Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

User avatar
Boing! said Zebedee
Gregarious
Posts: 639
kołdry
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:47 pm
Wikipedia User: Boing! said Zebedee
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Boing! said Zebedee » Mon May 27, 2019 7:11 am

Midsize Jake wrote:So you honestly think that your TED talk about how Google is a "conscious entity" had nothing to do with that? I'm sorry, really I am, but I for one am not buying it.
A pedantic point, perhaps, but it was TEDx, not TED.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Mon May 27, 2019 8:18 am

Boing! said Zebedee wrote:A pedantic point, perhaps, but it was TEDx, not TED.
I blame my parents, for not letting me have a teddy bear when I was a child and forcing me to play with live circuit breakers instead.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon May 27, 2019 10:55 am

I'd say that this thread is utterly out of hand. Is there any way to limit the number of posts per day that people can make to it?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 3:04 pm

Speaking to plants, literally.
Plants as conscious entities.
Of course it's only after they partake of the psychoactive plant that they are able to 'understand' these plants...

This is analogous to typing garbage into google while high on ketamine and then 'finding answers' through non-rational connections that only you can understand.

The link included (http://www.googleconsciousness.com/) is a 404 parked at a dead end Chinese parking site.

This entire talk should be mandatory viewing in a basic science class for illustrating the concept of confirmation bias.

If there were ever a more definitive example of a Narcissist than this guy, I've not seen it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12061
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon May 27, 2019 3:09 pm

Poetlister wrote:I'd say that this thread is utterly out of hand. Is there any way to limit the number of posts per day that people can make to it?
Matthew 18:9

Alternatively: just read other threads and skip this one.

RfB


P.S. I went to college with a religious freak who got drunk in a bar one night and decided to take Matthew 18:9 literally. Good luck with that theory. I think he had six kids because the stupid people were procreating at a higher pace than the smart people, which ultimately dooms the species if the game runs long enough. Good luck with that theory, too.
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Mon May 27, 2019 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12061
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon May 27, 2019 3:23 pm

Mr. Whiny McSnivelpants wrote:If there were ever a more definitive example of a Narcissist than this guy, I've not seen it.
Too easy...

t
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 3:34 pm

Hi,
Midsize Jake wrote: Here's the thing. I probably shouldn't admit this, but we don't actually delete threads that turn into clusterf***s here, we put them in this special trash-dump forum so we can refer to them later in case a situation like this comes up. Since I'm a site admin now, they would turn up on any search I do for relevant search terms, and I'm just not seeing this thread to which you refer. And while I could be lying, if what you describe is actually what happened, then it can hardly be called a "successful" trolling attempt, can it?
yes, it can be called a successful trolling attempt because their point was to get the thread deleted, and it worked. check the bins, you'll find it.
.
Look, I'll accept that this may have been true for some of our members, but I'm sticking by my assertion that hardly anybody here would have had any significant reason to know who you were at the time, or why anyone should have been all that interested in your situation.
I encountered a troll farm on Wikipedia that had me removed from editing, and I came to a forum that exposes issues on problems occurring on Wikipedia.

I would assume the point of the forum would be to have an interest in any problem occurring on Wikipedia.

I didn't realize it was actually an "audition".
That was me, actually, and all I did was name your Wikipedia account - no other personal identifying information about you was initially exposed here. That's the facts!
Midsize - As my editing account was the Tumbleman, which was outed as 'Rome Viharo', you posting my editing account led another member here to literally start referring to me as my first name. viewtopic.php?f=21&t=3505

Those are facts.
And frankly, your story made it extremely clear who you were. IMO this whole victimization act of yours is beneath you, and quite frankly, kind of narcissistic as well.
I'm just bringing up the facts.

Speaking of narcissism, ever hear of the narcissist's prayer?
  • That didn’t happen.

    And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

    And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

    And if it is, that’s not my fault.

    And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

    And if I did…

    You deserved it.
Let's see who better that applies to.
If I had to summarize your initial exchange with us in a simple script (since nobody has time to actually read these things), it would probably go like this:
Jake, your summary is longer than my opening paragraph, which is this:
Hello. I wanted to say hello to this forum and I'm glad it's here.
That's my first line. Then I specifically said...
A few months back, I participated in editing a page on wikipedia (I am going to withhold details now until i publish them on the web shortly).
and my last line was:
I plan on going public within the week. I am curious to know of other stories or histories of cyber bullying on Wikipedia. I believe my case is crystal clear - and I am willing to go public in the hopes that it will make a difference, but also in the hopes that I will also clear my name. Any advice, assistance or help greatly appreciated. I'll post full transparent details soon. thank you!
All anyone had to do was say "sure bub, here is where you can find some resources" and "look forward to reading what you have to share when you're ready."

I guess what I'm saying here is that your actions (at least at that point) may have had perfectly good intentions, but since they were so strikingly similar to those we expect from shifty and deceptive characters, it was difficult - if not impossible - for us to provide you with what you appeared to want.
Is there other cases of cyberbullying happening on Wikipedia? That was my question.
i dunno... "verbal assault," sure, I can sort of see that, but I think it should be up to the reader as to whether the subsequent "accusations and suspicions" were, in fact, just basic criticisms of your work - the nature of which (almost by necessity) made it difficult for most of us to support you as much as you probably would have liked.
pls see "narcissists prayer"

I came here anonymously, there was no "work" for anyone to peruse because no one should have known who I was, and all I did was say hi and request if there were any cases of this issue the community could point me to.
So you honestly think that your TED talk about how Google is a "conscious entity" had nothing to do with that? I'm sorry, really I am, but I for one am not buying it.
Especially that, because if you watched the talk,you would see that was not the assertion at all. Yet because the SMiths went around saying I had "woo theories" about consciousness via the TEDx talk, you guys ran with that interpretation when that is not what the talk is about. http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2017 ... ki-brains/
The obvious one is that whatever your claim or argument is at any given time, you expect everyone to simply take your word for it without disagreement.
No, that is not an expectation I have at all. That's a perception you have of me. Glad we cleared that one up.
you actually act as though your entire career/background is just one uncontroversial, obviously-true observation after another - and you pretend you "don't understand" when someone doesn't go along with this, implying that the other person isn't making any sense.
I came here asking for resources on Wikipedia harassment. Anonymously. This community took my anonymity, and then made assumptions about quick google searches they did with flags waived by the RationalWiki article.

I don't mind actual bonafide criticisms of things I have done, what I do mind is criticisms of things that I have not done, or misunderstandings of things I have done.
And it isnt just us, either - you showed up on the International Skeptics Forum, for example, and literally the exact same thing happened. But maybe Oliver & Darryl were behind that too... in 2005?
Okay, you got me?? In 2005 I went to that forum and had a very long notorious discussion. I'm not apologizing for that discussion, I was not banned for that discussion, and I loved that discussion.

Why bring that up?

Do you realize we met in 2013?

You do realize it is now 2019?
We might disagree as to the extent to which these two guys (Oliver & Darryl) have influenced us, but I don't think it makes sense for anyone to pretend they're not a significant part of this dispute - if we're going to have a thread on the Abd vs. WMF lawsuit at all, it's only fair that people should have some idea as to what Abd and these other folks are actually talking about viz a viz these (non-musical) "Smiths." If I'm overruled, then that's fine - I'm just saying that's how I'd handle it.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Last edited by WWHP on Mon May 27, 2019 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 3:37 pm

Poetlister wrote:I'd say that this thread is utterly out of hand. Is there any way to limit the number of posts per day that people can make to it?
Sure, when an uncomfortable truth comes up, let's see how we can limit the participation of the person bringing up the uncomfortable truth.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 3:45 pm

Vigilant wrote: Speaking to plants, literally.
Plants as conscious entities.
Of course it's only after they partake of the psychoactive plant that they are able to 'understand' these plants...

This is analogous to typing garbage into google while high on ketamine and then 'finding answers' through non-rational connections that only you can understand.

The link included (http://www.googleconsciousness.com/) is a 404 parked at a dead end Chinese parking site.

This entire talk should be mandatory viewing in a basic science class for illustrating the concept of confirmation bias.
The entire talk should be viewed as a story, since the talk begins with the line "This is the STORY about the MEME Google Consciousness"

If you or anyone took a story and interpret it as a thesis, I would suggest that would be evidence of a low level of comprehension.

Also, I'm sorry that factual information about indigenous traditions from Peru make you feel nervous and uncomfortable. I used that as a "set up" for the story about the "meme" Google consciousness.

Please apply verbal and reading comprehension BEFORE you criticize a creative (NOT SCIENTIFIC) work.
If there were ever a more definitive example of a Narcissist than this guy, I've not seen it.
Nah, that's just called "projection". This community enables extreme narcissist personalities, you're the top dog here as I can tell, and let's look at the pattern.
A Narcissist’s Prayer


That didn’t happen.

And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not my fault.

And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did…

You deserved it.
So what will happen here is that somehow, because I respond to these accusations made about me, I will be viewed as the disruptive element. And all I am doing is responding to the words of the members here. I didn't bring up my Tedx talk, nor what happened in 2013 here until I was prompted by this community.

This is brought up to show the level of influence the Smiths have, and how certain personality types are easily manipulated by them.
Last edited by WWHP on Mon May 27, 2019 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 4:01 pm

The Smith brothers - the new Red Scare.

Looking through their 'efforts', they look like obvious internet trolls.
That you see them under every bush and inflate their influence just makes you and Abd look like soft headed tools.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 4:15 pm

Vigilant wrote:The Smith brothers - the new Red Scare.

Looking through their 'efforts', they look like obvious internet trolls.
That you see them under every bush and inflate their influence just makes you and Abd look like soft headed tools.
Nah, I find them exactly where THE LINKS show them doing what they do and nowhere else.

And if they were so obvious, they were not obvious to this community, or Wikipedia, until WWHP published information about their activities until Abd researched and exposed more of their troll farm, and Michael Suarez did key diligence in their discovery.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 4:17 pm

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Talk:Rome_Viharo

Dude.

I can see why you've made common cause with Abd.
Can you write anything in less than novel format?

This guy nails it. You should listen and pay attention here.
This is why you're a lolcow dude. You write huge replies (thousands of words) on shit no one cares about. Your article was added because it appeared as an inactive hyperlink on Oliver's article, that was re-written; I had no idea Oliver created your original article that got flushed, although this is something he denies doing (JuniusThaddeus disputes this). As for SJW's, yes you're a massive one. Rationalwiki are SJW's and the reason they hate you is not because of your left wing politics, but because you support unconventional/alternative medicines that RW labels "pseudo-science", so in their opinion (not worth shit) you're a quack, who cares? Your social media profiles are primarily used to chimpout at Trump, moan at things like Brexit and post lovey-dovey politics, but while living in an ivory tower. And just saw your pro-rapefugee posts (lol), will you be offering to accommodate refugees in your own apartment, Rome? Thought not. As for WWHP, the only people who have paid your website brief attention are people like me who are mocking it for its bat-shit craziness. You accuse people of "harassment" literally every 5 minutes and it makes you look like a professional victim, rather than the real thing. The main problem with WWHP as anyone can see is it just throws allegations with flimsy, or no evidence. Aside from the Archive today-ico.png attack blog Oliver created on you, its hard to prove he did anything else, which is why he claims you're defaming him. An example is the email thing, unless you have contacted Microsoft and have the IP of that account by someone called "Ben" (that could have been made on a TOR anyway), you have nothing linking Oliver to it. In Oliver's eyes you're "cyberbullying" him, with these allegations you cannot prove. That's why in my view you're as bad as each other; you should just learn to stop shit-posting.Kiwi Pyre 20:51, 3 February 2017 (EST)
Last edited by Vigilant on Mon May 27, 2019 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 4:18 pm

Vigilant wrote:https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Talk:Rome_Viharo

Dude.

I can see why you've made common cause with Abd.
Can you write anything in less than novel format?
You will notice my responses to you are quite short, due to your reading comprehension and all. If you see a post with too many words, that means it wasn't a reply to you and therefore, you don't have to read it.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 4:40 pm

Vigilant wrote:
This guy nails it. You should listen and pay attention here.
Vigilante, that "guy" you are quoting is literally one of the other most disturbing alt right trolls I have met and was apart of the KiwiFarms Candyce Lynn troll operation, which partnered with Oliver Smith and was going around publishing articles on the internet that I was a pedophile.

So yeah, sometimes it takes lots of words to set context straight, especially when I'm being targeted by trolls who are literally attempting to destroy my life.

Seriously hombre, your level of comprehension is laughable, and your identification with some of the worst troll personalities on the internet not surprising.

Also, let's work on some self-reflection! Its healthy.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 4:56 pm

WWHP wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
This guy nails it. You should listen and pay attention here.
Vigilante, that "guy" you are quoting is literally one of the other most disturbing alt right trolls I have met and was apart of the KiwiFarms Candyce Lynn troll operation, which was going around publishing articles on the internet that I was a pedophile.

So yeah, sometimes it takes lots of words to set context straight, especially when I'm being targeted by trolls who are literally attempting to destroy my life.

Seriously hombre, your level of comprehension is laughable, and your identification with some of the worst troll personalities on the internet not surprising.

Also, let's work on some self-reflection! Its healthy.
This is a standard ad hominem attack.
Who cares if the author is a shitty person. He probably is.

His analysis of you is spot on.

The bolded part is perhaps the most ironic statement posted on WO to date.
Take a bow.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 5:41 pm

Vigilant wrote: This is a standard ad hominem attack.
Who cares if the author is a shitty person. He probably is.
OMG is there really that much of a lack of self reflection on your part? Are your projections really this gross and obvious?

Dude, you've done nothing but lay solely personal attacks, i.e. ad hominem at me, and literally ZERO "analysis"
His analysis of you is spot on.
:blink: Really? That's an "analysis"? No, that's called a misinformation troll, who partnered with Oliver, and the only way you could even assert that his "analysis" was correct was if you also did an analysis, which you haven't.

Only ad hom, only projection, and only narcissism.
The bolded part is perhaps the most ironic statement posted on WO to date.
Take a bow.
Ironic indeed. I suppose if I was to confront his "analysis", and point out the contradictions or deceptions, I would be accussed of "posting too much" and "playing a victim".

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
Location: 'Murica

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by rhindle » Mon May 27, 2019 5:59 pm

Yes, I agree this thread needs to be split off. Not because of any sort of censorship but because while perhaps tangentially related to the topic it is still :offtopic:

I believe WWHP's is bringing up a broader scope that does need its own thread. IMHO

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 6:11 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... al/eor8mhm

Etherman is trying to inform about how things work in court and Abd just won't listen.

An artist's rendition of the upcoming court case is included.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 6:24 pm

rhindle wrote: I believe WWHP's is bringing up a broader scope that does need its own thread. IMHO
If someone in this forum wants to start that thread, and invite me in good faith to participate, I will.

However, last time I attempted to present this case, the thread was deleted.

I have no reason to expect good faith from this community, and will never post a topic again here ever unless there is a good faith and sincere invitation, which I doubt there will be.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 6:30 pm

WWHP wrote:
rhindle wrote: I believe WWHP's is bringing up a broader scope that does need its own thread. IMHO
If someone in this forum wants to start that thread, and invite me in good faith to participate, I will.

However, last time I attempted to present this case, the thread was deleted.

I have no reason to expect good faith from this community, and will never post a topic again here ever unless there is a good faith and sincere invitation, which I doubt there will be.
Bye Felicia.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 27, 2019 6:45 pm

And to Crow, I just don't give a shit about this particular subdrama.

I know who the dimwit Smith brothers are and I know who mikemikev is and I know who vordrak is and about the autism legion of doom.
I've spent my time browsing on PoE, SA, ED, the farms, etc.
I've laughed at the incessant and unrelenting autism that these sites distill from the ether.

We've got enough whiny, retarded shits in this particular thread/scrum already, adding another bag of rabid, nut biting squirrels to the mix is not useful or interesting.

That being said... if you're feeling frisky

Image
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 7:04 pm

Vigilant wrote: Bye Felicia.
Don't worry Vig, the community will split the thread, project the shadow onto me, complain what an annoying troll I am and how much I disrupted a conversation, and continue to enable your toxic personality because they all know you will cry until you get your way.

The facts are that this community participated in a continuation of abuse initiated by the Smiths, dismiss all evidence or facts that highlight this, and when presented with proof, don't even offer an apology, just justifications for their behavior.

And I already know your response, it is some form of this

A Narcissist’s Prayer

That didn’t happen.

And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not my fault.

And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did…

You deserved it.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 7:16 pm

Vigilant wrote:And to Crow, I just don't give a shit about this particular subdrama.

I know who the dimwit Smith brothers are and I know who mikemikev is and I know who vordrak is and about the autism legion of doom.
I've spent my time browsing on PoE, SA, ED, the farms, etc.
I've laughed at the incessant and unrelenting autism that these sites distill from the ether.
You LOVE the drama and are a CAUSE of the drama. You just get upset if you are not the center of attention of the drama.
Now that you've complained about me disrupting the topic, you are literally inviting someone else to join about the issue.

"Come at me Crow" lol

I came "at you", and you cried and asked the mods to move the discussion.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Mon May 27, 2019 9:30 pm

WWHP wrote:yes, it can be called a successful trolling attempt because their point was to get the thread deleted, and it worked. check the bins, you'll find it.
I already said that I'd checked the "bins." We have two threads that mention your name in the "trash forum," except that they're from 2015 and 2016, and both were started by Michaeldsuarez; you didn't participate in either of them, which is why I didn't catch them earlier in this thread (sorry, I'm fallible). Having now read them though, it does turn out that Oliver Smith registered two accounts here, "Sumerian" and "Ogygia" - the first lasted two days before being banned, the second lasted about 30 minutes, and all of the posts they made were trashed, right down the ol' memory hole. Both threads amounted to Mr. Suarez claiming that Smith had joe-jobbed him on both RationalWiki and EncyclopediaDramatica, Smith insisting (implausibly) that it was actually Mr. Suarez doing the joe-jobbing, and the rest of us asking why anyone could possibly care about it in any sense whatsoever.

That lack of caring about the situation was, in turn, why those two threads were trashed - not because of some elaborate reverse-psychology scheme by Smith to influence us to delete them by responding negatively to Mr. Suarez. (Responding negatively to Mr. Suarez is something we can do quite effectively on our own when need be, I can assure you).

We also had two other members around that time, "IRWolfie" and "MilesMoney," who antagonized you both here and on Wikipedia, but neither of them are/were Oliver (or Darryl) Smith. However, I will grant that from your personal perspective, the difference in tone and agenda between Smith(s) and MilesMoney would have seemed small enough to have at least aroused suspicion.

Lastly, I did consider that you might be thinking of this thread, which you started in May 2015 and which was retitled and moved to a private forum shortly thereafter. (IOW, if you weren't logged in, it might have appeared as if it had been deleted.) But no member account that could plausibly be associated with the Smith bros. participated in that thread either, just as no such account participated in the earlier 2014 thread (also in a private forum, originally), about whether or not Wikipediocracy should ally itself more closely with single-issue WP criticism blogs (and yours in particular). That thread was started by Mr. Triptych, who strongly supported the idea.

Look, all I'm really saying here is that contrary to your original assertion, this forum handled the Smith brother(s) appropriately when confronted with them - they were derided, deplatformed, and banned, rather quickly. Not the sort of people we want around here at all. But I'm not saying that nobody here was influenced by their defamatory RationalWiki article about you, even though I would say they were probably just as influenced by your own blog as anything else. This is one of the last places where you'd expect to find people who are easily influenced by wiki articles on any site.

So yes, people here reacted badly to you, that did happen, and to the extent that people were influenced by the bad-guys it was bad, very bad. From your perspective it was clearly a big deal, and the fact that we allow our members to say nasty things about other people - including yourself - is definitely our fault. Our failure to censor such posts is, up to a point at least, intentional. But you can post the "narcissist's prayer" all you want (which is to say, "please stop doing that"); I doubt it's going to make anyone have an epiphany of some kind. And as to whether or not you deserved it, that's just a matter of perspective, isn't it? Like every question regarding who "deserves" anything...?

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 10:41 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
WWHP wrote:yes, it can be called a successful trolling attempt because their point was to get the thread deleted, and it worked. check the bins, you'll find it.
I already said that I'd checked the "bins." We have two threads that mention your name in the "trash forum," except that they're from 2015 and 2016, and both were started by Michaeldsuarez; you didn't participate in either of them, which is why I didn't catch them earlier in this thread (sorry, I'm fallible).
Yeah, I remember those too, but that's not it. Weird, I went to my inbox because I know a moderator here messaged me about it before and after the deletion. For some reason, his messages to me are gone, but the response I sent to him was still there, so here is a screen grab.
https://wp.me/a4c4Zt-1h1

The admin who deleted it was Hex, and the title topic likely "Wikipedia, We Have a Problem FAQ" I especially remember the thread because the first response I was greeted with was from Gregory Kohs, whose first comment was something to the effect of "Is English your first language?" which was the second or third time he attempted to dismiss and insult my participation here.


We also had two other members around that time, "IRWolfie" and "MilesMoney," who antagonized you both here and on Wikipedia, but neither of them are/were Oliver (or Darryl) Smith. However, I will grant that from your personal perspective, the difference in tone and agenda between Smith(s) and MilesMoney would have seemed small enough to have at least aroused suspicion.
The Smiths were not the only trolls I dealt with, on Wikipedia there was Manul and Roxythedog who went around and posted my real information to those editors.
Look, all I'm really saying here is that contrary to your original assertion, this forum handled the Smith brother(s) appropriately when confronted with them - they were derided, deplatformed, and banned, rather quickly.
Congrats, however that was not my criticism.

Not the sort of people we want around here at all. But I'm not saying that nobody here was influenced by their defamatory RationalWiki article about you, even though I would say they were probably just as influenced by your own blog as anything else. This is one of the last places where you'd expect to find people who are easily influenced by wiki articles on any site.
my blog was not yet published when I arrived here, only the RW article.
So yes, people here reacted badly to you, that did happen, and to the extent that people were influenced by the bad-guys it was bad, very bad. From your perspective it was clearly a big deal, and the fact that we allow our members to say nasty things about other people - including yourself - is definitely our fault.
THANK YOU! Really, thank you. That is a more responsible response to this sort of an issue.

I accept that apology coming from you. But it should also come from the members of this community who participated in it.

Our failure to censor such posts is, up to a point at least, intentional. But you can post the "narcissist's prayer" all you want (which is to say, "please stop doing that"); I doubt it's going to make anyone have an epiphany of some kind.
Midsize, I want you to check my entire internet history. You will see that I'm a very open and friendly person with one exception, when someone is being a dick to me, I push back, and I push back without being a dick in return.

So I won't post the narcissist prayer anymore unless someone calls me whiny narcissist for defending myself against a vicious troll farm for five years.

I appreciate your honesty here, and your willingness to look deeper into the issue (which has always been your strong point from my experience)
And as to whether or not you deserved it, that's just a matter of perspective, isn't it? Like every question regarding who "deserves" anything...?
I guess it is a manner of perspective. If someone has the worldview that someone with different or foreign ideas than their own deserves to be publically shamed, I suppose we would all deserve to be publically shamed.

My view is that NO one deserves abuse of any kind, it's not necessary, and it is incredibly harmful to online consensus building. Even trolls don't deserve abuse, they just deserve to be confronted. If you notice, all my confrontations with problematic personality types are confrontational, but not abusive or dehumanizing, and always open for resolution.

I'm glad you are a mod here now, I always viewed you on more of the rational end of the spectrum here. I hope that you will do more to raise awareness, online targeted harassment happening anywhere is a very serious issue on the internet. No one has to like anyone or their ideas, but at least be professional and courteous if you're repping yourself as an organization that is taking on a very serious issue.

People come here for your help! That's a big responsibility. Even more so now than ever. I hope the community will rise to that occasion.

Thank you once again for your honesty and admission.

Cheers
Rome

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4683
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by tarantino » Mon May 27, 2019 11:13 pm

WWHP, since this thread has turned to talking about you, why did you post the same thing eight times in a row on reddit last week, then delete your account? How long have you been feuding with Tim Farley? He seems to be a respectable person, and claims you've been harassing him for years.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Mon May 27, 2019 11:23 pm

The Smiths archive most operations they do, a peculiar and consistent pattern. It often works against them.

Since this missing thread that I started and cannot be found now was one of their operations, they archived it.

@Midsize Jake. Voila https://archive.is/cZQdp

(thx amigo for the heads up)
Last edited by WWHP on Tue May 28, 2019 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Tue May 28, 2019 12:54 am

Hi, thanks for asking
tarantino wrote:WWHP, since this thread has turned to talking about you, why did you post the same thing eight times in a row on reddit last week, then delete your account?
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.

How long have you been feuding with Tim Farley? He seems to be a respectable person, and claims you've been harassing him for years.
@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.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Tue May 28, 2019 8:51 pm

@Vigalante: So the fan club that you were happily bragging about last week is now impersonating you on Reddit, posting the usual misinformation about me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... d_his_own/

Congrats, this means you're now in the loop. Expect an impersonation every so often, The Smiths never use one just once.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue May 28, 2019 10:31 pm

WWHP wrote:@Vigalante: So the fan club that you were happily bragging about last week is now impersonating you on Reddit, posting the usual misinformation about me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... d_his_own/

Congrats, this means you're now in the loop. Expect an impersonation every so often, The Smiths never use one just once.
I saw.

I’m not sure they really want this particular tussle.

Thanks for the heads up though.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12061
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed May 29, 2019 12:17 am

A comment for Wikipedia We Have a Problem...

It seems to me that a lot of the problem you are having with trolls relates to you feeding them so well.

Just fucking ignore them and get on with your life.

And this: why are you here?

RfB

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 29, 2019 3:02 am

*chortle*
About that confidential medical rapport. Ymnens mentioned it with hints in his postings on WP-NL, and others too. (See my blog) It is clear Vigilant, a American person has knowlege about that rapport as we have seen and respect in no way my privacy on WO. I don't like it at all, this misuse and discussions in public on the internet. This is medical secret.
He can be prosecuted in both in America and Holland. These are absolute not matters to use on the internet in flame wars or wiki discussions. Even if you have knowledge about that rapport you have to be silence about it. And if Vigilant had collected this knowledge in a professional employment surroundings he has now a tremendous problem.

Because, if Lomax brings this up in his law case it wouldn't surprise me if the judge want to have a little chat with both me and mister Vigilant. And for sure she will follow the opinion of professional doctors and not the "original research" of a few privacy leaking wikiidiots I can guarantee you. And for sure she will come to the conclusion American laws are broken.
I eagerly await your legal service.

Tell us more about the stupid shit you did while having your psychotic break.

P.S. When are you going back to Holland?
P.P.S. I'm starting to think this is the only form of attention you get...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Habitué
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:19 am
Wikipedia User: The Devil's Advocate

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by The Devil's Advocate » Wed May 29, 2019 3:20 am

Abd posted a draft of an amended complaint over at WS. Still a work in progress, obviously, but much more fleshed out than the original complaint.

"For those who stubbornly seek freedom around the world, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination."

- Noam Chomsky


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 29, 2019 3:31 am

__Vigilant__ on r/wikiinaction is a verified account of mine.

You boys want to find a new hobby.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed May 29, 2019 7:56 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:Abd posted a draft of an amended complaint over at WS. Still a work in progress, obviously, but much more fleshed out than the original complaint.
Ahh, now he's alleging "negligence with malice" instead of mere defamation. He'll have a tough time proving malice, at least on the part of the WMF itself, but I agree, it's better than before.
The WMF has a global ban process and routine practice that protects the privacy of complainants, but is reckless as to the privacy of those banned. Without any necessity, the WMF with malice, publishes global bans in many ways, which is unnecessary to protect users, and may even increase risk to them, cooperating with and furthering the defamatory scheme of complainants.
It seems to me that most, if not all, of our previous discussions about the SanFranBan list have focused almost completely on the people who are listed - we rarely seem to go into this question of why they actually publish that page, with the list on it, in the first place. Maybe that's because we are who we are and therefore we all just assume their intent is pure malice, but... is it? It seems to me that it's almost a kind of vanity, whereby they're indirectly saying "we have a whopping 80 million registered user accounts, but we've only applied our heaviest available sanction to these 30 accounts." The intention could simply be that they want to feel better about themselves and justify their horrendous misdeeds in general.

It seems self-evident to me that there's no clear rationale behind it, or any ongoing crisis situation that requires that page to exist, but I'm guessing that's probably not how they think.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Wed May 29, 2019 1:40 pm

Abd, if anything, has actually worsened his case by explicitly stating something that is not a cause of action in response to a motion to dismiss for failure to state cause of action.

The published list of global bans is there so that people know to report instances of those editors popping up to the WMF.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 29, 2019 2:30 pm

Giraffe Stapler Now wrote:I hope I don't have to explane you as a native English speaker the difference between prosecuted and suing someone. I have expanded you before what legal systems that strange third world country with that guys on clogs and windmills has and how deep there legal arm can reach in your safe America. So my advise too you is just to shut up if you don't want to risk to see the next European song contest on Dutch soil. The only one who you can hit with your shit is yourself and not me, you idiot.
Giraffe Stapler just a little while ago wrote:Because, if Lomax brings this up in his law case it wouldn't surprise me if the judge want to have a little chat with both me and mister Vigilant. And for sure she will follow the opinion of professional doctors and not the "original research" of a few privacy leaking wikiidiots I can guarantee you. And for sure she will come to the conclusion American laws are broken.
So, you claim that a District Court judge, in a civil case in Massachusetts, will refer criminal charges against me, presumably to the California District Attorney(?) or a US Attorney's office, as an uninvolved and unknown person in regards to this civil action, for presumably violating a rumored Dutch medical privacy law against the wishes of another uninvolved and unknown third party, who is a foreign national not resident in the US, on the hearsay of Abd, a well known net.kook who filed pro se?

It's nice to see you putting that third grade education to work.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Wed May 29, 2019 8:30 pm

Hey Vig, I'm surprised you haven't commented on all the "YOUUUUU" declarations in Graaf's opening post on that site. He's legitimately talking like an old-timey movie villain. They're bolded and everything!

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31432
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 30, 2019 1:33 am

BURob13 wrote:Hey Vig, I'm surprised you haven't commented on all the "YOUUUUU" declarations in Graaf's opening post on that site. He's legitimately talking like an old-timey movie villain. They're bolded and everything!
Well, you know, I have these time sinks called "gainful employment" and "loving family" that the Giraffe Stapler lacks.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Thu May 30, 2019 3:10 am

Randy from Boise wrote:A comment for Wikipedia We Have a Problem...

It seems to me that a lot of the problem you are having with trolls relates to you feeding them so well.

Just fucking ignore them and get on with your life.

And this: why are you here?

RfB
Fair question.

I don't have a problem with trolls, they have a problem with me.

I've been rather transparent about my motivations behind my work (oddly, no one seems to criticize what I actually do - which is open for fair criticism because it is rather unorthodox), and what happened to me on Wikipedia and especially the Smiths is the gift that keeps on giving.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/case ... ak-chopra/

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/abou ... e-editing/

The mistake I made was not in confronting trolls who target me (or "feeding them" as you would say), but in naively assuming that Wikipedia admins would not support them. I actually thought it was so obvious what was happening (as well as a number of other editors) that no admin in the world would take them seriously, and I assumed admins would have integrity with the principles and guidelines that operate Wikipedia.

I had no idea that I could be "blocked" from defending myself in the AE.

The mistake I made was trusting Wikipedia, and that's where I find my problem, not in the trolls who are predicted to abuse it.

I'm here on this thread because it has to do with the Smith case and Abd, and since I publish a five-year case study into MediaWiki abuse, I assume that there would naturally be some like-minded folks at Wikipediocracy, which also critiques MediaWiki abuses.

What are you doing here?

Anroth
Nice Scum
Posts: 3034
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 3:51 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Anroth » Thu May 30, 2019 10:01 pm

Seriously guys, why are you engaging with the swivel eyed loon? Its not Bedlam, we dont point and laugh at the obviously ill people.

I could feel myself getting dumber reading this....

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Smiley » Thu May 30, 2019 10:42 pm

Anroth wrote:dont point and laugh at the obviously ill people.
A most noble sentiment.
Anroth wrote:swivel eyed loon
Ah.
Anroth wrote:Its not Bedlam
An apt metaphor for Wikipedia, although I imagine the staff at Bedlam cared more about the inmates.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri May 31, 2019 12:52 am

Anroth wrote:Seriously guys, why are you engaging with the swivel eyed loon?
There's more than one person who could fit that description involved here - were you referring to a specific one, or some combination thereof?

To me, at least, whoever is behind the impersonation accounts on Reddit strikes me as the most obsessive and, by extension, potentially dangerous participant in this dispute, and I don't believe we're engaging with them, at least not directly. If the person(s) doing that is/are reading this thread, I'd just remind them that this sort of thing is a terrible strategy, not leastwise because it makes everyone else really, really hate whoever is doing it along with whatever messaging/narrative that person may be trying to advance or disseminate. That tends to be true even if what you're saying is objectively true or in the public interest. Joe-jobbery might make you feel like you've scored points in the short term, but in the long term it always backfires on you; you might feel that it's your only effective response technique and that therefore you have no choice, but of course you always have a choice, and there's always a better way to approach this kind of situation than malicious impersonation.

:idea:

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Fri May 31, 2019 5:45 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
To me, at least, whoever is behind the impersonation accounts on Reddit strikes me as the most obsessive and, by extension, potentially dangerous participant in this dispute, and I don't believe we're engaging with them, at least not directly.
I'm glad that the forum here is getting a small taste of what they do and what you're seeing is nothing in comparison. This is a mindfuck, far beyond just "trolling". This insidious tactic is weaponizing Google search and swarming search results with keywords that inflame an individual or party, and then pit them against each other, continuously.

For me this has been going on for five years. There is no "moving on" from it, or "don't feed the trolls", they are attacking Google results, and if anyone is a professional, that is a currency that once lost cannot be regained easily, and I can tell you from experience, it will fuck with your life if you have one.

They have fooled more than just Wikipedia and Wikiversity admins, they have fooled skeptics, even journalists, and of course this forum included. If they can fool those who we would assume have the more critical eye for verification, then we must look at the parties responsible for distributing the flawed platforms that have this vulnerability.

All the tools that a platform has to deal with targeted harassment are the very same tools the Smiths use against their targets. This is why they love MediaWiki's so much, so easy to game.

A lawsuit is the only next step that can bring more attention to this.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri May 31, 2019 7:44 am

WWHP wrote:They have fooled more than just Wikipedia and Wikiversity admins, they have fooled skeptics, even journalists, and of course this forum included.
Every time you make that accusation about this forum, you put us on the defensive. Why do you do that? Do you feel embarrassed about your mistake in trying to use us to promote your blog, because you actually didn't think any of us would consider that presumptuous or spammy? And so now you're insisting, again and again, that it was all our fault?

Clearly we have different definitions, but if a malicious account gets banned within 24 hours of registration, most people - maybe not you, but most people - would actually call that not being "fooled."

You can keep making this claim if you want, but I can assure you that it will keep backfiring on you, every single time.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by C&B » Fri May 31, 2019 7:47 am

Support topic ban for wwho from WO, broadly construed ;)
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri May 31, 2019 8:03 am

C&B wrote: Support topic ban for wwho from WO, broadly construed ;)
Naah, he's fine. I mean, he's certainly learned a lot over the years about Wikipedia-based argument technique - use the words "outing" and "harassment" as much as possible, relentlessly insist that your dispute-opponents are actually just one or two people with a sockpuppet army (which actually seems to be true in this case), and avoid self-reflection at all costs. It's a good thing to see this kind of development - I'm actually sort of proud of him.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1364
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by C&B » Fri May 31, 2019 8:42 am

...in which case they're wasted here. They should run for arbcom!
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Fri May 31, 2019 6:10 pm

Hi Jake,

I would like to remind you that it is you that re-introduced this line of dialogue, so I want to point that out before members of the community here go on another jihad.
Midsize Jake wrote: Every time you make that accusation about this forum, you put us on the defensive. Why do you do that?
It's not an accusation. It is a fact. I would rather you be on the offensive than defensive.
Do you feel embarrassed about your mistake in trying to use us to promote your blog, because you actually didn't think any of us would consider that presumptuous or spammy?
Why would I be embarrassed, was embarrassment the intention of WO? Think about your words a bit before you commit them to text.

I'm not sure why you are using this language with me, "spammy" and "promote my blog"... why would my actions be interpreted in any way other than a collaborative gesture?
And so now you're insisting, again and again, that it was all our fault?
Well since you brought it up, indirectly, yes it was, WO did play a role in a targeting campaign unintentionally - and please try to take this in a constructive way so we can build a solution here because this problem isn't going anywhere.
]Clearly we have different definitions, but if a malicious account gets banned within 24 hours of registration, most people - maybe not you, but most people - would actually call that not being "fooled."
If you think that account banning is the solution that clears WO of being influenced by a targeted harassment and misinformation campaign, it isn't.

It is because of how this forum conducts itself that made this community susceptible to influence by a troll farm, and how this community reacts then, and now, has unintended consequences. While WO may have unintentionally participated in a targeted campaign, WO did intentionally behave the way they do.
You can keep making this claim if you want, but I can assure you that it will keep backfiring on you, every single time.
Nothing is backfiring, and if you think that it is you might be in a bubble regarding this community, their reputation, their credibility and influence.

It's not an accusation, it's not a claim, its a fact. This fact is recorded on third-party platforms. Take it constructively, please. You already did the big thing and admitted the influence, my point was to show what a serious problem this troll farm is, and if they can influence this community, it should not be hard to understand how they could influence Wikiversity or WikiMedia.

WWHP
Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
Actual Name: Rome Viharo

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by WWHP » Fri May 31, 2019 6:26 pm

Why would anyone consider a topic ban against me for responding to a topic that was brought up by another forum member?
Midsize Jake wrote:
C&B wrote: Support topic ban for wwho from WO, broadly construed ;)
Naah, he's fine. I mean, he's certainly learned a lot over the years about Wikipedia-based argument technique - use the words "outing" and "harassment" as much as possible, relentlessly insist that your dispute-opponents are actually just one or two people with a sockpuppet army (which actually seems to be true in this case).
If I was not relentless, this troll farm would still be operating in the shadows.
and avoid self-reflection at all costs.
I'm going to call you out on this. Its BS. Its BS because almost every time I've come here it was for the purposes of critical analysis. If you think that I am not honestly self-reflecting on something, or if you think there is a problem with WWHP that is preventing a genuine message to be communicated to a broader audience, I request that you spell that out clearly, without ad hom, and in a constructive manner.

Locked