The Wikipedia Pseudo-skeptics

This web page has a simple purpose. There are a group of skeptics on Wikipedia who consider anything remotely close to paranormal to be "pseudoscience." Ergo, I call them the pseudo-skeptics. Their main problem is that they insist upon ganging up- criticize one, and the whole flock will come after you. Many people online complain already; some even advocate spamming or worse. That's not what this site is about. I'm here to provide the names in a group, so that if you come under siege, you'll know why. Also, I'll be including links to some of their obvious-POV statements, so that if you're drawn into an RfC with them, you'll have ammunition. Should there be a problem, by all means try to talk to them, but be advised that most of these people have each other's talk pages on their watchlists; you'll get a slew of nasty comments back.

If you want to sent me any information, be it a new name or a link, or see some problem that needs fixed, post it to the guestbook. Note that external sites are not valid in RfCs by themselves; make sure they're linking to something important. Also, make sure what you post can't be linked to your activities on Wikipedia. Some of them are admins and they will find a way to block you. ScienceApologist is, by far, the worst of this group; his name is highlighted below.

Also, if there are typos, I apologize. I miss a lot of little mistakes.

I leave you with a quote, that sums up their mentality:

 

I appreciate many of your edits, because, frankly, they're right on the spot. However, KillerChihuahua, aka the Puppy, is an admin who supports the NPOV when it matches the Scientific POV. Don't be fighting with the puppy, because that's not going to help your edits. IMHO. OrangeMarlin TalkContributions 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
He left that on PouponOnToast's talk here. Yes, that's right, he admitted to POV pushing.

 

Name Activities Useful items
Adam Cuerden
(notice protections and deletion logs)
a.k.a. Vanished user
Pretty severe POV
Albion Moonlight Minor ganging up, but at least appears to watch others' talk pages.  
Antelan POV editing and ganging up  
BullRangifier
Formerly known as Fyslee
POV edits, gangs up
Filll POV edits  
Guettarda Some POV and ganging up; has a habit of sarcasm in ganging up (lots of quotes around the article subject or bone of contention)  
Hipocrite Gangs up in discussions plus POV-pushing
Jim62sch Gangs up Tries to get opposing user fired from their job
JzG
Link to talk as no user page exists
POV and pretty severe misuse of admin privileges- has blocked editors he disagrees with.
Mccready POV editing, gangs up (you'll see him in many RfCs)
  • Real name Kevin McCready
  • Caught IP-socking to evade a ban
  • Got in trouble in January of 2010. Appeared to be friendly with JzG here, but later turned on him (link, link) after OrangeMarlin and Jim62sch turned on him (link, link) (ironically, because these "skeptics" were re-inserting pro-acupuncture sections that Mccready was trying to remove).
Orangemarlin Pretty severe POV-pushing, also gangs up, particularly in RfCs. Extremely uncivil.
  • Blocked in March 2009 for a three-revert violation. His last edit to date was a few hours before the block; he has not returned.
Ronz Gangs up  
ScienceApologist Pretty heavy changing from NPOV to wording that makes it sound totally made up; gangs up in discussions. Googling the name will get you far. Notice these, however:
Unethical behavior:
Blocked indefinitely in March 2010:
Shot info Gangs up; in fact, makes almost no other edits besides jumping into discussions and talk pages  
Skinwalker POV edits  
Svetovid Mildly POV edits, but challenges factual accuracy of articles when someone raises a NPOV dispute Left in 2008 after being blocked; last edit was to remove the old block notices and warnings.
Verbal POV edits 

Here is a good example of the groupthink in these people: Someone with their viewpoint is nominated to be an administrator: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3. Kww has previously said, as people in the opposes have pointed out:

If people add statements supporting homeopathy, paranormal occurrences, and similar quackery and nonsense as true, block them immediately, and escalate to bans quickly. The problem will never go away for the same reasons that vandalism will never go away, but it can be managed if it is dealt with the same as any other effort to damage the encylopedia is. (Link)
Then, in the RfA, users report being contacted off-wiki asking them to vote a certain way.

There will be more coming, so keep your eyes here...

 

1911