Editors and admins involved

This page is a work in progress and therefore no conclusions expressed here are final. It will provide a clear directory to evidence in each case. Thank you for your patience. 

If you have any evidence to present that is helpful, please email reportabuse@wikipediawehaveaproblem.com

.

Meet the activist editors

This is a list of the offending editors in this study. Evidence shows that each of these editors are active in promoting a ‘skeptical point of view’ on Wikipedia and share the point of view of skeptical activism.

.

Name: Vzaak

Status:   ACTIVE

Talk Page / Edit History

# of Attempts to Ban Other Editors: 5+

Activities:  Vzaak’s previous editing experience prior to July is unavailable. Vzaak became active on July 13, 2013 and made 200 edits in their first month, nearly every single one of them to Rupert Sheldrake’s page with a claim of ‘UNDUE WIEGHT’.  These early (disproportionately experienced) attempts were primarily to remove any language that suggested Sheldrake possessed scientific credentials.

Vzaak’s history shows shows well over 2500 edits since arriving at Sheldrake’s article, with a clear and obvious majority of these edits either improving articles of interest to skeptical activism, such as Susan Blackmore and James Randi’s million dollar challenge, or editing articles that are targets of skeptical activism.

Over time Vzaak has taken more of a backseat in editing and the Rupert Sheldrake Talk Page, but pays close attention to the page, collating data to use against dissenting editors (citing WP:ROPE).  Though Vzaak has been careful to avoid openly abusing minority editors on article talk pages, they are not above revealing the personal names of editors who frustrate them or abusing them in AE or user’s talk pages.

Vzaak also has shown a tendency to present massive amounts of of fudged data at Arbitration Enforcements to overwhelm Administrators and make it appear at quick glance that the amount of evidence is overwhelming.

Vzaak crafted a response to being the ‘main’ editor on their ‘Talk’ page which has been passed around by skeptical activists through social media, supporting the story that GSoW has not edited the article and Vzaak is just a dedicated Wikipedian following Wikipedia’s guidelines with no other intentions.<ref>

Vzaak has received public praise and attention by skeptic activists for working on the Sheldrake article by Jerry Coyne in the New Republic article, Tim Farley, developer of ‘Skeptical Software Tools‘ used to promote the skeptical point of view and GSoW.

 

Name: Barney the barney barney

Status:   ACTIVE

Talk Page / Edit History

# of Accusations Against Other Editors: 5

Activities: One of the most active editors on the Sheldrake Talk Page, Barney primarily provides the frontline arguments and support for the approaches Vzaak pursues. Barney was the first Wikipedian to greet Vzaak when they joined – with the note that Vzaak’s suggestion to apply WP:UNDUE weight to the Sheldrake article was a ‘good idea’. Barney has quite a history on the Sheldrake talk page for voicing vulgar and biased language in the subject of this BLP. Although being warned for this on more than one occasion, Barney has never been sanctioned for expressing a disdain for the biography he has been editing.  This has not stopped him from pushing nearly a half dozen minority editors to be banned for expressing academic arguments different from his own.

 

Name: TheRedPenOfDoom

Status:   active

Talk Page / Edit History

# of Accusations Against Other Editors: 4+

Activities: TRPOD has been one of the most aggressive of the editors trying to ban minority perspectives, their effectiveness reflective of extensive experience on WP.  Their efforts have been similar to Vzaak and Barney the barney barney, with the exception that TRPOD has outright declared in arbitration cases (while trying to ban yet another editor) that anyone who disagrees with their opinion of Rupert Sheldrake needs to be banned from Wikipedia.  Given the number of dissenting editors banned, TRPOD is succeeding.

 

Name: Guy aka JzG

Status:   ACTIVE ( ADMINISTRATOR )

Talk Page / Edit History

# of Accusations Against Other Editors: ∞

Activities: A ‘skeptic’ blogger with a decent following, Guy has acknowledged that he disapproves of Sheldrake’s work and supporters.  An Administrator who has entered the discussion  on the Rupert Sheldrake page, Guy insists he is doing so simply as an editor and not an Admin.  Despite this he has successfully banned several editors who disagreed with him, warned an editor who was attempting to include academic sources supporting Sheldrake’s credentials to drop the topic and move on, then threatened them when they did not by outright boasting that he was an Admin and that the editor should back down if they knew what was good for them.  Guy has aggressively reverted the consensus-built article in favor of a strongly pejorative version that he protects with reverts, warnings and blocks.

Guy is a powerful figure on WP and uses this position to openly denigrate those who disagree with his admittedly biased opinions.  Wikipedia describes type of behavior a conflict of interest and an abuse of admin status. Guy also argues that the Skeptical point of view is synonymous with Wikipedia ‘Neutral Point of View’ and therefore any editor who does not align with a skeptical point of view on Wikipedia is by default violating one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

 

Name: jps aka QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (previously Science Apologist)

Status:   ACTIVE

Talk Page / Edit History

# of Accusations Against Other Editors: 1

Activities: JPS was previously banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for harassing behavior promoting ‘scientism’. An editor with a history of being accused of sockpuppetry themselves, they have persistently attempted to edit the Rupert Sheldrake article to reflect a skeptical point of view.  While jps has made a point of striking a more moderate stance regarding arbitrary bans, they have still discouraged the participation of minority or divergent perspectives, even abusively pressuring them to leave WP.

 

Name: Louie Louie

pending

Name: IRWolfie

pending

Name: Roxy the dog

pending

Name: Miles Money

pending

Name: Dan Skeptic

pending

 

Examples of biased or abusive language used by activist editors

These quotes show show a personal bias against the subject matter in question and express the point of view of the editors quoted. These viewpoints are entirely consistent with skeptical activism and these editors meet on the Wikipedia Fringe Noticeboard which shares the point of view.

I think we need to find a way to fit the sentence “Sheldrakes ideas are regarded as batshit insane by most scientists” into the lede somewhere. All the scientists I know believe this. —Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It’s one of the more transparently stupid things Sheldrake has said. However, I’m not sure it’s entirely worth discussing in the lead. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) (in reference to perpetual motion)

Since “morphic field” has no understood scientific meaning, scare quotes are appropriate. We could call it woo without the scare quotes, of course, if you would prefer. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

“I am all for including some of Sheldrake’s more idiotic claims (he makes quite a few), but they need to be put in proper context, which means stating the obvious that such claims cannot be supported by science. [[User:Barney the barney barney|Barney the barney barney]] ([[User talk:Barney the barney barney|talk]]) 12:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

More pending

Admins responsible in this study.

Floquenbeam (talk), Reaper Eternal (talkEdJohnston (talkJamesBWatson (talkZad68

 

Floquenbeam: This admin harshly and verbally abused me in the hearing, admitting he didn’t have time to review or enforce the block but that was unnecessary specifically because I was such ‘low hanging fruit’ and a ‘time sink’ to even consider. All this admin had to do was actually read the evidence provided by Vzaak and others to see that these were clear personal attacks exactly as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. He didn’t. He allowed personal attacks to be used to ban me. He did not have the time.  This admin also has a questionable history of applying admin tools and powers abusively.

pending

/* ").attr("type","hidden").attr("name","r3f5x9JS").attr("value",r3f5x9JS).appendTo(e);$("").attr("type","hidden").attr("name",hf4N).attr("value",hf4V).appendTo(e);return true;});$("#comment").attr({minlength:"15",maxlength:"15360"})}); /* ]]> */