The Weiler Psi

Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics

Wikipedia: The Trial of Tumbleman

This is one of a series of articles on Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia Battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Biography

The Wikipedia Skeptics Problem

Wikipedia: Adult Supervision Required (not incl.)

Sandy, a regular Weiler Psi contributor, has just published this piece:

Why It’s Not OK to Pathologize Psi


Holy smokes!  I can hardly believe what I am witnessing.  Tumbleman has been permanently banned as a troll.  If the episode of Tumbleman’s exile to arbitration and then getting banned has shown me anything, it’s that these ideologue skeptics are organized.  I have to just stand back and admire how well they game the system to their advantage.  Man, these guys own Wikipedia.  Neither myself nor anyone else who dares to deviate from their Skeptical Scriptures stands a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting anything past them.

The editor who went by the name Tumbleman was assertive, but not tremendously experienced with the Wikipedia system.  I read through much of the talk page on Rupert Sheldrake’s biography and was struck by how composed and thoughtful his comments were.  His position was truly agnostic on how the biography should look.  He stuck to neutral interpretations of data and really did appear to me to avoid a partisan slant.   He was, in a sense, leading the charge for meaningful change toward a neutral point of view on Sheldrake’s page.  This apparently put a big target on his back.

In a matter of a week, three cases were made against Tumbleman in arbitration trying to get him banned. The first one was overturned and brought the problems he was having to the attention of a few administrators who were sympathetic to Tumbleman’s position.  They requested him to make a detailed case regarding the skeptics’ behavior in Talk. But before he could do this, Tumbleman was suddenly banned due to charges of sockpuppetry based on vague evidence.  This prevented him from making his case to the administrators.

Tumbleman’s second trip to arbitration occurred while Tumbleman was trying to defend himself on his talk page, which was the only place he was allowed to post.  He was unable to respond in that arbitration hearing.  He was finally able to get it overturned, yet the admin refused to unban him until he was cleared of charges of ‘trolling’ in a new, third hearing which began on Monday the 14th of October.

The third hearing started when one of the skeptics complained that Tumbleman was trolling and disrupting the discussion because Tumbleman was highlighting the skeptic’s signature on his talk page.  (on Wikipedia, highlighting a person’s signature will automatically notify them that someone has included them in a conversation.  Tumbleman was actually using it as a courtesy.)

Once the ideologue skeptics got him into arbitration they ganged up on him.   There were three of them, all contributing in their own way.  They very obviously had a well planned strategy and knew just what to say and how to say it.  By cherry picking their evidence with care, they built a case to make him appear disruptive and obnoxious to administrators, who were either ideologues themselves or just too lazy to look any deeper  -it’s hard to tell which.  In any event, the arbitration was unusually swift and Tumbleman suddenly found himself banned permanently from all of Wikipedia without ever having been able to respond.

All evidence points to a politically motivated coup because, as noted by a supportive editor, 55% of the editors responding to the case voted against sanctioning Tumbleman.  (You can find Tumbleman’s response at the bottom of this post.)

After watching this nonsense unfold I can only come to one conclusion: under their present system, Wikipedia is all messed up on controversial subjects.  People aren’t going to necessarily know what’s controversial and what’s not, making it hard to trust any but the most benign subjects.

This was a heroic struggle for neutrality on one page, which appears to be lost to heavily biased skepticism, but what about all the pages where people aren’t contesting this type of editing or where they were easily chased off?   There might be hundreds or even thousands of Wikipedia articles in that category.  The struggle over Rupert Sheldrake’s biography is a clear demonstration that Wikipedia has been captured by these ideologues.

Oh boy chicken again, a new editor, was originally was accused of being a Tumbleman ‘sockpuppet’, yet after Tumbleman was banned he was still on Wikipedia, defending his own account:

I wanted to jump in because many of the editors seemed highly biased and were making ridiculous arguments and the Sheldrake page itself is a monstrosity. As a journalism major, I was shocked at the bias of editors who were abusing the page and edit warring. Tumbleman seemed to be pretty neutral, his arguments made sense and a number of other editors were supporting them too. And they were being ignored so I wanted to address it. Worst. Mistake. Ever. Thanks for genuinely turning me off of this whole process. I’m out.

A conversation that I had with Liz, a very experienced editor who took the time to investigate the complaint yielded some interesting insights.  she made her primary interest very clear to me:

I don’t judge people by their beliefs but on how they treat other people so my sympathies lie with those who can remain civil and who strive overcome any bitterness or animosity they might feel towards those who are different from them.

And she also made these statements:

Since the body of the world’s scientists or theologians don’t gather together to debate these matters, it all becomes a race for sources that back up what you believe to be true. Instead of swords, people pull out references and duel with them. You would think the least painful resolution for all concerned would be compromise but it’s become a matter of ideology so people consider this a matter of TRUTH (WP:But it’s true!) so Editors are reluctant to back down from their entrenched positions.  From what I can gather, the most common way for disagreements on contentious subjects to be settled on Wikipedia is:

  1. outnumber your opponent by bringing in reinforcements
  2. overwhelm them with data/references and ask them to refute each one
  3. get them kicked off of WP for 3Rs or edit warring
  4. someone gets frustrated, angry and gets bounced off WP for launching a personal attack or
  5. you wear your opponent down until they get tired of the fight and leave

Wikipedia is people and people have virtues and vices so Wikipedia does, too.

. . . There are those Editors who are very smart about the way to file complaints, who have allies who are Admins, who are ready to back up any claim with a “diff” and if an inexperienced (and even some experienced) users run afoul of them, good luck! They are very effective at mustering support for whatever they propose because they know the system well while most newbies don’t even know the WP jargon, what a noticeboard is or that in a defense of their actions they can’t be sarcastic, flippant or angry (which, frankly, is a standard internet response).

They begin at a disadvantage that is difficult to overcome and becomes impossible if the complainant is able to get them labeled a “troll”, “vandal”, “sock”, “puppet” or the nebulous “disruptive Editor”. Whether these identifications are valid or invalid, these labels are almost impossible to shake and they follow a user even if they quit WP, go away for a few years and then return under a different username.

This pretty accurately describes what I witnessed.  It was a very polished performance which seemed to demonstrate that these ideologue-skeptic editors had a great deal of experience at getting other editors banned.  Where did they get all this experience?  Why do they all work so well together, cooperate with each other so completely and seem so very well organized?  Since the Guerrilla Skeptics have the capability and motivation to pull this off, it’s hard not to suspect their influence.

Finally, I want to point out what I’m not talking about: editing the Sheldrake article.  I have no time for that. The issues have morphed from getting skeptics to cooperate by discussing the actual issues, to a bunch of behind-the-scenes lawyering and politicking.

At least it’s nice to know that when I enter into discussions on the talk page, every single word I write will be parsed, dissected and examined in order to discover if it can be twisted in such a way as to get me banned.  So much for the spirit of cooperation.


Tumbleman’s response to indefinite ban:

The fact that the very real issues of neutrality on the Rupert Sheldrake page have now become about Tumbleman is a problem, not just for me, but also the the good of Wikipedia. Ideas, even conflicting ones, should rest on their own merit – not the people discussing them and the problems in the Sheldrake talk page are not served by focusing on an account called Tumbleman.

So I ask that any reasoned observer simply judge my account not for the derogatory and misleading claims  (trolling, sockpuppetry, etc) that editors are making, but rather judge my participation on WP by looking at my actual contributions, such as my Sandbox where I was building consensus with another editor, my edits in the revision history or the TALK section, where I made my reasoned arguments and requested rational consensus a number of times.

I think that if any reasonable person can look at attempts to make changes in the article and requests to discuss before reverting where clearly ignored by other editors and see that my contributions were neutral, honest, reasoned, and in the spirit of building consensus.

That’s all i want to be judged on. I took WP seriously when WP guidelines talk about the value of neutrality, reasoned arguments, and consensus building.  I want to be held at my word, and I ask WP to hold itself to it’s own. I don’t expect to be judged on who I am as a person, or anything other than the contributions I made the the Wikipedia Article.

At the last hearing to ban me, with the accusation of trolling which finally succeeded – editors were referencing personal work I was doing online in 2005 as proof I was violating WP in 2013. That’s seems a little irrelevant to this editor.

I want to thank everyone, including a number of admins, who jumped in and supported me.  

I’ve decided to post this publicaly for two reasons. One I am not even allowed to defend myself on my talk page, and now editors from the investigation to bump me are leaving rather derogatory personal commentary about me , and more than likely will continue to do so on a page where I cannot even respond.

Two, a blogger covering the issue has requested an interview (which I am declining) and oddly enough another reporter, from a much larger publication is oddly  now in contact with me requesting more to this story. So I felt  a need to send any interested party somewhere to get my closing comment. I refer everyone to the Sheldrake talk page to address this issue.

If posting this has violated any WP guideline, I apologize – but I have been banned and this is my only option for posting my voice on an issue that appears to be getting public attention, so I do this in the interests of transparency and to avoid any attention to my personal life. Please respect my privacy.

Thank you,

The Tumbleman

36 comments on “Wikipedia: The Trial of Tumbleman

  1. Pingback: Bigots on RationalWiki, bigots on your Wikipedia – Wikipedia, We Have a Problem

  2. mal yankton (@MalYankton)
    October 23, 2013

    Righto guv, just sayin’…the power to set things right on Wikipedia does exist, they couldn’t possibly stop Tumbleman and zeitghostmedia…

    • craigweiler
      October 23, 2013

      They already did.

  3. Ben Steigmann
    October 21, 2013

    I made an attempt on wikipedia to create an Neutral Point of View that wasn’t effective – in the short term – this was expected, but I have long term plans that will correct the problem – I will demonstrate systematic obfuscation, distortion, and even, in some cases, fabrication by prominent editors across many areas of WP – the Sheldrake case barely scratches the surface of this. So your complaints against wikipedia as being hijacked by “Guerilla Skeptics” are a “conspiracy theory” that unfortunately understates the case and masks the true reality – which is this: it is as if wikipedia is completely infected by a virus, with prominent editors and administrators selectively misreading policies in order to enforce popular views, regardless of how erroneous they are.

    Now, regarding my case – there are some spelling errors in my comments in AE, but the points there are noteworthy nonetheless: – the concern was over an edit made here:

    One item not addressed with the attempt to create an NPOV, which actually kept kept up many of the attacks Sheldrakes critics have put forth, many of them illegitimate, is the fact that this article that questions Sheldrake’s experimental methodology particularly with regards to phantom limbs:

    which is a copy of the article “Brugger P, Taylor KI. ESP: Extrasensory perception or effect of subjective probability? Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 10, Numbers 6-7, 2003 , pp. 221-246”:

    is so untrue and defamatory that JCS published an official retraction in the next issue of the journal. Here is a facsimile of the correction and apology on p.2 of JCS Volume 10, no 11 (2003):

    The text of the apology is as follows – “The article ‘ESP’ by P. Brugger and K.I. Taylor, published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 10, Number 6-7, pp. 221-246, erroneously states that an experiment with a flawed design (using ‘made up’ random numbers instead of a true random sequence) was performed by Rupert Sheldrake (p. 231)
    In actuality, Sheldrake was reporting the results of an experiment done by amateurs which had been sent to him. He himself identified the above flaw in the text of his descriptions, and it is his criticism of this work that is quoted by Brugger & Taylor (p. 231).
    We apologize to Dr. Sheldrake for this error.”

    Most of the attacks on Sheldrake are of this nature – misrepresenting his statements and arguments.

    So, as of this time, Wikipedia keeps up outdated false articles. But as I said, the problem with Sheldrake only begins to scratch the surface of problems on Wikipedia.

    Also, Craig – virtually every issue the “skeptics” have brought up in their attack against psi is deconstructed in the comments to this post on Dean Radin’s blog I posted both as myself and as “Blissentia”:

    Some of the comments that occurred after October are of relevance.

    And finally, some of the attacks that the “skeptics” have brought up against yourself and Tumbleman and even Rupert border on cyberbullying. Unfortunately, in more immature periods of my life I left an internet legacy that some might misrepresent and use for defamatory purposes – I clarified things in a blog post where I discussed the minutia of this: – so if misrepresentation ensues in light of that, it will be grounds for action pertaining to defamation. The nature of that legacy is such that if there is something I wrote on the internet which is not reflected in my blog or items I wrote after Summer 2013, I make no guarantee that I stand behind it, and will not defend it unless it appears on the aforementioned items. I say this because that statement may be necessary as I continue with this campaign.

    Ironically, relevant information comes from the Wikipedia article on cyberbullying (or at least the article as it appears on October 21, 2013, 11:04 AM, Pacific Standard Time):

    “Legal definition

    Cyberbullying is defined in legal glossaries as

    actions that use information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm another or others.
    use of communication technologies for the intention of harming another person
    use of internet service and mobile technologies such as web pages and discussion groups as well as instant messaging or SMS text messaging with the intention of harming another person.

    Examples of what constitutes cyberbullying include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down, falsely discredit, or humiliate the recipient. The actions are deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior intended to harm another. Cyberbullying has been defined by The National Crime Prevention Council: “When the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.”[2][3]

    A cyberbully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyberbully may be anonymous and may solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target. This is known as a ‘digital pile-on.'[4]”

    • Ben Steigmann
      October 21, 2013

      By “after October” when referring to the comments in Radin’s post, I meant, “after October 1” though the whole thread is of interest.

      • Ben Steigmann
        October 21, 2013

        This, from Ben Goertzel, is also relevant:

        It is relevant especially in light of the discussion of Sheldrake’s ideas given by Hans-Peter Durr that is given here – at the end of this section of the Sheldrake talk page:

        • Rupert McWiseman
          October 22, 2013

          The Goertzel article is fascinating, especially this section:

          “One does see, here, an interesting direction for bridge-building between quantum theory, morphic fields and psi phenomena. The connection between psi and quantum mechanics has been discussed a lot, but I’ve never been convinced that quantum theory on its own can explain psi. In my Morphic Pilot paper I suggested that augmenting quantum theory with an algorithmic information theory based morphic field type assumption might do the trick. Without explicitly thinking about psi at all (so far as I can tell, anyway), Smolin has made an interesting move in the same direction.”

          It’s this sort of ‘convergence’ – independent theorists such as Smolin (physicist), Sheldrake (biologist) and Goertzel (mathematician) working independently towards a similar conclusion, that makes me feel these gentlemen are on the right track. ‘Convergence’ is seen over and over again in the history of scientific progress.

          Goertzel’s exposition in this article, sounds awfully similar to the ideas of Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, who both thought the universe to be a Great Mind rather than a Great Machine – and a mind which is itself continually evolving (through us?)

          I am also awaiting with interest the outcome of attempts to reproduce (or refute) the findings of Anton Zeilinger and his team, who in 2007 were apparently able to demonstrate that there is no mind-independent reality at the quantum level. (And as Vedral has recently made clear, materialists can no longer avoid the implications of this by claiming that what holds at the quantum level doesn’t apply to the macroscopic world.)

          If Zeilinger is proven correct, then materialism is as dead as flat-earthism, and the universe (including us) is the manifestation of a Great Mind which has “habits”, and is evolving, The existence of psi would be as nothing compared to the impact of such a revelation on materialist-skeptic minds. No wonder they are so aggressive and are behaving like some sort of “Paradigm Police” – they might be facing worldview annihilation.

          (Maybe we should view the Wikipedia ‘takeover’ by skeptics as a display of fear rather than a show of strength. Why would one seek to ban the dissemination of ideas, if these ideas are so manifestly bad and so easily disproven?)

          • Ben Steigmann
            October 22, 2013

            The Zeilinger paper you discuss is discussed here:

            Which particular Vedral paper are you referring to?

            • Tom Butler
              October 22, 2013

              I have been revising a cosmology we use for Instrumental TransCommunication. It includes the concept of morphic fields. Based on the comments by most Wikipedia editors, and certainly most of the critics of the hypothesis they use for references, it is clear they do not understand the concept well enough to say whether it makes sense or not, let alone say it is wrong.

              For instance, the issue of entropy. If entropy is considered in terms of just the physical universe, it is probably a good model, but Sheldrake’s morphic fields are based on a conceptual influence causing a physical result. The memory and creativity functional areas are necessarily nonphysical.

              The influence of creativity on “nature’s habit” assures that entropy is not a factor if the greater reality is factored into the model. Virtually all of the criticism I have read has been based on a model which assumes only the physical universe. Reviewers explicitly reject subtle energy and a greater reality. They have apparently not considered how “nature’s habits” might be retained and accessed and they clearly do not bother to figure out how creativity might influence those habits. This, even though it is a process which can be seen to be occurring all around us.

              The rules of Wikipedia do now allow for such speculation because these “fringe” concepts are all discussed in publications which are not allowed. This assures that, absent a more inclusive atmosphere, all such concepts can only be shown as false, stupid or however negative the editors can get away with making them seem.

              • Ben Steigmann
                October 22, 2013

                Please list the articles (presumably they are in the JSE) in which your propositions are explored.

                And again, in response to “Rupert McWiseman”, which particular Vedral paper are you referring to?

              • Tom Butler
                October 22, 2013

                Ben, if the question about article is directed to me, please see Implicit Cosmology ( and especially Trans-survival Hypothesis ( The cosmology article has an index to supporting articles. The series is still being drafted and awaits a final round of concept integration.

                I am not an academic and do not publish with the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

            • Rupert McWiseman
              October 23, 2013

              ‘Living in a Quantum World’ – Scientific American, June 2011. It’s a summary rather than a ‘paper’, but its implications are clear.

            • Rupert McWiseman
              October 23, 2013

              Vlatko Vedral, ‘Living in a Quantum World’, Scientific American June 2011. It’s a summary of current knowledge rather than a ‘paper’, but its implications are clear. (i.e. that we can no longer assert that what happens at quantum levels has no meaningful effect on the macroscopic world.)

        • Ben Steigmann
          October 28, 2013

          This is in response to a comment below – it may have not gone through, so I’ll post it again:

          Vedral wrote a nature paper showing the extension of quantum effects to the macroscopic level – “Progress Article Quantifying entanglement in macroscopic systems”, the abstract of which states: “Traditionally, entanglement was considered to be a quirk of microscopic objects that defied a common-sense explanation. Now, however, entanglement is recognized to be ubiquitous and robust. With the realization that entanglement can occur in macroscopic systems — and with the development of experiments aimed at exploiting this fact — new tools are required to define and quantify entanglement beyond the original microscopic framework.”:

          As shown above, the notable physicist Lee Smolin suggested something that is very much analogous to Sheldrake’s ideas on the micro level in his article “Precedence and freedom in quantum physics”:

          The following is an excerpt from the abstract:
          “We also propose that laws of quantum evolution arise from a principle of precedence, according to which the outcome of a measurement on a quantum system is selected randomly from the ensemble of outcomes of previous instances of the same measurement on the same quantum system. This implies that dynamical laws for quantum systems can evolve as the universe evolves, because new precedents are generated by the formation of new entangled states.”

          If we combine Smolin and Vedral, we get Sheldrake in spite of Sheldrake, and we can see this in effect in the article “Adaptive state of mammalian cells and its nonseparability suggestive of a quantum system”, published in the journal “Scripta Medica”, the abstract of which states: “Established mammalian cells were assayed for their resistance to different selection conditions which had not been used against these cells before, including exposure to thioguanine, ethionine, high temperature and a protein-free, chemically defined culture medium. Single assays were negative, showing that the cell lines contained no spontaneous mutants, or that these were present in a number below detectable limits. To obtain such mutants, we designed experiments of mutant isolation by serial assays. The cells were kept growing without selection and, at each passage, cell samples were withdrawn and assayed for resistance in separate cultures. As a result, we found no mutants at the beginning, then a few and, finally, a great number. This was in conflict with the postulate of random occurrence of mutants and, furthermore, with their spontaneousness. On the contrary, the results provided evidence that mutants occurred as an appropriate response to selection pressure. The most amazing feature was that this response could be detected in cells growing without selection and never exposed to selection pressure before. If one tried to explain the adaptive response in terms of signals, the signals would have to travel from the exposed to the unexposed cultures. The results are instead discussed in terms of adaptive states and the nonseparability of cellular states due to quantum entanglement of cells, in particular daughter cells, distributed between the exposed and unexposed cultures. Whatever the mechanism, we concluded that the finding of resistant cells in growing unexposed cultures, as a response to selective pressure on cells in physically separated cultures, tends to render meaningless any theory based on the spontaneous origin of mutants.”:

  4. mal yankton (@MalYankton)
    October 20, 2013

    Getting those ideologue admins banned is a splendid idea. TUMBLEMAN, TELL US WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO.

    • craigweiler
      October 20, 2013

      I do not advocate banning the ideologues. Nothing Tumbleman has written suggests that he does either.

      What the ideologues are doing is dishonest. Do you want to be like them?

  5. Sheila Joshi
    October 20, 2013

    Craig – I’ve really enjoyed your Wiki / Sheldrake series. You’ve done an excellent, clear analysis and presentation of the lack of substance in most the skeptic citations and the railroading tactics being used.

    As mtpitre commented on the previous post, the Guerilla Skeptics remind me a lot of the Tea Party. Playing fast and loose with logic and substance. Heavy on the self-righteousness. How interesting that you have been writing this series during the 16-day shutdown of the U.S. government, which hurt so many, and achieved nothing.

    Thank you for working on this. I think the effort you and others are making is necessary and worth it. Like Obama, we have to stay engaged and continue to be reasonable, ad infinitum. It would be good for interested pro-psi and psi-neutral people to build relationships with some admins. And what about taking this story to the HuffPost?

  6. Mark
    October 19, 2013

    Hmmmm…I’m interested in this other organization that is looking into this story. I won’t get my hopes up, but it would be great if some mainstream media organization was to shine some light on this. I heard that, in response to the pseudoskeptics getting pissed off about Newsweek running that Eben Alexander story, Newsweek was looking into doing a story about pseudoskeptics. I wonder if it is Newsweek…

  7. Once again you’ve picked one hell of a brawl to get yourself into. TEDx was the other brawl. Don’t stop. But, always remember rule no. 1; CYA.
    The reason for CYA is, this appears to be a cabal which, in the name of science, wants to choke off the flow of information. Scientifically, the standards of results measuring are still evolving. We discuss wide open areas that cry out to be explored, not delimited. So, why are they conspiring to choke off the flow of information? A cogent explanation is censorship not a respect for scientific inquiry.

    I can’t be anything other then suspicious of their motives. Please stay alert and vigilant.

  8. mal yankton (@MalYankton)
    October 19, 2013

    Three cheers for Tumbleman! May he have the wikipedia pseudoskeptics wishing they’d never tangled with him. His jiggery pokery at James Randi forum under the name “Bubblefish” is legendary…

  9. Liz
    October 19, 2013

    Just a correction to your blog, Craig. I’m not an Admin on Wikipedia, just a regular Editor like anyone else.

    If I speak with authority, chalk it up to a lot of time in front of a classroom of students, leading discussions. 😉

    • craigweiler
      October 19, 2013

      I’ll edit the article accordingly. It’s still a very astute statement you made.

  10. Just passing by
    October 19, 2013

    Craig, you should look more carefully into Tumbleman’s other online activities. He’s been banned on forums for racism against muslims and sockpuppeting on three different accounts. You have obviously not done your research on this guy.

    • craigweiler
      October 19, 2013

      Yeah, actually I have. Your comment is misleading, factually incorrect and a complete misrepresentation of what he’s done. I’m leaving your comment up as an example of the kind of smear campaign I’m up against.

      • Just passing by
        October 19, 2013

        No you haven’t done the research Craig. [real name omitted.] is well known to have trolled several forums (including the JREF)

        Tumbleman was banned on this forum for attacking Muslims, trolling and sockpuppetry;

        You are supporting a racist troll sockpuppeter Craig. It really is hilarious. Google search Fucjacko, Tumbleman or Bubblefish and you will see his other bannings.

        • craigweiler
          October 19, 2013

          Yes, I have done the research. In the example you cite you’ve taken his statements out of context and then blown them out of proportion to make it seem as though he’s saying something different than what he actually is.

          Anything to smear the guy, eh?

        • Ricky Ricardo
          October 19, 2013

          Bubblefish originally was a ‘show’ that had different authors writing for the same ‘character’ when it started. It was somewhere between Zen antics, performance art, sasha baren cohen, and a genuine inquiry and exploration into how we communicate online.

          If you find any of the Ponderer’s Guild Discussions, you will actually see a very similar pattern to what happened at Wikipedia. There are detractors and supporters. The discussion you are referring to at that forum was very popular, over one year it was the most popular discussion at the forum. The admin there deleted that from the internet. If you look at the link you provide there are a number of supportive comments like this one below regarding the banning as ‘troll’.

          “I too am saddened by this overt censorship. Nobody had to engage Tumble who didn’t choose too, and Tumble did not invade multiple threads with his method and mantra, he confined them to several only, usually those started by him. Furthermore I disagree that his baiting and seemingly trollish ways were in fact trollish. I saw the ninja method behind them, using theater to draw out of people their inconsistencies and irrational thinking. Rather sophisticated, really. A definite loss for TPG, and in my opinion Fujacko is another loss of valuable diversity. But yeah, your board. It’s cool.”

          Now a charge of racism? that’s a pretty rich claim to make against the infamous ‘fun lovin’ ol Bubblefish whose topic of discussion was usually ‘World Peace’ happening inside of an online performance theatrical ‘show’. If you are referencing the Ummah discussions you should probably look into what the ‘Bubblefish’ show had to say about them.

          that discussion happened in 2003, fresh after 911, when there truly was a lot of racism and reactionary thinking about Muslims in the US, especially the idea that Muslims were crazy and irrational and terrorists. I think if you go to the link that is provided you will see the point that Bubblefish was trying to make.

          If you go to the link here you will see that different communities were targeted

          This was all in 2003 and 2004. That’s a pretty long time ago I’m not sure what that means now in 2013.

          Bubblefish did show up at Randi’s forum in 2005 or so, and that was quite an infamous discussion that began at Bubblefish was never banned for trolling at JREF and still has an account there to this day.

          All the evidence suggests that whatever ‘antics’ the ‘Bubblefish’ show was up to those many years ago, it’s no longer a ‘show’ and bubblefish/tumbleman has been inactive from OS 012 discussions since 2006.

          I don’t see any ‘bubblefish’ antics happening at Wikipedia. This was all some out there project from years ago and I do not see how it is related. I just see references to a past discussion forum taken out of context to ban tumbleman from making a case. Calling him by name, accusing him of racism, well that is actually slander in a place of public media.

          • Tom Butler
            October 19, 2013

            There is a fundamental problem in our society when a person thinks it is okay to attack another person while hiding behind a pseudonym. Are any of these people even real?

            • craigweiler
              October 19, 2013

              Fake name and fake email address.

              • Ricky Ricardo
                October 19, 2013

                The person who accused Tumbleman of trolling here is himself trolling? Stunning revelation.

        • Ye Olde Fujacko
          October 27, 2013

          I am shocked and bemused. I haven’t used the name Fujacko in nearly a decade, and suddenly I’m (sort of) internet famous!

          However, even the folks at the Ponderer’s Guild knew I wasn’t a sock puppet of Bubblefish. In fact, the very link you posted in your comment lists me as an “accomplice,” so yes indeed: do your research. Admittedly some of those guys did think I was in cahoots with Tumble (a certain Victor comes to mind), and I may have been overly enthusiastic about his OS012 idea, but there were plenty of occasions when he and I disagreed. Too bad all those wondrous threads have been deleted.

          Furthermore, Tumbleman and Bubblefish weren’t sock puppets but different usernames. I’ve never seen them appear in the same discussion posing as two different people, and as far as I know Tumbleman never denied having multiple accounts. Who hasn’t changed usernames? I certainly have.

          I never understood why Bubblefish was so hated. He had a lot of great ideas and was funny as hell. I really enjoyed watching him push closed-minded people’s buttons. But he does seem to have a tendency to get into trouble. I hope he can redeem himself.

          P.S. If you still think I am Bubblefish pretending to be someone else, you really need to get a life!

          • Ricky Ricardo
            October 28, 2013

            Well congratulations Fujako, you also have another honorable mention on the ‘rational wiki’ which is a very un-rational wiki that some of the skeptic editors on Wikipedia author. So it sort of serves like a bizarre ad hom engine where they get to post all sorts of nasty things about people that they actually believe are true simply for the fact that they believe it to be so.

            Behold, your entry on the Rational Wiki on the Rupert Sheldrake article, scroll down til you get to the wikipedia controversy where all characters are accounted for.


  11. marcustanthony
    October 19, 2013

    Looks like it’s a lose-lose situation here. The winner of a fools game is still a fool, and just quietly this game doesn’t seem to be worth the effort. I agree that Rupert doesn’t deserve this kind of misrepresentation. But not sure what can be done about it. Probably better to retreat, take a rest, and get a bit of distance from the situation.

    So what if the skeptics win this battle? They still lose – trapped in the illusion of mind. And as I implied, don’t get sucked into their war – or you might end up face down in the muck, like so many others who have fought in the endless battles for control of “the mind”.

  12. lifeisgoodccLinda Rampey
    October 18, 2013

    Call me stupid, but I want to know just how powerful WikiPedia is? Did they find the answer to any of the world’s problems? Have they found a way to lower the divorce rate? Solved the world’s financial crisis? Raised the level of high school graduates? Just who has given this group of people all of this power? What is the power they have? Why is anyone reading them anymore? If you don’t like what they are doing or how they are doing it, then go somewhere else. Who cares about them? Who cares what they think? If you do, why? Aren’t there some truly important things in this world to put our courageous energy behind?

    Why don’t we all read The Encyclopedia Britannica when we want to know something? I know, it’s a real book, but there you are. I don’t remember any power struggles gaining notoriety from them.

    Linda Rampey

    • craigweiler
      October 18, 2013

      Like it or not, Wikipedia is at the top of search results across the board. Their articles are influential and important just because they are the first thing people see and for no other reason.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on October 18, 2013 by in Psi Wars, Skeptics and Skeptic Arguments, Wikipedia and tagged , , .
%d bloggers like this: