Monday, July 31, 2017

"Never mind that shit....Here comes Mongo!"

Now that we have survived six months under the incompetent-thuggish presidency of Donald John Trump, we should talk about the thuggish goonery of MONGO, the outsider member of the Cabal and spiritual grandfather to Wiki-cops like Tyler van Wormer (Tiptoety). He had endless fights with Encyclopaedia Dramatica, to the point where ED has multiple pages on MONGO, because he has vandalized their site, possibly while at work, a thing he claimed he did while editing Wikipedia articles.

What Little We Know About Him 

Pretty much he was Ron Swanson before that Parks and Recreation character existed; right-wing and a Federal government employee, he claimed to be

[post under construction]

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Wikipedia's Bastard Children: Metapedia and RationalWiki

Because the MediaWiki software is free and the articles on Wikipedia aren't under copyright, it is very easy to do your own version of "the free encyclopedia."  The irony is that en.Wikipedia itself was full of retyped Encylopaedia Britannica articles early on.

When You Want Your Facts Nazified, Metapedia is Your Nazi Info Source

Metapedia is literally as the line above describes it, a Nazi version of Wikipedia. Originally a Swedish-language wiki created by Anders Lagerström of Linköping, Sweden, Metapedia grew to having 15 versions in various European languages. Anders Lagerström himself was a member of the Svenska Motståndsrörelsen (Swedish Resistance Movement), a neo-Nazi group founded in 1997 that later grew into a multi-national "Nordic Resistance Movement" covering Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. That wasn't good enough for Anders; he formed his own group Nordiska förbundet (The Nordic Association) in 2004 and ran a website called that seems to be a zombie as of 2017. Before forming this group, in 2002 Lagerström started up a publishing firm, Nordic Publishing, selling white power music and books; this is a long-running strategy first seen with American Nazi groups in the 1980s. It should be said that Lagerström follows in the grand tradition of neo-Nazis/skinheads/white nationalists by having a long history with the law: he was convicted of assaulting a police officer with tear gas in 1999, he was nailed on an illegal weapons charge in 2000. The thing that marked the beginning of the end for Nordiska förbundet was a 2008 break-in/assault where he and five NA members attacked a former member at his house, stole things, and beat the man up. Their reason was that the fellow had walked off with an encrypted list of 10,000 Nordic Publishing customers, possibly they were afraid he would go to the press. Most of the attackers only served a few months, some were tried in absentia, Lagerström served three months. The Nordic Association closed down in 2010, allegedly because the website was being used for hacking. The Swedish magazine Expo claims that Nordic Publishing became Arktos Media, which means that Jason Reza Jorjani, the gentleman philosopher of the Alt-Right movement, is being published by the same people behind Metapedia.

In the middle of all this, Lagerström founded Metapedia in 2006, becoming Aurvandil. One of the major members is Upplysning ("Enlightenment") who probably is either Kimmo Alm or his brother Jonni (who was, maybe still is, a member of Svenska Motståndsrörelsen); if it is the former, then Upplysning is not only a violent neo-Nazi and internet spammer, he is also into child porn. There are a number of former members, many who wound up later creating Rightpedia, the "competition": site founder Hu1 (aka Vajna, Antifinnugor, Muki987, Fiala1, eleonora46, and snuki146) who is actually Eleonóra Dubiczki of Pilisszántó, Hungary and was on Wikipedia before joining Metapedia; Mussert (real name unknown; his handle is a reference to Anton Mussert, the Dutch quisling leader of the Dutch Nazi Party, and heavy supporter of the German Nazi police state in occupied Holland, 1940-45) who was Galileo on Metapedia and one of the first people Dubiczki invited to Rightpedia; Mikemikev (Michael Coombs) who has articles about him on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms Lolcow Wiki; and A Wyatt Man, aka BjornStronginthearm (his Stormfront handle and a Terry Pratchett reference) who is also ED member KimboSlice. One of the most notable members of Metapedia is Gregory Lauder-Frost of the Traditional Britain Group, a Tory's Tory who was promoted to sysop as Cicero and then given the boot a year later by Aurvandil because he could not stop getting into arguments over Poland; not a variant of Wikipedia's insane "is it Freistaat Danzig or Gdansk?" dispute but rather a man's inflexible belief in German Nazi propaganda that Poland somehow started World War II. Michaeldsuarez has proof that last sentence is incorrect, and that Aurvandil deleted Lauder-Frost's articles that were mentioned by Encyclopedia Dramatica, changed all editor names to "Pepe" (as in Pepe the Frog), then gave Cicero the new handle Matt58, in a sloppy editing of history that would make Winston Smith cringe. We should also mention Basileus, who had a long sockpuppeted history on Wikipedia before appearing on Metapedia only to slowly drive those people crazy as well. It did not end well. Finally, there should be some mention of Atlantid (Oliver D. Smith), who is Mikemikev's enemy and fellow inmate at the Lolcow Wiki.

The Horror Show That is Metapedia

Let's be honest; the worldview of Metapedia is repellent. Take for example the Holocaustianity article, in which Anne Frank is labeled "the blessed virgin", the creation of Israel is "the resurrection" and there is a long quote at the bottom from the now-defrocked Bishop Richard N. Williamson, who is a Holocaust-denier. Denial of the Holocaust is a big deal for Metapedia, which is why they have a stub article for Carlos W. Porter, who thinks the entire event was faked by the Soviets. They have 53 pages of similar "Holocaust revisionists", many of them stubs without pictures, but all of them have links to sites that have their writings in .pdf or on simple html sites. None of them believe the same thing; some minimize the numbers, some blame chaotic conditions in the camps at the end of the war for all the corpses the Red Army found in Poland. None of them believe that the SS camp guards used carbon monoxide from diesel motors, and later the pest-exterminating agent "Zyklon-B" (Cyclone-B, the commercial name for the crystallized hydrogen cyanide used in the fake washrooms near the crematoriums). Metapedia does not believe in the Einsatzgruppen as a murder-squad SS army; they are anti-partisan troops only. Metapedia cannot deny the Wannsee Conference, but it has doubts that the document produced by conference, the Wannsee Protocol, is really a mandate for genocide.

When Metapedia isn't a defense of the Nazis, it's a keen supporter of old-timey race science. They have a page on "Dysgenics", aka "racial degeneracy" which, like a lot of the pages inside Metapedia, was originally a Wikipedia article that was made Nazi. Race and intelligence has an article on Metapedia, as does Wikipedia; Metapedia leans heavily on the data, will not discuss any controversies. It would be fascinating to find out if the Metapedians started out with an earlier version of the Wikipedia article (which we know was fought over like mad), or if they built their own counter-article by scratch. And that's something that should never be forgotten: many of the articles on the site seem to have come from Wikipedia and then were re-written offline. Look at their "Race and crime" article; it's a long article (possibly filled with bogus statistics), then compare it to the Wikipedia version. Wikipedia is so touchy on the subject they broke it into four articles; one for the concept, one for the US, one for the UK, and one for Brazil (which is part of the "Social apartheid in Brazil" article). Meanwhile if you try to look up Metapedia's article on Black people, the article is called "Sub-Saharan Africans", lacks any photographs of African-Americans, Africans, Afro-Brazilians, etc., and is full of scare quotes and treats the article subject like a menace. It is probably the most purely racist article on the website beyond their idiotic famous Jews list (aka "Persons of Jewry").

The Endpoint

The point of Metapedia is to make Nazi ideology acceptable again, full stop. That has been a long-running project of far-Right groups for decades (Reason magazine used to publish Holocaust-deniers in the 1970s, because Charles Koch's personal guru to 1980 was Robert LeFevre, who was neck-deep in that world). The difference now is the Internet; instead of buying books from the Institute for Historical Review or the Noontide Press, you can download .pdfs for free. At the end of March, 2017, Metapedia vanished for a week and it reappeared with no statement as to why it had gone. Why the site disappeared is still unknown; what can be guessed is that Metapedia will exist as long as the Wiki model is still viable.

"RationalWiki is a genetic-egalitarian race denialism propaganda website that is run by Ontario resident Trent Toulouse. RationalWiki is a wiki founded by secular humanists in response to Conservapedia. They regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. It is based on MediaWiki, like Metapedia. The wiki has around 4200 English pages middle of May 2010. The information is inaccurate and sparse. The wiki begs for donations. The site is extremely anti-Christian and anti-Conservative and promotes sodomy and gun restriction."
"Trent Toulouse has promoted like-minded people on the wiki to the rank of bureaucrat, and let themenforce the site’s propaganda and promote other like-minded people to bureaucrat, whereas Trent Toulouse himself does not directly enforce the propaganda. That serves to make Trent Toulouse appear blameless; the same tactic is used by Wikipedia owner Jimbo Wales. Trent Toulouse's primary surrogate is the user “Human”; Human has done much of the bureaucratizing that Trent did not want his name attached to."
Quotes taken from Metapedia's article on RationalWiki as it appeared in 2012-2013.

                                                 Upplysning (image from ED)

                                                    Hu1 (image from ED)

                                                     Atlantid (image from ED)

                                                    Cicero (image from ED)

RationalWiki, not Really what It Claims to Be

RationalWiki poses as this rationalist/secular humanist/skeptics encyclopedia out there to "fight the good fight" against cults, paranormal claims, and lifestyles while promoting science. The truth is, it's a home away from home for Wikipedians and a place for co-founder David Gerard to get his lulz out, among other things.

RationalWiki was begun in the economic meltdown of 2007, founded by Wikipedian Trent Toulouse (Tmtoulouse) and David "Assisted Living Dracula*" Gerard. Their earliest target was Conservapedia, which members of RationalWiki vandalized repeatedly. Conservapedia (founded 2006) was/is this American conservative variation of Wikipedia, begun by Andrew Schlafly (son of longtime, now-dead, Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly) in the Bush II years as this right-wing "antidote" to the alleged liberalism of actual Wikipedia.....and thus two Wiki-knockoffs locked horns, with RationalWiki flooding Conservapedia with fake conservative users who vandalized the site and Conservapedia squealing like a stuck pig about it. RationalWiki also slammed Moonie Wikipedian and Conservapedia honcho Ed Poor, just because. Certainly "Andy" Schlafly deserves some criticism for running Conservapedia with as much of an iron hand as Upplysinig did Metapedia (IP range blocks, drop-of-the-hat bans, etc.), but it's bizarre that another Wiki took it upon themselves to "discipline by vandalism" the site into whatever "normalcy" the RationalWikians found acceptable. Meanwhile since 2014 there has been a complaint on the Ripoff Report website on the RationalMedia Foundation that owns and runs RationalWiki.

What They Do for Fun

Members blocking each other seems to be where some people get their kicks, as the block log clearly shows. They also are extremely friendly with Susan Gerbic's Guerilla Skeptics group (who fought with people over deceased UFO skeptic Phillip Klass' Wikipedia biography in 2013). Really though, they like writing snarky articles on people they don't like, such as Rupert Sheldrake (notice at the bottom of the RationalWiki article the piece is part of the categories "shysters", "batshit crazy", "woo-meisters", and "pseudoscience.") It states literally what the skeptics groups on Wikipedia would like to say about Sheldrake in the BLP they fought over for years, but cannot because it would break the rules of "Wikipedia POV." Of course by mentioning Sheldrake, I have to mention Rome Viharo, who tried to keep the edits of the Sheldrake BLP reasonable and was slandered by RationalWiki for his trouble. Viharo has a site dealing with his issues with RationalWiki, Tim Farley (Vzaak, Manul), and the rest....I feel I can't write about Viharo because he was/is involved in both versions of the Wikipedia Sucks! messageboard. The links speak for themselves.


Because David "Low-Rent Nosferatu" Gerard loves drama and lulz, he gave sysop powers to noted Wikipedia loon Ryulong (Michael Cohen) in late December of 2014 and he only lasted there a few  months, trying to push an anti-Gamer Gate line while being generally annoying. And so we got this on the "Chicken Coop" (RationalWiki version of a noticeboard):

Two days ago, Nutty reopped Exiled. Ryulong removed Exiled's sysop. Nutty removed Ryulong's sysop. Neither of these removals was the result of a discussion on the Chicken Coop. As such, I reopped Exiled and reopped Ryulong. Ryulong has brought this up on numerous pages and mentioned a previous Chicken Coop incident. If we are going to discuss anything in this matter, we should discuss it here, rather than on 50 pages. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Deop all 3 and call it a day? (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Or don't. Since all three currently have sysop status, just leave things as they hang. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty obviously people randomly removing sysop status because they personally think it's a good idea is a bad way of going about things. If somebody is abusing their sysop status then this is the place to talk about it. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW - The opping of EE struck me as a terrible idea - he's not only a bloody worthless waste of space as a contributor (and a good example of the principle that if you just got kicked off Wikipedia, you won't do any better on RW without changing your ways - really, Caligula in Category:Engineer woo? Wasn't woeful categorisation what he got kicked for?), but also has posted copyvios that then needed removing. Though I don't see any in his blather this week. The key point is that EE lacks the minimal judgement needed not to actually piss all over the carpet, all the time going "what? what? what's the problem? you're so MEAN" and if you were looking for an example of a poor newbie harassed by cantankerous old guard, he's sorta not a great one - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I am no particular fan of EE but I'm at a loss to see where he's misused his sysop status. And if that's not the offence he is accused of I don't see the point of removing it.
In any event it would need to be a community decision.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care. People are being inconsistent, few have any idea what they're talking about, and this kind of shit is always more about personalities than merits, but do whatever you want. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I want aware of process to actually know that this was necessary but CensoredScribe is a mess that should not be trusted on any MediaWiki software site with anything beyond reading ability. outside of my action, his bit has been on and off since registration. IRS not even like he was banned from Wikipedia for personality issues or whatever is rumbling there for me. He got banned because he wouldnt stop making bad content decisions when they were discovered and violated his ban on doing anything regarding categories, which he is wont to do here as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I largely concur, but at least almost nothing you can do in MediaWiki is irreversible (which is why sysop is actually not a big deal) - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
[plain old editor hat] I move we all calm down and back away slowly and have more Christmas drink and it'll be as resolved as anything ever is in a wiki full of argumentative skeptics all convinced of their own perspicacity and everyone else's stupidity - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I second David's motion. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I third the motion. I may personally dislike Ryulong; however he has done nothing here to warrant having sysops privileges removed, beyond vengefully removing mine which I've never done to anyone. Ryulong may have committed the capital crime of not capitalizing their O's and using apostrophes correctly, but I do that when stressed by the thought of every post being my last as well.
I ask that this matter be dropped and no ones sysops privileges removed; but if that is too much to ask, than before anyone is tried, may they at least be given warning that a decision is pending, so that they may present their case before a certain time. It will take some time for me to compile a list of my best edits here to refute the less than 10 examples that are cited against me. I have more than 10 good edits, just to science articles.
Inconsistency is correct. I understand I make a lot of edits, but I find it hard to believe you would the majority of them objectionable; this is cherry picking a few bad cherries in a field of hundreds. Also, I'm not an expert on Roman history, however that Caligula article sort of made it sound like he was an engineer who thought he was a god. I would be more than happy just to leave any additions to engineering woo up as a discussion on the respective talk pages, as I've done with UFO; just inform me now what is a personalized banish-able offense for me, and I will avoid it ahead of time.
You never even bother to just ask me politely to discuss categorizations. Nor does anyone bother to demonstrate what is and isn't copyright violations like Drmies did for me the two times I did that as Cassandra Truth. It seems to be like a DNA test done with words, where as little as 6 shared words between the reference cited and the summation of that text constitutes copyright violation. What is the number exactly and if you have a concrete number why isn't it stated somewhere on the site? Try not using a single word from the reference, and see if that's possible and not just completely unrelated to the source at that point; a single drop of plagiarized words like and, the or the article name, poisons the entire well.
We are all in the same boat; the one that isn't Noah's ark. Shiver me timbers! Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Just an aside, you're not at all obligated to write verbose edit summaries for every edit, you know. Not that there's anything wrong with it, though the effort could be spent on more worthwhile things. (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Worthwhile things like taking a few seconds to consider whether adding links to Watergate whenever a -gate topic pops up is really such a splendid idea. >.> (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now the reader knows why there is very little mention of Ryulong's time on RationalWiki.

The Great RationalWiki Break-In of 2017

Just to prove that they don't know what the hell they are doing, there was a massive data breach on a server.....which they announced in June, 2017 but the breach had taken place in February. Did I mention that Gerard is going to shortly e-publish a critical book on cryptocurrencies entitled Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain? Well he is.

What They Think of Us

One of their throwaway accounts posted  the following stub article, which was yanked and kept on their user page.

Wikipedia Sucks is a forum/blog that focuses on cyberstalking and harassing Wikipedia admin and users. Many of its members are former users of Wikipedia either banned for trolling or having their edits reverted and are hence disgruntled, alongside a medley of internet kooks, pseudo-scientists and conspiracy theorists. The forum supports a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory there are "organised skeptics" who control Wikipedia and the forum owner ("Strelnikov") has criticized scepticism.[1]
Wikipedia Sucks also targets Rationalwiki editors.



It's amazing how they got the link to the blog wrong, while the link to the old board is correct.

                     * Where I got that nickname from. Long live Aqua Teen Hunger Force!

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Gorski II: Explaning MastCell in Painful Detail

In doing this site we know that updates are inevitable and it has turned out that we know more about Dr. David Gorski (aka MastCell) now than when we wrote the last piece on the guy back in November of 2015 (and even then it was mostly about his buddy Mathsci [Anthony Wassermann], who has unfortunately been unblocked since the article was written). So let's reacquaint ourselves with the good doctor, shall we?

Gorski: The Background

David Henry Gorski is a board-certified breast cancer surgeon with a Ph.D. who works at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and is "Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center" while also teaching at Wayne State University's medical school. He's also been on Wikipedia since 2006 and an editor of the website Science-Based Medicine, where you can read about everything we have just written in a page he updated after our last article, except for the fact that he administrates the website which has a BLP article about him. A dumb example of him waggishly deflecting who he is:

A quack said you were David Gorski. I guess you're not, but that is high praise, in my book. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I make it a point not to comment one way or the other on speculation about my IRL identity. But that would indeed be high praise. Besides, if a quack said it on the Internet, it's probably... true? :P MastCell Talk 04:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And...I heard from a bird that you were David Cellski, a Bay Area rapper and music producer. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think you're a better writer than Gorski, tbh. Much less prone to rambling :) Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
As we wrote in 2015, Gorski's early work was writing about "....cancer drugs like desatnib (aka BMS-354825 and "Sprycel")  and vinblastine ("Velban"), which gave many the suspicion that MastCell was doing paid editing on Wikipedia for the drug companies, which is an accusation made by his many anti-vaxxer enemies" and he liked to blog under the name Orac and the now-shuttered Respectful Insolence blog before he was involved with Wikipedia. That's Gorski's long-running problem: he gets into endless fights with anti-vaxxers, alternative medicine types, and the occasional cancer-cure proponent (his first edits were on the Dr. Matthias Rath article; Rath claimed he could cure cancer with micronutrients, and Gorski turned the article into an angry rant and he tried to tag Rath as an AIDS denialist.) This fighting predates his time on Wikipedia; possibly he has always been this contentious. He quickly became friends with JzG (Guy Chapman), Mathsci, and Future Perfect at Sunrise (Lukas Pietsch). It should be said that a lot of the early MastCell records have been "mysteriously erased" (quoting the notes).

D. H. Gorski went through a Request for adminship in May, 2007 co-nominated by Durova (Lise Broer) and Samir (name unknown). The one dissenting vote was pressured to change to neutral.
"Comment. That editor's attitude and comments make him worthy of permanent banning, regardless of POV. A threatening and uncollaborative attitude violates the essence of NPOV and consensus editing. -- Fyslee/talk 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) "
The only saving grace of MastCell is that he took the medical pages seriously and wanted disclaimers put on them, even going to Jimbo's talkpage to back Anthonyhcole's request for any sort of warning. No-one else involved with Wikiproject Medicine cared.

This quote sums up a lot of what Gorski has been doing on Wikipedia:
"He doesn't edit WP to improve its medical coverage, he obviously edits it to fuck with people. It's "fun" for him to shit on naturopaths and other nut-cases, and then ban them for violating the "rules". In recent weeks he's been spluttering about presidential candidates Ben Carson and Marco Rubio. For a "neutral Wikipedian", and an MD, he certainly does love to piss on conservatives and climate-change deniers. How "odd"." -  Unnamed person to Eric Barbour in a personal correspondence, 2015
Gorski: The Truth about Jinkinson

Eric Barbour thought that Jinkinson aka Everymorning was actually a Gorski sockpuppet, but the truth was revealed on the old board by minor member kuriouskat: this account was actually J. Payne Smith, a college student in the Atlanta, Georgia region. His original Wikipedia account was JPayneSmith, and while that account as a teenager in 2009, he wrote the following:
"Men are superior to women in every way, except perhaps as regards the aforementioned activities that may fall under the "household" banner, so women should be oppressed and forbidden to do what they cannot, as a collective whole and, it should be noted, not on an individual scale, do as well as men. This is owing to the historic-biological nature of the male to dominate over the female. The notion that this is not true is a neoliberal sociological construct and has been relentlessly shoved down our throats ever since a totally artificial movement began with (or was at least spearheaded by) Sojourner Truth."
 He also wrote this about homosexuality:
"It should be noted that it is an artificially self-induced perversion it is an artificially self-induced perversion in most of its "demographic group", as they like to pretend they are, while in a very few others, it exists owing to an earlier psychological disturbance, which often if not usually leads them to believe it is natural." (sic)
After he was outed by kuriouskat, Smith put up an apology on the JPaneSmith userpage and claimed that he had "lost the password to the old account."

Smith started editing as Jinkinson in  January, 2013. After a few random articles he wrote the first version of the Gorski BLP, using hard-to find sources, which gave Barbour the false flag. Everymorning was later used as a possible meatpuppet by posting the first version of the Natural News Wikipedia article in March, 2013. That article quotes Gorski as Orac, and may have been assembled by the Guerilla skeptics group. More on Natural News later.

Gorski: The Camera is his Friend

If you do a simple Google image search of the words "David Gorski", there are around thirty images of David H. Gorski, some taken from his Science-Based Medicine page, some from YouTube, etc. These are the first fifteen photos.

Gorski: Wikipedia's Skeptical Sage

There is a deep love between MastCell and the Guerilla skeptics group and they have blown up his BLP to 37 kilobytes in  length by this year, with 56 references, and that got the attention of people like Dr. Mark Crislip, who has his own BLP on Wikipedia with a photo of him meeting Gorski at the 2011 The Amaz!ng Meeting (the now-defunct Las Vegas skeptics confab run by the James Randi Educational Foundation, itself in not-too-good shape). A feedback loop was created by the skeptics, and now Gorski gets quoted constantly in Wikipedia articles, even though he is an administrator. A few examples below:

 "Surgical oncologist David Gorski has written that Dossey utilizes straw man arguments, misrepresents and misunderstands medical research and "the evidence base in favor of the woo that Dr. Dossey favors is pathetic in comparison to that supporting science-based medicine."[4] In 2010 Dossey co-wrote a post in the Huffington Post called "The Mythology Of Science-Based Medicine" with Deepak Chopra and Rustum Roy, which Gorski characterized as "an exercise that combines cherry-picking, logical fallacies, and whining, raising the last of these almost to an art form."[5][6]" - Larry Dossey BLP

"Martin has been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy[6] where medical academics and the AMA raised concerns of whether Professor Martin had the necessary knowledge[24] to assess the topic of vaccine science.[18] David Gorski has criticised Martin, claiming that he is not distinguishing between dissent based on facts, science and logic as opposed to dissent based on pseudoscience and misinformation,[3] and The Australian has criticised him for not recognising academic rigour over academic freedom.[24]" - Brian Martin (social scientist) BLP

"David Gorski examined several publications from this research,[2] including the Explore-published paper on whole systems complementary and alternative medicine using complex systems theory.[8] This was an observational study which divided subjects into "flourishers" and "languishers", and was "not very interesting," according to Gorski.[2]" - Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing article

"David Gorski has called the topics of Cohen's research quackery and a waste of taxpayer dollars; he has criticized Cohen for taking a credulous stance on pseudoscience.[4]" - Lorenzo Cohen BLP
[Quote from Eric Barbour: Cohen, a respected medical scientist attempting to study traditional Chinese medical practices for useful cancer therapies, evidently became "roadkill" under the Gorski Bus Of Rage. (Amusingly, Cohen's Wikipedia biography was entirely created by his colleague Robin Haddad.)]

"David Gorski on the website Science-Based Medicine pointed out that United States Senator Tom Harkin (who was instrumental in drafting the legislation that funded the Office of Alternative Medicine but later criticized the self-same office's reliance on evidence-based testing) wrote two different commentaries in the journal's inaugural issue:

"In these two articles, Harkin basically introduced the new journal as a “journey—an exploration into what has been called ‘left-out medicine,’ therapies that show promise but that have not yet been accepted into the mainstream of modern medicine.” and explicitly stated that “mainstreaming alternative practices that work is our next step.” Unfortunately, he had a bit of a problem with the way medical science goes about determining whether a health practice—any health practice—works and railed against what he characterized as the “unbendable rules of randomized clinical trials.” Citing his use of bee pollen to treat his allergies, went on to assert, “It is not necessary for the scientific community to understand the process before the American public can benefit from these therapies....”"

"... Truly, this was a profound misunderstanding of how science works.[3]" - Quote from Gorski's blog in the article on Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

"Cancer researcher and alternative medicine critic David Gorski disagreed with Amri's assessment, saying, "My best guess was that Jobs probably only modestly decreased his chances of survival, if that."[118]"
- Gorski quoted in the Steve Jobs BLP, as inserted by skeptic meatpuppet MrBill3 in the summer of 2013.

Commented on by now-banned member The Devil's Advocate over at Wikipediocracy's board: "We can talk about MastCell's bio at the David Gorski page. Namely how the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia group openly boasted of how they were heavily editing the article and plugged him in the Steve Jobs article to get his page more views. A little further down in the blog post Miss Gerbic brags how one of her group got the ball rolling on some massive negative section at Jenny McCarthy's bio covering the reception of her selection as a host on The View."

"Sometimes it is the little things that give me that kapow feeling. We managed to get Gorski mentioned on the Steve Jobs page. Its kinda lost in the mass that is Jobs page, but still with the hit count it receives, it can't hurt. Searching for "Gorski" on the page, I learned that according to Gorski, the 9 month delay with the cancer treatment may not have killed Jobs, interesting. Another thing I just learned is that even now in June 2013, Jobs is ranked number 70 in top Wikipedia views." - Susan Gerbic on the GSoW blog, July 2013.

The photo above is more proof of the Gorski - Gerbic collusion; Gorski is on the couch with James Randi at the 2014 The Amaz!ng Meeting. Who is the photographer? Susan Gerbic.

Gorski: At War with Natural News

This is the bit that will get the most flak maybe because people will think I'm promoting Natural News, or that this is the true reason this article was created. No, this entire post was to bring up Jinkinson, just to stick it to whomever took the old board down. At any rate MastCell hates Mike Adams' website, as do most of the Wikipedia skeptics. So when Google delisted Natural News, Gorski crowed about "fake news" and how the responsible people were striking back, completely forgetting that he and the Guerilla skeptics have been going after Natural News since 2013.

Mike Adams tried to rebut with Gorski's ties to James Randi and the "blackmail tape" (which is its own horrendous web of evasions/confusions/contradictions) but of course that has no power over Gorski or the Guerilla skeptics.

Gorski: Why GamerGate?

Just to prove that he is as up to date with the Internet cultural nonsense as everybody else, MastCell decided to get involved with GamerGate topics; he locked Crash Override Network page and deleted leaked chat logs in September of 2016.

"...Wikipedia’s administrator, MastCell, has locked the Crash Override Network Wikipedia page after removing the mention about their illicit involvement with harassment, sabotage, doxing and targeted abuse, all of which were documented in the leaked chat logs. The reason? Not enough reliable coverage from mainstream media. Other users, like MjolnirPants, who identifies as a “male feminist” according to his user profile, have begun to filibuster — alongside MastCell — the Crash Override Network article with sophistry and equivocation centered around Ashe Schow and the Washington Examiner. Evidently, they’re attempting to discount the inclusion of the mention of the leaked chat logs because they question Ian Miles Cheong’s credibility, and believe Schow is just an “opinion writer”." - The One Angry Gamer blog

Gorski: My own View

From a personal email:

There are always too many examples with Wikipedians; they like to bury themselves with their own written words, shit decisions, or general awfulness; with David "Yes I have a Ph.D. and a M.D. but I am still willing to get into dick-measuring contests on Wikipedia" Gorski it's all three at the same time. And by doing all this backroom shit, the "Guerrilla Skeptics" have helped to sink Wikipedia, because they act like the place is the Catholic Church and they are all priests, bishops, etc. - untouchable figures whose decisions cannot be countered by anybody except for the papal class of WMF employees or Jimbo "Jesus Fucking Christ" Himself. So the normal grinding editors (and Gorski denies he is an editor, somehow) are slipping away rather than be abused....but we know that already.  The way the "Guerrilla Skeptics" act is very much modeled on James Randi's debunking behavior in the 1970s-1990s: use ad hominem insults constantly*, choose your target carefully, always have a group of assistants (some secret**), always have an out if things go south badly....pretty much Randi took his magician persona and modified it into a "debunker persona" and it worked, as long as people didn't ask questions. I wish these clowns acted more like Carl Sagan, but that would take deep thinking and real wit to pull off.

* Read his book Flim-Flam!; he is constantly insulting parapsychologists and other figures he doesn't like.

** I'm thinking of the probable ham radio operator or scanner dude he got to scan frequencies in the '90s ABC-TV 20/20 Peter Popoff expose, until they found the frequency Popoff's wife was using to transmit ailments and personal information into a hidden earpiece receiver. That was low power stuff probably in the VHF or UHF business bands, so scanner dude had to be in the parking lot of the church Popoff rented out, tape recorder running the whole time, while he monitored her transmissions on a pair of headphones.

Gorski: He's Going Down with the Ship

You knew I was going to write these words when you clicked on the article, but David Gorski is never going away until Wikipedia does. It's as simple as that; he has an army of meatpuppets to do his bidding, he is beloved by them, why go anywhere else?

Addendum: Cla68 speaks!

Extremely long quote from Cla68 (Charles Ainsworth) in March 2016 on Wikipediocracy just before he was indefinitely blocked on the forum:
"MastCell, as you all know, is a prominent member of the "pro-science" group in WP. As you're all also aware, I firmly believe that WP's "pro-science" group is one of WP's most stridently sexist editing blocs. When he removed Ms Nakamine's name from the article, I figured it couldn't be for "victim protection reasons" because the article had passed FA review with her name in it, and the article itself said that Ms Nakamine had repudiated victim status in the court case. She had petitioned the police to drop the charges, saying that she wasn't a victim and later, after the conviction, had asked the court not to impose a sentence on the defendant. It said so right there in the article."
"So, I figured that one of the "pro-science" editors was wikistalking me because I had gotten in their way in some other article, global warming or alternative medicine or something, and didn't like seeing a woman's name in a WP article and removed it for sexist reasons. I'm used to seeing some of the "pro-science" editors behaving in antisocial ways like that (and not just JzG) and I'm not surprised that one of them was wikistalking me. I forgot about it for awhile, but remembered it recently and went back to try to restore the article to how it was when it passed the FA nomination process. FA articles deteriorate over time and you have to go back and fix them periodically. I had forgotten (or never even noticed) that her name had actually previously been oversighted."
"Evidently, someone took exception and reported it to ArbCom. ArbCom did not tell me who contacted them about it and I didn't ask."
"About a month ago at an ArbCom amendment request someone was complaining about something MastCell did with regard to a pseudoscience article. I mentioned that MastCell might have a COI because of his full-time work off-wiki lobbying against alternative medicine on the Internet. I didn't reveal any personal information. I was surprised when JzG, in response, then proceeded to out MastCell. I was even more surprised when my comment was admin deleted, but JzG's wasn't!"
"A few days later I received an email from GorillaWarfare saying I was under investigation for "outing" MastCell. In response, I mentioned that JzG was one who actually outed him, not me. I then explained how MastCell was a full-time crusader against alternative medicine in real life, including speeches at medical conventions and that I wasn't sure if he was being paid for it or not (it has been speculated that, at least in the past, he was being paid by the pharmaceutical industry to speak out against alternative/natural medicine). I provided an example from the article on an Australian book which claims that breast cancer is caused by bras in which MastCell had repeatedly removed the mention of an academic study which had supported the book's conclusions. That was the last I heard of the "outing" discussion."
"I'm still leaning towards not appealing. Almost every single one of the blocks over the past 10 years I've received has been because of ideological or power-jockeying battles between admins and editors who are editing WP with agendas that they don't even bother to conceal."
"Look at this Michael Brown article. MastCell, as he openly admits in the post above, purposely uses his admin privileges to chase away editors who threaten his editorial agenda in WP. I have gotten in the way of the "pro-science" agenda (by the way, I put "pro-science" in scare quotes because if you read about how science academia really operates, it is nowhere near as authoritarian as the "pro-science" editors in WP claim it to be. Their "pro-science" ideology exists only in their myopic heads) numerous times, so MastCell follows me to the Michael Brown article and decides to use that as a trial balloon to try to get me banned. I took the article, along with all my other FAs, off my watchlist after the Mathsci fiasco.

Coincidentally, MastCell was involved in that episode as well and has never admitted fault or apologized for his actions in enabling that kook who harassed and chased a number of editors away from Wikipedia."
"I checked the article again recently, noticed that someone had removed the name again, and put it back in for the reasons outlined above. Several days later- indef block."
"Think of this, in real life MastCell is a surgeon, presumably accomplished and respected in his field, who spends hours each day chasing people away from website that claims to be an encyclopedia, but is really a free-culture experiment administered mainly by under-employed kids? Observing MastCell's behavior over the years shows to me that he's an authoritarian who is dangerously obsessive and lacks impulse control, much like Mathsci. And WP puts this weirdo in a position of responsibility and lets him run things with one of WP's major topic areas."

"Now, why would anyone want to be a part of a place that operates like that?"

                           That Crislip-Gorski photo from 2011, in case it is deleted somehow.
                                    (Photo taken by skeptic Jamie Bernstein.) 

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Where We are Now.... (forum news)

We now have a new forum on a secure server under the Wikipedia Sucks name, the site has been up for two weeks, and the software is stable. I would like to thank auggie for letting the users of the old ProBoards forum crash at his Wikipedia Review board for the rest of February. Speaking of ProBoards....

A free forum you can't trust

If you look at the ProBoards assistance forum, you will see constant requests from admins of messageboards asking why their sites were yanked. ProBoards has a "section 25(a)" of its terms of service which states the following:


This angry-looking piece of legalese has been the death of more forums than I can count. If they want to, your messageboard can be junked for no reason at all. Some people have made claims that their sites were shut down because of the content in off topic forums the ProBoards wanted them to delete. I have no idea how truthful those claims are, but it seems like if you want to run a forum where you care about relying on the long-term online survival of the information on your forum, ProBoards is not the place to go (unless you backup the board constantly). Which means that ProBoards is the least-optimal platform for a Wikipedia-criticism forum ever. And that stinks because ProBoards has a pretty decent design, and I liked using it.

The whodunit

We still don't know why Wikipedia Sucks! was killed....angry Wikipedians, people who hated Rome Viharo being on the site, certain users of WO-MB; all of that and more are possibilities. I have to say that Greg Kohs claiming that there was "....plenty of defamation... libelous content, to be specific" speaks volumes. It should be said now that it wasn't my board; Mutineer set it up, Eric Barbour showed up before I did, and it went on from there. Killing the site didn't help; it just revitalized auggie's Wikipedia Review and it allowed us to form a new board in a safe location.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Hunting Wikipedia's Pedophiles: Flyer22_Reborn

"And so shines a good deed in a weary world." - Willy Wonka, misquoting William Shakespeare

There are people - Wikipedians - who actually are disgusted with The Project's laissez-faire attitude toward pedophiles and Flyer22_Reborn is one of them. She was originally Flyer22, claimed to be a Wikipedian since 2007 (making her one of the Essjay-aftermath people) until she was blocked in March of 2012. The block cases went on to May of 2014, and involved (among many others) BWilkins, SarekofVulcan, Boing! said Zebedee, and Alison, who wrote the following:

Your account is blocked. Yes, again. You've been repeatedly using Singaporean proxy IPs to avoid detection and to set up sock accounts, all abusively. There are too many IPs to enumerate, but this, this and this are just three samples. Fireflies36 (talk · contribs) is you, Fireflies35 (talk · contribs) is you, as is MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), just for starters. There are plenty of others - lots of them. It's hard to even know where to start. But they're all you,  Confirmed by two checkusers now. This time, given the subject matter and how the edit times sync with your own, nobody is going to accept the "younger brother" excuse this time. You've gone to great effort to cover your tracks to avoid being detected in your interesting LGBT POV-pushing spree, but you're done now. Once I get the time, I'll likely to to AN/I and push for a site ban, something I rarely do - Alison 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 There were repeated blockings and un-blockings. In October Flyer22 dropped the old account to become Flyer22_Reborn. But from the previous account to now, Flyer22_Reborn has a real hatred for the pedophiles:

If you post anything on Wikipedia about your belief that sex with children is fine and dandy, similar to this guy's post, then watch out; unless you are discussing a complicated age of consent matter involving post-pubescents, then I will instantly have no respect for you and I will instantly want you off Wikipedia. You either follow the WP:Child protection policy, or I will very likely see to it that your presence is removed from this site. Create a new account and spread the same garbage, and I'll get rid of that account as well. Further detail is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology.

Regarding my edits to the Pedophilia article, I do not care about how you personally want to define pedophilia or that you want to go by the imprecise dictionary definitions as opposed to accurate medical definitions. I do not care if you think editors watching and editing the Pedophilia article are pedophiles and/or child sexual abusers because they do not subscribe to your lay (non-specialist) definition of pedophilia. People should put aside their ignorance and learn something; if that means learning what pedophilia actually is and using the terminology accurately, then good. This helps people not be so oblivious as to what type of perpetrators may be sexually abusing a child; in other words, child sexual abuse is far more common than people think. And so is child-on-child sexual abuse; it is not always, or even mostly, the man specifically interested in prepubescents. It is usually a relative or someone otherwise close to the family. Do I sometimes use the term pedophile broadly? Yes, I do (not too broadly). But on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, I want to get it right; I should get it right.

As for the Wikipedia people who take care of "pedophile talk" and similar, it turns out that the WP:WMF have taken over for WP:ArbCom in handling all future WP:Child protection matters. So the WP:Child protection policy will need updating "once all the new arrangements are finali[z]ed" with regard to the WP:WMF handling WP:Child protection and other matters. From what the WP:WMF have told me of their potential to handle WP:Child protection cases, they are well-equipped and have significant experience in the area. Their investigations can take weeks or months, however, especially if gathering more evidence.
And, yes, I am of great interest to the pedophiles and child sexual abusers who infiltrate, or try to infiltrate, Wikipedia.....(Taken from here.)
So in order to expose these people she took to hunting Wikipedians with sockpuppets.

 Running the Pedos Out of Town (We Think?)

As the reader can tell, we know very little about who Flyer22, reborn or otherwise. She claims to know things about psychology, science, "social issues", and so on. In fact we have no idea if Flyer22_Reborn is actually a woman, which is why the first use of "she" and "her" in this post were in quotes [Alison Cassidy has confirmed that Flyer22_Reborn is what she claims to be]. One of her recent sockpuppet investigations was for Cali11298, the ringleader account for a sockfarm that included Jhamilton303, Cavalierman, 21 other confirmed accounts while around 15 others were accused.

....And We Lose the Thread

It's been a month and I've heard nothing from Flyer22_Reborn. Instead of deleting everything and rewriting this post from scratch, I'm just going to give you sections of the notes I worked from, which were provided by Flip Flopped, a member of the now-defunct ProBoards Wikipedia Sucks! messageboard and is involved with the Wikipedia Review ProBoards site and new Wikipedia Sucks board.

.....Read both sides of this diff: Apparently, Flyer has a connection to WO and they have been pedo hunting since they started and before that on WR.

Here's one of a couple of diffs in which she indicates that reporting to the WMF is not going well:

This diff says she found one but didn't have the evidence to prove it yet:

Here's a quote from here:, but I haven't inserted the on-wiki links:
I've been wondering when this would be addressed here at this talk page. Having talked the matter over with James Alexander via email, he knows that I was disappointed that no action was taken against an editor I recently reported as a pedophile (months ago)...with on- and off-Wikipedia evidence to support it. Then again, on Wikipedia, this editor (and he will soon read this post of mine, no doubt) rejected any implication that he is a pedophile and chalked up one of his pedophilic Wikipedia posts to being a misguided youth. I was clear with James Alexander that even if the editor was an underage teenager at the time he made the off-Wikipedia post, people do not simply grow out of pedophilia (in fact, pedophilia emerges in a person before or during puberty). Judging by what James Alexander told me, an editor simply being a pedophile is not enough to get the editor blocked by the WP:WMF. If that's the case, the current policy needs changing in that regard as well, and the editors at BoyWiki (especially Lysander, who is also no stranger to editing Wikipedia) can do their happy dance. Just look at how they keep tabs on me; so sweet (the LANCB aspect is utter fantasy, though). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Useful edit summary:

Edit summary indicates she's sick of finding, being wiki-hounded by, and reporting pedos:

The diff and the edit summary indicate a pedo who keeps coming back:

Recent evidence of returned pedo: Also note the talk page indicates that Flyer 22 Reborn is in poor health.

Bbb23 may have screwed up a recent sock of a pedo that was CUed: and Also, she repudiates her socking claim here:, but I'm not sure I believe she's being sincere in writing that. Here's a stalk-y sock on her talk page (possibly not a pedo): is this quote (which has links on that page that I didn't paste in the quote below, but I detail below the quote:
I also have views on pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia; see WP:Child protection, this section, and this discussion....

And that's all the rest that I got.