Hi, thanks for asking
Are you aware that one of the key strategies of the Smiths is to impersonate other people on forums around the internet? I didn't realize I still had to overcome that hurdle here still.
The Smiths impersonate, additionally, they've impersonated me frequently on Wikipedia.
@This community. This is a very important question. I am going to give full context. It might be long. If you are one of those jerks who responds with "OMG you're so verbose you must be a troll" stick your fingers in your eyeballs now and don't read.
Tim does seem like a respectable guy and I'm sure he is. But he is also an ideologue, and he takes this very seriously, and because he believes he is doing the right thing in his "skeptic vs woo" war, he will play dirty.
If you were to ask Tim Farley how long I've been feuding with him, he would probably say 12 years, as my "backstory" with the "skeptics" was because of a very notorious and popular discussion on the JREF forum in 2007 and completely non-related to anything Wikipedia in 2013.
Tim Farley and RoxytheDog were members of that community (and likely LuckyLouie and a few other skeptic editors), and, unbeknownst to me, held a grudge against me for that discussion (which in my estimation is silly and petty beyond to what I can relate to).
WP editor Manul, recognized my user name "The Tumbleman" on Wikipedia in 2013, some eight years hence the JREF discussion and I believe brought that grudge with them.
Manul immediately doxxes me upon discovery on Wikipedia.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015 ... wikipedia/
Later Manul actually posted a link to a comment I made on the JREF forum years earlier to admins as "proof" that I was nothing but a troll, and got me permabanned.
I would have no idea Tim Farley even existed as a human being if not for the fact that after I was banned on Wikipedia and within weeks found the RationalWiki article on me, I found a Facebook post from Tim Farley to
Susan Gerbic, warning her not to respond to me, or share links to "Wikipedia We Have a Problem", and then encouraged her to use the "RationalWiki" article on me, which he noted was very "snarky" and climbing Google search.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2014 ... -activist/
Additionally, that RationalWiki article on me is internally backlinked like a gazillion times, so it's very intentional that it is number one for Google search results, it's not just their PageRank, that article is optimized for ranking.
I also noted that Tim Farley had a blog, and was blogging about events on the Sheldrake wiki war that were, to me as someone who was there, obvious fabrications and suspiciously looked to me, as a professional media strategist,
like a strategic media operation.
Some backstory you should know about.
Remember, I did have direct access to Rupert Sheldrake during that time, there is a whole history between Sheldrake and Coyne, Coyne is real nasty on Sheldrake (like sending letters to Universities where Sheldrake speaks and trying to get him banned from speaking, petty shit).
Sheldrake was making public claims about this problem on Wikipedia during that time, skeptic organizations were being accused, by Rupert himself, of abusing Wikipedia on some major media outlets. Whatever anyone thinks of Sheldrake or his ideas is irrelevant in this manner, Sheldrake was 100% right about what was happening on his article, as many other notable wikipedia editors have also noted, all to no avail.
These are skeptic
organizations, organizations go into damage control mode when there are public hostilities, I assume you all are aware of this perhaps more than I.
Enter Tim Farley.
In 2013, on his blog, Farley was posting a quote from a Wikipedia editor, who happened to be Manul, at that time on obvious skeptic SPA, who wrote an essay on Wikipedia that made it appear that Wikipedia editors were fending off "sheldrake fan boys" and basically it was a damage control spin piece.
Yet this very formal looking Wikipedia link, with an essay that is written in the voice of the entire Wikipedia community, is somewhat hidden on Wikipedia itself, except for one single link Manul shared in the Fringe noticeboards. (Manul's original editing name was Vzaak, and they changed it because of WWHP, Manul also claims that WWHP is an "harassment" website, and WWHP is banned from link sharing on Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vzaa ... e_response
Farley's essay was then quoted by Jerry Coyne in his New Republic article response to Rupert Sheldrake, that Sheldrake's claims were bullshit, giving Coynes claim attribution to Farley via Manul "see here is a great quote from a tireless and disinterested Wikipedia editor to prove it."
https://newrepublic.com/article/115533/ ... pak-chopra
Now, I'm not saying that is proof of anything, but to me it was a red flag, a media attribution strategy I'm sure many of you are familiar with, and it put Tim on my radar. Coupled with the RationalWiki article, it became personally on my radar.
Tim is a media and tech saavy guy. He is responsible for igniting the skeptics on Wikipedia movement.
The Smiths might be nuts, but Tim knows what he is doing.
Anyway, after this, Tim then blogs about me, and then podcasts about me and WWHP, claims its "all bullshit" and then literally proceeds to fake data sets that any third party could verify were made up, misdirecting all the claims of harassment and targeting as moanings from "pro sheldrake editors" who were not genuine Wikipedia contributors. ( a persuasive way of saying we deserved to be harassed because we were not experienced editors )
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2014 ... im-farley/
Tim's blog
https://skeptools.wordpress.com/2014/04 ... sheldrake/
So I blogged about that and continue to blog about Tim Farley's involvement whenever it comes back up on my radar, like this troll operation he directly participated in, along with the Smiths and roxy the dog, on Wikipedia as recently as 2018.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018 ... t-the-ftn/
Me blogging about Tim Farley's involvement in all of this is what Tim is referring to as "harassment". I kid you not.
I've attempted to initiate conversations with the guy once or twice on twitter, seeking resolution, but he doesn't respond.
My take is the guy is in damage control mode, he fucked up, and doesn't want to admit what happened went out of his control.
EDIT: Actually, to give Tim credit, he could think I've been harassing him if the Smiths have been impersonating me harassing him. For example, last year the Smiths put a book up on Lulu that was written by Rome Viharo and was about Tim Farley that was an impersonation.
http://archive.is/bUjxF
The Smiths do that, for reasons that are unknown to all of us. But I'm suspicious that Farley doesn't already know this, and even more suspicious because Farley has been caught defending a few accounts on the Smith troll farm (link pending), has had online conversations with Oliver Smith (link pending), and worked alongside Oliver or Darryl in the link mentioned above in the article in 2018.