Sh*t Rational Wiki says, part 1 (May 2015)

On Rational Wiki there is an biographical article about yours truly which frames me as a quack, crank, and “pseudoscience promoter”. The reason I absolutely hate this so much is because it appears as the number one search result for my name on Google. The other reason I hate this so much is because this is an intentional attack article, and the editors behind this on RationalWiki are Wikipedia editors that I confronted.

The article they’ve constructed on me is rather cartoon, but the intentions behind it are quite malicious. It’s payback for exposing their activities.

‘Snark’ is an inherent component of the RationalWiki brand – whose mission statement is to ‘expose pseudoscience and quackery’.

In reality, RationalWiki has little resemblance to an encyclopedia that covers scientific and rational thought, rather RationalWiki editors abuse their platform by harassing people they meet on the internet.

Editors there leverage the page ranking of RationalWiki and hold that power over individuals they disagree with.

On the pettiest of disagreements to boot, squabbles on Wikipedia.

They also do not appreciate being confronted, even patiently and rationally.


“He’s just a troll…” Tim Farley states about me in online discussion forums , “He’s been angry for years that the top result in Google for his own name is the RationalWiki article about him.”

It’s odd to be shrugged off just because ‘I’m angry’ that I’ve been harassed and have had a literal attack article written about me with the intention of damaging my reputation so as to recover theirs.

It’s not as odd, however, as Tim Farley claiming professionally he is focused on online misinformation, computer security & skepticism.

Contrary to his claim, Tim is involved directly with misinformation campaigns about skeptic activity on Wikipedia, and RationalWiki.

I encourage the skeptic community who is ticked off with me to reflect a little bit deeper here on your online actions. It’s probably pretty predictable that someone’s going to be pissed if they get harassed, stalked and hounded on the internet.

Bad faith tactics.

That an article is written on me at all on Rational Wiki is itself an act of ‘bad faith’ amongst this community.

It was initiated as one act in a series of harassment I received from editing a Wikipedia article in 2013.

Within days of being banned from Wikipedia, my rational wiki article was created in addition to two “attack” websites about me, and

This has been a continual pattern of harassment that was initiated with Wikipedia editor Manul’s original claim on Wikipedia in September of 2013.

We see how it continues some 18 months later on RationalWiki.

I’ve been confronting RationalWiki editors for the justifications on publishing my article.

Over the past 18 months, it’s gone through a number of deletion votes.

It’s still there.

No genuine process for recourse on RationalWiki

Here is an example of how seeking “recourse” on RationalWiki for bad faith tactics work.

It’s fair to note that a few RationalWiki editors also protested.

Delete the Rome Viharo article

This page is a deliberate attack piece on Viharo. It must be deleted, let’s vote. I say delete. Evolutionist

Some marginal guy on the internet said something silly. Nobody got hurt as a result. Said guy will go the fuck away and stop bothering us if we take the article down. So take it down. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep the Rome Viharo article.

if only ’cause he (RV) wants it deleted. Scream!!

And how do we know that no one “got hurt” by trusting Viharo’s BS over actual science? I still think this kind of “no harm, no foul”-argument is weak and opens a royal road to start removing all kinds of woo-related stuff from RW as long as it isn’t “obviously harmful” (beyond giving people a nonsensical view of the world, of course).ScepticWombat (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

One of our principles is to write about crank ideas and cranks. See RationalWiki:Mission. A vote to delete your article is a deviation from that principle, not adherence to it. PacWalker 04:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is Rational Wiki’s editor justifications when confronted with the obvious fact this is just a payback article.

RationalWiki introduces their own ‘spin’ on shaming people on the internet they target.

They call it ‘snark.’

Embedded into their own forum rules, their editors are encouraged to snark according to their “mission”.

It’s just public shaming, used as a form of harassment.

RationalWiki rationalizations for public shaming.

If we take RationalWiki’s own justifications for publishing this attack piece on me at face value – the “meat” of their justifications becomes rather flimsy.

And silly.

I am a target of RationalWiki, according to them, because

  1. Deepak Chopra paid me to represent him on Wikipedia, which I did as a fully disclosed participant and negotiated a consensus on his Wikipedia article, which I did transparently and successfully, receiving support from senior Wikipedia editors and admins. (Promoter of pseudo science!)
  2. For designing architecture for an online, academic library which archived all peer-reviewed scientific and academic literature, independent of outcome, on alternative medicine and various mind/body practices (meditation, yoga, martial arts, ayurveda, etc). (fringe pusher!)
  3. Arguing anonymously on Wikipedia that WP:Fringe policy did not have proper sourcing to override the ‘biography of a living person’ policy of Wikipedia on Rupert Sheldrake’s article. (arguing for validity to Sheldrake’s theories!)
  4. For leaving two or three comments on the TED blog in 2013, defending Rupert’s TED talk from being removed by TED, along with thousands of other comments. (more promoting of Sheldrake!)
  5. 8 – 12 years ago, I was one of the authors and creator of OS 012, ‘the playful, tongue in cheek master meme’, which they describe as ‘contradicting known physical laws’ because the word ‘exponential’ was to describe the viral nature of ideas in a creative essay no longer on the internet. (An internet crank!)
  6. For declaring in my TEDx talk ‘Google Consciousness’ that social media may evolve to replace government as we know and use it today, an idea endorsed by Clay Shirky and the European Union. (Believes Google is sentient and other fringy sounding ideas!)
  7. According to Rational Wiki, I am to be labeled a ‘conspiracy theorist’ because I publish this website which discloses evidence of harassment I received on Wikipedia while editing two controversial topics, Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra. (A paranoid kook!)
  8. I choose to confront them on their behaviors. ( Victim complex!)

Here are their justifications for publishing an article on me, in quotes.

This is not a pre-Nürnberg war crimes trial; superior !orders are not a defense here.PacWalker 06:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Helping a crank like Chopra build an online platform for pushing his woo enables him to promote said woo. Call it enabling or promoting, the end result is the same. Putting a nice sounding PR slogan, such as “online consensus building”, on it doesn’t polish this turd one bit. Unless sockpuppet somehow make a case that ISHAR was designed for another purpose than woo peddling, the only “online consensus building” involved in it is the confirmation bias kind found in woo echo chambers: Cranks and woo peddlers telling each other how right they are and that the those who disagree are just biased nay sayers who need to havean open mind.

The general consensus on “Pseudoscience” and “crank” here is “Something that runs counter to currently established scientific fact, often with little testable proof” and “Person who promotes said ideas”–Miekal 05:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not an ambiguous term, and you have quite unambiguously promoted pseudoscientific theories and originated some of your own. As such, you qualify as what we call a crank. PacWalker

Viharo stated that Rupert Sheldrake‘s “morphic resonance” could not be classified as pseudoscience

Viharo’s “global dialectic for personal interaction on the Internet”[4] even contains some statements which clash directly with known physical laws.[5]

Lol, you are the one on the receiving end. Get over it. You are a waste of time in general, but guess who decided to waste their time debunking you? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I’d advise against engaging with him. He’s a notorious internet troll, with a long history of intentionally bullshitting, and is more than happy to talk in circles as you pull your hair out. Marlow (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You are actually insane, or at least incapable of explaining your insanity. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to my claim of online harassment.

“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.” [13]Leuders (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

      • ,

Please follow and like us:

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.