MastCell rides again! And other skepticism topics...

[EricBarbour]

Today a friend of mine who follows skeptic bloggers sent the following out on a mailing list:

> Subject: Ben Radford stumbles badly
>
> How bad did he stumble? The president of CFI had to take him to task:
> http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/e ... _blog_post
> David Gorsky eviscerates him:

Of course I could not resist this, so I said:

You said the magic woid!

> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... kepticism/

In which Gorski says, and I quote:
"That’s why I’ve become very insistent that we, as skeptics, scientists, and physicians, need to be totally up front about our conflicts of interest, be they financial, ideological, or personal."

Has Gorski ever mentioned that he's a powerful administrator on Wikipedia (User:MastCell), and relentlessly attacks anyone whose edits he doesn't like, for pushing pseudoscience or for whatever other reason? Did he ever mention that he has aggressively protected one of Wikipedia's worst process abusers, Mathsci? Did he ever mention (as I suspect) he's glorified certain chemotherapy drugs on Wikipedia, apparently at the behest of the manufacturers of said drugs? Oh, right, of course he didn't mention any of that. Why should he?

From what I've seen, skeptics can be every bit as petty, crude, and dishonest as any pseudoscience, New Age, creationist, or other kind of crank. Assholery finds a home in every corner of humanity.

Anyone who doesn't believe me is welcome to email me directly, I've got a dossier on Gorski and his friend Mathsci. A very, very thick dossier.

Just couldn't pass that one up.

[Johnny Au]

I am a skeptic myself (and a secular atheist), but I find many skeptics on the Internet as rude frat boys, which makes me skeptical of skeptics (and creationists, pseudoscientists, New Agers, and such as well); in other words, I have an overly critical mind.

Some of the RationalWiki articles, especially those outside of religion and the paranormal seems written by frat boys, especially RationalWiki's article on Wikipedia, which contains a stylized phallus.

[The Joy]

Another dissection of MastCell's blog post.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... kepticism/

[EricBarbour]

Another dissection of MastCell's blog post.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... kepticism/

Um, that's the same blog post.....

[Anthonyhcole]

he's glorified certain chemotherapy drugs on Wikipedia, apparently at the behest of the manufacturers of said drugs

Link? This is a named individual you are defaming here. What's your name, profession and employer, by the way?

[EricBarbour]

Link? This is a named individual you are defaming here. What's your name, profession and employer, by the way?

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_ ... aug08.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/david-gorski-md.html

Yeah, it's his crank-science enemies who keep pointing this stuff out. Which doesn't mean it ain't got some truth.

I'll tell you my name when you tell me yours. Ha ha ha.

[Zoloft]

You... could... Google Eric, you know. He posts under his real name. Is Anthony H. Cole yours, perchance?

[Anthonyhcole]

Link? This is a named individual you are defaming here. What's your name, profession and employer, by the way?

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_ ... aug08.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/david-gorski-md.html

Yeah, it's his crank-science enemies who keep pointing this stuff out. Which doesn't mean it ain't got some truth.

I'll tell you my name when you tell me yours. Ha ha ha.

Sadly, I ran out of time I can devote to complete shit before I got to the end of the second link, so I'll never know if it provided evidence of Gorski glorifying certain chemotherapy drugs on Wikipedia at the behest of the manufacturers of said drugs.

[Zoloft]

A more complete quote:

Did he ever mention (as I suspect) he's glorified certain chemotherapy drugs on Wikipedia, apparently at the behest of the manufacturers of said drugs?

Don't cut off modifiers, please. That said, I have not seen a link that supports such an inference against Gorski.

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

[EricBarbour]

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

Agreed, although I still find Gorski's methods and attitude repellent. He doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia to keep crackpot ideas out of article content, so much as to merely get his jollies by stepping on someone. Anyone.

Wikipedia policies could easily be modified to require an editorial stance favorable to scientific and rational thought and practice. But I have not seen any substantial attempt to propose such a change. Instead, the insiders fight openly with cranks, thus making themselves look like cranks -- simply of a different variety. Is this good for article content quality? I doubt it, after looking at tens of thousands of articles, and seeing the shredded and incoherent text that usually results from editwars.

[Stan Dixon]

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

The end justifies the means?

Not for me.

[Kelly Martin]

Some of the RationalWiki articles, especially those outside of religion and the paranormal seems written by frat boys, especially RationalWiki's article on Wikipedia, which contains a stylized phallus.

Considering that RationalWiki is essentially run by shock-jock David Gerard, this surprises me very little.

I strongly dislike so-called skeptics. While I tend to agree with a lot of their objective positions, their snarky, condescending attitude evinces with crystal clarity that the reason they do what they do is not to educate the public, but indeed to obtain ego gratification by "proving" their own superiority, as compared to the silly people who believe silly things. Or, as Eric said, "merely get [their] jollies by stepping on someone. Anyone." Small wonder that so many of them are trolls.

[lilburne]

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

The end justifies the means?

Not for me.

In the case of anti-vaxxers and other woo pedlars it does. Where the likes of MastCell go too far is when they misrepresent the views of someone, or go after any one that might have sat at the same table in starbucks that a woo pedlar once did.

[Anthonyhcole]

Where the likes of MastCell go too far is when they misrepresent the views of someone, or go after any one that might have sat at the same table in starbucks that a woo pedlar once did.

I've never seen him do that. The crap woo-fighters, like iii on this site, push too hard, misrepresent policy and tell lies at noticeboards to the point where I find myself defending the poor bullied acupuncturists. I've never seen MastCell do any of that. When you're across the sources and policy, it's more efficient to just cite them.

[Johnny Au]

RationalWiki uses irrational rationality.

[Anthonyhcole]

Wikipedia policies could easily be modified to require an editorial stance favorable to scientific and rational thought and practice. But I have not seen any substantial attempt to propose such a change.

Generally, a good grasp of the sources and Wikipedia's existing content policies is enough to keep any health-related article evidence-based. But not always.

I showed an interest in the Transcendental Meditation® article a while back. Then I realised some morons had written a "review" of the evidence for TM's efficacy in cardiovascular disease that relied heavily and uncritically on the findings of two earlier reviews funded by the TM corporation and blatantly biased. Unfortunately, the more recent "review" had been published in a journal with a reasonable reputation and impact factor.

Though the evidence reviewed was utterly equivocal and of such poor quality as to be without meaning really, that "review" said TM should be considered as a useful treatment for cardiovascular disease (hypertension? - it was a while ago). I can't bear to look at the article now. The TM corporation got given millions of USA taxpayer dollars to conduct their own tests on their product and have basically polluted the literature with the studies they've chosen to publish.

Not sure what policy change could help that.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

The thing about people such as MastCell is that they rarely limit their zeal to going after the fringers.

[Zoloft]

I in general am in favor of any measure taken against anti-vaxxers, so you won't find me attacking MastCell (T-C-L) much.

The end justifies the means?

Not for me.

Not what I said, anyway.

[lilburne]

Where the likes of MastCell go too far is when they misrepresent the views of someone, or go after any one that might have sat at the same table in starbucks that a woo pedlar once did.

I've never seen him do that. The crap woo-fighters, like iii on this site, push too hard, misrepresent policy and tell lies at noticeboards to the point where I find myself defending the poor bullied acupuncturists. I've never seen MastCell do any of that. When you're across the sources and policy, it's more efficient to just cite them.

Whatever, many of the cabal do so. Years ago there was a cop in the city that was a violent little prick. Just one amongst a group of ten. The others looked the other way and let it happen. In my book all the fucking same.

[iii]

Wikipedia policies could easily be modified....

[iii]

The crap woo-fighters, like iii on this site, push too hard, misrepresent policy and tell lies at noticeboards to the point where I find myself defending the poor bullied acupuncturists.

It's always nice to see a True BelieverTM in Wikipedia hold up "policy" as though it were holy scripture.

Apparently, I told "lies" at noticeboards. I remember a decade ago getting in to trouble because I wrote that a particular user of Wikipedia was telling "lies". I got some pedant explaining to me that even if what they said was not true, it's only a lie if they are intentionally trying to mislead or propagate a falsehood. Then they cited Augustine of Hippo or something....

....anyway.... it would be nice if you provided at least a diff of these LIES before defaming me.

kthnxbye.

[iii]

Though the evidence reviewed was utterly equivocal and of such poor quality as to be without meaning really, that "review" said TM should be considered as a useful treatment for cardiovascular disease (hypertension? - it was a while ago). I can't bear to look at the article now. The TM corporation got given millions of USA taxpayer dollars to conduct their own tests on their product and have basically polluted the literature with the studies they've chosen to publish.

Not sure what policy change could help that.

Proper editorial control works. Look at Britannica's treatment of transcendental meditation.

[The Joy]

Another dissection of MastCell's blog post.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... kepticism/

Um, that's the same blog post.....

[Anthonyhcole]

The crap woo-fighters, like iii on this site, push too hard, misrepresent policy and tell lies at noticeboards to the point where I find myself defending the poor bullied acupuncturists.

It's always nice to see a True BelieverTM in Wikipedia hold up "policy" as though it were holy scripture.

Apparently, I told "lies" at noticeboards. I remember a decade ago getting in to trouble because I wrote that a particular user of Wikipedia was telling "lies". I got some pedant explaining to me that even if what they said was not true, it's only a lie if they are intentionally trying to mislead or propagate a falsehood. Then they cited Augustine of Hippo or something....

....anyway.... it would be nice if you provided at least a diff of these LIES before defaming me.

kthnxbye.

I can't be bothered. Just mark it down as an unjustified slur. You and others of your ilk kicked up such acrimonious dust in the whole magical thinking arena that ordinarily reasonable people ended up supporting the weirdos. Nice one. I'm not a true believer. I just don't like you or the stupid things you do in the name of SkepticismTM.

[iii]

....anyway.... it would be nice if you provided at least a diff of these LIES before defaming me.

kthnxbye.

I can't be bothered. Just mark it down as an unjustified slur. You and others of your ilk kicked up such acrimonious dust in the whole magical thinking arena that ordinarily reasonable people ended up supporting the weirdos. Nice one. I'm not a true believer. I just don't like you or the stupid things you do in the name of SkepticismTM.

So ya got nothing?

Here's the prob, bob: Wikipedia is designed to accept all comers -- competent and otherwise. What you are complaining about, without evidence, is that somehow I'm acting to send your dear friends into the arms of incompetence. I think, however, that they may have just always been incompetent. Possible? Nah. Easier to blame the messenger.

[Poetlister]

I am a skeptic myself (and a secular atheist)

That's an interesting phrase. if you mean "concerned with this world and not the spiritual", aren't most atheists? Or do you mean "only occurring once a century, or once in an age" or "lasting for an indefinitely long time"?

[Anthonyhcole]

....anyway.... it would be nice if you provided at least a diff of these LIES before defaming me.

kthnxbye.

I can't be bothered. Just mark it down as an unjustified slur. You and others of your ilk kicked up such acrimonious dust in the whole magical thinking arena that ordinarily reasonable people ended up supporting the weirdos. Nice one. I'm not a true believer. I just don't like you or the stupid things you do in the name of SkepticismTM.

So ya got nothing?

Here's the prob, bob: Wikipedia is designed to accept all comers -- competent and otherwise. What you are complaining about, without evidence, is that somehow I'm acting to send your dear friends into the arms of incompetence. I think, however, that they may have just always been incompetent. Possible? Nah. Easier to blame the messenger.

QED. Be my guest; have the last word.

[Peter Damian]

The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery,[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[21][25] and physically impossible.[26]

I think I get it.

[Zoloft]

The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery,[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[21][25] and physically impossible.[26]

I think I get it.

I think they are trying to dilute the assertion to increase its potentcy.

[EricBarbour]

I think they are trying to dilute the assertion to increase its potency.

[EricBarbour]

Shall we talk about other skeptics on Wikipedia?

What about Brian Dunning (T-H-L)? He's got a "small legal problem", which is covered in the article. But it's otherwise an ugly mash-up of trivia about the "great Brian Dunning", operator of skeptoid.com and hero to thousands of skeptics worldwide.

Wikipedia skeptics, especially Sgerbic, watch Dunning's article carefully. They even take requests from him. And look at the spluttering below that by Sgerbic and friends about the prosecution for wire fraud.

Someone added the wire fraud back into the lede. In fact it is the majority of the lede. This is NOT what he is known for. I would think that after how many years, if there was a good case against Dunning it would be in the news and maybe resolved by now? Can we get the lede rewritten correctly for what he is actually notable for? It looks like someone has an agenda against Dunning. 5 books and a very successful podcast I think should count for something. Sgerbic (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

He unquestionably pled guilty last year. The scam totaled $5.2 million. He might serve up to 20 years in Federal prison. But to a few Wikipedians, he's still a "hero".

Once again, scientific skepticism on Wikipedia has got very little to do with "science" or "facts". It's all a giant wargame and pissing contest. The "content" be damned.

[SB_Johnny]

I think they are trying to dilute the assertion to increase its potency.

Homeopathy is one of those things that you don't really understand just how ridiculous it is until you bother to read up about it, and then wonder why you bothered.

[Zoloft]

I think they are trying to dilute the assertion to increase its potency.

Homeopathy is one of those things that you don't really understand just how ridiculous it is until you bother to read up about it, and then wonder why you bothered.

If you were a forward-thinking homeopathy adherent, drinking distilled water would simultaneously kill you, intoxicate you, and cure every ailment you ever had.

[Johnny Au]

I think they are trying to dilute the assertion to increase its potency.

Homeopathy is one of those things that you don't really understand just how ridiculous it is until you bother to read up about it, and then wonder why you bothered.

If you were a forward-thinking homeopathy adherent, drinking distilled water would simultaneously kill you, intoxicate you, and cure every ailment you ever had.

This is why distilled water is sold at high prices from "priests" who call it "holy water," claiming that it has the ultimate homeopathic properties.

[Stierlitz]

Some of the RationalWiki articles, especially those outside of religion and the paranormal seems written by frat boys, especially RationalWiki's article on Wikipedia, which contains a stylized phallus.

Considering that RationalWiki is essentially run by shock-jock David Gerard, this surprises me very little.

I strongly dislike so-called skeptics. While I tend to agree with a lot of their objective positions, their snarky, condescending attitude evinces with crystal clarity that the reason they do what they do is not to educate the public, but indeed to obtain ego gratification by "proving" their own superiority, as compared to the silly people who believe silly things. Or, as Eric said, "merely get [their] jollies by stepping on someone. Anyone." Small wonder that so many of them are trolls.

I agree with the snark....my problem is that they remind me of people at a yacht club combined with a snooty museum docent. They really aren't helping science education and they aren't making disbelievers out of the Fundamentalist Christians they somewhat resemble. And this has been going on for a long time; Marcello Truzzi walked out of CSICOP in the late 1970s because the magazine he was editing was too moderate for leadership's taste. Phil Klass, the dean of UFO skeptics and an editor of Aviation Week magazine, had a loong history of letter-writing campaigns including an attempt to get a 1983 University of Nebraska UFO seminar cancelled because it would "lend support to the Communist movement." In that incident, he also secretly tape-recorded a conversation between himself and a U of N administrator, then quoted the UoN man at length in a letter to that same person later. Klass was also a member of CSICOP, which now calls itself CSI just to confuse people. James Randi is formerly a member of CSI(COP); according to fellow stage performer Tim Cridland* they gave him the boot because of his endless legal battles with Uri Geller. The recent problems Michael Shermer has been having seem to be a variation of the big ego problems of the past.

___________

* http://radiomisterioso.com/audio/Tim_Cr ... 5_1_13.mp3
An interview he did with Greg Bishop's internet radio show. He starts talking about Randi 37 minutes in. His article on Randi is not online but was printed in: Electricity of the Mind The Anomalist 14: A Nonfiction Anthology ISBN: 1933665394

[Kelly Martin]

I agree with the snark....my problem is that they remind me of people at a yacht club combined with a snooty museum docent. They really aren't helping science education and they aren't making disbelievers out of the Fundamentalist Christians they somewhat resemble.

Fundamentally the issue with skeptics is that they don't appear to understand that some people really do want to believe. When you're dealing with someone who wants to believe, no amount of objective evidence will convince them not to believe, so no matter how eloquently, forcefully, or repetitively you make your points, the other party is not going to change their mind. Some of them claim that they engage in such pointless battles "for the sake of convincing onlookers", but my experience is that the real reason is because they gain enjoyment from hounding believers (for whom they have a panoply of demeaning names) for their belief. In other words, it's a form of bullying. The aggressiveness of their hounding makes them appear vicious and nasty to uninvolved observers, and tends to confirm the faith of believers, who view the attacks as faith-derived persecution, which in most religions serves as validation.

I'm fairly open about being a secular agnostic (I actually identify as an "apatheist": one for whom whether or not gods exist is a unimportant question), and this has gotten me occasionally invited into online atheist groups. I usually get kicked out after a while for being too friendly toward believers, and I've stopped accepting such invitations.

[Peter Damian]

They really aren't helping science education and they aren't making disbelievers out of the Fundamentalist Christians they somewhat resemble.

I did get briefly involved with the global warming articles years ago. My problem was that they just kept repeating statements about scientific consensus and so on. In philosophy we call this 'argument from authority'. The problem with argument from authority is that it is the least likely to persuade anyone who isn't already persuaded, and particularly not a conspiracy theorist. Well of course the scientific establishment would say that.

The arguments from authority were supplemented by lots of incomprehensible equations about forcing.

I suggested rewriting in a way that would clearly explain to issues to a generalist audience, but was howled down - I remember a particularly horrid person called Tony Sidaway.

William Connolley was actually quite helpful. We had a long correspondence (which we continue from time to time) and he showed how the ideas could be explained quite easily. But he warned against approaching the articles. It was like a battlefield where there's a kind of truce, but everyone is armed to the teeth and anyone who strays in No Man's Land is likely to get shot to pieces.

[Notvelty]

I agree with the snark....my problem is that they remind me of people at a yacht club combined with a snooty museum docent. They really aren't helping science education and they aren't making disbelievers out of the Fundamentalist Christians they somewhat resemble.

Fundamentally the issue with skeptics is {...} Some of them claim that they engage in such pointless battles "for the sake of convincing onlookers", but my experience is that the real reason is because they gain enjoyment from hounding believers (for whom they have a panoply of demeaning names) for their belief.

Also

- Looking cool in front of their mates.
- Establishing themselves as holding "fashionable" ideas.
- Making sure everyone understands that they are more moral and intelligent than those who do not hold "fashionable" ideas.

Moralistas.. they're just better than you are.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Shall we talk about other skeptics on Wikipedia?

We can talk about MastCell's bio at the David Gorski (T-H-L) 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.

[Cla68]

Shall we talk about other skeptics on Wikipedia?

We can talk about MastCell's bio at the David Gorski (T-H-L) 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.

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

[EricBarbour]

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

Their Facebook page does not have public listings for "members" or "likes". Isn't it amazing how they brag openly on the blog about creating Wikipedia biographies of their friends and colleagues, and of fighting with pseudoscience cranks thereon, but don't share details of their FB account?

As noted on the blog, they created a rather lengthy article for Sara Mayhew (T-H-L). A cartoonist and a rather obscure one at that. I would call her "barely notable". GSoW is proving to be a mildly successful garbage factory.

[Cla68]

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

Their Facebook page does not have public listings for "members" or "likes". Isn't it amazing how they brag openly on the blog about creating Wikipedia biographies of their friends and colleagues, and of fighting with pseudoscience cranks thereon, but don't share details of their FB account?

As noted on the blog, they created a rather lengthy article for Sara Mayhew (T-H-L). A cartoonist and a rather obscure one at that. I would call her "barely notable". GSoW is proving to be a mildly successful garbage factory.

It says they have 251 "likes" i.e. members. Looks like they post items of general interest on the GSoW page, then probably post article editing alerts on their own pages, which they can each see since they Friend each other. That way, they can hide the actual coordination that goes on by keeping their personal privacy settings high.

[Captain Occam]

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

Do you mean a blog post about MastCell specifically, or just about the guerrilla skepticism project in general?

[Cla68]

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

Do you mean a blog post about MastCell specifically, or just about the guerrilla skepticism project in general?

About the entire situation. This is one of the only times in the past few years I've seen that there might be a smoking gun on an activist group coordinating their editing to try to control topics in Wikipedia.

[Zoloft]

What if Gorski ≠ MastCell?

[Stierlitz]

Fundamentally the issue with skeptics is that they don't appear to understand that some people really do want to believe. When you're dealing with someone who wants to believe, no amount of objective evidence will convince them not to believe, so no matter how eloquently, forcefully, or repetitively you make your points, the other party is not going to change their mind. Some of them claim that they engage in such pointless battles "for the sake of convincing onlookers", but my experience is that the real reason is because they gain enjoyment from hounding believers (for whom they have a panoply of demeaning names) for their belief.

I agree, and the stuff they do is starting to backfire on them; one recent Halloween the junior members of JREF went to a James Van Pragh seance all dressed as zombies and they quickly got thrown out. All I could think was, "Peter Popoff came back to the airwaves doing his same faith-healer shtick.....why not expose him again? James Randi (the "JR" of JREF) did it on national TV in the late 1980s." I think that many skeptics have conflated "fraud" with "belief" thanks to guys like Popoff, Robert Tilton, Baghwan Sri Rajneesh, L. Ron Hubbard, etc. and it's gotten to a point where they can't believe that normal churches exist.

[Johnny Au]

...and there are Young Earth Creationists such as Ray Comfort to worry about as well.

[Stierlitz]

...and there are Young Earth Creationists such as Ray Comfort to worry about as well.

Creationism has always been a sideshow, a fake science to go along with the fake pop culture of the Fundamentalist Christian "world." When they fade away (and it is gradually happening), creationism will be a dead letter, like British Israelitism.

[IRWolfie-]

Looks like good material for a blog post. Notice that they openly admit using Facebook to coordinate their Wikipedia editing. Does MastCell belong to this group?

Do you mean a blog post about MastCell specifically, or just about the guerrilla skepticism project in general?

About the entire situation. This is one of the only times in the past few years I've seen that there might be a smoking gun on an activist group coordinating their editing to try to control topics in Wikipedia.

Pfft. The GS guys avoid vote stacking etc, and they generally seem to be an innocuous group. They generally shy away from making controversial edits. They have been quite public about their intentions and have committed to following policy. Several admins are aware of their existence. I know of no incidents or issues, on-wiki, that they've been involved in. Personally I'd prefer if they tried to move from facebook or whatever to wikiproject skepticism so it wouldn't be so dead.

[Johnny Au]

...and there are Young Earth Creationists such as Ray Comfort to worry about as well.

Creationism has always been a sideshow, a fake science to go along with the fake pop culture of the Fundamentalist Christian "world." When they fade away (and it is gradually happening), creationism will be a dead letter, like British Israelitism.

Good. In a century from now, Young Earth Creationism will be history, just like geocentrism today. Likewise, in a century from now, support for Rob Ford (T-H-L) would be next to zero, as most of his loyal supporters are at an advanced age.