R.Viharo complains that his essay was deleted from Rationalwiki

[Lukas1986]

Quote:

I archived the essay here. It never received a completed edit so apologies for typos or a few rants on sentences. Oye.

And thus concluded the ‘reasoned debate’ about ‘evidenced based’ facts with the juvenile Rational Wiki community.

Source: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...nal-wiki.2182/

Here is his essay:

https://archive.today/m8Mhl

Also this is not completely true because rationalwiki writes that there was a essay so they do not deny that there was a critical essay about them from him:

Quote:

They then deleted the essay from Rational Wiki from all of the archives. As if it was never there.

Source: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thread...nal-wiki.2182/

However if you go the the site you get this:

Quote:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.
22:15, 18 April 2015 Miekal (Talk | contribs) deleted page Essay:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique (not when its incoherant ramblings. He has hus own website he can host this on., we have no reason to do so for him)
22:11, 18 April 2015 FuzzyCatPotato (Talk | contribs) restored page Essay:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique (122 revisions restored: Why not? Is dissent/criticism/ranting incoherently forbidden? Does a username somehow change something?)
21:59, 18 April 2015 Miekal (Talk | contribs) deleted page Essay:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique (because bons don't need essays where thet bitch we don't support them)
21:57, 18 April 2015 FuzzyCatPotato (Talk | contribs) restored page Essay:Rome Viharo revisits Rational Wiki, a critique (122 revisions restored: why?)

Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:R...ki,_a_critique

[dlorde]

I can see why some of them wouldn't want such a critical essay up there, but, for a Rational Wiki, they haven't provided particularly rational arguments for deleting it; e.g. is it in breach of contributory guidelines? is it not in line with the aims and objectives of the site? etc. Calling it 'incoherent ramblings' isn't much of an argument.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by dlorde

I can see why some of them wouldn't want such a critical essay up there, but, for a Rational Wiki, they haven't provided particularly rational arguments for deleting it; e.g. is it in breach of contributory guidelines? is it not in line with the aims and objectives of the site? etc. Calling it 'incoherent ramblings' isn't much of an argument.

Actually, if it really IS INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS that would seem a perfectly good reason for tossing it overboard as it were.

[RayG]

The link below has additional details.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo

RayG

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Actually, if it really IS INCOHERENT RAMBLINGS that would seem a perfectly good reason for tossing it overboard as it were.

One might reasonably expect some example of how or why it should be considered incoherent and/or rambling. Otherwise any post someone dislikes could be deleted as incoherent ramblings.

But meh, I suppose it gives them something to argue about...

[Lukas1986]

The essay is back on rationalwiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:R...ki,_a_critique

[zooterkin]

Incoherent ramblings seems quite likely, given the author. He's responsible for a load of nonsense on the internet, including my presence here.

[kookbreaker]

Looks like a load of 'I am so great!!!'. Can't say I am surprised it was removed in the first place.

[Beerina]

I've been turned off Rational Wiki for years given the articles (not opinion pieces) loaded with ranting and innuendo.

If I were to describe Rational Wiki using Rational Wiki-like rhetoric, I'd say they have all the festering of Encyclopedia Dramatica with none of the cleverness." Actually, that's a bit clever for them.

It started so well years ago.

[zooterkin]

Having read through some of the 'essay', I can say it's as accurate as I'd expect from him. Just for example, he was using the Bubblefish 'persona' as recently as four years ago, not the twelve he'd like you to think, and he was still pushing OS 123 here only eight years ago, if not more recently.

[krelnik]

It is clear to me, if only from his extreme verbosity, that this guy is just a troll trying to soak up as much of everyone's time as possible. Every comment elicits a gigantic reply from him, no issue is too small for him to write thousands of words on it.

Do not let him waste your time, he's not worth the trouble. He's been angry for years that the top result in Google for his own name is the RationalWiki article about him, so he's just trying to annoy/aggravate/rile the editors. Don't fall for it.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by krelnik

It is clear to me, if only from his extreme verbosity, that this guy is just a troll trying to soak up as much of everyone's time as possible. Every comment elicits a gigantic reply from him, no issue is too small for him to write thousands of words on it.

Do not let him waste your time, he's not worth the trouble. He's been angry for years that the top result in Google for his own name is the RationalWiki article about him, so he's just trying to annoy/aggravate/rile the editors. Don't fall for it.

It's not entirely wasted time, he did once pay me $100 for pointing out where he had contradicted himself.

[krelnik]

Well that's cool, I guess.

I'm just acutely aware of how trollish behavior acts as a Denial of Service attack on the target's available time, if you let it. Time is a finite resource that needs to be jealously guarded.

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Having read through some of the 'essay', I can say it's as accurate as I'd expect from him. Just for example, he was using the Bubblefish 'persona' as recently as four years ago, not the twelve he'd like you to think, and he was still pushing OS 123 here only eight years ago, if not more recently.

Using my Bubblefish account on the forum is not the same as the bubblefish show that was performed online in 2003, 2004, which is the OS Bubblefish 'Flame Warrior' web page many of you pass around. The last OS 012 discussion that I did on the internet was on this forum in 2007. Since then, I've probably created a dozen projects. This obsession on one particular creative project of mine here is a bit over the top.

That was eight years ago. Eight years is plenty of time to get over a divorce, heal from a major accident, and recover from a natural disaster. It should be plenty of time for all of you to get over one discussion almost a decade ago, or even 4 years ago.

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

It is clear to me, if only from his extreme verbosity, that this guy is just a troll trying to soak up as much of everyone's time as possible.

Telling someone they are verbose is a fair criticism, however that's not trolling, it's just being wonky. I don't recall editors on Wikipedia getting me banned because I was 'verbose'. I remember them getting me banned because i was a troll conducting a 'global social media experiment' designed to cause conflict 'all over the internet' citing this discussion here from 2007 and 'Bubblefish, Flame Warrior' website from 2003 as the *sole* evidence of my intentions on Wikipedia.

Quote:

Do not let him waste your time, he's not worth the trouble. He's been angry for years that the top result in Google for his own name is the RationalWiki article about him, so he's just trying to annoy/aggravate/rile the editors. Don't fall for it.

Sure - don't read what I wrote on Wikipedia we have a problem.com, specifically about 'Tim Farley' fudging data and participating in the editorial abuses occurring on Wikipedia. You've specifically have been a subject of extreme interest to that project. WWHP is highly critical of you.

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

Well that's cool, I guess.

I'm just acutely aware of how trollish behavior acts as a on the target's available time, if you let it. Time is a finite resource that needs to be jealously guarded.

Then you should have picked your online squabbles more wisely and spent your time doing something collaborative on Wikipedia instead of crappy agenda based editing.

I can assure you that libeling someone, harassing someone can potentially cost allot more than just time.

[krelnik]

Thank you, Rome, for exactly underscoring my point with examples of your behavior right here in the thread. As for WWHP, I find it an entertaining work of fiction and nothing more.

[isissxn]

Originally Posted by WWHP

Then you should have picked your online squabbles more wisely and spent your time doing something collaborative on Wikipedia instead of crappy agenda based editing.

I can assure you that libeling someone, harassing someone can potentially cost allot more than just time.

This post as well as your last post sound vaguely threatening and somewhat unhinged. Is this your intent?

[jhunter1163]

Do not make threats of legal action. Such threats are grounds for immediate banning. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By:jhunter1163

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

Thank you, Rome, for exactly underscoring my point with examples of your behavior right here in the thread. As for WWHP, I find it an entertaining work of fiction and nothing more.

Actually, you claimed I was verbose. Clearly my behaviors in this thread are short and sweet. If you think me responding to a comment you made about me in a public forum is a time sink for you - imagine what a time sink it's been for me having to defend harassment and public shaming for having editorial disputes anonymously while editing Wikipedia.

That you may find it to be fiction is different than what I claim it to be. I claim it's an evidenced based report, open to third party verification. I also post a screen grab from comments you made on Facebook in a place of public media directly about me as a person.

That's not fiction, right? That's a screen grab.

For you to declare that my site is fiction means you are declaring that I am now misrepresenting facts and being deceitful.

I request you do a little honest self reflection on what you've done. It's highly irresponsible and most importantly, a betrayal to principles you claim to promote.

I can't post links here because this account is new. Anyone can go to wikipediawehaveaproblem dot com to check evidence.

I cant sign into my old bubblefish account here because PW's, email lost and forgotten.

[Steve001]

This topic has gotten much play at Skeptiko by Viharo himself.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by WWHP

I can't post links here because this account is new. Anyone can go to wikipediawehaveaproblem dot com to check evidence.

I cant sign into my old bubblefish account here because PW's, email lost and forgotten.

You might want to look more closely at your post count, for example. Your new account has been merged with the Bubblefish account (it's a breach of the MA to have more than one).

[krelnik]

Originally Posted by Steve001

This topic has gotten much play at Skeptiko by Viharo himself.

Steve - WWHP appears to be Viharo right here in this thread. The account name stands for "Wikipedia We Have a Problem" his long-winded rant site about how terribly he was treated on Wikipedia.

What he fails to point out is that he stated from the beginning on his own "talk page" that he was not on Wikipedia to do anything productive. He claimed to be doing a case study of editor behavior by engaging largely on talk pages. The Wikipedia community understandly takes a very dim view of this sort of thing.

And indeed his edit history on Wikipedia reflects that he wasn't interested in actually doing productive work on the encyclopedia. Only 9% of the edits he ever did were of actual Wikipedia content that the public sees. Particularly during the Sheldrake edit war in the fall of 2013, he only made 10 actual edits and 7 of those were undoing the work of other editors with argumentative checkin comments.

Not surprisingly, he has been banned from Wikipedia, and rightly so.


EDIT: Weird, the forum kept truncating the URL in that last link and rendering it useless. Worked around using a URL shortener.

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by krelnik

Steve - WWHP appears to be Viharo right here in this thread. The account name stands for "Wikipedia We Have a Problem" his long-winded rant site about how terribly he was treated on Wikipedia.

What he fails to point out is that he stated from the beginning on his own "talk page" that he was not on Wikipedia to do anything productive. He claimed to be doing a case study of editor behavior by engaging largely on talk pages. The Wikipedia community understandly takes a very dim view of this sort of thing.

And indeed his edit history on Wikipedia reflects that he wasn't interested in actually doing productive work on the encyclopedia. Only 9% of the edits he ever did were of actual Wikipedia content that the public sees. Particularly during the Sheldrake edit war in the fall of 2013, he only made 10 actual edits and 7 of those were undoing the work of other editors with argumentative checkin comments.

Not surprisingly, he has been banned from Wikipedia, and rightly so.


EDIT: Weird, the forum kept truncating the URL in that last link and rendering it useless. Worked around using a URL shortener.

Until Viharo showed up there I had never heard of him. Even now I cannot care less over the whatever he's complaining about. I mentioned his posting there in case anyone would be interested.

[Lukas1986]

The campaign of Viharo against Rationalwiki continues:

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2...i-says-part-1/

[zooterkin]

I don't understand the first sentence (leaving aside the fact that he's used the wrong spelling for 'complements', and said "an biographical"); what does it mean? I don't think I'll bother to read on.

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

What he fails to point out is that he stated from the beginning on his own "talk page" that he was not on Wikipedia to do anything productive.

Tim, what I say on my talk page, and what you say I mean, are two different things. What I say on my talk page is called being transparent. It doesn't say I'm not there to be productive. I may have worded it improperly - but I'm just being transparent, which is far more honest than Manul or the other handful of editors on Wikipedia.

Quote:

He claimed to be doing a case study of editor behavior by engaging largely on talk pages. The Wikipedia community understandly takes a very dim view of this sort of thing.

Not entirely true Tim, you're trying to justify what happened on Wikipedia right now and it's a bit disingenuous. I used a poor choice of words 'case study', and I also clarified that on my talk page, retracted some of my statements, and engaged with the community about it, who then accepted my answers. I broke no WP policy

Quote:

And indeed his edit history on Wikipedia reflects that he wasn't interested in actually doing productive work on the encyclopedia. Only 9% of the edits he ever did were of actual Wikipedia content that the public sees. Particularly during the Sheldrake edit war in the fall of 2013, he only made 10 actual edits and 7 of those were undoing the work of other editors with argumentative checkin comments.

I think you're misleading your community here how Wikipedia works. Making edits on a Wikipedia page, and engaging in negotiations about those edits, are two kinds of activities that happen while editing on Wikipedia. If someone wants to judge my contributions to the process, they can simply look at my talk page arguments to determine my activity.

Additionally, you completely fudged your data on your blog, and I busted you for that on my site, Wikipedia we have a problem.

The fact is, I did very little actual 'editing' on the Sheldrake article, most of my work was in consensus building. You failing to inform your community here that I actually had majority consensus on Sheldrake.

You're also failing to mention here that I successfully negotiated another wiki war over Deepak Chopra's biography page, won the support of senior Wikipedia editors and admins. If I was such a 'troll', I don't think I would have been able to do that.

I believe it's remarkably deceptive of you to spin what happened on Wikipedia the way you do to your community.

Edited by jsfisher:

Final portion of this post related to forum management. It has been excised from here. A thread of its discussion has been started in the appropriate forum section here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post10628021

[krelnik]

Originally Posted by WWHP

The fact is, I did very little actual 'editing' on the Sheldrake article, most of my work was in consensus building.

You did the exact OPPOSITE of consensus building - you picked a fight with other editors every time you could. One doesn't even have to look further than the belligerent check-in comments you made while undoing the hard work of others.

Quote:

You're also failing to mention here that I successfully negotiated another wiki war over Deepak Chopra's biography page, won the support of senior Wikipedia editors and admins.

What you are failing to mention is your involvement in the Deepak Chopra page, by which I assume you mean the SAS81 account, was actually in violation of the sock puppet rules of Wikipedia since you had already one or more accounts banned from the encyclopedia. This is all documented on the extremely long administration page devoted to your blatant sock puppeting.

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

You did the exact OPPOSITE of consensus building - you picked a fight with other editors every time you could.

Quite false and demonstrably so. I HAD majority consensus on the Sheldrake article. It's just that the skeptic editors were not in that consensus.

Quote:

One doesn't even have to look further than the belligerent check-in comments you made while undoing the hard work of others.

One does have to look further if they want to verify if what you're saying is misleading or not. Those comments are being made to the skeptic editors who are the ones doing the reverting, so you have things switched around. They are comments in response to very belligerent actions they are taking. They were disrespectful and belligerent to all other editors, even David in DC left the article disgusted at how petty the skeptic editors were. They won the article by bullying. And you're apart of that strategy.

Other than that, my commenting was pretty much left to wonky WP policy discussions and sources. I think I show quite a professional restraint, considering I was getting harassed, libeled, outed and discredited while I was building a dedicated consensus.

Quote:

What you are failing to mention is your involvement in the Deepak Chopra page, by which I assume you mean the SAS81 account, was actually in violation of the sock puppet rules of Wikipedia since you had already one or more accounts banned from the encyclopedia.

That's not sockpuppeting - that's me breaking my ban on Wikipedia. Two different things. I don't fail to mention it, I mention it all the time.

Sockpuppeting is faking consensus, having more than one account at the same time on the same article. I've never done that. Creating a new account because my previous one is banned is called a refusal to honor the decision made by Wikipedia admins in an harassment campaign.

The joke is actually on you and the other Wikipedia editors you work alongside with. While I've been banned indef as a troll and sockpuppet mastermind, none of my accounts have done any disruptive editing, they both have just been successful in consensus building and community support. If the claims made against me as 'Tumbleman' were true - then SAS81 should not have been able to be so successful on Wikipedia on Chopra's article. SAS81 WON the wiki war on Sheldrake by building a consensus, winning support from senior wikipedia admins and senior wikipedia editors, especially SlimVirgin. The skeptic editors were admonished.

On Sheldrake's article - although I was banned, the actual arguments that I introduced continued to be carried on and argued for by many other editors. While I was naive as to how Wikipedia admins would handle Manul and your other pals, I actually proved the efficacy of my approach on Chopra. Facts are facts.

I'm proud to break my ban on Wikipedia and I'm proud of my work on Wikipedia. If I have to be called a sock puppet because i broke my ban to make a critical point about platform harassment, then fire away.

Quote:

This is all documented on the extremely long administration page devoted to your blatant sock puppeting.

Nah, it's not all documented there - it's all documented here.

[krelnik]

You can't redefine terms to suite your own purposes. You were banned, you created another account and returned - that's a sock puppet under Wikipedia rules.

It doesn't matter how wonderfully you behaved as SAS81 - your very presence was breaking a rule. It's like saying, "Sure, I broke into your house, but didn't I mop the floor and tidy the kitchen while I was there?"

[WWHP]

Originally Posted by krelnik

You can't redefine terms to suite your own purposes. You were banned, you created another account and returned - that's a sock puppet under Wikipedia rules.

Correct, that is an *augmented* definition of sockpuppeting, creating one account after another one has been blocked. However, that's not 'socking' on a Wikipedia article. I take responsibility for breaking my ban.

Quote:

It doesn't matter how wonderfully you behaved as SAS81 - your very presence was breaking a rule.

My presence there was breaking a rule that was created under false pretenses. If I was not harassed and libeled, I never would have gotten blocked for my own behaviors. That's the part your missing.

Quote:

It's like saying, "Sure, I broke into your house, but didn't I mop the floor and tidy the kitchen while I was there?"

Nah, it's not like saying that at all. It's more like I was kicked out of a house that I live in because other people who were guests in that house said I was a bum without a job and couldn't keep up with the housework. So I simply rented another room under a different name and continued to keep up with the housework as promised.

I don't believe I'm required to respect rules that are issued from a place of harassment. Also, Wikipedia itself has a rule....that is to break all rules if a rule is standing in the way of making an article or the encyclopedia better.

So while i may have broken my ban - I've kept my integrity with Wikipedia.

[George 152]

So WWHP how are things in pendantia ?
And shouldn't you go back ?