RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rome Viharo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Rome Viharo | Result: Kept, by 10 votes to 1[edit]

Rome Viharo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Subject thinks article is libelous; claims lack of notability; insists it should be deleted but won't start this himself. PacWalker 01:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Not worth having an article on a forum warrior with a blog - may as well create articles about that guy in year 7 who bullied me. Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Retracted my vote - it seems that Rome's star has ascended since I last looked into this, Castaigne is right I should have google searched him again before voting. My bad. Tielec01 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. Delete - What problem does it solve having an article written about me on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Somebody not using their account shouldn't be able to vote in these discussions- period. — Unsigned, by: MadmanJohnson / talk / contribs
    Please do not strike through my comments - I was directly invited to participate here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    In fairness, you are an unregistered editor who showed up solely to take part in one AfD and associated snippiness. I wouldn't strike it myself, but he's not exactly miles off the reservation here. PacWalker 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, the "solution" offered by our articles is the provision of information relevant to our mission, but whether or not your case is notable enough to merit such a "solution" is an interesting question. PacWalker 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Are they really a nobody whose life we're affecting? Maybe. That possibility makes my skin crawl. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's a huge bunch of nope. A quick Google shows that the subject in question is not a nobody and is all over the internet and media landscape. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm. Yeah, okay. Having an IMDB listing is more than enough to undermine my concern about being a nobody. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    If I am 'all over the media landscape' as you put it, can you please check the evidence in that landscape and see if it matches the voice of this article? If I am all over the place, I can assure you it has nothing to do with parapsychology or many of the topics you all love to hate on. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Aside from a couple highly interesting film credits that is... Either way, complaining about SPOV? Too bad. This isn't nice promowiki. PacWalker 05:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Or maybe you're saying we should cover (possibly instead) the main body of your work (as you define it, of course)? Again, we aren't that other wiki: we have a pretty specific mission and focus. PacWalker 05:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Some marginal guy on the internet said something silly. Nobody got hurt as a result. Said guy will go the fuck away and stop bothering us if we take the article down. So take it down. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Now I'm thinking I want it deleted again. This is a tough call. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think that this would set a very bad example and risk encouraging every living crank mentioned on RW to try and "complain their RW entries away". That's why the constant whining actually moves me closer to a keep vote. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Go back and read my comment properly. Let your eyes linger on the phrase "nobody got hurt as a result." Anti-vaxxers hurt people. People who want children to learn mythology instead of science hurt people. People who sell apricot pits in lieu of chemotherapy hurt people. People who want to start a theocracy hurt people. I do not think any of those people should be allowed to complain their articles away, as those articles contribute, in a small way to the public good. Other articles we have, maybe this one, may be more akin to the culture of public shaming that I am starting to think about more and more after reading Jon Ronson's new book. I stand by my vote. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Who "gets hurt" by our other cranks, such as, say (other) electric universe numptys? Should we start removing their entries too? What about Time Cube? And how do we know that no one "got hurt" by trusting Viharo's BS over actual science? I still think this kind of "no harm, no foul"-argument is weak and opens a royal road to start removing all kinds of woo-related stuff from RW as long as it isn't "obviously harmful" (beyond giving people a nonsensical view of the world, of course). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    EC. I respect your argument. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Let's say this article is "public shaming". Would it be possible to remove the public shaming and keep the article? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I have absolutely nothing to do with EU people - they asked me to present my website, and I did. I haven't promoted anyone's ideas. I don't think it's fair to cite editorial arguments on Wikipedia, which were done anonymously, as 'promoting' pseudoscience. Wikipedia has it's own rules regarding what determines 'pseudoscience' - that's what I was arguing for, Wikipedia's own rules. This is a witch hunt. Thank you aginghippie, yes this article is a result of public shaming, essentially for at best what were anonymous discussions where privacy was also expected. Disagree with me, fine - shame me when you disagree with me? disgusting and irresponsible 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"I haven't promoted anyone's ideas"...wrong [1], wrong [2]. Leuders (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Not wrong. The link you share to TED are comments on a BLOG about Rupert Sheldrake's TEDx talk getting taken down from TED and I was defending his right to to give it, I was not promoting his ideas nor was I saying that Morphic Resonance is true. There were hundreds of comments left on that blog. Commenting on blogs is not promotion, it's commenting. Seriously - you're shaming people for comments on blogs now? Secondly, ISHAR is not me promoting someone else's idea, ISHAR was *my idea* for a collaborative library that Deepak Chopra funded. It's an academic library of published peer reviewed literature. It's educational, not promotional and was meant to cover hundreds if not thousands of topics. You're believing your own weasel words and it's intellectually dishonest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh sure, publicly rebutting the opinions of TEDs scientific advisors and quoting Sheldrake somehow isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. A long term effort to attempt to prevent Sheldrake's theories from being called pseudoscience on Wikipedia isn't promoting Sheldrake's ideas. Giving interviews to Huffington Post saying you created ISHAR in response to "misleading information on the internet, especially information promoted by skeptic activist organizations" and positioning a collection of fringe pseudoscience papers that support Chopra's batshit ideas as an "academic library of peer reviewed literature" isn't promoting Chopra's ideas. Really? No wonder folks like Craig Weiler, Alex Tsakiris, and the Electric Universe people have rolled out the red carpet for you. Leuders (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Correct on the first question. Almost correct on the second question - the argument on Wikipedia was an editorial one regarding Wikipedia's conflicting policies over a BLP. It wasnt a scientific or philosophical discussion about Rupert's ideas and I was only there for 6 weeks. Correct on the third question, I designed architecture because it is very very true that skeptic activists publish misleading information on the internet. But the architecture is not 'anti skeptic'. Look, see for yourself. I know that from direct experience, that's why I got the gig. ISHAR was an academic library. It only publishes an archive of peer reviewed literature, none of it is Deepak's work and the majority of it is downloaded from PubMed and JSTOR. So you believe I should be publicly shamed because Alex, Deepak and Craig publicly endorse, fund, or report on my work? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I believe you should have a RationalWiki article to document (among other things) your highly public work as cheerleader of the "we're victims of evil skeptics" fringe science crowd. Whether you are shamed by it or not is up to you. Leuders (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I took a cruise through ISHAR and found it exclusively contained papers on ‪Biological‬ and ‪Ayurvedic medicine‬: you know, bloodletting, cow shit, arsenic, lead, and mercury presented as effective remedies for illness. So I take it part of your job was to publicly spin this stuff as "peer reviewed academic research" to make it sound more legitimate. Shameless. Leuders (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a version of the article about me 'without' the public shaming that Laird submitted last year for anyone to draw from. You can disagree with me without shaming me and effecting my personal and private life. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I also just re-edited the article with context, then reverted - so you can see the version I edited here. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep[edit]

  1. Article is informative, and on-mission; no material is libelous, although "bullshit master" might be a little bit too positive. His actions are notable, and as PacWalker has noted; not required for this projectQwed117 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. On mission. Not libelous. I believe the subject to be trolling hard. --Castaigne (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. Article is on-mission and not libelous; notability is (a) greater than subject alleges and (b) not required here. PacWalker 01:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC) We document "the full range of crank ideas," and "memetic and language technology that resolves all conflict and war" is such an idea. PacWalker 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    So too is the notion that "ideas, memes, media and words replicate. Exponentially." See Bekenstein boundWikipedia at the other wiki. PacWalker
    Seriously? One sentence found on a website that no longer exists, where I incorrectly added 'exponentially' is reason to justify a public shaming? That ideas 'replicate' themselves is something Dawkins writes about in his book, and where I draw my source. That I misappropriate the word 'exponential' and no longer publish that seems like you're doing everything you can to cherry pick evidence to fit your position, not very intellectually honest. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. Very much on mission and not libelous. Public activism in support of Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopras pseudoscientific woo (he was in charge of Chopra's Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository for Chrissakes) is well documented, as is his tireless promotion of his bizarre OS-12-Aiki-Wiki Thing he says will end all conflict and war. Subject's periodic trolling and socking on RW are an annoyance, but that's not a good enough reason to delete. Leuders (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    I find this 'guilt by association' disturbing. My work with ISHAR had NOTHING to do with me promoting ideas, I designed architecture for a collaborative library, which is independent of any content that it contains. See for yourself. Any associations I have with any individual or organization in those communities is about my work with Wikipedia. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. His connection with ISHAR and promotion of the idea that there is some kind of skeptic conspiracy to ruin alternative medicine on the internet [3] are reason enough to keep the article. On a side note, I'd advise against engaging with him. He's a notorious internet troll, with a long history of intentionally bullshitting, and is more than happy to talk in circles as you pull your hair out. Marlow (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    I am not a 'notorious internet troll', yet this term is so loosely thrown around, it's just assumed it's true.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. Unlike John Duffield (the recent precedent for claimed libel), this person appears to have more than mere internet-forum posting and more non-forum citations for us to add. This person is involved with three areas that intersect with RW:MISSION: his GSoW and internet skeptics conspiracy theory, his association with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra's pseudoscience, and his largely unsupported claims about OS 1 2 3 (et. al.) which may fall into futurist woo or pseudoscience. Ultimately, the subject is missional and notable, and the article does not appear to have libel. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's pretty disingenuous to say that an evidenced based report detailing abuses happening on Wikipedia with specific editors who themselves CLAIM they are skeptics is a conspiracy theory. My work with Wikipedia is about editorial abuses. My work with Deepak Chopra was regarding Wikipedia. That skeptics have been targeted in my report has nothing to do with their belief systems, it has to do with their behaviors - and I've made that very clear on the site. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    What evidence bases your assertion that skeptics on Wikipedia are conspiring to attack a person? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Hahahaha no. --Madman (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman
  8. Nice try, but no. It's informative, on-mission and not libelous. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER. 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    RE: ISHAR, Deepak Chopra: 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. I'm obviously very passionate about online collective editing. 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. Additionally, I've developed technology for brands and publishers to use to promote or advertise content. That doesn't mean I endorse their content, it means i create a manner of facilitating it. 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) 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Then perhaps you should be a bit more careful in choosing your clients... Chopra may be "a very famous and well connected person", but so are numerous other woo meisters and helping them either spread their woo or whitewash their online presence to make them look better is not going to gain you any points, whether you do it for money or pro bono. Doing purely for the dough just makes you look unprincipled and mercenary (in my eyes, at least). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't 'do it for the doe' like you put, you make it sound like I am selling out my principles, not yours. I LOVE designing collaborative architecture and I was thrilled to have the work. How dare you think you have the right to frame me, my world view, my beliefs because of a client that I had at one time? I don't have to apologize to anyone for having Deepak Chopra as a paying client - it's you who should be ashamed for publicly shaming people who had a professional engagement with someone you disagree with. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    And removing the completely unnecessary layer of personal judgement, that really shouldn't be part of this discussion, our mission is to contest those materials regardless of why they are published. So if you put out a book or movie making psuedoscientific claims, our mission is to alert people to that fact. We can't see in the heads of those who do it, and frankly it doesn't matter, much like motivation for a crime doesn't excuse it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Good point, otherwise various other woo, denialist, or conspiracy projects could just as well be excused as being "only mercenary" which is clearly bunk. Spreading woo for the moneyz, rather than from sincere belief doesn't give you the proverbial "get out of jail free"-card. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    By that logic, Wikipedia is spreading 'woo' as well because they have articles on alternative medicine and new age topics? Google is promoting woo because DeepakChopra.com shows up in search? While I can't say I endorse Deepak Chopra, do I have to be resentful of him and his ideas like you are and heed your warning that if I don't you have a right to shame me for it? I'm sorry to say, that sounds pretty draconian. Why, it even sounds like a conspiracy theory. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  9. Keep. Anybody who winges like this gets a vote from the goat to keep. If you need another reason then meh, whatever, looks good enough to keep.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 23:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    It's clear the reasons for keeping the article on Rational Wiki are based about personal evaluations and opinions about my professional life - which none of you could have a hope to claim you know about. I've updated my essay to reflect the current status of this discussion. I can't say I am disappointed, I am honestly not surprised .104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. Okay, I'll pitch my vote on the scales too. Considering that Leuders has rummaged around ISHAR and found plenty of pseudomedical stuff á la Ayurvedic "medicine" and Viharo proudly acknowledges his role in creating and promoting ISHAR, it would appear that he can't even pass AgingHippie's "no harm, no foul"-criterion. Sure, Viharo may not have come up with the woo himself, but being the PR guy for woo peddlers who promote pseudomedicine is enough to merit an article here, just like RW has articles and categories for shysters, enablers, experts for hire, and propagandists such as Edward Bernays, Frank Luntz or Karl Rove (though sadly not, yet, on Saint Ronnie's chief of propaganda, Lee AtwaterWikipedia).ScepticWombat (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

These funny things are, like, not votes for or against deletion. Rather, they're, like, comments, dude.
  • I'm starting to think he's not so well-known in more general circles as I had once thought. Still don't know whether this article merits deletion, but I'm taking myself off the vote counts for now. PacWalker 02:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Relevant to Rational Wiki, there is no reason I should be on anyone's radar here unless you were a Wikipedia editor. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I will say that that isn't strictly true: I had heard of you before joining here, and Wikipedia had nothing to do with it. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you only could have heard of me because of what exactly??? A ridiculous discussion I had on JREF 8 years ago? an essay I wrote on 'internet dialectics' 10 years ago?? Seriously where or why would you ever hear about me? What 'pseudo scientific' claims do I make? what products do I sell? What health claims do I publish? Have I written a book about ghosts? Surely you dont follow me on twitter or tumblr, and if you did, what content do I post that needs to be red flagged?? You don't know me, and there is no reason you should know me unless your involved with media, adtech, Wikipedia, or follow me on social media. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I heard of you by word of mouth in relation to what was then called AL 0 1 2. PacWalker 04:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you're mistaken about the time frame. AL 012 was the name for aiki wiki only after WWHP was published and I quickly changed it. If you mean OS 012, then you could have only have heard about it on JREF or perhaps two or three discussion forums in 2003 - 2007, or AOL message boards. Seriously - this is what you want to warn the world about? If you want to criticize aiki wiki - why not either wait until it comes out, or criticize what's on aiki.wiki right now? Perhaps raise an 'intellectual' issue you have the with scope of the project? If you're intention is to criticize OS 012/Bubblefish, it's like criticizing Sasha Baron Cohen for fraud and impersonation, citing direct video as evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As I've said, I heard of it by word of mouth; I don't know where my friend'd heard of you from, but claiming that I could only know of you if I visited forums x, y, and Bob is just a plain lie. PacWalker 04:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the ONLY way you could have heard of me was from those forums, either you were there or your friend was. There is no other source of OS 012 elsewhere on the web. It was isolated to a few forums, and to this day can't believe people either still remember it or even care two shits about it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not true, Viharo. I had heard of it myself, here in the programming world - and I've never been a member of or even glanced at JREF. Secondly, you forget something: once you put it on the internet - and you did - the internet remembers it forver. --Castaigne (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit in two minds about this one. The subject seems to be just another internet troll, but that in itself is not enough to merit an article here. But neither do I think RW should just knuckle under whenever a crank decides that RW is being "sooooo, like unfair, really, it's just terrible, I tell you". Otherwise we might take down every page. Precedent seems to be a bit wobbly, e.g. the edit history of Jarah White and Talk:John Duffield. Currently, I'm leaning towards keep, but not enough to weigh in with a vote yet. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    One thing that I do think argues for a keep is the level of crank magnetism documented by the article (really, Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra and electric universe woo and a conspiracy of teh evilz Wiki-skeptucs?Wikipedia) ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Why... crackers... wut? PacWalker 07:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    Just because... And I happen to like TUC (crackers or trade unionists, take your pick). It's morning and I've had neither coffee nor breakfast yet - perhaps that's what brought the association - shit, I don't know, I'm not a shrink. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Castaigne: You've heard of OS 012 in the programming world? Wow. Well it was an underground meme before there were internet memes, so I guess that's kinda cool in a way. But so what does that prove? @Skeptic Wombat: I freely volunteered to help Rupert Sheldrake on Wikipedia because researching collaborative communities is part of my work and I had the opportunity to work in a wiki war. I would have done that in almost any subject matter. Deepak Chopra however *hired* me to help him with his Wikipedia war and my role to ISHAR was architecting their Wikipedia solution and digital library. I've had allot of groups reach out to me because of my work with WWHP. I council them on online harassment on platforms. It has nothing to do with their belief systems or yours. The fact that I would somehow be redflagged as someone who has worked with Rupert or Deepak is part of the problematic psychology that I believe corrupts this forum, it's 'guilt by association' mob psychology here - NOT evidenced based facts like the site claims. @everyone here: you throw the word 'troll' around when someone presents you with a challenging position, and in this case, stands up to online harassment. I'm sorry - that's not trolling.

104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Rome" (obviously not your real name), your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I've managed to read your rants and found a childish insistence on last wordism, so it's obvious to me you're not here to think and learn. You also refuse to accept that Obama refuses to salute the flag and that including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance reduces autism. Nobody seriously doubts that those who want bilingual education can get it from public school, and unfortunately suffer because of it. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand. --aschlafly 11:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
lol - 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Solution??[edit]

What does this process hope to resolve? Their are arguments for 'Keep'. Those arguments are not arguments, they are the equivalence of comments on a forum. This is not a process of online deliberation. There is nothing in this process that determines if the 'Keep' votes are even honest about their views or can support those views consistently inside of critical questioning. Stop pretending this is any sort of reasonable process of debate and conclusion. It's obvious this article was written by those with a personal grudge against. Are the keep votes claiming that Rational Wiki just spontaneously created an article about forum posts I made 10 years because of their relevancy in 2014 instead of related directly to Wikipedia, which the evidence clearly shows in the evidence of the diffs on both forums happened at the exact same time??. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're complaining about the fact that we vote on deletions, you are in the wrong damn place. While you are welcome to debate the issue as you will, declaring someone's vote illogical (how references to our standards and mission in a debate on whether to have an article on you here is illogical is beyond me) does not render it invalid. PacWalker 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Your argument under delete isn't an argument either. It's a question, but we still count your vote, yes? 131.204.254.105 (talk)
I never said it was illogical, I'm suggesting it's not rational. Im not seeing anyone here be transparent about how they came to their conclusions and what compelling evidence they have for their vote. If everyone votes to keep the article, that does not take away the harassing nature of it's origin or make any conclusions about any facts I raise. I'm raising ethical issues around human dignity and the responsibility of an influential online publisher to address them. Some Rational Wiki poster just deciding I'm a troll 'just cuz' and using that to empower and publish an article because it's just what they feel like is not a rational deliberation and having a vote does not spontaneously make it such. Online rational consensus building is an area of very specific expertise I have. By claiming to be a rational wiki that seeks to publish evidence based factual content, you've set the high standard for yourself. Don't be upset when someone calls you out on it. Counting votes is not peer review, evidenced based review or any evidence at all in any way shape or form that the winner of the vote is rational. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Here is some evidence in regards to what we aim to do here. Our standards, and legal standards, are what standards we judge our articles on, not your twisted ethical sense that claims that describing your past activities critically is some affront to human dignity. PacWalker 03:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I get what your trying to do here. Was it really important that Rational Wiki fulfill it's mission by telling the world you think I had some crazy ideas I talked about 10 years ago anonymously on some forum no one gives a shit about? Again, what pseudo scientific claims do I make? What crank ideas do you think I have? That I've been promoting the idea of a collaborative online platform for consensus building? Can you explain to me what is so cranky about that idea? That I published a case study of editorial abuses happening on Wikipedia? Because those are the only claims I make publicly and stake my reputation on. Remove the 'troll' claims people pass around about me, which there is also no evidence of, just a few forum comments - and there is nothing to write about. This article reads like a personal vendetta because that is what it is. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ROME VIHARO except for the editors on Wikipedia and JREF forum. In the meantime, this article is effecting a real live flesh and blood person you know nothing about. Yes I met with investors, especially plenty this year. I also am talking to foundations about grants for aiki.wiki. The only problem this article solves is harassing and embarrassing me - that's it. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It presumably also presents people who consider believing some of your nonsensical claims (look! my language/"consensus" building framework will end wars! All of them!!1!!1one!) a skeptical view of those claims, which is what we aim to do. If analyzing the claims you've made previously harms you, that is because you promote nonsense. PacWalker 04:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

THEN REVIEW MY published claims and do not confuse a creative performance on a discussion forum with the later! As aiki wiki is not yet released, and wont be for at least a year, there isn't much you can truthfully say about what the platform does, but you can draw upon claims I make on the site http://aiki.wiki, or on the site I talk about Google Consciousness talking about social media evolving to replace government as we know it today. Do that and our problem is solved. Remove 'known internet troll' and 'promoter of pseudo science rupert sheldrake' those are both false and misleading- publish my video narration on what aiki wiki is aiming to do, and attack that.

PLEASE! I would so much rather you appreciate attacking me for things I am seriously claiming rather than misinterpret creative experiments on discussion forums and use that to frame what I do. I've spent years building aiki wiki, costing me considerable amounts of my own time and money. If you want to brow beat me on that project, do it. WITH EVIDENCE. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You've suggested some lovely additions, and I'll see what can be done about it, but we're not going to stop criticizing your past work because you suddenly declared it "creative." PacWalker 05:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not avoiding criticizing - if you're going to criticize me, at least criticize my actual claims and the context of those claims. Don't say I'm a known internet troll because I am not a known internet troll - and if you use tactics like that to contextualize work I am doing at a professional level, it's unethical and intellectually dishonest to your own principles. Dont accuse me of spreading conspiracy theories about skeptics, it's also intellectually dishonest and twisting context deceptively. If you just want to embarass me and write a rant about me and what you think my ideas are, then do so on a blog. If rational wiki is what it claims - then it will look at what facts it has, what reasoned arguments it has to keep them, and present accordingly. If you and I disagree about the possibilities of online consensus building and the best way to do it, then i don't need to be a troll or promoter of pseudoscience for you and I to disagree. be respectful and honest, that is all I ask. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I am rarely respectful and occasionally honest. I further have no interest in your conceptions of ethics, but I will do what I can to ensure that your article deals also in your recent claims and their context and not merely their older underpinnings. PacWalker 06:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

PROTEST, calling bullshit[edit]

Are you really taking a creative and theatrical work that is NO LONGER PUBLISHED ONLINE and hasn't been for about 10 years as the excuse to keep an article WARNING THE WORLD about something that does no longer even exists on the web? Seriously - you're worried people are scrolling through internet archive to find out about 'Bubblefish, flame warrior' posts and articles? Stop being intellectually dishonest, you're cherry picking any excuse you can find to justify to yourself this is not harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you consider the fact that you based AikiWiki on these principles presently irrelevant? (yes, I have seen your ugly six-petaled "flower") PacWalker 04:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's relevant to this discussion if you're going to attack those principles with reasoned argument. I think it's relevant if you want to claim that the rules of gamification for aiki wiki are making claims that are crankish or based on something pseudoscientific. Are they? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
[obvious response omitted] PacWalker 10:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I asked you a direct question Pacwalker. You're avoiding the answer. You're avoiding the answer because you know I will request transparency in your calculations, and we both know it's lacking. I called bullshit, and you're not making a good case for yourself or your community. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Neither of us knows that; the transparency requested is pretty damn evident, in fact. As to "a good case" ...maybe (I doubt it) not to your strange mind, but nobody else here seems put out by all these flaws you allege with the reasoning for keeping your article. I'm not saying you're delusional; just that everyone but you must be. PacWalker 07:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Since I am the subject of this article, I think it's fair for me to ask what evidence do you have, what reasoning do you have, what methods have you used to arrive at your conclusions. You're not giving me a straight answer - noted.104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten too heated, and it's not just the BoN's fault[edit]

Please try to restrain your hostility, and at least appreciate the feelings of the article subject. That doesn't have to sway your vote, but do incorporate it into how you treat them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

^. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Being accused of being unable to count to two (which is not past four, so I'm safe) may have snipped about seven metres off my fuse. PacWalker 16:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, but still, I'm asking nicely. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Is your sig subtly mocking me... because if so that is clever. And I shall try to tone the whatever down. PacWalker 16:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, my sig is just assuming that I have my usual overly harsh tone I regret using 5 minutes later. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant the strikethrough... Is that random? PacWalker 06:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought it looked cool as if it were underlined. I didn't think of it looking like actual strike to other browsers. I'll fix it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohh. All right. Well dang, I thought you were just being rather cleverly sarcastic with the signature. PacWalker 06:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we close this?[edit]

It's 6 to 2. Do we need more consensus? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This AfD has not even been up for 24 hours yet. Not everybody's life revolves around RW, and some substantial contributors may only check in occasionally. Can it stay up a week before dumping it to the archive? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides, it's not like we can't move on with the rest of everything (Mr. Viharo's article included) while this is up. PacWalker 01:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Tru. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The ethical reason for deletion[edit]

I've been skeptical about participating in this process because I've already have been through it once or twice before and do not believe this process actually resolves anything and believe it's a sham. But hey, I'm also upset, so maybe I'm wrong? Maybe someone here can prove me wrong. If I'm proven wrong, I'll even state it in my essay here and retract assertions I've made about this community.

The article here on Rational Wiki was written at the exact time I was editing with the intention to be anonymous Rupert Sheldrake's wikipedia article. I was mentioned as one of a number of other editors on Ruperts article here back in September/October of 2013, what linked us all together was that we believed Rupert Sheldrake should have the title of biologist in his lead sentence. I was editing biographical facts and context for the article. The editors on Wikipedia, many of them whom describe themselves as skeptics, frequent the skepticism noticeboards, and even use this site did not want me there. One member recognized me from a discussion 8 years ago on JREF, and began a campaign to have been sanctioned on Wikipedia as a troll. After 5 attempts, and only using the actual link to the JREF forum and a website from 2004 on internet archive, were successful in banning me from Wikipedia. Simultaneously this page was created about me here. I was framed as a woo, pseudoscience, sheldrake parapsychology supporter who was trolling. Even now, by coming here, using the process rational wiki itself invites me to use, a few users are accusing me of trolling Rational Wiki. I don't believe challenging Rational Wiki's principles as a publisher is trolling.

This article was written as a form of harassment. It's clear from a number of commenters here that they do not like me. It's personal. One user even retracted his 'delete' because he somehow believes my 'star power' is rising. What I am doing to warn the world about? This article infers I am a bullshit artist who promotes psuedoscience and trolls the internet. That's not who I am. If anyone here were to know me, they would also know my integrity is something very important to me.

I believe a vote to 'keep' this article proves my point - and a vote to 'delete' this article proves me wrong. From the perspective of ethical publishing - this article should be deleted because a;) it does not accurately offer a true narrative of events, ideas, or personas in the article, b:) It's used to work out personal grudges, dislikes and is comprised of personal commentary c;) it's not ethical to harass people with opinions on a website that credits evidenced based facts.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting to keep your essay proves that it should be deleted? Troll PacWalker 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe votes to keep this essay prove this community does not uphold it's own principles and abuses this platform to harass and demean other people. I believe a vote to delete this article proves that I am mistaken about this community and it's principles.104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How does Rational Wiki determine a 'crank' idea?[edit]

One of our principles is to write about crank ideas and cranks. See RationalWiki:Mission. A vote to delete your article is a deviation from that principle, not adherence to it. PacWalker 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought that up. How does this platform identify 'crank' ideas? Can you define what a crank idea is with brevity, and then explain specifically which ideas of mine are 'crank' ideas? Thanks in advance. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean it seems to me that 'crank' can be used like a pejorative, meaning it could be used to demean someone. However, since Rational Wiki claims to be an evidenced based website, I'm sure you have a way of measuring, determining the demarkation line of what defines them? Do you have a link to this on Rational Wiki? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
RW:Not a dictionary might be a redlink, but we still aren't a dictionary. PacWalker 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have a )dys(lexicon however, though it is poorly maintained and filled with things that never get said anymore. --Miekal 04:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It actually has surprisingly many entries that are applicable to this mess... PacWalker 04:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I'm not asking for a definition of 'crank' is as a word - that's just a proscription for a word, I am asking you if Rational Wiki has a process to identify cranks ideas. For example, a pseudoscientific idea has clear demarkations that define it, one of them being the lack of falsifiability. While pseudo science could be used as a pejorative, it has clear boundaries that can be set to logic and argumentation. I'm not seeing anything like that here on Rational WIki, so it looks like anyone could in principle label any idea they didn't like, for whatever reason, as a crank idea. That's fine if this is an opinion based website, but it does seem to counter the fact that it's also an evidence based website.104.175.42.84 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
The general consensus on "Pseudoscience" and "crank" here is "Something that runs counter to currently established scientific fact, often with little testable proof" and "Person who promotes said ideas"--Miekal 05:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(wording is a bit different but...) "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! PacWalker 05:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So 'crank' and 'pseudoscience' are interchangeable words? Do they share the same demarcation? 'Pseudoscience' is not a subjective term, yet 'crank' seems like a term anyone can just throw around here, like troll, and not have to take any responsibility for it's truth value, yet it still seems to hold a high bar as if it's somehow based on scientific consensus. Isn't that misleading readers online? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is not an ambiguous term, and you have quite unambiguously promoted pseudoscientific theories and originated some of your own. As such, you qualify as what we call a crank. PacWalker TL;DR: No.
Exactly, pseudeoscience is not an ambiguous term - yet your interchanging it with crank,which means anything you want. What 'pseudoscientific' theory have I originated? What 'pseudoscientific' ideas of others have I been promoting? I want EVIDENCE, sir - not your vague opinions. I should expect evidence on an evidence based website. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Originated:OS 012 and its spawn. See my keep vote for a pair of the conflicts with fact. Promoted: Chopra shit, Sheldrake's conspiracy theories, etc. etc. woof woof. PacWalker 03:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're not performing very well in the discussion, or in the presentation of your evidence. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior !orders are not a defense here. PacWalker 06:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of the community culture here. Let me guess, you're like 17 years old? 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong and irrelevant. Good job. New addition to OS 012: -1, for your words. PacWalker 06:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It was a snark, yes - and irrelevant, however even you contextualizing this very discussion and my argument/defense as the 'superior orders' argument informs me how 'rational' this process of 'evidenced based and reasoned discussion' works on Rational Wiki. fyi that would just be assigned a 2/snark, even by myself. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I edited the page and reverted. Here is the context of what you're writing about as reference[edit]

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Rome_Viharo&oldid=1452503 104.175.42.84 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to adding off-mission self-promotional material. Why I don't block you is beyond me. PacWalker 02:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you're really not following this argument. This entire article about me is off mission - it's just a public shaming and harassment. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The RW community, not you will interpret RW'a mission. PacWalker 06:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're starting to sound like a bizarre internet cult, seriously. I take RW's mission at face value. I also evaluate the behaviors here, and the reactions to requests for evidenced based reasoned argumentation. You, and each and everyone of you here also interpret's RW mission. As individuals, not as a community.
Today's discussions and disclosures by this community I believe clearly show a pattern of online harassment and continual lack of responsibility and integrity. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Or that someone has a raging persecution complex...
Note that no one so far has bought your hand wringing and excuses. The only ones beside yourself to have voted for a delete (Tielec, who has withdrawn that vote, and AgingHippie) did so because they thought you were too small fry for RW (and later AH suggested that it would at least shut up your whining), not because they found any merit in your constant claims of harassment or libel. Let me be blunt: You don't have a right not to be offended. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
That the Rational Wiki community is not phased is surely not a surprise. I didn't come here to get a vote on deleting my article, I already went through that process last year, it was a sham - and other members of this community noted the same. Additionally, Aging hippy said he didn't feel it was right to 'publicly shame someone for a comment left on a discussion forum. If you all are fine with this behavior - it's you're community do what you want. I do have the right however to criticize this and confront each and every one of you. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About Rome Viharo (by Rome Viharo)[edit]

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.

Request to delete, 2018[edit]

  • There was already a deletion request, but since then Viharo has created an entire website that now focuses more on RationalWiki (than originally Wikipedia), made YouTube Videos and complains non-stop about his RationalWiki article (e.g. see his Twitter, Quora and other online profiles; he also created a Heartmob and can be found on countless blogs and forums doing the same). He is still doing this and dedicates almost 24/7 of his time complaining about his RationalWiki article. This has been going on for over 4 years, and I think it would be good to just delete his article.
  • Viharo has decided to dox RationalWiki editors he blames for his article, as well as spread wild allegations and misinformation about them on his website. All of this has real-life consequences, and reports have been filed to block his articles showing up on Google. In his defence, Viharo claims these editors spread misinformation about him on his RationalWiki article. So basically it's an ongoing feud with both sides attacking each other and both accusing each other of lies and trolling, that has spilled on multiple forums, blogs etc, over a silly RationalWiki article. A solution to the mess is to just delete Viharo's article. I'm someone involved (unfortunately) in all this, and would prefer if the article was just deleted. Only a few days ago, Viharo published another article: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/04/rationalwiki-is-gas-lighting-lying-covering-up-platform-wide-harassment/ That entire article is misinformation, filled with lies, but his RationalWiki article he complains is filled with the same and that its caused him stress and psychological issues. It would be great if everyone could move on, end this feud by removing the article.Agent47 (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Forgive my bluntness but... Why the fuck should we care? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't care because you're anonymous. Some of us though have been doxed and smeared on Viharo's website. I would just like this to end. If this article is removed, there wouldn't be any more online fighting with Viharo and he will leave RationalWiki alone.Agent47 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit, he'll keep at it, that's what predators do when they sense weakness. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep If RV wants to play dirty, we should document that so people can see just what he's like. The alternative is that we end up deleting articles if people are nasty enough to us. WilderBicycle 22:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep What GrammarCommie and Readymade said. Why in the world would RationalWiki back down when faced with such vile behavior? It's obvious that this person is a predator and removing the article because of his behavior is giving him exactly what he wants. If there was any merit to his pseudoscientific nonsense, he would spend time refining his ideas and making his case instead of being a sick little troll. Cosmikdebris (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep: Ben Steigmann is barely relevant, but Viharo is a different matter. In fact, this makes me think deleting the Steigmann talkpage was a bad idea. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

DELETE and if not a delete, then a CORRECT. The article is fraught with inaccuracies, wild claims, out of context false light representations, and slander. I am representing Viharo in this deletion request, and I am here to correct some gross inaccuracies, many of them which are intentionally misleading and deceptive in both the article and in a few of the claims here. Viharo has not "doxed" anyone, but rather used public information available on the internet so as to attempt to halt extreme harassment from that individual, as well as a number of other internet users. Viharo has, however, filed a complaint with the FBI regarding an individual who does and has edited RationalWIki. All Viharo has done in the past four years is blog about each instance of recorded harassment, which is his right to do so and which he does in a responsible manner. If there are inaccuracies on Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, those will be removed as long as a reasonable claim or counter-argument can be made. I also protest the inference that Viharo is a "predator" when all of his actions are defensive and can easily be proved as such. Historically, Viharo has sought recourse through the rationalwiki platform, and just faced harassment and consistent banning or blocking I am not here to make legal threats. Will I be allowed to proceed? Please advise as to where an when, thank you. .Correcttherecord (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@correctherecord you're not being truthful though. I have a family member doxed on your website when he has no public information. A stalker paid $20 to obtain this information via a paywall (the information from this has since been removed, but the information was copied before the deletion). The family member that got doxed has no internet presence whatsoever, no social media, nothing. His personal information was on a single paywall site for a personal address he no longer lives at; I didn't realise this was up and as soon as I did it was deleted. You dox this person on your website, and now Abd Lomax has about a dozen articles on his blog doxing this individual. I could also make an argument I was personally doxed. My real name was only connected to online aliases I have used - by trolls from Encylopedia Dramatica who spent hours going through my internet history (although they made lots of mistakes) and managed to connect an old IP address I used on one account (like a decade back), to my real name. I do find it odd you claim to be against doxing, but are blatantly a doxxer.Agent47 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If you are claiming there are inaccuracies you need to show what they are, provide evidence, sources etc as Bongolian said. You can do this below. So far you've not provided any proof your article is inaccurate, just said it is. It would be a lot easier to just delete the article and save us all this time. Since that though was denied, you will need to explain what you want changed with evidence there is incorrect information.Agent47 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Dude, your FBI threat was damage control. I first reported you to the police for online harassment (all the defamation and doxing of my family on your website). Less than a week after I did that (and I can confirm this with my emails etc) you said you reported me to FBI.Agent47 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)