responding to Oliver Smith on Encyclopedia Dramatica

Encylopedia Dramatica is down right now, so I’ve copied this from Google cache.

User talk:Abd/Abd vs. the Smiths

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigationsearch

Seems like Smith may be done. So I will intersperse response with indented italics.

Abd vs. the Smiths[edit]

(Moved from User_talk:JuniusThaddeus)

No issue with Junius, therefore was trolling[edit]

  • I have no issue with JuniusThaddeus, only Abd Abd Lomax, so this message is to him. Abd is an internet harasser, he is not being truthful in what he says.
Smith cries lies, but isn’t specific. I present evidence and sometimes conclusions. I am truthful about both, but, of course, conclusions can be incorrect, but “not truthful” implies willing deception. I’m a journalist. If I do that, my career is toast. These comments and many others obviously from the same person, were dumped on [ user talk:Junius Thaddeus], who confronted the comments, but the user admitted that I was the target, and he was just “testing” Junius. This is harassment. That I respond to claims about me here is not harassment at all. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked on Wikiversity[edit]

Yes, I was very active with Wikiversity for a long time (for a time I was almost the sole maintainer) however, the eleventh block was based on the first ten, with an opinion that this was too many times, the long block log was proof of being disruptive. And the tenth block was for a completely normal edit, but removing a Scope tag placed by the sysop who blocked me. This block sequence was unlike anything I had seen before, and I’d seen a lot. I documented the block log here and placed an unblock template, which summarized the documentation and linked to it for details. The ‘crat denied the unblock for his own block, with a non-policy-based reason. He also blacklisted the blog — with no abuse even claimed, no reason given. It is obvious what happened. Private complaints convinced him. It is obvious who complained. It’s the same person who was harassing me, you can see one of these edits just above that unblock denial. (And he canvassed a few Wikipedians to complain, people already involved, from conflict long ago, taking the opportunity for revenge, and lying to accomplish it.) Without abuse, the ‘crat full-protected my talk page, and blacklisted the blog, from only that one mention. These were all extreme actions, but the Wikiversity community is almost dead, as far as any attention to central process. A custodian announced that he intended to unblock. There was no general community comment, and the information I have is that he was threatened, off-wiki. I have not yet documented this sequence, but I will. This affair seriously damaged the academic freedom of Wikiversity, established through long tradition and the work of many. It was the only place where factional bias on Wikipedia could be balanced neutrally, and the resources deleted as part of this were rigorously neutral, in spite of claims that were so ridiculous that ‘crat explicitly set aside the discussion to make his own decision, designed obviously to quite the attacks on Abd and whatever he had done. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked on Wikipedia[edit]

Indeed. I also took one of the administrators who blocked me to the Arbitration Committee and he lost his tools over it. I abandoned Wikipedia in 2011, socked very briefly to test a procedure whereby a banned user could still make improving edits without complicating ban enforcement (it worked with me as it had worked before with others — and this was documented, it was not covert, except for one final sock as a test of the old traditions. Those old traditions were set aside by the defacto oligarchy, but never based on discussion with the community), and was, as a result, community banned by the same people whom I’d confronted. A user who takes an administrator to the Arbitration Committee — as I did, twice, successfully — is committing wiki-suicide, if the admin has friends who are admins. Now, what is the block log for Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia? It’s short, because most blocks are of socks! There are almost 200 blocked socks attributed to Anglo Pyramidologist, which is the user commenting here, or his brother. (Oliver has claimed most socks are created by his brother.) Wikipedia doesn’t care which. This user has been blocked and banned all over the internet, far more widely than me, but hurls accusations against others for what he’s done, himself, in spades. He has harassed many, causing real-world damage. He claims I have harassed, but has not shown any actual harm caused. I documented the AP socks, on Wikiversity, first. Attacked. On meta. Attacked (a piece of that is still there, in spite of efforts to remove it. Then on RationalWiki. Attacked. (who deleted that? Guess!), and finally on my blog, Attacked. Who is obsessed about removing a list of socks of a blocked and globally locked user? Hint: the question is not difficult. He managed to recruit some naifs to support it. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Lies about sock puppeting on RationalWiki[edit]

  • On Rationalwiki, Abd has been using loads of proxy IPs pretending to be someone else and then admitting they were him on another. Check the 159 range.
This is referring to IPs where I or someone else used the third person for Abd. They are anonymous, open proxies, and none of them claim to not be Abd. Some openly acknowledge the possibility. Some of these “admit” to be Abd, but are not claimed by Abd to be him. Unless, of course, he is actually using that IP.

Admitted to four sock puppets on RationalWiki[edit]

  • Abd has admitted to using 4 sock-puppets on Rationalwiki, he says the rest are impersonations which even if true, he is still socking. He has no proof the alleged impersonation socks are Smith.
Yes, I have socked on RationalWiki, and have a documentation page, always put up before those accounts edited, but there are a couple of cases where I might later acknowledge an account. This is ironic: the user here has many, many socks on RationalWiki, it is completely obvious, and acknowledged in various places,yet he presents quite minor socking, made necessary by a desysopping and block that were completely out-of-process, those actions supposedly require “cooping,” a community discussion, which was not done. Meanwhile the blocking sysop, an obvious sock, disappeared when when he was greeted as “Oliver.” Because the link above will disappear, here is a permanent link and an archive link to the last edit on that list.
This claim of “no proof” is the refuge of scoundrels. It avoids the obvious: there is evidence, and plenty of it, but he will claim it is not “proof,” i.e., evidence beyond a shadow of doubt. I claim that there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury in a criminal case, which would indeed be “beyond a shadow of doubt,” but short of that — there is no jury here, no collection of people selected for neutrality and dedicating the time to actually review evidence, there is all that evidence and anyone who actually wants to know may review it, while the AP socks are busy trying to hide the evidence that they claim does not exist. That is, indeed, obvious. Take a look at the RatWiki contributions of Debunking spirituality. The name and behavior of this sock are that creating an appearance of it being Darryl L. Smith, not Oliver D. Smith. The user is obsessed with me, and that obsession likely carries over to here, except that the accounts here are more likely to be Oliver L. Smith. They are both obsessed. Obsession is what creates the “duck test.” Few will have the special knowledge needed to create what they create. (The same claim could now be made about me, except … Oliver and Darryl have created many, many enemies. Some of them have withdrawn, some intimidated and harassed beyond tolerance and they decide it’s not worth pursuing, but any of these can use the same open proxies as I can. What has been shown on RatWiki is that impersonation accounts can be mistaken for the target, rather than what could actually be more obvious, studying the edits. We have a demonstrated pattern, proven by checkuser, of impersonation accounts on Wikipedia, for a known AP target ([redacted]). It is claimed by AP socks that I attacked them because I am a “friend” of [redacted]. No, I had communication with him by email, and it wasn’t personal, until I later asked if he was those impersonation socks. While he admitted the real socking (which was minor and mostly harmless), he denied the impersonations, which are what caused action to be taken against him and his work on Wikiversity. My interest was protecting Wikiversity and Wikiversity users, from attack coming from Wikipedia or “outside.”
That ran into a minority faction on Wikiversity that supported what the founder of Wikiversity called “Wikipedia disease,” rabid deletionism. Long story. The Smith brothers DGAF about neutrality and wiki policies, their goal is to attack and ban their enemies, it is very, very personal. And they think, then, that anyone who interferes with that agenda must be filled with hatred, because that is how they think. And it’s obvious here.
The evidence is that the impersonation socks are not me because they have a consistent pattern that is obviously designed to create reaction against me, by threatening users with legal action or looking like they link to my blog (though they don’t actually link). They copy some text of mine (always, so far, with a twist added) and spam it on many pages, with vandalism. This is classic impersonation socking, and it’s very clear. Of the list of socks put up by Debunking spiritualism, only the first (Abd) is actually me. All the rest are impersonation, and it’s a long list, with him being ahead of me in identifying them. At one point, I reviewed edit timings. The pattern was obvious. DS is likely (more likely than not) the creator of those socks, and he will say “there is no proof,” because he believes that he can do this and it cannot be proven to be him. Not without a subpoena, that is. He is depending on nobody having the balls to actually create legal action. That takes time and can be expensive, but … it is under active consideration. As I have written, I won’t do it alone, though it is possible I might file an initial pleading. It takes time and is this internet double-asshole worth it? I have not decided. Meanwhile, it is easy to keep documenting, which drives them crazy, apparently, leading them to take more actions that reveal more about them and create more and more attention. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, if anyone wants to know, look at the edits of the IPs and accounts openly acknowledged. Do either resemble the named impersonations? The list of socks obviously deliberately avoids listing the real Abd socks, even though many of the impersonations imitate those names with minor variations that can fool the inattentive. Smith depends on the inattention of wiki users, that’s how he’s been working for years.

One sock used in 2011 is cited for past behavior on Wikipedia[edit]

This is hilarious. There are two socks listed, one “Abd sock,” which was created and acknowledged for testing purposes and only blocked when I used it to edit my user talk page to disclose IP edits. The other was a real sock, also disclosed as below.
All that socking was documented on a page recently deleted on Wikiversity, by that ‘crat gone crazy. (Deleting all user pages without reason other than the identity of the user was unheard-of on Wikiversity. Users even were denied the right to delete their own work, on many occasions, and those pages had been used and were linked in Wikiversity process, many times.) The page linked here had been submitted for deletion and the community decided to keep it. So he was violating community consensus. The page was linked from Wikipedia by others. I rescued the page from a Wikiversity data dump, which involved handling huge files, a PITA. But Wikiversity is for learning-by-doing, among other educational purposes, and I am still using it for that, now indirectly. So, now, we have accusations of socking from a true LTA, long-term abuser, and tagged as such by stewards with global locks. I am indeed globally locked, but with no reason given, and after many successful requests for checkuser on meta. Something shifted, and it was obviously based on private complaints to the WMF, and we only know clearly about one of these, from Oliver Smith, which is ironic, since he had no business being a WMF user. Did they know that? And we can strongly suspect certain others, since they had advocated for a ban and one of them claimed harassment by email. That can be studied, since the emails were published on my blog. He was lying. And Smith was certainly lying, since he had emailed me, not the other way around.

[redacted] socked on Wikipedia, nothing compared to AP[edit]

Smith often points to irrelevancies. Yes, [redacted] socked, he privately admitted certain accounts. This case is interesting. The occasion was a checkuser request filed anonymously, by IP from an open proxy. From other edits of the IP, this was an AP sock, very likely Darryl L. Smith. One of the little nastiest I noticed about Wikipedia was that when an SPA or IP editor filed a “disruptive process” which is attacking another user, the “community” commonly pays no attention to the obvious socking, but only looks at the target, and the community doesn’t realize that they can be, with this habit, led by the nose to misleading information. My conclusion, looking at the edits, is that [redacted] did actually make the edits in question, so that apology was real. (I have not confirmed this with him, though, he is mostly retired from all involvement, though he has apparently recently edited his RationalWiki article — which he wants deleted for obvious reasons.) I never defended [redacted] ‘s socking and actually admonished him for it, and his most recent socking there was attempting to satisfy the purposes of Wikipedia blocking, by self-revering, but … he did not know and understand that (and had not asked me about it, or about any of the socking). Now, what does all this have to do with what Smith is claiming about me? I never claimed that [redacted] had not socked. What I claimed was that he was impersonated. That is not possible to doubt at this point, because of the checkuser findings. Smith will them retreat to the “there is no proof” argument, when the evidence is actually overwhelming, if one looks at it. I had no involvement with or knowledge of [redacted] ‘s political views. It simply was not my business. By the way, the focus on [redacted] here demonstrates that this is Darryl. Even though Oliver would be interested in the political views, the long-term attack on [redacted] had been based on the antiparapsychology activities of Darryl. The IP, see Wikipedia contributions, was blocked as an open proxy, by a steward, and also another related IP, the same. See and the next report, just below it.

This sock lies about a removal of address[edit]

  • Abd says he has deleted Smith’s home address from his website, he hasn’t, he has a page called “Identity” where this information is still stored, he took it from Rightpedia. Abd has doxed Smith’s family and parents, he does this as harassment.
Thanks for mentioning it! A link to the page. As can be seen, the home address was redacted, what remains is only this:

DARRYL L SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT, WD7 8AU, Age: 27
[name of apparent mother omitted],[street redacted], RADLETT, WD7 8AU, Age: 59
[name of apparent father omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT, WD7 8AU, Age: 59
[name of apparent older brother omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT, WD7 8AU, Age: 32
OLIVER D SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT, WD7 8AU, Age: 27
What we had before was IP information pointing to Watford as likely. That’s about five miles away. The street address narrows the location to maybe two miles of a country road. Someone who wants to find that house will need to find the other information, and it is easy to find. If you live in the UK, the google pages that have the information are blocked, but you get a notice of redaacted research and by following links to the complaints, can then find the pages if you know the name you searched for. And if you don’t know the name, you would not be looking. What Smith has done is to enrage many, and some of these have resources and motivation. Most don’t, so he’s gotten away with this crap for quite some years. It’s falling apart.
In any case, he is lying here, that is, presenting deliberately misleading information. Is the address there? The claim is of harassment, and what is there doesn’t rise to that level. He claims “family and parents,” but that information, while present elsewhere, was redacted. I am also removing the link to Rightpedia that was there. It’s not needed for verification and anyone can find it if they want. That was not where I got the information, it was merely a reposting of it that I mentioned. The information came from accounts named mikemmikev on Lolcow wiki and on Rightpedia, and my comment is that, on the subject of Oliver D. Smith, he was generally telling the truth. That does not legitimate anything else he may have done, and certainly does not approve of his politics. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

And lies about Kujilia[edit]

  • Abd says he will remove defamation from his website. Lies. He doesn’t remove Smith’s address. He also blames Wikipedia accounts such as Kujilia on Smith. Even though Kujilia has no idea who Lomax or Smith is. He did this same with El_badboy.
This is nifty. Kijilia was asked by is that checkuser request. It listed Kujilia and El badboy! in this way:

“The last two are suspicion based on recent editing, was fast with news of high AP interest (created by him), which may be a coincidence.
So the lie: I did not accuse Kujilia’s account of being Smith, rather, I saw a single suspicious edit and it is totally normal to file SPI on Wikipedia based on that kind of evidence. It is not considered an attack, unless the user is actually attacked in the report. I gave the basis and acknowledged it as thin. So Kujilia may well have been telling the truth, but … if he was AP what would he have said? Exactly the same. Such statements are meaningless, and had he shown up on meta, it may have pissed the stewards off. They hate argument on those request pages, but read the rest of that report. The AP disruption and the activity he created with complaints worked. No checkuser was done, which could have clearly identified more impersonation socks. Additional material in that request from a Wikiversity administrator was ignored. And that is how wikis roll down the hill.
Something had happened, behind the scenes. Is Kujilia documented on my blog? Maybe, but not the Wikipedia account, the RationalWiki one. Kujilia is a low-contribution Wikipedia account, and looking at contributions, especially the first, I still have some suspicion, but would not list Kujilia on Wikipedia as an AP sock without much more evidence. Let me look at the history here:

  • 01:15, 1 February 2018. Request filed. (this was open for a very unusual length of time.)
  • 05:28, 21 February 2018 User account Kujilia was created on RationalWiki
  • 05:40 – 05:58 , 21 February 2018 Kujilia massively edits RatWiki. The page creations are shown in the deletion log. He copied some material from me.
  • 05:58, 21 February 2018 CowHouse blocked Kujilia (Block evasion). CowHouse obviously believed that Kujilia was me. This is how AP socks intensify wiki opinion about a user. The naive do not suspect that someone outrageously and disruptively pushing content like that might not actually be the user.
  • 19:30, 22 February 2018. Request closed. It had been disrupted by many arguing on that request, and a steward vomited. AP continues to disrupt because it works. If he gets blocked, he doesn’t care, he just creates more socks!
  • 05:20, 21 February 2018 The IP warned Kujilia, using a address where geolocation information may be incorrect. The global contribution display indicates an Australian or New Zealand location, but claims the middle of Kansas. Wombat Servers Pty and Intergrid Group Pty sure look Aussie to me! Checking elsewhere, yes. Aukland. Did Darryl actually move to New Zealand as he claimed? This is the first clue I have seen, other than the RatWiki retirement claim. By the way, who filed a checkuser request is usually irrelevant, but would Kujilia, as a new user, would he know that? Users are not normally notified of steward checkuser requests, because the issue is checkuser identification, not arguments.
  • 19:30, 22 February 2018. Checkuser request closed. It had been disrupted by many arguing on that request, and a steward vomited. AP continues to disrupt because it works. If he gets blocked, he doesn’t care, he just creates more socks!
  • 02:09, 24 February 2018 Kulilia responds. The IP does not answer his question. The IP had written:
There is some further information about Abd here [1]. He has a history of doing this kind of thing. He also has a personal blog where he has now mentioned your account Kujilia.
Google finds “kujilia” on my blog on one page, created March 2, so that could not be the source. I was unable to find kujilia earlier than that, looking through page histories. This is in a page on Darryl L. Smith. It quotes Debunking spiritualism in a list of alleged socks of mine, not of which (except Abd) were actually me.

“Kujilia (impersonation, this is a Wikipedia user Abd has a vendetta against)”
  • 1 March 2018 Debunking spiritualism added Kujilia to the list of socks.
I then covered Kujilia as a RationalWiki user, not as the Wikipedia user.
What about El Badboy!? That was mentioned in the checkuser request, as a weak suspicion, the same as Kujilia.

Oliver mind-reads Abd[edit]

  • Abd is happy to work with neo-Nazis and racists, he cites Rightpedia as a valid source of information on his blog. His friend [redacted] has extreme far-right views. He defends the neo-Nazi Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. He claims the Mankind Quarterly a white supremacist journal is a legit “scientific” journal. He says he would defend a pedophile or Nazi because all people have human rights… Abd defends the controversial London 2017 eugenics conferences claiming he has not seen any ‘offensive’ content at them.
“Neo-nazis and racists.” I have not worked with any such, knowingly. However, racism is very common. Racism is not eliminated by knee-jerk reactions to “racism.” Antifa can be fascist thinking, just turned around.
I do not cite Rightpedia as a valid source of information, except about Rightpedia. Rightpedia has an article on Oliver D. Smith. I have not taken information from that article, but I did say that most of it seemed correct. That’s not accepting it as reliable source. I don’t, and never did.
his friend [redacted] . I helped [redacted] work on the Parapsychology resource on Wikiversity, and his work there was legitimate, and probably prevented him from what might have been far more Wikipedia socking. I did that purely as a user with a long interest in how any subject could be studied on Wikiversity, neutrally, something that used to be relatively well understood, which Darryl demolished. It wasn’t personal, and my documentation of the impersonation socking wasn’t about any vendetta against “skeptics,” as Darryl claimed. This, though, is Oliver, who finally came out of the closet, using his real name and real initials in places and on RationalWiki. (User:ODS).
“has far-right views.” I haven’t seen evidence of it as to anything recent, and only Darryl accusations as far as anything older. On RationalWiki, the brothers seem to be parting ways, over [redacted] and about me. No wonder. Oliver blamed Darryl for the massive socking.
“Emil Kirkegaard.” describing Kirkegaard as a “neo-Nazi” seems to be without anything other than weak circumstantial evidence. What looks like a joke many years ago, for example (someone else is giving a Nazi salute, and Kirkegaard describes himself as “the Fuhrer.” Adolescent humor. Kirkegaard does not write like a neo-Nazi. He is racialist (“race realism”) which is a step short of racism, and he is a hereditarian on intelligence, which is not racist, but which is used by racists. I don’t agree with his racialist or hereditarian views, but he’s an academic and it is possible to have sane discussions with him. In my view, his research is defective, but that doesn’t make it pseudoscientific and much research is defective. The way forward is to test it, to use the scientific method, and to remedy defects in studies, not to attack them as “racist,” which is Oliver’s approach.
“Mankind Quarterly.” Oliver created a huge flap over the London Conference on Intelligence, by writing defamatory pieces on RationalWiki, and by flogging them to the media, and the media swallowed his interpretations without adequate investigation, and then Oliver cites those sources as proof. It’s badly circular. I looked at the evidence we have about the Conference and wrote about it. Because Oliver referred to this in an email to me, I wrote a page on the topic. In the coverage, because Mankind Quarterly comes up, I wrote a little on it:

“The Wikipedia article on Mankind Quarterly covers critique (quite prominently, by the way, a sign of biased editing there.) Generally, controversy should be kept out of the lede, and placing four links to what is obviously political criticism in the lede is not balanced. The Journal itself is clearly a scientific journal, publishing articles in a field with high controversy. For the latest issue, I picked a paper to look at
And then I described several papers. Oliver is incapable of unbiased review. to him, everything has a point, to jab his enemies with.. This is from the lede of the Wikipedia article:

“The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology, published by the Ulster Institute for Social Research in London. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology.
“Critics call it a “cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment” and a “white supremacist journal”,[1] “scientific racism’s keepers of the flame”,[2] a journal with a “racist orientation” and an “infamous racist journal”,[3] and “journal of ‘scientific racism'”.[4]
I did not call the journal “legit.” I really don’t know enough, other than that it appears to have the trappings of legitimacy, enough that the hysterical claims about it are not obviously acceptable. What Oliver is asserting here rests on a belief that his point of view is truth, and that, because of those criticisms, the journal is not “scientific.” Those critiques, as quoted, are obviously political. While the hereditarian position is currently out of favor, reality is obviously neither purely hereditarian nor environmental (the current mainstream view, particularly where politics gets involved). We will understand reality through scientific research, which can be difficult. And I also have written about that. Calling MQ a “scientific journal” does not approve of a possible editorial bias. Many journals have such bias. What I saw in the article picked appeared to be non-hereditarian. Oliver is obsessed with seeing the world in his own way.
On a hunch, I looked up the RatWiki article on MQ. I found much editing by an obvious AP sock. I’ll document that later.
He says he would defend a pedophile or Nazi because all people have human rights… Right. That depends on context, of course. The actual quotation is promimently featured on my RatWiki article, because Oliver or Darryl think it looks bad. The source is a page where I quote and examine emails from Oliver. The particular email is this one. And below is a fuller quotation. I didn’t say what he claimed, and that’s common, though this is not a particularly terrible one, I’ve seen much worse. Starting, I will quote Oliver:

“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*
What I notice now is the clue that he gives about his brother. He gave many of those. His brother is currently arguing for the deletion of the [redacted] article because of some change of heart, rejecting his brother’s position, expressed here. [redacted] was his brother’s target, so his brother dredged up whatever he could find. The pretense that the “RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is a paranoid delusion is still being maintained on RationalWiki. To many RatWikians believe anything that seems to be from the “good guys,” i.e., “skeptics.”
So I replied:

“pedophile” is the easy one. There is no evidence I have seen — at all — that Kirkegaard is a pedophile, which is an actual medical term. It is used casually and sloppily by the ignorant or careless to refer to anyone interested in or “defending” age-of-consent reform, as well as certain freedom-of-speech issues, which has been an ongoing process for some centuries now, with legal and sociological realities being quite surprising to many. If I point this out, I have myself been called a pedophile or, slightly less offensive but still defamatory and inaccurate, a “pedophile defender.” However, were I an attorney, and a pedophile were charged with a crime (pedophilia is not a crime!), I might defend one.
“I was also an officer in the Cal Tech chapter of the ACLU, probably as a sophomore there. (I picketed the House Unamerican Activities Committee meeting in Los Angeles then). The ACLU has defended Nazis and other groups widely considered reprehensible, as action protecting civil liberties. Civil liberties are not just for those with politically correct or popular views, but for everyone, and if it becomes an offense to defend the unpopular, democracy is in double trouble.”
Smith is obviously not on the side of civil liberties, he is still a fascist at heart, attacking whatever he thinks is “wrong” — which is quite different from standing for justice. Justice requires a heavy measure of tolerance.
That all people are entitled to defense if accused of a crime is a cornerstone of American democracy. Of course, Oliver is not American. What do the British think about this?
Pedophilia — real pedophilia, even, which is rare, — is not a crime. Child molestation or rape are crimes (and both are more common than pedophilia). And that whole subject is hot-button.
  • Abd is communicating with Mikemikev on his blog in the comments section, his best new friend… yet Mikemikev has been impersonating the Smith boys on his blog. Abd has created a mailing list and is trying to contact neo-nazi Wyatt Man (Merkel) from Rightpedia… Abd also defends the holocaust denier Eleonóra Dubiczki and criticizes the Smith’s for attacking her.
Mikemikev I am? Which comment(s)? There is a page called Comments, where many socks have appeared. Those comments are not in the regular comment section of each page, because the most recent regular comments go on the main blog page and I have not yet made the AP stuff so visible. Instead, they have been copied, and, as well, IP address is revealed, on the special Comments page. These are suspected by me of being AP socks, one of the brothers. There is some IP evidence, but the socks quickly learned to use open proxies and even a Tor node. I have not identified any comment as coming from Mikemikev, but I have had no communication with that person — as far as I know. I proposed a mailing list, that is true, but details about that will be confidential. I don’t recall any effort to contact Merkel. And these claims amount to claiming a journalist is talking to possible sources. Duh!!! (I do not consider Rightpedia a reliable source, nor, in fact, is any wiki a reliable source, ever, even though some stupid newspaper writers might think so. Some of the sources they cite might be reliable, and if reliability is important, the sources should be carefully read, not just glanced at, because that is how trolls manipulate your mind.

As to Eleonora Dubiczki, there were some IP edits, and I’ve stated that I’m neither admitting nor denying that IP edits are me. They could be and they might not be. Nobody should rely on an IP edit actually being me, unless perhaps it geolocates tightly, and those IPs have been using open proxies. I’m certainly following them! Let’s see if I can find these edits so at least we know what Oliver is talking about. The edits were hard to find….

[2][3]. How would those edits be considered “defending” Dubicki? Ah. the second one pointed out that the SPI that had been mentioned by an AP sock as a reason to undelete the article did not actually identify any socks as Dubizki and were probably impersonation socks. That is not defending her at all. It’s just pointing to reality. Those comments were removed, of course, by Oliver and then, when restored, by Darryl. Quite a team. Darryl then protected an open AfD. Nice. Darryl routinely outs edits as me or others. It’s okay if you are a Smith brother, usually. Once in a while someone dings them for it.

Joshua P. Schroder/Tan/Schroeder[edit]

  • Abd was globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation do not just randomly ban people. The ban was justified, Abd was harassing users on and off site. You can’t go around hosting Wikipedia users real names or addresses (doxing) and expect to get away with it. Abd had doxed Joshua P. Schroeder on a forum. Joshua had legally changed his name last year. Abd exposed his new name and his work place. Joshua had emailed the foundation about this abuse. Abd had also sent Joshua ‘harassing emails’.
Well, he’d already thoroughly doxxed himself. But then he changed his name in some contexts. The “work place” was actually an observatory in Chile, and he was long gone from there by that time. He is actually within driving distance for me, and I might have occasion to meet him. It is not known if Schroeder “legally changed his name,” and he’s back to his old name.
Now, about those “harassing mails.” What I posted originally was on an obscure forum where they had a discussion with information about Schroeder. I brought it more up to date, that’s all. I also copied it to my blog, but didn’t publish it until a month later. Then Smith found it and not only archived the forum on, and my blog post on, he posted links to it in many places, including on the Schroeder talk page on Wikipeda. I took down my blog post and wrote to Schroeder, offering to assist him in getting the other material removed. Darryl, of course, attacked me for “hiding” what I’d done. I was able to convince the forum moderator to remove that post (he was reluctant, but with some argument, he did take it down.) But that left the archive copies open. Schroeder and I had some back and forth, but he never complained that I was harassing him by email, and when he stopped replying, I stopped writing. He later complained about email harassment, which was a lie, so I published the emails. That complaint, in fact, might have been the crucial one, because harassing users through the WMF email interface is a TOS violation. And the office would be able to verify that I had written him, so they might have assumed he was telling the truth.
“I am very familiar with WMF office ban procedures and the cases before. What Oliver says here would generally be true, there has to be something serious. I was in communication with a WMF functionary who knew what I had done with Schroeder and he thought there was no possibility of a ban. He was wrong. At this point, I’m still communicating about it, I have not yet written WMF legal. I don’t need to edit Wikipedia, and I have a year under the TOS to file an action (and my opinion is that the TOS limitations are void in this case. To my knowledge, there has never been a case, and I doubt they want to see one. But you never know.
This is relevant to anything? It’s just trolling. The Quora Answer will reveal something about me and my experience. With a horrible question, that Answer still has 134 views and two upvotes. (~2% upvotes is not bad!) My guess is that the person who asked the question upvoted it. Quora is a place where people with questions appreciate long answers, very much unlike the wikis. I have 3.4 million Answer views there, and almost 1700 followers. Not too bad. Oliver D. Smith has 9000 answer views and seven followers. ‘Nuff said.
  • It is not illegal to create a Rationalwiki article on someone. So up yours Abd Lomax! You lose. You are an internet harasser, you have 21 articles on Smith and others on your blog, this is Google traffic abuse! There is only one RW article about you and it does not host your real life address or accuse you of things you have not done. Don’t attack peoples families on your blog and expect to get away with it. You deserve your RW article and David Gerard has confirmed it is never going to be deleted. Run (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Who said creating an article is illegal? Impersonation socking with intention to defame is illegal. My real life address has been used in sock names. Oliver’s address (i.e., actual house location, so that one could find the house) is not on my blog, and his “family” is not attacked. However, his brother is documented, and it is his brother who caused the damage I first encountered. There was just an attempt to get the article deleted, by … Darryl, actually. It failed, but I have not requested action from the RW Foundation, which is where a real decision might be made. At this point, I’m collecting data, and watching developments.
Well said. Anoncreon (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If Run isn’t Oliver or Darryl, he’s doing a good imitation. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Lomax will side with anyone against RationalWiki, even pedophiles, neo-nazis etc like Kirkegaard & Michael coombs. The hilarious thing was that Lomax prior to having a RW article, called Rome Viharo a “troll” and “opinionated self-important blowhard”. After he got a RW article, he changed his mind because he sees Viharo as a useful ally against attacking RationalWiki:

However, soon after Lomax was blocked in 2017, he did a 180-degrees turn and now considers Viharo as a useful ally against RationalWiki and praises him on his blog.[64] Lomax is willing to side with anyone in his harassment campaign against RationalWiki, even racists or people he has formally criticized. Basically if someone hates RationalWiki, Lomax will cite them approvingly on his blogAmusingly, note also above how Lomax approvingly quotes the RationalWiki article on Rome Viharo before he was banned; after he was banned though, he complained the article is inaccurate despite the article was virtually unchanged to when he originally described it as factual (i.e. writing “the evidence of that is clear on RationalWiki”).

This is what internet harassers do – they will quickly change their alliances and views just in order to attack someone else.Anoncreon (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Lomax is not attacking RationalWiki. That is a Smith story, he describes those he considers his enemies as attacking others and attempts to get them to fight. It works, too often. (What I do is describe RatWiki. It is what it is. It is openly immature, practically proud of it. Remember Ace McWicked?
Oliver thinks he’s really got one there. Yes, before I knew much about what had happened with Rome Viharo, when I assumed that the impersonation socks on RatWiki were him, I wrote in RW style about his socking there. Rome Viharo came to some conclusions before I did, that’s all. I don’t agree with everything he has written, but what he is claiming is not implausible. He’s been grossly attacked by the Smiths — mostly Darryl, I think. He’s seen real=life harassment. All this crap from Oliver encourages me to continue documenting, because they continue to be active with the socking and harassment.
I still have much to write. Here I wasted a perfectly good day resopnding to the Troll of Trolls. This is in my User Talk space. I reserve the right to delete more additions here. Corrections are welcome, but they should be corrections, not just “Lies!!! —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
“Abd has been divorced more than 4 times because nobody can stand this man”. lol. No surprise there. He also polluted the world by reproducing 5 times.Anoncreon (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be Oliver, an “anti-natalist,” who told me that it was “disgusting” that I had seven children. (Two are adopted.) His life sucks, so he thinks it must be that way for everyone. —Abd (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Leave a Reply