activity at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake appears to be a continuation of their mission which entails provoking conflict on various internet fora while outwardly not violating any TOS policies in order to observe and record consequent results. I think WP:NOTTHERAPY and perhaps WP:ROPE applies here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


    So they are assuming this entire issue is all a Bubblefish Team effort, suggesting a conspiracy.

    Vzaak again goes and posts information about Tumbleman identity and previous history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_t...eculiar_person

    Oddly, on Oct 9th they suggest banning Tumbleman for spreading conspiracy theories

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...pert_Sheldrake

    and then a day or so later take it to ANI to ban him for spreading conspiracy theories

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    but the entire time they were clearly making their case against Tumbleman for trolling but were waiting for the right excuse to make it. With zero evidence of any trolling, they cleverly positioned that claim to make it appear that Tumbleman mentioning the bias of editors was evidence of this behavior.

    Lots more in the archives. Just wanted to share a list and see if anyone else had anything else to contribute. I will be posting more soon.

  • #2
    Originally posted by FSC909 View Post
    Lots more in the archives. Just wanted to share a list and see if anyone else had anything else to contribute. I will be posting more soon.
    Cool

    Comment


    • #3
      I forget who it was that was going to edit the Lorber article but your edits have been mentioned on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.
      John Lorber

      Contains what appears to be an extraordinary medical claim of a patient with high IQ and low brain matter. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the topic would look it over. LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

      I mentioned this on the Admin board but no admin has looked into it. Craig Weiler on this paranormal forum [3] has been encouraging and inviting his "psychic" friends to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources, from that link is a user who says he is going to delete any skeptical references on the Lorber Wikipedia article. It's no surprise that ECCarb (talk contribs) has then turned up and has started editing that article and the Sheldrake one. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...rd#John_Lorber
      As they state, "Dan skeptic" had already mentioned this before on the Admin board and had also contacted fellow pseudoskeptic "Barney the barney barney" about it.
      Craig Weiler inviting "psychics" to edit the Sheldrake article

      Craig Weiler on this paranormal forum [12] has been ecouraging and inviting his friends to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources. It's no surprise that ECCarb (talk contribs) has now been editing the John Lorber article (which he says he is going to do in that forum post). He's also been inserting pseudoscience on the Sheldrake article. I mentioned this issue at the Admin board, but no kind of action has been taken (yet). Is Weiler not breaking Wikipedia policies by inviting people to join Wikipedia and delete sources? If he is not breaking Wikipedia policies then I apologize, but I believe he is. Dan skeptic (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

      Don't know whether they're breaking rules or not. I can foresee failing to contribute effectively however. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_t...ldrake_article

      Comment


      • #4
        It would look like "Dan skeptic" is going to town destroying Dean Radin's reputation.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...action=history
        Pretty laughable that he claimed to be new to Wikipedia, yet he immediately knew all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. He's yet another pseudoskeptic who obsessively follows this board and has probably been banned before. Here's another proponent that was perhaps unfairly banned years ago:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinphi
        They say he revealed personal info about another Wikipedia editor. But isn't that what a number of the pseudoskeptics, including Dan Skeptic and Lucky Louie, did to Tumbleman?

        Comment


        • #5
          I hate to post this, because it's just gonna give this pathetic clown "Dan skeptic" a rush to see his fake username mentioned on Skeptiko, but "Liz" makes clear how ridiculous his claim of being new to Wikipedia is.
          Dan skeptic, you write, "I am real sorry to have to raise this again..." but your account is only 10 days old. When did you raise your concerns previously? Under what account name? Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be useful to know if you have participated in discussion of these subjects in the past. Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

          No I have not been on Wikipedia before, I have family and friends who have used Wikipedia and have said positive things about it but I have never been on here before on any account... when I said the above comment about raising the issue, I meant on this website as I have raised it already on the Sheldrake article and directly above in another section. As I wrote on my talk-page to another user (Tumbleman) I did sign up to Wikipedia after reading Craig Weiler's conspiracy theory on his blog found here [41], he mentioned a group called Guerilla skeptics and he said that they have been attacking Sheldrake's article. I then went to YouTube and watched a video of the owner of that group [42] and checked out the Sheldrake article and noticed no Guerilla skeptic's have not been editing it and that the conspiracy theory has no basis in fact. I decided to join Wikipedia to clear that up. I originally left a message on Barney's talk page about it. As written on the admin board, I have left the Sheldrake talk page and article and no longer want to be involved in it. Both Weiler and Tumbleman have trolled the page and nothing is getting through to them. I don't believe Tumbleman is a sockpuppet but as discussed on this page he did deliberately use his IP address to delete one of my comments which I'm not too bothered about but on the talk page of the Sheldrake article he then claimed someone may of hacked his IP address which is beyond ridiculous and has accused me of stalking him (I haven't!). If it was up to me I would topic ban both Tumbleman and Weiler and there would be no more problems but if that is done then it will feed their conspiracy theory of "censorship". Sorry I have no further input on this issue, I wrote my last message on the admin board. I'd rather put my time into editing other articles and stay away from the Sheldrake issue. Sorry if some of my comments above were not clear. Dan skeptic (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

          Okay, if you say so, Dan skeptic. You just picked up Wikiways quite fast, from knowing how to cite references with external links to knowing about noticeboards like this one...I mean, you went into the ARBCOM archives to uncover Iantresman's topic ban from a few years ago. Usually, after their first 10 days, Editors are still learning how to respond to a comment on their Talk Page, they don't know about ARBCOM or explore the posting history of other Editors. I guess you're a quick learner. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ific_community

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stevenson View Post
            I hate to post this, because it's just gonna give this pathetic clown "Dan skeptic" a rush to see his fake username mentioned on Skeptiko, but "Liz" makes clear how ridiculous his claim of being new to Wikipedia is.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ific_community
            I had the impression that several skeptics were putting on a show for the rest of us.

            Comment


            • #7
              Tumbleman posted on his blog that he is appealing the ban. I can't seem to find any notice of this on Wikipedia however.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FSC909 View Post
                Tumbleman posted on his blog that he is appealing the ban. I can't seem to find any notice of this on Wikipedia however.
                Can you provide a link?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Tumbleman, Wikipedia, and Neutrality ? Tumbleman's closing comment

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wow, now they've moved on to getting this guy banned? I wonder if JamesBWatson will be along shortly to carry out their wish.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lou_Sander
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...nts#Lou_Sander

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stevenson View Post
                      Here's another proponent that was perhaps unfairly banned years ago:
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Martinphi
                      They say he revealed personal info about another Wikipedia editor. But isn't that what a number of the pseudoskeptics, including Dan Skeptic and Lucky Louie, did to Tumbleman?
                      I just checked out the Sheldrake page to see what recent edits the pseudoskeptic have made and noticed one made by someone with the username: QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV
                      If you click on his page he states:
                      This account has gone through a number of username changes. This is the list of previous account names to the best of my memory:

                      joshuaschroeder
                      ScienceApologist
                      Joshua P. Schroder
                      Vanished User 314159
                      Previously ScienceApologist
                      Just google "ScienceApologist Wikipedia" to see some examples of this guy's behavior. Here's a page detailing a dispute he had with proponent Martinphi, where at least some of the sockpuppets used by ScienceApologist are detailed. Sadly, the pseudoskeptics eventually got Martinphi permanently banned while ScienceApologist continues to edit (now under the username QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV):
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...to_one_account
                      And here's an interview that was conducted with ScienceApologist:
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z...ienceApologist
                      And one conducted with Martinphi:
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z...view/Martinphi
                      And here's a couple articles from people that dealt with ScienceApologist. This was from ScienceApologist's personal page on Wikipedia (which it would seem he's somehow managed to have deleted )
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ScienceApologist
                      Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio — even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter.
                      The Fairy-Tale Cult of Wikipedia
                      Schoerder [sic] (scienceapologist) has been consisently attempting to make this article [Lerner's biography] as unfavorable to me as possible and eliminate anything favorable. He has a major conflict of interest because he is a graduate student in astronomy, working directly under astrophysicists who disagree with my work. He should be banned from editing this article. I would remind you that I was banned from editing the article on plasma cosmology because I work in that field. How can Scienceapologist be allowed to edit the article on me when he too now is in the same field, cosmology, and has made it his special task to attack anything that disagrees with what his professors think?Elerner (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                      Wikipedia Woes - Pending Crisis as Editors Leave in Droves
                      It's a really sad state of affairs that open minded editors have been bullied and hounded and driven away, leaving closed-minded pseudoskeptics to try and destroy the reps of Sheldrake, Radin, etc. Actually, Sheldrake gets off easy compared to some of the lesser known figures cause at least Sheldrake is prominent enough that he has some people who are willing to stand up for a neutral article. In most instances the pseudoskeptics are entirely unopposed- they've simply run off everyone else through their terrible behavior. Anyway, I'm more convinced than ever that the only chance of seeing positive changes to these articles is to get organized and have our own version of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia.
                      Last edited by Stevenson; October 26th, 2013, 09:54 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I read that ScienceApologist has been blocked indefinitely but he just made an edit to the Sheldrake page as "QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV"? If you look at the number of times this guy was blocked, it's mind boggling that he can still edit Wikipedia.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You know how there's supposed to be a record of everything on Wikipedia? I keep running into things like this when looking up stuff related to "ScienceApologist":
                          This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
                          Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                          What gives? When you leave Wikipedia you can have them remove things you did? Science Apologist was pretty notorious- probably the most notorious pseudoskeptic on Wikipedia. A very unpleasant person. And at least many of the more controversial aspects of his time there have been removed "as a courtesy"? And he's back to editing. Something doesn't seem right here. If you look at the list of times he had been blocked, and the last was listed as saying he was blocked indefinitely, who was the administrator who let him back? And why? And now he's busy rubbishing Sheldrake.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This fellow says there are Administrators on Wikipedia who use editors like "ScienceApologist" to do their "dirty work". I don't know if he simply means these are administrators of a pseudoskeptical bent who support the edits made by other pseudoskeptics.
                            Indeed. He had been indefinitely blocked pursuant to an arbitration enforcement. He socked up into about July 2012, though no socks were identified after that, so he might have stopped. I saw, in the discussion, all his old friends show up to support unblock. The way it was engineered left him with no editing restrictions at all. It was quite contrary to the arbitration enforcement administrator's explicit interpretation, but ... that administrator had no cojones. He saw all the support for unblock and just gave up.

                            I wrote a report on this at Yahoo! Groups.

                            It's quite clear from the discussion that there is a sizeable faction of administrators who use people like Joshua P. Schroeder (ScienceApologist) and Hipocrite to do their dirty work. They don't revert war and run massively uncivil campaigns themselves, but they protect those who do.

                            Bishonen wrote that it would be silly to unblock the fellow, because he's such a useful editor, and then have him restricted so he can't do the good work. Bishonen's opinion -- remarkable for what it admits -- may have been telling.

                            Basically, this faction just pulled off a complete end run around Arbitration Committee sanctions. The Arbitration Committee had rejected his appeals.
                            Wikipediocracy - View topic - Great Moments in Wikipedia Administrator History
                            Here is a link to the "report" the above person wrote:
                            Yahoo! Groups
                            It talks about some of the lengths he's gone to to obliterate his past.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The Talk Page for ScienceApologist aka jps aka QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (not to mention several other usernames) looks like this now:
                              User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              I was curious why he had been given "rollback" privileges by an administrator.
                              The rollback feature undoes all the consecutive edits made by an editor in a single article. This is handy if, for example, a user makes eight edits to an article and you want to revert all eight edits. When you click "rollback", all eight edits are undone.
                              When the admin granted him the ability to do rollbacks they stated, "Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism"
                              Keep in mind, this is someone who has been blocked countless times and an admin is cheerily thanking him for his fight against vandalism? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone else? So I looked at the page for Beeblerox (the admin) and saw that the rollback privileges were granted as the: Result of clarification request concerning "Psuedoscience principles" which refers to this (yet one more thing the pseudoskeptics have pushed through to cement their hold on articles):
                              Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              I don't see where it mentions ScienceApologist should be given rollback privileges but Wikipedia is so user unfriendly that maybe I just didn't notice it.
                              Following the link from the Admin back to ScienceApologist's page reveals a number of things that have been deleted, or at least hidden.
                              User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                              One of these things is a notice from someone who claims "A group of users framing me as a potential fringe and making allegations". You'll notice many of the same names that were involved in getting Tumbleman banned.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ng_allegations
                              The more you learn about Wikipedia the more obvious how broken and corrupt it is- there are a small number of pseudoskeptics who work together to maintain control over what they deem to be "fringe" articles and have driven away through their antagonistic behavior or had banned countless open minded editors. And the people who suffer are the millions who look to it to be a credible and neutral source of information on these topics. Not to mention people like Sheldrake who are having their reputations buried by these fanatics.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X