Talk:Rome Viharo/Archive1

He said, she said
So maybe this article should be a bit less about him trolling Wikipedia and getting banned, and a bit more about his kooky ideas which someone described as "It looks as if someone took a philosophy text book, cut it into lots of tiny little pieces, and then stuck them back together at random." Leuders (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah well Rational Wiki has been described as a troll crank site. You've been described as a crank. That's why I love this place, something just needs to be described by anyone and it's a reliable account. RomeViharo (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's clear you don't like the guy but many of your sources don't support what your editing here. I'm not seeing anything about him promoting conspiracy theories. The link between him an OS 012 is circumstantial but I support keeping that in. UberRationality (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You got us all wrong, we love the guy. He constantly ranted that there was a conspiracy to advance Susan Gerbic's group or its "agenda" on Wikipedia. Just one example I found . Very loveable in a kooky kind of way. Leuders (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? That's a conspiracy theory eh? Lol did you notice that Susan Gerbic has a blog which details their agenda on Wikipedia? Gerbic's group is actually called Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/the-battle-begins/#guerilla-skepticism-on-wikipedia-or-just-wikipedia-skepticism RomeViharo (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gerbic and her group had no involvement with the Sheldrake article, it's only Craig Weiler who keeps claiming otherwise. See Gerbic's latest response http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/egg-balancing-and-more-lots-more.html you should contact Gerbic on twitter and apologize to her for spreading deliberate false information about her group. Philips (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

More Tumbleman sockpuppeting
Tumbleman (Rome Viharo) banned on a new sockpuppet "Philosophyfellow" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman Debunker (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Internet forums
Are internet forums reliable sources? There's a number of forums which claim Viharo has been creating fake accounts of skeptics such as Jon Donnis of badpsychics fame. Should these be added? Philips (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * what? you're worried about reliable sources at this place? You don't need reliable sources here, this is rational wiki. as long as it looks to you to prove what ever it is your thinking, you can use it. RomeViharo (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Rome do an internet search for "Mal Yankton", it seems it is suspected this is one of your latest sock puppets. As you have already used the names Bubblefish, Tumbleman, Fujacko, Gnu Ordure, Forests, PhilosophyFellow, JonDonnis, Eveshi, MU, Ohboychickenagain and 560wasbullied I wouldn't be surprised if Yankton was one of your latest personalities. Philips (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're just being naively mistaken, because if not you're either delusional or deceptive. I have posted as Bubblefish (as ONE account on ONE forum) or as Tumbleman (as ANOTHER account on ANOTHER forum) EIGHT YEARS AGO. You do realize that people are allowed to use different monikers on different internet forums, right? That's not socking.

This is not socking. Stop using weasel words
Socking is when you use TWO accounts on ONE forum at the SAME time to make it appear there is support when there isn't. Sorry, haven't done that.

No evidence I am these accounts, this is deception
I am NOT fujako, ohboychicken again gun order, Forests, JonDonnis, eveshi, MU << have not even heard of most of these names other than fujako and gnu who were on forums I was EIGHT years ago. of course I know ohboychicken again, we actually have been in contact, as other editors whom have been harassed on the sheldrake article. There is absolutely NO evidence I am these accounts. Your evidence is because someone 'suspects' it. then it becomes true. Then you claim to be a skeptic and write a SPOV wiki. That's rich.

Yes posted on Wikipediocracy and created an account there, so?
I DO admit to being 560wasbullied (how is that a sock again? can you tell me? is there some rule or law that I should have used my real name or something?)

Philosophy Fellow is me but not a sockpuppet either
and do admit to being Philosophy Fellow. Philosophy Fellow was not a 'sockpuppet'. My other account 'The Tumbleman' was locked. There are no rules on Wikipedia against have more than one account. as a matter of fact, they even give you valid reasons to have more than one account. After I was personally attacked and harassed on Wikipedia and banned - I created the Philosophy Fellow account. That's probably about the most controversial thing I have done. Refer to the link provided to hear my POV on the matter.

Posting anonymously online is not socking
It's very misleading for you to suggest that any account I have online is socking.

OMG def NOT Mal Yankton
I'll let you in on a little secret here. Mal Yankton and Paul C. Anagnostopoulos IP's are both from the same location. I know this because (and I can't say who) emailed me both of their IP's because they were posting on one forum). Vzaak and Paul also both simultaneously had access to a unique url from a bubblefish discussion on JREF and shared that url. THere is a connection there. I'm not saying they are all the same person, but they def know each other and they *could* be the same person. How about that? Is that proof? no, but you can use it as proof since I've already 'suspected' it and that should qualify by the standards here. RomeViharo (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are better looking than Mal Yankton, Forests, Jon Donnis and Eveshi.

actually, here may be proof Mal and Paul are the same
You decide.


 * I confess the Mal Yankton might of been me it was only a joke so no hard feelings. I also trolled under the sock puppet names Tyler Snotgern, Eveshi, Forests and S. Alexander Hardison but I can't remember if it was really me because I was drunk lolz. Sorry Rome. Lots of Love Paul. BTW I have more posts than you on the Skeptiko forum VS, I have pawned you, you mad bro? Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC) <3


 * Oh I love Jokes. I just only want to take responsibility for mine and not someone elses. I will say though, the Mal Yankton character is funny.RomeViharo (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you following me around the internet? This obsession is kinda creepin' me out
Seriously, is this the life you want?

RomeViharo (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is featured in a personal case study on Cyberbullying on Wikipedia
This article was created as an 'attack piece' on me because I engaged in editing an article on Wikipedia. This case study is found here RomeViharo (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with weasel words in lead section
'''EDIT: My apologies, I mistakenly posted this to the article section by accident. I removed it and am now placing it here. ''' This article reads too 'personal' - is my ex posting here or something? This is very very misleading and your dropping weasel words into the article. This article was written as an 'attack' piece on me after my involvement with 'anonymously' editing an article on Wikipedia for Rupert Sheldrake.

How am I 'known' for trolling the internet? really? is that why everyone here had to go in internet archive to find sources and links? How am I known for promoting pseudoscience? How am I known for spreading conspiracy theories? Previous to the creation of this article, if you wanted to know what I was 'known' for, you just had to do a 'Google' search on my name to see what I was known for.

Nothing you mentioned comes up. No pseudoscience, no conspiracy theories, no 'trolling' bios. Odd that, eh? RomeViharo (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Known for trolling, really?
I'm hardly known for this, it's entirely misleading. The only thing I could be known for would be my TEDx talk or perhaps my views on social media/government. More than 10 years ago I might have been known for my creative endeavors in music or filmmaking. My previous work with (what i now call AL 0 1 2) on forums was years ( 7 - 10 years ago!) back, and the only people who know about it were people who were involved in those discussions. I assume those people are here. And it's not established anywhere that it was 'trolling'. The links your using for evidence are so outdated and written 'tongue in cheek', making it appear that this article will find any thing to support the 'SPOV' whatever that means. Whatever it means, to me it certainly does not seem 'rational' or 'empirical'. I was accused of it, yes, but I was also defended just as much. You're also mistaken that I was 'sockpuppeting. All of the links you provide do not even support that, it's just a conjecture your making. I was not fujako, gnu order, etc. Anyone who supported me on those forums was called one of my sockpuppets. If you want to believe that personally, then say it's your belief.

There is ONE source, this one.

Let's use 'critical thinking' here. There is only one piece of evidence that 'Tumbleman' was banned for 'trolling'. Look how many members of the community said I was not trolling. Therefore, the 'claim' that I was trolling was just that, a claim. And since it was the admin who claimed it, he came in, deleted a year long thread and banned me. Look at the community support I had. Do you know how long I was apart of that community for? over a year and a half. do you know how long ago that was, almost NINE years ago. And your 'making it up' that I was fujako and gnu order. That forum did not even accuse me of socking. Those were members of that community. What was the evidence that I was trolling that forum that the admin used to ban me? The same link you found on Internet Archive, my tongue in cheek webpage about the Bubblefish show. that's the one piece of evidence you have for me 'trolling' and being banned. That's it. That's all you got baby. And it's been stretched so out of context that if you're going to be critical, you have to look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that supports your point of view.

If you want to attack me on something real - i'll give it to you. Unfortunately, this isn't it. RomeViharo (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

pseudoscience?
My intentions and arguments on the Sheldrake article were very clearly spelled out. I never argued for or against his science, only his lead section. There is no evidence in any of the Wikipedia articles talk section that I was 'promoting' Sheldrake and no evidence anywhere that I 'promote' Sheldrake or pseudoscience. You're using this word 'pseudoscience' as a pejorative and it's ridiculous. I 'defended' Sheldrake as a living person against what I believed were attempts to demean him on his biography on Wikipedia just as others have.

Find ONE piece of evidence showing where I argue for Sheldrake's ideas or promote them? You can't. You can only find evidence of me arguing over what sources say in his biography that are directly related to the lead section of the article. RomeViharo (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

conspiracy theories?? really?
OMG really? Which ones? 911? JFK assassination? Reptilians? What? no? You mean the Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia query? Are you kidding me? That's a conspiracy theory? Over the top much? What's so out there about even suspecting they were involved? GSW is actually on Wikipedia, right? And the editors on Sheldrakes page are also clearly avowed skeptics right? Any associations made to Gerbics group were reasonable and I did not initiate the idea, it was passed around on Craig Weiler's blog. And I take them at their word, they are not involved. What's the controversy here? There is no controversy. You've manufactured this.

You're using these claims against me as weasel words and it's deceptive and misleading and HARDLY notable even if true. It' as if you have a 'conspiracy' theory of your own that you want to support. I've already read through a lot of the chit chat on this forum. There are so many paranoid editors here assuming I am behind all sorts of accounts on this forum and elsewhere it's comical.

If you want to attack me - attack me on something I believe in, like my views on social media and government in the TEDx talk. Attack me for suggesting that collective editing could evolve to administer government process. attack me for all my kooky futuristic blog posts. I would be more than happy to defend those and totally honored if you attacked me for those ideas. Telepathy and psi is not my argument nor my interest. AL 0 1 2 should have it's first iteration up soon and you can attack me for that too. RomeViharo (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia issue
I am also requesting that this article contain the link to my rebuttal of this whole affair '. Here is all the evidence with links to support my claims. The charges of 'trolling' Wikipedia and 'sockpuppeting' were trumped up charges and I deny them and provide evidence that is not refutable. If you want to debate me on the evidence, do so. If you want to drop a snarky comment or opinion about the evidence, go for it. I don't expect 'empirical' arguments on Rational Wiki. It's a shame too, because most of the issues you cover here I actually support! I'm a pro science progressive.RomeViharo (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You might be able to get your link after you disclose a list of every account and IP adress you have used to edit Wikipedia. Hipo crite 20:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee you would think that an encyclopedia article would WANT to include relevant sources and links and not use it as a carrot to get meaningless and personal information out of someone. Oh! that's right, this is Rational Wiki. RomeViharo (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the point that this is not an encyclopedia? Reading for comprehension, all the cool kids are doin' it! --Kels (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Touche'. It just looks like an online encyclopedia and fools people it's rational. If you were actually interested in critical thinking, critical analysis THEN you would want to include the link. If you were really promoting empiricism, you would actually attempt to refute it. RomeViharo (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If you bothered to edit any other articles, maybe we would be a bit less hostile, Rome.But since it's clearly you, we're on our guards here.--The Madman (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

When in Rome...
13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Alleged victim of skeptical cyberbullying, true believer in "O S 0 1 2", and tireless defender of Rupert Sheldrake's quantum nonsense Rome Viharo is now seeking fit partners with lots of free time to engage him in circular philosophical debate at his article's talk page. Leuders (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh Leuders - does your absence in talk infer that your not fit? I hope you're able to find some help here, you're going to need it. RomeViharo (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, man, I looked at your page on you, and, um... dude, seriously, warmed over general semantics? (Or at least that's all I can recognize.) Seriously, if you're going to promote gibberish, you should at least make it gibberish that sort of makes sense. That Sheldrake fellow you like? Total horseshit, but at least it sort of makes sense if you accept Lamarck (which no one important has since Kammerer shot himself) and define "quantum" as "Skinner constant". You? Um... I'd say "yeah, no", but that presumes there's anything there to criticize. You're like the least coherent TED talk ever. EVDebs (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh,this ought to be fun.--The Madman (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

I'm currently constructing a point-by-point thing in the talk page pointing out his shit, but I have a feeling it won't stop him. I've seen people like him and I know his type do not react well to that sort of thing.--The Madman (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman
 * Probably an utter waste of time. "Your points are all invalid because handwave, lol can't anyone refute anything I say." There, I saved you the trouble. See also: User:Conservative --Kels (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At least it's entertaining. I have yet to meet a scientist who doesn't enjoy reading and/or listening to the occasional crank idea (and the fallout afterwards of course). I'm quite partial to it myself, as long as it's in small doses. - GrantC (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a reason WP admins who banned this guy called him a huge "time sink." Enjoy. Leuders (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see. As he seems to only be focusing on his own page, I'm suggesting one of the admins take action before he gets too cocky and vandalizes it.--The Madman (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman
 * Nah, I doubt you'll see any vandalism from Rome. He's more into putting on a big arena-style show and challenging all comers. As he said, he's just warming up... Leuders (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just ignore him and he'll probably go away. He just wants attention. Don't give him any. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well you put Rome in Rational Wiki to begin with
You actually think I wanted this attention? I wish wiki's would have those ROFL emoticons, text simply can't express. You guys already gave me the attention. You already had the opportunity to 'ignore' me. It's too late for that. Stopping now just means it will be less time consuming for me. You've written a highly misleading and harassing article on me, design to demean and humiliate me. You're bullies. You're using wiki forums to troll people and hiding behind their infrastructure to do so. Now you're going to get attention for that. RomeViharo (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have ROFL emoticons and others. They're over at RationalWiki:Smileys.  Just stick the image in as you like.  For example, this one may be to your liking.  [[File:Falldownlaugh.gif]]  Compro01 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the article history ('fossil record') before making sweeping judgements about RationalWiki editors. This page was written by somebody called User:Debunker, who joined the site two months ago & hasn't been seen much since.  13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably started out as a personal slapfight originated by some guy who tangled with him on WP, but a Viharo article is definitely missionable given his vocation as a tireless Sheldrake apologist. His crackpot OS12 thing, his record of trolling internet forums, and his wacky 'not even wrong' public pronouncements that Google is conscious because native shamans and talking plants, etc. is just icing on the proverbial cake. Leuders (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder, is there a wiki plugin that could randomly show Rome's posts in a random variety of colours and fonts? Because that would perfectly suit the whole "love child of Ken DeMeyer and Time Cube" riff he's got goin' on. --Kels (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "Cyberbullying" claims are bullshit, Rome.
Much like Chris-Chan, you believe any and all critcism of you is "CYBERBULLYING!". Let's take a good look at the definition for cyber-bullying, Rome. " Cyberbullying is the use of Information Technology to harm or harass other people in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner." We are not harming or harassing you by hosting a page listing what you have done on the internet. We are just listing your questionable actions and commenting about them. We are not saying you are a horrible person who deserves harassment from others. We are not harming you. We are not editing this page to suit your ego. That is all.--The Madman (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman
 * What a stupid comparison. Chris-Chan was very obviously a victim of sustained, sadistic and very real cyberbullying.  Viharo getting called out on obvious sockpuppeting on Wikipedia is in no way comparable.  Why do you insist on bringing up Chris-Chan at every opportunity? --Marlow
 * Chris-Chan is a proven asshole and major misogynist. Just sayin'. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 17:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Being accused of sockpuppeting is the actual harassment in question. See how it snowballs? RomeViharo (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting called out for sockpuppetry != harassment. Given the verdict, we have no reason to assume it's false. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 17:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

===Criticisms of me are not cyberbullying, nor are they reasons to sanction me on wikipedia=== so let's get the facts straight. Irrelevant project I worked on 7 - 10 years previously was twisted and used to sanction me away from editing an article on Wikipedia. I was editing wikipedia anonymously. My personal identity was used and it's how it wound up here. Misrepresenting, hounding, and libeling people online is harassment - or cyber bullying. Legally it's the same. it doesn't matter what the outcome is, it's the behavior of the instigator not the reaction of the victim. ===What you're writing about me is misleading=== and that is harmful to me since this shows up in Google search. ===When given the opportunity to correct the mistakes in the article, you don't take them=== So don't tell me you're not harassing me. I dont spread conspiracy theories or promote pseudoscience. those are pejorative descriptions ===If you're gonna have a grudge on someone, just be honest about it===

If my claims are BULLSHIT then prove it with evidence and empirical arguments
Seriously, the personal attack angle is getting old.RomeViharo (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The first step in any case is disclosure. List all accounts and IP addresses you have used to edit Wikipedia. Hipo crite 23:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * if I gave you my accounts (I've had three in the course of my life), how could you ever know I gave you all of them? Even your own inquiry is irrational and would prove nothing to either of us. Why don't you try proving what you wrote in your article and try refuting what is in my case study? Or, why don't you reveal who you really are so this is a two way street. Mutual transparency. RomeViharo (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When you make incomplete disclosure, if such can be proven, you are typically sanctioned. Since my identity isn't relevant to your rampant sockpuppetry, I don't see why disclosure of every account I've used on Wikipedia would be relevant to this case. Hipo crite 01:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of here again??
What are you yammering on about here? Hipo crite please make it easy for me to understand you. It sounds like you're inferring some kind of accusation, and I would prefer if you would just step up and tell me exactly what it is your accusing me of. If you think I am going to randomly hand over personal information to some crank editor on Rational Wiki in exchange for linking to my case study in the article on me you've got a warped idea about our relationship and your role in it. RomeViharo (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Rome Viharo admits he has sock puppets and likes playing tricks on people but is innocent of other claims
In this post Rome admitted to using a sock puppet on his account Bubblefish and playing tricks:

"hmmm..i think when someone says HEY this is REALLY me - haha i was just using a sock puppet - i dont think that's being dishonest. I think it's being honest while having fun with you all at the same time.

In case you all have not noticed, I like playing tricks - but I am very open and transparent about that."

Some of his sock puppets can be found on this bad science forum. So Rome is not as innocent as he claims to be but Mal Yankton and those other sock puppets are not him they are Paul C. Anagnostopoulos as Rome revealed. Danny d (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's amazing. The self-promotion while pretending to be a third party, the messed up writing style, the belief that people laughing at him helps his cause, the insistence on PROVE ME WRONG, it's almost like looking at Ken DeMeyer's old message board forays. About as convincing, too. --Kels (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OMG are you high? Is that your big mound of evidence? That's still not sockpuppeting Einstein and you're taking my quote out of context
Let's go over this ONE more TIME. Socking is when you use MORE than ONE account on ONE forum at ONE time to show FALSE support. Call it what you will, but what your linking to is not sockpuppeting. Are you actually going to pull something I say in one conversation and make it mean something else? at least link to the entire discussion thread so people can show how you've taken it out of context. I have a history at Bad science and JREF. If I was such a troll or sock puppet, then why didnt JREF or Bad Forums ban me? Do you have an answer to that Einstein?

And even if I did 'sock' one account in 2010 - what the hell does that have to do with editing on Wikipedia and how does that make me notable for trolling?
So let's say I did, once, have a sockpuppet on some small insignificant discussion forum years ago. That's an issue because? That's proof of what? That affected the Wikipedia article how?

Sure I like to play practical jokes...you don't?
Seriously dude, are you actually saying your entire case of me trolling and socking on wikipedia is because I went to bad science forum and pretended I was someone else to show them my TEDx to bust their balls? Do you even know the whole [http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/about-al-0-1-2/#bad-science-forums? story?] If this is your evidence please make my life easy and USE IT because it makes it so much more simple for me to show the world how effective the 'skeptical' activists' at handling evidence.

===I come from a creative writing background, comedy included, here are some more jokes I've done, don't take it personal it's just comedy===

Fifi Bastard

2007 Obama college Footage

Made a fake Morgan Freeman commercial too

Here are some campaign virals I did for Obama in 2008 too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnnDnGKVTZ8

Seriously, who are you the hall monitor in 5th grade?
Learn to love anonymity online. People can use their real names or monikers. For example, you're hiding behind yours. Why? I dont care. That's your business. They can even use a different name on one forum and a different name on another forum. People in communities joke each other, argue, kid each other, and shockingly, may even play practical jokes on each other too.

People can also PROTECT their anonymity if they want to. For example, if they don't want others to know they are the subject of an article they present, for what ever reasons, people have that right to withhold that information, especially if it's a hostile community. Protecting privacy, and respecting it, is usually considered good form. Catch up! RomeViharo (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Get some real evidence, you're turning all Woo on Rome Viharo and it's making your look ridiculous
I'm not interested in being involved in your little 'woo vs skeptic' argument. All I know is that for skeptics, you totally suck at evidence. RomeViharo (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Refuting Rome's Claims, one by one.
"An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously.".
 * The generally accepted definition of sockpuppet is below. Under this definition, He has socked.


 * Rome's claims of being banned because of prior involvement are untrue. After edit-warring and socking on the Rupert Sheldrake article, he was banned.


 * GSOW has never edited Sheldrake's article.


 * Rupert Sheldrake's claim do indeed fit the defintion of Psuedoscience.

"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status." --The Madman (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

===LOL that's your refutation? Pretty low standards here, eh?===

Do you know how to even make an empirical argument? You begin by taking my evidence, dissecting it, and exposing the contradiction or fallacy in what I present. that's refuting. You're not refuting. You're leaving your opinion and somehow expecting it to transform into some sort of rational consensus because you wrote it on Rational Wiki. RomeViharo (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, still no evidence of sockpuppeting with your definition or mine
Can you find one bit of evidence of me socking yet please?


 * Your name is linked to MU, Eveshi, Forests and Jon Donnis (Craig Weiler knows about it, ask him) I am not saying those are you as they are obviously not but for some reason those names pop up all over the place with you, and Paul C. Anagnostopoulos told me you have a lot of connections so it is likely you are involved with these guys. According to Shen1986 and Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (probably whitedude)  you have other sock puppets and impersonations. Both you and Paul were on the JREF together. Perhaps you should send apologies to Donnis, you can easily contact him on twitter or Susan Gerbic. I personally believe you and Craig Weiler are up to something. You are a very clever and good looking man. I loved you in Showdown in Little Tokyo. Arouet costume designer (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You got all that wrong Paul and all your other socks, all those Eveshi MU Donnis sock accounts belong to Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (yourself), you are mentally ill Paul. We can all see through your many personalities. Rome is innocent, stop trying to cause trouble for people and stir "wars" between believers and skeptics on the internet. Viharo is a legend he has achieved far more ever than you or pseudoskeptics such as Jon Donnis have. Ghoulz (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you've begun to sockpuppet on this wiki as well, Rome.--The Madman (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman


 * Are you serious? that is your evidence? that my name is 'linked' to them? Will you PLEASE just apply about 10% of the critical thinking you yammer on about on this forum, k? fyi I'm not going to contact anyone. RomeViharo (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Madman Make sure you're consistent with the rule on accusing me of sockpuppets. #1.) Anyone who supports me, must be a sockpuppet. #2.) Anyone who disagrees with you, must be a sockpuppet. #3.) Any account anyone has is a sockpuppet. As long as you stay consistent, you'll be a fine editor of the skeptical activist movement. Remember, what makes something true is how many times you repeat it and how many times another editor said it on a cranky forum somewhere. learn to make Group Think work for you! RomeViharo (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yawn: You're claims about my banning have already been debunked
This has been debunked

By you. You're already a biased source, being one of the involved parties.--The Madman (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman


 * Correct, it has been debunked by me. Using evidence and diffs from Wikipedia. You can challenge it, I welcome that. But to challenge it credibly, you're going to have to use empirical argumentation. I don't think they taught you that here at Rational Wiki. RomeViharo (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if GSoW never edited the article?
You're not really following this debate are you?

Again, that is your case study. Quit linking to your own works as refutations of my points. That's not going to help you. Use outside,reliable sources and I might take you semi-seriously.--The Madman (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman


 * Yawn - A case study, for it to be a case study, uses references, sources, evidence and argumentation. If you actually read the case study, you would find that. Most importantly, if you want to critique my POV on the subject matter, it's also a primary source for my POV. Secondly, I don't think you understand what 'refute' means. Do you actually think living a poo poo opinion on a forum is a refutation? You have to provide a counter argument, with references, sources and evidence. I know, that means work! It's not as easy as going around just commenting on the first idea that pops into your head, you  have to think. RomeViharo (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Not interested in defending Sheldrake
but your editor pals had crappy sources to support that argument.

Your sources? Oh,yeah. You don't have any that aren't you.--The Madman (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

If your interested you can go to Sheldrake's talk page for that. I worked on his page as an editor, I dont go wandering around the internet defending sheldrake to some random mo mo on a crank forum. That's what I would call a waste of my time RomeViharo (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Pissed at Me,Rome? Good.
Keep ALL OF YOUR your complaints here.--The Madman (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

Nah, I'm just getting warmed up with ya!
You're helping me keep the drama alive and being the perfect foil Keep it coming! RomeViharo (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Rome Viharo admits he was a self-proclaimed former "hipster douchebag" but he ended up a legend
New reference found: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/08/rome_viharo_social_media.php

"Viharo, a self-proclaimed former "hipster douchebag," was on the innovative edge of the music scene in L.A. in the '90s with his band i-SPEAK. The KCRW darlings were a pre-Ozomatli 12-piece who pioneered the infusion of DJ, sequence samples, hip-hop, world music and soul into a live show. After transcending the music biz, Viharo emerged momentarily as an award-winning digital filmmaker before taking another large leap a step ahead of the rest -- making the obvious transition into the social media matrix."

"Handsome and self-assured, Viharo speaks with authority in a digital dialect as he connects the dots between memes and the sacred "plant spirits" of the Peruvian Amazon."

Is This guy a legend or what!! I love this guy. 100% legend.Ghoulz (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's not to love, eh? RomeViharo (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

===Handsome and self assured, lol please use that in the article=== At least you'll get one thing right :) RomeViharo (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

People, please...
...don't feed the troll. Rome is agitating about RationalWiki being the first google hit for his name. He's spamming across social media trying to get people to link to the site he's promoting here. The more commotion and attention here, the better for him.

Then how do we get rid of said troll? He won't shut up, won't edit on any pages that aren't related to him, has repeatedly refused to listen to non-empirical arguments and acts like this is all some grand game of his.It's getting quite grating on my nerves.--The Madman (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)The Madman

===I'm sorry, you've already have fed me plenty by writing an attack piece on me===

And if challenging the credibility of your article on me is considered 'trolling' here I would love to know what's considered 'constructive dialogue'.

So if you want to get rid of me, here are your options

 * You can delete this article.


 * You can keep this article, and even be critical and cranky in your voice, JUST BE CRITICAL of REAL THINGS. As long as you write flat out lies like I am 'known' for spreading conspiracy theories, spreading pseudoscience, and trolling I am going to seek to engage any editor here to defend them and challenge their credibility - because they are lies, meant to humiliate, defame, and demean me. And they were used as punishment against me for editing on a Wikipedia article. You're abusing wiki technology to harass someone. It's the actual definition of Cyber bullying. RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I love dealing with bullies online and yes will use this to my advantage
You already have eyes on you for this. This is what 'skeptical activism' looks like online and you're making your cause look ridiculous, juvenile, and discredited. RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not helping your case here. Again, see Kevin Martin as a example of how we react to this sort of thing.--The Madman (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

I may start editing articles here, since this wiki claims to be rational it looks like it needs lots of help getting there
I'm always inspired to help build a rational consensus. RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Notes to Madman Johnson
===The Madman writes: "He won't shut up,"===


 * Correct. Either here or on my site, I will continue this for quite some time. RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

===The Madman writes "He won't edit on any pages that aren't related to him." ===


 * I just got here. After I clean up my article, I may stick around. Besides, don't I already have a lot of socks here writing articles as it is already? lol RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Madman writes "he has repeatedly refused to listen to non-empirical arguments "

 * That's cute. You got me there! I do 'read' the 'non - empirical' arguments fine. they just don't make sense, are irrational, misleading, and not consistent with critical thinking or reality.  RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Madman writes " and he acts like this is all some grand game of his."
Well it didnt start out that way, but it is now :) RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

===The Madman writes: It's getting quite grating on my nerves.===


 * learn to love it!  RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. You've made me a spotlight and now you got it
I figure it's a win win :) RomeViharo (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Outside advice
This is like a car accident. I can't stop reading. But on some level I feel bad for you and want to give you some advice: walk away. Now.

If I were someone with a non-mainstream view who'd had an Encyclopedia Dramatica-type page made about me by my detractors, the last thing I would do is go on there and try to "troll the trolls". You realize you're not only giving them more ammo but also attracting new eyeballs (e.g. mine), right? The first thing I did was google you, and lo and behold, this page is at the top. Go make an about.me page. Work on your theories or something. Find a better outlet. The more you hang around here the bigger the spectacle and the worse you look -- presumably that's why you're not blocked. Just walk away. Janosz (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

apparently you only read the first search return :) I'm assuming your post was genuine here regardless and I appreciate the intention. RomeViharo (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening Sentence I still find libelous, demeaning, harassing and offensive
1 - where do I support pseudoscience? what is the evidence? I want that removed from the article. what pseudoscience do I support?

2 WHAT CONSPIRACY THEORY? this is a very very slanderous term to me - it is being abused as quite a weasel word with an intent to harm my reputation. I request that it is removed RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am just going to fact check your sources, some of them inaccurate
I welcome the attack on AL 0 1 2. However, by framing it the way you are - and removing key contexts of the story, the article now reads with the intention to harm. So here are a few facts the article should include, if and only if Rational Wiki has the intention of actually being a 'rational' wiki

1.) I would not assume every bubblefish you find promoting back then would be me. others were doing this too. RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

2.) article should mention what the scope of bubblefish actually was doing, which anyone can find here.. By failing to include the theatrical component of what bubblefish was doing - the article on me is misleading readers regarding the intention and scope of al 0 12. by taking bubblefish out of context and words at face value, the article appears to want to paint me as a crank and is using a deceptive technique to do so. You should want to clean that up too, trust me. Its going to give the reader the assumption that the authors of this wiki article are clueless. For example - back then things like 'you have just downloaded OS 012' or 'software for the mind' (i dont remember writing that ever but maybe) those were written very tongue in cheek. By failing to get the joke, you're just turning yourselves into characters in Bubblefish's show and believe me am I going to have fun with that when the time comes. RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

3.) Saying 'viharo' is not above asking money for his idea. a few problems with that. one the link you're using to support it goes back like what 8 years and its stored on internet archive. Considering the negative tone of the over all article, this makes it appear to the reader that I am abusing or exploiting something for financial gain. I've only lost and spent money on developing this so far, so the article implies something that is not true. Also, what's wrong with crowd sourcing or fundraising? Look to the lower left of your screen right now. Note the 'DONATE' button on Rational Wiki. RomeViharo (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

4. THor haraxx guy - other supporters. I don't know that guy and actually reached out to him years ago asking him why he is selling copies of OS 0 1 2 and not giving attribution and never heard anything back. There were a number of people that started spreading the meme through sites and stuff but most of those links are forgotten history. Why is listing someone who did that relevant to who I am? This makes the article read like an association fallacy - its being used to support the idea that I am a crank by associating a crank with me. C'mon guys are you really that desperate to make a point? RomeViharo (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome Viharo emailing himself and setting up fake accounts to pretend he's being "cyber bullied"
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/11/latest-email-threatens-to-increase-harassment-if-i-dont-stop-reporting-on-it/

Most likely this is Rome emailing himself, and the "impersonator" isn't even a proper impersonator. It has 3 or 4 crummy posts and is a blatent parody account.

-- Next time Rome, you should make your impersonator troll accounts you set up of yourself, to look more convincing you are actually being "bullied".

Also hilarious is Viharo's statement in his latest post that Dan Skeptic "harassed" him at Wikipedia. Dan Skeptic though only left Viharo about 2 lines, and there was no abuse in them.Gust (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm somehow not inclined to decide whether or not to take you seriously, and somehow very much inclined to note that someone else in this discussion has <4 crummy posts and... well, you get what I'm saying, as someone noted above. Walker Walker Walker 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * dang it, you got me (i'm rome viharo). I forgot my medication this morning.Gust (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, what humour, such sophisticate, many lame trope, c. c. woof woof doge picture, no. You are not. Walker Walker Walker 01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas, we've been rbuted
http://rbutr.com/rbutr/WebsiteServlet?requestType=showLink&linkId=6235934 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Skeptiko forum
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/goblin-face-and-email-harassment-anyone-know-more-about-these-people.2975/

The admin of the site deleted this response, but other posters quoted it before it was removed. Bizarrely they accuse this post as "role reversal" i.e. Rome Viharo was harassed first. In actual fact the opposite is the truth - Rome Viharo first started stalking and harassing people on his website. The abuse he now complains of - was all done in retaliation, as the dates show e.g.:

"Last year they created a very slanderous article about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica, followed me around Reddit and posted the same 'Viharo is a troll sockpuppet' all over the place, and then created an account on religiousforums.com as 'Rome Viharo', creating a discussion about 'intelligent design' so they could add that to the rational wiki article that I'm 'anti evolution'."

- All this occurred after Rome Viharo had published several slanderous posts on his website about this person (like I said, check the dates). What did he respect in return? The deluded liar though has constructed this fantasy that these people have harassed him first, and most Skeptiko posters have not bothered to check to see who is telling the truth. TenchuFatalShadows (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Viharo is wrong? How atypical of him. 01:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Viharo's audience unblock is? He has a patent here Crackpot Hunter (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can parse it, a business where people get paid pretend internet money to be spammed by advertisers' videos. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Rationalwiki reported to Heartmob for "cyberbullying" Mr. Viharo
https://iheartmob.org/home/219 http://archive.is/kU07r

When heartmob realize Viharo is the cyberbully and notorious troll and not the victim, they might remove it.OldSword (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I kind of feel bad for him. He seems to be so immature and insecure that any sort of criticism throws him into this aggressive persecution fantasy.  If only he could possibly realize these problems are his own making.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're looking at a mental illness about playing victim for attention, Viharo now claims at heartmob he's been harassed by phone/offline: "encouraging others to harass you via phone or offline methods". He just makes all these claims of harrassement up, like how he said people were setting up fake accounts of him (which there is no evidence for aside from a single post on a religious forum which was deleted with 24 hours - Viharo could have made that himself).OldSword (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Rome Viharo's new internet ally is Mikemikev
https://wikipediawedonthaveaproblem.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/rome-viharo-teams-up-with-a-neo-nazi/

PS2 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why did you make a new account instead of using your old username, Krom? Your userpage says you retired but you're back. RaiderFan (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Checking into this story
Hello.

I am a writer for a online technology blog and we are doing a story on Rome Viharo (for his other company, not related to this activity initially) and came across all of this drama. I take it you're not a big fan of his. I went to his website and also spoke to him about it and wanted to get your side of the story as well. He does claim he is being harassed but it is pretty convoluted to see what is happening. I have a few questions. So, perhaps someone here can engage me on my talk page or we can chat here too?

This article is pretty damning about Viharo being an 'internet troll' and that is precisely what I am investigating. I'm not sure I understand what you all are claiming about him being a 'troll' or honestly do I understand the purpose of this article on Viharo here. Trolls are (usually) considered to be abusive or disruptive individuals leaving nasty comments or picking fights. I'm trying to find evidence of Viharo doing this on the internet, or a pattern of him doing this. One of your sources is a BBS community from 2005, where an admin banned Viharo and did indeed call him a troll, but your source is the actual page where the community is talking about him, so I read it. Your source shows he was also very received and his banning was not well received on the forum, he apparently had plenty of friends there disputing that he was trolling at all. To an outsider, this just looks like a petty dispute between Viharo and a few people who just held the keys to the castle. It appears he was a member of that community and the admin who banned him didn't find any particular posts of his or anything other than the 'Bubblefish' thingy he did in 2003. I can see how that's trolling in some way, 'Bubblefish Flame Warrior' did seem to relish in online commotion, but I still can't find anything he really did, just a few claims and Viharo saying about himself in what looked like very popular, if not ultra heady discussions on the internet. 2003 is also quite a long time ago. I don't see this continuing, it does look like what Viharo is claiming it was, a creative project. Your other source is Tim Farley, who calls him a troll but it's because Farley says Viharo's posts are too lengthy. Other than this, I do find other references to him being called a troll on the internet, but they are all voices pointing back to either this article or those same sources, which are all over 10 years old, yet this article was just written about him a few years ago. Why is this activity, over 10 years ago, important for us to know about Viharo's trolling? Do you have any thing more recent? Why is it important that we know Rome Viharo is 'an internet troll'?

ServiceIP (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, would you mind stating what "publication" concerns itself so deeply with who calls who a troll on the internet? That seems like a very odd focus.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * HI I'm a Nigerian prince. I am upset at the baseless alegations against me.  Can you please provide me any bank account information that'd prove the claims you have made? StickySock (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The importance of Viharo is not his trolling but rather that he uses said trolling to promote pseudoscience. 18:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Saloon Bar
Fellow editors, as of this morning, I'm being interviewed on my talk page. UPDATE: So is Leuders as well.

In a sense, I'm being asked to - essentially - represent RationalWiki, but from an editor's point of view. Since I'm barely comfortable representing myself (for various good reasons), never mind risk "representing the site" (as if one editor could claim to do so), I've decided to give full disclosure on the situation, and indeed to rally the attention of the mob (which, to a non-RW reader, isn't the same as the expression "rallying a pitchfork-wielding mob - it's just our word for calling a humdrum "staff meeting"), with emphasis on garnering the support and interest of vastly superior and more experienced editors than myself.

So - what's this all about, then?
In short: Rome Viharo, and our page on him (the formation of which dates all the way back to 2013). Rome Viharo is a citizen of the internet (and of the US, a resident of California, based on his Twitter) who apparently has not just been pissed at us for quite some time, but who has very recently - just about a week ago, on June 8th - publicly forewarned that he will be taking legal steps against RationalWiki as a whole during 2016, no less. This occurence was added by me to Rome Viharo's entry (and later spellchecked by me), and I posted a decently humorous note on the situation to David Gerard's talkpage.

So, where do I enter into all this? And why am I being detained for questioning?
Well, here at RationalWiki, I'm a janitor. I do janitorial duty. Meaning, (on days where I'm active); I muppet about like a red-hot flipper ball between various random pages on the site. Polishing, setting proper navbars, adding a few things here and there where I see fit - quotes, minor expansions, often sources... And of course, remove cruft when possible.

During one of my highly planned and specific "janitorial shifts", on June 10th, I stumbled upon our page on Rome Viharo. As it stands now, I haven't read it start to finish with any remarkable degree of precision. But to me, based on the formatting and writing, it looked like one of those articles of ours that really was written up in 2013 - which isn't criticism, just a correct assessment of the earlier "era" of RationalWiki the article indeed stemmed from. Tasting old wine in a neutral glass and suggesting it tastes old isn't anything but a correct appraisal. But I digest.

I did some work on the page, anyhow, with some minor assistance from FCP and Joris. As a result of this, I'm now being asked (not in any threatening tone) by an anonymous person to answer questions regarding "what happened here" and "my side of the story" (two of the actual questions posed to me). Also, there is still a LOT more stuff that could make the article on him, assuming we want it to keep growing in the direction it's currently in. And I'm certain there's stuff that could be cut from it, too - it's far from even a Silver article to begin with, which is why I atleast edited it a little at all.

Oh, and I did add him to our Stopped clock article (which is a compliment; it's where we make sure points are given where points are due, even to Hitler). I'm a nice guy - or a moron - depending on who you ask, I suppose.

So, who is this person asking the questions?
One or two people have, at the moment of writing this, been posting as two different users (not referring to sockpuppetry; just one newly registered account and one BoN);
 * ServiceIP - Posted to the Rome Viharo talkpage, introducing himself: "I'm a writer for a online technology blog and we are doing a story on Rome Viharo (for his other company, not related to this activity initially)". Interestingly, this person actually openly claims to be (to any degree whatsoever, however minor) affiliated with Rome Viharo. Despite having registered, he also added the following notice to his talk page: "I'm here researching a few things and don't plan on staying long.".
 * 104.207.149.51 - Posted to my talkpage, introducing himself: "I'm assisting a writer for a tech blog, and we are doing a story on Rome Viharo." As any BoN publishes their own IP adress by choice, I don't think it can be called doxing to look at the geolocation of said IP (be it a proxy or not), which originates from California, the state where Mr. Viharo claims to live. Not that this matters, of course. But it's a matter of public record when you post as a BoN, so there's nothing I'm saying here that wasn't said already by the user who signed the post with his IP. *shrugs*

Also of interest: Reading our article on Rome Viharo, reading the talkpage of said article (which includes theories on Mikemikev and so on), and Googling "Rome Viharo" + "RationalWiki" and/or ("Rational Wiki", since he spells it like this at times). Tidal wave of drama ensues.

OK so this is where you guys proclaim "And my bow!", "And my axe!", "And my sword!"
What are your thoughts on all this? Keep in mind that, in theory, this could all be part of the construction of a legal complaint against us. Not what I'm writing, I mean; I'm a misandrist Freeman bee healer from Panama, so I don't believe in lawsuits anyhow. But as a reason for the "research" being done, I mean?

And what about the article itself? Do we leave it as-is (not a particularly great article formatting-wise), do we expand it? Do we shrink it/remove it? What's the plan? Because as it stands now, it's not a great RW article, and it seems sufficiently abrasive to Viharo that he'd threaten to go legal on us for it. So seems to me having it stick around as-is is a loss-loss... And again, there's source material on all his shenaningans to make it the size of our Alex Jones article. But what do I know? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest that we not engage with Viharo at all. We should definitely make the article itself as robust and cited as possible - but there's no evidence this isn't Viharo himself - any real journalist would have given their name and publication up front - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * People should certainly go cleanup and source the article as best possible ASAP, verify all the sources, etc - David Gerard (talk)
 * Yep, this. Also: anything legal re RW has to be referred to the RationalMedia Foundation.  I think press enquiries about RW, or anything purporting to be a press enquiry, should also be referred to the Foundation.  AFAIK this isn't noted anywhere, but I think it's sensible approach.  12:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What they said.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We literally don't have anyone in particular as the press person, but I do the Twitter and most of the Facebook so would probably be someone to field this stuff - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconding this. And yes, anyone can say they're a reporter. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just direct them to the notice on the top of RV's talkpage. 17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Leuders is also being questioned by ServiceIP as an alleged "lead author" of the RV article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see an obvious Viharo Drama troll that has now been rewarded with 1000+ words here. Probably best to refer any further shenanigans to the RationalMedia Foundation. If they want to play reporter so bad, let them interview Gerard. Or Mona. Leuders (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The plot thickens
See the Rome Viharo talkpage, and the recent contributions there from RationalWikiLurker. Considering the entire situation, I think it's probably best if everything relating to Rome Viharo - claims of sockpuppetry (not unlike the ones our article on him already makes) and so on - be kept in the open view of the moderators. Also, should we consider moving this entire thread to the Rome Viharo talkpage? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * yep, move it there - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand this stuff mostly bores people and that is why posts were just removed, but Michaeldsuarez owns most the sockpuppets on Rome Viharo's talk page. RaiderFan was already blocked as his sock, but he's also Gust and several others. Michael has been trolling both Rome Viharo and his enemies, then he runs back to Encylopedia Dramatica to "document" the drama he creates via his sockpuppetry and impersonations. To him this is all one big jpke, and he admits to being a prankster.Rationalwikilurker (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not being removed because it bores people. It's being removed because inter-sital and inter-personal drama is not something that helps sort out wiki issues, and doesn't fit our moderation ethos.  It doesn't matter who you are if your actual edits aren't disruptive.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Rationalwikilurker The discussion was falling off a cliff and was rightfully scrubbed by Ikanreed. If the reasons why this happened are unclear to you, let me once more re-iterate what's already been urged several times by me now on Rome Viharo and the topic of senseless drama (especially doxing). See here and here.
 * @Ikanreed Precisely. An echo of my own words (linked above). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to reiterate once more that "Rationalwikilurker" is spreading misinformation and lies about me. I have never created sockpuppets here, I have never impersonated anyone, and I have never attacked Rome Viharo. Look at Rationalwikilurker's first two revisions to RationalWiki. He's here solely to spread lies about his enemies. He's trying to dupe you into believing that I did things that I never did. ~Michaeldsuarez
 * Well, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. 22:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The one thing you needn't worry about is that we'd trust any of you guys on anything. So don't worry that we're taking his - or your - word and running with it. You guys aren't exactly sources on anything. And we won't be establishing a narrative of this anywhere, anyhow. We only care about Rome Viharo in the context of all this, and even then it's "barely". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I have never created sockpuppets here". What a loony-tunes. Michaeldsuarez doesn't own socks? Yet he's just appeared here on two sock ips. Does he think since he doesn't sign his name we cannot see those? lol. And this is the same Michaeldsuarez who posts lies and slander about people at ED. He has no credibility. All the socks on Viharo's talk-page are his: some are even banned which mention his name on their block log. Rationalwikilurker (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I get that you care a whole lot who this is, but we don't care at all, okay. Please stop treating it like an important point.  Please.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thinly veiled threats
This was posted, prompting this (per our rules, see this). Also, if any moderator dislikes that I'm pointing this out at all - even for reference purposes - then please feel free to undo this post entirely and/or hide/delete revisions to uphold our rules and to assist me in participating in acting with the best interests of the community in mind. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The "objective observer/impartial investigator who argues in support of Viharo" is a stock character in his online repertoire. Nuff said. Leuders (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Rome Viharo article, malice - intent to do harm
Hello David,

I'm investigating the Rome Viharo article. There are numerous issues that he has raised and I am here to sort them out the best I can. Here is what I can surmise:

1. This article was created by an individual known on the web as [REDACTED] as 'David1234'. This individual has a reputation for online impersonation, harassment, misinformation and a host of other nasty and inappropriate web behavior. This individual confronted Rome Viharo while he was editing on Rupert Sheldrake's talk page in 2013 and confronted Viharo on Wikipedia for being a 'troll'.

2. A few days after Viharo was banned on Wikipedia this article was created on him, first linked to Rupert Sheldrake's article. From here we can see that it is most likely this article was created about Viharo as a hit job, a way to either embarrass Viharo and or attack his online reptuation. Before the creation of this Rationalwiki article, there were no references online to Viharo being an internet troll or a sock puppet. All the claims made about Viharo in this article appeared to be made by one or two members of this community around the web, and then used as references to establish their credibility back on this article in question.

3. This article on Viharo claims to be a biography, and leads with the story that Viharo is an 'internet troll' and Wikipedia sock puppet as his most distinguished characteristic. All the references used to support this narrative of Viharo are either citing members of this community (Tim Farley, for example) calling him this name or one singular event Viharo participated in all the way back in 2003. This is where the problems arise. The majority of the sources used in the article either don't claim or support what the statements are saying, or they are contextualized in such a way that could be interpreted as intentionally misleading. Nowhere have I discovered any evidence Viharo is a notorious internet troll other than the claims made by this publication. Additionally, Viharo has been threatened via email by individuals claiming to further increase this campaign to sites all over the internet.

4. The arc of actions taken against Viharo since the publication of this article are consistent with an intent to do harm and with malice. This article claims innocence, stating that it is simply 'reporting on Viharo's shenanigans' and that Viharo claims harassment 'whenever his name is mentioned'. This is clearly not the case once anyone looks a bit deeper. [REDACTED] has waged an online campaign against Viharo on Rationalwiki and a host of other websites, and has even sent threatening emails to Viharo to increase this activity if Viharo does not stop his blogging on Wikipedia, We Have a Problem. Recently, one of Rational Wiki's own editors acknowledged such a campaign.

5. It appears much of the activity on Viharo's article were created by multiple accounts, most of them likely to be [REDACTED].

6. Rationalwioi appears to be giving a safe haven for this individual, [REDACTED], additionally justifying their actions.

7. Additionally, without the actions of [REDACTED], Rational Wiki appears to be claiming that Viharo is a 'web crank', and the sources to establish this are simply other statements made by this community about Viharo.

8. I'm still finishing up this investigation. I am not aware of any legal proceedings made against RationalWiki by Viharo. If we do wind up publishing a story on this activity on Rational Wiki, I will be transparent with you regarding our publication. However, we are not yet sure we will be publishing this story yet on Viharo. One of the concerns for publishing this story would be harassment on our publication or authors by some of the individuals in your community. Until then, it is wise for us to stay anonymous.

9. I do believe there is enough evidence to show that RationalWiki can be leveraged by individuals online to harass or cause distress to individuals online with malice. Considering Viharo's internet history before and after the creation of his article, the case is relatively clear, from my perspective at least. Recently, on a forum known as 'Wikipedia sucks badly', someone claimed they would remove Viharo's Rational Wiki article if Viharo removed posts about Tim Farley and a few other wikipedia editors. This raises a number of eyebrows, I am sure you understand. There are a number of issues with a '.org' domain being abused specifically in this instance.

10. I came here originally just to get the communities side of the story. I haven't seen anything that contradicts Viharo's core claim that this website is used as a manner to harass individuals on the internet. If we do publish the story, as of now we are likely to support that position.

216.230.226.42 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought I would leave this here, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], a Wikipedia and RationalWiki editor, began a campaign of malicious intent to harm Viharo’s reputation online beginning on Wikipedia when he posted as ‘Dan Skeptic’ to his creation of Rome Viharo’s RationalWiki article as [REDACTED].

[REDACTED]’s online behaviors are a mix between perplexing and sophisticated. He has created large sock puppet data bases on many online forums, and his most consistent pattern is clear misinformation and social manipulation he uses on the communities he edits along side with.

To give an example of this pattern, it is as if [REDACTED] yells ‘Fire!’ in a crowded movie house and uses someone pulling a cigarette lighter out of their pocket as the source, simply so he can have the movie screening all to himself.

Once we can see what references [REDACTED] is using, it’s quite easy to see what his manipulations are, he is not just manipulating Google’s SEO, or Viharo - he is attempting to manipulate Rationalwiki’s community over all, planting false narratives to manipulate a community's response to attack Smith’s perceived ‘enemies’ online.

[REDACTED] will impersonate almost anyone online, and appears to have no clear alliances with any one group or community. Although he is an active RationalWiki editor under many different usernames, he is just as likely to impersonate his fellow editors on RationalWiki as he is to anyone online he encounters.

[REDACTED]’s pattern of misinformation is consistent. He poses as a member of one community and creates a discussion on a forum post or wiki that will show up in search, and it is here that [REDACTED] will plant his misinformation in the hopes of manipulating that community to support his behaviors or campaign. Oliver has a decent sense of Google’s search algorithm and has admitted to using the SEO value of certain websites for this purpose.

Viharo claims he is being harassed, slandered, and certain Wikipedia and Rationalwiki editors are using Rational Wiki’s page rank as payback to Viharo for his confrontation.

The abuse of sources and references on Viharo’s article are consistent with Viharo’s claim and consistent with Oliver Smith’s online manipulations.

Showing RationalWiki’s intent to discredit and damage Viharo’s reputation is easy once anyone checks the references used in the article.

A consistent pattern emerges, none of the references fully and without question support the statements made on RationalWiki to discredit Viharo.

All one has to do is simply apply critical thinking and questioning to the links to see this shell game being played, a shell game played by [REDACTED] around the internet and used to manipulate responses from the very communities he is apart of.

158.58.172.99 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That, plus
 * Also, should we (1) remove & revdel the above for doxing, (2) ban this guy for that same reason plus something very close to legal threats, and (3) semiprotect the talk page because of the continuous trolling?--JorisEnter (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the above looks like doxing to me. What with the (alleged) real name and so on. I'd say we revdel this exact latest addition on "Oliver" (but leave the other threads intact) + ban the accounts/IP's that were pasting this exact thing to this page, Saloon Bar, my talkpage, etc... But I'm not an elected moderator. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, revealing someone's IRL name probably counts as doxing. I'll remove this from the history and ban the guy.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Infinitely blocked, all edits revdelled. I'd say the same can be done to any future postings.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Entry #3: How to get banned for spamming to 10 talkpages
The first sentence of Viharo’s RationalWiki article states that ‘Rome Viharo is a promoter of pseudoscience and an internet troll’.

There is no reference for the first claim that Viharo is a ‘promoter of pseudoscience’ other than a statement made by this community. Since the sentence is using present tense, one would expect the reference to support Viharo’s current activity. Nothing is recorded to support this.

Remarkably - the reference for this sentence is simply another claim stating that Viharo has stated Rupert Sheldrake’s scientific theories are not pseudoscience, yet no reference to where Viharo made this claim is listed.

Elsewhere, the article attempts to state that Viharo was on Wikipedia promoting Rupert Sheldrake’s views, and claims that Viharo argued that ‘morphic resonance’ is not pseudoscience. Yet if one simply checks the source, we find that Viharo’s statements on Wikipedia as Tumbleman are clearly taken out of context as Viharo was stating this in relationship to how Wikipedia’s Fringe policy is being used on a ‘BLP’.

Additionally, Viharo’s thoughts about morphic resonance were clearly recorded on Wikipedia at that time, he clearly stated he had no knowledge to state if morphic resonance was true or not, and his intentions were not to promote or endorse Sheldrake’s viewpoints.

Since Viharo clarified this on Wikipedia at that time, it is quite apparent this article wishes to slant Viharo’s views in a direction which he himself has clarified, simply so it can continue with this proposition that Viharo ‘promotes pseudoscience’ as a discrediting term.

As for Viharo being an ‘internet troll’, a claim which is made by [redacted] under many pseudonyms on the internet, beginning with Wikipedia, but continuing into Reddit and other forums - uses a very questionable reference going all the way back to 2005 to support this narrative of Viharo.

https://archive.is/w924h.

Digging deeper, The reference itself does not link to any of Viharo’s behaviors which, one would imagine - we would expect to show trolling activity, but rather a spat Viharo had with a forum admin where the admin simply called him a troll and banned him. Additionally, the admin is simply linking to an earlier project created by Viharo in 2003, the ‘Bubblefish Flame Warrior’ show to validate his claim that Viharo is a troll.

The second reference is Tim Farley, a member of Rational Wiki and a semi prominent skeptic whom Viharo has been critical of. Farley claims Viharo is a troll because Viharo’s posts or responses are ‘lengthy’, not what one usually thinks of as a troll. Additionally, there is reason to suspect Tim Farley himself more than likely contributed to the editing of Rome Viharo’s article and has promoted Viharo’s Rational Wiki article.

When we think of the word ‘internet troll’, we think of individuals being rude and abusive in the very least, and intentionally disruptive to normal internet community activity or focus. I do not find any reference anywhere on Rational Wiki which actually links to Viharo being abusive on the internet, merely statements made by others about Viharo and with one exception going back to 2005, all of these statements made about Viharo are made by members of this community and used to establish references in the article on Viharo, obviously seeking to discredit him.

Additionally, it claims that Viharo went onto the 'JREF' forum to make such bombastic statements as "OS 0 1 2 increases synergy and sycnronicity" yet when one goes to the JREF forum, no statement can be found by Viharo that says this. Additionally, Viharo was not banned from the JREF forum, bringing into question again this assessment of Viharo being a troll and sock puppet, surely if Viharo was such an internet persona, the JREF forum would be one of the first to ban him.

Since the article states that Viharo ‘is’ a notorious troll and ‘is’ a pseudoscience promoter in the present tense- we are seeing no activity online in the past 10 years which could be used to justify this sentence or even why such activity going back over a decade is used to define an individual online some 13 years later, unless there is maliciousness to discredit and embarrass Viharo on the internet.

Viharo claims he is a professional in digital media and technology and states these attempts to discredit him as a troll or crank are harmful to his reputation. This is a reasonable concern. Rationalwiki, by simply including Viharo on their website, does make this claim that Viharo is a ‘crank’ and uses questionable sources do so so.

For example:

The opening paragraph states that “And just to set the record straight that we're in the wrong to count him among our top kek cranks of the internet, he made sure to point out that "The internet is waking up".[7]”

This source does not support this assesment of Viharo. The source is Viharo’s own twitter feed discussing the harassment he believes he is receiving. Comparing the source to the statement, it is unclear why Viharo’s personal statement that ‘the web is waking up [to harassment]’ is reason to confirm that Viharo is a crank.

Viharo appears to be in a lose - lose situation. Viharo is confrontational regarding harassment and proactive in defending himself as a crank. This article on him takes attempts he makes to either protect himself or statements against harassment as evidence that he is a crank.

This obviously falls far outside of the scope of Rational Wiki’s ‘mission’ - apparently individuals on the internet who stand up to harassment are considered ‘cranks’ by Rationalwiki’s standards.

The statement in the opening paragraph mentions Viharo as a ‘sockpuppet’ attempts to establish this by using this very same tactic. Claiming that Viharo was ‘busted’ using multiple Reddit accounts - the source used to show this actually only shows Viharo stating that he created throwaway accounts to protect his identity on Reddit and shows no source showing he was ‘busted’ for this on Reddit.

Additionally, Reddit allows multiple or throwaway accounts. Since the source used, again, only makes claims without supporting those claims, this is consistent with a pattern on this article to frame Viharo as a crank for simply defending himself or confronting harassment.

Additionally, for Viharo to have such an introduction as a key characteristic that defines his biography as ‘troll’ I would expect to find references that show a continual pattern of behavior for disrupting, abusive, and mal intentioned activity online. I see none of this supported in any reference anywhere.

It is my intention to make sure the community here is fully informed regarding any claims Viharo makes regarding harassment and abuse he believes is occurring on this article. Multiple attempts to inform this community, however - are being rebuked or prevented.

I hope you and other members of your community make the responsible actions. I am in contact with Viharo, and I am aware that he will continue to confront this issue to the full extent of his ability as he has for the past two and a half years.

Lastly, this account is created to fully inform members of the Rationalwiki community regarding the facts of their own articles, and attempts to ban or prevent me or others I am working with from responsibly informing the community does not help this community in this matter but rather shows this community does not want to be responsible with their own publication and refuse attempts to correct misleading material they publish.

FullyInformed (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oliver here
Viharo has confused identities of two people, Tim Farley and Oliver Smith (i'm the latter). He thinks Farley is Manul from Wikipedia, when he isn't. Secondly he thinks i'm Goblin Face/Dan Skeptic from Wikipedia, when i'm not. A lot of this confusion is down to the banned RW user and troll Michaeldsuarez (an ED sysop) posting misinformation about me. I've now blocked the libellous ED page he created using my name where he says i'm Goblin Face etc.

Defamation Complaint to Google https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/12535607

Viharo was also involved in posting slander about me on my ED page, so its rather amusing to see him here moaning about "harassment". Google has looked, seen the defamation, and taken action by blocking the page.

As for the schizophrenia claim, it traces back to Encylopedia Dramatica (again Michaeldsuarez) which is not a reliable source at all; there's other nonsense there such as i'm a holocaust denier or muslim extremist. I simply at first went along with it for a joke, hence I've used this name. Bizarrely though Viharo thinks its all genuine, and is now posting i'm "mentally ill" on his website, and Suarez who originated all of this misinformation and know he made it up - is now going around trying to portray me as a real schizoid.Schizophrenic (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2016/02/what-will-wikipedia-editor-goblin-faceatlantid-do-next/

Pretty much everything on the above link is false, e.g. "After I was banned on Wikipedia, this individual was also ‘David1234’ who created the Rational Wiki article on me" Yet. I never created Rome Viharo's Rationalwiki entry; "David1234" is not me. He also accuses me of sending him a "threatening email". I've never emailed Rome Viharo. The only source saying I do is Encylopedia Dramatica (tracing back specifically to michaeldsuarez who makes up these lies).Schizophrenic (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)