Goblin Face and email harassment, anyone know more about these people?

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by RViharo, Jan 10, 2016.

  1. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Hi Skeptiko forum,

    Apologies to bring this 'Wikipedia and Rational Wiki' negativity to this forum once again - but I figure a few people here may have some insight into some of my harassers.

    While it's been over two years since I was libeled and harassed on Wikipedia as Tumbleman, and over a year since I worked on Chopra's Wikipedia article as SAS81 - the harassment has still been increasing.

    I'm not sure if most know or not - but last year one of the biggest sock puppet armies was busted on Wikipedia and was attributed to 'Goblin Face'. One of these accounts was 'dan skeptic' who participated in the hounding and harassment I received on Wikipedia.

    I've pinpointed three people directly to slander and harassment. Tim Farley, Wikipedia Editor Manul, and Goblin Face. I know who Tim Farley is, Manul (possibly associated with Farley or may be Farley but can't prove it) and 'Goblin Face.'

    Who ever this person Goblin Face person is is - they should not really be allowed on the internet, period. Last year they created a very slanderous article about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica, followed me around Reddit and posted the same 'Viharo is a troll sockpuppet' all over the place, and then created an account on religiousforums.com as 'Rome Viharo', creating a discussion about 'intelligent design' so they could add that to the rational wiki article that I'm 'anti evolution'.

    Then this person sent me an email (captured here) which directly threatened me further.

    I have no idea about this whole 'mikemev' and 'jon donnis' that keeps getting mentioned along with my name on various forums. Who are these people? Anyone know?

    Who ever 'Goblin Face' is he is probably the same one who started my Rational Wiki article as 'David1234' and posts as Jon Donnis and Mikemev, instigating fights between groups of people. I believe this person's real name is actually David and they reside in the UK.

    This is going to be going legal - as direct threats, impersonation alongside slander and libel have been distributed by this person. I have to do something about this and hoping people here can offer any insight into this very dark collection of individuals. Goblin Face more than likely has a mental illness, so I want to be compassionate as I can, but something needs to be done here and hoping someone here can help with more info.

    Cheers and Happy New Year everyone!
    Rome
     
    Vortex and Trancestate like this.
  2. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Also, apologies if this is in the wrong forum - if it is I can delete and repost in appropriate one. Thank you!
     
  3. Sadly I don't know who this is.

    The tactics however don't surprise me in the least.
     
  4. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Okay thank you Sciborg - I know there has been some chatter in these parts about a few of these characters. Cheers!
     
  5. Hmmmmmm....I went to his site and this was the latest entry ->

    Skeptic Activists Now Using Google Adwords To Promote Wikipedia Editing, Susan Gerbic Admits To Socking On Facebook

    I kinda feel like you guys are trying to get at him because he's exposing y'all?

    Isn't this the skeptic group with a private forum or something like that? Maybe if you guys made that public it would be easier to believe in your claims?
     
    Laird, Trancestate and K9! like this.
  6. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    I've followed this dispute from time to time over the years. I present all parties with this as food for thought:

    My kids (9, 7, 6) tend to fight. In each incident, there is usually an initial provocateur, but by the time it has escalated to shouting, moaning and tears usually they've each given as good as they got. They then come to me each setting forth their grievances, some legitimate, others exaggerated, still others completely false, some related to the current incident, others going back to previous disputes. They tend to have very strong feelings about "who started it" and feel that starting it justifies pretty much anything that follows in retaliation. This is the point where I say: guys, it doesn't matter who started it, you've each done x, y, z to each other. Maybe this time he started it. Last time she started it. What you did is just as bad as what she did. Look how you made your brother/sister feel: does that make you feel good? Do you like making him/her feel bad? No? Good, I can see that you get it now. Now, each of you give each other a kiss and a hug, say sorry, and that you love each other.

    (You may call this henceforth: Arouet's Parable of the Squabbling Children- take from it whatever message you will!)
     
    RViharo, Stephen Wright and malf like this.
  7. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,315
    ...be immediately and very wary of a guy who creates an account on a forum to talk down one of its members in his very first (and so far only) post, especially when that member was seeking help for a nasty problem which apparently that poster denies.

    I wonder, "Tenchu", whether you noticed that the majority in the banning thread to which you link were opposed to the banning.

    Maybe, rather than "Tenchu", you should have chosen "Edward Bernays", because you sure are trying to manipulate the public...

    Ah, yes, so your manipulation is based on role reversal.

    Your opinion is grossly biased and worth nothing. It is role reversal and victim blaming.

    If the victim defends himself, then he is an aggressor. Nice, man (or woman, whomever you are).

    -------

    Arouet of the Balanced Scales:

    Sometimes, my friend, the scales simply are not balanced, and justice and just perception entail not attempting to force a false perception of balance but the correction of the imbalance. So, tell me that you love me and let's make up. :)
     
    K9!, Red and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  8. Hmmmm....

    I can see Rome's face, I can read his website and follow his evidence. I can go on Wikipedia and see the bias in the articles Rome mentions as being manipulated.

    Last I checked the other side is a cabal with a secret forum. If Gorilla Skeptics want their side to be taken seriously first they have to make that forum's contents public from their time of inception to now.
     
    K9!, Red, Stephen Wright and 2 others like this.
  9. Laird

    Laird Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,315
    The problem, Sciborg_S_Patel, is that the skeptics deny that Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) were involved in any of the articles on Wikipedia to which Rome contributed - which might (or might not) be in fact true (I really don't know, but am prepared to accept it for the sake of argument). Even accepting it for the sake of argument, it doesn't, however, change the fact that *organised* groups of skeptics harassed Rome on Wikipedia to the point of having him unfairly banned, and that they then turn around and accuse *him* of harassing *them*.

    Edit: corrected "Guerilla Sceptics on Wikipedia" to "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia".
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  10. Good points Laird.

    In the end the skeptics can play their little games on Wikipedia. I don't think it's going to stop the increasingly rapid trajectory away from them.
     
    David Bailey, Laird and Typoz like this.
  11. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Hi Laird, Sciborg, Arouet,

    Thanks for the support! @Laird just PM'd you. The person who posted this is more than likely the same Goblin Face person. He/she has been going around the internet for a few years now damage controlling online discussion regarding this issue. I wonder why he has not gotten the idea that this strategy of his/hers is not working.

    @Arouet thanks for the wisdom, however we're not dealing with children here there is not even a fight between me and these individuals. I don't know Goblin Face. I don't know any of these people, I just report on what they are doing online and how they can abuse wikis for this sort of harassment and get away with it. Anything I've ever done online has always been with good intentions. I did 'nothing' to these people other than report on what steps they are taking to harass me on the internet. Goblin Face should not be allowed access to a computer - this is beyond a petty disagreement this is about abusing Wikipedia and Google to harass people on the internet with malicious intention. This is about a toxic online culture that enables individuals like this to flourish with no oversight.

    What I want from the skeptic community is for them to denounce this type of online behavior. So far - they're not.

    I do apologize for bringing this kind of negativity to the forum here but I do know that these individuals do come here (hence the Goblin Face post to this thread) and I want to see what can be done from a legal perspective to get this person off of a computer. Whomever the admin is here they more than likely have their IP address. This person has posted as MikeMev, Paul C (wont bother trying to misspell his greek last name!), David1234, John Donner, Mal Yankton and probably hundreds of other people, instigating and bating people online, even sending direct threats and impersonations - like they did with me.

    Cheers

    Rome
     
  12. I don't think Paul is harassing you.

    I mean it's theoretically possible (in the same sense I could be utilizing multiple names), but given his consistency in posting I doubt it?
     
    malf likes this.
  13. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    The guy has impersonated a few of us on this forum - myself in particular, and Eveshi - a poster on the old Skeptiko forum, probably some others that I've forgotten. I guess Paul has now been added to this elite crew (I'm assuming he meant Paul A with the long greek name, not Paul C!).

    I've found it best to just ignore him completely. And of course, it's not like we have exclusive use over our internet handles. I view it as flattery!
     
  14. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Yes, I don't think that was really Paul either, but two years ago - I did since it was his name signed to the email. That may seem harmless, but it is impersonating someone online.This person also just sent me an email, as well as cc'd Alex, and claims this email thread is libel against him. How would that be possible, I don't even know this person's name! His email stated to alex that I'm harassing 16 year olds on the internet and he raises the concern that I am a pedophiliac. This is what I am talking about - this is extreme, and could ruin someone's life. I will do everything in my power to get this person off of the internet.

    Laird raised a good point he called it 'role reversal'. This person is engaging in the worst online behaviors, and when confronted on them, attacks the person confronting them with the same offense they are performing. This happened recently in Toronto on a harassment suit dealing with this on Twitter. The person harassed someone on twitter, was confronted by that person - and then sued the person confronting them for harassment. That didn't go to well for them in court, so Goblin Face, just get help, get off line, and before you do that post an online apology to everyone you've done this too. You're not just hurting yourself and others you're encountering online - you're also hurting your own movement and discrediting it with every single action you take.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  15. If only the GSoW would open up their private secret forum.

    I mean why does a group interested in spreading truth via hard evidence need a secret forum? That does seem more like the tactic of an organization that engages in online harassment.
     
    K9! and north like this.
  16. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    GSoW does not operate transparently, this is true. They do have a members only forum and they ask that we take their word that nothing significant happens there. It's highly unlikely GSoW as an organization is involved with this, however Tim Farley is involved with GSoW and has been involved in my harassment directly. What is happening on Wikipedia is more surgical that GSoW, but what Manul, Farley, Goblin Face, GSoW all have in common is skeptic online activism and white male privileged angst. Susan Gerbic and GSoW is just their strawman argument of what wonderful wikipedians they are. Susan Gerbic is just a cute as a button little old lady and any confrontation of their behaviors is just lumped into a 'conspiracy theory' about GSoW which they hope will misdirect the conversation away from their behaviors onto something else.

    That also has not been working well for them. Wikipedia We Have a Problem is more viral now than it was when it first launched. I get about 500 unique visits a month or more from people researching this topic, and WWHP was even used in a university syllabus as a case study for these type of behaviors.
     
    K9! likes this.
  17. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    I always wondered whether the slander-spreading extreme skeptics really believe what they preach. A professional libel-monger cannot trust his own defematory fabrications, after all... or can he? Well, probably he can, as I learned during my reading of the documents left after the infamous and notorious FBI's COINTELPRO operations - the attempts to discredit and blacken the New Left members and other dissidents during 1950s - 1970s.

    This was a hularious reading. After I had finished it, I was left with a weird feeling: I honestly doubted the sanity of J. Edgar Hoover and his co-workers. These people were sincerely believing that anyone who opposed the American authorities is an evil abomination; so, in the absence of the direct evidence of their monstrosity, they fabricated it and spreaded it among the population. And then they seemed to buy into their own lies, proving the wickedness of their enemies to themselves once again.

    So, Rome, I suspect that the extreme skeptics who are impersonating and harrassing you now may end sincerely believing their own libels: after all, these fakes appear to be simply the actualisation of their feverent fantasies of how "the woo peddlers" should behave...
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  18. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    Hi Vortex,

    I think you're probably correct in most but not all of these instances. For sure confirmation bias on the standard 'skeptic activist' on Wikipedia like Manul or Tim Farley. You may also appreciate this very timely article.

    But 'Goblin Face' is a plus one when it comes to this kind of harassment, and this is a result of a mental illness. I don't think his actions are identical to the broader skeptic community, but the skeptic community does host this individual and they do support him when he is canvassing in their interests.

    People in my life ask me quite frequently why I make such a big deal about what happened two years ago on Wikipedia. It's because of this individual Goblin Face. Because the flaws in Wikipedia exposed and invaded my privacy, the outcome of that is I have to deal with Goblin Face two years later. He's threatened to do this to me '500 times' on the internet, and this is his latest one just started this week.
     
  19. RViharo

    RViharo New

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2013
    Messages:
    103
    Home Page:
    If anyone knows of any of Goblin Face's many user names or impersonations please let me know I am going to add them to this article and start spending a bit more scrutiny on his activities online until something is done to get him off the internet and get him the care he needs. As he is an admitted schizophrenic, I would prefer a compassionate approach to this individual and his activities, while supported by the skeptic community, should not be confused as what the rest of them do.

    http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2016/02/what-will-wikipedia-editor-goblin-faceatlantid-do-next/

    Goblin Face, I know you read this. I'm sorry you're hurt, and sorry if I've done anything that you feel has hurt you. You don't know who I am, nor I you. Other than your direct obsession with me, I've nothing against you. I wish you no harm. I think if you get on your medications, all of this will go away and your personal life is protected by your anonymity. Please make that count for something, because if this escalates to something legal, it will be exposed who you are and the suffering you feel now will be much worse under those circumstances.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  20. Vortex

    Vortex Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    Well, Rome, I have read your recent article about the problems with this "Goblin Face" guy, and I have some thoughts I'd like to share with you.

    This person seems to be involved in the vast array of "fringe" topics, and his involvement is usually hostile, since he is a "skeptic" - that is, a member of the pro-mainstream "watchdog" movement which aim to prevent "fringe" topics (and types) from getting any legitimacy in the eyes of the academia and the public, and fulfill this goal in a blatantly agressive (and often also deceptive) way. Effectively, they are info-vigilantes, lynching anyone "not mainstream enough" - and as any vigilantes, perceiving themselves as vanguards of righteousness and protectors of innocent.

    As other members of various lynching-prone communities, most of skeptics may be considered "sane" according to current psychiatric diagnostic standards - just heavily bigoted and wildly unethical. A noticeable number of them, however, do meet the criteria for this or that psychiatric disorder, including schizophrenia - as well as a good number of other would-be mainstream defenders.

    Here the have a paradox: while the common mythology conflates "craziness" with the "fringe" interests, a good portion of the anti-fringe "warriors" suit the psychiatric diagnostic criteria even better than most "fringe types".

    To understand why it is so, I would evoke the theoretical framework of one "fringe" area of research and activism; one of areas which is attacked by skeptics for its rebellion against the mainstream dogma: organised criticism of the mental health system, known, alternatively, as "anti-psychiatry" or "critical psychiatry". The most important gathering place of these people is the "Mad in America" internet portal, which I highly recommend you to visit.

    These critics present three main lines of criticism: doubtful efficiacy of psychiatric drugs, and the potential harms of their long-term usage; unreliability and arbitrariness of the psychiatric diagnoses; and psychiatry's reliance on coercion (or, to call it straight, violence), combined with its institutionalised service to the state authorities, which make it a repressive instrument of the societal elites.

    The crucial difference between "anti-psychiatry" and "critical psychiatry" is the degree of the criticism: the former ones reject psychiatry in its totality, desiring it to be absolutely discredited and irreversibly eliminated; the latter seeks to reform it quite radically, but don't think it to be completely invalid. Unlike "anti-psychiatrists", "critical psychiatrists" maintain that the limited, short-term usage of drugs may be useful in extreme cases of severe distress, especially the most severe cases of psychosis. They argue that some diagnostic descriptions may be useful as long as they are not used as indelible stigmatising labels, or are being used to devaluate anything that persons says or does (as it sometimes happen in the cases of social dissidents and cultural rebels).

    To understand the overall message of critical psychiatry, I recommend you to watch this video by Joanna Moncrieff, a prominent critical psychiatrist praised by many - including Rupert Sheldrake, in his "Science Set Free" book:



    It is also important to get some idea of the alternatives which the critics provide, such as the psychosocial therapies of the "Soteria Project", which kept medications at the minimum - but, still, did not gave them up completely:



    The hardest problem, however, still remains: the problem of coercion. Sandra Steingard, a "fence-sitting" type of psychiatist, has always supported the humanistic efforts of her "critical" colleagues, and always was pro-reform; yet, at the same time, she kept asking the critics what would they do with the few mentally disturbed individuals who are openly dangerous; ones who may attack the people in actual life - or, like "Goblin Face", slander, harass and impersonate people in the Internet.

    This is the question which I, for now, was unable to answer. I'm strongly opposed to the coercive practice of modern institutional psychiatry, especially understanding how easily it is abused by the authorities and mainstream defenders. For example, some ultra-materialistic post-Soviet psychiatrists, whom I met in Russia (where I live) evaluate an interest in the "paranormal" as a sign of "delusional thought"; according to them, anyone on this forum - including you and me - is "delusional". Well, they are simply trying to justify their own prejudices and biases - but imagine this types being granted with a real power upon people (which they once had!). So, I'm not enthusiastic about providing psychiatrists with the institutional authority... But we also have to do something with the people like "Goblin Face", who is attacking others in their altered mental state. What should we do, then? Allowing psychiatrists to treat them in a forceful way? But where and how should we draw the line - between being agressive and being annoying, between (violent) insanity and (armed) insurgency, between destructive psychosis and transformative spiritual experience? While there is definitely a real difference between each of the three pairs I mentioned above, it is notoriously difficult to tell for certain where the former ends and the latter starts. And there are actual humans whose life depends on our act of drawing the line...
     

Share This Page