Emails

Correspondence with Oliver D. Smith

Warning: these mails contain false or misleading allegations about others. This should all be seen as coming from an extremely unreliable and deceptive source. The Smith brothers often make a claim and cite a source that “looks like” the claim, and the incautious may then glance at it and think it is verified. This is actually a problem with Wikipedia, in some topic areas.

At law, a party may legally present evidence that is misleading, but it is then vetted for a judge or jury through an adversarial process which will examine it closely. Under some conditions, on wikis, one point of view has been banned and another dominates. This can be a problem on any wiki or other forum that bans unpopular points of view. This comment is not a claim that any specific allegation here is false or deceptive. I would generally assume that a person’s account of their own experience is true, but the Smiths are far from the general case.

Names of third parties here may be redacted on request.

These were from the email address given on oliveratlantis.blogspot.com

Responses have been added, with background color.

The original page with commentary has been moved to here. This page now will show only the original email correspondence with Oliver D. Smith, with minimal context. ODS has claimed that I harassed him by email, making it necessary to publish all the mails. He wrote me, on two distinct occasions. Dates refer to the Oliver mails, my responses follow them (once this is complete)

There is analysis of the emails here.

The emails:


January 24, 2018

From: Oliver Smith [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:07:53 +0000
Subject: Allegations
Hi,

Someone informed me about the allegations about myself on your website. I’m not the person leaving messages on your website, and they read stupid. I have a new blog where I will cover my side of the story to Emil Kirkegaard; hopefully this post will be up in the next few days. The problem is explaining myself in more detail or clearing myself of other allegations, because this will take a longer period of time. The reason I am focusing on Kirkegaard is because he was in the newspaper headlines recently, and some journalists contacted me, and I may be of help to the UCL inquiry. All will be explained in my post.


Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <redacted>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:41:52 -0500

Thanks for writing. I recognize the account as yours. I will check
carefully, so I may ask for some additional confirmation, but prima
facie, it’s you.

You may, using this account, provide me with statements to be included
or referenced with anything I write on this issue.

You could rather quickly clear up much of the mess.

First of all, were you the owner of the Anglo Pyramidologist?

Secondly, you have a brother, Darryl. My suspicion is that the person
leaving those “stupid” messages is your brother (though there are other
possibilities).

Do you have any information about that?

Who was “someone”? I’m a journalist, and if you give me information like
that, I will certainly be curious!

If your brother is creating all that disruption, understand that, unless
you reveal the truth you know, you are likely to be blamed for it.

I will have many more questions, but you could start with those.

I have no interest in presenting false information or incorrect conclusions.

However, real-world harm is being done, in many places, by the activity
of whoever is behind those posts.


January 25, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/25/2018 1:50 PM

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Talk:Oliver_D._Smith#Request

Michael Suarez just deleted the ED article on me.

However, view how many times it has been deleted and re-created: http://archive.is/jprUo (but again deleted today).

I presume Michael knows none of those MetaWiki/Wikiversity accounts are mine, with the exception of Za Frumi and possibly one other when I left him a comment on his user talk – this was months back. And the only reason I showed up there is because mistaken identity. The fact is, I don’t post on these websites and have never disrupted them. 99.9% of those accounts are my twin brother. I have no idea what any of that stuff is and it doesn’t involve me. I’ve tried explaining this to Rome Viharo about Wikipedia for ages, but he never listens. For example, I was never “Dan Skeptic”/”Goblin Face” on Wikipedia. Yet I’m named on his website when I never spoke with him on Wikipedia.

In an old comment Michael says that even if I’m telling the truth – I’m still to blame since my twin brother edits from my house. However, that was mostly years back when we were young. Regardless, I have no control over his activities, he doesn’t now live with me, although does sometimes visit. I cannot comment on allegations of his disruption since I don’t know nor am interested in what he edits on wikis. The overlap between us is actually very minor. We both have different qualifications, interests etc; for example I have no interest in debunking the paranormal, while he does. What little I do know is that he is linked to ‘skeptic’ organisations, supposedly is either paid or works with other people. I do not see any ‘real world’ harm by what he does though, if he’s just refuting or criticising spiritualists or ghost-believers where is the harm

Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <redacted>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:52:22 -0500

I highly recommend, Oliver, that you ditch hyperbole and become accurate
and clear and precise. I have not identified a thousand accounts. If I
had and you were only one of them, that would be 99.9% not you.

Being very familiar with the evidence, your general claim is possible. I
cannot yet report it as fact, but if there is a claim that is consistent
with known fact, I can report that. I would even report a claim coming
from you that I can’t verify. You get that courtesy as a real person.

Whoever is behind the disruption does not extend that courtesy and makes
utterly outrageous claims about real people and then prevents them from
replying or attacks them for it.

You are more than one of the identified accounts. Here is a
documentation page for the WMF:

wikipedia/anglo-pyramidologist/

This is the page for RationalWiki:

rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/

Please let me know — for publication — which accounts were owned by
you. Did your brother ever edit using one of your accounts? I know that
there was coincident IP editing, that is easily understood, and I have
explained that many times.

If convinced that your story is at least consistent with the facts, I am
prepared to either take down or correct (including uploading newer
archive copies) all pages of mine that mention you, and to annotate the
AP documentation pages to distinguish what is yours and what may be
otherwise. I could also post to Quora, where I have over three million
page views and over 1600 followers. I think I can make the information
prominent in Google searches. So it may be worth your time to be careful
about all this. I am not in any rush. But there is also harm from delay,
so I urge you to make a simple choice to be completely open about the past.

There is safety only in the truth.

As to the ED article, I did not depend on it for anything, as I recall.
Everything I have reported has been independently verified (or in a very
few cases, was attributed to source). My understanding from my research
is not inconsistent, so far, with what you have told me in these emails.
But what you have told me, so far, is quite incomplete.

There are some more comments below, interspersed. I suggest you read
this carefully and respond carefully. Your academic reputation is at
stake. That is not a threat, it’s a simple reality. Your prior opinions
about how important this was were in error.

On 1/25/2018 1:50 PM, Oliver Smith wrote:
> https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Talk:Oliver_D._Smith#Request
> Michael Suarez just deleted the ED article on me.
>
> However, view how many times it has been deleted and re-created:
> http://archive.is/jprUo (but again deleted today).

I already knew that, Oliver. This is meaningless. Michael D. Suarez has
long been attacked by AP socks. I had noticed Za Frumi, From the WMF study:

* ZaFrumi
[Checkuser request links were shown] apparent ID as sock

So I reread the checkuser report. It was not clear on ZaFrumi. Your
account is plausible and ZaFrumi was not disruptive. You were, in fact,
a sock of Anglo Pyramidologist, who could edit Wikiversity and meta
without violating any policy. You might have saved a lot of trouble by
simply using that account, if you have access to it, or if you don’t, at
least by disclosing your account identity. Trivial to do.

I will correct the report on ZaFrumi to reflect what you have disclosed,
assuming you permit this. I have no interest in harming you, even though
I think you have made some serious mistakes.

> I presume Michael knows none of those MetaWiki/Wikiversity
> accounts are mine, with the exception of Za Frumi and possibly one
> other when I left him a comment on his user talk – this was months back.

I would not suggest that presumption. Without full disclosure on your
part, hopefully verifiable, this thing will stick around. There is a
vast tissue of lies that have accumulated as a result, apparently, of
your brother’s activities. I do have good communication with
Michaeldsuarez and he would respect my conclusions. So we can handle
that corner of this issue. Mikemikev may be another story. I don’t know.
I have no communication with him. I do have good communication with Rome
Viharo and, again, he would respect my advice.

I may also be able to influence Emil Kirkegaard. I have a reputation for
honesty and thorough research, Oliver.

I can assure you that if matters are as you are claiming here, and if
you allow this to be open, Rome Viharo and Michaeldsuarez will become
allies in clearing your name. Again, I know nothing about mikemikev. If
you want some help with that situation, ask. I might be able to help.

There may also be issues from your own early editing on various wikis,
including Wikipedia. My own suggestion is to own whatever you did,
apologize if that is appropriate, and then move only, leaving no mess
behind. That is how to recover from the errors of youth. Denial and
coverup and hoping it will go away often fails miserably.

And the only reason I showed up there is because mistaken
> identity. The fact is, I don’t post on these websites and have never
> disrupted them. 99.9% of those accounts are my twin brother. I have no
> idea what any of that stuff is and it doesn’t involve me. I’ve tried
> explaining this to Rome Viharo about Wikipedia for ages, but he never
> listens. For example, I was never “Dan Skeptic”/”Goblin Face” on
> Wikipedia. Yet I’m named on his website when I never spoke with him on
> Wikipedia.

Note April 2019: Goblin Face was an obvious sock of Darryl L. Smith, an alternate account of Dan Skeptic. Oliver knew what was happening but did not disclose it,  and then he blames people for becoming confused. The later development of this correspondence shows how useless this was.

If he never listens, you are probably communicating ineffectively.
Consider that! How can he know the difference between you and your
brother? Do realize that the claim of “brothers” was pooh-poohed on
Wikipedia as “they all say that.” I.e., “It wasn’t me, it was my
brother.” There is a way to move beyond that, but it is not by keeping
silent about your brother. You may not be able to stop him, but you can
clearly distinguish between yourself and him. You failed to do that. Can
you see that? It’s not complicated!

> In an old comment Michael says that even if I’m telling the truth –
> I’m still to blame since my twin brother edits from my house.

I am not responsible for Michael’s ontological errors (but you did not
link to the comment.) “Blame” is a “story,” an interpretation. The
reality is that if you share internet access, you can be tagged as
socks, and held responsible for your “brother’s” editing. It is not
exactly that you are directly “to blame,” but rather, consider this: If
a brother is firing a gun out the window at someone, return fire might
hit the other brother. Does it matter who is to “blame”? You are in the
same boat, and if someone in the boat is causing harm, it creates
possible harm for all occupants. Blame has nothing to do with it.

By the way, thanks for confirming “twin.” That had been said, but I was
not able to verify it without paying for more information, and the dates
when you first voted could have indicated a year age gap. Not that it
matters much. This could certainly cause confusion over photos!

Notice that from the data that has been published, that there are two
brothers has been confirmed. This supports your present narrative.

> However, that was mostly years back when we were young.

Old enough to know better. To clear this up, you will need to be very
clear about what actually happened, and I highly recommend not making
any excuses, such as “we were young.” I know that, it was obvious. What
was done by AP socks, however, was illegal, some of it. And was done
recently, at an age when a person would be held legally responsible, not
a child any more.

> Regardless, I have no control over his activities, he doesn’t now live
> with me, although does sometimes visit.

You do not have direct control. However, you do have control over what
you reveal and what you conceal, and if what you conceal would clarify
the situation, you become responsible for it remaining murky, and thus
for suspicion being maintained, not only about your brother, but about you.

“No control” is probably an ontological error. You could not possibly
know that you have no control. This is a classic excuse for avoiding
responsibility for what one does and fails to do.

> I cannot comment on allegations of his disruption since I don’t know
> nor am interested in what he edits on wikis.

That’s short-sighted, since you are easily held responsible, because of
an old Wikipedia mess that you never cleaned up. Assuming your story is
true, you could have. But you didn’t. If you are simply willing to fully
disclose what you know, you do not actually need to become knowledgeable
about what he has been doing.

(And it is not only “editing on wikis.” There has been real-world
harassment, including phone calls. I think Michaeldsuarez’s mother was
called. The story is — I have not confirmed it — that Joshua Connor
Moon lost her job because of harassment attributed to … you actually,
in what I saw. If it was your brother, I suggest you are in legal danger
unless you clean this up by helping defend victims.)

(I am interested in “responsibility,” not blame. Responsibility is
empowering, blame is disempowering.)

> The overlap between us is actually very minor.

You have not clarified this. I identify AP socks by interests, and there
does appear to be overlap. “Minor” is vague. You will very simply handle
all this by disclosing your accounts on Wikipedia and RationalWiki (if
you have any there), and maybe elsewhere.

> We both have different qualifications, interests etc; for example I
> have no interest in debunking the paranormal, while he does.

Right. I had already begun the classification of the WMF accounts as
“AP/O” and AP/D. However, this was tentative and to some degree
speculative. You could make it solid and clear — at least as to your
own activity. (See the meta study that is still undeleted:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abd/LTA/Anglo_Pyramidologist/User_data

Note April 2019: This was later deleted. The data is on the blog.

That study started to classify accounts as AP/1 (probably you), AP/2
(probably your brother), and AP/3 — at that time there was some idea
that a sister existed and might have been editing. It would be,
possibly, a better-behaved version of your brother. This was
HealthyGirl, blocked as an AP sock by checkuer on Wikipedia without
being clearly disruptive.

> What little I do know is that he is linked to ‘skeptic’ organisations,
> supposedly is either paid or works with other people. I do not see any
> ‘real world’ harm by what he does though, if he’s just refuting or
> criticising spiritualists or ghost-believers where is the harm?

If that were all that he did, you’d have a point. But it is far from all
he has done. I am neither a spiritualist nor a ghost-believer, but he
has massively attacked me. I am actually a journalist, with a
specialization in a particular science. He attacked me, not for that,
though he used the alleged fringe status of the science as an excuse,
but, in obvious reality, for documenting how he used impersonation socks
to attack (and bring down sanctions) on [redacted], and he promised
revenge, and then carried out the threat in many ways, including causing
massive damage on Wikiversity, a very long story.

I’m seeing a woman, in her 70s like me, and her children ran an
“intervention,” believing that she was getting involved with some
dangerous lunatic, because of the RationalWiki article. Tossing mud can
cause real-world harm, but that is only the beginning. The field I am
working in — I have been published under peer review in, in a
significant mainstream journal — has possibilities; if the reported
effect could be made to work reliably (which is difficult), it might
save a trillion dollars per year. Every year that the necessary research
for that is postponed, then, may have a lost opportunity cost of a
trillion dollars (times the probability of success). The effect is real,
but at this point it is still a laboratory curiosity. My stand is not
for “belief,” but for scientific research to clarify open issues, which
is funded and under way. If the RW article and other activities ends up
harming that cause …. the cost could be enormous.

Then there is Rome Viharo. He is not a “spiritualist” or “ghost
believer.” He intervened in a Wikipedia situation that your brother was
involved in and was outed and attacked and a RationalWiki article was
written on him. And he has experienced real-world business problems as a
result of that article and its distortions of what he was and what he did.

And I could go on. AP socks attacked [redacted], impersonated him to
create disruption, and demanded he be blocked and his work — which was
harmless — be deleted. Okay, he was a “ghost believer.” Do people lose
the right to fair treatment because they believe in ghosts? He is a
young man also, needing to establish a career. He isn’t notable or
important, had little influence, but he now has a RationalWiki article
attacking him in many ways, sometimes for things he wrote years ago.

Note April 2019: That RationalWiki article was later deleted, one good thing the Smith brothers did.

As to Wikipedia, if your brother is being paid, and he has claimed that,
and he has edited Wikipedia as part of what he was paid for, he is
violating the WMF terms of service, and could be globally banned by the
WMF office. Unless it is possible to establish a clear distinction, you
would also be de-facto banned. Whenever you apply for a job, or are
considered for a position, people will Google you and are likely to find it.

I recommend that you take this very seriously and handle it openly. Or
it will bite you badly. I am asking you to do nothing but disclose the
truth you know.

But the whole truth, not just pieces. What you don’t know, obviously,
you cannot testify to.


January 27, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/27/2018 11:16 AM

I can respond in full when I get the spare time. http://emilkirkegaard.blogspot.co.uk/ will be where I make the post on Kirkegaard in the next 24 hours, if not sooner.

My advice at the moment to you – is its not a good idea for you to side with neo-Nazi paedophiles like Kirkegaard.

I’ve had a look at your blog, and you’re disturbingly defending neo-Nazis and paedophiles. Also, my brother provided evidence [redacted] is a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier *right now*. He never changed his views, since there are comments he posted in 2017 (less than a year old) which show this. [redacted] is also a borderline paedophile who thinks girls should be married and “impregnated” about 16 by much older men. rationalwiki.org/wiki/[redacted] This is the guy you consider your “friend”, so I don’t need a lecture on morality from you.

Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <redacted>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 11:45:45 -0500

Okay, you are now demonstrating that you are the disruptive troll, or
support him in his disruption.

The truth does not have sides. All your study in classicism has been
wasted, this is ancient knowledge. (More accurately, your knowledge and
understanding are incomplete, and covered over by your reactivity.)

I never called [redacted] my friend, you or your brother did. I did not
support him in any activity like what you claim.

You cite RationalWiki as if it were a source adequate enough to make a
“pedophile” charge? I will certainly look, and what I find goes on my
blog, unless it is libelous without necessity.

I have no idea if Kirkegaard is a “neo-Nazi paedophile,” but what I have
seen as evidence for that claim wasn’t. The issue of age of consent is a
complex one, and the issue of how best to protect children is, as well.
Kirkegaard is young and is simply stating some ideas that occurred to
him. However, I have *many* children (7), and I was told on RationalWiki
to “go fuck your children,” and RW moderation was totally uninterested.
That is RationalWiki. Indeed, I need be careful what I support. I am.
Are you?

You have not answered the critical questions that I’d need to turn
around and protect your reputation. Instead, you are doing almost the
opposite. I’ll give you time to reflect on this, but … if you do not
take action to protect your reputation, it’s trash. Not because of me,
or certainly not me alone.

You may not realize it, but I’ve been conservative. I have not taken the
more drastic actions that I fully know how to take. On RW, it’s claimed
that I removed pages “out of fear.” Nope. I removed them for complex
reasons, that included courtesy to some, and presenting an opportunity
to others. I did not “delete” them as claimed. It’s a blog, and I set
the pages to private. It is one click to restore them.

Thanks for the link to that blog. You are showing that the AP agenda
(that part of it) is your agenda, but you are doing it openly now.
Congratulations on that. I’ve been open for more than thirty years,
on-line. Be prepared for service of process, I suggest. Defamation is a
crime in England, and you have defamed so many that I expect that they
will pool resources to both file criminal charges and to sue your ass.

Think carefully. Stand for the truth, but how to do that requires
maturity and competence. Do you really want to sacrifice your possible
career to “expose Kirkegaard.” Charges of pedophilia are very serious,
and actionable. Truth is a defense, but you have no relevant truth.
Rather you have only evil interpretation.

Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <redacted>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:33:54 -0500

It’s been two days, no post there.

I was an officer in the Cal Tech chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union, in 1962 or so. We defended Nazis and others with reprehensible
views, whose civil rights had been violated. Your thinking is regressive
and reactive, guilt-by-association, highly irrational. I’m waiting for a
response, but will not wait much longer.

Your brother claimed that I took pages private for fear of legal
consequences. No. That is simply his imagination, which he routinely
confuses with reality, if he isn’t straight-out lying.

And you apparently think very much like him.

“Right now” means today or the very immediate past. This is a common
trope on RationalWiki, that what someone wrote in the past *is* their
current position.

I looked at what [redacted] wrote about 16-year-olds. Your brother — and
thus you — are misrepresenting it, drastically, taking what is actually
common practice in many areas of the world and calling it “borderline
pedophilia.” As is common with such claims, there is no understanding of
what pedophilia actually is, nor what is not — at all — pedophilia,
but which might still be a creature of statutes, i.e., “statutory rape.”
In Massachusetts, where I live, what [redacted] described is quite legal
because the age of consent is 16. In California, where [redacted] lives,
I think, the age of consent is 18, but there is no minimum age for
marriage, and if the goal of a relationship is having children, which is
what he’s talking about, California has no minimum age for marriage with
parental and judicial consent. A marriage would trump the statutory rape
laws. (And a 16-year-old could elope to place where the relationship was
fully legal without question, and if there actually is parental consent
— which I would consider crucial — the requirement for judicial
consent could also be trumped by presenting the state with an
already-existing marriage, to be recognized under “full faith and credit.”

But [redacted] is a young man with immature opinions. Emil EOWK is like
that as well.

You scour and search the writings of your enemies for snippets you can
attack. I do not know if it is fair to call Emil a “neo-Nazi,” based on
resemblances that you can find. This is attack trolling. I see now that
there are apparent socks on RW claiming affiliation with or connection
with Hope not Hate. I doubt that the organizer of Hope not Hate would
approve!

The attacks on RW are Hate, not Hope, and your own comments betray this,
and your creation of a blog with the sole purpose of attacking Emil OWK
is another symptom of your obsession.

At least, though, you are taking open responsibility. That’s something
you had not done before. Instead, we saw claim after claim that what you
now admit to me was a paranoid conspiracy theory.

You can fix it, or not. If you don’t fix it, you own it. I won’t wait
long. Simply tell the whole truth.


January 30, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/30/2018 1:28 PM

I was busy, but it’s now up. I submitted a legal report to Google complaining about defamation on Kirkegaard’s website; they’ve blocked the article for UK (and possibly that applies to all CommonWealth countries). I will do the same to your website.

Pretty much everything you’ve written about me is misinformation and lies, so not sure how you want me to proceed. For example the claim I “send harassing phone calls” – just garbage. If Michael Suarez is saying that he’s lying. I’m in UK, do you really think I would waste $$$ phoning overseas, phone numbers I don’t even know?

You listed like 10 IPs + accounts that are not mine on your “identity” article on me. So your MO just seems to be to write lies about people like the RationalWiki accurately described you. You’re banned on tuns of wikis and forums and then use your blog to harass people you quarrel with by writing falsehoods and made-up stories about them. It is very clear what you are doing that can only be described as harassment.

Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <redacted>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:58:06 -0500

Well, you are essentially declaring you are an open enemy. That has
consequences.

On 1/30/2018 1:28 PM, Oliver Smith wrote:

> I was busy, but it’s now up. I submitted a legal report to Google
> complaining about defamation on Kirkegaard’s website; they’ve blocked
> the article for UK (and possibly that applies to all CommonWealth
> countries). I will do the same to your website.

You have the right. So do I.

> Pretty much everything you’ve written about me is misinformation and
> lies, so not sure how you want me to proceed. For example the claim
> I “send harassing phone calls” – just garbage.

I have not claimed, to my knowledge, that Oliver D. Smith sends
harassing calls. Where? I have claimed that targets of the sock family
(which includes, as you are informing me, your brother) is [are] reported as
having made received harassing phone calls. If you question a particular
assertion, I can follow up on it. I can actually contact the involved
people myself and obtain their own testimony. I can report what I find.

> If Michael Suarez is saying that he’s lying. I’m in UK, do you really
> think I would waste $$$ phoning overseas, phone numbers I don’t even know?

You are quick to claim that others are lying. First of all, you confuse
your personal self with the collective, i.e., you and your brother. It
is also possible that someone impersonated you. You are legally naive.

(and I can call anywhere in the world, in effect it is free, so your
expense argument completely fails, but, from the little I know about
your brother, it seems more likely that he made any such calls; you
don’t seem to realize that, if you do not make the distinction clear
between you and your brother, you become responsible for his actions.)

You have declined to correct errors, you are simply vague about them. I
list all accounts showing the AP patterns, and those are not claims that
you, personally and specifically, were those accounts. Same with IP. You
have largely admitted that most of the accounts were your brother. So
that you now call these “lies” puts you firmly in his camp, denying what
is clearly true.

> You listed like 10 IPs + accounts that are not mine on your “identity” article on me.

I will take a look. You have not been specific. The “identity” article is likely to go live again.

It did go live and remains so. And I reviewed it. I saw nothing there to remove, but Oliver was not specific. There are accounts listed as suspected socks. That is not false, even if it they are not Oliver. The evidence is given. The point of that page was to identify the original Anglo Pyramidologist as Oliver, which he does not deny. 

What you don’t realize is that I have, so far, not attempted to promote those articles. That will change. You also don’t realize that others before you have attempted to hide information. It doesn’t work, information leaks.

> So your MO just seems to be to write lies about people like the
> RationalWiki accurately described you. You’re banned on tuns of wikis
> and forums and then use your blog to harass people you quarrel with by
> writing falsehoods and made-up stories about them. It is very clear
> what you are doing that can only be described as harassment.

You forget who you are talking to and you forget — or never knew — the
purpose of communication. You have convinced yourself, so now you get to
live with the conviction you created.

You had the opportunity to clean all this up, simply by telling the full
truth. You will still have what I promised, the opportunity to make
corrective statements. I will report what I can from your
correspondence, your stand here (calling me a liar, writing falsehoods,
all that) leads me to withdraw any concern for your privacy.

I don’t know which Smith has a child, if that claim was true. Your path
(you or your brother or both), however, is inconsistent with being a
responsible parent. And I do know about parenthood.


January 30, 2018 (second)

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith [redacted] Date: 1/30/2018 4:14 PM
To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>

Well certainly not me, I’m an antinatalist and have had those views even when I was young- I don’t have nor want children. The fact you said you have 7 children IMO is disgusting.

I don’t know if my brother left you comments, it was probably not even him but someone fooling around.

I’ve made the Kirkegaard page because it made mainstream newspapers and people contacted me over it. I really have no interest in responding to the ‘allegations’ now I’ve seen its like 100,000 words. What I wrote about Kirkegaard answers some of the allegations about accounts, I did explain this earlier. I’m simply though am not wasting time going over every single account. Its pointless and nobody cares.

To ordinary people who click on your blog – you just look like disgruntled and a looney-tunes who is spending far too much time on this stuff that is all irrelevant.

You have no legitimate criticism against my brother or myself. We simply have used RW to document and refute pseudo-science. No laws broken.

Also – I’m now inactive on RW.

Subject: Re: Allegations
To: Oliver Smith <oliveratlantis@gmail.com>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@lomaxdesign.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:08:46 -0500

So who is the young man who is a single parent? Your brother?

Five are biological. I assume you are not considering adoption
disgusting. I am now making it clear that what you write to me can be
published.

The IP was likely your brother — if it was not you.

Those “mainstream newspapers” got their news from sources that got [it]
from RationalWiki, which was you or your brother.

I don’t write for “ordinary people.” Mostly, I write for scientists and
those who want to learn.

I don’t care about “legitimate criticism.”\

[Note April 2019] i.e. what someone like Oliver thinks is legitimate.]

What I wrote in those studies which you have ridiculed was basic and verifiable facts. I didn’t create
190 Wikipedia socks. I didn’t create all that disruption on Wikiversity and meta.

Thanks for the information you have given me.

On one thing I can still congratulate you. You are not hiding behind
pseudonyms any more, you are taking a stand in the real world, where it
can create consequences, some drastic, something I have lived with for
many years. Remember, I wrote about Islam, where there are some serious
fanatics loose. My friend was assassinated.

This is real stuff, Oliver. It was completely foolish for your brother
(if it was him) to try to intimidate me. It motivated me. I have dealt
with socks and sock masters for years. This was different, and far more
vicious than what I’d seen before. Impersonating [redacted] to create
disruption. And it’s just been happening again on Wikipedia, this time
apparently about Rome Viharo — besides the socks identified as you.

If someone is impersonating both of you, you’d better speak up! Emil
Kirkegaard may not be doing well because he declined comment. He wrote
some dumb stuff (not intended, from my reading, as pedophile apology,
but still socially dumb) quite a few years ago, and people have been
learning, when old mistakes come up, the fastest way beyond it is not to
clam up and hide.

I thought you might do that, and you even indicated the idea (you were
young!) but [then] you returned to attack-dog mode.

Better late than never, but I’m not going to continue reminding you. I
actually have work to do before I die. Some of it involves cleaning up
the mess you and your brother created..


January 30, 2018 (third)

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/30/2018 5:48 PM

There are no impersonations by me or my brother, never was. I & my brother typed some silly things online when I we were teenagers – difference is, what I/we typed was innocent and no one cared. Kirkegaard however made some obscene pro-child rape comments when he was 22 – they will haunt him forever, and there’s much evidence he is a paedophile.

[redacted] is an online pseudonym, anyone can use it.

The person who often uses that alias has a different real name: [redacted], and its unclear if his real surname is actually [redacted] because he uses a different surname on Facebook. So who cares if some stupid accounts were created with variants of this title? I see no impersonations. No crimes committed. Have I been impersonated? yes, in silly wiki wars with mikemikev e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_Smith its all in the past though.

There’s no evidence viharo has been impersonated. Of course someone can claim they have been impersonated to get sympathy and viharo does this a lot since he has a self-victim complex. I do not know anything about new accounts impersonating Viharo on RationalWiki.

The best I can do, is ask my brother re-write your article intro or other pieces you take issue with and possibly remove your photo. There’s no way the article though is going to be deleted unless you want to submit a coop case thing. Up to you. I made very few edits to your article.

Note April 2019: Knowing far more of the history now, Oliver presented a very one-sided story. Yes, he was impersonated, but it is not entirely clear by whom. Possibly Mikemikev, but he’s not talking about it. However, Oliver did impersonate once, probably trolling (that’s what he argued about, he used a very minor spelling difference. But someone has been impersonating massively, and it is extremely unlikely to be Mikemikev. In a few cases, he has clearly been impersonated. Oliver refused to tell the truth. (But he might not know about the impersonations.)


January 31, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/31/2018 10:34 AM

I’ve now spoken with my brother:

* Denies any impersonations.
* Says he finds you boring and won’t be editing your RW article anyway.

As to my suggestion we revise or edit things you take issue with: he declines and says everything he wrote is accurate. Therefore if you have an issue you will have to email the RationalWiki foundation or create another account and raise the issue.

I’m aware of the fake report by Kirkegaard or Viharo; the accounts now filed on that AP sock archive – are not mine. No technical evidence, and the method these accounts were put there was external and dubious. Kirkegaard or Viharo just emailed an admin their lies. A admin even commented it was an unusual block and there was no real evidence.

I will cover this in another blog post. However, beyond that I won’t be responding to allegations because like I said, no one cares about random accounts on RationalWiki.

Note April 2019: I did not respond to this mail. 


February 14, 2018

Subject: comments
From: Oliver Smith <redacted>
Date: 2/14/2018 6:38 AM

None of the comments posted on your blog are mine. Would appreciate if you stopped impersonating me like a nutcase and writing foolish things, or ban the trolls (if you’re not impersonating me) to prevent them posting there and misattribute these accounts or comments to me.

Those comments might be misread as ‘defending’ me to fool you, but they are posting libellous things and misinformation mixed with the phony defences.

For example I’ve never been a “fascist”. My politics has always been ‘populism’ and I’ve supported parliamentary democracy and pressure groups that want more direct democracy (e.g. proportional representation/ referendums/ an English parliament) for as long as I can remember. You present zero evidence for your fascist smear. Plenty of other falsehoods about me on your blog, but I don’t like wasting time typing out long responses to your nonsense.

But a silly inaccuracy written about me on your blog is the bizarre claim I consider myself an “academic”. That seems to be your psychological projection since you don’t even have a degree. I don’t and never have called myself an academic. I’m a postgrad student and write a few independent research papers in my spare time; its a hobby, nothing more. Jobs I’ve done are the complete opposite of academia, unless you think bookbinding, other arts and crafts and some basic digital archivism is somehow “academic”.

There’s also a now a full rebuttal to your lies concerning Kirkegaard and the London Conference on intelligence = https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/London_Conference_on_Intelligence Basically you take a comment out of context – I didn’t even write then invent a wild allegation I am the single person responsible for the news coverage. You’re losing your marbles old man? Finally blogspot never removed the emilkirkegaard blog, I simply did for the reason I can simply link to it on RationalWiki as an archive. I have no intention of writing about this stuff off RW since this “drama” means little to me. Unlike you, I don’t waste my personal blog writing about petty internet feuds

Subject: Re: comments
To: Oliver Smith <oliveratlantis@gmail.com>
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@lomaxdesign.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 12:30:07 -0500

There is a response to this mail at
http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/emails/#February-14-2018

[this was moved to http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/emails/analysis/#February-14-2018]

In general, where I have placed a table of contents at or near the top
of a post, you can get a link to an anchor in a section from that TOC.
Your claims of lies are meaningless without an actual pointing to an
alleged lie. A very few directly quoted words with a link to the page
would also suffice to allow finding such a statement.

I assume that your brother wrote and has done most of the editing on the
article on me on RW. I will note here that it is claimed in that article
that I routinely claim that people I disagree with are “liars.” That is
actually a rare claim for me, but it is abundant in your writing and in
that of your brother. Projection?

I’m a journalist and lying would be just as fatal to my own work as it
would be to that of an academic.

I have added a note to the comment about “academic” about you, but this
was silly, pedantic. Whether you claim to be an academic or not, there
is damage from posting defamation without honest reporting and
necessity, and without probative evidence. that includes, by the way,
private email. Defame someone by private email, you can be charged with
defamation and it could stick..


April 4, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]>;, Rome Viharo <[redacted]>;
Subject: Proposed truce, deletion of RationalWiki articles
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:36:19 +0100

Recently [redacted] emailed me, and I agreed to delete his RationalWiki article. It has since been deleted. I then helped him delete his RW talk page, other stuff that mentions his name and will also help remove some Reddit threads on him in the RationalWiki section (since I’m on good terms with the mods). [redacted] also offered to delete anywhere that mentions my name, such as on Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity, for example he removed this talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd/LTA/Anglo_Pyramidologist&action=history

I’m willing to offer the same truce and deal to you both, since I think everyone is bored of this online fighting that is time-consuming. I’m not interested in debating contents of those articles or responding to allegations, only that we delete everything like [redacted] who is now happy and moving on with his life. This would only work if you delete mention of my name on your websites – I will then help you delete your RW articles and other mentions of your names in regard to RationalWiki such as Reddit. If you are sensible, take the [redacted] approach and we can remove everything. It also won’t work to betray me, i.e. I delete your RW articles, but then you restore articles about me on your websites; If you do that I’ll just restore your RW articles. [redacted] has sense and genuinely wanted everything deleted so we helped each other.

I’ve offered a truce and deletion request to all other people whose RW articles I’ve edited or created. Mikemikev responded by calling me a “Jew”, so he’s beyond help and I’m not taking the RW article on him since he won’t delete his articles on me.


Subject: Re: Proposed truce, deletion of RationalWiki articles
To: “Oliver D. Smith” [redacted]
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <redacted>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:32:44 -0400

I will consider your kind offer.

[redacted] had a problem I don’t have. I told him that he could courtesy blank that meta talk page and that this would probably not be reverted. So apparently he did it.

Unfortunately, Oliver, the damage may not be recoverable simply with what you suggest, and there will be your brother to contend with. The biggest damage was to Wikiversity, the private complaints influenced a clueless bureaucrat to delete resources, completely out-of-process that had stood there, one of them, for a decade with no problems and no disruption, and, ahem, there is a certain global ban that your brother mentions at every excuse. I assume that Bill Connors is him and not you.

Further, the affair has exposed a serious problem with Wikipedia bias and off-wiki coordination and cross-wiki disruption. However, that was mostly your brother, I think, not you.

Thanks for helping [redacted]. He is doing much better now.

By the way, I was never reasonably described as his “friend.” I simply helped him and others create a neutral resource on Wikiversity — that resource was not “promotion of parapsychology” — and showed him how he could do his research into sources without offending site neutrality.

You also complained about my email with you as harassment. To clean this up, you will need to do more than get the RatWiki article removed.

Right now, your name is still mentioned, even though most pages are password protected. The post announcing “going dark” is tagged with your name. That kind of tagging was not previously done, I escalated very slowly, I wasn’t mentioning your name until well after being blocked on RatWiki for doxxing that I had not done. Stating sock suspicions is not doxxing.

Mikemikev is cute, eh? I have little problem with his being called a racist, he may qualify, but … I just found a bio of him and I will be reviewing it. I have had no communication with Mikemikev. However, your brother is lying about him admitting to all those socks. That was obviously not what he meant.

The Wrongpedia attack on Mikemikev and his mother is beyond the pale. So you are continuing your rampage. Or is someone deviously impersonating you on RatWiki?


April 5, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:05:15 +0100
Subject: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite

Having emailed a few people and looked around there’s no way to remove the articles (especially not Viharo’s), but since I have access to a sysop account I can just rewrite them completely and remove your and Rome Viharo’s photos etc.

The problem is Viharo has annoyed a lot of people including David Gerrard and since he’s the main admin on RW there’s no way he will want Viharo not to have an article there. The solution though is just to rewrite.


Subject: Re: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite
To: “Oliver D. Smith”
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 18:24:15 -0400

If I don’t want RW to have an article on me, my recourse is with the RMF. I did email them, they ignored it (not surprising). Next step is a certified letter, a formal demand.

You and your brother have lied so extensively about me and what I was doing, and created such a widespread mess, that the only way to undo it is probably to come completely clean, and openly acknowledge what you know, in a way that is verifiably you. Otherwise it would be considered impersonation. That is the mess you and your brother have created.

You complained to the WMF. What did you complain about? That is not going to be a privileged communication, it’s vulnerable to subpoena.

Unless you and your brother are the same person — which I rather doubt! — your brother, as Debunking spiritualism, lied about communicating with me. I have nothing from him, only from you. And I did not say to you what he claimed, on Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. As well, DS mentioned the Reddit ban, which, of course, he suggested to Gerard, promptly actioned.

I assume that Agent47 is you.

I don’t think you realize how difficult it could be to undo the damage you and your brother have done. Having a sysop account is largely meaningless on RW. Any user, generally, can rewrite an article. I could
rewrite may article. But would it stick? The two of you have created a myth that the RW community believes, demonstrating how naive and gullible they are.

All those vandalizing socks on RationalWiki, copying my text, twisting
it, and vandalizing with it, who were they?

David Gerard only acts when he has cover. He is, after all, real-name and vulnerable to defamation suits.

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

[and in response to quoted email text]:

You don’t seem to understand something. I had long experience with RW, so your idea about how you could fix the problem isn’t going to fly with me. I know how little “sysop” means there.”

DS just tried to rewrite my article and it was reverted. Having sysop tools does not help, actually, unless you are doing something that no other sysop cares about.


April 7, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:44:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite

Ask Rome Viharo to see the last email I sent him. There is no brother. I’ve just had fun misleading people, like yourself stalking me as have other RW sysops who have tried to protect their identities. It’s a problem though that you would target and dox an innocent family member of mine, based on this. Ask Viharo to see the full email, or I can post it here later. The ” smith brother” conspiracy theory is a joke.
I’m not really interested in you complaining about lies, since all you’ve done is lie about me. You’re currently writing all sorts of nonsense and smears about me on Wikipedia sucks on the bizarre mikemikev section on your blog. I’ve never in my life been to Birkbeck college, I never studied at London University and never have been a “white nationalist”. Also, I don’t live close to Birkbeck. None of the accounts you claim are me are mine, but mikemikev. You’re clearly mentally ill to be posting these ridiculous false allegations to defame me. Also the impersonation claims are bizarre, considering Mikemikev has impersonated me all over the internet including at Metapedia. I closed my account, it was then reopened to impersonate me with a false accusation of having schizophrenia. This is proven if you bothered to actually view the logs.
I also find it mind boggling that you dispute Mikemikev is an online nazi. He’s a white supremacist neo-Nazi nutcase. Just look at his twitter or gab accounts where he posts crude anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. Heck, his avatar on kiwi farms and EDF is adolf hitler.
Of course though, you could argue because his Nazism is so ridiculous that he’s some sort of agent provocateur see https://archive.is/Y6e3C. It’s basically impossible to distinguish between these, like Poe’s law. i.e a real fundamentalist and someone pretending to be one for parody. Many online-Nazis in America have turned out to be FBI informants. However, there’s no dispute that Michael is actually posting the most extreme racist material and anti-Semitism online. Why deny this? Because compared to this guy I’m  totally sane and this doesn’t fit the way you try to misrepresent me.

I proposed to delete your articles, and failure to do that rewrite. After I proposed this you start posting libel about me on Wikipedia Sucks. So he deal or solution is therefore probably off. I agree with Bongolian that there’s no way to reason with you, you’re a nasty piece of work and internet harasser. You clearly don’t want peace but to just attack me more and more across the internet. And your emails are being ignored by the RationalWiki foundation, I was told this.


(I have not responded to this last mail.)


Oliver Smith, above, suggested that I get copies of his emails to Rome Viharo. Because these provide additional detail as to Smiths’ new claims, I am publishing these here (but not Viharo’s comments, unless he gives permission.)


April 6, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:09 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

look what happened:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax [I made this a permanent link to the revision of  22:46, 6 April 2018, which would probably be 15:46 Viharo time]

The problem is Lomax wrote articles on his blog, not only about me, but 5+ other sysops, including other doxes. None of these people now want to help, which is understandable. This is the same thing with you, so for example David Gerrard will never vote to delete your article. The only solution is to rewrite the articles. Therefore the offer is to unblock you and Lomax, at least temporarily to say what you want rewritten.


April 6, 2018 (To Rome Viharo)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

Abd lomax has resorted to posting yet more defamation about me such as on Wikipedia sucks, and sending me abusive emails, so the deal is off to help him. The guy is clearly nuts to attacks me when I try to help him and resolve this.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

I’m still prepared to get your article deleted or rewritten though. I can attempt a deletion request. I;m not sure what you mean when you want me to “own up” to things; as I explained there was no brother, paid editing or ‘skeptics’. The rather mundane truth is its just one guy.


April 7, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

There is no brother involved. I made it all up to mislead people stalking me, or trying to investigate who I was (this goes back to when I had trolls following me 24/7 on other websites like Encylopedia Dramatica, Kiwi Farms etc). There’s plenty of other false information I fed them and I found the situation rather funny since I fooled most, or all these stalkers. Michael D. Suarez even was tricked eventually, but he sceptical at first. This worked for quite a long time, but Lomax has recently doxed my brother’s real name and other personal information on his blog. It never mattered before because it was just an unnamed brother, who could be imaginary; later a real brother of mine was doxed by Mikemikev (who acquired a dox through a paywall), but still no one was interested in this brother, and he was only briefly mentioned on your website. Lomax however is obsessed with this brother, writing dozens of articles on him when he has no involvement on either RationalWiki or Wikipedia. He’s never posted on these at all, and doesn’t even know anything about this, and he has no internet or social media presence. I just mislead people who are trying to stalk or dig up information me, as with lots of other stuff. I found all this amusing at first, but it’s now a problem that Lomax is writing all these articles on someone who isn’t involved at all that is abusing search-engine results of a real person who is innocent.

A method to get unblocked on Wikipedia is to claim you have a brother or sister editing. I used that excuse several times to get unblocked many years back. I don’t even have a real sister, but made an account pretending to be female, and so on. I don’t have any links to ‘skeptics’ and I posted the same false information to Farley. At one point he was trying to see what was going on, and I just gave him the brother story I invented. I fed people nonsense about shadow skeptic organisations and paid editing, there’s none of it. It’s all one guy (me) and I have no connections. I’m now nearly 28, and I think it’s time to throw in the towel editing wikis completely (leaving RationalWiki etc), furthermore I have a lot of things to be getting on with and this has been time-consuming and wasting my time. I would rather now just end any feud or disagreements with people on wikis. Hence I proposed to either delete or edit articles people have an issue with.


April 8, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I don’t see any evidence for harassment. What I said is I would try to delete some RationalWiki articles, so people stop writing about me on their blogs, or other websites. Time to move on, it’s now 2018 and like I said I’m busy and don’t want to be involved with anymore squabbles or drama.

There’s no way to delete your or Abd’s articles because you’ve annoyed too many people there; I tried though. [redacted] in contrast has annoyed no one, and I got his article deleted. That’s what could have happened if you and Lomax didn’t create websites and moan about RationalWiki. Neither of you have been sensible.

And we clearly live on two different planets since you cling to these wild allegations about abuses on Wikipedia, when I find these claims laughable. This isn’t taken seriously by anyone rational, furthermore virtually no one cares anyway. I said in my other email I’m not interested in these allegations or the content of your articles; just try to remove them.

I’ve never “abused” anyone on Wikipedia or RationalWiki. You keep mentioning Dan Skeptic, but someone can easily click that account and see what was posted. And this is silly to be talking about this stuff from years ago that has no relevance. I never dug up your internet history on Wikipedia or RationalWiki – that was done by other people. I’ve actually always been again quoting your really early stuff and maintained your article should only focus on the Chopra/Sheldrake thing that has relevancy because RW has a whole separate page about Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page as a battleground.

Farley has no involvement with your RationalWiki article. He’s never edited it. Furthermore as I keep telling you, I made few edits to your article. The bulk of it such as documenting your early history (which to me is irrelevant) was done by other sysops, as you can easily check. So not sure why you still blame me, or Farley for it.

Since the article deletions have failed, my only advice is you move on and stop focusing on this stuff. I fail to understand why you still want to write about me when I have no involvement. 

April 11, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I submitted a deletion request: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Technical_support#Deletion_request_for_Rome_Viharo

You should understand everything you’re saying about me,-I’m saying about you. Your latest article is filled with misinformation, lies and false allegations. This is why I said I’m not interested in talking about the content, but just deleting articles so people can move on and not waste more time with this.

Lomax and yourself are not being honest when you state you will correct lies and mistakes. So that’s another reason debating the content is a waste of time. As an example, Lomax says on his blog I attended London University. I never studied there, nor have been there. This is a rather trivial mistake, but Lomax refuses to correct it. So if he refuses to do this for trivial things, there’s no chance he’s going to correct all the more serious false allegations about me. That’s why I emailed him to just delete articles. Instead the day I emailed him he starts writing more lies about me on Wikipedia Sucks. I don’t own this [i’m a separate person to mikemikev and none of the socks filed on his archive are mine, according bizarrely to Lomax though these are my accounts, potentially defamatory since there’s holocaust denial, racism and other crazy stuff on all these]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev

To Rome Viharo, April 11, 2018

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I don’t have an exact figure, but I’ve created around 300 RationalWiki articles since the beginning of 2012. 90% of my article creations are not on people. And of the 10% (about 30 people) I created articles on I’ve only had trouble with 3 or 4 people.In other words, an extreme minority (1%) of my articles have caused controversy.

So of course I’m being misrepresented on your or Lomax’s blog. Why don’t you or Lomax discuss 99% of my other edits? Why cherry pick those 3 or 4 people (like in your saloon bar article)? You’re lying and must know you are yourself.

As for myself lying about Dan Skeptic, I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether I’m really him, or protecting a brother as Lomax thinks. Should I be criticized for the latter?

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

No way of deleting the article:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Rome_Viharo

This is what I predicted and said to you and Lomax before I made requests; you’ve upset and annoyed too many people, so you aren’t liked and RW sysops are all against you.

I’m completely done and have nothing else left I can do. All I can advice is if you further mention me in articles, that I tried to delete your article and I have no (further) involvement.

As I said I wasn’t interested really in content of your article and would prefer to just delete everything to end this, that failed, but if you want to change stuff to your article (the page has been unprotected now) create an account or leave a comment there, or at the above page, where someone mentions if there are “inaccuracies”.

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Oliver D. Smith <oliveratlantis@gmail.com> wrote:

You are already blocked on rationalwiki on your account you made today. I’m just putting a leave template on any accounts I have left up and won’t further post there.

And if I didn’t exist – you would invent me. You’re trying to make a profession or money-making scheme out of claiming to be against “online harassement”. for that to work you need an aggressor. The problem is you chose the wrong person. I was criticizing online harassment, doxing and defamation etc, having been a victim of this long before your campaigns.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield