Talk:Rome Viharo/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Philosophy Fellow debunked[edit]

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.. So clearly I have mentioned my accounts on Wikipedia. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome Viharo changes the definitions of words from those in the context of original writing, to something else. On wikipedia, if an account is blocked, editing IP or editing with another account is considered sock puppetry, whether the account is disclosed or not, and Philosophy Fellow certainly was not disclosed until identified. The "reasons" elaborated on the WeHaveAProblem site were precisely to evade the block, because he considered the block abusive. His reasons are then irrelevant to the charge of "sock puppetry," which stands.
He also acknowledged, on Wikipedia, having given his password to someone else, allegedly to edit text in his user sandbox (which would be totally unnecessary, that could have been edited IP, easily, or with the other person's account). Wikipedia policy is clear about this. The TOS prohibits giving anyone else your Wikipedia password, and if one does, one may then set up an appearance of sock puppetry. And they don't really care if you are *really* a different person, they will treat you as the same, and they really couldn't handle this any other way.
Rome Viharo is a troll, and the evidence of that is clear, here on RationalWiki and on this page. I might in some ways be sympathetic to his claims of pseudoskepticism on Wikipedia -- or here --, but I would not continually shove those claims in the face of users here on RationalWiki because it would simply be wasting everyone's time, i.e., it would be trolling.
The most amazing aspect of this affair is the claim of Viharo that Sheldrake asked him to look at the Wikipedia article. Viharo was totally unskilled on Wikipedia, dead wrong about the policies and customs of the place, and acted in such a way as to alienate other users who might otherwise have been sympathetic. His reports of what happened on Wikipedia are full of inaccuracies. He was not, for example, "banned." He was blocked. His talk page access was revoked because he abused the access. Yes, he wasn't welcomed and was treated harshly. But what did he expect? He was confronting a phalanx of established editors, without paying the dues necessary to become a recognized member of the Wikipedia community. He was doing this alone, without finding a mentor who understood what would work and what would not work, and following the mentor's advice. In short, just another opinionated self-important blowhard. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not 'changing the definitions of words' I am correcting how the definitions of words are used to harass me. I never had more than one account on wikipedia at one time. I was banned through outing and personal attacks in a manner that was unethical and against the spirit of WP - I do not respect that decision. So I shared my password with someone? that means I get banned indef from editing Wikipedia? that means I can get harassed and attacked by editors and admins? That means my arguments in Talk are not valid? that means I'm trolling? get real on that excuse. I was not DEADWRONG about any of Wikipedia's policy's Abd - and i had a WP mentor also walking me through every step. I was unskilled at the customs, but that does not justify the harassment especially when the customs of Wikipedia actually conflict with the spirit of WP guidelines. I disagree with your assesment and it's relevance. One would think that WP would want to welcome someone interested in spending time absorbing the guidelines and work hard to argue for neutrality. RomeViharo (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If my actions here on Rational Wiki are trolling to you, then I hope you appreciate how your actions on Rational Wiki are to me. I'm just defending myself and standing up to harassment. I'm also disclosing who I am and being transparent. I think any reasonable person can see that this is an honest defense and I am not sure what sort of reactions you would expect - when anyone believes they are being attacked and harassed I would think anyone would expect pushback. RomeViharo (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I was attacked and here is the evidence[edit]

First, I did not willingly 'out' myself posting my name was an accident and the issue your talking about only counts if someone 'willingly' posts this information. Also, I cleared it up with Vzaak immediately that this was private information and I did not want it posted, which was violated anyway. Secondly, unless someone was hounding me, there was no way to match the accounts. Thirdly, you're missing that even if I did out myself, using an editor's past work, anywhere, including even on Wikipedia itself, is the very definition of what Wikipedia calls a 'Personal attack' and it's harassment. and LASTLY taking off wiki work from 8 years ago and using it to frame me as a troll on Wikipedia to ban me from editing and then defaming me on my talk page is standard online harassment. RomeViharo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. [1]. Yeah, one can find policy about outing, but Viharo did not handle this as would be handled by a user who had accidentally outed himself. He obviously doesn't care about the exposure of his name, because of his very explicit acknowledgement here. I do suspect it was accidental. I looked at earlier contributions, and he had not signed comments using the standard tildes. He may have set up the signature years earlier, and forgot about it, never having used it. So when he dove in to the Sheldrake Talk page, by this time, he knew to use the tildes, saw the signature with Rome Viharo in it, and edited it out. At that point, if he'd had smarts, and wanted to keep his anonymity, he'd have abandoned that account. He'd have asked for revision deletion, there is a procedure for that.
He wasn't smart, or didn't care. On the latter theory, he only brings it up now as additional mud to toss. --Abd (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
So true. There's something called Oversight which could have handled the issue discreetly and without any fuss. But a know-nothing who charges in like an obnoxious know-it-all tends to be left to stew in their own juices, which is what I suspect happened in this case. Leuders (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Leuders, Abd you're just misinformed. OF COURSE I handled it the only way I knew how to handle it, by fixing the problem of my signature! Secondly, unless someone was hounding me, who would know that Rome Viharo was tumbleman? It was only in an archived talk discussion. If some searches Tumbleman contributions, they will not see Rome Viharo. Secondly, when Vzaak did address it - I immediately took the issue into mediation to make it CLEAR that I did not want my name posted.. And what your failing to miss is that even if I did do it intentionally or didnt care - then Vzaak STILL attacked me personally as defined as a personal attack on Wikipedia. I was harassed and outed for things I did online in 2005. So the issue of my outing my name or not does not change the fact that i was personally attacked and information about my past was abused to ban me on Wikipedia. All your arguing for now is that some people just deserve it. I'm sorry, I hope you see why I cannot agree with that statement. I dont believe this sort of behavior belongs in collective editing especially when there is critical discussion. RomeViharo (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The most important take away[edit]

There is no evidence of disruptive behaviors happening in the Sheldrake article by 'Tumbleman' yet the rational wiki supports a narrative which suggests the opposite. Tumbleman's banning and humiliation on Wikipedia and additionally this Rational Wiki article are supporting a narrative that is misleading and not consistent with evidence. The conclusions this article is based around is a result I am claiming is 'groupthink'. This entire talk page on my article is detailing the levels of argumentation editors are willing to go through to establish a rationalization in a group think situation online to support the groupthink narrative. This talk section is valuable data for Phase 2 building for AL 0 1 2 and will serve as a secondary case study. AL 0 1 2 is a collective editing platform that has a unique discussion methodology and algorithm that can sort statements by rational consensus or personal commentary. Thanks for helping guys :) RomeViharo (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's a wiki with functional LiquidThreads and Reddit-style up/downvoting? Can you release something under an open-source license if it's cognizant? Edric (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Edric thanks for asking. Discussion threading is very unique in the platform. You just have to see it to get it. Reddit style up/downvoting is a feature, but voting ranking only has context in the 'personal commentary' section of the platform and it's not used to deliberate rational consensus. I'm not sure how I am going to structure licensing yet. ideally I would like to publish in commons but I also have to deal with investment dollars too, so it could be both. We are going to begin test discussions in a few weeks. By Oct of 2014, Wikipedia editors could in principle use the AL 0 1 2 discussion engine to edit articles back on Wikipedia, i.e. Wikipedia could use it to run it's Talk process. AL 0 1 2 ideally would be available for any wiki's to integrate with, even rational wiki and boy would that be a hoot. RomeViharo (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Shamans and plants[edit]

Rome you claim you aren't a crank, so then how do you explain your video about how you believe shamans can talk to plants? Was this another "meme"? I think your "meme" claim is just a backup you resort to. You hold laughable tin-foil hat views for short-periods of time, but instead of admitting you formerly held them you claim it was only ever a "meme" out of embarrassment. Gecko (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Gecko. Rome, you have a problem. I know what that feels like.--The Madman (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Did you even watch the Talk? interpretations wildly off the mark, dont seem valid for an article on me[edit]

Well The Madman, I understand that's the opinion you have of me. And you're welcome to have that personal interpretation, I wont take you away from the 'Rome that you love'. I just disagree with your interpretation of me as being an objective representative of my worldview therefore making a rational wiki article on me an opinion op ed that is just functioning as payback for editing Rupert's article. In the video you mention 'Google Consciousness' - there is no such claim that I believe shamans can talk to plants. The mention of shamans in peru is editorial. they claim they can talk to plants. I've just talked to shamans. I am reporting that they claim they can talk to plants. Yes personally I find that culture to be absolutely fascinating and I do not deny my curiosities - but I never stated what I believe. Indeed, the Talk questioned the validity of talking to plants, and even asked 'are spirits just metaphors for memes?' taking their ideas and bringing them into materialism. Naturally I see the article completely misinterprets the question as a claim. How rediculous to do that! Nor do I argue for what I believe in the TEDx talk OTHER THAN social media evolving into collaborative government - why do you attack me for things you just think I believe? attack me for my actual statements. You're critique of my TEDx talk (did you even watch it??) is just based on your own misunderstandings of what I as the author of the talk intended. Also your claim that somehow I am using some sort of 'meme back up cover story' to backpeddle what my intentions were to be honest is an argument you're about to make into absurditum. Not only is my TEDx talk a 'story' about a 'meme', the TEDx talk TELLS you this in the talk. I actually say in the talk 'we don't know what we are talking about' and 'this was all just fun stuff to consider' and it became a 'meme' which is how we got this talk which is now just going to spread the meme so here is what we really want this meme to be about 'using social media to build collaborative government'. I SAY THIS CLEARLY IN THE TALK. You're simply unable to process the context of the entire talk, i.e. therefore you do not even understand the TEDx talk. Seriously, if you're smart enough to be editing wiki called rational wiki, will you please apply some friggin' critical thinking to your interpretations? Such emotion. So passion. Very personal. Wow. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Gecko's groupthink, explained[edit]

If you also look closely on Rome's website he mentions his support for something called the "noosphere" [2]. It's an idea the earth is surrounded by a 'mental' atmosphere or network of thought or consciousness. This is a view Sheldrake holds and is popular with new agers. One of Rome's heroes Buckminster Fuller also held similar views which influenced the new age movement. All this fits in with Rome's ideas about Global or Google consciousness and it it's to see why he takes interests in Sheldrake's fringe ideas. The concept of a noosphere is very similar to Sheldrake's morphic resonance. Rome also believes in shamans and spirits, so his claim that he is 'neutral' on such topics is also false. Is that right Rome? You also did not own up in the interview to creating sock puppet accounts. Your account Halfman halfthing was a sock. I don't think you have read Wikipedia policy. Gecko (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Rome has recently been interviewed http://www.skeptiko.com/236-rome-viharo-wikipedia-we-have-a-problem/ the interview is 42 minutes long. At around 16 minutes Rome says that Wikipedia editors publicly "ousted" his identity and this is against Wikipedia rules and is a example of cyber bullying. I don't think this is true. If you look through Rome's edits on his account Tumbleman he signed one of his posts 'Rome Viharo'. He may of done this by accident but it was himself who revealed his identity, nobody else. Alex also says at around 20-21 minutes that Rome is 'neutral' on the Rupert Sheldrake issue, and Rome throughout the interview at various moments responds he is not for or against Sheldrake's ideas and is agnostic on the matter. Sorry but no. There's no possible way Rome is neutral on the subject, everyone has their biases and it is easy to see Rome's. His entire existence on the Wikipedia talk page of Rupert Sheldrake was going mad at any editors who included any critical material about Sheldrake and accusing editors of being biased. Rome has since confessed to meeting Sheldrake and reading his books. We already known that early on he was supporting Sheldrake over the TED talks [3]. If Rome was neutral then why would he spend so much of his time talking about Sheldrake and supporting him on blogs and forums? Someone is telling porkies. Gecko (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gecko You're my prime candidate! How are you mr groupthink guy? please let's continue? I'm really the most fascinated by editors like you.

1. I am fascinated by all topics, theories, and hypothesis about consciousness, individual, global or otherwise. I appreciate Daniel Dennet's model of consciousness just as much as I do Sheldrake's or Penrose. Personally I am still puzzled over consciousness and I am not done exploring. That's my personal business. Find a quote of mine that states otherwise? I don't promote anything other than agnosticism to the topics I am interested in. I am very passionate about my agnosticism! So attack me for being an agnostic, yes please do and I do not mind. Attack me for being anything other than an agnostic is just an argument you're having with the Rome in your head and not me. I think you're confusing curiosity, exploration or interest with something else. I personally find the prophet muhammad to be a fascinating individual, does not make me a Muslim to read about him and Islam. And if my personal curiosities are such a fascination to you that you decided to create a rational wiki article on me - I hope you see why that is just creepy to me. Also, I'm a creative writer, I think you're confusing me with something else. To me it seems like you trying to out me for some 'thought crime', your attack seems to imply that anyone who explores certain ideas should be outed and harassed online, turning your worldview into something rather draconian. You may not agree with that, but that is how your actions look to me and a lot of other people. It's also why I am exposing them. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

2. I absolutely support and promote the ideas of Bucky Fuller and I endorse them, yes. Bucky is more than a curiosity to me. Bucky may have been a fan of some in the new age movement (although most I've met never heard of him) Bucky had many many fans in many different movements but primarily design. I have a creative background and I design media. He lectured over 500 times a year all over the world from the United Nations to universities worldwide. I draw from Bucky's design principles. If you want to attack me for this, go for it. Seems kinda dumb, you probably don't know any thing about Bucky's work. His was a design philosophy and Bucky was quite a notable poly math. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

3. As stated numerous times in talk, which NO ONE can refute without producing an absurd argument - a sock is having more than one account at one time to create false consensus or disruption. I NEVER HAD MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNT AT ONE TIME ON WIKIPEDIA. That's what the evidence shows. I could have another WP account right now, and it STILL would not be a sock. I hope you realize that repeating the same statement over and over in an argument is actually not an argument in and of itself. Also stating that it's your opinion is not an argument. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

4. Gecko If you actually believe that I outed myself and I am wrongly accusing Vzaak of outing me I wont even try to convince you otherwise. Let's say that's true. THEN I WAS JUST PERSONALLY ATTACKED on Wikipedia instead of outed and personally attacked. My banning from Wikipedia was an orchestration of a personal attack by Wikipedia's own definition of the term. So even if I did out myself as you claim - the harassment case does not change. However, I WAS outed because when my sig was signed, it was UNINTENTIONAL and I made that CLEAR by changing it and INFORMED Vzaak to that effect on day 3. WP anonymous or outing policy only applies if someone willing publishes their name. So either way your factually mistaken and too emotionally involved with the Rome in your head to see the forest for the trees. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

5. I already explained 'why' I got involved on Sheldrake's page here. If you want to have your own personal interpretation that contradicts my own honest transparency - then go for it but PLEASE JUST BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT IT IS. RomeViharo (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete template[edit]

I see nothing in this "article" of any use. It's just an attack piece on someone who, 11 years ago, had some sort of an idea or something? I say kill this with fire.

Most of the first section of this talk page consists of accusing the subject of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia can take care of itself. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm tempted to agree but I can't work out whether the intentions of the numerous posters here is too make this page such a godawful abomination that we delete it. If so we should keep it just to be 'ornery. Tielec01 (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
well viharo was sockpuppeting and trolling jref as recently as 2011. nonetheless, before viharo's spreading of pro-pseudoscience misinformation through his new website and his recent Skeptiko podcast interview, i would have said yes to the deletion. unfortunately, viharo has now positioned himself as a prominent purveyor of bullshit.
the article does need work; it needs to mention for example his redefinition of "sockpuppet", as shown on this talk page, which he uses to claim that he is not sockpuppeting on wikipedia. just typing "wikipedia sockpuppet" into google brings up the wikipedia policy saying that a blocked user is not permitted to return as another account (obviously, otherwise blocking makes little sense). by continuing to evade the block, viharo reinforces his classic role as a troll.
viharo now has similar prominence to craig weiler: an anti-skeptic website, interview on skeptiko, participates in skeptiko forums, etc. viharo is now a known figure in the woo community, and should have a corresponding rationawiki page. RBryant (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you're a guy who has took out an account two days ago and has only edited this one talk page, I'm sure you'll understand my indifference to your argument. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
at the end of the day, viharo is a prominent woo proponent putting out misinformation. at least one role of rationalwiki is to counter such misinformation, or so i thought. just sayin'. kill the messenger or don't kill the messenger, it's all good. RBryant (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the worst things about the internet is that it has rendered the word "prominent" virtually meaningless. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 04:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rome is now just as notable as his psychic healer friend Craig Weiler. So by your own rules you should delete Weiler's as well. Gecko (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite no small effort to bring the article up to RW standards, it's looking like a fail. There's not enough missionality around what is essentially a minor league BS artist who's lately hitched his star to Sheldrake. Could be he'll ascend to true woo celebrity in the future, but for now, I'd be happy to see the article gone. Leuders (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I say delete for now as well, and if that means we end up deleting the page on Weiler too, that's fine with me. I've never even heard of these people outside of RW, and see no reason why they're worth mentioning. Sheldrake is notable enough for us to talk about him, but his supporters are largely not. - GrantC (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
He did get relatively wide exposure for his TEDx thing, and that underlines the weaknesses of the TEDx concept (although I gather they've been working to tighten that up). That would be his primary relevance to this site, with the 012 thing coming in second to underline his crankiness, and take the whole Sheldrake/WP thing out entirely since it's irrelevant. I could see keeping a small article like that and expand it if he actually does something further worth noting.--Kels (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Cannot delete Weiler due to TEDx notability. Hipocrite 16:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Summarise in the internet kooks list instead. I don't see enough here for a full article. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep, for the sake of dissent. His pushing of the buttons of "closeminded ones" is incredibly funny. If that's not article-worthy, then maybe we should just delete all the articles about politics! Those guerilla skeptics are everywhere, dontcha you know? Everywhere....even in TED! In fact, life itself is filled with guerilla skepticism! WE must delete these articles to save the children!--The Madman (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Thanks for those that see that this article is worthless unless someone is interested in attacking someone online. it does not express my world view. I am not 'anti skeptic' but I am 'anti activist editors' and the ones I encountered there and here just happen to be activists that use harassment. That is what I am a critic of. I even make this clear. So if you want to have an article on me based on my case study on Wikipedia harassment in a wiki war, that seems reasonable to me, and a fair critique - however that is not what this article addresses. I am accusing SOME but not all adherents of skeptic activism of online harassment. I would accuse any WOO of this if I encountered WOO online harassment. I just happened to encounter SKEPTIC online harassment. I am not a psi promoter but I respect anyone's right to be interested in it or promote it. I'll defend anyone who is being attacked for what they believe or talk about. that's my position. the harassment of people who hold different ideas other than their own. that's just inappropriate. if you want to make that mean that I'm anti skepticism or anti science then your no better than FOX news turning Obama into a terrorist sympathizer because he shook someone's hand at a fund raiser. I am an agnostic. I stated that on Alex's program. I've stated that on Tumbleman's Talk page. I've stated that anywhere it's relevant. I'll even tweet it if it helps. RomeViharo (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion[edit]

I think both the Viharo and the Craig Weiler article should be deleted but a link of their name redirected to the Rupert Sheldrake article, where they are both mentioned in the Skeptical conspiracy section. Weiler is already covered in the TEDX controversy section on Sheldrake's article as well. There is no reason to have these separate articles. I think redirected to those sections on Sheldrake's article is a reasonable suggestion and it would also be easy considering if they were just deleted and not redirected there would be red links all over the place. Anyone agree? Gecko (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your logic while somewhat sound, does leave me with a moral question: How far does it go from Ignorance to bullshit? You see, I remember this little quote...
You see, on earth, We have this thing called tact.

Rome has crossed my personal line from tolerance/acceptance/snark to outright hatred. If I cannot hold my beliefs in without speaking out, then what am I as a human? Rome is the purest embodiment of outright denial for denial's sake I have ever seen. We must do better. If we cannot set limits on our views, we become that which we hate.--The Madman (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

The question becomes: Is Rome notable enough for RW? I honestly don't think so (same with Craig Weiler). Oh sure, there was some TEDx junk, but TEDx conferences are a dime a dozen. They're locally organized, don't really receive any oversight from TED itself, and if bullshit ends up showing up, TED only notices if someone complains. Sure, Rome has trolled around here a fair bit, but so what? Why is that relevant to anyone who isn't a regular editor here, or hell, even to anyone who becomes a regular editor here six months from now? - GrantC (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Individually, he's not a noteworthy figure, but with Chopra [4] Weiler [5] Sheldrake [6] and Tsakiris [7] all beating the same "there's an evil conspiracy of skeptics" drum, there is Something going on in the Land of Woo, and Rome has gotten himself plugged in to it. Whatever it is may eventually gel into a movement of some kind ("Fair Play for Pseudoscience"?) and would definitely be worthy of an in depth article. Leuders (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That I can agree with. I don't see the point of this article (nor the one on Weiler), but I would agree that the trend is potentially worth looking at. Whether it would be appropriate to look at it in a dedicated article or in an existing article I'm not so sure (mostly because I've spent little time thinking about that question, not because I have an opinion either way). - GrantC (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that would be a fair article - and I also agree that somehow I got caught up in it however, and I hope you appreciate the irony of this, I only got caught up in it because I was harassed on Rational Wiki! Do you think I wanted to sink all of my time into Wikipedia we have a problem.com when I could be working on my collective editor or my other business? I had to go public because I was attacked and this article on Rational Wiki was created on me AND it shows up #1 in search. If it was on page 3 I would not have bothered. But because this article misrepresents my view, and associates me with things that are also disreputable in my profession, and because I was attacked for trying to help edit a problematic article on Wikipedia, I had to make a public case to protect my own interests and work. I will be releasing a collective editor this year with a focus for Wikipedia, so you can see how an article like this is harmful. I am aware that some editors here don't care that it is harmful, even if I have disproven the majority of the claims here. They want to see me punished because this is a grudge match from editing a wikipedia article. RomeViharo (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no personal stake in this battle but I would point out that that RW has no "notability" criteria. The question should only be "Is this article on mission?". If it is not on mission then it needs to be flagged as such and its deletion debated based on that question.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The sockpuppet stuff I'd say is off-mission so dump them regardless. I can see the overall crazy ideas being on-mission though. --Kels (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on you comments I thought I should actually read the article Kels. But I see that it has been deleted without consensus. I don't really care that much but it seems to be a bad way to proceed. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To Rome:But all ideas are true, false or mystery! Clearly, you believe in moral grey, right? After all, lying is only bad when we plotting skeptics do it. After all, OS 0 12 can be used to reach any conclusion except that which Rome doesn't like. For example,

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

After all, he was just using the magical power of OS 0 12 to justify his views! There's nothing wrong with presenting a overly biased, chopped-up, bullshit, argument from authority, argument as long as you feel justified! Being felt hard done by is the shit, isn't it!

To the rest: See above. That will be my main statement on deletion. Keep pushing and you'll get all the notability required for this idiot. TL,DR:Keep.--The Madman (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Oh YES please keep pushing... believe me it helps me more. RomeViharo (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

On Rome, His Arguments, Madman's Clear Bias, Stupidity and more.[edit]

Now let me start off with a few things. I am maintaining that this is my opinion and mostly filled with snark combined with anger . After all, Everything I say is meant to be taken seriously! I tried to avoid the wiki page until I read through Rome's arguments, in a desire to be neutral as one can. But I will not allow this idiot to speak this shit like it's absolute truth and never be questioned. REPLY UNDER THE TOPICS THEMSELVES.

OS 0 12[edit]

Now let's start off with Rome's little pet project' and it's main viewpoints Now let me see if I can use this in a way to justify my argument from a "non-biased" point of view.

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.

Now, let's see. If Rome tries to claim to that he is a skeptic, that's true! If a skeptic tries to claim Rome is bullshitting, that's false! If a skeptic and a biased online community tell him to shut the fuck up about this, that's false! If one tries to hold a man accountable for bullshit, that's false if it's Rome but okay if others! If Rome makes morally questionable actions, that's mystery! If I say that's bullshit, that's false! If Rome claims there's a grand conspiracy against people like him and all skeptics are assholes only out to get him because he has the undeniable truth, that's true! If I compare him to lolcows, that's false!

Madman, your presentation is somewhat opaque. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are taking your cue from Viharo's style, addressing him in his own language, so to speak.
Ternary "logic" shows up in various places:
  • On RationalWiki, responses in the form of "yes/no/goat" are sought in plenty of contexts.
  • Some readings of Buddhist doctrine can be framed with a "true/false/MU" scheme.
  • In the lower half of hte internet, say from certain zones in reddit on down, one sometimes finds a "yes/no/FUCK YOU" paradigm.
  • Systems of electronic logic often include an undefined (or "forbidden") state, represented by a voltage in between the defined "1" and "0" states. Anyone thinking that such a thing is a way to avoid conflict and bring on world peace needs to examine their assumptions and think again.
  • There may be others— I can't be asked to catalogue them here.
I had a quick skim through Viharo's "formal" presentation of his wannabe meme, and found it shallow and pedantic, not unlike Lois Griffin's Quahog-style meat loaf. I bet that anyone else with the olfactory fortitude to wade through that screed will also detect a distinct ambience of bullshit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in...I think. I don't mind if people want to criticize those documents. They definitely need a re write and the whole meme was meant to always be published online as a work in progress and would update based on feedback from the discussions. That stopped in around 2007. I waaaay over explained something that's really simple in that link above. Also, i was in way over my head at the time, and felt the need to over compensate a few things but I still stand behind the core premise. Getting others to see the core premise as I see the core premise another issue entirely. So sure - some people think it's BS - but some people don't, or didnt at least back then. It made sense to some, and it looked like BS to others. Usually people who thought it was BS didn't understand it or confused it with something else. Personally I do not care - this has been a work in progress. And what I was attempting to define back then WORKED in live discussion, and that is where my focus is. Now, that 'BS' document you sniffed over has also evolved. It's actually a collective editor, something extraordinarily practical, programmatic and intuitive. Those six 'rules' you read about in the doc u mention were early attempts to frame the steps in an algorithm that rewards collaboration (the real meaning of 'world peace' in the meme, don't get so stuck on words:) in the form of editing permissions and can genuinely sort large scale discussions by rational consensus. So that's pretty cool. First iteration is ready in a few weeks, invite only. We are going to run some test discussions. I would like to personally invite you to check it out, considering you are critical of the platform, we are going to be testing these rules by having discussions about these rules so we can determine behavior rankings. Yes I am personally inviting you, a genuine invitation. Everyone is anonymous on the platform. No one will know it's you on the platform. If you want an invite email me at rome AT wikipedia we have a problem DOT com. This is for you only. RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If you or anyone here want to have an exchange regarding AL 0 1 2, then or now, I welcome it. If you just want to leave your opinion with an emphasis on the 'snark' - that's cool too. If you actually want to 'test' your opinion and actually see if it can maintain consistency or has any objective validity - we can do that but pick a discussion forum somewhere, this format wont be able to handle it. I do not think the core premise can be refuted without producing contradictions, but anyone is welcome to try. I'm not sure if AL 0 1 2 can bring 'world peace' the way your meaning is of world peace - but AL 0 1 2 can definitely bring and reward collaborative dialogue between two opposing points of view and bring them to resolution and publish the output. And it can do this online and at scale. Assuming adoption and utility (AL 0 1 2 has a number of utilities) - that's about as close to world peace as I ever intended or was hoping for. I welcome anyone to beat me up for this. I welcome your rancor :) RomeViharo (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sincere thanks for your invitation. I'm not feeling all that rancorous here— more like "that's nice, but would you mind providing an abstract in fewer than five hundred words?"
In my experience, prolixity is seldom an effective way to get a message across, and more often a way of lulling the marks into a state of compliance. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Yes WAAAY to wordy, completely over written. I agree. I too cringe when I read it. but a great exercise for me at the time. and of course it was all meant to be anonymous, but that of course did not work:) I can summarize it in a few sentences. AL 0 1 2 is a collective editor that sorts discussion by rational consensus (1), personal commentary (2), and open questions left unresolved by the community (0). Editing permissions are obtained only through collaborative sorting and opposing editors 'win' rational consensus in pairs. The larger the number of participants, the more refined, honest, credible and optimal the rational consensus. I'll make sure you get an invite when it's open. I need rational but skeptical minds :) RomeViharo (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I dont promote OS 0 1 2 anymore not since 2007[edit]

So right now, the only source of attention to that 'meme' is rational wiki. You're the only ones promoting it. And by you guys promoting it, you've actually brought alot of attention to AL 0 1 2 and I have already had a number of people contact me over it, one of them even gave me a small grant for phase 2. I've also been meaning to pull the site down, it served it's purpose. but may keep it up while this article continues. When AL 0 1 2 is ready (and it's a platform, not a document) that is what I will be promoting and rational wiki is invited to critique it if they feel it's valuable. I hardly think you will find it controversial. Which is kinda why I like the idea of you guys attacking AL 0 1 2 here, because the output of AL 0 1 2 is so rational and practical and the history of how it evolved is kinda funny with all the 'extreme views' of what it meant and the claims of BS and all. Especially you guys now, like 7 years after I stopped - focusing on the 'meme' you're actually giving credibility to it! Remember the meme says 'all ideas spread whether you agree with them or not' and that users will keep spreading the master meme even if they don't like it. of course, that was all tongue in cheek, but you all are proving it. So when it launches officially end of year, this page will function as a great 'case study' of how the meme kept spreading, years after the author stopped and this will sort of be a like an inside joke that keeps growing and growing. So thank you all for continuing to spread the master meme. I guess the master meme was right after all. lol RomeViharo (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving the Goalposts[edit]

I can show you the proof,Rome or not. I can show you the moving of them on a variety of topics such as...

  • Being a promoter of Psuedoscience
  • OS 0 12 being utter denial.
  • Bias and how he is biased.
  • The GSM.
  • Called a nut.
  • Lying.
  • Sockpuppetry.

Then amend the so-called OS 0 12 Basic. Go ahead. You're justified under OS 0 12's sound logic. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Show me how my thinking is wrong.

I'm not sure who wrote this - and I also just don't understand it. I see a list of things I assume I am accused of. That's all I see. I don't see any evidence of your 'thinking' at all to judge it one way or another. All I see is a list of things you accuse me of. Then you ask me to prove you wrong. Well, you're making the claim, should not the burden of proof be on you? Isn't that how skepticism works too? You're making a claim. I disagree with the conclusions of your claim. I've already written out an entire case study - so if you say I am lying, simply copy and paste the lie, provide your evidence, allow me to counter, and if your evidence and argument can pre vail then your thinking is sound! If your evidence and argument cannot prevail, then your thinking is irrational. But I can't do anything with a list. Also, some of the statements you make on that list do not seem to logically make any sense, such as 'OS 012 is being utter denial'....what does that even mean? I can't show you how irrational you are if I cannot at least see what you mean. RomeViharo (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In conclusion[edit]

Let's note that in this, I came to the wiki page from recent changes. Let that color your perception if it will. Go ahead, Rome. I dare you.--The Madman (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Can anyone help me comprehend Madman's lingo? What does this mean? I'm not sure why your path of discovery to content about me is relevant. I don't care about your discovery process, I only know that a few editors have written an attack piece on me as payback for editing a Wikipedia article and a number of you harass and bully people online to make your point. RomeViharo (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You're both incomprehensible idiots. Leave it at that. --Kels (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's not. did you have a point you wanted to make based on some sort of empirical argument or did you just want to wake up and have a snark fap? RomeViharo (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)