Talk:Rome Viharo/Archive2

Rebuttals to Viharo

Viharo supporting Sheldrake's pseudoscience

Viharo has repeatedly claimed he does not support Sheldrake's ideas, but look here [1] back in March 2013 he was posting in defense of Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance. On the talk-page for the Rupert Sheldrake article on a number of sock puppet IPS on rational wiki he also admitted he has met Rupert Sheldrake. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

debunked

Why link to comments I made on the TED blog, why don't you link to comments I made in the actual Sheldrake 'Talk' section? Perhaps because there is no evidence there that this is true? Your claim is misleading. And if your entire article on me is because I left a comment or two on the TED blog that maybe 30 people read to make your case is kinda creepy. My focus on Sheldrake's article were not even regarding his ideas, they were regarding his basic biography in the lead section and all anyone has to do is check my sandbox at the time to see how I thought a neutral point of view should read. I've said repeatedly in Sheldrake's talk page that I was not arguing for the scientific validity of his ideas. I've also clarified that on the site. Supporting Sheldrake however as a biography and his fair treatment is another matter. What bothers me however is what difference would this make considering I was arguing for a neutral point of view? If i did support Sheldrake's ideas, I was not arguing for them. That's the difference. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As to meeting Rupert Sheldrake, are you actually going to use an association fallacy as your evidence? I met him and that context is here. Big deal so I met him, so what? I've met many people who have wikipedia articles, including one or two presidential candidates, innumerous celebrities, scientists, and philosophers. I go to parties. Big deal. I also live in Los Angeles, does that mean I can't write about Los Angeles on Wikipedia? RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, and now that you have it in writing from me directly. I support Rupert Sheldrake as a person. I support his right to do whatever research he wants and his right to be treated fairly. I also support anyone's right to be curious about his ideas. I don't support anyone abusing his Wikipedia page so they make make some ideological point. I don't know if his ideas have scientific merit or not, I'm not a scientist and can't say one way or another. Any alteration of my point of view on Sheldrake is misleading and I would prefer if you publish otherwise.

RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Viharo fits the definition of a troll

If you check Viharo's edits on Wikipedia he did not add any information to articles, but spent his entire (short) existence trolling talk pages.

• [2]
• [3]

Not a single constructive edit to a Wikipedia article, no content added whatsoever just picking arguments with Wikipedia editors. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not trolling, that's called WP:CIVIL

That's a bizarre interpretation of trolling, participating in 'Talk' discussions. Actually, it's flat out deceptive. What you're failing to mention is that talking about drastic changes to an article in Wikipedia *require* editors to talk about those changes before they make them. As all the evidence shows, I was making arguments and creating sections to reach a new consensus so new edits could be made. I made around 5 edits to the article while there and did not want to engage in TE or edit warring. Secondly, there is no violation of any Wikipedia guidelines that suggest 'Talk' participation by it's nature is disruptive. Thirdly, all of my argumentation was polite, firm, and professional and there is ZERO evidence in any talk page that my arguments were disruptive. If this is your evidence you're using to support calling me a troll, then it's misleading readers and I request you take it out. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Viharo and sock puppets

Viharo says he does not use sock puppets but he blatantly does. He's used more than six IP addresses on this very website.

• 76.167.97.23
• 76.167.98.236
• 178.238.131.186
• 77.92.71.77
• 69.31.70.189
• 69.31.70.44

His account PhilosophyFellow fits the definition of a sock puppet as he had more than one account on Wikipedia. He has also used sock puppet IPs on Wikipedia. Semantics aside what he has done does fit the definition of sock puppeting. It's not a crime to use sock puppets so why not just openly admit your accounts Rome? Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets debunked

First off, anything I have done on Rational Wiki is in response to the attack piece on me here and is absolutely irrelevant to what happened on Wikipedia and personally I don't care. Secondly, different IP's are not socking, masking IP's are not socking, or ANY attempt for ANYONE to remain anonymous ANYWHERE is not socking, so your also misleading the reader here using IP's, which may or may not have been what I have used (I dont keep track of my IP's and at home, I only have one static IP and that's it and that's private information). RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Viharo was not attacked

Viharo says Wikipedia editors "outed" his identity and attacked him but this is not true. In one of his posts, Viharo on his account Tumbleman signed his post with his full name. You can find this if you spend time looking through his edits. So nobody outed him, he exposed himself. The claim that anyone has attacked him is false. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Viharo promoting conspiracy theories

Viharo says he does not promote conspiracy theories but he does when it comes to Wikipedia. He repeatedly claims Sheldrake's Wikipedia article had been high jacked by "biased" skeptics. Just some of his comments:

• "many editors here have a bias" [96]
• "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [97]
• "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [98]
• "the bias that they clearly have" [99]
• "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [100]
• "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [101]
• "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [102]
• "those with negative bias here" [103]
• "your voice sounds a little biased here"

• "Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [165]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [166], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [167] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [168], [169], [170], [171]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [172]".

From [4]

So Viharo's claim that he is not promoting conspiracy theories is false. He has no proof the Wikipedia Sheldrake article is owned by biased users or skeptics but he peddles that claim all over the net. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You're using Conspiracy theory as a weasel word. Rather bizarre

1. I hardly think mentioning the bias of editors on a Wikipedia article is a conspiracy theory. I hardly think referring to some editors as skeptical activists is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's simply what the evidence shows. And skeptical activists have been galvanzing those that share their points of view online for years.

2.)Editors on the Sheldrake article are avowed skeptics - are you actually telling me they are not? You're even all on 'Rational Wiki'. You're activists for your point of view. Observing that someone is an activist is hardly a conspiracy theory and you're using that term in a libelous manner to humiliate me online and I ask that you remove it.

3. Posting a comment from an skeptic editor about me is hardly evidence of anything other than you share the same opinion. I keep wondering if the editors here or on Wikipedia know the difference between an opinion and a fact. You're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled do your own facts.

4. I don't think there is a conspiracy happening on Wikipedia with organized skepticism or here on Rational Wiki. I do however claim that what is happening is Groupthink so why don't you put that in the article? If you want, I will even write up a blog post on it on the site, calling it 'Evidence for Groupthink corrupting Wikipedia articles' or something dramatic to the effect. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest, arn't you really spreading conspiracy theories about me?

seriously, i've been called a social media sockpuppeting mastermind charged with global disruption. Arn't you really just doing some old fashioned projection here? Are you perhaps just looking in the mirror and too lost in your own irrationality to see that it's just you who is staring back? RomeViharo (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

We all know that Susan Gerbic and her team never edited the Sheldrake article [5]

and on this forum [6] Viharo admits that he may of been wrong about the Guerilla Skepticism group editing the Sheldrake article and on his own website says he actually believes Gerbic when she says the group was not involved but his friend Craig Weiler published a book in December claiming otherwise, Viharo did not choose to correct Weiler's errors. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

GSoW debunked

Huh? Is this all you have, that I 'failed' to correct Weiler's errors? How do I even know they are errors? I'm just taking Susan and Vzaak at their word. However I know Vzaak practices deception so that's not worth much. It's also IRRELEVANT. I don't care about GSoW, I only care that a gang of skeptical activists are abusing Wikipedia on an article and then harassed me further by creating an attack piece on their favorite site. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Craig Weiler

Craig Weiler in his latest blog post "Wikipedia Cyberbullying: A Case Study" [7] and spammed here [8] says:

• "After Tumbleman was banned, he came back as Philosophy Fellow. This account was blocked as well for being a sock puppet for an account that wasn’t even active. This is a violation of Wikipedia rules, of course, but at this point, so what?"

But Viharo himself admits the PhilosophyFellew is a controversial thing that he did, it classifies as sock puppeting because you had more than one account on Wikipedia and did not declare them. Weiler has never read Wikipedia policy, but are you willing to correct his mistakes Viharo? And secondly are you happy being an associate of Weiler, you are friends with a self-described "psychic healer" are you? This is the same Weiler who has defended Sylvia Browne, the same man who lectured that telepathy has been scientifically proven but when asked if so why is it not all around the world in newspapers and scientific journals replied there's a conspiracy theory by the scientific community to suppress it. But you claim to be rational Rome. Anyone rational can see Weiler is not in reality. Choose your friends wisely. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Already went over this, debunked

1. Yes I admit to Philosophy Fellow. However, that was my ONLY account since Tumbleman was blocked. So it's not a sock and you can see when it was created. Once again, the definition of sockpuppetry, even on Wikipedia, is having more than ONE account involved in ONE article to disrupt that article. Sorry, never did that. You can keep calling every single account I have ever created in my past 18 years being online as a sockpuppet, but that's a tough argument for any reasonable person to take seriously.

2. I broke ONE rule, and that rule was the rule of the arbitration committee to block me indef from Wikipedia. This was AFTER my Tumbleman block so obviously can't be used against me as a reason for the Tumbleman sanction.

3. Wikipedia has a rule to 'break all rules' if it means making the page better. So I broke the rule of my banning because it was a clear case of online harassment and based on deception to help make the Sheldrake page more neutral. I'm willing to defend that so if you want to make a case of it go for it.

4. Philosophy Fellow, just like Tumbleman, made NO disruption in Talk or the page. The only thing disruptive about these accounts was the argumentation they brought to the page and the stumped editors who had to address them. Instead of addressing the arguments, the editors attacked and harassed me instead. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if all wrong

Lastly even if everything by magic is wrong about Viharo regarding the Sheldrake issue (it isn't) then OS 0 1 2 still stands. I spent an hour looking into OS 0 1 2 it is the most nutty thing I have come across, even more nuttier than Time Cube. Are you actually happy in your head about creating such meaningless nonsense? It's nothing more than trolling. So Rome you would indeed fit the definition of a "crank", and this this website as far as I have looked refutes cranks so you shouldn't be surprised that your nonsense has been included. If you don't believe me trying having a chat with anyone on the street about "OS 0 1 2" or someone at the dinner table. Nobody can make sense of what it is. You waste your time doing all this when you could be doing something worth wile with your life. When you get to 60 your look back and think "what the heck was I doin". Regards. Abaza (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Abaza. You have done what I haven't managed to do.--The Madman (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Lol, he hardly did a better job that you did, he just made three times the deception and delusion. RomeViharo (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Debunked, if you're going to write about it, at least get it right

1. The project you're mentioning is from 10 years ago and you can read about it here.

2. If you're going to attack me for something, I don't mind you attacking me for this, because at least it is something that I promote - however, lol, you're not getting the joke so to me it's like someone complaining that Borat is a chicken thief and they have the documentary to prove it.

3. The joke that you are not getting anyway was apart of developing a platform which is going to be released this year. I so hope you all choose to attack me for this because I would love the publicity. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What a fool

This is hilarious. Thanks to Abaza for providing details. I was intrigued by the sock puppet report, as it not only gives the Philosophy Fellow sock puppet but many others, for instance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive#08_December_2013

The evidence is unequivocal, and Rome is simply lying when he says that Philosophy Fellow was his only sock puppet. He had sock puppets both before and after his Wikipedia ban. Before the ban, he had an obvious motivation to create sock puppets in order to generate "consensus". And he has provided his own justifications for sock puppeting after the ban.

Figuring the Sheldrake situation has been picked over, I looked at Rome's early Wikipedia involvement. These article deletion nominations are a foreshadowing of what would come:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2_%28second_nomination%29

Reactions to Rome's "OS 0 1 2" Wikipedia article include: "Nonsense/not noteworthy", "load of hooey", "Does read like nonsense", "unclear, dense, recondite, incomplete and muddled to the point of being nearly indecipherable", "Internetcruft"

Rome's responses include: "slandering something you dont understand as nonsense I wont tolerate", "I accuse Gazpacho of mistreating information to suit his personal vendetta: he is doing a incomplete research", "this process is turning into a sham"

On his user page Rome said, "I also wish to vastly improve the AfD process here at Wikipedia...I have experienced the discussion process to be a bit faulty and subject to personal vendetta, opinion, and some sort of democratic frenzy." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tumbleman&oldid=67346446

What we have here is a strong asymmetry: Rome is universally recognized as an incoherent fool, while Rome sees himself as some kind of genius that others cannot appreciate. Being unable to accept these outside assessments, Rome concocts conspiracies that people have vendettas against him. This pattern is repeated in many places: the JREF forums, his latest Wikipedia venture, and elsewhere.

In short, Rome is a crank whose tireless activities have rightly awarded him a RationalWiki article. Welcome!

--Evanand ^{— Unsigned, by: Evanand / talk / contribs}

lol - dood that's like saying there is a strong asymmetry that Obama is a socialist because there are so many quotes from Republicans saying that he is. I could pull out an equal number of quotes praising the idea, and actually from those that got the joke. Considering you're pulling quotes from people who got their heads bumped against 'Bubblefish' and didn't get the joke, the only evidence this shows is that those people are a little clueless. But hey, who cares? This is Rational Wiki! And ANY quote can be taken in whatever context you think it should, as long as it proves your point. AND, if you keep looking for evidence this way, don't be surprised that you continue to find over and over what you're looking for. It's called 'magical thinking' and the FOOLS are probably the editors on rational wiki who proclaim 'critical thinking' as their strongest skill set. RomeViharo (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report, debunked

1. Was not oh boy chicken again or kate gombert. They can also clear this up

2. I am philosophy fellow - who cares is this all you have on me?

3. LOL vzaak's testimony is not evidence -sorry

4. Lol, if you want to create a wiki article on me about an article for deletion in 2005, go for it RomeViharo (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously guys, you're pretty creepy

But keep it coming none the less. It's fun showing how Groupthink works online RomeViharo (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That "fun" defines "trolling." --Abd (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from other editors or forum members supportive on my activities on Wikipedia and elsewhere

see? both sides can play this game. Which set of quotes is right? On rational wiki, which ever ones you think are true! Out in the real world, it's what the evidence best supports. RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On Tumbleman banning

I don’t know what their angle is beyond trying to silence you on this particular article. The detail some Editors have devoted to this sock investigation is definitely over-kill and I am a bit stunned at the apparent time and energy spent on compiling “evidence” and the minute dissection of how you phrase things and spell words.Truthfully, I think most people would let themselves be driven off by this barrage of negativity. But I hope you don’t go. I didn’t agree with you on some issues but Wikipedia needs all types of voices and perspectives to balance out their coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

from where I’m standing now, it looks like an united effort was made to drive off an Editor that some others found annoying. And I find that tactic chilling.You will prove me 100% wrong if it turns out that those who are skeptical of Sheldrake can work constructively with those who support him to come up with a biography that has a NPOV. If I see other users receiving blocks for expressing their opinions, well, I guess I called it right. But I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 17 October

RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On the skeptical activist editors

They have this lame, childish “let’s call everyone who disagrees with us a ‘troll’ and get them banned” attitude. You would think that if they were so sure of their position, they wouldn’t rely on tactics to remove opponents from the discussion, that they would let their superior argument help form consensus. Instead they annoy everyone at AN/I. They seem to prefer drama over compromise.By the way, I’ve noticed at least one account seems to be a SPA who just seems to be here to edit the Sheldrake article. And several accounts have less than 1,000 edits, for what it’s worth. Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I read over the Fringe Noticeboard today, Keithbob, and found it really depressing. It’s a very lop-sided discussion board, the participants seem to be in agreement that the goal is to get theories they find unacceptable to be identified as “fringe” and then they can be mocked. It seems like the view of the world is very black and white there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On supporting Tumbleman's core argument

Orange Mike (and everyone else), Sheldrake’s article is a biography, it is not a page on Theories of Morphic Resonance. Of course the man’s ideas need to be included but the bulk of the article should be factual, about Sheldrake’s life and work. Within an article like this, of course, it can be stated that the science community doesn’t accept certain ideas. But at most, this is a paragraph or two of the entire article. You can present someone’s work without saying, “and this is TRUE” or “this is FALSE”. It just is. Present who the man is and let the reader pass judgment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

On being accused as one of my sockpuppets on Rational Wiki

I am shocked and bemused. I haven’t used the name Fujacko in nearly a decade, and suddenly I’m (sort of) internet famous!

However, even the folks at the Ponderer’s Guild knew I wasn’t a sock puppet of Bubblefish. In fact, the very link you posted in your comment lists me as an “accomplice,” so yes indeed: do your research. Admittedly some of those guys did think I was in cahoots with Tumble (a certain Victor comes to mind), and I may have been overly enthusiastic about his OS012 idea, but there were plenty of occasions when he and I disagreed. Too bad all those wondrous threads have been deleted.

Furthermore, Tumbleman and Bubblefish weren’t sock puppets but different usernames. I’ve never seen them appear in the same discussion posing as two different people, and as far as I know Tumbleman never denied having multiple accounts. Who hasn’t changed usernames? I certainly have.

I never understood why Bubblefish was so hated. He had a lot of great ideas and was funny as hell. I really enjoyed watching him push closed-minded people’s buttons. But he does seem to have a tendency to get into trouble. I hope he can redeem himself.

P.S. If you still think I am Bubblefish pretending to be someone else, you really need to get a life! Fujako

Oh I got way more than you do, trust me. Yawn how long will we play this game for? RomeViharo (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OS 0 12

Oh,this ought to milk some Lolz out of you. Are these not your own words, Rome?

OS 012 is a memetic and language technology that resolves all conflict and war. It creates synergy and syncronocity. It allows the user to increase thier [sic] own intelligence.[2]

Let's take a good look at this passage. A point-by-point commentary.

• Do you really think this "Technology" can stop all conflict and war?
• Syncronocity isn't a word, last time I checked.
• You haven't read Flowers For Algernon,have you?

--The Madman (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Yawn, this OS 0 1 2 thing has gone on long enough

1. Yes creepy internet stalker, those are my 'words' from like 10 years ago you dug up on internet archive. Those are my words taken from a creative online writing project that was tongue in cheek and meant to provoke reactions, kinda like what you're doing like 10 years after the fact. If you want to ask me about the project, at least get your facts straight, especially since that project evolved. Also - kinda creepy too that you take people's words and somehow use their writing as evidence of some kind of thought crime that qualifies for an entry on your little excuse for a groupthink party. RomeViharo (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Now again, these are excerpts from OS 0 12 Basic. In other words, your own words. Now the "key" to OS 0 12 is this.

All ideas conflict or have the potential for conflict. ALL IDEAS ARE TRUE(1), FALSE(2), and/or MYSTERY(0). ALL the time. In ALL environments.[3]

Now if we go by this, All of our accusations have the potential to be true, false or mystery. However, they have evidence to back them up, so they are not false. Therefore, we can conclude they are no mystery either. Therefore, they must be true.--The Madman (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Obviously they are whatever you want them and need them to be, madman johnson. And I am whom ever you want me to be. Just like this article you've written on Rational Wiki is about the Rome Viharo you believe is true. Just so you can make a point. You would think that your skeptic activist movement would only need to rest on superior argument and logic. Oddly, it's only resting on ad hominem attacks, petty online harassment, cyberbullying, and personal attacks. Personally I find your ethics and tactics disgusting and that's why I'm exposing them. Okay, go back to hiding behind your user name and go back to your little groupthink party where you somehow rationalize that it's okay to use dirty tricks on people. RomeViharo (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not really thinking I'm as into sock puppeting as much as you are. Hypocrite. We would be nicer if you're not as hostile and stopped to consider our opinions.--The Madman (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Are you really that emotionally immature? You actually write or support/endorse an attack article on me, slander and try to embarrass me and then are 'upset' because I am hostile and not considering your opinions??? Are you that self absorbed? Is it really just all about you?? I've offered you guys a compromise, I offered reasonable discussion - and you don't budge. You're only interested in your emotions and your all happy because you found a wiki where you feel you have some sort of power over someone else. Congratulations. What big thinking. What amazing problems you're solving by attacking me. Warning people never ever to go to those internet archive discussions from 2004 to warn them about OS 0 1 2 lol. RomeViharo (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome Viharo added himself?

Rome criticizes his entry here, however he set up a website that goes in-depth to discuss his entry (see his user-page). The guy clearly loves attention, and I suspect he added his own entry under a sock. Rome also seems to love the attention so much he invents "enemies" to make out people are actually interested in his trolling gibberish. Someone called "Stevenson" is spreading nonsense on several blogs (i.e Craig Weiler) that Rome's entry was added by a skeptic who was also involved at removing psi research at wikipedia. The guy is clearly a paranoid conspiracy nut, along with nutball "handyman-no-qualification" craig these people actually believe there are a secret network of skeptics trying to suppress psi research. Gecko (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering how the page rips apart his OS 0 12 crap, I'd say no. Considering how this is the first result in most search engines, he most likely searched his own name to boost his ego and found this.--The Madman (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

PLEASE keep focusing on the OS 0 1 2 meme, please, especially in a few months when the collective editing platform is released. I really need you to be twice as ridiculous as you are now, you're the perfect foil for viral marketing and this article is essential for my purposes. RomeViharo (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Get your head clear Gecko - the only reason I am getting attention is because skeptic activist editors on Wikipedia outed and harassed me and made my personal identity an issue in a wiki war. If you're denying the skeptic activism exists on wikipedia or rational wiki, you're absolutely delusional. If you think I'm making it up, nah, that's why i just published a case study with all the evidence. I'm not against skepticism, but I'm certainly against groupthink and the black hat techniques for getting your point across. RomeViharo (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So who is going to clean up the article?

I dont care if you want to call my TED x talk ridiculous or make fun of OS 012 (especially that because the joke went over your head) but everything else in the article is factually incorrect and technically libelous, meant to embarrass or harass me. Until then I hold Lucky Louie, Leuders,Vzaak, Madman Johnson, and Tim Farley directly responsible for this campaign of harassment. I also have all the time in the world, and the longer this article is up here, the longer I have. RomeViharo (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You have your lifespan, Rome. You're not some god.--The Madman (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

In fact, what do we have here?

All that open mindedness requires is that one considers an idea or proposal and does not reject it outright before any considerations or evaluations are made.

--The Madman (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Or even better.

You told the truth up to a point, but a lie of omission is still a lie.

Nobody is going to change the article just because you want your lies to remain secret. I will not change your article for the purpose of your ego.--The Madman (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Or how about one of your favorite arguments?

Groupthink occurs when individuals in a group fail to express their doubts about the group's dynamic, direction or decisions because of a desire to maintain consensus or conformity. Thus the group may be on a headlong rush to error or disaster and no-one speaks up because they don't want to rock the boat.

The Madman (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman And your claims about not having performed sockpuppetry. Why are you so afraid?

It's not a crime to use sock puppets so why not just openly admit your accounts Rome?

Admittedly, I would have been far more verbose.--The Madman (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

what ever point your making it's getting lost in your rhetoric. Why not actually take a stab at what it is you're trying to accuse me of and stop being vague. And please dood dont waste my time with the whole ridiculous sockpuppet argument again. RomeViharo (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Madman accusing Rome Viharo of Deception...so where is the deception??

Seriously, prove the deception you accuse me of, what is the evidence? If you don't have an argument, something strong and not ridiculously petty, HERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE it. If you don't have one, or cannot justify your claim against me in a discussion, then I am going to ask you to apologize for that statement. If you dont apologize, then your just going to be some online coward who is bullying and hiding behind his anonymity. RomeViharo (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome, I just want to help you. You remind me too much of people I've followed on the internet to just sit around and not do something. Chris Chan, Gene Ray, Kevin Martin, etc. Abaza has provided the proof, you're just refusing to accept it.--The Madman (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Proof of WHAT?? RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I was too quick to assume you're not a example of Poe's Law.--The Madman (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

I really don't have any idea of what you're suggesting here, please explain. RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing from my previous comment, let's dissect some of Rome's "Supporters". You're smart enough to lie well, Rome.

I certainly have. I never understood why Bubblefish was so hated. He had a lot of great ideas and was funny as hell. I really enjoyed watching him push closed-minded people’s buttons. But he does seem to have a tendency to get into trouble. I hope he can redeem himself.

I think you don't get the meaning of sarcasm, Rome. Or quote mining.--The Madman (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

So you're just accusing me of lying and writing that as another one of my sockpuppets? Is that what your 'gut' instincts tell you? Is that all you have to go on? Well at least you're being honest about not having any evidence, just blanket accusations. I guess I can't defend against that just as much as you can't defend how much you beat your wife or drink the blood of small children. RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's compare two statements here. You're fond of comparing things,right?

It's possible he thinks that his trolls are indiscriminately cruel to everyone, and that, if given a target, they would lash out against it without a second thought.

Do you not think that skeptics are like that? Now, let's take a look at how you feel about us.Oh yeah!

"Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [165]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [166], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [167] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [168], [169], [170], [171]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [172]".

--The Madman (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

What does comparing two statements by two different people about two entirely separate events spread apart by 8 years serve? Is that critical thinking? I'm still sooo unclear of what your implying here - but the core problem you're making with whatever it is your implying is that THERE ARE NO DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS in Sheldrake Talk. You can imply I'm socks around the word wide web all you want. You can imply that I disrupted internet forums 10 years ago all you want. THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE of anything of the sort happening on Wikipedia. All you've done, whomever you are - is take some idea you have of what I did on JREF in 2007 and just make a huge leap in logic that somehow that's what's happened on Wikipedia. And you're still being vague about what your accusing me of and your arguments are descending into absurdituum quicker than you're able to keep up with. And you want to find anything on the web that you can twist into whatever absurd idea you have about me to embarass me on the web. RomeViharo (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAT AM I OMITTING???

Rome, really it's so hard to do this. Just consider your own words for a second.

Wikipedia let's users have more than one account, first off. Secondly, having more than one account is not socking. Let's go over this one more time. Socking is having TWO or MORE accounts on ONE page or discussion thread at the SAME TIME. Thirdly, yes I created Philosophy Fellow account after I was banned as Tumbleman and the reasons I did this are here..

You keep lying even after being made aware of your bullshit by others. Isn't that wrong in others? You keep denying the evidence that you're not lying. You are making a lie of omission. The Madman (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

WHAT AM I OMITTING???? BE CLEAR! Don't ask me to 'compare two sets of comments' made by two different people about two different events and expect me to just magically determine your thought process. Answer the question, please - what am I omitting? I request you a.)answer this question and b.) explain your evidence for coming to that conclusion. Be TRANSPARENT about how you came to this conclusion that I am lying by omission - please. RomeViharo (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

huh??? What the hell does this even mean??

And yet another.

Creepy behavior includes such things as hitting on women persistently or disrespectfully, assuming they are looking for attention, failing to read obvious body language (ie., head down, reading a book, listening to music) and trying to start up a conversation, and failing to take "no" for an answer.

Is this not true? If you keep doing what we keep pointing out and you seem to somewhat disagree with, You are a hypocrite.--The Madman (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

What does this even mean? How in the hell does this even relate to anything we are discussing? Can you at least give me ANY form of rational argumentation? Throwing out quotes that you believe have some associations and meaning is not argumentation, it's something you should be doing with your therapist. RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what's next

What is next, Rome? Will you stoop to insulting and belittling me as you have others? Will you try to accept my and many other's points? The Madman (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

With all respect - I'm giving you my 'snarky' side because that's the voice of Rational Wiki, right? I'm sorry that you feel belittled by this approach, I assumed it was the preferred manner of discourse since the site sure enjoys shelling it out quite frequently to whom ever miffs them. However, per your request - I will remove my snarky 'expression' and finish out the rest of 'what's next' in a voice I would prefer you would adopt with me as well.

I am trying to 'accept' your points and trying to determine which ones are valid. That's the problem, they are not valid, and I am asking you to reconsider these points that you're making. The biggest problem I have is the over all point this article on Rational Wiki makes on me. It says I am known for trolling (I'm only known for trolling on Rational Wiki). It says I promote pseudoscience (yet offers no evidence that Rome viharo promotes pseudoscience other than editing a BLP on Wikipedia. It accuses me of sockpuppeting and creates an impression of me that is not accurate. It makes innaccurate or misleading statements regarding the OS 0 12 meme and the TEDx talk. This article seeks to discredit me for things that are not even true. Additionally - my JOB is online content and media strategy and I'm actually known for being a white hat player, this article suggests otherwise and is harmful to my professional life. Additionally it's designed to read like an embarrassment, contrary to who I am. Additionally, things that Rational Wiki could legitimately criticize me for are missed, and inaccuracies regarding my POV is misrepresented throughout the article. My professional life is how i take care of my family and my team that works with me. My integrity with people I work with and my responsibilities I take very seriously. You and whomever has played any role in the construction of this article have harmed my ability to be a professional in my marketplace. So now my family and people I work with have to lose too. That's what your playing right? you want me to lose? Because if you were just seeking to make the article about me more accurate, fair, rational I would expect to be engaged with reasonably. RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What deception again?? and I have nothing to do with Craig Weiler

Weiler has never read Wikipedia policy, but are you willing to correct his mistakes Viharo?

Well, are you? At this point, the deception has become obvious to so many. You don't want to be ostracized, do you? You're afraid of isolation. Fear is the mind killer, Rome.--The Madman (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

WHAT DECEPTION? if it's so obvious, how come none of you can be clear about it? I only know Craig Weiler through his blog and him covering the Wikipedia issue. I have absolutely no other dealings with Craig Weiler, never met him before this. What am I hiding here again? Also, why would I correct Craig Weiler's mistakes? Why would i even care if he made any mistakes? and what mistakes did he make? I don't even know much about his work, still have not read his book, and am not interested in commenting publicly on it anyway. RomeViharo (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Madmen, I can't accept your points only because they do not make sense they just read like random associations to me

Or maybe this.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

You claim to be reasonable and you prattle on about empirical. This is what empirical is. I've made this mistake before. It hurts when you don't have a open mind, doesn't it?--The Madman (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Sorry I have zero idea of what this means, I need you to explain yourself simply and rationally. Respectfully explain to me the exact deception you're accusing me of, the evidence you believe supports it . RomeViharo (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

viharo, let's get this straight

viharo, you said

Wikipedia let's [sic] users have more than one account, first off. Secondly, having more than one account is not socking. Let's go over this one more time. Socking is having TWO or MORE accounts on ONE page or discussion thread at the SAME TIME.

let's take the last sockpuppet blocked, halfman halfthing, who said

Nothing controversial here and not socking. I'm not participating in the Sheldrake article either. Nothing disruptive here at all....If my edit on that page was so controversial, then remove it. I'm not here to haggle, harass or sock. Halfman halfthing (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive#02_January_2014

this is in accord with the sockpuppet definition you gave here. it looks like you are not denying that halfman halfthing was you. rather, you are denying that halfman halfthing can be called a sockpuppet, right?

Hope this straightens it out

Correct, I am denying that Halfman halfthing can be called a sockpuppet. I had ONE account on Wikipedia since 2006. That account was permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia and while editing Wikipedia under that account I had NO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNTS. If you think I did, I need to see evidence of that. I know there is no evidence of that because thats simply the truth. AFTER my Tumbleman account was banned, something that I find deeply offensive, unethical, inappropriate and manipulated by activist editors - I created another account since mine was blocked. that account was philosophy fellow. That account was not a 'sock'. It was my ONLY working account. I broke the AE ruling, yes - and I invoke 'break all rules' as my justification, I believe I did so in the spirit of making Wikipedia better. That account was then blocked. If you look at the sockpuppet definition on Wikipedia, you will see that at no point, including Philosophy Fellow or any other account that I may create to edit wikipedia is not violating anything in Wikipedia's guidelines as sockpuppetry. RomeViharo (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

viharo, your answer is ambiguous. let's put aside the definition of sockpuppetry. forget about that. you are the person corresponding to the halfman halfthing account, right? RBryant (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, or was corresponding - but not corresponding on the Sheldrake article and nothing disruptive. Since that account was blocked, I will probably create another account at some point to work on Wikipedia, which I believe I am entitled to. I just want to have a Wikipedia account. I'm not interested in having more than one but if activist editors keep trying to silence my voice on Wikipedia, I have to keep creating accounts after they do. I do not honor the AE ruling to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia. However, that does not mean I am a disruptive editor or I wish to cause havoc, I don't. I'm just not going to use another account on the Sheldrake article again or participate in any way on the Sheldrake discussion unless my Tumbleman account is unblocked and the editors involved in my harassment have been sanctioned off the article.

Question, who cares and what does this have to do with anything? This is not socking - it's called creating an account. I don't have to disclose these things and non disclosure of these things should not be used against me which is what you're kinda trying to do here. I'm also entitled to anonymous editing, and I've already extended enough good faith to be transparent with you where I don't even have to be. Other than my disregard for the AE ruling, can you provide any evidence of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia directly? I'm also used to having transparency exploited rather than appreciated here, so I expect some sort of reasonable thought through answer on your part. I expect a link to evidence of my disruption, and a falsifiable summary of how you believe the evidence makes your case. RomeViharo (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

viharo, i'm just getting the facts. you were also 23.241.74.200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive#08_December_2013) and 70.211.67.178 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman/Archive#18_December_2013), right? RBryant (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)