View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:23 am




Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Come play the Wikipedia BLP-Palooza 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 28
Reply with quote
Hola chicos y chicas,

I don't post many of my articles here, but this one I am.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018 ... -pallooza/

Thoughts and/or constructive criticism appreciated. I'm encouraging interested parties (hopefully some bloggers or press, as well as certain tech companies) to take the same steps I did to see the actual problem live.

Cheers!


Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:32 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Good read - "Intelligent design" is just Creationism-kinda, a "maybe a Higher Power connived things together" view of how Everything came into being, just so that you know.

I would destroy Farley talking about UFOs and Fortean WeirdCrap for hours until his brains would melt.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:49 am
Profile
Banned_Troll
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 19
Reply with quote
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo

Wikipedia We Have A Problem is a fake news website that Viharo uses to publish misinformation, made-up stories and wild allegations about Wikipedia and RationalWiki admins.

Viharo, originally editing as "Tumbleman" was permanently blocked from Wikipedia in October 2013 for disruption and sockpuppetry.[48][49] He was banned from RationalWiki in January 2014. Disgruntled, he created the website Wikipedia We Have A Problem, to protest against his bans and spread a paranoid conspiracy theory that a group of skeptics were responsible for cyberbullying him and getting him kicked off these wikis. No evidence for the conspiracy theory appears to exist, nor was Viharo harassed. He was banned on Wikipedia for disrupting, trolling and causing a flame war on the Rupert Sheldrake article, as well as using multiple accounts; for similar shenanigans on RationalWiki.

In November 2013, a user named "David1234" created the Rome Viharo RationalWiki entry after Viharo's name was briefly mentioned on Rupert Sheldrake's RW article. Viharo to this day on his website claims the article was created by a RationalWiki sysop, who he claims was an editor involved in his ban from Wikipedia a month prior. No evidence is presented for the allegation. Viharo also claims, without evidence, that the skeptic Tim FarleyWikipedia's W.svg was involved in editing his RW article; Farley denies having any involvement, yet Viharo persists to accuse Farley as having made edits on his RationalWiki article. Farley responded in January 2018:


“”[Rome Viharo] claimed an RW article was "constructed by" me, but the edit history of that article clearly shows I've never touched it.[50]


Viharo's obsession with trying to connect RationalWiki editors to his Wikipedia ban, is because he has a delusion that the same group of skeptics have harassed him on both wikis.

On Twitter, Viharo has been spamming an article from his website named "The Attack of David Gerard's 50ft Troll Farm".[51][52]


Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:54 pm
Profile
Banned_Troll
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:44 pm
Posts: 19
Reply with quote
Rome Viharo's latest book

http://www.lulu.com/shop/rome-viharo/ti ... 68067.html

Image


Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 802
Reply with quote
Good post. A little long maybe, for outsiders, so perhaps consider dumping some extraneous material and tightening the wording. Wikipedia is indeed a perfect example how you can never really know the truth of how something really works, until you try it yourself. You can read hundreds (thousands are out there) of words about it by those who do know, but there is nothing like the feeling of being utterly screwed over to really open your eyes. This is where the relative lack of public engagement with Wikipedia helps the entrenched activists get away with it.

Your fringe theories noticeboard link needs updating....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... pak_Chopra

I love how they seem to think they have no means to fight back other than resist on Wikipedia. They do, of course, they just choose not to because it is a route that inevitably leads to further exposure of their methods. And that, they Do Not Want. So the more Google hits on these keywords and phrases, the better.

Update 2 is very powerful. It has always made me laugh that they think people can't spot what they're doing. Guy Chapman probably employs an Indian hothouse to create all these enemey-impersonator accounts, no way does a person like him say the things he does, believe the things he does, and then play by the rules. He's going to screw up eventually, and it will make all previous Wikipedia controversies look tame by comparison. Of course, useful idiots like Oswah sadly play their part. You'd think he would have learnt from the Tony1 debacle that you can't ever really take back an erroneous block log entry.

Let the Wikipediots cry about how you're trying to disrupt them with this post. Fuck them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If you fuck people over, then expect to get fucked, and twice as hard. Revenge in the face of injustice, one so obvious it isn't even a matter of perspective or merely siding with one's team (through my educational background I have a pretty in depth knowledge of the theory of evolution, and can find nothing in it to dispute, and I readily laugh at ID proponents), is and always be a much more powerful motivator than mere activism. The Wikipediots, particularly of the activist stripe, have never really understood that.

I suspect a big reason why Larry crafted NPOV as he did, is precisely to avoid the inevitable backlash from educated moderates who identify as an encyclopedist first and foremost, as well as the peoole being truly wronged, that sneaky but otherwise easily spotted bias brings. As he famously said, the inmates took over the asylum, and the reaction to that complaint was a picture perfect example (as was how it was received on Wikipediocracy, which is now just a clubhouse for these sort of dim witted Wikipedians). You might as well be trying to explain evolution to an actual dog, for all the sense they can make of such things. Wikipediots are Wikipediots largely because they lack the capacity for nuance and graduated thinking. Black and white is their style.

Cook's conclusion needs a little refinement.....
Quote:
Just as in the real world, most people on Wikipedia are good people and have better things to do than take down people’s pages just for the fun of it.
Perhaps. If they're there, the good people of Wikipedia do seem to be as reluctant to step up as they are in the real world (although in the real world you have the legitimate excuse that you don't want to get stabbed just for being a good Samaritan). That is why in the real world, of course, there's usually a functional police force who will step in on your behalf and put into effect what "good people" would do, by actually enforcing the written law.

There are no such safeguards on Wikipedia, no respect for the actual law (i.e. policy), and endless exampoles of it being distorted and manipulated for reasons that are antithetical to Wikipedia, because their governance is stuck in the Middle Ages, and will likely never evolve beyond that mire.

As such, digital stabbings, and indeed lynchings, witch hunts, struggle sessions and tarring/feathering, are commonplace, and more often than not, it's what passes for the rule of law that's doing the stabbing, cheered on by the mud stained locals decrying the witch and their woo (they might as well just say heresy, it's what they mean). Take a look at how Smallbones reacted to this article - it was classic "burn the witch". Didn't for a second consider why she had written it, the ugly truths about Wikipedia that underpin it.

Further to all this, perhaps the only improvement I'd suggest is to add that the entire Wikipedia community is well aware of the level of injustice on their site. Indeed many, including several Administrators, positively revel in it - they flaunt the fact that Wikipedia is "not about justice" in the face of victims. Ignoring people if you can't be bothered to get into the weeds of their complaint is perhaps understandable on a volunteer project, but when you show that level of disrespect, why would you be surprised that the next move is you get your face torn off? Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Keep up the good work. Anything that severaly disrupts the Wikipediots attempts to make what they do appear normal, ethical even, and anything that makes them even more paranoid and insular than they already are, is a good thing. HTD.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 28
Reply with quote
Thanks CrowsNest! I do agree too, I need to shorten my posts - I think I need an editor.

I havent been here in awhile, so in a way I can thank Oliver Smith (Catapult) for bringing me back here an bumping my post to the top :)

I'm hoping we can keep those posts here, for historical record - as they will be evidence for something, at some point. Especially the lulu book which is a blatant impersonation and aggressive act.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 5:02 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 957
Reply with quote
WWHP wrote:
I'm hoping we can keep those posts here, for historical record - as they will be evidence for something, at some point. Especially the lulu book which is a blatant impersonation and aggressive act.

If you insist, although by now it's extremely doubtful that ANYONE has been fooled. It's a really sad form of trolling. Even Will Beback or MONGO at their most pathetic weren't on this level.


Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:09 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
Catapult wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
Wikipedia We Have A Problem is a fake news website that Viharo uses to publish misinformation, made-up stories and wild allegations about Wikipedia and RationalWiki admins.

[...] he created the website Wikipedia We Have A Problem, to protest against his bans and spread a paranoid conspiracy theory that a group of skeptics were responsible for cyberbullying him and getting him kicked off these wikis. No evidence for the conspiracy theory appears to exist, nor was Viharo harassed. He was banned on Wikipedia for disrupting, trolling and causing a flame war on the Rupert Sheldrake article, as well as using multiple accounts; for similar shenanigans on RationalWiki.

Catapult has been banned now for spamming highly offensive content.

This has been a theme for quite some time, a "paranoid conspiracy theory," when, in fact, almost all of the allegations and evidence support, not a "group of skeptics" being radically disruptive, but one or another or both of two brothers, Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith. The straw man argument has been used over and over. Because of massive confusion and deceptive disruption, some reports have been inaccurate, but the claim of "no evidence" is a straight-out lie. There is plenty of evidence. Often it is claimed that there is "no technical evidence," which is incorrect. There is technical evidence; I have a blog and the brothers have accessed it and I then can see the raw access logs and compare this with other data (I can actually see more than a Wikipedia checkuser, I can see what the WMF office can see from raw logs.)

When a Smith sock created a RW article, "RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory," I commented on it. I was desysopped there promptly, without normal process. When I started to draft a list of socks on RW, as a page in my user space, I was blocked and it was deleted for "doxxing," though it did not doxx. (The draft: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/list-of-articles/skeptical/draft-rw-ap-sock-study/ The article that a Smith sock created on me on RW presents me as a conspiracy theorist, but a claim of sock puppetry is actually an anti-conspiracy theory. This page (http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/list-of-articles/) lists the suspected RW socks. I keep finding more. One of them claimed to be running RW and to have 700 accounts. It might not be an exaggeration (if we include the many impersonation and attack accounts, created to be blocked ... often by the sock who created them, I have evidence.)

(I only came to the conclusion about identity, Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith, later. The more exposed they are, the more desperate their attempts to intimidate.)


Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:17 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.