Talk:Rome Viharo/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Vote to delete/keep

[edit] Delete

This page is a deliberate attack piece on Viharo. It must be deleted, let's vote. I say delete Evolutionist (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


  1. delete yes, this page is nothing but a deliberate attack and until it is deleted, anyone can expect public pushback from me. delete because it's just flat out wrong to do this to people. it was deleted yesterday, but now it's back up. wouldn't it be so nice to show that Rational Wiki does not promote it's site as a payback site for skeptical activism? This article has no credibility to it. And if your supporting an article with no credibility to it, that really says a lot about the voice of this site over all. I'm pro skepticism, but I'm not pro these kind of activist tactics. This is skeptic extremism. They will give any movement a bad name. Also, I am publicly exposing these tactics. It would look MUCH nicer on the skeptical activist movement if Rational Wiki did the right thing - otherwise you guys are just creating enemies WHERE YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY. I am NOT a promoter of pseudoscience. RomeViharo (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

  1. Many of our articles attack psuoscience or its promoters. So the fact that this page "attacks" something is not a delete reason. We also have no notability criteria, and being a "troll magnet" is not a reason for deletion. keep--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 09:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    "We have no notability criteria" isn't a very helpful argument. We don't have a codified notability policy like Wikipedia does, but this doesn't mean all mission-related subjects are of equal interest. If this guy is mostly known for being a user at wikis & forums, we shouldn't give him the same level of attention as we do to somebody who is a household name or a significant figure in their field or movement. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    Then vote for "delete". You have my opinion.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    I already did! WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Keep, if only 'cause he (RV) wants it deleted. Weasel (mostly known for being a user at wikis & forums), We (RW) are in the world of wikis & fora as we are so I don't think that's any criterion to judge anyone by. — Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs
    I don't support articles on RationalWiki users either. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Keep because he's obviously a crank. Do not support any of the WP/sockpuppet nonsense being included, maybe a footnote about Sheldrake. Article should focus on his crank ideas. --Kels (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. Weak keep, but only on the condition that the article be a specific takedown of his crankery and not a blow-by-blow account of sockpuppetry at some other website. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 18:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. KEEP if only because of his influence on wingnuts. Rewrite the page if needed.--The Madman (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Actually, that's not a really good reason for voting "keep".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazing - someone here says keep only because I want it deleted. So you believe the best time to harass someone is when they have been harassed? Anyone here to wants to keep this article is endorsing online harassment as a tactic to make a point. Trust me, that will not fair well on the skeptic activist community. Interesting too, the best way to get rid of me and quiet me is by deleting this page. That is what will get me far less attention. It's literally in your best interests too. Because I can assure you as long as this page is up, I am going to be getting more and more attention for exposing online harassment on Wikipedia. That the harassment came from the skeptic movement should not be a reflection on the skeptic movement itself but you're making it so. But it's more important to some editors here to be right rather than do the right thing. RomeViharo (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. week keep? PowderSmokeAndLeather: - crank ideas? such as? a tongue in cheek project from 2003? an idea about discussion forums and conflict? my online collective editor? my TEDx talk that suggested social media will evolve into collaborative government? Is that really a crank idea? Wikipedia we have a problem.com? That fact that you would even refer to me as a 'crank' online I consider harassment and an attack on my character. If I am going to have an article here, I would expect it to be a rational critique, and not some vague outline based on one or two opinions about something someone does not even comprehend. And if you have a problem with those ideas, why not just start an article on AL 0 1 2 instead? or Wikipedia we have a problem.com? I can assure you anyone attacking me for AL 0 1 2 is going to feel pretty dumb when they see what it is. All you're doing is creating enemies where you should not have any and are helping me expose a bias and level of harassment that is acceptable in your community. Deleting the article makes Rational Wiki look good, keeping the article makes Rational Wiki look like a bunch of disgruntled bullies with no idea what they are talking about. RomeViharo (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rome. I understand that you feel that : "the best way to get rid of me and too quiet me is by deleting this page." and that's probably right. But the question is not "How best to get rid of you?" . The question is "Is the page factually correct?" So yes, it is more important to be right than it is to do what is convenient. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
But the page is NOT factually correct. That's the problem. It's a complete misrepresentation of my worldview. That's the problem because the focus on the page is to 'attack' me. IF you want to attack me for TEDx, do it, but you're not attacking the idea I am promoting in the actual talk, you're hoping on buzz words like shamans. You're confusing story telling for something that it's not. If you want to attack me for os 012, do it please, but why? I dont even promote it anymore, you're the only ones getting it attention. Who even cares about that? And if your going to attack me, GET IT RIGHT! If you want to attack me for AL 0 1 2, do it, but it's not out yet. If you want to attack me for Wikipedia we have a problem.com DO IT, please but get the facts straight, especially because I would never have published it if I was not attacked on Rational Wiki. If you want to deny that this article has one purpose and that is to harass someone just keep on denying it. But ask yourself, WHAT VALUE does this article on me have?? What purpose does it serve? If it's factually incorrect, or takes things out of context, your creating a problem where there is none and you're not helping scepticism advance by publishing a bunch of misleading ideas. I think it would fair far better for the skeptic activist movement if they recognized harassment happening in their own community and choose not to participate in it. I would rather post 'hey - rational wiki deleted the article, which I did yesterday. and focus on a few problem individuals and keep the skeptic activist movement out of it, which is what I am attempting to do. I would rather report on resolution and sanity instead of frothing at the mouth irrationality that is displayed here. But one thing I can assure you of, this article on me here has motivated me to focus on online harassment in collaborative online environments like wiki and expose how they are abused.The abuse just happens to come from affiliates of skeptic activism. I'm not going to stop doing that. Wikipedia we have a problem has gone viral already, far more than I was expecting. The consensus in response so far does not make the skeptic activist tactics appear like anything other than a bunch of online bullies trying to find any way to make this article work so it can continue to serve it's purpose to harass. I can assure you, I am not the one who is looking like an ass. RomeViharo (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rome. If, as you say, the article is factually incorrect them it certainty should be corrected. That is certainly a potentially valid complaint which, I hope, will be addressed by those who are aware of the issues. It is however a reason for correction - not deletion.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I think you or anyone reasonable will find that if you take out the incorrections in the article, you are going to be left with an article about someone with no reason for them to have an article on Rational Wiki. My worldview is not that controversial for you to attack me on. I hardly think believing that social media could evolve into collaborative government is an idea that any progressive minded individual would need to attack or call me a crank over, especially in 2014 when it's already started to happen. I hardly think my agnostic philosophy is worth a notice. I hardly think a discussion I had on JREF on 2007 is notable for anything. the only thing I think that could be valid to attack would be my publication Wikipedia we have a problem.com - which mentions rational wiki and provides evidence of harassment by editors on wikipedia who promote skeptic activism. I also call Tim Farley out on this. I can understand if you want to attack that. But wouldn't it just be nicer if we all could a.)agree there is a problem with harassment online, irrespective of the ideologies involved, and b.) agree that harassment and bullying is counter productive to critical discussion? I would LOVE to write about that on the site, I would love to absolve rational wiki and focus on the behaviors of a few individuals instead. RomeViharo (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, well starting at the beginning I see we have something on "OS 0 1 2". Frankly our article does not seem to say exactly what it is; and whatever it is your comments above don't seem to suggest that it's still something you are heavily into. Is it something you are presently promoting and, if so, can you give a link to your present position on it? Thanks. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Rome seems to be talking out both sides of his mouth on OS 0 1 2, saying he doesn't promote it any more, and then talking up a related discussion platform called AL 0 1 2, soon to come on stream, he says. Mere distinction, or actual difference? (Let the audience decide? There's an ad populum for you.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
a fair question. addressed here. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/about-al-0-1-2/ RomeViharo (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Well that seems to be be post about it and some of your experiences with on-line forums. But I'm still not clear on what it actually is. Perhaps I read it too quickly looking for definition. Can you link to a clear, concise definition and confirm it is your current thinking? Cheers.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at your recent Twitter output. You've made multiple Tweets harassing JREF's Tim Farley, this is just one: [1]. And this is an obvious attempt to stir up the Society for Psychical Research's fears about pseudoskeptics: [2]. Your activity is not consistent with a neutral party or an innocent victim of circumstance. And that's just Twitter. I haven't even reviewed your other promotional (?) activity on Facebook, Reddit, yahoo answers, etc. Leuders (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  1. The goat says "meh." This whole mess is a colossal waste of time and attention. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. As a fan of all three valued systems, I too will also say "meh". Keep or delete, either way I win. I was hoping that the more rational minds here would see that the only way for Rational Wiki to win would be doing the right thing. But a few of the editors here have 'boob' mind and it's always the irrational players that ruin it for the community. That is, until AL 0 1 2 is released. :) RomeViharo (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. You are voting both "delete" and "abstain" (goat)? Is that right?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ahh, well it was sort of sarcastic, I was not aware my vote counted in the first place! I was just happy to see a third value other than delete or keep and it brought out the redditor in me. Of course my vote is to delete, I think it's in everyone's best interests. RomeViharo (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody has a vote Rome. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Those with sockpuppets have four or five! =) --Kels (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My vote is available to the highest bidder before a deadline of my choosing. BRB, making a paypal acct. Unique pinion (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Time to game the system! More seriously though, my vote on this is also Goat, perhaps leaning ever so slightly towards Weak delete. I've semi-followed this fiasco since it began, and it seems like a pretty rough mess at this point. Between the walls of text, back-and-forth link spams, and the various incomprehensible positions advanced by both sides, I honestly have no idea which parts of the article are factual and which are not. I feel like fixing up this article would require an as-of-yet uninvolved editor to take some time to sit down, ignore the talk page, and walk through the actual evidence. - GrantC (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I've got no axe to grind and neither do Grant and Kels. Perhaps we should wade thought the thing and decide what is abuse and what is legit?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I would be willing to take a closer look and do some research over the next few days. As per my comment earlier in this discussion (before the vote came up), I would be surprised if I found anything worth talking about. We'll see, however. - GrantC (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bob and others. I think that is fair. I do see a lot of the incorrections already out of the article. If you want to source, I am hoping to provide the following

1.) For the background of OS 0 1 2, from my POV, is located here. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/about-al-0-1-2/ I've been working on this for 11 years now. This year the actual platform is coming out. I accept that my methodologies in developing it were unorthodox, but to me that makes it more colorful, not cranky. If the idea of OS 0 1 2 is a crank idea, there is only one way to demonstrate it, by attacking the AL 0 1 2 platform when it comes out. I'll even give anyone here an invite to it in a few weeks. Other than that, I dont promote the OS 0 1 2 meme anymore and havent since 2007. I have even been meaning to take the site down. I hardly think that is worthy of an article, but that is just my opinion. I think if anyone critiques the idea, they should probably wait to see the platform, because any opinion of os 0 1 2 is going to be held in that light historically. Also, I dont promote OS 0 1 2 anymore so by writing about something that is 7 - 11 years old, it means Rational Wiki are the only ones promoting it. RomeViharo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

2.) Please just watch the TEDx talk, ALL THE WAY through because the talk is a give away, i.e. you wont know what the talk is really about until the last 7 minutes or so, Everything about shamans and google search being sentient is just a set up and the talk is a 'story', it's not a hypothesis about google being sentient, it's a metaphor for collective intelligence, with the hope that government will evolve into collaborative media. That is what I am promoting. If anyone wants to attack me, please attack me for the idea I actually promote. Please attack me for believing that government can evolve into collaborative media. Please attack me for designing, or even attempting to design, a collaborative media platform for rational consensus. I don't mind critiques of that, I encourage it and hope we can have something robust to talk about. However, this article is written like I am promoting the idea that Google is sentient and that plants can talk. A complete misrepresentation of the talk, and i mean a CLEAR misrepresentation of the talk if you watch it. You can also just read a summary here. RomeViharo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

3.) I am NOT known for trolling. I DO NOT SPREAD CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Seriously, that is offensive. That claim started on Wikipedia when editors tried to get me banned using the claim that I was spreading conspiracy theories when I asked a few members if they were members of GSoW. Somehow asking if editors are involved with GSoW made me deserve the title of spreading conspiracy theories, lumping me in with every 911 and reptilian nut job out there. I have a blog. Search it. Search for ONE conspiracy theory I have ever promoted. You will not find one. Find one 'pseudoscience' that I promote. I am NOT known for any of these things and this is factually incorrect about me as a person. The only thing about me that is 'fringy' is that yes, I do consider myself a 'futurist' and I do promote anything regarding to life extension (like aubrey de gray), collective intelligence (like wikipedia or AL o12 or social media), and space travel. That's about as extreme as a i get. I think if you scroll through my blog, you will see that. and I am NOT known for being a blogger, sheesh i have like 300 followers on my blog, big deal. Only thing I am known for, if at all, is my TEDx talk and being in social media (i've given talks on social media panels, big whip) RomeViharo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

4.) Wikipedia, we have a problem is an entire case study with links to evidence of harassment. I do NOT want to make any claim about this that is invalid. If someone believes I have, I am willing to make the correction. I am not anti skepticism, and I make this clear in the study. The study is ONLY about exposing tactics of activist editors and is NOT an indictment of skeptical activism. Its welcoming to me to encounter a few of you here that seem very rational and considering. I am not your enemy. But I can assure you if I believe i am being harassed, libeled, or misrepresented online so someone can make a point, expect pushback. RomeViharo (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll watch the TEDx talk and look into the OS 0 1 2 stuff in a bit more detail (as well as its connection to this new platform you're speaking of). As for the Wikipedia/trolling stuff, I don't think that's relevant, to be honest. That's not to say that I agree with your comments on the Sheldrake bio fiasco (for the record, I do not), but that I doubt it's something RW should be writing about. I don't care if you socked on Wikipedia or if you defended a crank (or the reason for that). Lots of people defend cranks. In fact, I have a friend who's all about naturopathic medicine, and you don't see an article about her around here. - GrantC (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But actually getting a handle on OS 0 1 2 seems difficult. It may be to vague bother about.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just read through a bit of it, and I'm not really sure what's going on. I can't tell if it's "woo" or not because I can't tell if it's supporting an idea any more complicated than "sometimes we don't know things, and maybe yes/no isn't an appropriate dichotomy". - GrantC (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


}}

[edit] TRANSHUMANISM?

The article complete misrepresents the 'claims' I make in the talk and frankly presents a view point of the talk that is deceptive to the reader. I never say memes are spirits. I ask the question are spirits just metaphors for memes, i.e. are spirits in the amazon just 'ideas' in western philosophy - and then move on to explain a materialistic model of consciousness via dennett. Secondly - the only conclusion, which was delivered in clearly a sarcastic tone which got a laugh from the audience was that 'google *maybe* conscious'. Thirdly, the talk says clearly that it's a metaphor for collective intelligence and government evolving to use collaborative media. THAT's WHAT I AM CLAIMING. Attack me for that claim, please. say 'Viharo thinks governments will use social media' or 'viharo thinks social media will replace gov'. that would make this article true and your critique true.

Transhumanism? That's a very broad term for something so narrow that I focus on but if that's how you want to paint me, at least its closer to the truth than what the rest of the article suggests about me. Although why you wont use the word 'futurist' which is what I use to describe I can only assume because transhumanism is a weasel word while futurist is not. RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi's oh boy - my point was that the skeptics were like the americans protecting themselves against nazi ideologies

Seriously guys, i find it interesting that the article completely fails to attack my actual ideas (such as harassment by activist skeptics on Wikipedia and rational wiki). My point about americans and nazi's was clearly NOT a metaphor for believers vs skeptics, but rather a metaphor for group think from the point of view of those engaging in group think. i.e. the metaphor was that skeptic activists engaged in groupthink view this as seriously as if they were the americans defending against a nazi ideology, i.e. they believe they are doing the right thing and take it very seriously. What purpose does it serve to attack a point that I do not make? Attack me for accusing skeptic activists of groupthink. In the interview you're quoting me from - I make it clear that I say I do not believe this is a conspiracy but rather evidence of group think.

Until you change it, I will continue to use this article as an example of group think tactics in a wiki war.RomeViharo (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Guys, can we make rational wiki mean something? Shouldn't it mean 'rational'? Why twist words like FOX news, isn't that what this wiki stands against?

If you're going to criticize me, please criticize me for what I am actually doing or promoting. This article is using strong weasel language to paint me as a crank, conspiracy theorist, and pseudoscience promoter and these are factually and empirically false statements. if this article was honest and rational, it could be attacking me for things I actually DO. You should include the following

1. Viharo claims that skeptic activists on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki orchestrated a campaign of harassment. Viharo claims that this harassment needs to be exposed but also clarifies it should not be an indictment on the skeptic ideology.

2. Viharo claims that he has developed a collective editor called AL 0 1 2 and claims that OS 0 1 2 discussions years ago served as a manner of developing an algorithm to manage discussion.

3. Viharo claims that governments will evolve into collaborative media (or vice versa).

There. attack me for what's true and what I believe to be true. Painting me as a bogey man is like Obama having to defend himself as a terrorist sympathizer or an african born immigrant from the tea party. Attack me for my actual ideas, or better yet, attack the ideas themselves. Until you do, this article is serving one purpose which is to harass an editor in a wiki war on Wikipedia and who has publically exposed their tactics. Editors here are turning rational wiki into yellow journalism. RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at your recent Twitter output. You've made multiple Tweets harassing JREF's Tim Farley. This is just one: [3]. And this is an obvious attempt to increase the Society for Psychical Research's paranoia about pseudoskeptics: [4]. Your activity is not consistent with someone who is an innocent victim of circumstance. And that's just Twitter. I haven't even reviewed your other promotional (?) activity on Facebook, Reddit, yahoo answers, etc. Leuders (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct, I am exposing Tim Farley. Attack me for that please. Tim Farley also made multiple harassing tweets and FB posts about me. I would not say I am harassing him, I would say that I am defending myself against Tim Farley's harassment of editors on Wikipedia. Tim Farley plays a black hat game online. It's misleading and I'm going to continue to expose it. That's how abusive this culture is. First I get harassed, libeled, and personally attacked. Then when I defend myself, my defense is used as justification for personally attacking me. Take a look in the mirror Lucky Louie and crew - your ideas, right are wrong are not the problem. The problem are your disgusting tactics of harassment that you use to promote your world view. Nixon much? RomeViharo (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm only using the website and twitter to promote. yahoo reddit, stumbleupon facebook is all happening organically. Just keep following me on twitter if you want to know my thoughts or read my blog. RomeViharo (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Spin. And erm, no, the promotion of your screed is not 'happening organically'. It's you all over the web pretending to be random people. I guess this is how viral marketing works? You were even busted on Reddit for posing as 23canaries: [5]. Leuders (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dood, you can think what you want but your responses here read a little paranoid and a little delusional. If you're offended by viral marketing you should bring that up with tim farley. RomeViharo (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one ranting all over the net about "group think tactics in a wiki war." Leuders (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct - I'm the one ranting about group think. I am suggesting that these type of harassing behaviors you and your pals are symptoms of groupthink. I dont blame them on skeptical ideology. groupthink happens everywhere. Below is a standard definition of the symptoms of groupthink. I find evidence of all of these things happening in my encounters with skeptic activists on Wikipedia.


Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

Groupthink inherently is inconsistent with empirical facts - yet often we find ourselves in a position where it is necessary to form a consensus with those whom express symptoms of groupthink type behaviors - making a rational consensus impossible. What I pay attention to is the exact place in the conversation someone 'leaves' or attempts to control the discussion through some form of harassment or personal attack. Attack me for that yes please. Accuse me of spreading conspiracy theory? lulz - that' just helps me make my point and highlights a few things on the list above a bit clearer for those whom may be following this discussion. RomeViharo (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple things. RW isn't the place to re-fight your lost Wikipedia battle. #dontcare. FWIW, your online screed isn't a case study (?) and it isn't empirical evidence of anything. It's just a long winded emotional indictment of an alleged skeptical cabal who you say harassed you. So I would advise you to stop insisting your RW article must be written a certain way, and to drop the "no matter what you do I win" posturing. You've registered your complaints. Either there will be some results or there won't. Leuders (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
If RW wasn't the place to re fight the wiki battle, then there should not have been an article written about me as payback because of it. Until this article is either deleted or at least a fair critique, continue to expect pushback. RomeViharo (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol, you are the one on the receiving end. Get over it. You are a waste of time in general, but guess who decided to waste their time debunking you? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if it was started in retribution (I don't know if it was and I don't really care), all the stuff related to Wikipedia has been removed since it was irrelevant. That is, it's passed into the hands of people who don't give a shit about your problems with The Other Wiki so your Great Big Walls Of Text and Indignation really aren't going to change anything. If anything, they're likely to take you less seriously as a result since they give the impression that you're a thin-skinned blowhard who carries a great many grudges, which I'm sure you don't want. --Kels (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Its easy for you to say Kels, you get to keep your anonymity . I don't think any of you would be thin skinned if you were attacked and outed online with a embarrassing article about you showing up #1 on search and which harmed your business. This article is affecting my livelihood and my ability to take care of my business and family. I'm not here to get you to 'like me' or thumb up my facebook page. I am here to either get this article deleted or at least get it to be an honest reflection of what I am doing. RomeViharo (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are worried about your reputation then you should probably take down your website. You know, the one alleging that your are victim of a skeptic conspiracy. And if you want employers not to think you are a nut maybe you should not participate in parapsychology podcasts or be tweeting comparing yourself to rape victims. Just a thought. Leuders (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
What anonymity? That's my real name. I was just saying you don't want to give a negative impression that would put you in a confrontational posture with editors who you seem to want to write favourably from your point of view. I will say though, that this rather tiny article on RW is coming in at #1 on searches among all articles about you, you may want to ask why there aren't more positive reviews of your ideas and work. I doubt (and doubt you can support) that this article alone is causing you material harm. --Kels (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] a question for Rome Viharo

If OS 0 1 2 is such a successful master meme able to resolve conflicts in a single bound , why the posts above ? Surely the conflict would melt away under the onslaught of OS 0 1 2.  ?

incidentally you seem to be trying to use trinary logic (true, false and unknown) but using 1 and 2 for true and false just conflicts with EVERY programming language.
now that I have downloaded OS 0 1 2 I need the user manual and my internal anti-virus cancelled the download with an error message of WUT!!
Hamster (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AL 0 1 2 is not a programming language. 0 , 1, and 2 are just categories for assigning distinct contexts relative to three truth values. And yes, in principle this conflict could 'melt' away or be resolved by Al 0 1 2. However, this is not an AL 0 1 2 discussion thread, it's Rational Wiki so it's just going to take a much longer amount of time :) RomeViharo (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are actually insane, or at least incapable of explaining your insanity. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
so in what circumstances is OS 0 1 2 actually useable ? Hamster (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

in principle is useable in all circumstances - just some environments are more supportive of it's outcome and some environments more challenging. RomeViharo (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

lol - don't know why I missed this earlier. Your response was funny - 'with an error message of WUT?' That's perfect. That's WUT it should be :) RomeViharo (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm here till friday, try the veal *rimshot* Hamster (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
From what I gather, AL 012 is some kind of forum software and the software decides what's "rational" and what's "opinion" and what's "unknown". Or something. The vaporous non descriptions published by its creator aren't helping. Rome, can you post an AL 012 product data sheet (preferably written by an engineer)? Leuders (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The platform does not decide what is 'rational' or what's opinion - the users on the platform do. The platform just presents three categories for assigning values to statements and records behaviors around those statements and issues editing permissions related to them. I am not going to post publically anything from the platform until it's ready. However, if anyone wants to skype with me regarding it or if anyone wants to participate in a beta discussion in a few weeks, they are welcome to. RomeViharo (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone here is expecting a flushed out explanation of what the platform does, how it works, etc etc this is not the medium for it. Its too complex of a presentation. I dont want to have to 'explain' how it works - it's too difficult in this medium. I want to 'show' how it works and i can't do that until the platform is ready. sorry. until then the best I can do is give broad descriptions. However if anyone wants to skype me, I dont mind sharing a few thought documents on screen share or walking someone through a thought doc or two. RomeViharo (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so it's coming out soon, it's going to be revolutionary, and the details are too "over our heads" to explain. Uh huh. Leuders (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
While the claims might be dubious, I would point out that as of yet, I see nothing suggesting that we need coverage of AL 0 1 2 as it exists now. Whether or not it works and whether or not it's what it matches Rome's hype are largely irrelevant to RW's mission. Now that we know that AL 0 1 2 is a software platform that claims to be pretty neat and does some stuff, what more is there? - Grant (Talk) 15:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
sorry but if it cant be printed then its not a document. Whats a thought document. *whats making hat woo woo sound ? * Hamster (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] An argument for deletion

Hi.

I've been following the events around Rome's Wikipedia banning, including this page, and have been in contact with Rome to see whether he minds me stopping in here, and he's OK with that, so, here goes.

I advocate for this page to be deleted. It fits none of RationalWiki's purposes, listed as:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Nobody here seems to be arguing that this article fits purposes #3 and #4, so let's ignore those. That leaves us with #1 and #2.

With respect to #1, Rome describes himself as "agnostic"; on Rupert Sheldrake's Wikipedia talk page he argued for a neutral point of view, not in favour of Sheldrake's ideas, the truth of which he maintains he is uncertain - fitting with his agnosticism. Nowhere have I seen Rome argue anything that could remotely be conceived of as either "pseudoscience" or "anti-science". He has asked several times on this page for evidence of such of his supposed arguments to be presented, and nobody has been able to present it. #1 very clearly does not apply.

Let's tackle #2 then. As a kind of side note, I would firstly challenge the RationalWiki definition of a "crank" as a person who holds "extremely unorthodox views on a subject". Many scientific breakthroughs have been made by people whose discoveries would initially (because of their originality) have been reasonably described as "extremely unorthodox". I think there is more to being a "crank" than this; to be a crank, one's views must be not only unorthodox, but demonstrably and absurdly false (this is hinted at in the RW "crank" article when reference is made to "inaccurate" views).

Be that as it may, I don't think that in any case, Rome's views on either OS/AL 0 1 2 or his TEDx talk count. I will admit to having been somewhat confused by Rome's OS 0 1 2 BASIC page when I first read it, and, too, Rome has an arguably admirable flair for the dramatic. I don't think, however, that either of these qualities make for crankishness; they entail neither unorthodoxy nor inaccuracy.

The basic concept behind OS 0 1 2 is undeniably reasonable: our evaluation of the truth-aptness of anything conceptual - including propositions, assertions, claims, ideas, opinions, poems, stories, etc - can be fit exhaustively into one of three categories:

Category 1: this is objectively true

Category 2: this is not objectively true: it is either objectively false, or it is simply not amenable to objectivity - i.e. it is better described as "subjective" e.g. opinions and poetry

Category 0: it is unknown to me whether or not this fits category 1 or 2.

Too often, according to the premise of OS 0 1 2, arguments arise and are perpetuated because people are unwilling to make reasonable use of category "0": too often, we want to say "this is true" or "this is false" when we simply don't know. AL 0 1 2 takes up the OS 0 1 2 baton and defines a systematic approach to resolving conflicts, where concepts are initially categorised "0" and then, through a dialectic process, sincere parties determine whether the concept should retain that categorisation, or whether it should be recategorised as "1" or "2". I have seen some schematics of this process, and can confirm based on what Rome has told me that it is in active development. Will it succeed? I don't know, but I *do* know that it goes beyond "crankishness" and into the realm of genuine ideas.

Rome may have gotten a little carried away and over-dramatic, and been a little unclear, in explaining OS 0 1 2 to the world, but it's fundamentally a reasonable concept, and one which might even have a practical outcome. It does not at all qualify as crankish.

So much for OS 0 1 2. How about Rome's TEDx talk with his friend, Maf? Could this in any way be considered to be crankish? Perhaps the most "crankish" possibility of this talk is that Rome is asserting that Google actually *is* conscious. But did he really make that assertion? In fact, he did not. Read what he actually said in that talk: "I look at this idea of Google Consciousness as really a snarky rebuttal to Daniel Dennett's idea [...] I didn't expect anybody to take the idea seriously". In other words, Rome didn't even take the idea seriously himself - he put it out there simply as a challenge to Daniel Dennett's model of consciousness, not as a serious idea in its own right. Yet, some serious people took it seriously - so, he and Maf discuss this a little further in the talk, and, in that light, Rome sums up in the talk with: "So we bring you the story of the meme 'Google Consciousness' so far, and, our conclusion: Google may be conscious. May be [shrugging non-committally; audience chuckles]". Nothing remotely crankish there, just an acknowledgement that some serious folk took seriously an idea that he didn't intend seriously himself.

The key part of the talk is the final five minutes, which start when Rome asks, "So, why is it relevant to bring us to TED and talk to you, what would we like to inspire in you?". He and Maf go on to describe the possibilities for political organisation, problem solving and conflict resolution through collaborative technology, in particular social media but also media like Wikipedia. He points out that in some ways, this is already happening, as, for example, the outcome of Wikipedia articles on whose content Palestinians and Israelies are polarised. I fail to see how this is in any way crankish. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. I, too, am an advocate of online democracy. There's a lot of potential there.

A final note: this page's overview suggests, too, that Rome is a conspiracy theorist. I have seen no evidence for this. The worst he's done in this respect is to *question* a few Wikipedia editors as to whether or not they were members of a guerilla sceptic group. I hardly think this qualifies him as a conspiracy theorist! I mean, seriously, this charge is just ridiculous.

To sum up: nothing currently in this article fits any of RationalWiki's purposes. It is purposeless and should be deleted. --Laird (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikilawyering and wall o' text aren't really very convincing 'round these parts, as you may have noticed from...oh, I dunno...every damn thing Rome has done on this site. Not to mention there's already a "keep" consensus, and besides we're not motivated by "what makes Rome feel happy in his pants" or "what makes Rome finally stop ranting and go away". Shame all that typing time you wasted for your only edit on this wiki. --Kels (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict, but Kels' post stated almost all of my views pretty adequately. There are some editors wandering through the article trying to find out what's true and what isn't. If there's really false stuff in there, it will get filtered out. The more often these long screeds get posted, the harder it is to do that, since there's just that much more material. Less is more in this case. - Grant (Talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. If this wiki values rationality, then why, when I mount a carefully sourced and constructed rational argument, is that argument dismissed and ignored with pejoratives ("wikilawyering" and "wall o' text") and irrelevancies ("what makes Rome feel happy in his pants", "what makes Rome finally stop ranting and go away" and "your only edit on this wiki")? Where is the rational response to my actual argument (that this article fails to meet any of RationalWiki's purposes, and thus should be deleted)? --Laird (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned you responded to my point, yet I don't see the response. My point was that these additions, which add no new information, don't actually help approach consensus in any way. - Grant (Talk) 04:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you socking? --Marlow (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Grant, thanks for the response. In fact, I made no attempt to respond to your point, but I will do so now. You suggested that there are editors trying to work out what is true and what is false in the article. My point is that once unbiased truth is established in the article, nothing in the article will fulfil this wiki's purposes. The unbiased truth is that Rome is neither a supporter of pseudoscience nor a crank. Thus, there's no reason to document him on this wiki, and this article should be deleted. You suggest that my contribution doesn't "help approach consensus in any way", but how is consensus approached if not by different people offering their different arguments and opinions, and trying to understand one another? From my perspective, I'm doing exactly what is necessary to form consensus: carefully explain what I think is a rational point of view, and give others the chance to respond rationally to it. Let me ask you: is there anything factually incorrect or rationally incoherent about what I've written so far on this page? If not, then why would it not count as an effort towards consensus? How can I contribute to consensus if I remain silent? (Is that what you're suggesting I do?) Marlow, was your question addressed to me? If so, the answer is: I'm not socking, this is my sole account on this wiki. --Laird (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should not have used the word "consensus" in that manner; that was a mistake on my part. My point is that the editors doing this research will be able to come to your same judgment themselves if there's merit to it. Due to the contentious nature of this article and the drama surrounding it, I'm somewhat unwilling to take someone else's word for it when they say this will be the case. I'm sure other editors agree; as a group we tend to like coming to our own conclusions. A delete vote recently failed for this article, so as much as your post may legitimately be trying to help, it's unlikely to sway anyone looking to clean up the article, and it's not going to succeed in re-opening a deletion vote this soon after the last one. - Grant (Talk) 05:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
there seems to be some confusion over what OS 0 1 2 actually is. One editor here sees it as software, I see it as a philosophical structure seems to be deliberately obfuscated. My question above did not in my opinion get a clear response. Timecube is a bit clearer than this concept. I suggest it stay at least for a while. Mr Viharo is welcome to clarify or expand the article. We seem to have a few articles that explain why some wooish thing is actually real and useful Hamster (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Laird for comment. @hamster - OS 0 1 2 is just a way to approach a discussion and I do not believe that you or anyone will get 'how' it does this until the platform comes out. Earlier versions of os 0 1 2 going back years ago were either a:) tongue in cheek attempts to get conversation started (so I could test these principles in discussion) or b.) my own work in progress, i.e. working through my thoughts through on the concept. Although the principles have not changed, I have. Everything out on the web is dated. For this, I think it's better that I actually take the site down. In a few weeks, I will have a page up for AL 0 1 2 and it will be crystal clear what it is. I'm not interested in promoting os 0 1 2, I havent for years, so equally not interested in explaining my thought process 8 years ago. The platform just insures that all statements are considered through three truth values - each statement is defended or supported through questioning and response - and that rational consensus is defined by behaviors that the platform deems honest and collaborative. It structures the process in such a way that both sides in an ideological tit for tat actually work together and build consensus together, i.e. both sides can 'win' consensus as long as they approach the discussion rationally and honestly. It filters out ad hom and personal attacks. The platform is agnostic. It turns discussion into somewhat of a game. That's all it is. and it either works like it claims it will, or it wont. RomeViharo (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be:
  • It works (1)
  • It doesn't (2)
  • Who knows (0)
Placeholder (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Ha - nice to see something that is so obfuscated already being used :). Also want to clarify something - AL 0 1 2 is something 'new' - and like all new things, needs to have new language to explain what it is and what it does. I was waaay over my head when I took this on 11 years ago. The web was not as evolved as it is today. Wikipedia was not even on the radar yet. There were no social networks like there are today. The word 'meme' was not even a commonly used word. I attempted to explain it many different ways and explored explaining it different ways. In hindsight, I over complicated it, over 'thunk' it, over dramatized it in the past. It was just part of the creative process. However I am very proud of the progress and scope. RomeViharo (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's amazing how hard it is to tell your writing apart from Laird's, who seems to only be concerned with this article about you. And how lucky to find someone besides yourself, in fact the only person so far, who seems to find descriptions of OS/AL 0 1 2 to be understandable and clear. You two must be very good friends. --Kels (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Kels, if you're trying to suggest that I'm Rome's sock puppet, then you're the second person to make that suggestion, so let's clear this up - it's very simple, just run a check on my IP (I think it's dynamic, so there may be more than one). You'll find that I'm in a totally different country to Rome, working off a direct connection (from my home) to my country's major telecommunications provider. But it's nice to be compared favourably. Also, if you read my original post, you'll find that I mentioned that I did *not* find Rome's description of OS 0 1 2 to be understandable, and in fact found it very confusing, just like you guys. It is only through Skype IMs with Rome that I've found some greater clarity. In any case, I am away travelling for a few days - will check in again with interest to this page when I get back. All the best. --Laird (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just saying it's wonderful that he has such a close kindred spirit to rely on when he needs it. It's a beautiful thing. --Kels (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
and like all new things, needs to have new language to explain what it is and what it does. if you can not do it in english then dont worry about it ;-) (because ratwiki needed a TQ Hamster (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Several years of trolling skeptic forums is supposedly R&D for a vaporous platform that can't be explained in plain language. OK. Sure. Tell us more. Leuders (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] AL 0 1 2: what Sprocket reckons

Smells like vaporware.

From where I sit, AL 0 1 2 looks like a system for crowdsourcing objective truth(TM) with an automated voting system using ternary logic. I'm thinking of something like Citizendium with robo-vetting of contributors. I suspect it may place too much reliance on the competence and good faith/etiquette of the user base. A system for evaluating user "goodness" based on their voting history could possibly be coded, but getting that algorithm right would take some serious talent and application, on the part of some brilliant thinkers. Who is working on this?

The whole "I dont want to have to 'explain' how it works - it's too difficult in this medium." business is basically an unconvincing courtier's reply.

Rome's offer to pitch it one-on-one via skype reminds me of the kind of presentation once associated with vacation condo timesharing. No thanks, not even with a chicken dinner and a weekend schooner cruise. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a voting system (for the rational consensus component). It does have voting but voting is more for personal commentary or popular questions. Doesn't use ternary logic, just has three category assignments. Never offered to 'pitch' it to you or anyone, rather if they wanted an explanation, I would share visuals over skype because I don't want to release those documents online. duh. And I offered this because it's very easy to see but more difficult to explain. It was a courtesy offer, but like most courtesies, abused and twisted into something punitive. Not surprised. Not sure why I would answer any more of your questions SJC, it appears when I made you an offer you snarked all over it. For now, it will have to rest in the '0' for you. But dont let that stop you from forming false opinions about something! RomeViharo (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You're complaining about being snarked at on this site? You're so cute. --Kels (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't use ternary logic, just has three category assignments. and the difference is ? Hamster (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@kels - I'm not complaining about be snarked, I'm complaining about harassing and libelous statements and contexts being made about me in a place of public media with the intentions to embarass. I'm just *noting* that the only thing supporting any of the arguments for keeping the page the way it is *snarky* opinions of a personal nature and not empirical facts. Also, thanks for the compliment - you should see my tush. RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@hamster - I'm not going to call it a logic until it has a formal proof, which I don't need at this stage and until it can be defined in a formal proof, its inaccurate to call it a logic - I have an advisor who is a retired math professor and I am following his advice here, it makes sense to me. RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

as you like. I am from a practical programming background so if you are using If 0 then X else if 1 the Y else if 2 then Z you are using a ternary (3 value) logic system. Hamster (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I've already put it in the plainest of language - if you don't understand, then you have to ask specific questions

AL 0 1 2 is a collective editor. That's easy to understand, right? It assigns editing permissions based on user behaviors sorting or assigning statements and arguments in 0, 1 and 2. Rational consensus editing is awarded through co-operative behavior. The rational consensus is what allows editing permissions and editing permissions can be limited to one statement or even a word or expanded to cover the entire article. There are two things guiding the rational consensus on the platform. Part of it is programmatic and is done by the platform - the remaining decisions are made by the collective arguing for their sortings in tit for tat. Each sorting category of course has it's own unique rules, both programmatic and natively heuristic for the editors to interpret in tit for tat. RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Not promoting OS 0 1 2

I took the site down - its dated. I will be (and kinda already am) promoting AL 0 1 2. The only documentation is here. Sure, be suspicious that its vapor - i don't care I'm wanting you to challenge it, especially when it launches. But until you actually see it, the only thing that is vapor is your idea about it. Since you declined an invitation to see some visuals and mock ups, I'm assuming you're more attached to your own vapor than any of you are likely to admit :) RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you don't care to have your scheme cast into a frame of "explained poorly or not at all— likely bullshit." To a certain extent, you have my sympathy. With that and a handful of loose change, you can probably get a cup of coffee.
The simple fact is that until the system is up and running, and robust enough to survive public scrutiny, invitation-only mock-ups and visuals amount to so much hand-waving. Seen too much of that kind of nonsense, I have, and kicked it out of my lab post-haste. It could be a pain when management wanted me to "give it a chance," but unless the system worked, and in a timely fashion, out it went. You may understand how I have developed a certain sensitivity to such things. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey man, I'm not a spring chicken and I'm not a student in one of your labs. AL 0 1 2 will be my second patent this year and I work my ass off. I'm an inventor/developer and entrepreneur. I've sold a company previously and launching two now. I've had to present numerous innovative ideas over the years and I know full well where things get lost in translation. I offered to show you the exact same documents my programmer is building off of as a courtesy and an opening to productive dialogue and *per* your request for more information. It's unfair to say this is vapor when you declined an invitation to see internal mock ups or evaluate the platform once it launches. I even invited to give you an invite to be a test participant. THIS site decided to attack me for something it knows nothing about - and I've been more than transparent and courteous when faced with such clear negativity. RomeViharo (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that the labs I've worked in had anything to do with academia? Your AL 0 1 2 "documentation" looks more like an autobiographical rant than a technical exposition. Internal mock-ups? That doesn't get past my personal triage system.
Expectations of courtesy are something that sales people too easily abuse. You may be an entrepreneur and promoter, but until AL 0 1 2 actually launches and sustains itself, none of your verbiage cuts any ice with me. Have a nice day, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I used to do software evaluations for a major company. Typically a new item got 5 minutes to get put in the 'read in detail later' basket. Your page on OS 0 1 2 was a waste of 5 minutes. Maybe you need help on technical and advertising writing to present a clear, easily understood product presentation. It is often a mistake to try promoting an unfinished concept, since it will get rejected for early flaws and once rejected getting people to take another look is hard. From my point of view your stuff is right up there with ZEBULON X IS COMING !!! Hamster (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no presentation of the platform anywhere online - you just evaluated a dated website thats a philosophical thought document thats also tongue in cheek. Its not even online any more. And its not about the actual platform. So you have not evaluated anything. Nice try though. RomeViharo (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sprocket J Cogswell - You're high if you think I was trying to sell you something and thats a pretty bad faith assessment, even some what naively paranoid. The reality check is you were given an invitation to view an internal document as a courtesy given to a request you specifically made yourself and you declined. You're own behaviors are evidence you have no interest in actually assessing something even though you claimed you would. So it seems since my verbiage doesnt cut the mustard, then the current verbiage on the article can't cut the mustard either and should be deleted. RomeViharo (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Not seeing any evidence or sources for spreading pseudoscience and conspiracy theories yet

Very misleading, libelous and unsupported. Written in this voice the article intends to embarrass the subject. RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Launches huge website, gives interviews, and incessantly tweets that ideologue skeptics are orchestrating a campaign to personally bully him and unfairly denigrate Sheldrake's pseudoscientific ideas. And how is this different than spreading a conspiracy theory? Leuders (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
1. 'Conspiracy Theory' is a weasel word. On this site, which actually debunks what most associate as conspiracy theories are usually lunatic ideas or fringe ideas, it certainly implies 'crank'. That hardly applies to my situation.RomeViharo (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
2. If you want to call it a 'conspiracy theory' - thats your word and not how I explain it. That's a little disingenuous and makes it look like you're willing to argue any absurdity to justify the article. I explain it as 'group think' and I have actual evidence of editors 'conspiring' to get me sanctioned off of wikipedia. This is not a conspiracy theory - this is actual evidence on Wikipedia. It's an objective interpretation. Others have made the same observation. This is just reporting the facts. See for yourself. Here is where Vzaak and others began to strategize and work towards my sanction, two weeks before it happened. First they tried to get me sanctioned for actually spreading conspiracy theories because I asked if any of them were GSoW. Then they tried to sanction be for sockpuppetry and when that did not work, they brought up the trolling charge with discussion forums from 2003 as evidence. All the while there is no evidence of any disruptive behaviors on the page.RomeViharo (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
3. I hardly think participating in a wiki war over sources in a BLP would constituted me 'promoting pseudoscience'. Especially when I edited anonymously. You've been given sources of what I actually promote. This just brings me back to my original argument, this article is payback for editing the Sheldrake article on WP. If this article isn't about that - then there absolutely nothing here that is evidence I promote pseudoscience.RomeViharo (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Being interviewed on Skeptiko only means I am promoting Wikipedia we have a problem.com - just like John Searle or Richard Wiseman appearing on Skeptico does not mean that Searle promotes pseudoscience. Technically this is an association fallacy and often found in ugly politics in presidential elections and Fox news. Is that what Rational Wiki does too? Apparently. RomeViharo (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
this article is payback for editing the Sheldrake article on WP. And that's yet another of your conspiracy theories. - Leuders (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not a 'conspiracy theory' its a fact. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/aftermath/ I hardly think you are going to be able actually argue that my presence on Rational Wiki was not caused by editing on Wikipedia. RomeViharo (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A link to your own screed? Oh sure, that's sure to be objective. Leuders (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

An article on me first appeared on Rational Wiki in relationship to editing Sheldrake's article so for you to deny the evidence on Rational Wiki is quite a bizarro argument, not sure if you're just delusional or actually practicing deception. My site has links to archived sources which support my claim, so yes it is objective enough to refute this charge of 'spreading conspiracy theories'. But since your lazy I'll make it even easier for you to see and more absurd for you to deny. On Oct 17th I was banned indef from Wikipedia and had my identity outed by Vzaak. My identity then appeared on Rational Wiki on Oct 19th on Rupert Sheldrake's article, with my own section. I never had an entry on Rational Wiki before, and no one here ever would have heard about me otherwise. RomeViharo (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it your way. Looks to me like you got thrown off WP and wrote an emotional rant claiming there's a conspiracy plotting against you. You need to take your butthurt about WP to some other forum. I would suggest Wikipediocracy, but it seems they threw you out of there, too. Leuders (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference is the evidence supports my claim. Your rant is just comprised of a bunch of weasel words. RomeViharo (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove section 'Bullshit'

Claiming that I 'bullshit' means I am lying or practicing deception. This is a libelous statement - clearly with the intention to disparage. What is wrong with your ethics here people? RomeViharo (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


[edit] Laird's recent rewrite for fairness and balance

Hello again. I'm back from my trip, and, as promised, have checked back in with interest. I've just taken the time to rewrite the article fairly substantially. Until now, it seems to have been mostly an attack piece focussed on putting Rome in the worst light possible, and misinterpreting and disparaging him. I have tried to correct this imbalance so that the article is now more factually correct and representative of reality. This has involved removing various descriptions that cannot be supported, for example Rome's supposed support for pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, removing commentary designed primarily to denigrate Rome and/or his activities without recognising the genuine value in them, as well as removing the newly-added section "Bullshit", which seems to have been added purely to do damage in a mean-spirited personal attack. I welcome your responses to this rewrite. --Laird (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A copy of Laird's rewrite is found here, for those who want to discuss what they think. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume there is nothing controversial about Laird's edit of the article. Although Laird's version I also would want to see changes to, it at least removes unsupported bias and disgruntled personal attacks and libel. I look forward to seeing it implemented. Thank you for your time on this Laird. RomeViharo (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you would specify this "Libel", we would be happy to re-examine this. If not, too bad.--The Madman (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman
There is no libel. There never was libel. Rome has simply been using that as a snarl word throughout, which has done nothing to help his credibility. As to the new article, it seems a bit of a whitewash and removes pretty much all the snark so there's not much heart to it, but on the other hand I don't really mind it that much. Rome isn't really worth that much effort. --Kels (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry but my claim of libel is entirely accurate. Libel is publishing a false statement that is harmful to someone's reputation. This article over the history has claimed that I am a known troll, a sockpuppet mastermind, a master of bullshit, a conspiracy theorist, a promoter of pseudoscience in addition to a number of other untrue claims. SInce all of those are not true, and harmful to my professional reputation thats textbook libel. I work in technology and media as a consultant and I am also considered a white hat operator who is trusted for their credibility. This article mis represents me and discredits me with a clear intention (as talk page shows) to embarass. I'm not using that word to threaten lawsuit or legal action - it's far to costly and risky and I'm not going down that road. I'm stating it as a fact. You might not want to call it libel because you dont want to honestly reflect on what you're doing to another human being online, and the more ridiculous of a picture you paint of me in your mind, the more you can justify and even participate in this sort of bullying. Thats your group think working. RomeViharo (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone ever figure out how Laird found this one obscure Rationalwiki article? Hipocrite 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Viharo seems *obsessed* to present himself as a rationalist not linked to any conspiracy theories (this is despite the fact his logged internet history shows he holds them and some eccentric views) so he wants his page deleted. Now I could understand if Viharo was a scholar or a scientist and that this page linking him to conspiracy theories could be career damaging. However, Viharo himself seems to be a nobody (no offense). He's just a "digital/social media entrepreneur". Why does it matter if he is linked to a few conspiracy theories online? Its not damaging in any way. 4 archives and hundreds of comments, just seems a fuss over nothing. Torch (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It matters because
1. I do not promote conspiracy theories
2. Conspiracy theory is a weasel word that also can mean a 'crank'
3. Maybe to you I'm a nobody - but to me and in the world that I am in, I am someone who is harmed by being labeled a supporter or what ever of conspiracy theories. I don't think its fair for you or anyone to say that something that is untrue is not harmful.
4. Its also not who I am - and since I am a nobody like you mention, people searching for me (which happens often due to my profession) they dont find out what I am known for, they find out something i am not known for.
5. What 'logged in' internet history are you talking about and what conspiracy theories do you think you have evidence I believe in? Snooping is creepy, and I challenge you to find any evidence of any conspiracy theory I support.
6. Accusing someone of spreading conspiracy theories because they claim they were harassed by a group of activists is kinda a cheap shot, especially since I have gone on record clarifying otherwise.
7. I am a rationalist. I'm also an agnostic. Yes I find it offensive when my views are either misrepresented or taken out of context. RomeViharo (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you were a rationalist you wouldn't have posted the following under Tumbleman:

""There is no reasonable claim an editor can make regarding Morphic Resonance as Pseudoscience [...] what reasons do you as an editor support Morphic Resonance being held to WP:FRINGE as pseudo science? I am not seeing a clear case here and want to understand. - Tumbleman" —{{{2}}}
[6]

This comment directly contradicts your later statement:

""Personally I have no interest in promoting Rupert Sheldrake’s ideas or his hypotheses and I really can’t say scientifically if they’re valid or invalid."" —{{{2}}}
[7]
  • You posted Morphic Resonance cannot be substantiated as pseudo-science.
  • Consensus among virtually all scientists is that Morphic Resonance is pseudo-science.

So it is not libel you support pseudo-science. Torch (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

1. I was arguing against WP FRINGE being applied to a biography page. Other neutral editors supported that as well. So you're confusing a policy discussion with a scientific one. That's quite disingenuous argument because I have gone on record saying I don't know anything about the science one way or another and don't promote Sheldrake- rather I was arguing that Morphic resonance does not fall under the 'pseudoscience' fringe guideline and ruling the way it was being applied on Wikipedia on a BLP. It was a policy wonk, not a scientific argument. Thats is not the same thing as saying morphic resonance is true or a successful hypothesis and means I 'promote it'. You say there is consensus that virtually all scientists consider it pseudoscience but the sources were not there on Wikipedia to support that argument and there were conflicting sources that suggested otherwise. And this was an anonymous argument given for editorial problems arising on a Wikipedia article. I do not support 'pseudoscience' and anonymous arguments I made on Wikipedia would hardly count for me being known for promoting pseudoscience. There is no contradiction. You're simply confusing an editorial argument for a scientific one - and taking an anonymous argument out of context, thereby inferring that yes, this article is payback for editing a WP article. RomeViharo (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Firstly

Why is this page archived with nothing on it when it has seen frequent conversation. This doesn't seem right at all. Who has the wiki-fu to undo this archival? Tielec01 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You do. I'm just trying to get this ceaseless and empty exercise to go away. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
messed up the edit comment there. Basically Laird is right, enough time has gone by with no serious objections so time to go with the new version. It's not like people can't tweak it to liven up the writing or if Rome actually does something of note like actually try to implement AL 90125 or something. --Kels (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, fuck that noise. Rome is a troll who uses internet arguments he purposely creates as so called "research" for his various hair brained theories. People are right not to engage with him. In this case silence is not consent. The version you reinstated is entirely uncritical and is obviously written in direct consultation with Rome as it references Romes own personal reactions to various events. --Marlow (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Silence isn't criticism either. I don't care if a new version goes in that then gets heavily edited, that's absolutely fine from a wiki standpoint. You seem to feel very strongly about all this, why don't you take a crack at a rewrite, given the original version isn't that great either. --Kels (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't care enough to re-write this sharticle, but do I care enough not to have some sycophantic ass-licking autobiography here. What is the problem with the current article Kels? I'll do my best to whip it into shape if I have time. Tielec01 (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright 5 minutes of research tells me this:
  • Rome is a nobody;
  • He has occasionally posted in forums about his ideas without letting people know it is self-promotion;
  • His ideas are an incoherent mess typically riding on the coat tails of more famous concepts or people;
  • There are some grains of truth to his ideas (as there is to almost all ideas)
  • He has had a popular talk on TED;
  • He has caused an argument on Wikipedia and been blocked - mostly due to an inability to gather his thoughts and marshal his words in a way that makes sense to anyone else; and
  • He's kind of petty and annoying - but not seriously harming anyone because no-one really cares too much.
I don't think we need an article on this guy. I was worried that the purpose of the constant bullshit on this page was to make us too embarrassed to keep the article. In essence it could be a stealthy way to get us to delete the article. I no longer think this is the case, although I have no doubt Rome will be claiming that this was all part of some sort of grand plan. Delete the article, or keep it in user-space until he actually does something deserving of a mention, otherwise we also need to be writing articles for that weird girl I met yesterday that thought plants had souls etc... That's his level of notability.
TL;DR
Burn with fire. Tielec01 (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's important to note that his talk was a TEDx talk. This is significantly different from TED (anyone can organize a TEDx talk if they want to put the work in to do so, and as long as they follow TED's rules, it's generally fine). I'm somewhat in agreement with you here. My research drums up nothing on OS 0 1 2 (or AL 0 1 2) that can easily be commented on. It's incomprehensible, and if it's vaporware... So what? Do we have or need an article on AOL? As for the TEDx talk, TEDx talks in and of themselves are not notable, and after watching the talk, I couldn't really find much in the way of a coherent point to latch onto. With regards to his apparent support for Sheldrake, I ask again: do we really need articles for every Joe Blow supporter of woo or pseudoscience out there? I don't think so. - Grant (Talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The community voted JUST THIS MONTH to keep the article. Therefore, we keep the article. End of discussion. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

However, trawling through this talk page, I find both that the number of people who have expressed a desire for the page to be deleted is greater than those who have expressed desire for it to be kept, and that the arguments for deletion are far more compelling. Keeps: Bob, Scream!!, Kels, PowderSmokeAndLeather, The Madman (all at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive4#Delete), plus RBryant (at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive3#Delete_template). Deletes: Evolutionist, RomeViharo (both at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive4#Delete), Human, Leuders (perhaps changed mind later, since seems to be happy editing the article - won't count in the tally) GrantC, Weaseloid, PowderSmokeAndLeather (but later changed mind as voted for "weak" keep - won't count in tally) (all at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive3#Delete_template), Gecko (at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive3#A_reasonable_suggestion), Laird (at Talk:Rome_Viharo/Archive4#An_argument_for_deletion, Tielec01 (above). That gives a total of 6 keeps and 8 deletions, plus 2 later-change-of-mind deletions. It seems that the majority is actually for "delete". --Laird (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding the new delete vote from WeirdStuff here brings the tally to 6 keeps and 9 deletions. --Laird (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
*shrug* Sure, that's true. However, if we're going to keep an arguably shit article, then it might be a good idea to figure out how to make it less shit, no? My research suggests there's little to nothing worth including, and I stated that opinion. However, someone else may very well look over my words and find something in the article that can be changed or altered. I don't see this as a bad thing. - Grant (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok I'll rewrite it based on what is actually notable about this guy - which will be about three sentences. Tielec01 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] A comment by Laird

Firstly, sorry for the length of this comment: I wanted to be comprehensive.

Secondly, thank you, Tielec01, for initiating this conversation, and thank you Kels for your support for allowing my rewrite of the article to stand - I think your suggestion that it could then be edited by those who are not fully satisfied with it is a persuasive one.

However, if this article is so undeserving of our time, as several editors are objecting, apparently because Rome isn't worth the effort, then why is it even worth including an article on him on this wiki at all? So, he spent a bit of time about a decade ago posting dramatically to forums about an idea that many (but not all) people found confusing and vague - is this really worthy of a RationalWiki article, especially considering that he has since developed his idea to the point that it is being implemented in software? Where's the value in this for the reader?

My responses to the objections raised so far to my rewrite are:

Objection: It is too uncritical; it is a whitewash. (Kels on this talk page (who nevertheless thinks my rewrite should stand); Alec Sanderson on Talk:Brxbrxhttp#Your_revert_to_my_edit; Marlow above)

My response: OK, so, let's try to find a compromise. I did try to retain in my rewrite the criticism that seemed valid to me, which I've also acknowledged above - the vagueness, confusion and drama of Rome's original presentation of OS 0 1 2. It seems to me that the other criticisms in the original article were (are) either too petty to be worth including (e.g. that Rome solicited donations for his idea), or manifestly false (e.g. that Rome concluded that Google is conscious in his TEDx talk). Which criticisms that I dropped would objectors propose that we introduce into my rewrite, and which (if any) new criticisms do they think should be added, and why?

Objection: I am Rome's sock-puppet, and we should not allow Rome (as a sock) to write his own article. (Marlow in the revision history of this article, who above seemed to suggest instead that I am an independent person, since he suggests I consulted with Rome - I am apparently misunderstanding Marlow somehow)

My response: As I wrote earlier on this talk page (now archived), this is easy enough to disprove through an IP check. I am contributing through an ordinary ISP connection (not a proxy) from the opposite side of the world to Rome.

Objection: It was written in direct consultation with Rome. (Marlow, above)

My response: The only direct influence Rome has had on my rewrite is subsequent to its first drafting and posting: I replaced the quote on scientism from his interview with Alex with a quote on groupthink from that same interview, because, according to Rome, it better reflects his views. [Edit: I've just remembered that there is one other thing: it was also Rome's suggestion that "Wikipedia we have a problem" deserved mention. I agreed, and wrote it in without further input]. For corroboration that I drafted and submitted this rewrite independently, please refer to Rome's reaction to it on this talk page (now archived): "Laird's version I also would want to see changes to".

Objection: It is a sycophantic ass-licking autobiography. (Tielec01, above)

My response: Again, then, let's find a compromise. Why not let the rewrite stand and allow others to edit it into shape? It's a better base than the current version, which seems to have been written out of malice, and does RationalWiki's credibility no favours.

Finally: Leuders, I deferred my response to your comments on my talk page (signed with timestamp 05:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC) for those who want to look them up) to my comments here. You might get a sense from what I've written above what that response is: I don't think that anything you reference about Rome is either significant enough or accurate enough to warrant and be included in a RationalWiki article. Even if I thought "trolling" was an accurate description of his activities - which I don't - is RationalWiki to become a reference of every troll on the internet, and if not, what about Rome's "trolling" qualifies it for inclusion here? I also think that he has a good case that he was banned from Wikipedia through the collaborative efforts of a group of sceptic activist editors. We can agree to disagree on that, but I think it's only fair for you to acknowledge the nuance of his position on this as a "conspiracy", which he outlines in his interview with Alex. Rome actually prefers the term "groupthink" to "conspiracy", and agreed with Alex that he was the victim of a "conspiracy" only when Alex explained what he meant by that term - and he means something very loose (listen from 34:17 to 35:05, and again from 35:49 to 36:05, or, if you can't be bothered, I'm happy to provide a transcript of those sections - just ask). In other words, SPOV might very well apply, but only when there's something of note to apply it to, and, in my opinion, in this case, there isn't. --Laird (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Laird, Rome was only banned a few days ago on Wikipedia on another sock account, his sock this time was called No more scary monsters [8]. Your claim he hasn't sock puppeted is just dishonest. He creates accounts on Wikipedia every few months and shows no sign of stopping, just like he created countless socks on here and has even pretended to be females on forums to promote his nonsense. You may be his business partner but he's had you duped buddy. As for libel well Rome has an entire webpage on insulting and posting personal information/libel about wikipeda editors and skeptics [9]. So he moans when someone does it to him but he's ok to create a website and insult others? An eye for eye... :) Lucytaylor (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lucy. Let's just get something out of the way first: I'm not Rome's business partner. I'm not quite sure how you came to believe that I am. Secondly, I didn't claim that Rome has not socked; I claimed that I am not Rome's sock puppet. There's a difference. As far as Rome's supposed sock puppetry goes: whilst I think it's an irrelevancy because it wouldn't warrant a RationalWiki article on him even if it were true, I will put on the record that I accept (because in my experience it has proven to be trustworthy) Rome's word that he has never used more than one account at a time on Wikipedia, here on RationalWiki, and on all forums on which he posted about OS 0 1 2, and in my view, that's all that matters. I realise that Wikipedia technically classes creating a new account to avoid a ban as "sock puppetry", but (1) I'm not sure that that's a standard definition and (2) even if it is, I don't see it as deserving of the opprobrium you seem to want to confer on Rome for it, especially considering that (in his view and in mine) his original banning from Wikipedia was an abuse of process. Rome has done nothing improper with any of his Wikipedia accounts, in particular he has never used them to pretend to be another user in order to prop up his own comments - which to me is the more standard definition of sock puppetry, or at least the only one that warrants any of the sort of opprobrium you seem to want to confer on Rome. Finally, and first noting again that this is irrelevant to the question of whether RationalWiki should host a page about Rome, but responding anyway just for the record: I read the page Rome wrote that you linked to, and there was nothing insulting or libellous about it - it seemed entirely factual - nor did I see any "personal" information on it that wasn't information already on the public (mostly Wikipedia's) record. I think it's also fair to acknowledge that Rome put that site up to defend himself against and expose the harm others were doing to him (and other like-minded editors, and the subjects of the articles being edited), not out of any intent to do any harm to anyone else. I don't see Rome's response as "an eye for an eye", I think it's appropriately fair-minded. --Laird (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting here that part of the earlier consensus to keep the article (or a article at least) included considering his Wikipedia stuff a sideshow at best, as what people do at WP really isn't RW's job to report on. So whether he was socking or not doesn't matter here --Kels (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] new aiki wiki stuff

I'm afraid the writers of the section made a few incredibly ill considered errors in trying to refute the rules of aiki gamification. It's up to the community here if they want to do anything about it.

I advise anyone reading this to simply go to the archived copies of Mr. Viharo's wiki referenced, read, and see what they think. If I'm honestly that crazy, someone let me know, but I'm not going to copypasta this woefully uncritical interpretation of Mr. Viharo's nonsense into the article. PacWalker 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Line One

Beethoven's Fifth is apparently a lie.[12] Note that "or" has been substituted for the original's "and/or," thereby shedding some of the more interesting implications about truth. First off, any assignment of 0, 1, or 2 by any user can be either logical or intuitive. it's just meant to convey to the platform what that sentence or comment means *to the user*.

Secondly - It would be a mistake to confuse the assignment of 2:false with 2:art, while they may share something in common, they do not contextualize the same thing by any means - and neither of them would be used to describe any musical work unless of course one was simply informing the platform that a musical work falls under the arts (which there is no need for) or wanted to have a broader philosophical discussion which of course would be up to them. anything with a '2' assignment is going to relate more to ideas that have a more subjective nature to them. 0 1 and 2 are used to inform the platform of contexts in the discussion, as well as which forum rules apply. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Line two

'The claim that "all ideas are inherently in conflict or have the potential for conflict," but that only the labeling of opposing statements as true can create conflict.

I appreciate you guys trying to make an effort here - but this is a really tortured misunderstanding. the ikia does not say that the 'labeling' of statements as true is what creates conflict, it says when ideas are believed to be true thus enters the conflict of idea. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, if one labeled the claim that there is carbon in DNA true, but the claim that carbon even exists false, there would be no conflict, because assignments of the 1 (true) value can conflict only with other assignments of the 1 value.

Really not sure how you're coming to this at all. You're making up you're own rules here, this is not aiki wiki. You have it backwards and in the wrong order. If a user assigns a 0, 1 or 2 to any statement - it's easy for both the platform, and the collaborative, to see where there is disagreement between users over assignments. IF there is perfect agreement, then all assignments that share 1 in common will all have agreements. Surely you do not think that just because someone assigns a '1' to the statement "carbon does not exist" is not going to come into conflict with someone who may very well suggest otherwise? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Line Three

People are not ideas, and are not in conflict. While understandably passing over the issue of what a person is, this one still claims that people are not in conflict with each other. You see, the KKK didn't actually hate black people. There was just a conflict of ideas

It's a little vague how your viewing aiki wiki right now. The 'ikia' are rules for a game. it's not an ontological claim about reality. This is the same problem I have with some of you bozo's, can you all tell the difference between creative narration, art, prose and critical or theoretical writing? These are rules for a game that helps organize and engineer a discussion. sheesh.

Secondly - the concept of 'inherently' is something your missing. ideas may inherently be in conflict. it's just information. true information will always be in conflict with false information. That sort of conflict is more mathematical and logical. 'People' are not inherently in conflict, meaning it's something we inherit from our ideas about the world around us. If the KKK were inherently in conflict with black people, then that would mean that white people and black people would have and will continue to fight and kill each other every day all the time. That's clearly not the case. It's clearly the case the KKK as a set of ideas that they believe to be true, and are implementing those ideas on the world, as if those ideas were the world. Please try to understand this core distinction.104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Line Four"All conflict resolves win all sides win." We'll let you figure out what that sentence means.

'when all sides involved in a real conflict begin to 'win' (this term can take on different meanings) - then the entire conflict resolves. i.e. if you're a solutions engineer, then looking for solutions where all inputs are obtaining a value is a strategy you want to design. If only one side in the conflict wins - the conflict is still not resolved for the losing side. This should not be hard to understand.104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? "All conflict resolves win..." is not a typo? Marlow (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to presume it's nonsense and not a typo, given the context. PacWalker 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This is what I get from his endless circular argumentation: it's logic, except when it's subjective, it's reality, except when it's a game, it's true, except when it's false, it's trolling, except when it's "creative", etc. In other words, it's a wheelbarrow to more efficiently haul around bullshit. Leuders (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you're just making shit up. Also FYI - yes that's a typo on the site. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Rome, you write pseudophilosophical gibberish, made all the more incomprehensible by glaring typos which fundamentally alter the meaning of your prose. When people quote the typo directly, saying it's gibberish, your response is to repeat the typo and say "This should not be hard to understand." Are you being serious or is this more Bubblefish style trolling? Marlow (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Marlow: If you want to accuse me of writing pseudo philosophical gibberish, do so with intellectual honesty and brevity - not by highlighting a typo. I do apologize for my typos, truly. But that's not what you're saying - you're saying my typos are the reason you're implying this is a crank idea. My typos are why I would prefer to hire an editor, but I don't have the budget, or much time, to proof read. This is a time sink for me just as much as you. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: also probably fair to note that I am dyslexic - sometimes just as annoying to me as it is for you. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Leuders: You're attacking me as a person, on this forum - you don't know me and something you fail to grasp is that first and foremost, I am a creative writer. The problem you're having is your mixing statements I make in a creative setting - and stringing them to statements I make in a critical setting and combining them into your own unique misunderstanding of the person you're engaging with. You're being intellectually lazy. You're not providing any proper, rational peer review. If I was on 4Chan or Reddit, I wouldn't expect you to. However - you're a member of a community that claims to publish in evidence based facts. That's a high standard. I'm asking you to either keep your standard in this discussion, or disengage in any critical component of it. If you have an opinion of me, start a blog. Hit me up on twitter. Instead, you're abusing the power of this websites ranking to broadcast your personal opinions which haven't passed any reasonable test for veracity. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not implying that your idea is a "crank idea" (your words, not mine or the article's) because your website has typos - your idea's validity or lack thereof is readily apparent and I have no interest in debating it with you. What's troublesome is your reaction to having these typos pointed out; you just plow along assuming the other party is wrong. It makes me think you're engaged in the same type of self promotional trolling you did as Bubblefish. Marlow (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Marlow, you're bullshitting me right now. If it's so apparent, why can't you point out WHAT is pseudoscientific or cranky about the idea? IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, then you HAVE NO BUSINESS EDITING an article about me or the topic or participating in any consensus building on the matter. You're intellectually dishonest and you're just here to abuse someone. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I get the sense you're trying to bait me into a debate, a tactic you've admittedly used in the past. I don't have much interest in this topic and only jumped into the conversation because you were being such a putz by blaming people for not understanding your own garbled text, I couldn't help but point it out (I'm starting to regret it now). Instead of saying, "thanks for pointing out the typo" (which still remains on your website at least on my browser), you attack me, saying "you're saying my typos are the reason you're implying this is a crank idea," something I never did. Frankly, I'd cut down the section of the article regarding Aiki Wiki, it's only tangentially related with your efforts to promote pseudoscience on the internet (Sheldrake, Chopra etc) and seems like just the latest chapter in your decade long effort to promote your idea about tri-positional logic. Marlow (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to 'trap' you in a debate. I don't recall you saying 'hey heads up there is a typo on your site!' I recall you using one typo to justify saying the whole project is garbled while clarifying that I write pseudo philosophy. I also find your claim that I promote pseudoscience because I edited Rupert's article dishonest. If you want to hate on me because I designed architecture for Deepak Chopra, fine - but please dont call me a supporter or an endorsee of his, I'm not. If I promote or endorse something, it's on my blog. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Seriously - I fail to grasp how a crowd of 'intellectuals' can fail to determine what Line Four is saying. Did you try switching the first word 'win' to 'when'? I mean it's an obvious typo, primarily because 'win' and 'when' are homonyms. 'sides' refers to 'players' in a 'game'. Any conflict, physical or ideological, can be modeled as a 'game'. In the game of aiki wiki - all sides winning is also programmatic in the assignment of editing permissions. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] ISHAR and Rational Wiki

I also see plenty of editors here using my association with Deepak Chopra and ISHAR as evidence that I deserve to be shamed on Rational Wiki. I've disclosed my history with Deepak Chopra transparently. I've developed a collaborative digital library which ANY organization could use. Even Rational Wiki could use the aiki atheneum. I'm a problem solver. I like solving online problems. Perhaps I was naive as to the pushback I would receive, but hey, I live in Southern California - we tend not to be so reactive to people when they do yoga and meditate. I've created media plans for Jennifer Aniston, that doesn't mean I endorse her films personally. I've developed media plans for Brazil, that does not mean I endorse their politics. If I endorse something, I blog about it. Deepak Chopra is a very famous and well connected person. He also hired me to apply my work. I worked with him because he contacted me and paid me. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

By "transparently," of course, you mean never mentioned it until you were fired, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] About Rome Viharo, written with more accurate context

[edit] About Rome Viharo

Rome Viharo is a social media strategist, CEO of an ad technology company, former recording artist, viral marketer, digital filmmaker, and blogger. He was called an Internet troll a few times in 2007 on a discussion forums. He also left comments on the TED blog known protesting TED for removing the a talk given by Rupert Sheldrake and edited biographical information on his Wikipedia page. Viharo is a member of the TED community having given a TEDx talk in 2011 called 'Google Consciousness'.

His website claims to tell his version of events regarding editing Wikipedia and references skeptic editors on Wikipedia skeptic noticeboards. In addition to criticizing Wikipedia's policy for site abuse, he also claims to design collaborative platforms and consults individuals with Wikipedia problems. One of his clients was Deepak Chopra. ISHAR was designed based on Viharo's principles of collaborative curation.

12 years ago, Viharo claims he was experimenting with a new creative medium on discussion forums called OS 012. To promote OS 012, He developed an online persona called 'Bubblefish: Flame Warrior', which a few people did not like and argued with him about it.

Viharo has a history of creative writing, viral marketing and comedic mediums, using humor and set ups as part of particular brand of creative writing. In 2001, he created the persona 'The Fifi Bastard', a fake music producer from France, to promote his EMI recording of the same name. Years later, he further experimented with 'The Fifi Bastard' in blogs and various forums.

Additionally, he created a fake 'Morgan Freeman' cigarette commercial, and 'Barack Obama in college' with comedian Freddy Lockhart.

Viharo promotes ideas on 'futurism and media' on his blog and promotes the development of his project aiki wiki.

In 2011, he gave a TEDx talk Google Consciousness, which tells the story about the creation of the meme google consciousness, and uses the talk to promote his concepts of social media evolving to replace government. Claiming in the talk to 'not know what he is talking about' when it comes to consciousness, he explored how 'Google search' describes two competing models of consciousness and the possibility that a search algorithm could actually be sentient based on what they are saying, while clarifying this is not what he personally believes. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] WWHAP

[10] Viharo compares RW and WP editors. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

He stupidly included his real name in his first Talk Page post as Tumbleman [11] and now he's claiming it was someone else's fault. Priceless. Leuders (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought that up Leuders, that's going to be what a new post on WWHP is going to address - the claim that I 'outed' myself. That's highly misleading and a distortion, and either if it was, using material from off wikipedia from the past is against WP editing policy and is considered WP Hounding and harassment. I'm at an office IP address today, so this is Rome posting this comment. 107.184.43.199 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I can only speculate, but I'm guessing that after "Tumbleman" disrupted the Sheldrake Talk page with dozens of level 2 headers, accused multiple editors of being part of a GSoW conspiracy, etc. that someone took a look at the accounts contributions to determine who or what was behind the disruption and if they were dealing with a troll or a new user who was confused about policy. To me, that isn't "hounding and harassment", it's community responsibility. I'm sorry that goes against your "I'm a victim" narrative, but reality is, after all, reality. Leuders (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're publishing facts on an evidenced based encyclopedia, you should NOT be speculating here, you should be checking your claims with the evidence. Right now you've been exposed to other online evidence that would contradict the 'snarky' narrative that is posted of me here. You are consciously choosing to not publish evidence that may inform the reader to question the validity of your speculation. I will be publishing the evidence shortly that will prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my identity was outed and I was personally attacked on Wikipedia, within my first 4 days of arrive on the Sheldrake article.104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Using past WP posts is against WP policy? Damn, might as well axe the user contribs page altogether. PacWalker 13:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Read for yourself. Thanks.104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Rome's "I'm a victim" fantasy seems to include the idea that the 5 WP admins who banned him [12] were too lazy to actually review his contributions but instead took the word of others. Yet a simple read-through of the 5 admins comments makes it abundantly clear that they reviewed "Tumbleman"s contributions and erratic conduct before coming to a unanimous decision. Leuders (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I urge to to check your facts clearly, and the claims I am making.You are currently offering to publish third party corroboration on this publisher of events that occurred on Wikipedia, which stores all of the activity and evidence. This means, if you are to report on factual events, that you must look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that you cherry pick to fit the narrative you're peddline here. If you read what the admins wrote, that means you also read that a significant number of the community did not agree I was a troll and defended my contributions. If you actually check my talk page contributions, you will not find anything other than editorial based comments. If you actually knew Wikipedia policy, you would see that those 5 admins not only did not take uninvolved editors support as well as other involved editors support, but failed to mention anything about Vzaak/Manul using off wiki comments from years ago and 'splitting comments' in talk my first few days as the sole evidence. If you knew Wikipedia culture, you would know that 5 admins weighing in on something holds about as much weight as your own article for deletion process here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I guarantee if those 5 admins had said you were a model wikipedian you'd be arguing how wise and experienced they are. In any case, RW does not care about your old Wikipedia battles. Really, neither do I. Leuders (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you should remove any reporting of them since you are making direct claims about them. And fyi, I was also SAS81 on Chopra's article. Guess what? I HAD admin support there, and even some supportive comments from a few of the skeptic editors like jps. I also won that wiki war and my arguments reached consensus of senior wiki editors. Dont care about my reports on Wikipedia? fine delete the friggin article it's the only reason why it's here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
One revision forward would've been preferable, but yeah. PacWalker 13:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I realize his seeing his "case" discussed here only energizes the feedback loop and deepens his persecution fantasies, but whattayagonnado? Leuders (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Request for responsible publishing, Wikipedia harassment in article

Leuders does not make responsible claims regarding my outing and harassment. I am requesting that RW, as a responsible publisher, review the evidence here and publish this evidence in the article so the reader may have accurate context.

This section is grossly irresponsible, and seeks to cherry pick evidence to fit the 'snarky' point of view of the RW brand while failing to include facts or evidence that would detract from the RW brand.

[edit] Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia‎ First sentence

In 2013, Viharo began to insist that Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic resonance" is not pseudoscience.[ Viharo as Tumbleman] argues that Sheldrake's morphic resonance isn't pseudoscience.

This sentence misleads the reader to think that I argue for the tenacity of Morphic Resonance as a scientific hypothesis. This sentence is framed this way because it allows my narrative to fit the 'snarky' point of view. The full context of this source, in addition to all direct quotes attributable to me on Wikipedia, show that my argument is about the application of WP: Fringe to a BLP and the sources other editors were using to determine it deserved it. These are editorial, not ideological arguments and it's misleading the reader as to what I believe. I am NOT QUALIFIED to assert that morphic resonance IS or IS NOT pseudoscience as a scientific dialogue, however I am qualified to argue that Wikipedia editors should be guided by the sources and WP policy, as my clear statements on Rupert Sheldrake's talk page disclosed.

Why is that not accounted for in my narrative on Rational Wiki? Isn't it misleading the reader to think I am declaring something ideological when instead I am clearly stating something editorially based on sources and consensus building? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Viharo argues that Sheldrake's critique of "the scientific materialistic philosophy" is "an idea worth spreading

I believe this is grossly misleading use of a reference or source to fit a snarky narrative for Rational Wiki. Can you account for this? Your'e putting an unnecessarily large amount of weight on comments I made on the TED blog, along with a few thousand other people, protesting TED's removal of Rupert's talk. I'm a member of the TED community. It was a TED sponsored discussion. It was a blog comment post. I didn't think the removal of the talk was warranted based on their reasoning. So? That I stood up to someone's right to broadcast their views? Why is this so important for the reader to know about my narrative? Why are blog comments being used to establish a level of support I have for Sheldrake's work? Is it because you're community believes the more association I have with Rupert Sheldrake the more association I have to the snarky point of view of RW? Is it responsible for RW editors to find blog comments by private citizens and use them to frame embarrassing articles about them?

Viharo became an online activist in support of Sheldrake's claims that a conspiracy of "ideologue" skeptics were targeting him for abuse.

This is misleading. I was not an online activist regarding 'skeptic' behaviors, that happened after I actually got harassed on Wikipedia. I was eager to help resolve a wiki war. I do not claim a 'conspiracy' - I show evidence of what occurred to me on Wikipedia through evidenced based investigation. By failing to disclose this to the reader, you misrepresent my content and my integrity as a publisher to the reader for the sake of having the article reflect the 'snarky point of view' RW brand.


Farley concludes, "the central claim, that Guerrilla Skeptics are controlling Sheldrake’s bio, is demonstrably false. It is a classic conspiracy theory."

This sentence misleads the reader as to my claims and tries to link a comment by Tim Farley as a reference to support something which I have publicly contradicted. Indeed, I clarified that both in the article and on my site in the clearest of language that I did NOT believe that organization was editing. What I did say is that the editors who were editing, a significant number of them were self declared skeptics, single purpose accounts of only skeptic topics, and argued directly for the skeptical point of view on the article. By falsely connected me with demonstrably true assertions that GS were not on Sheldrake's article, the sentence seeks to damage my credibility as collaborative engineer and consensus builder.


In an interview with parapsychology advocate Alex Tsakiris, Viharo said there was "definitely a conspiracy" of skeptics who were personally targeting him.He characterized the struggle as "a war of ideas", and compared it to "Americans and Nazis" fighting against each other in World War II. Rome Viharo, Wikipedia, We Have a Problem Skeptiko.com

Out of context. Alex asked me if I believed there was a conspiracy of skeptics on Wikipedia harassing other people and edit warring. I *laughed* and said there was definitely a conspiracy against me to ban me off of Wikipedia. That's me playing with Alex's wording, NOT mine. I make it clear in the interview that I believe it is 'group think'. I use the analogy of the US vs Germany in WW2 is a POOR example, okay you got me. I could have chosen a better example to talk about two ideological struggles. Who cares. By taking those statements out of context, and failing to disclose to the reader exactly what I do claim that it is a symptom of group think, common in any group, it misleads by making it appear that I am attacking skeptic ideology, and I am an opponent of skepticism. This is done to form my narrative to the snarky point of view to the taunts of the Rational Wiki community.


However, no such conspiracy of skeptics appears to exist.

Rational Wiki is now making a formal claim. It is claiming that the harassment i received on Wikipedia is a false claim. It has also provided no source for this statement. The article attempts to fudge the fact that GSW are not on Rupert's article with a demonstrable fact that editors involved with skepticism were indeed on the article and even self disclosed.

Viharo further claims that he "thought [he] was also editing anonymously on Wikipedia" (because he was using the name "Tumbleman") but "was outed by Vzaak/Manul on Wikipedia within three days of arrive [sic] on Sheldrake’s article."However, in his first edit on the talkpage of Rupert Sheldrake's article, he linked to his userpage as "Rome Viharo", though he removed his name a minute later.

This is RW's first attempt at posting evidence on Wikipedia. Now that you have begun to post evidence, I believe it is reasonable to expect that you have to include ALL evidence and not just cherry pick which evidence you want to pick.

Let me correct that sentence for you to show you what I mean. With evidence. See below. Let's see how RW addresses the full context of the evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Full context of facts on Wikipedia regarding outing, harassment

Viharo further claims that he "thought [he] was also editing anonymously on Wikipedia" (because he was using the name "Tumbleman") but "was outed by Vzaak/Manul on Wikipedia within three days of arrive [sic] on Sheldrake’s article. "However, in his first edit on the talkpage of Rupert Sheldrake's article, he linked to his userpage as "Rome Viharo", though he removed his name a minute later. His name was published on Wikipedia talk page for a full 60 seconds after he redacted his name. This means his name was only discoverable in the talk edit history, not the talk page. Additionally, editor Manul archived the entire talk page three hours later, making Manul the only editor to see it. Manul then posted 'Bubblefish/RomeViharo/Tumbleman' We've been had!" to both the Sheldrake talk page on Wikipedia, Tumbleman's page, and Manul's page on Wikipedia as well. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Viharo immediately brought into dispute resolution. Viharo clarified his intentions to Manul that he was not doing OS 012 on Wikipedia and wanted privacy. Manul offered him an olive branch as resolution, which Viharo accepted. Viharo left editing the page for a few weeks and when he came back, Manul was found to continue posting the information of his 'trolling' ways using links from 2006 and off wiki comments to other editors, seeking to gain a consensus that he was trolling wikipedia. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Manul/Vzaak's editing history on Wikipedia. Look at it when they arrived in July until when I joined the article in October. Anyone can see that this is a single purpose account, making bold edits and changes, with a history of complaints and solely editing Sheldrake or Skeptic related articles. Is it unreasonable to assert that Vzaak/Manul is an editor with a 'skeptic point of view' agenda, right or wrong? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Advice from Tim Farley

"It is clear to me, if only from his extreme verbosity, that this guy is just a troll trying to soak up as much of everyone's time as possible. Every comment elicits a gigantic reply from him, no issue is too small for him to write thousands of words on it. Do not let him waste your time, he's not worth the trouble. He's been angry for years that the top result in Google for his own name is the RationalWiki article about him, so he's just trying to annoy/aggravate/rile the editors. Don't fall for it." [13] Leuders (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh sure - that's it. Just ignore the evidence I post on Wikipedia. If you ignore it, you don't respond to it and if I'm a troll, it doesn't deserve a thoughtful response. If I stand up to the harassment and respond to it with evidence, I'm trolling. Keep touting the party line. That's dishonesty. Any rational person can see that. This is called propaganda and group think. Tim Farley and Rational Wiki are not above being called out for their collaborative harassing behaviors, and trying to trick everyone into thinking I'm a pseudoscientist troll will only last for so long. Pretty soon, you will just have to face the DATA. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution, OS 012

the source for the quote is ↑ Viharo as "Bubblefish" spamming "creativity.net"

How do you know that was me? It says 'Viharo as Bubblefish'. I disclosed where I was bubblefish, and I also disclosed back then that there was more than one bubblefish doing things like that. I dont recall that post, it could have been one of about 5 people I can think of.

This is the problem with failing to attribute OS 012 as a creative work. OS 012 basic on the link the sources you use even say 'the puzzling, shocking, tongue in cheek master meme that keeps spreading whether you believe it or not!' Yet you publish these statements as if I am publishing some scientific or journalistic claim. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the current version of the article fit? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
inb4 not responsible publishing PacWalker 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
For OS 012, I think some things can be clarified. I was not the sole author, OS 012 was an essay that was written collaboratively by many people all over the world, I just facilitated the project. Specifically the project was created as a protest to the invasion of Iraq, and began out of internet discussions regarding the existence of WMD, I think that should be noted. I also did so anonymously - so if we are going to be responsible here, the sentence should read something closer to 'In 2003, Viharo created the OS 012 project anonymously as a 'master meme' that anyone could edit, copy, or co-create to 'stop the war' before the invasion of Iraq" That's consistent with all OS 012 discussions. I think it would be fair to mention the 'playful' voice of OS 012, so as not to mislead the reader that certain things are to be taken at face value (ex: You have just downloaded OS 012, and 'you will spread the master meme whether you agree with it or not.)

[edit] This whole mess has to be cleaned up.

Someone should rewrite the whole article (or at least clean the talk page) and clean this mess (not delete it, but place it somewhere... where it is appriopriate, with obvious reference to it inside the article, maybe with a thourough explanation for someone who wasn't a direct witness of the event - how about a page similar to Lenski affair?), because when I first noticed it (I'm relatively new here, late 2014), I was extremely confused and for a moment - when I looked at the talk page and Rome's user's talk page - it seemed like RW are indeed a bunch of assholes (considering I saw Viharo's entry of his situation on Wikipedia first, where some skepticalist people who had him by the balls seemed to be assholes, with many reputable Wikipedians agreeing), then saw - surprisingly, never thought RW would take an interest - RW's piece of pie and thought immediately "what a bunch of edgy assholes you guys are, and I thought it is RationalWiki". After seeing the essay, though, things became more clear, as it seemed like a more constructive dialogue - although there indeed is a lot of mess left here which makes this site look like a very bad, distasteful show of ED-like humor (which I can accept, although I personally find it distasteful and overly radical). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole premise seems to go like this:
1. You are largery uninterested in Rome's situation on Wikipedia - you care about his wishy-washy marketing approaches. He promotes indiscriminately whatever he thinks will yield a profit, no matter whether it is complete bullshit and woo, or something legit.
2. You declare it would make a good article on RW. Thus, you make it.
3. Rome comes here and is upset, he claims this article is influencing his professional and personal life.
3A. He also claims you intruded into his private life by finding out his real-life identity (which is a pretty serious accusation if you ask me - no disclosure of this was given, or at least it slipped by my eyes - I might be an illiterate idiot who cannot read carefully, but so is going to be a lot of people who will casually browse RW thinking it is a pretty nice site with a sound mission - and then they get disappointed - see my point?).
4. You initially react like a bunch of immature twats, arranging clique-like behavior and stuff. It doesn't matter whether you do this or not - I believe this guy sincerely felt oppressed (especially given his previous experience with Wikipedia, which indeed was oppressive).
5. Rome, no matter how incorrect he might be (I say it again - due to the disruptive and emotional atmosphere here, it is hard to distinguish essential and sound argumentation from logical fallacies), is collected. While this doesn't prove him right, potential visitors may frown upon you, or individuals who shouldn't really be attracted to this site might be attracted to this site - both are bad.
6. In my head (fortunately for you), the whole discussion arrives at a conclusion "we wrote an article about you because you are a woo-meister - you don't mind promoting woo if you think it is profitable" - and that is absolutely okay. Rome came here trying to defend himself - in my opinion unrightfully, since the information stated here are mere facts for each one of us to judge - and you attacked him with fallacious reasoning and douchebaggery. Then he wrote the essay, which sparked the call for more mature, reasonable conversation. The essay is much harder to find than the mere article about Rome - most people seeking information about him will first see this article, then its' talk page if they are more interested (many will be, I assure you). Most people who are first-time visitors would be discouraged after they see the shitfest that is present there. Discouraged enough not to seek Rome's essay and its' talk page. This will bring bad reputation to RW and attract potential trolls who instead of engaging in constructive dialogue will think it's cool to act like a twat here.

Concern trolling Tone argument is a fallacy, but first-time visitors won't give a shit about it. They'll leave and think "RW are a bunch of trolling idiots".

Remember, this is only my observation and I'm drawing conclusions on potentially fallacious premises. I wasn't here when it happened. I'm just describing it as I'm seeing it - and as other newcomers will see it. Loc (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To clear things up - I'm simply asking for an article which will clearly and easily-accessibly present the whole affair (which looks very ugly and might discourage potential newcomers from visiting this site) in a objective, well-described manner. Loc (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We can certainly add a section on Rome's involvement at RW on this page. Would that resolve most of the "public relations" issuess? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Also -- what specifically about our conduct was ED-like? (Not implying none was.) Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't heard of any "public relations" issues as of yet, but I bet this has a great potential to attract them. The sooner we deal with this, the better. Obviously, I am not going to be the one to do that, since I wasn't on RW at the time and I certainly don't know all the details]. As for the ED-like conduct, the first page of this discussion's archives seem to be like them to me (maybe I exaggerated it a bit, but it just... didn't seem nice enough to me, and there was certainly a lot of fallacious reasoning and general rudeness, not to mention bigotry - something I thought RW frowned upon): Talk:Rome Viharo/Archive1 Loc (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If someone wants to sum up these several rounds of Viharo-whining (best desribed by Leuders as Rome's constant "no I never said blue, I said azure" semantic rebuttals), please feel free. I seriously doubt that this mile-long back-and-forth will actually be any kind of PR disaster due to tl;dr. Hell, there are 4(!) archive pages of Viharo's tripe gripe going back to December 2013(!) ScepticWombat (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Wombat, I actually think this is exactly the reason why this will attract potential haters of this site. Even I thought it is tl;dr (I shamefully admit I didn't investigate the whole affair) and that's why I had (and still have) an impression RW users acted like assholes back then - and I bet newcomers who see this will have such an impression, too. People won't care to read the whole story - but insults, bigotry and fallacious reasoning will certainly catch their eye. They always do. Loc (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck makes you think that enough folk care about Rome Viharo (of whom I'd never heard until you started on this campaign) to bother RW if they really despise us? If Rome Viharo apologists think "RW are a bunch of trolling idiots" so much the better. Scream!! (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see why a summary the Neverending Viharo Story would prevent "haters" doing anything (hater's gotta hate y'kno'); Viharo is already pissed at RW and any sympathisers of his are probably not going to like RW's articles on Deepak Chopra or Rupert Sheldrake anyway, so...
On a more mundane note: What is the likelihood of an army of "haters" suddenly descending on RW due to this slog through Viharo-land when in 2½ years it has apparently only attracted Viharo himself and, since January, 2014, his trusty Sancho Panza, Laird to the Viharo Quest? The rest appear overwhelmingly to be a lot of RW editors who have spent an inordinate amount of time on and demonstrated more than the usual amount of patience with Viharo/Laird's blue/azure semantics. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You do have a point. Change of plans then. Let's assume I actually never cared about PR and now I think an article which revises this whole thing would be great for those who want a quick summary without unnecessary unpleasantness. Such as me, to be honest. Yes, I know, quite self-centered, but I'm just curious and it'd be interesting what your stance on this is now, after some time has passed. I'm interested how we could refer to both Viharo's and our behaviour, how do we see it nowadays, what is the consensus and what it could potentially change. Cuz, y'know, I don't want to have a lawsuit filed on me. ;) Loc (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't really that much involved as I'm not even in the archived pages. I simply started out on 22:44, 30 April 2015 by asking a few simple questions about the meaning of Viharo's Newspeak (specifically it was his description of ISHAR as an exercise in "online consensus building" that set of my BS meter).
I didn't spend much time perusing the huge backlog, but simply engaged with Viharo and Laird and came to the same conclusion that other RW editors seem to have reached: Viharo/Laird will endlessly quibble, redefine and split hairs to try to finesse the fact that Viharo has acted as an enabler for woomeisters Chopra and Sheldrake, variously arguing that (in no particular order and from memory):
  • it isn't promotion/enabling as long as you're paid to do it and don't actually endorse/believe in the woo (yup, mercenary motives and a lack of belief in the woo in question clearly excuses practical aid to woo peddlers...);
  • or that ISHAR is a repository of actual "scientific research" (it's not like it's blatantly obvious that it's a den of pseudoscientific woo, right?);
  • or that the smackdown Viharo's attempts at turdpolishing at WP received (and the rightful scorn with which it treats the ideas of Chopra and Sheldrake) is the result of a sinister conspiracy of sceptics (yeah, yeah, Stephen Colbert has already beat you to it by pointing out that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"); and so on and so forth.
So, all it took was a little interaction with Mssrs. Viharo and Laird and presto I came to the conclusion that it was pointless to keep arguing with them, because everything had essentially already been covered several times and they simply refuse to accept anything but either a complete wipe (down the memory hole) or a complete whitewash of the article (I suspect first into something wishywashy sans criticism and then into an increasingly promotional puff piece about, well, "online consensus building" and similar PR-speak).
Reading a few of Viharo's off-site Jeremiads didn't exactly shake my impressions and reminded me of another RW editor I'd already engaged with, but at least he didn't try the "mercenary defence".
On that last note, I can't shake the feeling that someone who'll cynically help spread Chopra's and Sheldrake's woo simply because it pays well is actually worse than someone who peddles woo because they (misguidedly, but honestly) believe in it. To try to use the fact that you got paid and that it was just a job as an excuse is just, well, inexcusable in my book. Getting paid to do nefarious shit you don't agree with or believe in doesn't give you a get out of jail free card. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The article's history has gone quiet for a while. No need to re-awaken the loquacious beast. Seriously, Loc, you are concerned that a talk page is making RW look bad? Very few people care enough to come looking at it. Too many words already. No more stirring is needed. Alec Sanderson (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it's more like flogging a dead horse, but otherwise I wholeheartedly agree. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It's settled, then. I just wish RW could have had simply explained its' stance and don't let Viharo defend himself with ad nauseam (according to you) arguments instead of making you look like a bunch of assholes. Banning him would be good, after a few demonstrations on his part that he actually has nothing to defend himself with. Of course, this could spark a few controversies, as well, but at least RW wouldn't look like a bunch of idiots. Call me stupid or believing in tone argument, but that was overkill, IMO. Loc (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, "the shitfest that is present" in the Talk archives is entirely Viharo's doing. It's the direct result of his campaign to wear down the community with never ending debate, wheedling, trolling, and outright disruption. Leuders (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with lead sentence, I find this misleading

This sentence" Rome Viharo is a Wikipedia sockpuppeteer, banned for defending the pseudo-scientific ideas of Rupert Sheldrake and trolling Sheldrake's talkpage with multiple accounts."

This is factually incorrect, libelous, and misleading and therefore I request responsible editors to review. TROLLING is offensive and slanderous, I request removal or verified third party validation through references. Again, this article, by failing to mention key facts intentionally misleads the reader and makes claims about my intentions that are factually incorrect. Additionally, by claiming I am a sockpuppeteer, the article seeks to present me as someone who, like skeptic editor on Wikipedia 'Goblin Face', seeks to subvert, deceive, and falsify Wikipedia consensus. Other information in this article is either outdated or misleading, but the above sentence is my primary concern. WikipediaWEhaveAproblem (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources are below the lede; it is established that you are a sockpuppeteer and that you defended Sheldrake's ideas. Omission likely isn't intentional, and there's little omission. Non-NPOV of the article is irrelevant; this is RW. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] 'conspiracy' of skeptics here you go

Article suggests that I am somehow misleading people as an investigator into online harassment on Wikipedia. Additionally, by removing the context of my work as a researcher, this article wants to paint me as something I am not. Without providing evidence, the article on me declares "However, no such conspiracy of skeptics appears to exist." Although I have clarified ad nausea that 'conspiracy' is a bit of an over the top word, I am accused on this site as being a conspiracy theorist for reporting on certain editors on Wikipedia. Below you will find the most recent data dump on banned Wikipedia skeptic editor and activist 'Goblin Face' who sockpuppeted as 'Dan Skeptic' while I edited Wikipedia and played a significant role in my harassment. Failure to mention this basis for my reporting is intentionally misleading to your audience.WikipediaWEhaveAproblem (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence is provided in the linked article. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Rome Viharo has a long history of stalking Wikipedia editors, harassing them and making libelous claims. The talkpage here as such should not be hosting his off-topic rants. Viharo says Dan had a "significant role in my harassment", actually he made a total of three comments to Viharo, one of which looked humorous. Not harassment. Skeptic boy (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Good that the list was removed, then. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rome viharo sockpuppetry

Hi, I added the (factually correct) opening Rome is moaning about.

Rome is intoxicated or something to deny he is a Wiki sockpupeteer, when he has an archive logging his banned troll accounts.

The only libel is on his website where he digs up peoples internet histories like a total creep, but in the process muddles identities and posts incorrect info and lies.Bertha Hues (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a new report on Rome Viharo's sockpuppetry by Manul [14], it is a bit sad that people are still talking about something that happened years ago now but one thing I would like to say about Rome is that he was unproductive on Wikipedia, he didn't read any books or seem to be interested in adding any content to an article, he spent all his time causing problems, not adding any valuable content to articles like other hard working Wikipedia editors that he likes to smear, he only used the talk-pages to chat to people which whilst is obviously not against the rules just shows us he wasn't on Wikipedia to improve articles on website or do anything productive. I have not seen Rome create a single Wikipedia article, let alone add any reliable content from decent sources. — Unsigned, by: Stranger / talk / contribs 03:31, 21 July 2015‎

[edit] Rome Viharo setting up fake accounts to impersonate me with someone called Mikemikev

Just to point out Viharo has set up fake accounts of skeptics, including myself. There's plenty of details that can be added to his entry, Viharo has been harassing me like this for the past year or more. On link, Rome has also accused me of creating this RW page , and someone is now using this against me on Rome Viharo's entry at Encyclopedia Dramatica. It clearly states underneath the quote, that this accusation is false, and it is someone called "Mikemikev" creating more of these impersonator accounts.TheJonDonnis (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Have added a new section.Krom (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of Wikipedia editors

Viharo gets his panties in a twist when everything isn't cited to a tee. This section isn't, and is somewhat unnecessary. We should consider removing it, if only to replace it with a section documenting his nutty WPWHAP blog. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rome viharo banned from trolling reddit

He not only been banned on Wikipedia for socking, but also Reddit. He has like 100+ socks there.

"Viharo turned to Reddit, where he was promptly banned from /r/WikiInAction and possibly other subreddits for using multiple accounts to promote his incoherent website" -- is mentioned on his Encylopedia Dramatica page Debunkingghosts (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, RW's standards for citation fall slightly above "shit said on ED". =P Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] What is actually going on here if you are confused

Dan Skeptic who Rome viharo is obsessed with is a sockpuppet of the paranormal skeptic Jon Donnis. Realizing there is this drama between them, Mikemikev (who has trolled this site on hundreds of socks) has been impersonating both Donnis and Viharo, while creating their Encyclopedia Dramatica entries. Donnis then appeared on ED, to leave a rant against Viharo and claim most the accunts aren't him but an impersonator. At ED, there is also a sub-entry about his impersonations for Mikemikev on Viharo's page.StarWarsNerd (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Viharo teams up with a neo-Nazi sexual pervert (Mikemikev) to harass Krom

You couldn't make this up. Viharo's new 'source' of info now put on his site is via Mikemikev (who perhaps he should have googled first) http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/no-oversight-on-rational-wiki-for-publishing-slander-block-users-who-try-and-confront-it/Kroms (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Latest mouth dump

[15] (archived) Probably nothing worthwhile, unless we need his confession to sockpuppetry. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] So this is a thing

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/evolution-is-not-observable-admits-jerry-coyne.181688/ Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Age is wrong. Style is off. Pic seems to not be Rome. I doubt this is a thing. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Definitely the style is off. The real Viharo would have extensively responded to each and every reply in the thread. Leuders (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Photo is the moderator of Anthroscape. This is most likely Mikemikev setting up these fake accounts to troll.Cheeese (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, one point to him for dedication or something. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Rome Viharo outed himself but why does he continue to blame this on others?

On his website and more recently in the commentary on this website [16], Rome Viharo claims that Manul and Dan Skeptic 'outed' him by exposing his real name Rome Viharo to the Wikipedia community. He says on the above linked website that Dan Skeptic "posted my identity to the whole community." But this is a deliberate lie as neither Manul or Dan Skeptic did this, if they did they would have been banned (you cannot out people on Wikipedia and get away with it). If we look at the real facts, Rome Viharo on his own Tumbleman account was the first person to post his own full name Rome Viharo which was posted by himself on 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC). I am also checking the history of Dan Skeptic, Manul and Tumbleman. After Rome made the mistake of posting his real name, he posts on the Tumbleman account that he thinks someone has hacked his account and posted his name or that someone was sharing his IP address. If you look through Tumbleman's edits you can find this allegation but he has gone silent about this since. The guy is nothing more than a liar. Billy the kid (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

His email "sources" for Dan Skeptic are Mikemikev. They are copy & pastes what Mike had posted on Anthroscape etc. In other words, Viharo allies himself with neo-nazis. An interesting alliance between Viharo + Mike: both are web trolls and compulsive liars. Tenchu2 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone else explain all the new accounts that blow in and immediately come here? It's a bit something. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Huh

Whoever's been editing this talkpage nonstop seems to have taken a page out of my book. SockTheory 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools