No oversight on Rational Wiki for publishing slander, has a block for users confronting it.

While I have been off the radar for the past 5 months or so – my online enemies, disgruntled with the publication of Wikipedia, We Have a Problem, continue on with their crazy town behavior, even carrying it over into the dark, dark world of the internet drama entertainment wiki Encyclopedia Dramatica, where certain Rational Wiki editors decided to create a new article on me there.

I would link you to their website however you will be bombarded with adware and more than likely malware and be exposed to very offensive racial and sexual humor. Trust me, you’d rather not.

The narrative about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica is getting so distorted at this stage that it has crossed over into quit severe slander and enters the world of bizarre paranoia and narratives composed by the mentally disturbed. On ”Encyclopedia Dramatica’ – I dont even bother to care, challenge it or correct it.  In someways, it’s actually kinda cool having an article about this on there since the site is known for its incredibly dark and offensive humor covering all internet dramas as only 4Chan would, having an article there I guess means that WWHP is ‘legend.’ The site is what it is and no one takes it seriously. Encyclopedia Dramatica even tells the reader not to take it seriously. At least when someone goes to Encyclopedia Dramatica, they know what they are getting. That’s not the case with Rational Wiki. I think readers discovering Rational Wiki actually expect Rational.

Yet on Rational Wiki, just like Encyclopedia Dramatica – anyone, no matter how crazy, high, drunk, paranoid, lonely etc etc, can go into an articles talk section and make just any old random  statement about any subject of scorn, and whatever that point of view is, it can be published – often without question and even if it is slander.

This is found on my talk page at Rational Wiki,  a section with only two comments. These narratives of me, needless to say, are not only a pure concoction created by this individual, but also confessions of their exact behaviors they’ve been making against me for two years, projected on me.

Just to point out Viharo has set up fake accounts of skeptics, including myself. There’s plenty of details that can be added to his entry, Viharo has been harassing me like this for the past year or more. On link, Rome has also accused me of creating this RW page , and someone is now using this against me on Rome Viharo’s entry at Encyclopedia Dramatica. It clearly states underneath the quote, that this accusation is false, and it is someone called “Mikemikev” creating more of these impersonator accounts.TheJonDonnis (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Have added a new section.Krom (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I hardly need to mention I have absolutely no idea who these people even are, much less any interest in impersonating them. What’s interesting is the lack of evidence presented for this comment, and the comment was pretty much left unchallenged and is still kept there til this day, with another Rational Wiki editor immediately prepared to execute on it.  Rational Wiki has become its own Private Idaho,  generating any narrative their group mind can grok at, completely unaware of the consequences of their own actions.

Even if one or a handful of those editors on Rational Wiki have mental illness. Editors with mental illness introduce magical thinking to Rational Wiki’s editorial process, and can guide and instigate much of it.  If it’s a statement about any subject the community despises (and boy do they despise me) this is what can happen – it can just become true because the community wishes it to be so. This is quickly exposed if they are confronted, all of their arguments became emotional and personal and most importantly contradictory if one considers logic a value in building consensus. If editors on Rational Wiki get confronted, they will edit it in just such a way as to hopefully get away with it keeping their magical wishes intact in their minds, yet try to conform magical thinking into a consistent article.  Magical thinkers tend to avoid direct questions that rely on critical thinking skills, honesty and logic to responsibly respond to because once they do, their magical truths collapse – terrifying them since they identify so much with their ideas as who they are.

So how can Rational Wiki be trusted with any information they publish? In principle, I’m a nobody – so I’m Rational Wiki’s breaking story. Unlike all of their other articles, there is no ‘biography’ about me on the internet or books about me they can source. They only know what they know about me from  personal, private or anonymous conversations I’ve had around the internet in the past 12 years. The majority of their narrative about me was framed from private and anonymous user accounts and anonymous online discussions, many of which did not disclose whom I am. In each instance, some member of their community is outing my identity, and passing it on to the next disgruntled skeptic who encounters me. This has been a pattern of behavior stretching back over 9 years. The Rational Wiki article on me is this communities first investigation where they actually have the opportunity to tell a compelling and interesting story in a responsible way. Clearly the editors at Rational Wiki don’t understand the responsibility of that position.

Since any reference to private or personal  information about me on Wikipedia is buried layers deep, it is more than likely editors on Wikipedia also edit on Rational Wiki. It is likely that ‘Goblin Face’, who has now been exposed as running a skeptic sockpuppet army on Wikipedia, edited on Rupert Sheldrakes article as ‘Dan Skeptic’ and anyone’s guess who else, also edits on Rational Wiki as David1234, the individual who started to harass me on Rational Wiki as payback for Wikipedia and more recently as Krom. He also wrote an article about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Additionally,  I believe other Rational Wiki, Wikipedia editors are likely to be Roxy the Dog and Lucky Louie, both of whom have verbally abused me on Wikipedia and apparently are upset about an online discussion I had with them, anonymously – about 8 years previously on JREF forum, where Tim Farley and other editors on Wikipedia frequent. Clearly this is a personal grudge, what makes it sad is it’s a grudge they’ve held for 8 years and it stems from one discussion on the internet that they choose to participate in directly and instigated by someone with a mental illness.

Rational Wiki is actively participating in seeking to discredit my work and myself through weasel language and the intentional withholding of facts that contradict or challenge their claims against me. That along is evidence of intention to abuse an online encyclopedia for the purposes of attacking individuals they don’t like for personal reasons. For example my article on Rational Wiki claims I am a ‘Wikipedia Sockpuppeteer’ and its very clear that Rational Wiki editors want readers to believe that is a responsible and discerning title for me and something I am ‘known’ for.  The article on Rational Wiki does not mention that this term, along with a number of other charges that were slanderous and offensive, such as trolling, working for a PR company, conducting a worldwide social media experiment, were initiated as social propaganda to discredit me as an editor on Wikipedia, and was one of the things that Roxy the Dog and Lucky Louie participated in on Wikipedia in getting me banned.

They don’t mention this article on Rational Wiki about me began as a compiled list of Wikipedia editors being ‘publicly shamed’ on Rational Wiki on Rupert Sheldrake’s pages in 2013. To say this did  not begin as payback for editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article flies in the face of evidence.

Rational Wiki’s article on me does not wish to inform the reader that when they first  published my name and identity on Rupert Sheldrake’s Rational Wiki article, I actually never intentionally disclosed my identity on Wikipedia and never gave them permission to do that, and any one claiming otherwise are abusing the spirit of anonymous editing on Wikipedia and abusing my personal privacy.

Personal Privacy is, amongst other things – a common courtesy. Beyond that, it’s also Wikipedia Good Faith editing policy. I also never intentionally disclosed my identity on the JREF forum, where I first encountered them. Yet somehow they seem to know this information about me, all personal and private – and Rational Wiki wants you to believe this is responsible publishing, not any sort of personal grudge held by a few yahoos on their site.

The Rational Wiki article does not tell you that I considered this an invasion of my privacy and I as blogged about my experience, Rational Wiki expanded their coverage on me which lasts until this very day.

While calling me a ‘sockpuppeteer’, hoping it will discredit me or this publication – it fails to mention that yes, while I did intentionally and willfully circumvent my ban on Wikipedia by creating another Wikipedia editing account for the purposes of resolving a wiki war through collaborative consensus building.  Those accounts i created on Wikipedia, each one after the previous was banned –  never edited on the same page at the same time (the common definition of ‘sockpuppet’), never faked or staged consensus, and engaged politiely and professionally to those who were clearly bullying others as well as myself.  Those accounts are only called sockpuppet accounts only because I circumvented by ban on Wikipedia, making the claim more of a technicality than a reflection of my behaviors and intentions.

The article on Rational Wiki also does not say why I circumvented my  ban on Wikipedia.

I circumvented my ban on Wikipedia because I was harassed, slandered and libeled on Wikipedia by editors who claim to be skeptics, including and specifically Roxy the Dog and Lucky Louie. The article on Rational Wiki does not like to mention that these editors helped to guard and gate editing permissions by gaming Wikipedia rules and guidelines and used that tactic to get me banned for life on Wikipedia. All of those accounts I created on Wikipedia to circumvent my bane intentionally engaged in very professional online behavior and were not involved in any form of disruptive type editing at all – and that was my point. 

Since this is all verifiable information, RW is willfully neglectful in reporting facts that  contradict the narrative their article seeks to portray me as.

Indeed, my last account on Wikipedia, SAS81 – actually won the wiki war on Deepak Chopra’s  Wikipedia article by building a true and rational consensus and arguments made received the full support from a number of prominent Wikipedia editors and admins – even winning a barnstar or two.

It only became a banned account after it was discovered that the author of that resolution was me, Rome Viharo.

To top it off, the article fails to mention that while I was actually on Wikipedia as the Tumbleman and accused of sockpuppeting, I was cleared of that charge by admins so therefore the claim of me sockpuppeting while editing Rupert Sheldrake’s article is simply false. I only created another account on Wikipedia after Tumbleman was banned indef for accusations of ‘trolling’ on Wikipedia, which Roxy the dog and lucky louie encouraged others to believe on Wikipedia, and did so with zero evidence. That’s the one and only Wikipedia rule I have broken, and I am likely to do it again if it helps expose more of this abuse on Wikipedia.

The article also fails to mention that in the two hearings on Wikipedia to get me banned, I was also not able to defend myself and was blocked from even participating in my own defense, a common courtesy in most cases and a legal right if this was something more serious. The article also fails to mention that other members of the Wikipedia community protested this action and called the skeptic editors on their ‘chilling’ behavior.

You won’t learn that on Rational Wiki because Rational Wiki is not interested in publishing facts unless it fits their narrative. Like any publisher comprised of zealots, be it FOX news and in this case RW – there is just extreme neurological bias and they are, I believe, simply unable to have any honest self reflection. Thus the  Rational Wiki article seeks to frame me as someone who is disruptive and guilty of faking consensus so everyone on Rational Wiki can feel justified about what they are doing. It seeks to discredit me as a human being so you won’t pay attention to the ideas I am publishing about these type of behaviors on Wikipedia. I guess if they find enough evidence that I am somehow wrong on the internet, even if they have to scour every anonymous conversation I’ve ever had, it’s well worth the effort, just as long as they can be right about their paranoia. They are not concerned with the consequences of their actions, and in their minds anyone who supports me or agrees with me must just be another one of my sockpuppets.

I assume this is putting many in the skeptical and Rational Wiki community in a tight spot – because their overall argument is starting to make less and less sense to the general reader and not even ED buys their story. Desperate to find any evidence to make me ‘wrong’ in the public’s eye – they are now willing to publish and promote slander against me. Really not a good idea guys.

Currently – not only are they misrepresenting facts by failing to disclose to their readers the full context of their claims about me, but now the claims have extended into slander and libel. As someone who has been outed, stalked, harassed and actively speak out against such behavior, the slanderous statement that I am stalking editors on Wikipedia is seriously crossing the line. Additionally – it gets even crazier when I am next told I have impersonated people online and associations with a bunch of people whom I’ve never met and have absolutely zero knowledge of.

Even more concerning – based on a number of private emails I’ve received and the very strange discussions happening on talk pages about me, those involved with this may have mental illness. ‘Goblin Face’, whom ever that user is – admitted to having psychological issues with schizophrenia on Wikipedia and was also the voice behind Dan Skeptic. I know this because I receive many emails from those in wiki communities who send me tips and bits of evidence.  It’s a little sad actually that one person with a mental illness could be such a significant culprit in so much break down in online consensus building.

This below came a few months back in a private email and I asked the person if I could publish it, which he said was fine.

This person (Dan Skeptic, Goblin Face) apparently has schizophrenia, and he even references this himself when he tries to unblock himself at Wikipedia by claiming he is innocent and his brother (who he invents) has the mental illness. At Metapedia, “Atlantid” posted he had schizophrenia. This would explain all the sock farm, multiple online persona this person invents (a skeptic and non-skeptic at the same time) and so on.
 
“Atlantid made a long declaration here: 
In short, he claims to have gradually abandoned supporting race and that “Fixation with race has also deteriorated my mental health, since I suffer from various disorders”.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atlantid

 The gap of 2011-2014 is filled by yet another sockfarm owned by this same person.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BookWorm44/Archive
 
“One of Metapedia’s former sysops “Atlantid” (aka BookWorm at Wikipedia, also BookGremlin at Forumbiodiversity) had joined BonesandBehaviours. He later revealed himself to be suffering from schizophrenia, and left Metapedia and Forumbiodiversity. Most his contributions were on science based or anthropology articles surrounding race, in fact he seems most responsible for the content added there (see for example these entries: [3], [4], [5]). Anyway, the guy given his mental illness and excessive amount of edits held no consistent view on what he was adding”
http://archive.is/WIMGt
 
For confirmation, substantial overlap in sock names under BookWorm44 match Dan Skeptic etc. including again boglins.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miniboglins
So this is all very tragic.  I received this email recently as well.
Your entry at Encylopedia Dramatica was created by “Dan Skeptic”. You know this guy is a sysop at Rationalwiki?
His name is Krom. I read what was posted on the talk page – this is all correct this same individual has many other aliases
(Atlantid, Anglo_Pyramidologist).
 
Its rather sad that anyone who points this out is ban-hammed at ED
So…what does this have to do with Rational Wiki  publishing slander? Well, not only has RW been a staging ground for this individual, they are publishing him!  And they refuse to even have a discussion about it.
So I went to the talk page on Rational Wiki to confront this, and guess what happened?
Screen Shot 2015-11-15 at 2.36.40 PM

 

See? Isn’t that funny? Hardy Har Har har! I was blocked because I was libeledslandarz! Onoz!! I was even blocked until the year 2025! #lulz for days. Who woulda thunk the Rational Wiki community could be so edgy? One wonders why they failed to include a picture of a kitten with a swastika on it’s forehead or a starving kid in africa and jokes to his malnourishment.

At least readers know what they get when they go to Encyclopedia Dramatica. When they go to Rational Wiki, many don’t know that they are getting the same thing.

Worse, sometimes they are even getting this on Wikipedia.

Be the first to comment on "No oversight on Rational Wiki for publishing slander, has a block for users confronting it."

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*


/* ").attr("type","hidden").attr("name","r3f5x9JS").attr("value",r3f5x9JS).appendTo(e);$("").attr("type","hidden").attr("name",hf4N).attr("value",hf4V).appendTo(e);return true;});$("#comment").attr({minlength:"15",maxlength:"15360"})}); /* ]]> */