“His current effort is aimed, in part, on fixing his own personal reputation in Google results, where a very snarky and very critical article on him is the number one search result for his name. So don’t link to him…if you need to refer to him refer to the Rational Wiki article.” – Tim Farley on creating a Rational Wiki article about me, December 2013
The whole discussion arrives at a conclusion “we wrote an article about you because you are a woo-meister – you don’t mind promoting woo if you think it is profitable” – and that is absolutely okay. Rome came here trying to defend himself – in my opinion unrightfully, since the information stated here are mere facts for each one of us to judge. – Rational Wiki editor on why its okay for Rational Wiki to continue to publish an article on me, 2015.
Rational Wiki fails to disclose conflict of interest publishing
Should an online collaborative encyclopedia representing scientific facts, reason, and logic disclose ‘conflict of interests’ the editors of the article have on the subject? If it was a peer review or scientific inquiry, an academic study, or any serious piece of journalism – that would be a requirement.
If it was discovered that the authors on Rational Wiki held personal grudges against individuals, and leveraged the credit of science and progressive liberalism as a pulpit to abuse individuals they have personal dislikes for, I would imagine that would be a discredit to Rational Wiki.
The Rational Wiki editors who created an article on me as a form of harassment are very same Wikipedia editors who began this campaign against me for editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article back on Wikipedia, a piece of online real estate that skeptic activists have been guarding on Wikipedia since 2013.
They are also many of the same editors who have a personal grudge against me going back to an online discussion I had with them in 2007.
That they fail to mention their own inherent conflict of interest on a biographical article they’ve written about me – Rational Wiki editors are practicing deception by omission, a very serious charge and one I do not make lightly.
After two years of confronting the article written about me on their site my grievances are shrugged off. One of the editors on Rational Wiki has expanded his harassment and has created a highly slanderous article on me on Encylopedia Dramatica, now slowly crawling up search under my name on the web.
According to Rational Wiki editors who engage with me, there is no reason for me to react this way, no reason for me to think that this would interfere in my professional life, no reason for me to be concerned that having to explain to my child why people are the internet are saying strange things about his father is personally disruptive.
According to them I have no justification confronting them, and this entire study is all because I am just ‘butt hurt’. I think this shows a remarkable lack of self reflection and strong evidence for malicious intention.
To this day, Rational Wiki pretends that the publication of an article on me is because I am a crank – and therefore the educated, progressively liberal and pro-science demographical spectrum should be warned about my activities. They certainly don’t disclose to their readers that Rational Wiki’s article on me has anything to do with my publication of Wikipedia, We Have a Problem or harassing me while editing on Wikipedia articles their collective was guarding.
Members of this community acknowledge that its damaging to my reputation having that article as a number one Google search result, so we know that they know what they are doing and that they are leveraging the real estate value of their site to harm reputations.
Secondly, they continue to refer to me as a woo, or a troll promoting for profit, to justify the article Rational Wiki has published. Rational Wiki doesn’t disclose what that means other than offering evidence I edited two Wikipedia articles on two biographies of people they don’t like, and they found a few anonymous personal discussions on the internet going back a few years that really don’t really show me ‘promoting’ anything really other than a creative project unless we wanted to use ‘promoting’ as a weasel word to create suspicion when none is warranted.
It’s pretty creepy when a small collective of editors go around the internet to find evidence of what they ‘suspect’ my personal beliefs to be and then carve an article around that suspicion. Peculiar even, somehow they assume a moral authority on what people should be interested in, commented on or what point of view they should have and warn others about them in society.
They don’t once in the article mention any sources or evidence about their motivations. For example, ScepticWombat, one editor on Rational Wiki, justifies the article because he claims I promote ‘woo for a profit’ yet offers zero evidence or support for such commentary.
On that last note, I can’t shake the feeling that someone who’ll cynically help spread Chopra’s and Sheldrake’s woo simply because it pays well is actually worse than someone who peddles woo because they (misguidedly, but honestly) believe in it. To try to use the fact that you got paid and that it was just a job as an excuse is just, well, inexcusable in my book. Getting paid to do nefarious shit you don’t agree with or believe in doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What profit? What money? What evidence do they even have to make these sorts of accusations?
More importantly, where is my check? I’ve never made money promoting woo, nor do I know when I have ‘promoted woo’ at all, and they act like such an association is not akin to slander.
I don’t know these people, and they don’t know me. Yet somehow they feel they have some bizarre moral authority to actually believe every assumption that pops into their heads about me and publish it without any responsible oversight. My research and work into online consensus building, including my work on Wikipedia, has been a personal project of mine not something I’ve been paid for. Other than a small grant from the Chopra Foundation, a non profit organization gave me to continue the work I was already doing for 5 months, such claims made about me on Rational Wiki are just fictionalized and assumed to be true without one iota of evidence or really any knowledge about me.
I also find it appalling that ‘promoting woo’ can mean having any association with individuals they don’t like, or editing on Wikipedia, or leaving a comment on a blog a few years ago. They just somehow magically make this true about me so this narrative on Rational Wiki wont read like what it really is, payback for editing on Wikipedia.
Rational Wiki’s own community says that Wikipedia editors Roxy the Dog and Lucky Louie on Wikipedia are Leuders and David1234 on Rational Wiki, the primary Rational Wiki editors whom have created the pages on me.
In October of 2013 is when I found myself harassed, outed, and framed as some ‘pseudoscience woomiester’ and famous ‘internet troll’ on Wikipedia, that very week editors involved on Rational Wiki, who were also involved on Wikipedia, creating a section about me on Rational Wiki’s Rupert Sheldrake article.
There was no article about me on Rational Wiki previous to this. Indeed, as a very pro science and politically progressive individual not in the public spotlight, there is no reason for there to be a Rational Wiki article on me at all. Yet Rational Wiki editors claim they fail to understand why this is slander. Indeed, if they wanted to find evidence of what I promote on the internet, they could have consulted my actual blog, where I often promote ideas about futurism, space travel and interesting science and collective intelligence topics since 2008. Yet my own blog is never used as a reference for any activities I have engaged on the internet.
This page was created about me on Rational Wiki in November of 2013 claiming I was a Wikipedia sockpuppet. This was before I created new Wikipedia accounts to circumvent my highly questionable ban on Wikipedia. This is only based on their own claims they made against back on Wikipedia, and citing that as evidence on Rational Wiki.
This was one of the reasons why I circumvented my ban on Wikipedia and created a new editing account – because of this type of specific harassment, I wanted to expose it.
Rational Wiki’s first article on me stated the following.
It then offers the readers an entire article about my involvement on Wikipedia as a troll, citing their own accusations made about me by them on Wikipedia, while using horribly outdated weblinks, horribly out of context, to support that statement. I’m hoping it is clear to the reader that Rational Wiki editors, with clear intention – began a campaign to bring discredit to my name starting in October of 2013.
Of course there is no evidence of me being an ‘internet troll’ other than by a few people who just wanted to call me one on the internet. There is absolutely no evidence of me being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or even what conspiracy theories I promote – and the charge of a pseudoscience promoter linking back to my editing on Wikipedia as the sole evidence.
Of course the article is also quick to say I was known for sockpuppeting Wikipedia in November of 2013. At the time however, I did not try and circumvent my ban so they are only referencing the claims of me sockpuppeting on Wikipedia made by them at the time – which I was cleared of.
As evidence shows, this term was used as a manner of online slander used to discredit editors on Wikipedia and then create than same impression to readers on Rational Wiki.
Let’s look at how this lead section on me on Rational Wiki has evolved over the past two years as I have challenged and confronted Rational Wiki regarding their harassment.
Rome Viharo is a California social media strategist known for trolling the internet to support pseudoscience, spread conspiracy theories, and promote unfathomable gibberish about something he calls OS 0 1 2.
Now they are adding a creative project, no longer on the internet, that I was involved with 2003 – 2007, in an awkward attempt to further frame me as a ‘crank’ and ‘woo supporter’ in addition to finding images on the internet from a movie I was an extra in when I was in my early 20’s.
However by January of 2014, I began to publish Wikipedia We Have a Problem and I confronted them on this horrible behavior.
I went to their forum to confront them, only to encounter more bizarre behavior and other people signing on saying they were me or other people. Apparently this became clear to Rational Wiki’s own community and there was a request to delete this page with the editor saying ‘this just looks like a poorly assembled hit piece on an individual.
And for a brief moment of sanity on Rational Wiki, my article was deleted, only to return a few days later.
This time, however, the editors on Rational Wiki, including Leuders/Lucky Louie, decided that they would ‘clean up’ the article but still wanted the article to be able to discredit me while linking me with as many links out of context as they could find.
So it evolved to:
Rome Viharo is a social media strategist known for his support for the pseudoscientific ideas of Rupert Sheldrake and belief in conspiracy theories regarding the activities of skeptics on Wikipedia. He also promotes a bizarre mishmash of ideas he calls OS/AL 0 1 2.
They evolved the lead to still include listing me as a ‘supporter of Rupert Sheldrake’ as a method of discrediting me, while they specified that I am only a conspiracy theorist because I suggest that those involved with this issue of harassment on Wikipedia and Rational Wiki are self described skeptics. Ignoring huge swaths of my professional life, the lead mentions ‘OS 012’ , not as a creative project that had a fully disclosed tongue in cheek nature that ended in 2007, no longer on the internet, but some agenda I am ‘advancing’. Anything about me on the internet to justify why they think I’m a ‘crank’ and a ‘woo’ they do, because they believe I lack integrity, promote woo for profit – and seek to use that as a manner of discredit while being unaware that it is a product of slander.
By February of 2014, Wikipedia We Have A Problem began to go viral, and I was contacted by a host of individuals and organizations asking for my advice on their Wikipedia problem. I decided to take a year off my normal work and focus on this issue, which to be honest I found utterly fascinating.
Enter Deepak Chopra
One of those people who contacted me was Deepak Chopra, who gave me a small grant to continue my research into wiki wars on Wikipedia, using Deepak Chopra’s Wikipedia article as my next study into consensus building.
Deepak Chopra’s Wikipedia page suffered from the same one side editorial problems as Rupert Sheldrake. Unlike Rupert Sheldrake, Deepak Chopra was more in the spotlight with skeptic organizations and editors, making the environment for building consensus far more challenging.
This work on Wikipedia consensus building should not be confused as an endorsement of Deepak Chopra or his ideas, these are editorial based observations that any responsible editor or publisher would choose to make. I would, and will – defend any person against this kind of abuse on Wikipedia or any subject article, independent of its content.
Deepak’s article on Wikipedia, however, was consistent with ‘skeptic’ typed editing. Articles created by skeptics on Wikipedia, in my opinion first and foremost, are pretty sloppy and not well written, as if the editors are unaware of the collective voice of the article itself. Secondly, their editing habits are loaded with weasel language and weasel associations, much like my Rational Wiki article is used to misframe me.
On Wikipedia, skeptic editors often use ‘weasel’ language to insert their particular dislike of a subject into an article or omit key facts in a biography that would make the user question their narrative of the subject. Primarily, Rupert Sheldrake, they believe, cannot be listed as a ‘biologist’ nor can Deepak Chopra be listed as a ‘licensed physician’ despite the issue that these are key facts in their biographies. To include these facts is just responsible editing, far from an endorsement of their viewpoints. Yet I and many many others on Wikipedia protested these sorts of decisions.
Those that disagreed with them were called ‘fan boys’ ‘promoters of woo’ and if we protested be called this in consensus building, we were called ‘conspiracy theorists. Considering they use that as a matter and form of debate in an editorial dispute is one of the reasons why many have spoken out against skeptic editors on Wikipedia. Primarily, they can be guilty of what is known as POV pushing, while projecting that behavior on any editor who disagrees with them.
By March, 2013, Deepak Chopra’s article looked like this. His article could not reference him as a medical doctor, even though he is and has a licensed medical staff. Additionally – the editors wanted to list him in his first sentence as ‘New Age Guru’ instead of physician, as if ‘New Age Guru’ was somehow and somewhere, an established biographical credential.
Using my methodology for consensus building (see Aiki Wiki), within 45 days of me working on Wikipedia as Deepak Chopra’s representative (allowable on Wikipedia and was fully disclosed) I was able to have the article returned to a more neutral perspective, winning the support of Wikipedia editors and admins. This was done while I was SAS81. As that account, I performed zero actual edits to the page. The changes occurred after I continued to raise the same questions and issues in an appropriate manner on Wikipedia until responsible editors finally noticed and did something.
Now Chopra’s article lead section looked like this, minus the weasel language and instead in a more neutral voice. Not only did his article get resolved, but additionally a workable solution was found that was fair within Wikipedia’s policy and involved a more collaborative approach.
This consensus was hard won. Clearly this was a victory for both Wikipedia and collaborative editing and for a proven examples of my true intentions and behaviors on Wikipedia.
After this success, Deepak Chopra then asked me to design a broader solution architecture for an online collaborative academic library for all mind/body subject matter, which is now called ISHAR. I guess this is what Rational Wiki seeks to frame me as ‘profiting’ from promoting ‘woo’, but ISHAR was a non profit project and unfortunately for me and the truthiness of Rational Wiki’s article on me, I was paid 50% of my base salary, taking on considerable financial burden.
My thrill of working on it was more personal, as designing collaborative platforms is my personal passion and this afforded me the opportunity to spend more time on what I am passionate about, consensus building and collaboration. Additionally, ISHAR was just meant to be an academic archive of research gathered from all over the world in one location. Unclear why Rational Wiki would seek to frame this as ‘promoting woo’ when I simply designed architecture for academic research library and what I designed is content agnostic.
I am no longer involved with the ISHAR project. Additionally, The Chopra Foundation did not want to take on the Wikipedia problems, the sole reason for my involvement – and are not using the architecture that was proposed and built by my tech team and I for ISHAR.
The architecture for ISHAR was just apart of the aiki wiki platform suite and is hardly controversial. ISHAR or any organization, even Rational Wiki – could use the architecture. Since the aiki wiki project is on hold for the moment – the project is still in development.
Blaming me for the content of ISHAR is rather crude while not crediting the architecture is sloppy editorializing. Its like blaming Google for promoting Islam because they return so many search results favorable to Islam – yet this is what motivates them – that I engineered, for a profit – Wikipedia We Have a Problem, aiki wiki and ISHAR – which simply promotes Deepak Chopra and morphic resonance, all for the ca$h.
My stint with Deepak Chopra only lasted around 5 months, yet this blip in my professional career is highlighted as a feature of my biography on Rational Wiki to create more suspicion of me to an audience already suspicious of Deepak Chopra.
For Rational Wiki, its important to frame me as someone who promotes literature their audience finds suspicious, and according to them, it’s okay to warn the world about my associations with Deepak Chopra so the reader questions my integrity.
This time on Wikipedia, instead of being banned as a troll for attempting to build a rational consensus as Tumbleman, SAS81 on Deepak Chopra’s article was given barn stars and had a number of seasoned Wikipedia editors and admins support me the entire way. This strategy was engineered using the collaborative methodologies in aiki wiki and its unique approach to collaborative consensus building.
Deepak Chopra had interest in Aiki Wiki as a platform and wanted to test my approach on his very own Wikipedia article, which at the time he did not believe possible to improve. Indeed, at the time he consulted with me on getting his article deleted on Wikipedia, he did not believe Wikipedia could be improved and wanted to take quite a different approach than SAS81 implemented on his article.
The skeptic editors on Wikipedia were rebuked after this approach was implemented. They failed in maintaining their misleading consensus on Deepak’s Wikipedia article through pure and rational discussion with the community on Wikipedia. Although I have yet to publish SAS81’s case study due to its extensive and time consuming nature, SAS81 shows that the work I’ve done under Wikipedia We Have a Problem proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Wikipedia’s own rules and guidelines are not enforceable and the platform is easily abused to harass other editors away from a true consensus building process.
It also shows that Wikipedia, using its own policies properly enforced, can find a workable solution to agenda based conflict editing and I am very proud of the work I have done on Wikipedia because of it.
After the consensus was hard won, I continued to face continued harassment as SAS81 on Wikipedia, from some of the many same Wikipedia editors I encountered as the Tumbleman, and a few suspicious accounts. One account Ptarmingander was created, as their editing history shows – to harass me as SAS81.
Somehow – Ptarmingander was able to find out that SAS81 was the same person as Tumbleman. Wikipedia editor Manul, on constant look out for me on Wikipedia since exposed on this site, got SAS81 banned as another ‘Tumbleman’ sock.
Deepak Chopra’s article on Wikipedia returned within weeks to its previous status after SAS81 was banned and all edits were reverted. And Deepak Chopra is still facing the same problems on his article as he was since I met him ever since.
This is how this community of skeptic editors operate in consensus building – they just wear everyone down. They know they will wear everyone down, eventually. This is why this tactic, and the communities on Wikipedia that engage in this tactic, will eventually be the only ones left on Wikipedia, completely controlled by cynical and non collaborative editors who gate the worlds largest repository of knowledge.
Rome Viharo is a social media strategist and Internet troll known for his support for the pseudoscientific ideas of Rupert Sheldrake and belief in conspiracy theories regarding the activities of skeptics on Wikipedia. He has worked as the director of operations for Deepak Chopra‘s Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR). He also advances a bizarre mishmash of philosophical ideas he calls OS/AL 0 1 2, the promotion of which has at times been indistinguishable from internet trolling.
Since then, Rational Wiki has continued to get flack from both this website and also a few other internet observers. In some ways, the article on me at Rational Wiki has improved, yet the entire article continues to frame me as someone who is discredited and a crank. They are quite unaware of the serious nature of using a established Page Rank and a platforms publishing powers to harass and slander an individual as payback for editing on Wikipedia.
In spite of the criticism they have received, unbelievably Rational Wiki continues to deny this harassment is happening.
Rome Viharo is a Wikipedia sockpuppeteer, banned for defending the pseudo-scientific ideas of Rupert Sheldrake and trolling Sheldrake’s talkpage with multiple accounts. Viharo has described himself as an “eccentric” who argues for a conspiracy theory about organized skeptic activity on Wikipedia. He is also known for creating Deepak Chopra‘s Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR), and for advancing “OS/AL 012” and “Aiki Wiki”. Viharo is in his 40’s and works as a social media strategist, and more recently the CEO of startup Audience Unlock.
The article lead still seeks to discredit me, first leaning on an association with Rupert Sheldrake because I edited biographical information about him on Wikipedia. The arguments were over boring biographical facts, not theories, not Sheldrake’s ideas. In their Rational Wiki article about me, they try and support this claim by finding a comment trying to make it seem like I am comparing Rupert’s ‘morphic resonance’ with ‘string theory’, but failing to provide the reader with the full context of the quote. They edit out the part which showed the comparison was over a Wikipedia guideline called WP:Fringe, not anything theoretical. These are the key facts Rational Wiki distorts to continue to frame me as a manner of slander.
They claim I describe myself as an eccentric and give me the attribution for that assessment. Other than maybe a tongue in cheek statement somewhere on the internet, where do I describe myself as ‘an eccentric’? And why would they choose that self assessment over another one I have made? Rational Wiki continues its desperation into finding any evidence they can use to paint solely an article of discredit, and the entire time fail to mention key facts that would make the reader of the article question the Rational Wiki narrative.
Since I was banned, I’ve been very public about creating new accounts to circumvent my ban on Wikipedia. It’s a very public and now viral study. Instead of mentioning, Wikipedia, We Have a Problem and an entire two year evidenced based and transparent study into abuses on Wikipedia by this community, they prefer to just refer to it as me being a ‘Wikipedia Sockpuppeteer‘, a term meant for further discredit.
It fails to mention that the editors and creators of this article on Rational Wiki were the same editors on Wikipedia who framed me as a troll and sockpuppet to get me banned on Wikipedia.
This is only done for the intentional purposes of abusing Rational Wiki’s page ranking system to discredit me in the public, like Tim Farley himself noted and encouraged with this harassment campaign first began. To deny this flies in the face of logic, common decency, and historical, recordable evidence.
More startling, the article on me on Rational Wiki still has the cojones to continue and use ‘weasel’ language framing Wikipedia, We Have a Problem as a bunch of ‘conspiracy theories’. They then boldly declare that ‘no such conspiracy of skeptics appears to exist‘ on the very same article Wikipedia editors, self described skeptics have teamed up to write an hit piece on me on the internet.
While their article declares ‘no such conspiracy of skeptics appears to exist’, they amazingly have no sources for that statement other than themselves stating it on Rational Wiki, no reference to back it up and failing to mention that Wikipedia, We Have a Problem is what I am currently known for and their publication is a key party in its evidenced based investigation.
Crossing the line into direct slander, the article on Rational Wiki about me now ends with:
Viharo now dedicates a lot of his time stalking the Wikipedia editors (including admins) involved in banning his sockpuppets. A section on his website “Editors and Admins Involved” lists 10 editors, who find their internet activities recorded.
Such intentional slander is very irresponsible to publish. Everything on Wikipedia We Have a Problem is linked back to Wikipedia which is a transparent system. Everything that happened to me is still recorded and published on Wikipedia. That’s evidence. That’s also responsible publishing. That’s not stalking and maybe something Rational Wiki editors should try doing, offering a complete and transparent review of the evidence they claim to present to their readers.
Stalking is going around the internet digging up information on someone you met online, finding offline discussions, anonymous discussions, dated material and then publishing a hit piece on that person on Rational Wiki to abuse their page rank for payback. That’s stalking. That’s also harassment.
Worse for Rational Wiki, accusing someone of stalking without evidence, stating it as fact and in a manner to discredit them is libel and slander.
And Rational Wiki is clearly a guilty party for publishing slanderous statements and associations designed to discredit an individual, using Google Page Rank to do so.
Even going back as early as December of 2013, one of the architects of skeptic activity on Wikipedia, Tim Farley – disclosed their plan on Facebook. There is no denying this is not an intentional abuse of publisher ranking to harass an individual for editing on Wikipedia, and the sooner the rational component of Rational Wiki understands the gravity of the situation, the better for them.
Rational Wiki’s editors are clearly confused about the definitions of stalking, harassment, slander and libel. Even more delusional, Rational Wiki denies this article on me was a form of payback for editing on Wikipedia by two Wikipedia editors.
I think next year will be well spent clearing that up for them.