Over 500 people sign petition against skeptic Wikipedia editors "suppression" of information regarding UFOs

[Hemiauchenia]

See https://www.change.org/p/demand-wikiped ... nformation

Full disclosure: I am named as one of the "problematic" editors named in the petition, but I don't really regularly edit about UFOs,

This all started back in January, as detailed in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#UFOlogy_promoter_BLPs (T-H-L)

In the UFO corners of Twitter and Reddit, a baseless conspiracy theory developed that longtime skeptic editor in the UFO topic area LuckyLouie (T-C-L) was really former Tony Hawk Pro Skater developer and professional UFO debunker Mick West (T-H-L).

This conspiracy eventually merged with the long existing canard about "Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" (previously discussed viewtopic.php?t=12429) a group often portrayed by Wikipedia critics (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/wikipedia) as powerful group encompassing essentially all of Wikipedia's "skepticism" alligned editors, but which as far as I can tell is actually much smaller, with most of the regulars at Fringe theories/Noticeboard having nothing to do with the group,

This has been slowly boiling over the last month, being covered by small fringe YouTubers and the like, but the controversy seems likely to reach new heights, as is it set to be covered soon by popular paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) on the 25 of this month. https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show/

[Midsize Jake]

I'm just going to insert the obligatory "Captain Obvious" comment here and point out that 556 signatures on a non-trolling change.org petition after three weeks is... well, pretty much pathetic. (And I'm not even that much of a skeptic.)

[Hemiauchenia]

I'm just going to insert the obligatory "Captain Obvious" comment here and point out that 556 signatures on a non-trolling change.org petition after three weeks is... well, pretty much pathetic.

I'm inclined to agree honestly. The infamous 2013 WP:LUNATIC (T-H-L) change.org petition got 10,000 signings. There was some discussion of the petition on Reddit, which was a mixture of support and criticism for the petition https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/ ... mation_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/UAP/comments/1 ... mation_on/
I more wanted to create a thread to document the whole conflict, rather than just the petition.

[ScotFinnRadish]

This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article. I get why people are irked, although 500 people signing an online petition isn't going to do anything. I've seen more signatures on someone's cast after breaking their arm.

Those are rookie numbers.gif

[Konveyor Belt]

With the size of the internet today I daresay you could get 500 people to agree on just about anything.

[Zoll]

I'm surprised they didn't call you undercover government agents

[Boing! said Zebedee]

With the size of the internet today I daresay you could get 500 people to agree on just about anything.

No you couldn't

[AndyTheGrump]

I'm surprised they didn't call you undercover government agents

Conspiracy theories work best when they are vague. Don't specify who the conspirators are, and you'll get petition signatures from the broadest range of loons.

[utbc]

WPO is falling behind the competition: link earned 1 upvote by sharing a video with 20K views: link

[utbc]

Response at the Wikipedia subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comm ... mation_on/

[Randy from Boise]

Ummmm, you called them UFOs — All The Right People are calling them UAPs now!!!

You're part of the Vast Conspiracy to Avoid the Truth That's Out There!!!

Derp derp.

t

[Hemiauchenia]

WPO is falling behind the competition: link earned 1 upvote by sharing a video with 20K views: link

That YouTuber was who I was thinking of when I said the topic was being covered by fringe YouTubers. They also did another video with a quarter of the views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHqE3GsI9o , when I last looked at the videos the number of views they were a lot lower, which is why I didn't prominently mention it.

This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article.

I mean, it depends, this is maybe true for some BLPs, but I really don't see how one could write a neutral article about Bob Lazar (T-H-L) (which is the focus of much of the complaints) that isn't as negative as the current version.

[rnu]

[...]
This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article.
[...]

I think the problem is that there are two main motivations why people edit these articles. To push fringe stuff or to keep fringe out. Those who want to push fringe stuff don't care about things that would have a place in an encyclopedia. And those who want to keep the fringe stuff out don't really care about the subject. They just want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming (more of) a platform for fringe nonsense. If only the lunatics and the liars care about a subject there is no way to get a good article for it.

[ArmasRebane]

WPO is falling behind the competition: link earned 1 upvote by sharing a video with 20K views: link

That YouTuber was who I was thinking of when I said the topic was being covered by fringe YouTubers. They also did another video with a quarter of the views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjHqE3GsI9o , when I last looked at the videos the number of views they were a lot lower, which is why I didn't prominently mention it.

This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article.

I mean, it depends, this is maybe true for some BLPs, but I really don't see how one could write a neutral article about Bob Lazar (T-H-L) (which is the focus of much of the complaints) that isn't as negative as the current version.

One of my beefs with the skeptics on Wikipedia is that they are exhaustively focused on documenting quacks to the point they never consider if it's actually relevant to Wikipedia. Looking at Bob Lazar and cherrypicking sources to see what they say, for instance, and it doesn't seem like he's actually the subject of signficant coverage in a lot of them. If you strip out stuff that's extraneous mentions, you're not left with a lot, and most of that would be better covered in articles like Area 51. I dunno if Lazar's article actually boosts his coverage and profile even if it's negative (though there's plenty of more general research that the adage of 'all press is good press' actually holds), but I don't see a reason why him and a lot of these people (especially the ones that are almost entirely sourced to the skeptic outfits) are actually notable. It's importing an off-wiki feud to Wikipedia.

[...]
This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article.
[...]

I think the problem is that there are two main motivations why people edit these articles. To push fringe stuff or to keep fringe out. Those who want to push fringe stuff don't care about things that would have a place in an encyclopedia. And those who want to keep the fringe stuff out don't really care about the subject. They just want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming (more of) a platform for fringe nonsense. If only the lunatics and the liars care about a subject there is no way to get a good article for it.

Basically this, too.

[iii]

One of my beefs with the skeptics on Wikipedia is that they are exhaustively focused on documenting quacks to the point they never consider if it's actually relevant to Wikipedia.

Seems a little reductive. I mean, a lot of the so-called "skeptics" (I am one of them) are rabid deletionists. That's actually one of the complaints. Hell, I'd love to delete Bob Lazar's article, but teh communitah says that if you can find enough sources about a person, then you gotta have an article. I didn't make up that rule, but good luck trying to buck it.

If you strip out stuff that's extraneous mentions, you're not left with a lot, and most of that would be better covered in articles like Area 51.

I guess we aren't supposed to do breaching experiments here, but I bet if you AfDed Bob Lazar's article with this rationale, you wouldn't manage to get it deleted. Would love to be proved wrong, however.

I don't see a reason why him and a lot of these people (especially the ones that are almost entirely sourced to the skeptic outfits) are actually notable.

Lazar isn't sourced entirely to skeptic outfits, and that's part of the problem. I get why people get this impression, however. The rules are that skeptic outfits tend to satisfy WP:RS (T-H-L) in spite of the continual complaints of the people who don't like your quackwatches, your CSICOPs, your sciencebasedmedicines, or your talk.origins archives.

And those who want to keep the fringe stuff out don't really care about the subject. They just want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming (more of) a platform for fringe nonsense. If only the lunatics and the liars care about a subject there is no way to get a good article for it.

Weird false dichotomy you have there. Are those trying to keep fringe nonsense out "liars"? How so?

[iii]

This is one of those topics where a lot of editors are more interested in dunking on article subjects rather than writing an informative NPOV article.

Name names, SFR! Who exactly do you accuse of being more interesting in dunking than in writing informative NPOV shit?

I have a sneaking suspicion I know who you are talking about, but I kinda want you to say it before I start dunking on you.

[rnu]

And those who want to keep the fringe stuff out don't really care about the subject. They just want to prevent Wikipedia from becoming (more of) a platform for fringe nonsense. If only the lunatics and the liars care about a subject there is no way to get a good article for it.

Weird false dichotomy you have there. Are those trying to keep fringe nonsense out "liars"? How so?

No! I explicitly said that those who try to keep the fringe out don't care about the subject. The lunatics and liars are the ones trying to push fringe content. People tend to forget that apart from the many many lunatics who believe this kind of stuff there are also some liars who know it is crap but see a way of making money off of it or using it for some other purpose.

[iii]

No! I explicitly said that those who try to keep the fringe out don't care about the subject. The lunatics and liars are the ones trying to push fringe content. People tend to forget that apart from the many many lunatics who believe this kind of stuff there are also some liars who know it is crap but see a way of making money off of it or using it for some other purpose.

It vaguely dawned on me that this might have been your intention in the phrasing, but I guess I saw the other meaning more strikingly. I should have asked for clarification more generally instead of imposing my misreading.

Now that we have clarity, yes, I agree with you.

[ScotFinnRadish]

Name names, SFR! Who exactly do you accuse of being more interesting in dunking than in writing informative NPOV shit?

Rp2006 is a good example, with Thomas John (medium) (T-H-L) being a good example. The most recent one I've seen was Luis Elizondo (T-H-L), that had a controversy section full of primary sourced interview cruft and synthesis. Luckily a handsome and charming editor showed up and removed it.

Taking a quick peek at the Bob Lazar (T-H-L) since it's mentioned above, it's suffering from a lot of the same. Using primary sources about his claims, then using SYNTH to contradict them. Just don't cover them at all. No reason to give a huge list of the crazy shit the guy has said and believes and then use a bunch of sources that don't mention him to contradict him.

Lazar has claimed that during his joining the program, he read briefing documents describing the historical involvement of Earth for the past 10,000 years with extraterrestrial beings described as grey aliens from a planet orbiting the twin binary star system Zeta Reticuli. As of September 2019, no extrasolar planets have been found in the Zeta Reticuli system.[43][44] Additionally, the Zeta Reticuli system is too young with an average age of 1.5-3 billion years old.[45] It took 500 million-1 billion years for the first cell to evolve on Earth, and an additional 3 billion years for complex multicellular life to evolve on Earth after the Cambrian explosion (see: History of Earth). In 1989, Lazar said the seats of the saucer he saw were approximately child-sized and that he had seen alien cadavers of a corresponding size.[46][47]

Unsourced statement about his claim. Two sources that don't mention him to refute his claim, another source that doesn't mention him to refute him, another sentence sourced to a wikilink that has nothing to do with anything. Wrap it up with another silly thing he said that at least has a bit of secondary sourcing, pulling "Indeed, the scientist stops short of claiming that he ever saw aliens at the site. He does note that the seats in the saucers were small, almost child-sized. There was a nickname for aliens around the facility: “the kids.”" out of an entire article which is only used to source that statement which fails verification in the secondary source. Why is this in the article other than to dunk on him? Clearly secondary sources don't give a shit, so why does the article?

[PartikleZoo]

Rp2006 is a good example, with Thomas John (medium) (T-H-L) being a good example.

Tyler Henry (T-H-L) should be added to that, given that he was specifically targetted by Gerbic before he was notable as "Operation Tater Top", she organised for negative articles to be written about him, and then those articles were used to generate the WP entry.

[lonza leggiera]

... ...

... ...

He [viz. Lazar] claims one of the flying saucers, the one he coined the "Sport Model", was manufactured out of a metallic substance similar in appearance and touch to liquid titanium.

Given that the boiling point of titanium is 3287 °C, the discoverer of this factoid must have received some rather nasty burns. At least twice.

[Sennalen]

Taking a quick peek at the Bob Lazar (T-H-L) since it's mentioned above, it's suffering from a lot of the same. Using primary sources about his claims, then using SYNTH to contradict them. Just don't cover them at all. No reason to give a huge list of the crazy shit the guy has said and believes and then use a bunch of sources that don't mention him to contradict him.

Lazar has claimed that during his joining the program, he read briefing documents describing the historical involvement of Earth for the past 10,000 years with extraterrestrial beings described as grey aliens from a planet orbiting the twin binary star system Zeta Reticuli. As of September 2019, no extrasolar planets have been found in the Zeta Reticuli system.[43][44] Additionally, the Zeta Reticuli system is too young with an average age of 1.5-3 billion years old.[45] It took 500 million-1 billion years for the first cell to evolve on Earth, and an additional 3 billion years for complex multicellular life to evolve on Earth after the Cambrian explosion (see: History of Earth). In 1989, Lazar said the seats of the saucer he saw were approximately child-sized and that he had seen alien cadavers of a corresponding size.[46][47]

Unsourced statement about his claim. Two sources that don't mention him to refute his claim, another source that doesn't mention him to refute him, another sentence sourced to a wikilink that has nothing to do with anything. Wrap it up with another silly thing he said that at least has a bit of secondary sourcing, pulling "Indeed, the scientist stops short of claiming that he ever saw aliens at the site. He does note that the seats in the saucers were small, almost child-sized. There was a nickname for aliens around the facility: “the kids.”" out of an entire article which is only used to source that statement which fails verification in the secondary source. Why is this in the article other than to dunk on him? Clearly secondary sources don't give a shit, so why does the article?

Just excluding the fringe claim is a good choice most of the time. There has to be some amount of it in an article like this though, to explain what the subject's deal is. Similar to what I think you're getting at, I have also noticed that pseudoskeptic editors sometimes fight the hardest to keep the most bonkers fringe undue claims in an article, I guess just so readers understand how fringe the subject is.

If you have to have a fringe claim of some kind in an article, then there's a duty to present the mainstream view alongside it. It's best if you have a source that discusses both views together, but if you don't have that kind of source, you still have to have that mainstream perspective no matter what. There's no policy that requires a source to namedrop the title of the article it's going into. Trying to impose a policy interpretation like that creates risk of POV funnels. If the Zeta Reticuli system is in scope for an article, then it's in scope, full stop.

[iii]

Name names, SFR! Who exactly do you accuse of being more interesting in dunking than in writing informative NPOV shit?

Rp2006 is a good example, with Thomas John (medium) (T-H-L) being a good example.

You think? Rp2006 said that the only legitimate thing he has done is drag shows. And you claim this is a "BLP violation".

Just don't cover them at all. No reason to give a huge list of the crazy shit the guy has said and believes and then use a bunch of sources that don't mention him to contradict him....Why is this in the article other than to dunk on him? Clearly secondary sources don't give a shit, so why does the article?

Well, that's a fun change of subject. Do you think that there is anything in the article which is particularly, I don't know, defamatory?

Look, I get the impulse to excise Wikipedia from all realm of dot connecting. I think it is on the balance the right thing to do. But my commitment is to the truth and not to following rules that were made up because Wikipedia was allergic to the truth. You, however, seem to be a kind of next generation kool aid drinker that delights in the same sort of accommodationism that we saw in the past when Watts Up With That was complaining about Wikipedia identifying Anthony Watts as a bad actor. So,

[iii]

pseudoskeptic editors

Like you?

[Sennalen]

pseudoskeptic editors

Like you?

I'm not interested in opening a new front in our wikifight here, but I invite you to tally up how the points at Pseudoskepticism#Truzzi (T-H-L) align with our respective positions.

[rnu]

pseudoskeptic editors

Like you?

I'm not interested in opening a new front in our wikifight here, but I invite you to tally up how the points at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism#Truzzi (T-H-L) align with our respective positions.

Pseudoskepticism#Truzzi (T-H-L)
When using the wparticle tag only use the title of the article, not the entire link (for non main space you have to add the name of the space like "WP", etc.). Likewise for wpuser just use the username, not the link.

[Sennalen]

When using the wparticle tag only use the title of the article, not the entire link (for non main space you have to add the name of the space like "WP", etc.). Likewise for wpuser just use the username, not the link.

Thanks

[iii]

pseudoskeptic editors

Like you?

I'm not interested in opening a new front in our wikifight here, but I invite you to tally up how the points at Pseudoskepticism#Truzzi (T-H-L) align with our respective positions.

Nah, I'm good. I do think you should learn the history of that epithet as it has historically been applied with respect to Wikipedia. It's an unusually strong indicator that the person waving it is out on a limb. Have fun!

[ScotFinnRadish]

Who exactly do you accuse of being more interesting in dunking than in writing informative NPOV shit?

But my commitment is to the truth and not to following rules that were made up because Wikipedia was allergic to the truth.

[Hemiauchenia]

I mentioned this in my original post, but as a reminder, in around 5 hours or so (1 AM EST) popular paranormal radio program Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) is airing an episode about this. The host George Knapp (television journalist) (T-H-L) Wikipedia article was one of the subjects of contention. You can read the episode preview here: https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show/ If you're interested in listening to the episode live, I've found that this website works outside of the US, you just have to click the "listen now" button https://newstalk1290.com/show/coast-to-coast-am/

For the record, I've done a bit of work to clean up Knapp's bio over the last few days because I thought that the original was a bit too interested in dunking on him. He does seem to have a reputation for some quite serious journalism alongside his more kooky UFO stuff.

[Midsize Jake]

...popular paranormal radio program Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) is airing an episode about this.

I'm listening to it right now, and he just explained how he's decided to refer to the Guerilla Skeptics as the "Wikipedia Cabal," as if he's the first person to ever think of using that term in relation to Wikipedians.

What a waste!

Edit:

It gets better; they've got Rob Heatherly on now to talk about the WP editing experience from his (non-skeptic/believer) perspective. It's clear that he's at least speaking from personal experience, but they still have the basic naïveté that Wikipedia has "somehow lost its way" and "doesn't care about the truth anymore," as if to imply that it wasn't designed to be like this from the very beginning.

I might listen to a little bit more.

[Hemiauchenia]

The "Wikipedia Skeptic" section of the broadcast has finished. Overall I think it was kinda meh, though not entirely without merit. Heatherly was rambling and didn't clearly explain the wiki-jargon enough to make sense to non-Wikipedians. Knapp admitting that he used Wikipedia for research was a bit amusing, as was him saying that he would no longer donate Wikipedia after having previously done so, as if any Wikipedia editor would care about that.

I agree with Knapp that the Luis Elizondo (T-H-L) birthplace dispute is dumb so I've just removed all references to his birthplace from the article.

[ArmasRebane]

I mentioned this in my original post, but as a reminder, in around 5 hours or so (1 AM EST) popular paranormal radio program Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) is airing an episode about this. The host George Knapp (television journalist) (T-H-L) Wikipedia article was one of the subjects of contention. You can read the episode preview here: https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show/ If you're interested in listening to the episode live, I've found that this website works outside of the US, you just have to click the "listen now" button https://newstalk1290.com/show/coast-to-coast-am/

For the record, I've done a bit of work to clean up Knapp's bio over the last few days because I thought that the original was a bit too interested in dunking on him. He does seem to have a reputation for some quite serious journalism alongside his more kooky UFO stuff.

This is another area where I feel like the skeptic editors have done some subjects dirty. Some bios are of 100% cranks like mentalists and the like, but there's plenty who basically are normal people who happen to have more outspoken opinions on some far-out stuff. If you count all the skeptic magazines as high-quality sources you're basically allowing those editors to distort a biography to focus on that stuff.

[iii]

Who exactly do you accuse of being more interesting in dunking than in writing informative NPOV shit?

But my commitment is to the truth and not to following rules that were made up because Wikipedia was allergic to the truth.

So are you trying to imply it is me? I thought we established who the person was with reference to the ArbComm case.

[Hemiauchenia]

I mentioned this in my original post, but as a reminder, in around 5 hours or so (1 AM EST) popular paranormal radio program Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) is airing an episode about this. The host George Knapp (television journalist) (T-H-L) Wikipedia article was one of the subjects of contention. You can read the episode preview here: https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show/ If you're interested in listening to the episode live, I've found that this website works outside of the US, you just have to click the "listen now" button https://newstalk1290.com/show/coast-to-coast-am/

For the record, I've done a bit of work to clean up Knapp's bio over the last few days because I thought that the original was a bit too interested in dunking on him. He does seem to have a reputation for some quite serious journalism alongside his more kooky UFO stuff.

This is another area where I feel like the skeptic editors have done some subjects dirty. Some bios are of 100% cranks like mentalists and the like, but there's plenty who basically are normal people who happen to have more outspoken opinions on some far-out stuff. If you count all the skeptic magazines as high-quality sources you're basically allowing those editors to distort a biography to focus on that stuff.

For Knapp, UFOs and other paranormal stuff has dominated his national public profile for decades (his reporting on Lazar is largely responsible for Area 51 now being globally famous), while his regular journalism is very local to the Las Vegas area and I could find scant RS talking about it, so I don't think he's necessarily the best example of "distort[ing] a biography to focus on [fringe] stuff."

[rnu]

[...]
For Knapp, UFOs and other paranormal stuff has dominated his national public profile for decades (his reporting on Lazar is largely responsible for Area 51 now being globally famous), while his regular journalism is very local to the Las Vegas area and I could find scant RS talking about it, so I don't think he's necessarily the best example of "distort[ing] a biography to focus on [fringe] stuff."

It may be a case where distortion is happening, but because of RS. The fringe stuff is what gets publicity. That doesn't mean it is the most important part of his career. You know what they say: you do your job perfectly for years and no-one notices you, you screw up once and you're the face of all that is wrong with your company.
I think this is an issue with many BLPs, not just those related to fringe issues.

[ScotFinnRadish]

So are you trying to imply it is me? I thought we established who the person was with reference to the ArbComm case.

Well, I said "a lot of editors," so it stands to reason that it would be more than one.

I was just pointing out that despite saying removing synth "is on the balance the right thing to do" you continued with "But my commitment is to the truth and not to following rules that were made up because Wikipedia was allergic to the truth." If I were summarizing that for an article to avoid violating copyright I might say "I prefer to dunk on people, rather than writing an informative NPOV article." It all comes around full circle.

[iii]

So are you trying to imply it is me? I thought we established who the person was with reference to the ArbComm case.

Well, I said "a lot of editors," so it stands to reason that it would be more than one.

I was just pointing out that despite saying removing synth "is on the balance the right thing to do" you continued with "But my commitment is to the truth and not to following rules that were made up because Wikipedia was allergic to the truth." If I were summarizing that for an article to avoid violating copyright I might say "I prefer to dunk on people, rather than writing an informative NPOV article." It all comes around full circle.

SYNTH is situationally on the balance the right thing in the context of Wikipedia to do because it avoids certain conflicts given the asinine strictures of that website, but it is not a categorical good.

And here is where your argument is wrong: you are saying that the prose in Bob Lazar's article that points out that Zeta Reticuli is a particularly poor choice of star for Lazar to have adopted when he invented stories about where the aliens were coming from is not NPOV. This is incorrect (at least for most sane values of "NPOV"). This prose is plainly correct and neutral. That it "dunks" on a charlatan is just a side effect of the neutral facts.

[Ron Lybonly]

Millions of Americans think they’ve been abducted by aliens. See Alien abduction claimants (T-H-L)

500 is a very low turnout, don’t you think?

Why?

[AndyTheGrump]

Millions of Americans think they’ve been abducted by aliens. See Alien abduction claimants (T-H-L)

500 is a very low turnout, don’t you think?

Why?

Possibly because the number of Americans who actually think they've been abducted by aliens is substantially smaller than the number who'd say so in a poll. Or maybe they've since decided that it was actually the Deep State rather than aliens who were responsible. The poll is rather old, and getting probed by extra-terrestrials is passé these days.

[Hemiauchenia]

Archive of the Coast to Coast AM broadcast: https://zfirelight.blogspot.com/2024/02 ... e.html?m=1

Going off the handful reactions in the CtCAM subreddit, https://old.reddit.com/r/coasttocoastam ... afterlife/ the reaction from regular listeners was as underwhelmed as I was. The show is certainly a long way from where it was at its height under Art Bell. The reaction on Wikipedia itself has been muted, only two posts, one relating to George Knapp's birth date https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1206283667 (which doesn't have a good source and therefore isn't in the article) and one about Lue Elizondo's birth location https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1207096772 (A newspaper suggests it was in Florida, but Lue himself insists its in Texas, having provided a reported birth certificate which says as such, I removed discussion of his birth location entirely a few days ago)

I also forgot to mention, but the topic was also previously discussed on George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell's "Weaponized" podcast on the 7 of February, which has 147,000 views on Youtube (discussion starts around 37 minutes in):

[rnu]

I just checked to see how many signatures the petition has now (626). I scrolled down to see what kind of other petitions change.org has. I really wish I hadn't.

[rnu]

Rob Palmer (Skeptical Inquirer): UFO Conspiracy on Wikipedia Claims:A Conversation with GSoW’s Susan Gerbic

[Giraffe Stapler]

I just checked to see how many signatures the petition has now (626). I scrolled down to see what kind of other petitions change.org has. I really wish I hadn't.

Oh, you thought it only hosted serious petitions like this one?

[PartikleZoo]

Rob Palmer (Skeptical Inquirer): UFO Conspiracy on Wikipedia Claims:A Conversation with GSoW’s Susan Gerbic

I am less impressed than may be expected to see Susan Gerbic interviewed by a leading member of the Guerrilla Skeptics and saying that the Guerrilla Skeptics are wonderful people and innocent of all charges. They probably are innocent in this case, but the Skeptical Inquirer should have higher standards than this. Perhaps someone who is not a leading member of GSoW could have conducted the interview?

[Ron Lybonly]

See https://www.change.org/p/demand-wikiped ... nformation

Full disclosure: I am named as one of the "problematic" editors named in the petition, but I don't really regularly edit about UFOs,

This all started back in January, as detailed in Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#UFOlogy_promoter_BLPs (T-H-L)

In the UFO corners of Twitter and Reddit, a baseless conspiracy theory developed that longtime skeptic editor in the UFO topic area LuckyLouie (T-C-L) was really former Tony Hawk Pro Skater developer and professional UFO debunker Mick West (T-H-L).

This conspiracy eventually merged with the long existing canard about "Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" (previously discussed viewtopic.php?t=12429) a group often portrayed by Wikipedia critics (e.g. Rupert Sheldrake https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/wikipedia) as powerful group encompassing essentially all of Wikipedia's "skepticism" alligned editors, but which as far as I can tell is actually much smaller, with most of the regulars at Fringe theories/Noticeboard having nothing to do with the group,

This has been slowly boiling over the last month, being covered by small fringe YouTubers and the like, but the controversy seems likely to reach new heights, as is it set to be covered soon by popular paranormal radio show Coast to Coast AM (T-H-L) on the 25 of this month. https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2024-02-25-show/

You’re just complaining because you’re some sort of lizard person

[iii]

Rob Palmer (Skeptical Inquirer): UFO Conspiracy on Wikipedia Claims:A Conversation with GSoW’s Susan Gerbic

I am less impressed than may be expected to see Susan Gerbic interviewed by a leading member of the Guerrilla Skeptics and saying that the Guerrilla Skeptics are wonderful people and innocent of all charges. They probably are innocent in this case, but the Skeptical Inquirer should have higher standards than this. Perhaps someone who is not a leading member of GSoW could have conducted the interview?

The real value of the piece was the easter egg video of Fallon Fox (T-H-L) Zoom bombing the Guerrilla Skeptics. That was highly amusing.

[rnu]

I just checked to see how many signatures the petition has now (626). I scrolled down to see what kind of other petitions change.org has. I really wish I hadn't.

Oh, you thought it only hosted serious petitions like this one?

I was hoping this one was at the stupid end of the spectrum. Now I'm not so sure there is a stupid end, just an endless continuum of stupid.

[Vigilant]

I just checked to see how many signatures the petition has now (626). I scrolled down to see what kind of other petitions change.org has. I really wish I hadn't.

Oh, you thought it only hosted serious petitions like this one?

I was hoping this one was at the stupid end of the spectrum. Now I'm not so sure there is a stupid end, just an endless continuum of stupid.

It's a Hilbert Space.

[Ron Lybonly]

I just checked to see how many signatures the petition has now (626). I scrolled down to see what kind of other petitions change.org has. I really wish I hadn't.

Oh, you thought it only hosted serious petitions like this one?

I was hoping this one was at the stupid end of the spectrum. Now I'm not so sure there is a stupid end, just an endless continuum of stupid.

It's a Hilbert Space.

What’s a Hilbert Space???