RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rome Viharo

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rome Viharo | Result: Keep

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

Delete

  1. A friend of Rome Viharo, Laird Shaw a few days ago had his article deleted. Shaw only had a page because RV has one and he ended up targeted by the same suspicious accounts primarily editing RV's article. The edit history of RV's article shows it was created by someone engaging in deception and sockpuppetry, who after abandoning the account he created the article on, used multiple accounts to edit the article, while not admitting to being the article creator. The edit history also shows many other bad actors who have created many sockpuppets on article to attack and disparage RV. I have documented this here on the talk page of article. I found nearly 20 SPA's (single purpose accounts) editing the article to criticise RV with only 1-5 edits on the article or its talk; many of those accounts belong to one or two individuals engaging in extensive sockpuppetry. There has also been a malicious person impersonating Rome Viharo and other people on talk. Again I have documented this here with evidence. As recent as earlier this year someone was impersonating RV again on the article talk while responding to themselves on other fake accounts. Rome Viharo has long complained about harassment and this is clearly seen in the edit history with suspicious accounts, mass sockpuppetry and impersonation accounts. Problematically many of these bad actors have edited the article. As for why RV has an article in the first place, he clashed with some editors on Wikipedia and ended up banned there in 2013. I fail to see how this makes him noticeable to have an article to begin with. Boar (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    For sake of clarification, I don't particularly like Rome Viharo. As I documented here - he himself has used sockpuppets to edit his article and also invited a few of his friends to edit it (meatpuppetry). However, two wrongs don't make a right - the mass socking and impersonations on article and its talk are undeniable harassment and there are far more sockpuppets created by RV's online enemies than himself. I think the edit history of the article is one of the worse on this wiki and it remains unclear why RV has an article. He's a banned ex-Wikipedian who created a website to whine about his ban. Significance? Boar (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. I created Laird Shaw's AfD and agree with the above. BUFO (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  3. This guy is basically an internet clown but not a notable one. Every few years he creates a new organization and claims it will revolutionize the world but nobody has heard of him or cares about what he is saying. His website "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" was deleted about 3 years ago and he no longer takes interest in blogging about this website. He has since deleted all his stuff on RationalWiki/Wikipedia. In total, this is basically a guy who was banned on Wikipedia 10 years ago. I am not sure why he needs an article here. Abd Lomax is definitely someone who needs an article here because he has an entire website dedicated to pseudoscience (cholesterol denialism, cold fusion, carnivore diet and now flat earth) and continues to host attacks against this website, but I am not seeing Rome promoting pseudoscience anymore, nor is he attacking users from this website. Johns (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  4. Delete but continue to mention him on Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (he doesn't need a separate article and can just be mentioned on that page). Brisson (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  5. Delete because all the stuff cited on the article is old and most of it has been deleted and only archives remain. viharo has changed his life around he is now an agnostic skeptic and opposes pseudoscience. All the drama cited on the article was from years ago. Is website is closed down and now this guy is only active on Twitter. I would be happy for you all to email him so you can verify he is a changed man. 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Viharo seems to always have claimed to be an agnostic skeptic, nothing new. I doubt anyone will email him, he's free to participate in this AfD with his account User:RomeViharo, which is not blocked. BoN, may I ask what prompted you to participate in this AfD? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Keep

  1. He's still active on Twitter at least. He's a known sockpuppeteer and doxer. I'm a bit suspicious about who User:Boar ("chess" userboxen as sole identifier on home page vs. this[1]) and User:BUFO (new user) are because of Viharo's socking propensity. As an aside, User:Laird (presumably Laird Shaw) was involved in editing the Viharo page from 2014-2015.[2] The Viharo page was apparently previously AfDed in 2014[3] and 2015[4] and possibly 2018 but I can't find any details. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The 2015 AfD is now at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Rome Viharo (2015), it was moved to make way for this AfD. Supposedly, Viharo as a BoN commented in the AfD, with the result being 10 to 1 for keep. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Over at that page is also the 2018 AfD you couldn't find @Bongolian, though it doesn't look like a proper AfD, more like an informal thing. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Look at the suspicious accounts that voted keep on the 2015 AfD. The very first voter: @Qwed117 - has made only 12 edits on the wiki yet we are expected to believe they randomly stumbled on the AfD (the sole AfD they voted on)? This user is very likely a sockpuppet of someone else. I have documented this here for RV's article and talk edit histories.Boar (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Bongolian What evidence is there RV has doxxed anyone? These claims appear to have been inserted into article by bad actors. The only source provided on article for this claim is this link: "Editors and admins involved." No mention of anyone's real name on URL only Wikipedia usernames who communicated with RV. So the reference does not actually match what is claimed. Who inserted this dubious information? And why were they allowed to? Do sysops and moderators of this wiki not bother to patrol edits? Boar (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    An example is on a link given on the current page:[5] Bongolian (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see any doxxing on the URL. Tim Farley has responded to RV under his real name several times. The only other real name mentioned on the URL is "David". I presume this is mentioned because RV thought in 2015 this was the real name of the article creator since he used the name @David1234. "Goblin Face" who RV complains about was impersonated on his article, I documented this on talk. So it's probable the troll sending RV unsolicited abusive emails was not the Wikipedia user of the same name and he was stirring up trouble. As I documented, there are dozens of impersonation and spoof accounts and it is hard to tell who is really who. No surprise RV was quite confused in 2015 and was trying to make sense off it.Boar (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    That link talks about "some insight into some of my harassers". Surely there's no need to explain what he's talking about here. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. Bongolian raises a good point. I hadn't even heard of Laird Shaw before the AfD. BUFO's very first action was to create the Laird Shaw AfD… that makes me wonder what the end goal is. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Since @Bongolian has stoked my suspicions, I have created an Atim accusing BUFO of being a sockpuppet of Boar. I would like to state for the record that I am making this accusation solely based on Bongolian's word, and I have no clue how accurate it is. I also am not suggesting any harsh action against @Boar, as a brief glance at their contributions list suggests that they are a generally respectable user outside of this weird obsession they have with the reputations of Laird Shaw and Rome Viharo. I'm just saying that this whole situation seems somewhat fishy to me — fishy enough that I feel obligated to call Boar out on making themselves appear to be dishonest. Luigifan18 (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Boar, if you do not respond to the concerns of myself and @Bongolian within, oh, let's say three days, I will have to take drastic action. And no, I do not mean blocking you. I don't think you deserve that, so I have something else in mind — specifically, restoring the Laird Shaw article. We don't think you have bad intentions per se, we just have concerns about your integrity that we would like you to address. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  3. This reminds me of many of Oliver Smith's AFDs, it seems more an attempt at censorship than anything else. Plutocow (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by censorship. The AfD was created because I discovered extensive impersonations and other suspicious accounts on the edit history, see here. After many years I'm surprised no one looked into this. Rome Viharo has been impersonated on fake accounts as recent as earlier this year and these fake/impersonation/spoof accounts date back to 2014. Boar (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  4. Came here to say what Plutocow said. GeeJayK (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  5. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  6. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  7. -Flandres (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

Goat

  • There's more to this internet kook than just the wikipedia drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Cosmikdebris Can you elaborate? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The article itself discusses all the "OS 012" and "Google consciousness" stuff that happened before the wikipedia drama. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
That trolling was ten years ago, Viharo has since moved on. Why would you want to quote something ten years ago? Do you not accept people make mistakes or can move on? 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this AfD has run its course. How about we archive? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsolicited commentary

Not a member here, just follow the drama. If I was, I would vote for a merge redirect, but Viharo never focused or targeted GSoW, he targeted Tim Farley and RationalWiki and he worked with Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, but that seems limited to simply working on their wikipedia articles.

Lots of strange misinformation in all of this. Its fair to keep an article about Viharo, because he did accuse skeptics of harassment on Wikipedia and RationalWiki, but if you are going to keep the article, I would at least make it accurate and remove all the troll ODS sock puppets edits and you know how the saying goes...do your own research.

Here is Viharo's attack on online skepticism on wikipedia and rationalwiki, his "case study" for his platform https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-3-bddc707bdd22

OS 012 he writes about here https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-2-dc027912a439

His google consciousness tedx talk is probably not fair game, I thought it was about his "theory of consciousness" or something like that, but it turns out thats not what the talk is about at all, the title is a bit deceiving that way ( i wont bore you with the details of the talk) but thats an example of someone who just hates viharo and wants to get skeptics upset and eager to bash him, we can probably do better than that.

Overall, I think his attack on Farley qualifies him for an article here, but cleaned up because this article looks like is was written by someone obsessed with viharo. Viharo has a long history of being very confrontational with skeptics, so let's be fair and say the article should stay because we think he deserves it. Viharo is a concern troll and annoying. I'm sure he will be saying ridiculous things in the future you can ping him with. Toodles.— Unsigned, by: 2605:fe80:2100:a105:1::1 / talk / contribs

The current article opening paragraph:

Rome Viharo (User:RomeViharo) is a disgruntled ex-Wikipedia editor who was banned and then created an entire website named Wikipedia We Have A Problem to pointlessly complain about his ban and whine about "harassment." Although complaining of being harassed, Viharo does the exact same thing, and has doxed Wikipedia editors on his website, while also spreading unfounded allegations (e.g. skeptics create articles on Wikipedia by receiving PayPal cash-payments, or RationalWiki "is gas lighting, lying, & covering up cross platform harassment") and the Guerilla Skepticism conspiracy theory. The forum Wikipediocracy banned him for making these baseless claims.

I can't see how any of this is remotely relevant to the purpose of RationalWiki which is "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." The guy is a disgruntled and banned Wikipedia editor. Can someone explain?Brisson (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Viharo is mentioned on the Guerilla Skepticism conspiracy theory article. What's written there seems fine. My view is he doesn't need his own article.Brisson (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Viharo is now a skeptic the article is citing things like nine or ten years old. Why cant this website admit people changed, make mistakes or move on? 82.132.234.64 (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In that case, it would be better to update the article to reflect Viharo's current views. Luigifan18 (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that updating the article and adding anything currently notable would be worthwhile. And that would mean adding to the article rather than deleting it.
There seem to be some voices making an argument along the lines that the article should be deleted because it refers to things that happened in the past or a long time ago. Well everything we know about happened in the past. So it's difficult to not interpret these suggestions in terms of whitewashing.
But, as I said, if there is more current, positive material - then we could certainly include it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Viharo is not promoting pseudoscience so users here still haven't explained why he needs an article here. 82.132.232.240 (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Solicited commentary from Rome Viharo, confirmed via Twitter

Rome created an account that was just blocked, so I am his friend but I am copying his words below, which you can confirm on twitter: https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/1575700536732491778

This is Rome Viharo, confirmed on my twitter account.

https://twitter.com/rome_viharo/status/1575692756306911234

Bisson, thank you for providing sincere analysis and reflection and the opportunity to participate.

I'm not going to weigh in on keeping or deleting this article, that is up to the community here to decide, but I will chime in and provide accurate links that do reflect my views.

If there is a case to make for deletion, it would be for RationalWiki's sake, not mine. Delete the article because the article reads exactly like what it is, an attack piece designed to destroy someone's online reputation out of petty payback from editing Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra's article. I think the article makes RationalWiki look far worse than me, but we have perhaps different standards.

It is true, I am a "concern troll" as I am very concerned with "trolling" as in "online toxic behaviors", it's a big part of my life as a developer. I am very concerned with online misinformation and online disinformation.

Pretty much every link dissected in my article is all about one project that has evolved over 20 years. OS 012, the JREF discussion, BAD science discussion, Wikipedia consensus project, the TedX talk, you will see a consistent theme and thread throughout all of it because it's all the evolution of one project, its field research. I understand that, from the outside, that may all look strange, which is why I did the research anonymously, until my personal identity was discovered and broadcast by a small group of disgruntled editors.

This is an unusually large body of work which you can see evidence of.

At least if it reflected my actual views, it would not nor would it ever have even been a problem.

If you want to know what my current views are, they are reflected primarily on https://bigmotherdao.com/ or my medium blog site (which I don't write to very often). They are my same views for 20 years, just more evolved and developed.

These are the views I broadcast.

https://bigmotherdao.com/whitepapers/

My views on MediaWikis (Wikipedia, Rational Wiki, KiwiFarms, etc)

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/the-mediawiki-problem-d9f6105b3f13

My views on troll farms:

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-pt-1-83372576342a

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-ed4ecdd2dba6

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/troll-farms-and-the-broadcast-of-misinformation-pt-3-c360581c1e56

My views on the evolution of Aiki Wiki, which began with a viral theatrical project, OS 012, and evolved over 20 years into Aiki Wiki. I try to be responsible about the process, so let me know if you see any errors.

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-1-7f029e395987

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-2-dc027912a439

https://rome-viharo.medium.com/aiki-wiki-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem-update-pt-3-bddc707bdd22

Here is a live demonstration of Aiki Wiki as applied to a DAO studio structure

https://bigmotherdao.com/dao-governance/

With as much animosity as I have had with those who identify themselves as "skeptics", I'm actually really appreciative of the skeptic community, they helped make this project better.

The RationalWiki article, and all articles that emerged from it (Encyclopedia Dramatica, KiwiFarms, a host of bizarre wp sites) did have a very very serious effect on my personal and professional life. I would be lying if I said it did not. Anyone can simply check the article history and look at what the earlier versions were. As a professional, I have had to deal with claims that I am a sociopath, a promoter of pseudoscience, a cyberstalker, an online doxxer, and even a cocaine crazed sex fiend (I kid you not). While I have created a few accounts here, it was out of sheer frustration, as I was banned continually for posting "too much" or "trolling" for creating a few accounts here because my professional and personal life was on the line! I have a child! This had a great effect! Why would anyone expect "civil" behavior from someone who is being attacked in such a way? I hope no one ever has to go through what I went through.

I was an anonymous Wikipedia account, my identity was published and seeded around influencing a small community of editors on Wikipedia who were skeptics and obviously playing dirty. While that could have died down after Wikipedia, RationalWiki continued the harassment I received on Wikipedia.

There is no question that these payback for a very confrontational affair editing Rupert Sheldrake's biography page, which was and is a part of the case study for Aiki Wiki, as informed the Wikipedia community back in 2013.

As all the evidence clearly shows this, everything else has just been bizarro world gaslighting.

This is all detailed in the case study which is falsifiable as all links are recorded on MediaWikis and everyone else in the world seems to realize this except RationalWiki and a few bozos at Wikipediocracy.

So for me, keep or delete; that's up to you.

But since this community inadvertently was ground zero in a personal attack against a developer in online consensus building, why not put all of that behind us?

Why not collaborate on the project in good faith instead of bad if at all? All the bad faith from this community still helped make this project better, what would good faith participation bring? I am not looking to embarrass anyone.

I am not an enemy of "skepticism" that is absurd.

I am worried about the "culture wars" and I am very very concerned that the communication of science is very harmed by all of this ideological divisiveness, from anyone or any group.

I think it's bad for science and bad for the internet, and I can make a clear case about that too. and I hope that RationalWiki can adopt a more (get ready to have a drink, on me) "rational" and self reflective approach.

Best to everyone

Rome