User talk:Sgerbic/Archives/2022/03

Member of the [Not] Secret Cabal?

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh Guy - I've so enjoyed your comments on the SI discussion. I think all will be well, I sacrificed a bag of yummy kettlecorn to the highness of corn and yummy goodness. We all know that there is no Cabal, but there is a Secret Cabal. We are planning on trying to restart WikiProject Skepticism, why don't you come help us? Sgerbic (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

[1] :) --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I just wanted to let you know that I very much liked your most recent comment at the ArbCom PD talk page. Happy editing, going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone had read that comment, no one responded. But I did get a "thank" from one of the ArbCom, so now I know at least two people did. Most of your comments were welcome during the ordeal. Nice to know of you. Sgerbic (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I read it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Woof. Sgerbic (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Thanks ...

		The Special Barnstar
		...for your gracious response to this. All the best, Miniapolis 00:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Deprodding of Lady Sheba

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Lady Sheba, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So - is talk page stalking really a thing?

I find that very strange if so. Sgerbic (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How so, Sgerbic? I haven't heard of it. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

I don't think it's stalking, as much as just being watchlisted. I see changes to your talk page on my watchlist, and if there's something constructive, or funny, I can add, sometimes I will. It's a handy way to get help too, like with my recent post on User talk:Drmies. Was able to get assistance the that would be difficult to seek out elsewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Everybody does it. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I still have your talk page on my watchlist from our brief interaction there. Watchlists are like hallway closets, you keep stacking stuff in, and seldom clean it out. For example, here's a stock photo of me monitoring my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Any page you edit can be added to your watchlist according to your settings in preferences. useful for watching people you dont trust and for people you do trust. I have you, bish, SFR and User:Bilby on my list, just to note some interesting ones, and many many more. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I probably have a thousand or so IPs and one-off user accounts that I watched when issuing warnings. I only remember when I see them come up as blocked at some point. I try to remember to set some pages to a week or a month instead of permanent, but once if I forget it's there forever. I pick up watched pages like I pick up hand tools at flea markets. If you ever need to borrow a rasp, let me know. On another note, I didn't mention it because you asked me to stay off your talk page, but good luck, and I hope things turn out well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It just feels creepy and odd. I have things I need to watch on my watch list and I clean it out often. If I want to know something I look it up, but don't you all have enough to do, to keep your eye on besides other editors? If I have a question I ask someone specifically or in WikiProject Skepticism or in my Secret Cabal. I can't be that interesting, why me? Here is how it feels, like I'm being monitored and not trusted, that you all are waiting for me to try something sneaky. But apparently it's a "thing". Did I tell you to stay off my talk page Radish? I don't remember that, did I have a good reason? Sgerbic (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Roxy asked me to stay off his page, sorry if I wasn't clear. [2] Looks like you have me beat on talk page watchers by a few. To be honest I was expecting you to have more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

See Wikipedia:Talk page stalker and Template:Talk page stalker, which you invoke by placing {{tps}} at the start of your comment, as I did above.

I for one welcome my many loyal   minions   sycophants   fanbois   henchmen   talk page stalkers   talk page watchers. Many times I log on to find someone had vandalized my talk page and it was reverted a couple of minutes later while I was off having fun.

If you don't want a particular person on your talk page, delete the edit withour responding and post the words "Please stay off my talk page" to their talk page - and never again post to their talk page; fair is fair. If they keep posting to your talk page after that report it at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

When I have a user talk-page interaction with somebody, I generally add that talk page to my watchlist so I can see any replies or other developments - people don't always ping the other party. This is why I LOVE the new facility to add to the watchlist for a limited time: I can add it for just a month, then it will go away and not clutter up my life.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: 62 editors have your User Talk page on their watchlists. You're famous!--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

62 - that's ridiculous. Are they waiting for me to do a trick? Trust me I'm not that interesting. Guy that happened to me just a few days ago, how interesting that you said that. But you probably are watching that talk page (since you are a watcher) and saw that I asked why the heck were they on my user page and reverted something, then they put it back seconds later. That fricken creeped me out, like you just saw the neighbor across the street pointing binoculars at your window. Or someone breaking into your house, then touching things and putting them back, but not exactly where you put them so that you will be given the message that you are being watched. Sgerbic (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it might seem creepy but that sort of thing happens here. People work through their watchlist and see something they want to look at, look at the history of the page to see what changed recently, then accidentally hit a button which does a rollback. It's unfortunate but standard. Clumsy but not creepy. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

With all I went though lately, trust me that was creepy. But if you say so as an admin yourself, I suppose you have seen that many times before. The person who did this said that they were looking at their phone and probably hit rollback while putting their phone in their pocket. I'm picturing that and not sure why they felt the need to look at my user page while on their phone, sounded like someone who checks my user page often and is really concerned that I'm going to be doing something bad. I really doubt that they were looking at my user page for positive reasons. I'm pretty wary these days. Sgerbic (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should all heed my late grandmother's advice: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Are they waiting for me to do a trick?" Yes. Yes we are. (Smile) [3] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

When admins watch somebody's talkpage, Sgerbic, it's often not so much because they want the see the editor do a trick, as because they want to see their visitors. For example, Indian nationalists and caste promoters will beat a path to the pages of editors who try to hold them back (a thankless job) to try to intimidate, or just to spit insults, and then I, the Talkpage Stalker, block them. (And then they create another sock, but oh well.) Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC).

If you'd like I can remove your talk page from my watchlist. I'd rather not make you feel looked in upon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Same here. I like to think that my comments are a combination of useful technical editing/policy advice and good-natured joking among friends, but I certainly don't want to cause distress. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Joking and friendly batter are fine. Someone coming in and rolling back my edits is not welcome. During the ArbCom case against me I did get some off people posting on my talk page. People I had never seen before, asking me questions and advising me. I was advised not to give them attention as they were probably socks. We also got some very very unusual attention on off-Wikipedia blogs that were closely following the ArbCom case. It was quite unusual. Keep in mind I'm pretty public, I do edit under my real name after all. Sgerbic (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The arbcom case really brought them out of the woodwork. I got an email from SatanicPresence, these two weird ass messages, this message out of nowhere, and this, which isn't related to arbcom, but as a skeptic I figured you'd find it amusing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The false flag narrative was really amusing. My Cabal loved that. We were called "dirty mole rats" which might actually end up on a t-shirt at our next conference. One was talking about I was only pretending to be incompetent. Of course some are reading this talk page as well, thrilled that I read their blogs. A lot of hate and also support apparently was on those blogs. Didn't I see your name Radish posting on one of those blogs? You can't explain anything to them, they always take your words and twist them. Since 2013 I've been under attack by the woo-woo crowd, it was quite different to be under attack here on Wikipedia by people who are my peers and professed to identify as skeptics. Discussion, YES - Attacks, NOT WELCOME. I'm still seeing from some editors nasty remarks against GSoW, I think the ArbCom case gave some the feeling that GSoW is now a pejorative and we are free game for attack. Sgerbic (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person or group they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't post on any blogs, and I think the last time I blogged I also ran a MUD, so well over a decade ago. I do post on the Wikipediocracy forum, but I think my posts about the arbcom case were pretty benign. I don't think I really follow any blogs related to skepticism, or counter-skepticism(??? if that's a thing). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a series of good examples from yesterday of why it's nice to have people watching your talk page. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  What is that all about? Sgerbic (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% certain, but I believe it's Hindu nationalists upset about an editor. I reverted vandalism to someone else's page that I watch, which got me on that vandalism list, I think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wow - how many hate lists are you on? I'm on more than I can count these days. Sgerbic (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I always meant to keep a log of them, but at this point there are too many to find all the diffs. I do remember that I'm a Palestinian Israeli paid editor for Nightingale College that is anti-Hindu, anti-wrestler, pro-Muhoozi Kainerugaba, anti-spiritual science and Anthroposophy, a paid editor at Lewis Hilsenteger and much, much more. I've even been put on the pro-fringe list!! Patrolling BLPs and edit requests apparently makes a lot of enemies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm also a World War 2 Jewish War Crimes apologist, not crimes against Jews, but all of the war crimes them committed during world war 2. Going through my talk page archives is a wild walk through my rather short history here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Dang! Funny thing is that here on Wikipedia is where I'm most liked, and you know how that turned out. Well I don't know if I can speak to you again if you are anti-wrestler. ;-) I noticed this morning I seem to have picked up a new hater on Twitter who brought up an editor named jytdog who was banned. I don't know anything about that. Sgerbic (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  That was a whole thing. There was an arbcase about it a while back. And all in all, I think the arbcase turned out reasonably well. No one is banned, just one narrow topic ban. The SI RFC is on its way to being wrapped up, eventually. It certainly wasn't the bloodbath(banbath?) they can often be. I feel like Rp2006 would have avoided the topic ban as well if he'd reacted a bit less aggressively to the BLP warnings and such. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  If he had gone on a campaign of kissing up I'm sure there would have been no problem. Skated with only a mild "be nice to people" result. And how many thousands of hours were wasted on the SI mess? And the result will probably be nothing more than they were at the beginning. Can you link to the jytdog case? I see to remember that editor name somewhere. Or better yet, just a summary of what it was about. I'm still getting crap from editors who don't want to let the GSoW ArbCom case go. Sgerbic (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Final_decision, the summary basically comes down to this FoF, In November 2018, Jytdog used external links to find the telephone number of an editor and called that editor without permission ([29]). Upon discovery of this incident, Jytdog was indefinitely blocked, then unblocked a few hours later (Jytdog block log). The editor had not posted their telephone number or other contact information on-wiki or given any indication they were willing to be contacted by telephone, nor did Jytdog obtain the editor's permission before calling them. Although Jytdog has stated that he called the editor in attempt to be helpful, he has admitted that the conversation became unfriendly and he wound up hanging up on the editor; he has also admitted that the call was improper. An arbitration case regarding the incident was accepted but not opened, because Jytdog stated that he would be retiring and had scrambled access to his account (motion). His account was re-blocked on December 5, 2018 as a part of that decision. In February 2020 he asked to be allowed to return, and this case was opened to consider his request.

  As for the the kissing up, I don't think that would be necessary, but not changing a BLP violation to another the same BLP violation with a gendered word change and a snarky edit summary didn't help, I'm sure. I still think that all the looking into who may have been a GSoW editor was a pretty big waste of time, and I wouldn't have ever opened an arb request about the whole thing myself. I'm still of the mind now that I was when we had this discussion, The only issue I have is with what I see as your conflict of interest editing. I don't find it to be a severe enough issue where I'm proactively pursuing anything... I'm actually not talking about the GSoW edits. I've mentioned before that trying to target an off wiki group won't work, so you just have to deal with issues as they arise on-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm giving it my all to get WikiProject Skepticism to be a living breathing helpful project - so we will see what the community does about it. And snarky is what many editors resort to when attacked. I'm not condoning it, but if we are all adults here then we should be able to deal with it. This isn't Disneyland and we editors aren't employees. Being involved in frenzied attacks from all over Wikipedia I can tell you honestly that was unsettling and I was more than snarky at least in my head. Sgerbic (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, and I've been snarky myself on more than one occasion, I'm just saying that it was particularly unhelpful for Rp2006 in the context of the arbcom case. I've seen some of the work you've done with the WikiProject, and it looks like more people are getting involved. Good luck with that, hope it catches on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm also An Enemy of the Article of Iran, if you were wondering. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I remember the Jytdog case now. I don't remember it going to ArbCom, well I had never read anything on ArbCom before I was summoned there. Sad really, it was a bad judgement by Jytdog. I mean who actually talks on phones these days? I only answer the phone maybe for ten people and they all are very close family or friends. Do we know why he called, what that was about? Was someone having problems with how to edit and he wanted to talk them though the problem? Or was it a difference in opinion about a Wikipedia page? Sgerbic (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Without going back through all the threads on this I'll try to recall, but keep in mind I may be about 98% incorrect. He was concerned about possible COI editing on a page, and found the contact information through a brochure or report or the like about a conference or something, and used that to track back who the editor was, and then called them to "discuss how to edit with a COI." It was a long time ago, and I wasn't doing anything other than sporadic IP editing at the time, so I don't really recall with the level I would if I had taken part in the discussions. He also had a history of needing to have his contributions oversighted due to revealing personal information about people he thought were taking part in COI editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh interesting. Several editors here have been seeing COI everywhere. To non-Wikipedia editors I hear this all the time also. People write to me and tell me that their page has been vandalized by some foe of theirs and they always mention a "edit war" and when I go look, it is just some random editor with a good strong diverse edit history that makes usually good changes to the page. And no evidence of a war. Sometimes there is evidence of a SPA, get those a lot in fringe. But when it's an experienced Wikipedia editor, that's sad and they probably need a break. Sgerbic (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that there is COI everywhere, and sockpuppets, NPOV, and all other manner of spicy nonsense. It makes it easy to get blinded to our responses to it.

  The fringe/woo area is far from the only topic with SPAs and bad behavior, and likely not the worst. It wears down on the people who patrol the areas. That said, no one should ever seek out someone's personal information and call them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree - that is not okay, ever. But the frustration that leads to being snarky is real. Sgerbic (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)