Self-admitted troll

Great example of Smith trolling on Reddit, I see this morning.
The thread is
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation is a failure

started by u/RationalWikiuser with only one other trolling comment.

The comment, account deleted by the time I saw it (this is done to make it difficult to track comments, there is no other sense to it)


22 hours ago edited 22 hours ago (as of 17:10 UT)

Laughable; you’re now boot-licking Dysklyver to try to get him to side with you against Smith.

Actually, this troll has been doing quite a good job of influencing Dysklyver toward recognition. My goal with Dysklyver is to support him in realizing and expressing reality, not to get him to “side with me,” because reality has no sides. No boot-licking. I have disagreed with Dysklyver, but my work is not — as the trolls claim — about attacking those with whom I have some disagreement. It is all about finding consensus rooted in reality, the only place where genuine disagreements can be resolved, and trivial ones vanish.

You did exactly the same thing with Rome Viharo. Originally you described Viharo as a “troll” and “loser”, yet when you realised you could use him against Smith, you suddenly started boot-licking him and did a 180 degrees turn over night, suddenly claiming he’s not a troll. Funny that.

The trolls create fantasy stories that amuse them no end. Here, the troll is, as usual, displaying “guilty knowledge,” i.e., knowledge that would be very rare, except for someone who has intensively searched for my history. If that is done with them, they call it “stalking.” But I am not hiding, they are. So they unmask themselves by revealing these “facts.” What they report here is based on a fact, a comment, but the interpretation, they invented. The fact.

The context: I was a RatWiki sysop, and wrote that in Ratspeak. It could be considered harsh, but that’s normal on RatWiki. I still stand by the analysis, Rome Viharo was ineffective on Wikipedia. I already recognized the pseudoskeptical faction that he confronted and that faction dominates on RatWiki. Because he was expressing a very unpopular point of view on RatWiki, with response being predictable, that was “trolling.”

However, in the other direction, as I noted then, he had been abused and was being abused on RatWiki. Later, I learned much more about what had happened and who was involved. I continued to — and still continue to — disagree with some of Viharo’s conclusions, as being, at best, premature. The situation is a bit more complex, my opinion, than the simpler understanding he has shown. But he did not lie on his blog, and his clues led me to more direct evidence. None of this was about “boot-licking.”

And no, you aren’t a journalist. (laughs)

An anonymous troll imagines he can define the word and apply that as if fact, and have it make a difference for anyone. Journalist (Wikipedia). That is what I do, with researched, verifiable fact, and with editorial opinion, the two distinguished (if anyone asks). I am, as implied in what he was replying to, a “responsible journalist.” I can be called to account by my readers, and my name and reputation are at stake. This is radically different from anonymous editors and trolls.

At what university did you study journalism, or what newspaper or online news website do you write for? You have zero credentials and own a crummy blog that you use to attack people you get in slap-fights over the internet.

A small percentage of the blog space is devoted to this affair. Most of it — by far — relates to cold fusion, the subject of the blog, and reporting on cold fusion is where I have functioned the most as a journalist, explicitly supported by the public (and by private grants), see, which does not show the larger contributions. I am not a “professional,” because I have never been paid for journalism; rather, I am an amateur, and the funding covers expenses. Relevant to the topic on this reddit, none of that funding has gone toward the filing fee for the lawsuit.

I do use the blog for personal expression, pending the formation of an editorial board. It is all related to the cold fusion work, in some way, but it can be peripheral. For example, the attack on me on Wikiversity focused on deleting the cold fusion educational resource there, which had stood for a decade or so with no disruption at all. They lied in the deletion discussion. So, cold fusion related. And nobody supporting my work has complained. Only the people I supposedly get in slap-fights with, which is only Oliver and Darryl Smith, who create massive disruption and then blame it on others, like me. And like they are doing with their throwaway accounts on reddit.

As to the central point, are bloggers journalists? Yes, according to a U.S. court. I have been given press credentials to attend a conference without paying a fee. I could have presented credentials in the U.S. Federal Court in Miami, but all I would have gained would have been the right to carry my phone into court, and I didn’t bother.

At this point, would not be considered “reliable source” for Wikipedia purposes, because there is no formal fact-checking editorial supervision. Not yet, anyway, but there is a rough fact-checking process, which is through public comments, which are invited, and anyone covered on the blog is allowed to present comments that will be featured as responses, if the original material is not “corrected.” Simply screaming on reddit that the blog is full of lies is not a correction. Specific links to specific information would be required.

But I was saying that Dysklyver was a “reliable source” for my purposes, which is an editorial judgment I can make, until there is a review board in place (which I expect, eventually).

Dysklyver did not provide any evidence for his claims. As for “highly respected”, lol.

Dysklyver confirmed evidence and provided personal testimony, which is meaningless to the trolls, because to them, anonymous is equal to real-name. For “highly respected,” Dysklyver is a tech on RatWiki, basically he is trusted with the most sensitive of tools. He has done nothing that I have seen that is not in conformity with the stated purposes and traditions of RatWiki, and complaints about him, from accounts of the trolls, have gone nowhere.

This claim of not “any evidence” is common with liars and purveyors of fake news. “There is no evidence.” when there is evidence, it’s obvious, and it has been shown and some of it is verifiable. Legally, personal testimony is evidence. In court, yes, to be admissible it must be attested, but informally, this is how society runs: on trust of personal testimony. But not to basement-dwelling trolls, who imagine that somehow by multiplying accounts, they increase credibility. It worked for them somewhere, so they repeat it.

Trolls equate “evidence” with “proof,” which is bizarre for alleged skeptics. But it’s common, to be sure. All the time, people say “there is no evidence” when the reality is that there is evidence, but they do not agree with certain conclusions. Not distinguishing between evidence and conclusions is common for the naive. An ordinary person can testify in court according to what they have experienced, but not about their conclusions (unless they are qualified as an “expert witness” which is a huge can of worms.) The distinction is clear.

That multiplication of accounts is classic sock puppetry. And it is completely obvious on the subreddits these trolls have been infesting.

I do not wish to attack Dysk,


but he’s a self-admitted troll

This is interesting, but what Smith makes of it could be misleading. Fact, a subhead on Dysklyver’s blog:

Cornish Lawyer, long time Wikipedian and Your Favourite Troll.

In other trollsock ravings, Smith has claimed that when Oliver D. Smith admitted to suffering from schizophrenia, he was being sarcastic (which the context did not support). Here, was Dysklyver being sarcastic?

Trolling is a specific kind of action, related to motivation. Trolling is not normally my habit, but there are places and times for it.

I was prohibited from any editing related to cold fusion by a Wikipedia sysop. I filed an ArbCom case over that. In the middle of the case, the sysop claimed that I was still banned, and he could prove it. I had been voluntarily complying with the ban. This was an opportunity, a testosterone-crazed bully making a threat, inviting me to wave a red flag.

So I formally withdrew from voluntary cooperation, and waited a day. No objections appeared. So I made a small, harmless edit to the cold fusion Talk page, pointing to a prior discussion in answer to a question that nobody had answered. This was not in the least disruptive, by any argument, other than “defiance of administrator.” I went to sleep.

When I woke up and looked, all hell had broken loose. As was predictable, the admin had blocked me, I had been unblocked by an arbitrator, and immediate desysop was under discussion. That edit was the most efficient action I ever took on Wikipedia. Almost wordlessly, it demonstrated the problem I was confronting, and in the end, he — very popular in his faction! — was desysopped.

Was that trolling? Yes. I took an action that I knew would provoke him. But is trolling always bad? Trolling can unmask pretenders. But that is quite unusual. More often what I do that is called trolling (especially by trolls) is that I tell the truth, or provide reasonable inference, with evidence, and there are those it angers, but my goal is not to anger them, it is to hew to reality. If reality angers them, that is their problem, not mine, though I’m still responsible for effects where I have power.

Is Dysklyver a troll? I’ve seen very little, if any, to confirm that, but his actions on Wikipedia would be considered trolling to the mindless there, because they have no other way to imagine that they could understand his behavior. I’m not sure that I understand his behavior, but what I’ve seen so far is consistent with . . . I’ll call it genius. I suspect he will go far, if he doesn’t get himself killed. There is always that risk.

and SJW/Antifa who uses photos on the internet pretending to be someone in a balaclava (certainly not normal), and he seems to lie a lot.

OMG, not normal!!! What’s next? Unorthodox opinions? Where is the tar, and Mom, where is the pitchfork?

No wonder the Smiths are so upset about “antinatalism” and “schizophrenia.” These are not normal!!! (I have extensive experience with schizophrenia, up close and personal. Yes, it is not normal, but it is possible to live with it, even to live well, high-functioning, if it is acknowledged. If it is denied, one is screwed, blued, and tatooed.)

What looks like a lolcow biography, he wrote about himself, bragging:

Bragging or just telling the truth. Is there a bragging emoticon so we can tell the difference?

Considering he’s totally non-noticeable, this page shouldn’t have been written.

According to what standards? Dysklyver claimed that this was written as a User page, and turned into an article. By whom? I don’t see a way to check history, but Everipedia does not seem to have notability standards. See the Wikipedia article. This is just irrelevant BS. Someone who has accomplished nothing thinks that listing accomplishments and activities is “lolcow.” Where it can be verified, what Dysklyver claims is true. The only thing questionable I see is “lawyer,” but that could have multiple interpretations.

His blog bio has

Arthur Kerensa, otherwise more popular known as Dysklyver, which means Encyclopedia in Cornish, is a perpetually bored lawyer from the United Kingdom. He works in the field of transnational corporate law, which means he is basically a clerk who fills out company incorporation forms for offshore entities.

And most these claims about himself seem dubious and exaggerated (at best): a company director, lawyer and postgraduate student when he’s only recently turned 22? No evidence either presented for any of these claims.

The collision between age and “lawyer” I noticed when I first looked at his user page information. However, anyone can be a company director at any age, there is no specific experience required, merely the consent of the shareholders (if it is a share company), or the owner or other authority.

In any case, I did find evidence for “company director,” and this was given as a source for the Everipedia article, so Smith was just blowing smoke. He is the only officer and declared shareholder of the company, formed last year, and currently subject to a notice that the company will be struck from the register if no response is received by May 19, 2019. So if he cares about the company, he’ll respond, and if not, not. And none of this is really relevant. At age 21 or 22, he was a director. Of his own company, to be sure. And anyone could be that by filing the appropriate forms and paying the fees. I suspect that the planned business did not work out. That’s all. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Now, if he made a big deal out of this, i.e., “you should invest in me because I am a Company Director,” well, that would be puffery and anyone who falls for that is an idiot. I’m a company (nonprofit) director, also, the equivalent here, and big whoop! What matters is the actual work done. I have also formed a number of companies over the years, and I’ve sat on a significant, active nonprofit board. I would mention, in some bios, the relevant activity, not in others.

“Lawyer” could have various meanings. He claims to be doing the work of a lawyer, which would be a basic meaning. It could also be puffery. If it were important, I’d ask him. It is not important!

What Smith is doing is what he always does: look for anything that can be asserted to make the person seem a troll, a liar, and generally disreputable. It’s not working! Dysklyver is staff at Wikilivres, which is the highest privilege level. Whatever role he needs, he can create for himself. It’s like tech on RationalWiki, so Smith is attacking a RatWiki user with the highest privilege level, as to actual tools. Why? What does he hope to accomplish?

(Trolling often makes no sense, and sometimes trolls get away with it because ordinarily people can’t imagine the mind of a troll.)

As to post-graduate student, I entered Cal Tech at 17, so if I had simply attended for four years, I’d have graduated at 21 and the next step would have been post-graduate study. So Dysklyver at 22 is not terribly unusual.

I skipped a grade and a half when I was young, long story. I had only turned 17 a few months before being a freshman at Tech. Smith has his head wedged.

Based on log-in times and his activity, Arthur is almost certainly unemployed. He also edits RationalWiki well into the night and responds on Reddit at 3 to 4 am (UK time); he lives in Cornwall, England.

How does this troll know “log-in times”? That information is generally not public. One could tell from raw access logs, but Smith has no access to those. Edit activity can be seen.

I have not looked at Dysklyver edit timing. It is a piece of work to do it properly. This is irrelevant. One person may make edits at odd times with it being no particular burden, another, the same timing could be difficult. Some people wake up in the middle of the night and edit some. This can vary from day to day. One would need to look at timing in detail to make any sense of it, and there is no sense to spending the time required.

This is all an attempt to insinuate something “bad” about Dysklyver. To put this in perspective, the only information we have about timing and work from the Smith brothers is what I’ve put together by identifying accounts and compiling the information from contributions and logs. Just looking at a contributions display can be misleading and is not useful for study over a period of years, which I have done with some Smith activity. And then one sees far more interesting information.

It is easy to track Dysklyver because he uses few accounts. It is much more complex to track the trolls, and especially these trollsocks, throwaway accounts.

Dysklyver claims to have a job. However, he might have breaks from a job, or the situation may have changed. All of this is meaningless to the core issue: is his testimony as to fact within his personal knowledge reliable? From, now, experience in (limited) direct communication with him, and observation of his work (much more extensive), my conclusion is, yes, he is a reliable source for reporting probable fact, for which “proof” is not required.

Even if anonymous trolls attack him with many accounts and claims. And those claims generally are laced with lies, where they can be verified. (And what Dysklyver has claimed without “proof,” I also have claimed, based on what I have seen myself. So that is two real people confirming each other, though we disagreed — perhaps — on interpretation — and since copies can be seen of the relevant pages, anyone could judge for themselves. The trolls were claiming that the pages were made up, did not exist, etc. or were created by impersonators, which was impossible for one of them, and, my opinion, unlikely for the other, and the pages converged on the issue in question.

These trolls lie. Have I mentioned that?

I always check log in times and edits on RationalWiki. Like Mikemikev, Arthur is online RW all day and through the night to 4 am. There’s no way these trolls do a real days work, they’re online almost 24/7.

Again, how does he check “log in times”? If there is something I’ve been missing all these years, I’d love to know!

(Even if log in time could be known, one can be logged in and paying no attention unless something pops up. Edit activity establishes that one has pressed a button. I used to study edit records for suspected sock masters who were operating “assisted editing tools.” The user would have the tool running and would press an accept button, several times a minute, for hours on end. I used to think, “OMG! What kind of person does this for free?”)

Dysklyver is not a troll, that’s obvious, not in the ordinary meaning. But the one accusing him of trolling is a troll, clearly and without doubt. The socking on reddit only makes sense as trolling.

As to Mikemikev, that’s entirely a different issue, and there is no comparison between Mikemikev and Dysklyver, the only similarity being that, now, Smith is starting to be obsessed with Dysklyver, whereas he has been obsessed with Mikemikev for years.

This is standard for the Smiths. Anyone who interferes with their agenda, by commenting on the obvious or documenting it, becomes their enemy, to be attacked with fire.

It does not matter if it is completely irrelevant in context. They will use every opportunity, and where they have created an attack article, they will link to it early and often.

(Remember, there are two Smiths, with differing personalities to some degree, much confusion has arisen over this. Most sock puppetry only involves one person, Smith socking must be handled differently.)


Claims of libel and harassment

[deleted] 5 hours ago

It is being claimed on the internet that I have libelled them. That’s fun.

At least 4 individuals, independently said you harassed them by email. Various individuals have also complained your blog contains defamation and malicious falsehoods written about them. You’ve also used this Reddit section to further harass one of these individuals by repeating a defamatory claim they are a schizophrenic, despite them pointing out they’re not and asking you to cease and desist writing this libel. Enjoy losing your lawsuit; I hope the WMF counter-sue.

“4 individuals, independently.” I know three possibilities. None of these were harassment.

  • Oliver D. Smith claimed I harassed him by email, but I published our entire correspondence, and it shows no harassment. He didn’t like some of what I wrote to him, but the correspondence was begun by him and he continued it voluntarily.

The Talk page archive for my RatWiki article begins with a deception: I did not have any correspondence with Debunking spiritualism, which was Darryl L. Smith (who does not disclose that he wrote the article in the first place as retaliation). The email was all with his brother, Oliver D. Smith. And then Oliver, as Agent47, claimed I had harassed him, quoting a mail, which, in context was not harassment at all. And he lies about not having a brother editing RatWiki. Straight, bald-faced lie, to the RatWiki community. But he hates that community, has admitted to using it as a platform. Any notice he had previously claimed he was not editing RatWiki any more. He’s claimed that many times, and proceeded to edit more.

Perhaps he was lying to me, and in many other places about the brother. Perhaps anything. Once someone shows they lie like this, nothing they say can be trusted, even if accompanied by evidence, because they can develop skill in deception based on how evidence is presented. But if I responded to him based on a lie, his passing that on without disclosing what I was responding to would be more deception.

  • Joshua P. Schroeder claimed I harassed him by email. I published that email as well, as I recall. It was about getting material about him taken down. I had material on my blog, I had taken down, and I arranged to get other material on a different web site taken down, I was informing him that the trolls had archived those (in order to use it on RatWiki as an allegation of harassment) and the correspondence was voluntary and JSP did not object to it. However, he was working with the Smith brothers. This was not independent, and that was, in fact, part of a campaign of harassment. The original email to JPS was through the WMF mail facility, and if that had been harassment, it could have been a basis for the WMF ban.

However, there may also have been impersonation mails.

  •   John Vidale, from an image posted on Encyclopedia Dramatica, apparently did not like being notified that his review of a book on the sociology of cold fusion was the subject of a post on this blog: fantasy-rejects-itself/. I responded to that previously at fantasy-rejects-itself/#Update If anything about that post was offensive or incorrect, he remains welcome to correct it. It is not harassment for a blogger to notify someone they have been mentioned in a post. Period.

None of the above were harassment.

Various individuals have also complained your blog contains defamation and malicious falsehoods written about them.

Oliver and Darryl Smith complain that when evidence about their history is presented. They pretend that there are many people being “maligned.” They claimed for quite some time that there were no brothers editing RatWiki, for example, that there were no impersonations, that was all a crazy conspiracy theory. But the flood of throwaway accounts on Reddit in the last few days is simply another example in a long history of this behavior. Eventually, Oliver Smith admitted to being accounts that he had denied, for example, he denied being Octo (when it was obvious). Were it a mere denial of being a sock, not so offensive. But using it as an accusation of insanity? Here, Oliver listed articles he had created (already identified by me, generally). Edward Dutton was created by Octo. So he was lying, lying, lying. And that is one example among very many.

The sad thing here is that Oliver is not the most vicious of the brothers. And he is probably not behind all those throwaway socks. He is probably and fairly simply, insane. And, of course, that I say that becomes yet another accusation of defamation.

You’ve also used this Reddit section to further harass one of these individuals by repeating a defamatory claim they are a schizophrenic, despite them pointing out they’re not and asking you to cease and desist writing this libel.

Nobody obligated the Smith brothers to read those sections, and the section this was posted in is about my lawsuit against the WMF. Trollsocks poured in and I responded. So I am called a harasser? Now, what did I actually write? I don’t rely on my memory, and at my age that can be frikkin unreliable, especially for accurate detail. What I wrote on that page:

Oliver also claimed to be schizophrenic. 

I did not claim that he was a schizophrenic. This is common for the Smith trolls. They have no sense of accuracy, it is all about reaction and blame. I do not know that Oliver is a schizophrenic, what I know is this edit by Atlantid, which was admittedly him.

These trolls raise a farrago of deceptive “facts” and arguments, and responding to all of them will take more time than I have.

If anyone has questions, comments are open here. They may be left anonymously, and if one wants private communication, leave a valid email address and ask for the comment to be deleted. This will be respected, with one caveat:

Trolls will be roasted in butter and served with sour cream as snacks. Not kosher but I’m not Jewish. Skeptics and criticism is welcome, and corrections are specifically invited.



List of lies and smears

This is from a Reddit comment on the WikiInAction subreddit, topic
Globally banned Wikipedia user Arthur Kerensa Dysklyver
posted by [deleted]
Abdlomaxisaliar 2 days ago as of 8:44 UT 4/18/2019

You keep complaining about being attacked but spend your life doing it to others, including Smith:

I am using this as an opportunity to go over the tactics used by Darryl L. Smith. There are two Smiths, and they use confusion over that to generate smoke to cover up what they do. In the articles they write, they will take a single example, sometimes from the distant past, and conflate it into a pattern of behavior. I first saw this rhetorical tactic on Wikipedia. A single instance of possible error in copyright was conflated, in accusations to “places copyright violations in articles.” Later examination found no evidence of that, and the original copyvio was material she found in a sandbox and asked an admin about. In other words, totally innocent, but smeared, and it worked. As part of my effort to clean that up, I had my first real block on Wikipedia. All later considered a mistake. But, of course, an entry in the block log! Which later, could be used as proof of “attacks administrators,” etc.

I don’t “complain” about being attacked. That’s how trolls think, and “complainer” is in juvenile culture a moral failure. Complainers don’t simply describe what happened, but “whine” about it. (And, in fact, there are whiners, who disempower themselves. Describing what happens, however, is a path to power, even from major traumatic events.)

Abd’s list of lies and smears

This is not Abd’s list, it is Abdlomaxisaliar‘s list. Let’s see what is alleged.

False claim Smith is somehow an antinatalist, basing his source on a tongue-in-cheek comment.

False according to an anonymous troll. What I wrote was sourced, and this troll acknowledges that. “Basing his source” is redundant. The claim was a comment by Oliver Smith that he was an anti-natalist, in a context where (1) it was definitely him, there is no question, (2) he was denying that he had children — because some troll had commented that I was “attacking someone with children,” — and added he was an antinatalist and found my having seven children “disgusting.” Now if that is not evidence that Oliver is an antinatalist, what would be? I actually can’t think of stronger evidence. But there is more of it, I found two places where biographies written by Smith made the claim. One was a deleted bio on RationalWiki that Oliver later claimed was written by Mikemikev, though that is very unlikely from internal evidence that the other edits of the author, all of which I have covered. The other was an autobography written on the Wiki RationalWikiarchives, also called RationalWikiWiki, by Smith. A Smith troll sock claimed that I had probably written that. But I found that the biol had been archived 11 times over a month. If it had been written by an impersonator, the Rats would have immediately whacked it. Only the last version might be suspected in that way, and I suspect that Oliver’s brother probably deleted it, because it named him, whereas the earlier versions did not. Oliver is schizophrenic and unstable and does all kinds of things that make no sense. It clearly claims that he is antinatalist. And those biographies reflect Oliver’s expressed positions on many topices over the years. They are not what enemies of Smith would write, they are full of relatively sophisticated self-rationalization or explanation.

And this doesn’t matter; Smith brothers are looking for any accusation they can make and if they think they can make something look like a lie, they will assert it as proof. With anonymous accounts, as on Reddit, they don’t care if it is blatantly preposterous. Some of it may stick, they have figured that out. And then they will accuse another enemy, or the same, of being behind those trollsocks, and, again, they have found that some will believe this.

Not a lie and not actually a smear.

False and potentially libellous claim that Smith is or was a fascist. No evidence provided. After Smith pointed out Abd was lying, Abd completely changed the definition of fascist he was using to his own obscure definition.

“No evidence provided” is ignorant or a lie, and because this troll has obviously read much, probably a lie. Oliver seemed to believe that a way to convince someone that they had erred was to accuse them of “lying,” and this little piece admits that. In response to Oliver’s claims, I did a study of Oliver’s Atlantid activity. Most of it has been deleted, apparently, but enough remains to see certain things.


Oliver worked on Metapedia for a year, mostly as a sysop. From Wikipedia, the lead:

Metapedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia which contains authoritarian far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and neo-Nazi points of view.

That, by the way, would not prove “fascist,” in itself. But one might understand such an idea. However, from a number of contexts (many having nothing to do with the Smiths, I have started to use a generic definition of fascism that does not confine itself to “right-wing fascism,” rather it refers to collectivist authoritarianism, which exists in tension with freedom and diversity. This is a far more useful definition, but, then, all of us can fall into fascism of this kind. And that is precisely why it is more useful. I derived the definition I’m using from reading Mussolini, who coined the word and defined it in a widely-reproduced article, which in various versions assigned it as right-wing, left-wing, or left that out. The RationalWiki article on Fascism does approach this issue, but then falls entirely into leftist apologia and confusion. second meaning:

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

RationalWiki is, overall, fascist in the sense I have been using the term. And, remember, “fascist” does not mean “wrong.” Those who react, knee-jerk, to a natural polarity will delude themselves and project error onto others who merely describe reality. Examples abound.

Bottom line, Oliver was working for the improvement of an extreme right-wing, antisemitic, neo-Nazi wiki, and was, as a sysop, authoritarian, blocking contrary opinion that he thought supported anti-racism. That’s shown in the edit histories.

Not a lie and not actually a smear — and not obscure.

False and potentially libellous claim that Smith is or was an anti-Semite.

I covered this in the Atlantid study. I am not a mind-reader, but Oliver followed Metapedia practice in specially identifying Jewish scientists, as an example, with a Star of David symbol, clearly serving the project’s anti-semitism. That’s enough to legitimate the claim of antisemitism. Oliver remained and remains free to deny it, but it is not likely to be meaningful unless he clearly repudiates what he did. I have never claimed anti-semitism as his current state, I have seen no recent evidence. Smith’s article go back many years, scraping up anything they can find that looks bad, and then assert the implications of that as the present and ongoing state of their target. Examples abound. Turnabout is fair play, but I have never gone that far.

Defamation Smith suffers from schizophrenia, basing his source on Mikemikev’s impersonations and trolling of Smith.

That is a gross error and deception, i.e., the schizophrenia claim is not based on Mikemikev’s claims. Rather, this edit, Oliver’s last on Metapedia.

Yes Mike I also suffer from schizophrenia. I am now bettering my health,renouncing my former views and association with Metapedia, this is my final message here. I’ve blocked my own account and changed the pass,so i won’t be able to log back in. Atlantid 03:08, 6 December 2013 (CET)

There is more, but that’s really enough. I am not reactive to “schizophrenia,” I know a lot about it. I had a paranoid schizophrenic mother. It’s just a condition and it is possible to be high-functioning with it, but it is probably necessary to hew to total honesty, and for Oliver to be involved in what he gets involved in is probably very poor for his health.

Not a lie and not a smear.

Lying about Smith’s edits about race on Metapedia. Smith clearly criticised hereditarianism, but Abd lies on his blog and claims Smith supported hereditarianism – a demonstrably false and ridiculous claim.

This can get really complex. Oliver is obsessed about this particular issue. I went over this on the Atlantid page. Does it matter what Smith supported then? “Hereditarian” is not understood by most people, but the current politically correct view is “environmentalism,” this is about intelligence, and the usual fracas is over intelligence test results. It’s a colossal mess, and when I look at the science and the debates, my reaction is more or less “a pox on both your houses,” because extreme views get enshrined and linked with each other, retarding synthesis, which is where we can approach reality. In any case, this is from the Atlantid study page:

first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for “(Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions).” The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation. This was January, 2013. If he revised his views later, did he go back and unblock Rose and apologize? He had admin until November 27, 2013. 

This discussion went on. Again, since Oliver may have changed his views (he claims that). That he criticized hereditarianism (perhaps he did) would not negate that he “supported” it somewhere else. The Smith writing this has a cartoon view of people, possibly including himself.

And so what? Who cares if Oliver supported hereditarianism years ago? It does become relevant if he viciously attacks others for hereditarian views. “Hereditarian” is very weak as a smear, unless it asserts present position in certain contexts.” It is obvious that there is a degree to which intelligence is hereditary, and a degree to which it is affected by environmental conditions, so these  “isms” represent extremes, both errors if the opposite is denied.

Not a lie and not a smear.

Lying about Smith being an asexual. No evidence presented, just trolling on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Well, no. What was placed on ED came from RatWiki, and can be seen by any sysop. Calling this “no evidence” is a lie. I did not call him “asexual,” as I recall, though he called himself that, made a point of it. He called himself “antinatalist” in his email to me, that’s evidence, and Oliver wrote a bio of himself, as “Oliver D Smith”, who was active on the Wikia with that name, well-known to RatWikians (“Rats”). When I pointed to that on Reddit, a Smith troll claimed that I had made that page up, but that Wikia was closely monitored by Rats and Oliver, and the copy was archived 11 times over a month. This was authentic, period. But the Smiths lie to cover up their lies, and lie again to accuse others of impersonating them and whatever they think of, without any shame.

Quite the same as the RatWiki bio, the RWW bio directly claims “antinatalist” and “asexual.”

Smith identifies as Grey-A, somewhere between asexual and heterosexual. He has never been in a relationship and is sexually abstinent. He is pro-LGBTQIA rights, but doesn’t like the modern subcultures of these groups. Smith is an antinatalist and is voluntary childfree; he began writing a book on antinatalism a few years back and his antinatalist views are best summarised by David Benatar, “The Misanthropic Argument for Antinatalism”. His politics are based on any measure to stop/reverse population growth and are neither strictly left nor right wing.

Who cares about this unfortunate’s sexuality? It has nothing to do with the problem, massive defamation. Oliver has created deceptive articles on RatWiki and has then convinced major media to reprint the libels, probably because of his skillful use of shallow impressions, i.e,. if a source appears to support a claim if one squints, it can work with a shallow, deadline-pressed journalist. He’s being sued for this (not by me).

Not a lie and not a smear.

False claim Smith is John66 on RationalWiki. No evidence presented, a baseless allegation.

Different Smith. This would be Darryl L. Smith. A pile of evidence has been presented, starting with what is called the “duck test” on Wikipedia. Focus, interests. Debunking spiritualism was Darryl Smith, at the same time as ODS was Oliver. (DS is merely a hint!). As DS shut down activity on RatWiki, Skeptic from Britain fired up on Wikipedia, with a new interest: “food woo” and related medical topics. As that was heating up, an account was started with a few edits on RatWiki, John66. SfB was very active, providing massive edits for studying edit timing. The edits dovetail with Debunking spiritualism on one end and John66 on the other.

But the strongest evidence is the duck test. To call the allegation “baseless” is a lie. Could I be wrong? Sure, but if John66 is not abusive, why would this be a “smear”? It would merely be a suspected sock puppet, basis obvious for anyone who looks. (They claim that the new interests prove that the account is different. No, it shows a new interest, that was connected in places with the old ones.)

Not a lie and not a smear.

False claim on Abd’s blog Smith is an Antifa or supports Antifa. This lie was copied from Mikemikev without fact-checking. Smith has never supported Antifa and has criticised that organisation as terrorist.

I don’t have the idea that Oliver Smith is “an antifa,” which has come to mean a specific group. However, he has fed antifa propaganda, and his work mostly has focused on attacking alleged racists and neo-Nazis. So he might be considered antifa in that way. Where was this alleged “false claim”?

There are lists of suspected sock puppets on this blog. A suspected sock is not an accusation that one is what the name implies. However, I have not listed any suspicion or conclusion based on Mikemikev. That’s been a common accusation, and I can testify that it is false. I have seen information from Mikemikev that I have checked and investigated. If it holds up, I have then reported it on my own authority and standing on my own reputation and responsibility. And if any of these are incorrect, and especially if they cause harm to anyone, they are easy to correct. But the Smiths don’t correct these things, rather they cry “Lies!” and are not specific. Trolls!

However, I was not satisfied, so I searched for “antifa” on my blog. I found only that I had mentioned an account in connection with Emil Kirkegaard. This account, Antifa Ireland, repeated the standard Oliver propaganda about Kirkegaard. (“child rape apologist,” which was a lie. And why that was kept in the article says volumes about wiki unreliability.

There was only one edit. The context was one where impersonation socking (impersonating Kirkegaard) was appearing. At that point the Rats had no clue who Welliver was, and his anti-Kirkegaard arguments were being rejected, so the sock appears to reject the community position. There is not enough evidence to know for sure who Antifa Ireland was, but I’d bet on a Smith brother, it could be either one.

Stating a suspicion based on evidence like that is routine, and not defamation. It’s allowed on Wikipedia, not considered uncivil, or example, and if wrong, so what?

Countless false identifications of Smith’s accounts on RationalWiki, Wikipedia and other websites.

This troll is promoting confusion. There are two Smiths, with distinct interests and behaviors. Let’s start with Wikipedia. I did not name “Smith” for a long time, but it was well-known. I started with a set of socks that had impersonated a user, someone interested in parapsychology. As a result of the impersonations on Wikipedia, he was followed to Wikiversity and attacked. He was blocked and his work was deleted. The work was harmless, a study of sources, which Wikiversity was for. Eventually, I became aware of this and looked. At first I chided him for socking on Wikipedia. He said, “Yes, I was X and Y, but not those disruptive accounts.” And I looked and there were clear differences. X and Y were socking, all right, but not disruptively. The others were trolling, blatantly and seeking to be blocked and waving a big flag with the name of this user.

So basic lesson for anyone concerned with socking on wikis and elsewhere. Real socks generally hide their identity. Ones that do not are unusual, and might need to be treated differently. If they are disruptive, block them, of course. But if they wave the X flag, do not assume they are X. They may be an enemy of X. And if an SPA files checkuser on these “X” trolls, be sure to include that SPA in the checkuser investigation. If that had been done on Wikipedia, a lot of trouble would have been avoided.

In any case, when I saw this, I went to meta and requested checkuser, since this had gone cross-wiki. And bingo! complainants on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and the troll socks, all the same user. So I started to write an essay on SPA trolls, and listed these socks. And piles of troll socks appeared. They say that you know you are over the target when the flak gets heavy. I kept reporting the socks to stewards. And then I was accused of being on a vendetta  against “skeptics,” with private complaints being obvious, and all that led to a global ban. Someone was protecting these attack dogs, I suspect, or they had merely fooled many, including the WikiMedia Foundation.

One of the socks identified had edited Commons and a RatWiki user had used the image immediately. That was my first connection between this mess and RatWiki. Someone who knew Oliver Smith very well dropped me a note on my Talk page by IP that he was sending me email, and my Talk page was promptly attacked. Someone was watching everything closely and reacting very strongly. I did not announce “Smith” until much later, and “Oliver D. Smith” has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But that was not the one who had impersonated originally. Very different interests were involved (though there were connections, Oliver Smith had used the name of that original target to start an article on RatWiki — later admitted, and claimed “not impersonation because spelled differently.” It was trolling. The person was allegedly a racist. (In fact, he had been racist and had renounced that.)

Many, many Oliver Smith accounts eventually acknowledged identity. Darryl L. Smith, on the other hand, has never, to my knowledge, admitted his accounts, even though some are quite obvious and widely known. So the furious attack on my work is likely coming from him, and I see little sign of Oliver involvement. Oliver is still trying to edit RatWiki and most recently is being blocked as “Smith.” That is a huge shift.

In any identification of hundreds of socks, as exists on this blog, there are likely some errors. Correction (or contrary claims) have always been welcome, but are almost never presented. Instead, they cry “Lies,” and have been making that claim since I first started collecting evidence. Pages that were pure evidence without conclusions were called “Lies.”

That’s a clue.

Not lies and not smears.

And the list goes on…

If anyone wants clarification, ask in comments on this page. All comments must be approved, so I see all of them. If a comment asks for it, it can be deleted. However, trolls will be roasted and served for lunch, they make excellent low-carb snacks. Don’t worry, honest disagreement and criticism is not trolling. Accusations by real people, responsible for what they write, is also unlikely to be trolling. Skeptics are welcome here, always have been. Skepticism is, in fact, essential to science. Pseudoskepticism is poisonous, but some degree of it is very common. As are racism and fascism. To move beyond these things, we need clear communication, not condemnation and hatred.

More Smith on Reddit

One or both Smith brothers regularly create socks on Reddit. These accounts make wild accusations, and at least one Reddit user was blocked, apparently due to the complaints that the Smiths file copiously and sometimes organize, involving others. The accounts are commonly deleted. This is all part of the general Smith MO. This was interesting:
The full discussion was started by a Smith sock, now showing as [deleted].
The title was a Smith deception, following impersonation socking on Wikipedia. It’s a bit complicated, because Smith and Mikemikev apparently live in the same close region, and, as I recall, both may use the same mobile service provider, so a checkuser might confirm two accounts as the same, even when they are not. The behavior, though, was not Mikemikev, it was Smith brother behavior, and clearly. And this followup activity is obviously a Smith brother, I will show how visible that is. Dysklyver, a RatWiki sysop and tech, doesn’t buy it at all.

[deleted] 1 day ago

Just more lies. All Abd does is lie, lie again and again. “OliverS” is a blatant impersonation.

The implication is that I lied about “OliverS.” Where? What did I write was that OliverS was “almost certainly not Mikemikev, but Dysklyver does know more, has apparently seen checkuser data, and wrote this:

[Dysklyver:] Ha the extreme efforts put into accusing John66 of being Bongolian have become rather a meme, culminating in this epic Conservapedia post by “OliverS” (CU data confirmed privately by a Conservapedia sysop fwiw);

Oliver most recently popped up on RationalWiki as Bigtom, wrote a nice page, looked useful… and then randomly accused an LI Discord mod of being Mikemikev, wouldn’t back down, and then I had to block them again for trolling.

This is the sole edit showing on Conservapedia for OliverS:


You should be very careful when dealing with users of RationalWiki. You were wrong in exposing yourself to them, but you were right in blocking that account. Dyskylver/Arthur Kerensa is a sock-puppet of Bongolian (a RationalWiki moderator), and also a notorious sock-puppeteer. He is also almost certainly the operator behind the “John66” account on RationalWiki. I can’t prove any of these claims right now as so few edits have been done, but I will eventually be proved right. Dyskylver will pretend to be normal for a while like he did on his Wikipedia accounts, but sooner or later will reveal himself when he posts in support of anarchism. He is an active British Antifa and identifies as anarcho-communist. It is clear that all the accounts posting on the RationalWiki coop are accounts are operated by the same person to create the illusion of support. I also notice someone has created another sock with a name similar to the others to cause disruption here. Most likely the same individual behind this entire shit show. He is a dangerous ideologue, don’t trust what he tells you. OliverS (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (EDT)

Who was this? This is evidence:

  1. Motive. The target has been blocking Oliver accounts. This would motivate either Smith brother.
  2. Pattern: a set of preposterous allegations. Strong history of that from Darryl Smith. Oliver Smith, maybe, maybe not. Oliver has claimed that disruptive socking was his brother, and my first encounter with the Smiths was over Darryl impersonation socking. When I exposed that, massive impersonation attack and troll socking appeared, I was threatened with consequences if I continued. I do not respond well to threats, and even less threats followed by action. Eventually the RatWiki article on me appeared and there has been massive impersonation of me on RatWiki. The force behind that was Darryl, not Oliver, Oliver was mostly a bit player (but very disruptive in other ways).
  3. If this was Mikemikev, his motive would be obscure. This account is not being cited by me, for sure, as proof of Oliver disruption, and I don’t think this was likely Oliver. This could easily be an impersonation, and, yes, the Smith brothers do weird things with each other, so it could be Darryl. Distinguishing between Oliver and Darryl with checkuser could be easy or difficult; most Smith brother edits use open proxies and Tor nodes, but they do slip up. Mikemikev also uses open proxies.

What lie?

According to Abd Lomax, the Smiths cannot be impersonated despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is also common Smith language: they will create some conclusion not present in the writing of a target, and present it as “according to,” but I have never said what this Smith wrote, it is utterly preposterous. Anyone can be impersonated, with the lousy security on most sites. These straw man arguments are practically never accompanied with any link. They are just trolling, raving, and what is amazing to me is how long it took before a serious RatWiki user to notice the pattern of years of deception. For years, anyone who pointed to the obvious was immediately blocked. Simply pointing out that two socks had the same master would be called “doxxing,” which it is not, generally. Blocked anyway.

Mikemikev has even admitted to impersonating Smith many times, check his Kiwi Farms thread.

Ah, that famous reliable source, Kiwi Farms. No link. I do not find it remarkable that Mikemikev may have impersonated Oliver. Mikemikev does apparently troll, and that is a method. But what I have written is that I haven’t seen anything that was clearly him, and I have seen plenty that was likely not, and plenty of apparent impersonations of him, many of which, to the naive, were assumed to be him.

I tried to find these “admissions.” With no further clue, I failed. It is easy to contact me, such as by a comment on this page. I look at evidence. There could be a problem, though. How do we know that an account is Michael Coombs? There are ways to identify an account, but when were these alleged admissions? What evidence is there? (There could be such evidence, I am merely pointing out that if an anonymous user, with an obvious trolling agenda, claims evidence exists, it is not evidence at all. As with any anonymous report, verification is necessary, but beware of “verification” that is only a surface appearance from a casual glance. The Smiths often, in their “articles,” depend on people not actually reading the whole source, which frequently contradicts the conclusions they present.)

And all the “Oliver Smith” & “Darryl Smith”impersonation accounts on ED are Mikemikev:

Followed by a list of accounts. This is way ahead of what the Smiths usually do. I have annotated the list and substituted contributions links for the user names, which is what is much more useful.

Smith have never used their real names on these websites.

And, if true, how would this troll know that? It’s obvious. But Oliver has used his real name, particularly on RatWiki, ODS was openly him. He has used, on ED, Atlantid, known to be him for a long time. He recently used MrStrong, admittedly him, and lying, but also revealing much. By the way, these trolls accuse many others, including real name accounts, of extensive socking. They have created hundreds of accounts, easily documented. Pot, kettle, very very black. Plus impersonation socks, copiously.

I am freely called a “liar,” and “impersonator,” with the only example given being the RatWiki account Some random Smith, allegedly an impersonation account. But any account impersonating the Smiths has long been blocked on sight on RatWiki. That account was actually opped, so it obviously did not appear to be an impersonation (and an impersonation that does not appear as such is not an impersonation!)

The account stands as a demonstration that anyone who points to the obvious regarding Smith claims will be attacked, even if they have nothing but positive contributions before that, for more than a year. In the old days, on RatWiki, sock puppetry was not grounds for blocking, per se. Unless someone with tools takes it all very personally. This event revealed that there may be, effectively, checkuser on RatWiki. Interesting, eh? Checkuser is not magic pixie dust, but Dysklyver I consider reliable, even if not always correct. Who is?

What Some random Smith pointed to is now routinely accepted on RatWiki. Shoot the messenger, though.

Conclusion: Yes, Mikemikev impersonated Oliver Smith, several times in May 2015. The last impersonation in 2019, was so obvious as to not really be an impersonation at all, that might also be said of the 2015 ones. (Really, the context must be seen, there were at that time, two discussions involving Oliver on the ED admin discussion page. The first was started by MrStrong (openly Oliver Smith). The second was started by Tenchu, also Oliver Obvious, and “Oliver and Darryl Smith” made a sarcastic comment there. Harmful impersonation socks create belief in others that they are the impersonated one. Reviewing these claims, yes, technically, impersonations. In substance, not. If this were all that could be found on the issue, the Smith claim is substantially false, misleading. Like nearly everything they write.

Smith on Reddit

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist — the Wikipedia SPI Investigation archive name for the Smith brothers.
This is a response I wrote to an obvious Smith sock on Reddit, TenchuHead. It was way too long for Reddit, so I’m putting it here. This would be, for anyone interested, a bit of an introduction to the level of disruption generated by the Smith brothers.
At this point I am not sure which Smith brother is TenchuHead. Sometimes it becomes clear.
(An obvious Oliver Smith sock on Encyclopedia Dramatica, Tenchu, was renamed BumChum.)

This is a response to this troll.

Notice how TenchuHead knows exactly what bio I am talking about. There are very few people who would. Oliver makes many claims. I have asked him for specifics, his answer has been “too much trouble.” Yes, indeed, he has been lying for so long that it would take a lot of work to clear it up. He’s tried, feebly, he tried to get his RW work deleted, because he is apparently being sued, but never admitted what would have actually led to deletion: telling the truth. Instead, he made up some story, but in the process admitted to what was already obvious: that he had been A, B, C and X, Y, Z. (he didn’t name them but admitted to originating articles that they originated, after claiming for more than a year that I was making it all up.
Again, if anyone wants to know, ask me, I’ll supply evidence.
What I give here is the tip of the iceberg. Don’t read it if not interested! This gets long.
Mikemikev does troll Smith, that’s also obvious. Oliver comes unglued rather easily. In any case, here is that bio:
There is analysis of the article there, the article itself is in the middle. Sources:
(What immediately follows was from my confusion, but it gives some background showing how the Smith brothers cover up history, so I’ve left it in place. The article was created by Schizophreniac, not Schizophrenic. But both were Oliver.)
Contributions history of Schizophrenic. 166 undeleted edits. Oliver interests, 100%. Edited January to August 2016.
User page. Oliver. (matches his description of himself on Encyclopedia Dramatica.)
There are deleted contributions. This was Oliver, clearly. This was not Mikemikev at all. Anyone familiar with both would know. Some contributions were deleted by Skeptical (Oliver, almost certainly) . From logs:
02:18, 31 October 2017 Skeptical (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Anthroscape (removing a whole page of doxing (enclopedia dramatica links etc))
02:14, 31 October 2017 Skeptical (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Human Phenotypes (Doxing: a whole load of doxing left on this page)
There are also hidden edit summaries and edits on Talk:RomeViharo. From Schizophrenic contributions:
15:32, 11 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+665)‎ . . Talk:Rome Viharo(edit summary removed)
14:49, 11 July 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1,395)‎ . . Talk:Rome Viharo(edit summary removed)
and then for this page:
02:38, 31 October 2017 Skeptical (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Rome Viharo: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information: removing dox and possible impersonation)
02:37, 31 October 2017 Skeptical (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Rome Viharo: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information: removing dox & possible impersonation)
I have information that the edit summary was “Oliver here” and the content was Schizophrenic claiming to be Oliver Smith, in order make Rome Viharo wrong (which he was, by the way). Many have been confused by there being two Smith brothers. Any RatWiki sysop can verify this.
So then, fast forward to May, 2018
19:54, 2 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs) blocked Schizophrenic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Harassment: Impersonation, not real “Oliver” now Abd using the impersonator on his blog:
thanks to DS (Darryl Smith), a link can easily be found to the content on RatWiki, still. DS did attempt to hide it, but his flurry of revision deletions was reversed.
That block came almost two years later, when the edits were discovered. DS attempted to cover this up by making many deletions and blocks, ending with crazy disruption and then a pretense that his account had been hacked (look at his contributions and logs).
Yet that sequence took days and began with many actions clearly supporting the Smith agenda. It was all falling apart by then, and they were becoming desperate. They blamed the mythical hacking on me, of course. There were other places where Oliver acknowledged that DS was his brother. DS had moved almost all his activity to Wikipedia, even before that, as the account that was Skeptic from Britain, until he was about to be whacked there, so he retired, pretending that he had been outed.
That was a device to harass a user who had argued with him, it was a lie (many troll socks appeared on blogs and made the accusation, almost certainly it was him pretending to out himself).
But Oliver on ED accused me of being SfB, so I looked. OMG! Darryl Smith, I would not have noticed. (Later, I saw that Oliver admitted that SfB was his brother.)
This was indeed Darryl and he became John66, still editing yesterday, same agenda as SfB, and obviously a Smith brother. Just not Oliver. (I’ve analysed the edit timings for DS, SfB, and John66, they fit like a glove, in addition to the duck test).
And I just realized that I was confused myself.  The bio was not written by “Schizophrenic,” who was very clearly Oliver, but by Schizophreniac. The only edit showing.
13:08, 9 Augus t 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . British National Party(‎Heydey of the BNP, 2006-2009: spelling)
That’s an Oliver interest. Very unlikely that Mikemikev would run such a long-term impersonation.
However, Schizophreniac also created an article later proposed for AfD by him, as Aeschylus (which is why I mentioned Aeschylus in that ED page)
22:26, 7 February 2019 Aeschylus (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden (Inappropriate username: striking blocked fake account edit, alleged impersonation)
The revision showed, I understand (I do have help), Schizophreniac (Created page with “{{altrightnav|1}} ”’Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær”’ is an alt-right pseudoscientist associated with child-rape apologist Emil Kirkegaard who publishes in the OpenPsy…”)
This was Oliver, not Mikemikev, that is Oliver’s standard story about Kirkegaard.
10:30, 8 February 2019 Aeschylus (talk | contribs) deleted page Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær (AFD vote (please see RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær): consensus to delete this one)
Aeschylus created the AfD, claiming that Mikemikev created it (though it looked like nothing Mikemikev). He could not afford to wait for the normal AfD time, because an RW sysop might get curious and look. Why did this matter? Because Schizophreniac had another article, which he had put up as his last edit. It was immediately deleted. The Smith brothers can create articles outing anyone or about anyone, but if someone creates an article about them, or generally even mentions them, it will be immediately deleted.
Oliver D. Smith was salted long ago. But this article was not an attack article at all. It was simply, widely-known fact about Oliver, and specifically, how he sees himself.
18:58, 3 February 2019 GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) deleted page Oliver Smith (Harassment: content was: “{{enviro}} ”’Oliver D. Smith”’ (online aliases: ”’Atlantid”’, ”’Krom”’) is a far-right childfree move…”, and the only contributor was “Schizophreniac” ([[User talk:Schizophr…)
16:20, 4 February 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Schizophreniac (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: no reason to preserve this username for future use)
Very unusual, for Gerard to intervene like that. Why? I won’t answer now.
The claim that the bio was wrong, made by the sock above:
Its not a bio of Smith you utter simpleton, but lies Mikemikev made up e.g. Smith has never been a (eco)fascist. Nothing on that bio was true. Seriously, seek mental help
This is a blatant lie, because the article does not claim that Smith was an ecofascist, it claims that an “influence” was one. It is full of accurate detail, contrary to the claim of “nothing … was true.” Oliver was Atlantid (former Metapedia admin) and Krom, openly admitted, in many places. He is an antinatalist, made a big point of that to me. And I could go on and on. This was Oliver on Oliver.
If you want to see an article that Mikemikev would write about Oliver, he wrote one: (Warning, I am not vouching for anything there. Questions, ask me!) But that was the real Mikemikev.) ”nuff said. Too much, probably, so sue me.


The Reddit avalanche of throwaway socks continued. I just noticed these:
[deleted] April 11, 2019 13:58 GMT-4

You’re just repeating the same defamation and lies.

It is not defamation and it is definitely not lies. I would rather die than lie. But to err is human, to be sure.

Smith never owned the schizophrenic or schizophreniac accounts, both were Mikemikev.

This is a Smith claim, and probably incorrect as to both. The second account had few edits, and there is more discussion of that account below, but the Smiths use confusion of names to create what they think will be plausibility. Almost never do they point to actual evidence, just their own say-so, whether directly or by pointing to the articles they wrote, which is, by the way, abusing Google and it is quite what I was threatened with.

You also present zero evidence for the claim these are Smith, but abuse google traffic by spreading all this misinformation. Hence a web-engine search on this shows your misleading claim “Oliver admitted to being Schizophrenic” – an account he never owned, nor admitted to owning, but said the whole time it wasn’t him, but Mikemikev.

He doesn’t point to the alleged statement, but off the cuff, I would not have capitalized Schizophrenic, because I don’t know that Oliver admitted to being that account. No, Oliver admitted to schizophrenia in an edit with his Metapedia account, Atlantid, as he was retiring.

So what about the account, Schizophrenic? RationalWiki contributions.

Edited from 29 January to 20 September 2016. Admitted to being Oliver Smith, in an edit which was revision-deleted, either by Joris Enter or Skeptical, which was clearly Oliver.  I saved this quite some time ago. Even though it is dangerous to assign any credence to someone insane, insane people have periods of lucidity and often reveal the truth, which they may later deny. To understand reality takes more than knee-jerk reactions.

Oliver here

Viharo has confused identities of two people, Tim Farley and Oliver Smith (i’m the latter). He thinks Farley is Manul from Wikipedia, when he isn’t. Secondly he thinks i’m Goblin Face/Dan Skeptic from Wikipedia, when i’m not. A lot of this confusion is down to the banned RW user and troll Michaeldsuarez (an ED sysop) posting misinformation about me. I’ve now blocked the libellous ED page he created using my name where he says i’m Goblin Face etc.

Defamation Complaint to Google

Viharo was also involved in posting slander about me on my ED page, so its rather amusing to see him here moaning about “harassment”. Google has looked, seen the defamation, and taken action by blocking the page.

As for the schizophrenia claim, it traces back to Encylopedia Dramatica (again Michaeldsuarez) which is not a reliable source at all; there’s other nonsense there such as i’m a holocaust denier or muslim extremist. I simply at first went along with it for a joke, hence I’ve used this name. Bizarrely though Viharo thinks its all genuine, and is now posting i’m “mentally ill” on his website, and Suarez who originated all of this misinformation and know he made it up – is now going around trying to portray me as a real schizoid.Schizophrenic (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much everything on the above link is false, e.g. “After I was banned on Wikipedia, this individual was also ‘David1234’ who created the Rational Wiki article on me” Yet. I never created Rome Viharo’s Rationalwiki entry; “David1234” is not me. He also accuses me of sending him a “threatening email”. I’ve never emailed Rome Viharo. The only source saying I do is Encylopedia Dramatica (tracing back specifically to michaeldsuarez who makes up these lies).Schizophrenic (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oliver is often obsessed about people being “wrong,” and it leads him to blurt out the truth. One might say, poor impulse control. Viharo, like many, made mistakes in covering the Smith fiasco. Oliver was Atlantid, but Goblin Face (who was also Dan Skeptic) was his brother, Darryl L. Smith.

The Google blocks were (are?) effective in the U.K., but not in the U.S. (yes, google knows where your search comes from and follows local law, so to see a more complete search, one can use an open proxy — for Oliver, located in the U.S.)

Michael D. Suarez’s understanding of the situation also improved with time. He knows full well that there are two brothers. It is quite possible that Oliver had not emailed Rome Viharo at that time. (but he did later). It’s all quite complicated because of there being two brothers, who sometimes cooperate and who sometimes may not know what the other is doing.

But I have zero doubt that Schizophrenic was Oliver, and had this been an impersonation, the account would have been whacked quickly. It was blocked much later by Debunking spiritualism, May 2, 2018, in his flurry of deletions and blocks, whereupon DS retired, claiming his account had been hacked and, of course, that was blamed on me. The block, however, was based on my use of the Schizophrenic account record as evidence, it’s in the block log. So I would try to cover that up? What, are they crazy?

Yes, they are, and what is astonishing is that the RW sysops believed it. This is a fundamental problem with wikis. “Wiki” means “quick,” and if it takes more than two or three minutes to understand something, it’s a wall of text and we will just do whatever we think. Which follows in predictable tracks, and the Smiths learned to manipulate them.

Oliver was still lying here, or had forgotten what he had admitted and could have thought that it was “wrong.” I.e., he temporarily believed he was suffering from schizophrenia. But Michaeldsuarez was not lying.

Back to the Smith troll on Reddit:

How you sleep at night, I don’t know. You have no conscience and just lie all the time. And you’ve now created yet another article spreading falsehoods about Smith on your blog to abuse google.

I.e., abusing Google. I couldn’t make this up!

“One of his favorite methods of attack is to ‘weaponize’ Google searches, so if someone searches for a name then Lomax’s blog will show up with ad hominem and lies written about them.”

Search for Oliver D. Smith, there are three hits above this site. Again and again, Oliver has been invited to correct errors. Instead, for the most part (there are a few exceptions), he just cries “Lies!” Meanwhile, the RatWiki article on me is the number one hit, and any attempt to correct errors in it has been met with (1) immediate blocks, little response — though there have also been some exceptions — but, worse, a flurry of impersonation socks pretending to be me with phony threats and spamming material taken from me, to irritate RatWiki sysops. The purpose is to hide the real edits by me in a pile of impersonations. It appears to have worked. Nobody on RatWiki cared, at least so far. That may be changing. We’ll see.

And then, again on Reddit:

[deleted] 11 April 11 2019 13:58:18

[I had written:] And I just realized that I was confused myself. (to be continued) The bio was not written by “Schizophrenic,” who was very clearly Oliver but by Schizophreniac. The only edit showing.

13:08, 9 August 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . British National Party ‎ (→‎Heydey of the BNP, 2006-2009:spelling)

That’s an Oliver interest

Its as if you’re deliberately confusing Mikemikev with Smith. BNP is Mikemikev’s interest, not Smith’s. Mikemikev is a member (or ex-member) of the BNP and also claims to vote for them. Smith has never been a member of the BNP and has never voted for them. Mikemikev still promotes Nick Griffin (the old BNP leader) and BNP on his Gab (as of Apr 2019). BNP is clearly Mike’s obsession. Why lie all the time?

There is someone lying in every post, all right, using a pile of throwaway accounts, which itself makes all this obvious.

BNP could be a Mikemikev interest, but was also, very clearly, an interest of Oliver Smith, see the edits of Schizophrenic (not Schizophreniac), who was Obvious Oliver and was open about it at one point, documented above.  See also Gorgonite (clear Oliver) and extensive edits by Atlantid (Oliver) to the BNP article on Metapedia.

How would this troll know what Oliver ever voted for? The trolls reveal far more than they realize, the truth comes out, whatever matters, and anyone can see if they look.

On User talk:Jimbo Wales no less



According to [1] and [2] a lawsuit has been filed against the WMF, but the actual court documents listed on those pages are behind a paywall.

This page[3] allows you to download some of the documents as PDFs[4][5][6] but others are listed as “Buy on Pacer”. Does anyone know where we can access those paywalled court documents?

The only document of significant relevance is the original Complaint, which is available on link 3.

Here is the Wikipedia username listed in the lawsuit: Abd (talk·contribs·logs·edit filter log·block log)

Actually what was listed was the WMF global account “Abd”.


None of those are truly relevant. That was all very old, and I never attempted to return to en.wikipedia, having concluded that the context was hopeless. A prior arbitration case involving JzG would be more relevant, because JzG was involved in the activity at the end of 2017, pursuing a vendetta that he had maintained for so many years, taking it to Wikiversity.

I am going to assume that, being part of the WMF, Jimbo cannot comment on any ongoing legal actions. I am under no such restriction, so I will be posting a copy of this at User talk:Guy Macon#Lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation? if anyone wishes to discuss this case with me. —Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I’d be happy to discuss it with him, but I can’t do so on Wikipedia, nor can I arrange to contact him, all of that would involve TOS violations and I have never violated the TOS, nor do I plan to.

If you have any good secondary sources, put it on Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. Was Abd the cold fusion editor? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
He was one of the cold fusion editors.[7] —Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s all shallow. That case was not actually about cold fusion, but about the right of an administrator to unilaterally declare a topic ban and then personally enforce it when an alleged violation was not in itself disruptive. The case decided that my position was correct, and admin could not do this. It also decided to desysop the involved administrator. But it was, as well, used as a coatrack to sanction the complainant, a nasty habit that has worked much harm. File a frivolous complaint, yes, sanctions. But file a valid complaint, irrelevant countercomplaints should require a separate filing, attempts to resolve before filing, etc.

Cold fusion editing continued at en-wv after the actions at en-wp. The topic, broadly construted, is now subject to sanctions covered by a topic ban. —mikeu talk 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
That was a decision by mikeu, contrary to long-established Wikiversity policy, and admittedly based on anonymous private complaints. Wikiversity does not have articles, Wikipedia “editing” is misleading applied to Wikiversity. It has educational resources where topics may be studied, in great depth. The Wikiversity resource had never been disruptive, there had been no revert warring, nor was it attacked, until the end of 2017, by anonymous users who recruited two Wikipedians to show up and claim that the project was “pseudoscientific.” Those users were clearly following a vendetta, created when I exposed impersonation socking on Wikipedia, filing checkuser requests on the meta wiki, granted, impersonation socking verified. And because the prior sequence raised the issue of anonymous users or SPAs creating disruuptive process, I started to document what had happened. An avalanche of socks were created, disrupting and threatening me and others. So I moved that project to the meta wiki, where there was more supervision available.

I was threatened that everything I had written would be deleted, if I did not stop documenting the blatant socking. And so it was, later by mikeu.

But that is not the cause of action in the lawsuit. There were those who defamed me in complaints to the WMF. I may have a distinct cause of action against other acts of defamation, of which there have been many, but that’s not particularly relevant to this lawsuit, though it could be amended. Mike’s actions violated Wikiversity policy, but that’s a problem for the Wikiversity community, not for me. I was able to recover all my work and place it on another wiki, where it is actually more useful.

Is Rationalwiki owned by the WMF? –Roxy,the dog. wooF 08:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
no, it’s an entirely unrelated nonprofit of its own – David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have a PACER account. What documents do you want copies of? Kb03 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just look them over and confirm that the ones I can’t see are the usual boring secondary documents. I would like to know if the WMF has been served, though. —Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

How about asking me? Here is the status: a copy of the complaint and a request for waiver of service has been sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Registered Agent for the WMF in Los Angeles. I have not received the receipt back yet, so I need to find my receipt from the post office. It’s somewhere in this pile on my desk. If I don’t get a reply back soon, I will arrange for a process server to deliver it.

No, Rationalwiki is independent, that’s just weird. They know about this though as I told User:David Gerard. This is a lolsuit (I stole that from the discussion at Wikipediocracy). A sock of the racist Mikemikev told me about it (claiming that I and User:Maunus were responsible for the demise of Rightedia, which sadly neither of us were a party to, and saying he’s back at Metapedia ( where he will write an article about me. I told the WMF – I don’t think they’ve actually been served but that’s just a guess. Abd is trying to find out if the ban was the result of private communications from people who he claims were harassing him. This doesn’t seem to have been his first lawsuit. Abd_Ul-Rahman Lomax has an Encyclopedia Dramatica article but you’ll have to search for it as the link is blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Try this (} – the software seems to allow that. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Dramatica article on me was written by “Mr. Strong,” an admitted sock of Oliver D. Smith, the brother of Darryl L. Smith, who is the one who created all the disruption on Wikiversity, through impersonation socking on Wikipedia. If I get around to it, I’ll add links here to evidence.

I find it amusing that experience editors aren’t familiar with how to place an information link, but he did it. Just don’t make it a link. Leave out the http:// and the browser will fill it in. I did extensive work with getting useful sites removed from the global blacklist, and, indeed, my involvement with cold fusion began with confronting an abusive blacklisting. I was later topic banned on cold fusion because of a successful delisting request, on meta. Go figure. Basically, by that time the faction backing those I had confronted wanted me gone, and the old-timers who used to defend what I was doing were gone, including an arbitrator who resigned because of in-person, real-life threats against his family.

Before all this flap, I had decided that WMF wikis were unsafe, because policy enforcement protecting users from abusive administration was unreliable, I had seen far too many incidents, and far too little willingness of the community to protect itself. But I saw an abuse, harming an individual, and confronted it, successfully. Somehow mikeu ignored all that, and he ended up also blocking that fellow, for basically nothing but a trumped-up excuse. Very rude, indeed.

I should have added a caveat. Don’t trust Encyclopedia Dramatic to be accurate, it’s named Dramtica for a reason. Trolling seems welcome there. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So why even link to it? This is weird.

I passed it to the RW board, though we have no idea what, in any coherent sense, to make of it. All involved parties are banned as anything from RW and are still sockpuppeting furiously and getting banned instantly – David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, not all “involved parties” are banned. David Gerard is quite involved, actually, he has shown an intense interest in protecting the Smith brothers on RatWiki, it’s obvious. The Smiths have long created sock puppets on RatWiki. On Wikipedia, they are known as Anglo Pyramidologist, see the SPI archive, but that only shows a fraction of their socks, there are many more, and some have been misidentified as the users they were impersonating. They discovered how to manipulate the WP community.

The user behind Goblin Face (one of the AP socks, actually Darryl L. Smith) claimed to having been paid to edit, by a “major skeptical organization.” That was confirmed by his brother, Oliver D. Smith, in email known to be from him. It is plausible. There are other interest groups, with more money, that might fund certain kinds of astroturfing, particularly on Wikipedia.

If Jimbo doesn’t protest I think it can be discussed here in a general context because I think there is likely to be lots and lots of lawsuits going forward as American courts, imo, in general, are becoming less and less competent, thus, less predictable in terms of what suits they will or will not entertain, therefore (not talking about this specific case) creating a lottery mentality among potential plaintiffs.

The point of discussing it on Jimbo’s talk page?

So, for example, I definitely think WMF should have a “no settlements” policy and that type of thing might be discussable here, maybe. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Such a policy could be very, very expensive. Ask a lawyer! I’ve never before gone to court as a plaintiff, but I’ve been sued. The plaintiffs told their lawyers not to talk to me. Expensive, that was, for them. Not for me. I’ve never lost in court, because I never took an indefensible stand.

What the WMF has is a policy that global bans are not appealable. (It is totally different from Wikipedia bans.) They also don’t warn users before banning them, that they are doing anything to violate policy, so if the person is doing something harmful, they do nothing to stop it, particularly if that thing doesn’t use the WMF account. They do not explain the ban to the banned user. Yet they publish the ban, and you really should see how the fact of publication has been used.

Lomax complains that his published SanFranBan was negative publicity that hurt his writing career, but it really depends on who his audience was and what he was trying to accomplish. If he was looking for street cred as a wiki-dissident, the ban may have actually helped him, by showing the WMF establishment was against him. (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not said it hurt my “writing career,” but I do depend on donations for my journalism. I don’t know the full extent of the damage, it’s difficult to tell. If someone googles my name and finds the RatWiki article and the ban information, that they might then not donate to my work would not be visible to me, necessarily.

What I know is that one of my children, who is somewhat well-known and thus easily findable, received an email expressing concern about me, linking to the RatWiki article, and, as I recall, pointing to the WMF ban as evidence, claiming that, while he couldn’t be sure I wasn’t a pedophile, I was defending one. Which was a lie. I have not defended any known pedophile. That’s an Oliver Smith-type accusation, and there is a case where I pointed out that it was unwarranted –the alleged evidence was not supported by the source. And, by the way, I was banned from Wikipediocracy — without warning, also, years ago — when I pointed out how outrageous certain pedophilia accusations were, and I think that person may have just shown up here.

I am a member of the Wikipediocracy forum and I have been following this case and I know about the details of how all this started, I encountered Abd’s trolling about ten years ago, the guy has not changed.

I have often confronted abusive administration, and abusive administrators — surprise — don’t like that. So an anonymous user claims I’m “trolling.” He’s trolling! Fact-free, all opinion, no evidence.

Abd has opened himself up to countersuit and discovery. As one of our other members put it “The WMF can conclusively show that he’s a net.kook with no reputation to harm. And the WMF can bury him in lawyers.”

They can show that? Good luck, I’d say. Kinda difficult to prove. And that, at best, would impact damages, perhaps, but not the fact of a libel. They can bury me in lawyers? Does this troll have any idea how expensive that can be? It’s not his money that they would be spending, and what would they gain?

The countersuit would be for what? Discovery is, of course, great. I have nothing to hide. There are people involved who do, and who lied with intention to harm. This whole affair started with that, with impersonating “Blastikus” on Wikipedia, in order to induce Wikipedians to attack him and his harmless study on Wikiversity, collecting sources on parapsychology. Talk about TOS violations! And this was confirmed by stewards, but Wikipedians never took notice. Nor, apparently, did mikeu.

However, mikeu has obviously been in communication with the trolls, not only then, but recently. I do not know if he defamed me to the WMF, so I do not know if he is one of the John Does. I’m waiting for discovery, and could amend the action, and I might amend it anyway, but will be seeking counsel. I’m not in a rush.

As for the real reasons Abd was globally banned, it was for harassment and this can be seen publicly from his edits on Wikiversity. Abd was doxxing Wikipedia users (real names, photographs, addresses, work details, families) etc on his personal cold fusion blog to attack users that he blamed for getting his cold fusion project deleted on Wikiversity. You are dealing with a very vicious internet harasser. If Abd falls out with someone on the internet, he takes it personally and will stalk and libel that person, writing thousands if not millions of words about them on his blog. There are many victims of his. I would say his RationalWiki article is actually accurate in that description.

He’s lying. This is very likely one of the Smith brothers. This is common with trolls. A single possible fact of varied possible interpretations is conflated into a vast pattern. Notice that no Wikiversity edits are linked. Further, all the Wikiversity material was deleted, and documentation was moved to meta, and I was never blocked on meta. This is all about two extremely disruptive harassers, famous for it, long before I knew who they were, and I interfered with their agenda, they threatened me, and I didn’t back down. They created the RatWiki article and then went after Wikiversity. And they were aided by three other users, whom they had canvassed from Wikipedia. At least one of those users lied, claiming I had harassed him by email. Had I actually done that, it could have been the basis for a WMF ban. I did send several emails to users, warning them about the Smith brothers, who were trolling them. But I did not harass, not at all, and I did later publish the email with the user who complained publicly. He did not complain to me, he complained to Wikiversity.

Abd also sent Wikipedia users he blamed for his Wikiversity project being deleted “harassing emails”. This user, complained about it here. That same user was also doxed on a public internet forum by Abd and on Abd’s blog ( I will not link to that) but it can be found.

That’s a long story, but the email to that user was to offer to help get things taken down. See, I had added updated information on the user to a forum that had long tangled with him, this was a very uncivil guy with a lot of people angry with him. And at least some of that was deserved. In any case, I did add that information to my blog, on an obscure page. He never complained. However, I deleted my copy and requested that forum delete theirs. They said, “It’s true, it should stay.” I argued that it could be taken down as a courtesy, and they did. But meanwhile Darryl Smith, almost certainly, archived it. (I had server log evidence of this, as I recall.) In other words, these users who are so solicitous of the alleged harassed user, actually perpetuated that information, though it was actually obsolete long ago.

The user and I emailed back and forth a few times, then it stopped. This was definitely not harassment. Rather, he was using that claim for his own purposes, to create exactly the impression that this troll is harping on here. I think these users conspired to do this, but that’s simply a suspicion. I’ve gone into court on what is clear.

If you check the rules “Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy.” [8]. Abd’s global ban was therefore justified. He was putting users real life safety at risk.

It would be. So what was the inappropriate communication, and how does a user know that it is “unwanted.” There is a standard way. “Don’t email me!” If one then emails the person, it would be harassment. This is really simple. As to stalking, what I did has never been considered stalking. (And my interest in this editor was about off-wiki behavior and I was not attempting to influence his Wikipedia activity. But I am generally interested in how factions operate on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The community is largely defenseless against factional POV-pushing and the involved users have been openly contemptuous of NPOV.

You can also check Abd’s block log on Wikiversity. He was blocked many times for his online vendettas against other users. The blocking admin wrote to Abd [9] “Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources.” Since being banned from Wikipedia, Abd has been doxxing RationalWiki users on his blog and impersonating them. He has an obsessive habit of impersonating users he does not like and blaming his impersonations onto others. I have counted 102 banned sock-puppets that Abd has created on RationalWiki in the last 8 months.

Actually, I have created something three or four socks or so, for legitimate purposes (such as to inform a user that they have been impersonated elsewhere. As an example, on a medical blog, a RatWiki user was impersonated, so I created a sock to ask him if it was him; it was not. The creation of socks like that is a Darryl Smith trademark, and the blog was a blog of one of his targets. When I create a legitimate sock, it is blocked by Darryl (who usually has sysop privileges there) and a large pile of imitation impersonations appear, threatening users with lawsuits, claiming that Lomax will harass them, etc. The fact is that the Smiths were known for this long before I appeared. The person counting my alleged socks has done it on RatWiki. Who else cares? It’s Darryl L. Smith, also known as Debunking spiritualism on RatWiki, Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia, who created a big mess in December — tagged by Jimbo as a POV pusher — using that account’s retirement to attack a user who had criticized him on his talk page by creating socks outing himself as that person. then claiming he was retiring because of the outing. Clever, eh? Actually, vicious. Here is the story:

As for his next move, he wrote recently he is hiring a lawyer from money he will obtain from CrowdFundMe campaign he is starting.

Where did I write that? I write a lot, and may indeed start a GoFundMe campaign. There already is one, raising funds for journalism expenses. I don’t want to mix that with the WMF crap.

His only supporter on the internet is Mikemikev a neo-nazi he has defended.

I have not been supported by Mikemikev. I have only pointed out that certain alleged Mikemikev socks have not been him, which is obvious to anyone who actually investigates this situation.  I know that some Wikipedia socks alleged to be Mikemikev have not been him. The creator of the LTA page for Mikemikev would be Oliver Smith (i.e., the original Anglo Pyramidologist), as Stronghold1990

Apparently if someone gets banned from Wikipedia Abd will become friendly with (even if they are a nazi). I personally do not see his lawsuit going anywhere. This is an lolsuit. The man needs to get off the internet for a few days and get a reality check. No doubt he is following this discussion and will write 10, million words about it all and how he is being “harassed”. Anon63622 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I simply document what I see and add what I know. This is not harassing me. I was encouraged to file by a relative who is a paralegal with extensive experience. It’s a real lawsuit, it doesn’t have to “go anywhere.” The WMF will decide how to respond. By the way, a mail sent by the clerk to me was returned to them, but the address was correct (they phoned me to ask about it). They sent it again, and I got it, but someone looking at the docket might think that I had disappeared or something.

The WMF will have a certain amount of time to respond, or a default could be declared. The ban policy of “ignore them” is not going to work for this. The TOS protections also don’t apply, because the TOS does not allow them to libel me, and the restrictions they set up (must file in California, only have a year, and $1000 limit on damages) are irrelevant for an action for defamation by them. I warned them about office bans for years, that it was a slippery slope, they were losing their service provider protections. Deaf ears.

I notice that absent from your narrative are any mention of list of names redacted etc. who figure prominently in Abd’s version of events.

Mikeu redacted the names. Here is the original text.

I notice that absent from your narrative are any mention of Darryl L. Smith, Ben Steigmann, Anglo Pyramidologist, Goblin Face, Blastikus, Oliver Smith, JzG, Joshua P. Schroeder, Michael Umbricht, John66, Emil Kirkegaard, etc. who figure prominently in Abd’s version of events.

Anyway, people were saying James Damore’s litigation against Google was an lolsuit too, and you saw how that went. (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I redacted the list of names above. Please do not enable his problematic behavior by repeating it on-wiki. This results in a great deal of cross-wiki disruption. A checkuser discovered that the account that left a notification of the lawsuit on my talk page had numerous sleeper sockpuppet accounts.[10] We caught this before they could act. Not only do these actions have real world consquences but they also are a drain on the energy of the community. The more people who amplify his actions, and those of his friends, the more work for our staff to followup. I’d rather spend my time creating content instead of cleaning up a mess. Disclosure: my name was in that list but my identity is hardly a secret. I don’t much care if anyone reverts my edit but I am very sympathetic to the harassed contributors who have reached out to me requesting help. The volunteers who improve our projects are our most vital asset and deserve to be treated with respect. signed John Doe #N —mikeu talk 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I still do not know if Mike is one of the John Does. Making stupid or even biased decisions as a bureaucrat is not a basis for a lawsuit. The list is not my list, it is that of another observer, I don’t know who it is, though I have a suspicion. Mikeu had been inactive for a long time, dropped in in the middle of the mess, having no apparently clue about what was happening, but having been emailed, wielded a meat-axe to prohibit the study of fringe on Wikiversity, even when neutrally presented and framed, and where it had not been disruptive at all, blocked me for fixing an issue — creating consensus — where he was involved, decided I had a long block log, though there had been no problems for a long time, blocked me for a vendetta that wasn’t, it was normal documentation of sock puppetry and canvassing, complained about a personal vendetta on meta in a checkuser request that was one of a long series of successful identification of socks, and where another Wikiversity sysop had added much material to it, and then, when I was globally banned, disappeared. He was not there to create content, he was there to be a bully to support other bullies, and he bragged about it on Wikipedia. He has created very little content anywhere, he was only a bureaucrat because he volunteered in the very early days.

Is it possible that one of Abd’s enemies tried to manipulate you into having this very reaction by placing that notification, as a joe job move? That was what Abd claimed in his 18 March blog post was likely going on. (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gee, is it possible or is it obvious? The sock puppetry patterns match Darryl Smith socking, the same as on RationalWiki. Names are chosen that are totally obvious. I have rarely created socks and I have almost always confirmed them. There have been non-disruptive socks created with obvious names. In fact, I still have one on Wikipedia that I could use to email users. So what? I’m not going to use it. The WMF global ban prohibits all access, under any name or by any means. It even prohibits anyone from accessing Wikipedia or contacting Wikipedians on my behalf, which is a bridge too far, my opinion, but I’m not going to test it without clear reason. (I have not asked anyone to edit Wikipedia or contact Wikipedians on my behalf. Anyone who does this is doing it on their own initiative. I have only provided information, either verifiable (it gets long because of that) or I will provide verification on request.
Those joe job accounts lied. Typical., you should not be mentioning real life names taken from Abd’s blog. This is one of the reasons Abd has been banned all over the internet. He tries to connect peoples real life identities with anonymous online accounts, he then claims he knows “100%” who the accounts belong to and digs up where these people work, but offers nothing more than his opinion.

Who is this? There are two people involved in the mess I encountered in 2017: Oliver and Darryl Smith. Oliver has been open about his identity at times, and he is apparently being sued, so he tried to have articles he had written taken down on RatWiki, and as part of that, he confirmed the obvious, that he was indeed the original author. After a long time of being considered a valuable contributor there, he is finally being blocked rather quickly. His brother, if it is his brother, is still active, and is almost certainly the Smith brother active here, the one who obsessively follows everything I write, and then drastically misrepresents it to an audience that almost never checks and compares.

I have offered far more than my opinion, I have extensively documented the very specific traits and activities of these two (known on Wikipedia as Anglo Pyramidolist, and it does appear that the original claim that there were two brothers was true, not merely a “my brother did it” excuse. However, at one point last year, Oliver — using a verified email — claimed that it was all him, he had lied on Wikipedia and he had lied to Tim Farley (about what? he didn’t say, but the communications would be about skeptic activism and probably financial support, but Farley would know best. Farley does not necessarily know what these brothers have done, and probably would not approve.

It is very dangerous business because he has no proof, only his speculations.

That is what the creators of fake news do, “They have no proof.” First of all, I have not claimed, in most cases, “proof.” I have claimed evidence, strong enough evidence to convince a jury or expert panel, if that ever arose. Sock puppetry, when it is large scale — as this has been — leaves clear marks, very difficult to avoid. Then there is the duck test, which is circumstantiial and which is subject to certain possible errors, but is also quite clear in this case. No, he’s lying, and he knows it.

In many cases he has turned out to be wrong (he claims RationalWiki users John66, Bongolian and David Gerard are all the same person – entirely wrong and he was forced to later admit that) but his leaking of real life names can effect people and their businesses.

I never claimed that those were the same, and I never suspected them of being the same. As I recall, I’m not checking now, I did a study of Bongolian as a control, against the edits of known Darryl Smith accounts and suspected ones. Bongolian was clearly distinct, there was no question about it. Claims that Bongolian was John66 were made by sock puppets on RationalWiki. Who created those socks and those claims? It’s obvious (but there is a minor possibility that this was very sophisticated impersonation of them. I’d testify under oath that it was not me. I’m a journalist, and lying would be career suicide.

If I make mistakes, all my work can be commented on and corrected through blog comments. (In spite of many troll comments, often impersonating RatWiki users. And that led me to create accounts to ask about them.)

As for JzG, he is an admin here. Abd has impersonated him on several blogs,

I have never impersonated JzG, I would not, and I’m not aware of impersonations, but I’ve been seeing claims on RatWiki that I’m massively active all over the internet, with impersonations. There is someone who has done that, often, historically. It’s not me. It’s the Smith brothers. Both of them have impersonated. I have proven some of it. No proof? That one was easy. Ask the impersonated person if it was them.

This is a Smith brother, likely Darryl from signs I can see.

as he has impersonated Roxy the dog.

Again, he knows I did not, because it was almost certainly him (I think I recall documenting an impersonation). He has been making accusations like this for a long time, almost never with evidence.

I do not trust Abd at all, he has recently been attacking @Alexbrn: on his blog. When you spend your life online attacking people like Abd it discredits his version of events which appear to be fictional.

This is someone deliberately concealing his identity by using a colocation web host. I’m a real person willing to go into court and attest under oath that I have evidence for my claims. The “attacks” are written documentation (“evidence”), sourced and verifiable, often with little interpretation or with minimal analysis (but on a blog, I also add opinion, it’s my privilege. I distinguish opinion and interpretation from fact.)

The Alexbrn reference would be to this page. science-and-medicine/sara-wilson-as-a-target-of-medical-fascism/

His entire lawsuit is basically about a grudge he holds because a group of “skeptical” editors submitted his cold fusion material for deletion.

That is his typical hostile mindreading. However, notice the lack of links. This troll does not want people looking at what actually happened. I didn’t care about that content, for itself, though one of the pages, a list of recent peer-reviewed sources on cold fusion, was widely cited. So this damaged many pages across the internet, and that page was rigorously neutral, and, in fact, that whole resource was neutral, but to those who don’t know the research in the field, it can look otherwise. These were wiki pages, open to editing, and anyone who questioned the neutrality could have objected. Deletion was not the method to be used on Wikiversity for non-neutral material, but mikeu had never participated in developing the methods for creating “inclusive neutrality.” It’s not at all difficult, I did it many times, and it totally defused conflict. What was offensive was the attack on a specific innocent user, who was impersonated and defamed by a sock master, who also filed checkuser reports on him and who then complained on Wikiversity about him, and this was steward-verified. And then what was more offensive was the attack on Wikiversity as a place where any topic could be studied. It was a place where neutrality was inclusive rather than exclusive, i.e., like academia rather than like an encyclopedia. No longer, because of mikeu.

My opinion is that wikis without protective structure are intrinsically vulnerable to this, I had already abandoned Wikiversity as a place to create content because of demonstrations that this was the case.

Perhaps @Roxy the dog: or @ජපස: or @Mu301: can weigh in on this because they have been attacked by Abd. 2607:F710:60:0:0:BA:0:2 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

When and where? If I describe what someone has done, is that an “attack”? There is a page on this blog which has been described as an “attack on ජපස“. It is joshua-schroeder-on-pseudoscience-on-wikipedia/. Compare that to what has been routine commentary on me, on this very page, on RatWiki, on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and, in fact, in comments all over the internet and then consider who, by comparison, is engaged in a “vendetta.”

Cos I was asked, I believe abd’s attacks on me are as effective in making a difference as a sparrow’s fart. –Roxy,the dog. wooF 12:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Has he read these alleged attacks? Would he be so kind, then, to point to them? If I wrote something inappropriate, I can correct it. Roxy is active, my sense, in what calls itself the skeptical project or faction, which, my opinion, is, as organized and active, pseudoskeptical, “believing in the mainstream.” Which is not scientific skepticism. Science is not about belief at all.

It doesn’t surprise me if Abd made some false sockpuppetry allegations based on a dubious interpretation of evidence. I doubt he did it maliciously, though. He’s not the only Wikipedian to make that mistake; it happens all the time that SPIs are closed as “unrelated” because someone’s suspicions turned out to be unfounded. That’s just kind of a routine occurrence.

Yes, one would think. However, I have reported on hundreds of socks, and very few have been shown to be someone else. If contrary evidence appears, I report it. “Unrelated,” by the way, is not always conclusive, unless there are extensive edits. Some users become skilled at creating false impressions. I distinguish between suspicion and conclusion. I report evidence and am not the final judge, but I do, after seeing a great deal of evidence, come to conclusions, which often include alternate interpretations. For example, I have concluded that there really are two brothers, that Oliver was lying to protect his brother, who has made a career of being a “skeptical editor,” attacking “pseudoscience” and “quackery” and, lately certain skepticisms that offend Big Pharma, which has far more resources than the “skeptical organizations” originally served, but I do keep in mind the alternate interpretation, that Oliver, admittedly schizophrenic, actually is the only one. However, the strong preponderance of the evidence is that there are two.

And that can complicate checkuser, because these brothers do back each other up, and there is crossover. So far, though, I don’t see Oliver as appearing in this discussion.
As well, there are indications of another anonymous person who has occasionally edited in support of Darryl. Independent SPAs can be difficult to distinguish in a massive cloud of socks.

I think it is debatable how much good can come from banning people for outing users off-wiki. It obviously hasn’t stopped Abd from continuing to do it, because his SanFranBan doesn’t affect what he does on non-Wikimedia platforms.

Again, I don’t know who this is. There are several possibilities, actually. What he is writing is obvious.

And if Abd had anonymously outed people, maybe it would not have even been possible to hold him accountable.

Wikipedians are accustomed to anonymous trolls. Then, too often, they treat persons open about identity as if they were trolls. Internet trolling is such a problem because of anonymity, which somehow got enshrined on Wikipedia, and this is the original factor that will keep Wikipedia from ever becoming reliable. Reliable source cannot be anonymous. The police allow anonymous tips, but they are never evidence, and, in court, all evidence must be personally attested or it is not admissible. In Academia, anonymous sources are meaningless unless fully and completely verifiable, but wikis accept the testimony of anonymous users sometimes without question.
The most serious “outing” was that JPS affair, though it probably caused no harm, and the true outing, that was made indelible through, was by the Smith troll. Otherwise when I convinced that web admin to remove it, it would all have been gone. And I asked a former WMF board member about this, and he did not think it would rise to the level that would lead the WMF to act. But without knowing what the exact complaints were, I cannot know. After all, outing like that has been common on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy — and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Because of this type of situation, users who want to keep their IRL identities secret should practice due diligence in not making it easy for people to out them, since the admins and Wikimedia have limited power to control the spread of information that a user has put out there about himself.

I don’t think impersonation is part of Abd’s playbook; he is not known for being a manipulative guy. Some of his adversaries do have that reputation, though, and therefore it wouldn’t surprise me if an impersonator framed Abd for impersonation. (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I was not accused of impersonation, ever, before the Smiths created impersonation socks. Impersonation is deeply offensive. I confronted it on usenet as a moderator, because people can die when others believe an impersonation is real. Yet these accusers claim that this is a long-term behavior. It’s recognizable as a lie if anyone actuallyh looks at my history.

  • I am one of the anonymous John Doe’s listed in Abd’s filing. Thankfully he does not have my real name and I only ever used an IP to edit Wikipedia.

    This is fascinating. So, this person complained to the WMF. About what?

    Abd wrote some negative things about my IP on his blog and some deliberately false claims about me claiming I was someone else and posting someones business details.

    This would narrow him to certain IPs. And does he own the IP? Is it stable? There were certain IPs that were a mobile service provider in a small region in England, and used by Darryl in obvious socking. What claims? What stops this user from being specific?

    Well, Darryl is almost never specific, particularly if being specific would lead people to realize the truth.

    I sent a complaint to the Wikimedia Health and Safety about his revealing of private information.

    What private information? If I falsely claimed that the IP was someone else, how was this his private information? It would merely be wrong, like many claims that an IP is a blocked user, when it is not. Do realize that the claims I made eventually became that all this disruption was by one of the Anglo Pyramidologist socks, so these were like any report of disruptive socking with a request for checkuser.

    You say above “and if Abd had anonymously outed people, maybe it would not have even been possible to hold him accountable,” this is wrong, he is entirely accountable.

    The Smiths are not terribly smart, and if this is a meat puppet, as is the other reasonable possibility, not terribly smart either. The anon did not claim I was not accountable, I am, for what I do openly or privately, but that it might not be possible to hold me accountable.

    He has no reason for doing it, other than harassment. It is not acceptable to be posting where anonymous online users live or work or trying to make those connections. Max Redhill (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

    Now, is this harassment? Am I being harassed by these comments? That’s a question. From my point of view, these people are revealing the reality of how they think and how they act. It is an opportunity for anyone who cares to see what I have seen since 2017. Most people don’t really care. Reality is too boring, they think, if it involves actually looking at evidence.

    With every IP contributions display is a geolocation tab. Why? Isn’t that revealing private information?

    In addressing disruption, checkusers routinely look at those things, and others often do, you can see it in many SPI archives. I have never posted where “anonymous online users work.” I did post, one time, where a user who is not anonymous, having openly revealed his identity, had worked. It was off wiki, not using my WMF account at all, and not causing any actual harm.

    These trolls have, on occasion, contacted employers, they engage in real-life harassment. The mother of one of their targets was fired because of emails they sent, and Oliver, in particular, admitted sending the mail, he merely claimed “I did not ask them to fire her.” These users are vicious, they write defamatory articles on RatWiki, using cherry-picked and out-of-context evidence, entirely misleading, and then feed this to reporters for media, and on occasion, that information is not carefully checked and has shown up in print. Serious accusations!

    What I was getting at was, the people who have been banned for off-wiki harassment, outing, etc. have been those who linked those activities to their own Wikipedia account. Another example would be michaeldsuarez, who made it known that he edited Dramatica as JuniusThaddeus. But not every harasser or outer does that, so not all are held accountable. (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

    I don’t know who this guy is – his dramas seem to have happened over the many years time I wasn’t actively editing Wikipedia. But seeing this name, I notice a twitter user named @abdlomax has been favourite-ing tweets where I’ve been under attack over Wikipedia (for background see here). Also during all the low-carbohydrate diet drama centred on Skeptic from Britain I (and presumably a number of other WP editors) were being impersonated on one of the blogs covering the drama, in what looked like shit-stirring (for background see here). What can it all mean? Alexbrn (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

    Ah, thanks. That user is me, but I see only one favorite. This conflation of a single action to many is common with abusive users. Skeptic from Britain was not impersonated anywhere, but himself created accusations that he was a user who had criticized him. This is classic Smith MO. So, Alexbrn was impersonated.  See a page that documents many comment impersonations on the Malcolm Kendrick blog.

So was Guy Chapman. That comment was blatantly impersonation. It confirmed the false accusation against ME. Guy (JzG) is not that stupid.

Might want to ask the man himself at, which is the email address he has been at for years, and which is listed in the complaint. In anything Abd-related, I would caution against making assumptions about authorship, given the amount of impersonation that has been alleged. (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that is quite general about the internet, and email received. Assumptions about authorship can cause a great deal of damage.

I am aware of the lawsuit. I personally consider it frivolous and an attempt to harass and intimidate. My block of Abd was justified and long overdue.[16] Ping me if you have a specific question regarding his activity at en-wv and/or the actions that I/we have taken to prevent disruption of our project. I can neither confirm nor deny that I am a “John Doe” in this case as I have not received any official notification off-wiki. I am not at liberty to comment further on ongoing litigation nor can I comment on some of the specifics of this block due to WMF confidentiality requirements. (My block was primarily based on on-wiki activity, however the duration of the block was significantly adjusted to take into account privately expressed concerns which would be inappropriate to share publicly.) —mikeu talk 16:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, here, Mike did effectively claim to be a John Doe. No he would not be notified until I have clear evidence as to what he actually did, though I could go ahead and amend the complaint based on “information and belief,” and then discovery would include his being asked questions under oath. Mike is here confirming what he wrote before, his actions were based on privately expressed concerns. Those would be libelous. There was no vendetta, there was an attempt to protect the wiki. There was an admin there who expressed an intention to unblock. The information I have is that he was threatened with desysop. There is block and ban process on Wikiversity, which was not followed. Deletion process was also bypassed by Mike. There were lies in the deletion request, confronted by others. There was canvassing of Wikipedia users who were clueless about Wikiversity purposes, practice, and policy.
But that would merely be incompetent administration, which this affair exposed abundantly. As I have mentioned, I already had decided to abandon putting work into Wikiversity, because it was too dangerous as a place to build content. I had already moved away, toward, for example, writing for publication under peer review, and blogging, and Quora for page views. Far better. Quora is not totally safe, but much safer than WMF wikis. I have 4 million page views there and 2000 followers, which is better than anything I ever did on Wikiversity (though my best work there was never deleted, I’m wondering if they will go for that, too.)
On Wikiversity, I had demonstrated how to create neutral resources, in the presence of strong differences of opinion. It’s actually easy to do there, with attribution. Wikiversity is much more like a university library than an encyclopedia. Or was until Mike demolished the principles that had been followed for about 15 years.
  • So I know there are a bunch of links here, and the gist I got is that this is a person who has banned for OUTing users, but who exactly is Abd and what is he trying to get out of this lawsuit? By who, I mean as a Wikipedia user and other known off-wiki accounts of his.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

    I outed nobody on WMF wikis. I have not edited Wikipedia since 2011 or so. This blog is  owned by Infusion Institute, Inc, but I am admin and do use the blog for topics not always related to cold fusion.  I have these other accounts:

  • WMF wikis: Abd (currently office-banned, unknown offense)
  • RationalWiki: Abd (currently blocked, considered banned but the ordinary process was followed.
  • Quora: Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax
  • Encyclopedia Dramatica: Abd (currently blocked, standard ED lulz)
  • Twitter: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (used very little)
  • Wikipedia Review: Abd
  • Wikipediocracy: Abd (banned, reason not given, years ago, but context was confronting libel of Wikipedia users by a popular user there, still active. No life.)
  • WikipediaSucks: Abd

There are many, many other accounts. Since the early 2000s, I used my Muslim name deliberately, to make a point. Before that there were other accounts. I was a usernet moderator for soc.religion.islam, never, and was a forum moderator on The WELL in the 1980s.

Jimbo Wales commented, and what he wrote was no surprise.

As suggested by others, I can’t really comment on ongoing legal matters. I should also add that in general, for routine legal matters, they are handled by our very competent legal staff and don’t necessarily rise to the level requiring board attention.–Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is still a question as to why this discussion was held on his Talk page. I had good email communication with Wales years ago. I have not attempted to contact him since. I would also advise him to clear any contact with me with counsel, but he could communicate with me with counsel on cc or previewing it, if he wants. One of my email addresses is in the Complaint. I once spoke about my concepts for creating efficient consensus negotiation on Wikipedia, at a WikiConference in New York, before I was WP banned, and he was taking notes. but I don’t know that he ever understood the proposals.


If there are any questions, I am easy to contact. I will see any comment on this blog, for example, and if a real email address is used, and response is requested, I will respond.

Now, what am I trying to get? I don’t try, I do, but a lawsuit involves a “prayer for relief.”

Read the thing.


Had the Foundation been willing to communicate with me, this might all have been easily settled. But their policy is that if they — privately, based on private allegations, without warning (either as to improper behavior or or intention to ban) or explanation, decide to ban, they do not communicate with the user, they do not reply and they state only that the ban is not appealable. But they publish it, and only ban a very limited number of people, most of whom are known or accused of serious offenses or conditions, such as pedophiles or accused pedophiles, or extensive harassers. Even in those cases, the policy is, ah, not actually protective and may in fact, increase risk. But that is mere stupidity, not libel. The fact of the ban can be, in context, a libel in itself, and that is what this case is testing.

This is being discussed on Wikipediocracy, initially openly, but now privately. If anyone wishes to reveal that to me (privately if desired), I’d appreciate it. (I have never attempted to create a sock account there, though that’s easy to do. Unless there is necessity, I do not sock. Merely being banned does not create a necessity. Others being impersonated can.) The open discussion I have covered on this subpage.

Wikipediocracy discussion

Oliver Smith, the Energizer Bunny

Oliver just goes on and on, or someone is doing a great job impersonating him, putting a crazy amount effort into it. I’ve largely stopped monitoring Smith Brother activity, but people notify me, and I was pointed to the latest Oliver Obvious: Bigtom

Registered 16:31, 1 April 2019. Bigtom immediately dove into editing Oliver Articles.

Ikanreed pinged him:

You seem okay, but we’ve got this history for new users whose first edits are only to pages about certain far-right race agitators being shallow-cover trolls, so I worry a bit. Mostly I want to say hi though. Join the wiki, have fun. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ok no problem. I don’t plan to further edit already existent articles, but add new pages, so they can be easily monitored. Bigtom (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Bigtom’s first edit “updated” information about Kirkegaard (one of Oliver’s Favorite Topics):

He is permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia,[17] having misused the wiki to spread his racist nonsense. He has since whined about Wikipedia deleting his pseudoscientific writings on race.[18]

This deviates far from the source, and misrepresents what happened with Kirkegaard’s “writings.” Kirkegaard was “ArbCom” blocked with no explanation, which can happen as a precaution. Kirkegaard may have filed a lawsuit against Oliver Smith, but I have no information on why ArbCom made the decision they did. Oliver simply imagines it (though there are signs that a number of editors complained, one of which is actually banned (and Oliver is also banned). Kirkegaard’s user page and talk page have no annotation, which would be done if the user was banned. His email has not been blocked.

As to “whining” about Wikipedia deleting his writings, the page in question was MfD’d 5 March, 2019. Kirkegaard points out that normal process was not followed, which is correct, and the MfD misrepresented the situation (the page’s creator is not “site-banned” and may easily come back — or not.) However, the deletion is harmless, because (1) A copy is on and (2) if Deleet wants it back, when he is unblocked, he could get it back. He could also probably get a copy from any of many administrators, (3) The voters in the MfD are correct that the page is not needed for Wikipedia. Such a page might be created as a subpage for an article Talk, where the issues addressed are covered. Normal process was not followed, that’s all. It is not whining to point that out. The page is archived here. I would not advise him to try to get the page back, or to put it back. He has other, less disruptive options. He can make the page available off-wiki (and, in effect, he has done that. If he wants it accessible for public editing, or for a list of editors, he can also arrange that. Doing it on-wiki, given the political realities, is asking for trouble.

Is this “pseudoscientific writings”? To a Rat like Oliver, it might seem so. On the face it is a list of sources, useful for studying a topic. The sources have been chosen to meet Wikipedia Reliable Source policy. Is it unbalanced, cherry-picked? Maybe. I would have to study it to know. If so, the remedies would be to (1) make sure that it is not presented in Wikipedia’s voice, but attributed to the author, (2) not allow it to appear to be a consensus document unless it has gone through a consensus process, and (3) fix it by adding balance. We routinely handled issues like this on Wikiversity (which also has a neutrality policy. Pseudoskeptics. The trolls recruited by Darryl Smith largely demolished that, but it is still possible there. The hater faction will claim that is too much work, that what is shown in those sources is false or worse, and that is a pseudoscientific position, not a rational one. Surely they could add some sources, maybe one at a time. At least one! But, in fact, they are mostly ignorant, they simply know what they don’t like.

But that can’t be done with the page deleted, and what I discovered years ago was that the so-called “skeptic” faction was not interested in creating editorial consensus, but in winning and excluding whatever they disagree with from the project. Reliable source policy be damned. So this event is not in the least surprising.

I should add that as to what I can discern of Emil’s politics, his apparent conclusions or interpretations, I disagree with much. That’s not the point. Emil is capable of engaging in civil discourse, which is what we need on all sides. If he’s wrong, let the best evidence and arguments win, not who has the most clout behind the scenes with administrators. And maybe he is right about some things and wrong about others.

(My ontology does not accept that “right” and ‘wrong” are intrinsic qualities of ideas, that are interpretations. Rather, interpretations are useful or not useful. Further, examining “wrong ideas” carefully can be a powerful learning experience. Rejecting them out-of-hand, without attempting to fully understand them, we learn nothing.)

Bottom line, Oliver is, as he has for a long time, with his brother, filling RationalWiki with misleadingly sourced material, that can look correct if one doesn’t look carefully, he is expert at doing that, a master of quick impression creation. Looking at the link for the Kirkegaard block, we see:

21:58, 21 February 2019 AGK (talk | contribs) blocked Deleet (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ({{ArbComBlock}}: Blocking on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Appeal of this block is only by email to the committee.) Tag: PHP7

The block is not “permanent,” but “indefinite.” That means, on Wikipedia, “until lifted, or converted to a ban.”  Even bans are not “permanent,” generally, because they may be appealed.

In this case, the block is not to be lifted without ArbCom permission, but appeal is explicitly allowed.

Oliver should know a lot about blocks and bans, he is blocked on easily hundreds of accounts. He generally does not appeal the blocks, even if his talk page access remains open. Why should he bother with that when he can create a new account and maybe avoid notice for a little while. Deleet has no apparent socks, and appears to have used only one account on RatWiki. The rest were impersonations.

I have seen  no sign that Kirkegaard is appealing at this time. (He could, by email.) I searched his Twitter account for mention of the block, and his blog. Nothing.

Blocks intended to be permanent will be so annotated, there will be explanations, etc. In a trolling comment, likely from a Smith, there was a mention of one of the alleged complainers. The very last edit of Deleet before the block was to suggest an indef block for MjolnirPants, the one mentioned. (The full discussion. Train wreck. There was no consensus to ban, but the user was indef blocked by an oversighter apparently for gross incivility requiring oversight. (The oversighter actually restored email access, though. The block log. So what Deleet suggested, happened.)

Back to Bigtom:


Bigtom went on, and this is hilarious.

On User talk:Bongolian:

Thanks for giving me autopatrol rights, can you please restore them? D got rid of them with no explanation, he also desysopped me a month back on another account for no reason. I sent an email complaint to David Gerard, but he never responded. At the very least I think this deserves a coop to review his abuse of power.Bigtom (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@D Would you care to comment on this further? David Gerard is largely inactive as far as day-to-day editing, so I wouldn’t him about this. You might be confused that D and NekoDysk are the same account. There was a comment by NekoDysk on your talk page about this already. Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I simply pointed out another sock owned by Mike who also showed up on the Mankind Quarterly talk as The difference between me and Mike is I add informative content here, Mike never has and just trolls. His current sock is a parody of an SJW: “Punching bigots” etc and all he’s done so far is cause edit conflicts. Bigtom (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I.e., “NekoDysk” and “D” are the same account. He is a rarity on RatWiki, someone who is quite open about his real-life identity. (There are others, such as David Gerard, and once upon a time, there was me, though I rarely edited, having concluded that the company of Rats was, ah, unpleasant and unnecessary.)

At this point, there are too many signs that Bigtom is Oliver D. Smith to set aside. I won’t list all of them! But who has a long-term conflict with Mikemikev? That’s just one clue of many!

That Bigtom mentions David Gerard demonstrates how clueless and careless he is as to the political considerations. He just revealed that he has likely obtained results in the past by complaining (sometimes privately) to Gerard, which then confirms various suspicions about this, from timing and less direct evidence. I very much doubt that Gerard will intervene, but . . . it is not impossible.

This went on:

@Bigtom Since this obnoxious error, I would rather people were patrolling your edits. Nothing personal, but your feud has caused a lot of uninvolved people here a lot of grief and your own past behavior both with and without the sysop tools on your innumerable past accounts was extremely reckless and disruptive. If you want to be useful and regain trust, then sure, I am a believer in giving sysop tools to anyone that isn’t a troll, it’s not a difficult bar to reach. — NekoDysk 20:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen/spoken to Simoneh on camera to confirm this is a separate person and not Mike? Mike creates many different fake profiles on social media & chat channels with fake images, at one point he was pretending to be a gay Korean male and even typing gay sex on chat channels. He’s had at least a dozen of his Twitter accounts suspended for creating impersonation profiles. And I’m better than identifying his impersonations than anyone since I’ve been in this stupid feud with him for over 6 years; I therefore stick to my claim Simoneh is Mike. His fake accounts of communists/SJWs is nothing new.Bigtom (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

He completely misses the point and apparently never understood how RationalWiki has worked, so accustomed was he to being able to use it for his own purposes, and that whenever he ran into problems, he could simply create a new account. NekoDysk is completely onto him (which has been shown less specifically many times.)

Oliver thinks this is about whether or not Simoneh is Mikemikev. That’s not actually relevant. This is about him and his obsessions. He was quite visible as Oliver before this, and my sense is that NekoDysk would recognize it, but allowed him room to show a different side. But he is literally obsessed and insane (as he has acknowledged many times), going all the way back to Atlantid on Metapedia. If this is not him, it is an extremely sophisticated impersonation, which is unlikely. This went on:

I made appropriate off-wiki verification even before talking to you. I am going to block you now, if you want to be banned officially the coop is right there. Have fun. — NekoDysk 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

So Bigtom was blocked indef, “(Trolling talk pages: abd/smith/mike/etc)” NekoDysk also blocked the IP Oliver had complained about, with Ban evasion: abd/smith/mike/etc) Was that correct? Maybe. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter! This was certainly not me, that IP is what might be used by a Smith brother (impersonating Mikemikev) or by Mikemikev (being himself). I vote for Mikemikev. Either way, to be blocked.

Now, what was the old account that D desysopped?  Going back:

  • 00:54, 23 March 2019 D (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Concerned from Autopatrolled and Sysop to (none) (hell no) [also blocked by D for ban evasion. His user page was deleted for doxxing, which I have mentioned before, I think. First edit was to start a cooping. Obviously Oliver, previously identified.] 
  • 15:34, 26 February 2019 D (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Arcticos from Autopatrolled and Sysop to Autopatrolled (LANCB / diallos martesen falswas) [(Cornish, maybe means “incompetent possible imposter.” Obviously Oliver, previously identified.]
  • 20:30, 8 February 2019 D (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Aeschylus from Autopatrolled and Sysop to Autopatrolled (per block) [Also blocked by D (For your own good.) referring to legal issues. Obviously Oliver, previously identified.]

Oliver must have meant Concerned. D blocked this account for (Ban evasion). This could refer to the indef block of Arcticos (who apparently committed to LANCB (Leaving And Never Coming Back), and who has also been blocked as other accounts. On User talk:Concerned, D explained the block, so Oliver lied about that desysop. It was for cause, not “for no reason,” and the cause was stated:

If you want to email me about your latest weird race theories or how you hate my guts that’s cool, but really you should give this a rest. “claims to hate this place but is obsessed with it and posts here everyday”, sound familiar? You wrote it yourself. — NekoDysk 01:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Aeschylus, if he wanted to come back, was not denied talk page access and could request an unblock. Oliver socks practically never request unblock. It is much easier, they think, to just create a new account and then the brothers can op each other or others will do it easily, if they behave for a bit. Increasingly, Oliver has been unable to do that. John66 (Darryl Smith) is still going, though he has not edited  for about a week.

Because nobody has, so far, challenged D on these desysops and blocks, it appears that RatWiki has gotten very tired of all the socking and impersonations. Some may still blame Mikemikev, but I can assure them, if they care what I say, that it has not been me, and almost all socks listed as mine have been impersonations. (And the few that have been me have mostly been openly acknowledged, confirmed here (a sock claiming to me is generally not me unless I acknowledge it here. Most everywhere, I don’t sock at all.)

I should mention one more account, Jellybeans. This user, blocked by D, claimed that Mikemikev is impersonating him. But who is he? Mikemikev is impersonating jellybeans? No, Mikemikev would be impersonating Oliver Smith, if he is impersonating anyone. I.e., Jellybeans is Oliver Smith, who is defacto banned. The account was registered and edited briefly March 6, then complained to D about the block of Concerned weeks later. D wasted no time blocking him. This was all obvious.

It has actually been obvious before, but what has changed is that D notices and acts on it. Oliver (and Darryl Smith) have been accustomed to dealing with distracted and shallow basement dwellers. John66 (Darryl) pushed limits but hasn’t yet gone too far. D appears to have the general confidence of the Rat community. We’ll see, Wikis sometimes turn around and eat their own.

Impersonation of “Cold Fusion” supporter and “Friend of Lomax” on WMF wikis

Normally, I do not use blog posts to cover the issue of massive sock puppetry by Oliver and Darryl Smith, though there is a connection with cold fusion (which is why I even cover this in the less-visible pages here). Today I was notified by a friend of an account created on Wikipedia. He seems to have believed it was me. First, facts, then conclusions:

The WikiMedia Foundation banned me in early 2018, no reason given, and a mail to their registered agent was ignored. I did file a lawsuit over the announcement of that ban. The lawsuit names the WMF and Does 1-9. The WMF has not yet been formally notified of the suit (but anyone representing the Foundation is welcome to contact me. Perhaps the matter can be resolved with no further fuss and expense.

From Wikipedia:

Cold fusion deletion

Last year you got Abd Lomax banned and all his cold fusion research deleted on Wikiversity. Lomax has now filed a lawsuit against you and eight other John Does for his ban [2]. You had no reason to delete his cold fusion research project. Abd at the time was being funded by a cold fusion research institute who invested a lot of money into his Wikiversity project and you had it deleted because of your pseudo-skeptic viewpoint. Could you put the project back? I am not Lomax but I support his cold fusion research. He has been targeted by pseudo-skeptics. Cold Fusion 2019 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

From Wikiversity:

Lomax has filed against you and 8 other John Doe
My collegue Abd Lomax has finally filed,_Inc_et_al Friend of Lomax (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m aware of that. –mikeu talk 17:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

    • 15:50, 8 March 2019 Mu301 filed a checkuser request
        • Friend of LomaxDiscussion: “Lomax has filed against you and 8 other John Doe” per No legal threats
          Reason(s): Suspected block evasion. Inappropriate notification of legal action that could reasonably be perceived as an attempt to harass and/or intimidate. mikeu talk 15:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Confirmed with 19 other accounts, see Checkuser results for study.


The checkuser results are a red herring. Those accounts appear to be people who used a Tor node during the checkuser window. Except a few of them who created accounts in a short period of time, they are unrelated. The troll first pinged Mu301 on Wikiversity, then waited for the smoke to clear, then did the same, with more detail, to Jzg and ජපස (jps or Joshua P. Schroeder) on Wikipedia. All these were involved in the fracas over the deletion of the Cold fusion resource on Wikiversity.

I had been threatened by a sock puppet (later identified with Darryl L. Smith, very active in harassing targets) that if I did not stop documenting the Long Term Abuse of whoever was behind the impersonation socking I was confronting, he would get all of my work deleted. He did accomplish that on Wikiversity, in the process demolishing Wikiversity academic freedom, the whole sequence was contrary to policy and went against the strong traditions of that project.

The lawsuit, however, does not name anyone other than the WikiMedia Foundation. To have a claim against others, I would have to know that I was defamed by them. So part of the purpose of the lawsuit is to gain access to the records of the WMF through discovery, because the evidence they relied upon when making their decision would be relevant.

I did not create those accounts, and would not. By violating the ban, I would be clearly violating the terms of service, and part of my claim is that I did not violate the terms. That ban was immediately used for defamation in the article on me on RationalWiki (under the name Abd ul-Rahman Lomax), where very many sock puppets have been created like the two mentioned above.

This creation of abusive socks that appear to be those who are actually their targets is what got me involved with them in the first place. That’s a long story. They do this because it works. Studying Wikipedia activity, I’ve seen it again and again. Account appears, John Doe is the greatest, where there is a blocked user John Doe, and many assume that this must be John Doe! After all, who else would write that? They don’t actually ask that question!

In cases where I know what was happening, it was never John Doe!

The AN/I discussion was unaware of the prior checkuser activity:

Lawsuit talk by Cold Fusion 2019

Cold Fusion 2019 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)
This user contacted ජපස (aka jzg) about an ongoing lawsuit against Wikipedia ([86] [87]). WP:NLT seems to apply to this, but I’m honestly not 100% sure. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean jps? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did… I don’t even have a good excuse for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you have a decent excuse for that; CF19 left an identical message for JzG. –Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And a shorter version a few days earlier for Mu301 on Wikiversity.

Oh! That’s where I saw that… somehow mixed up ජපස’s signature with JzG EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve indef’d Cold Fusion 2019 for NOTHERE. Their ONLY two edits are to post about a lawsuit filed against Wikipedia? Chances are it’s very likely a sock as well. Either way, block applied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is SF-banned User:Abd. –Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is exactly what the sock master wants to be guessed. In fact, anyone who knows this person’s long term behavior would recognize it. And what I was really banned for was creating a Long Term Abuse study on Anglo Pyramidologist on meta. Most AP socks never make in into the SPI case.

I saw this elsewhere. CF2019 is not the one doing the suing. I am not sure NLT applies in this case. spryde | talk 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because CF19 says they aren’t the ones doing the suing, doesn’t mean they aren’t the ones doing the suing. –Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That’s true, but just because an account says “I’m a friend of Lomax” doesn’t mean he is. Just because he uses “Cold fusion” in his name and claims to be a supporter doesn’t mean he is. 

FYI if you’re interested in the plaintiff’s perspective – I couldn’t access the actual lawsuit. [[88]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The link is to my review of the RationalWiki article on me, which was created as revenge for that documentation of impersonation and other socking by the brothers behind AP. Thanks, Tim.

Anyone can access the documents using the U.S. Federal Court system. The first 150 pages are free. People probably need a U.S. address. And, of course, people can contact me directly. I am entirely unlike the socks involved here.

They figured that out on Wikipediocracy.

Not really. I just remember him from long ago in the WP community and other groups. spryde | talk 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if this is not the person pursuing the legal case, they are making demands based on the legal case, and I’d say NLT very much applies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

[. . .]

This was not accurate. The comment does not make a threat. It lies about the users being named, “John Doe” does not name someone. It was, however, obvious socking of some kind. If it was me, it was a global ban violation, if not me, it was a “meat puppet,” or sufficiently clear to be one that one could block. But it was simply blocked for simpler reasons.

In fact, this was block violation by an Anglo Pyramidologist user, i.e., one of the two brothers, Oliver D. Smith (the original Anglo Pyramidologist) or Darryl L. Smith (best known as Goblin Face, originally Liveintheforests), almost certainly the latter. These are both widely-known and identified trolls.

This could be the same troll: Hallwang_Clinic

(A recent likely account of Oliver would be  Stronghold1990. For Darryl, it would be  Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434,  who created a huge mess on the internet over the deletion of a Wikipedia article, and who retired, claiming he had been outed. But he had not been outed, his sock puppets had accused someone else of being him, to harass the person. I did out him, exonerating that innocent target. He’s been doing stuff like this for years, and often getting away with it. He knows how to play wiki users like a fiddle.

While there is public information about the underlying facts, the only person on the planet, besides myself, likely to know enough to connect Mu301, jps, and jzg to that case would be the instigator, the one who privately complained to Mu301, socked at Wikiversity and canvassed Jzg and jps to show up there and probably to complain to the WMF, i.e., Darryl L. Smith (or, less likely, his brother).

But I have not named other defendants because the evidence is weaker than the very plain and simple evidence against the WikiMedia Foundation. They seem to have figured out much of the legal theory on Wikipediocracy.

And, yes, I have claimed damages. It’s a requirement for a diversity case, the legal minimum is $75,000. I paid the $400 filing fee out of pocket. Blasted my pocket all to hell, but who needs pockets if you don’t have any more money? After I serve the papers, I may open a GoFundMe. Those can work, the goal would be to retain a lawyer, and for other expenses.


Repeating the text of the sock edits on Wikipedia:

Cold fusion deletion

Last year you got Abd Lomax banned and all his cold fusion research deleted on Wikiversity.

How does “Cold Fusion 2019” know this? Besides the WMF, the only people who know who complained would be Darryl L. Smith, and any others who conspired in the defamation. Oliver Smith (probably) bragged about it, and there was mention of jps, JzG and Mu301 on another site, by either Oliver or Darryl.

Lomax has now filed a lawsuit against you and eight other John Does for his ban [2].

The lawsuit is against nine John Does, not eight and the one addressed. Only if that one actually defamed me, causing damage, would they be named as defendants, once evidence has been obtained.

You had no reason to delete his cold fusion research project.

He did not delete it. He argued for deletion.

Abd at the time was being funded by a cold fusion research institute who invested a lot of money into his Wikiversity project

My funding would be irrelevant, but this was untrue. No Infusion Institute funding was related to the Wikiversity project, which had been largely abandoned. In 2015, events convinced me that WMF wikis were not safe places to create content, not even neutral content. So I stopped nearly all work on the Cold fusion educational resource. When the deletion discussion was raised, in late 2017, I was being funded by the Institute (and I still am, for expenses), but this was entirely unrelated to Wikiversity.

and you had it deleted because of your pseudo-skeptic viewpoint.

It is unclear why it was deleted. The bureaucrat who deleted it violated policies and traditions, and he said he had received private complaints. The whole thing stank. But, as I had concluded, the community slept. I was blocked by that ‘crat, and an admin who planned to unblock was threatened privately with having his tools removed.

Could you put the project back? I am not Lomax but I support his cold fusion research. He has been targeted by pseudo-skeptics.

The two users targeted have no power to put it back, and this is irrelevant to the legal action. If Wikiversity were to decide to restore that resource, it would have no effect on the action for defamation.

This was all classic Darryl Smith socking. He does it to create impressions, in this case that Lomax is disruptive, vindictive, and demanding, as well as to strengthen the resolve of the “skeptical community” to resist coercion from “cranks.” Smith, pretending to be me, using troll sock names like these, has been threatening RationalWiki users with lawsuits for maybe a year.

Meanwhile, I have things to do, places to go ….


Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/comment-trolling/

There has been extensive trolling comment on Dr. Kendrick’s blog, see Comment trolling.

Some of these comments used the names of RationalWiki users, and this had happened before with comments here, so this is an established Darryl Smith behavior. I have always held as a possibility that it was a troll, sowing confusion, but this incident increases confidence in the Ockham’s Razor hypothesis: it’s Darryl all the way. When that happened before, I asked users on RatWiki about it and there was much disruption, all unnecessary. (And those questions were used as evidence of my alleged “massive sock puppetry.”)

The behavior stands out clearly here.

An account, Verifier, appeared on RationalWiki, asking a user if a comment on Dr Kendrick’s blog, using the user’s name, was authentic.

Was this you?
Comment on Malcolm Kendrick’s blog by DuceMoosolini‎ March 14, 2019 at 6:27 pm. Verifier (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn’t. I have nothing to do with the cholesterol articles, and I’m not sure why someone picked me to impersonate. Especially since they don’t seem to have said anything under my name that I particularly take exception to that I can see. Weird. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It’s not weird, it is common behavior for certain trolls, has happened to many. If you want to know, I have enabled email. –Verifier (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to notify the commenters that it’s not DuceMoosolini, but stingy log-in and password is annoying like usual. Can someone else do it? –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did that at 21:39 (UTC). Notice that a sysop and a Moderator had seen the edit and were not concerned about the identity of the editor, and did it actually matter? DuceMoosolini had been impersonated!

Because I sometimes follow Recent Changes on RatWiki, and I was extending the page on comment trolling, I mentioned the answer of DM, at 21:33.

Darryl has shown many times that he obsessively watches everything I do, especially this blog. Verifier, with no other edits, was blocked by John66 (logs) at 22:00, 15 March 2019, claiming “Block evasion: Abd Lomax sock)”. Now, that might attract attention because there was no sign of that being me other than what Darryl would think, being obsessed, and some sysops have dinged John66 for being trigger-happy. No other Rat would have noticed that comment, and DuceMoosolini was not upset by it, just puzzled (as I would expect). If DM wanted to know who Verifier was, a way was provided.

So Darryl needed to create a smokescreen, something he has done many times. (I will provide documentation on request from any identified person — including any established RatWiki account –, it’s voluminous).

So after blocking Verifier, John66 explained on that talk page.

The impersonations are being done by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax or a troll related to him, probably Mikemikev. Lomax is a cholesterol and statin denialist who has written about a million words about me on his blog, accusing me of being someone else. It appears I am his latest victim. He has gone after David Gerard, Bongolian and now it is my turn. Lomax has been on the web for the last two weeks (on discord, reddit, Twitter and blogs) trying to stir up a flame war between vegans and low-carbers. The “verifier” account above is Lomax. John66 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(I have not edited Discord, Reddit, in quite a long time, never Twitter. I can see I will need to look at those. But, of course, John66 is claiming that many other names are actually me. At the same time, the socks claim I have no evidence (in spite of reams of evidence provided — but not “millions of words” — whereas John66 And The Socks provide no evidence at all. What is the evidence that Verifier was me?) Meanwhile, to pin the attack on Malcolm Kendrik, started on Wikipedia by Skeptic from Britain (documented on the page above this) continued with a device Darryl used to create belief that the attack was from fanatic Vegans. In that case, it was quite clever: SfB (under his new name) retired, claiming that he had been outed by Kendrick and others, so when I looked, I found single-comment socks claiming that SfB was a young man with initials MCE. So this was then pointed to as proof that it was correct. Those trolls claimed that MCE was a vegan. In fact, MCE was a Wikipedia user who had argued with SfB.

This was an old pattern for Darryl, create disruption and attack on his enemies, by using socks. He’s got years of practice at it. It has worked many times.

All the accounts listed below were created and immediately edited with blatant disruption, obvious trolling. They lie about what is on this blog, frequently (they may copy a piece, then add a twist. This was done before to spread the idea that I was threatening RatWiki with legal action, that I was accusing users of being Smith socks (when that is confined to a very clear and identified set of socks, rarely more than one active for each brother at a time, but Rats commonly claim I believe all of them are Smith socks. Isn’t he crazy? Hah, hah! Bottom line, this incredibly prolific socking has worked for Darryl many times. It is truly amazing how many wiki users have fallen for it. If a sock says “I am so-and-so, and you can’t stop me,” they believe it and So-and-so is then reblocked indef, pursued, hounded, not just by the original enemy that impersonated him, but others offended by the socking they think was So-and-so. I have seen it happen many times.

  • 22:38, 15 March 2019 User account Verifiers (talk | contribs) was created. Edits at 22:42
    • Blocked by John66 at 22:44: (Ban evasion: Another Abd Lomax sock)
    • Reblocked 22:46 by RWRW to allow talk page access, which would make sense, if this had been done for Verifier, but it was done with an obvious impersonation.
  • 22:53, 15 March 2019 User account Randoms (talk | contribs) was created. Edits at 22:56-57
    • Blocked by John66 at 22:59: (Block evasion: Abd sock)
  • 00:26, 16 March 2019 User account A random guy (talk | contribs) was created. Edits at 00:26-27
    • Dysklyver blocked at 0028: (Trolling talk pages)
  • 00:31, 16 March 2019 User account Journalist (talk | contribs) was created. Edits at 00:33
    • Dysklyver blocked at 00:34: (Trolling talk pages) sole edit 04:48, 16 March, asking the same question of Ikanreed. Claims to be Verifier. Blocked by John66 at 04:57 (Block evasion: Abd Lomax sock)

Of course it was an “obvious sock.” That was the point! (“Message” page titles are a common device for Darryl troll socks. I have never created a page like that. Interesting idea, given how deletions are normally handled. Unless it is revision-hid, the message will remain in logs. But when it is really disruptive, it will often be hidden.)

So who would be creating “obvious Abd socks?” Attention deficient Rats think that I would do this, because they have a cartoon concept of what the “cranks” they profile are like. However, I have over thirty years of high internet activity. They claim I have been banned in many places. Yet I have no history of sock trolling.  In fact, I have only rarely created undisclosed additional accounts (and nearly all of that on RationalWiki, where conditions encourage it, and essentially require it, and I have never used such accounts for trolling (I can think of one edit only, and it was quite useful! (There can be a legitimate purpose for creating an emotional response. It’s rare, but it can arise.) Mostly when I have been blocked or banned, (which is nowhere near as common as they claim), it has been for confronting fascist administration and abuse. (On Wikipedia, successfully! I was successful with two ArbCom cases. Then they shoot the messenger.)

Bongolian is complaining to the wrong person. Because it works, the real sock master will continue. I will create a message to Bongolian and will deliver it. It will not be hostile, and it will point to the evidence I have that shows clearly that Bongolian is not suspected of being a Smith or of comment trolling and that the many claims that I promote this idea on the blog are false. When I do this, I will (as I have before with something like this) verify that the message is from me).

If someone else doesn’t do it, and if I have time, I will inform people who have been impersonated of that fact, which transcends site rules, it’s a human collective responsibility, until and unless someone objects to being notified. Personally, I would want to know about every impersonation! With links, please!!!

What the evidence does show, so far, is that Bongolian (a moderator) believes the Smith lies (as do others, but not all Rats.) So much for rational skepticism and critical thinking. Apparently that’s only to be advocated for other people, not practiced personally or collectively on that wiki.

So John66 appears on Kendrick’s blog.


This is John66 from RationalWiki. Abd Lomax has been impersonating various RationalWiki admins from our website such as DuceMoosolini here. He then “blogs” on the impersonations blaming them on someone else, especially me. He was banned for impersonating people on Wikipedia and now he is doing it again.

How did the impersonation of DuceMoosolini come to light? Not just especially him, but probably entirely him, though it is still possible that some of these were the actual user. This one might be authentic, at least.

He has confused my identity with someone else innocent. I have never edited Wikipedia.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. The above statement is an obvious lie, from many evidences. This is Skeptic from Britain, nothing else makes sense. If anyone else wants to argue that it is not, I will host it and all the evidences can be examined.

I am not a vegan activist.

Right. Skeptic from Britain argued with “MCE” on Wikipedia, then troll socks appeared claiming that SfB was MCE, a vegan activist hating low-carb diets, and then SfB retired, claiming he had been outed. So people were up in arms about MCE until I investigated, recognized Darryl Smith, compared the edit record of the previous Darryl Smith accounts, with Skeptic from Britain and John66, and then corrected the allegations against MCE. He thanked me. He is not a vegan, but had been. His Instagram pages had been outed. Darryl is vicious.

It seems I cannot go a single day now editing RationalWiki without Abd writing thousands of words about every edit I make on his blog, this is not normal behavior. The whole thing is creeping me out. Other admins from RationalWiki have also received much harassment from Abd.

I have harassed nobody on this blog. Accurately documenting what someone has done is not harassment. Consider the article on me on RatWiki. That was written by Darryl, as fulfillment on a threat that if I did not stop documenting the highly disruptive activities of a set of socks — impersonations and single-purpose attack accounts that I connected with the blocked Anglo Pyramidologist sock family, he would make me regret it, all my work would be deleted, etc.

Abd Lomax was banned from RationalWiki and Wikipedia for these sort of issues in the past.

No. That’s highly misleading, continuing the defamation that he put in his article on me. The harassment and massive impersonation socking and high disruption were all Darryl, and always blamed on someone else, such as me, Mikemikev, or before that, Rome Viharo — and many others. There is nothing remotely like this in my past. I have never been banned for impersonations, though a Smith at one point claimed that JzG (Guy Chapman, Wikipedia admin) claimed I was known for it. No examples, no evidence, and while JzG has lied about me, I never saw this one.

Those massive impersonation and attack accounts were linked by steward checkuser, and the trail led to RatWiki, because he’d made some mistakes. This guy has done enormous damage.

If you see any other comments from Lomax on RationalWiki please ignore them or do not publish them. He is trying to start a flame war between people on here and RationalWiki. I have nothing personal against anyone on here, nor does anyone from our website. I do not want to be involved in his petty internet feuds.

Regards. John66

I document what I see, making it accessible to others, and as a journalist, I can go undercover, pretending to be someone else, as is common in journalism, for limited purpose, but socking to create disruption would be completely outside that remit, and lying to defame is utterly beyond the pale, I would be betraying everything I stand for. It is to be condemned even if the cause is supposedly good.

John66 has blocked, claiming they are me, many accounts that are not me, without necessity, and that is getting “involved.” But others have done that and have only received a name mention with mention of the block, because they are not responsible, and all those were blatantly disruptive and they have been mislead by a long series of Darryl Smith socks. If accounts are disruptive, they can be blocked, and it is not necessary to name the alleged sock master. But these accounts actually claim, often, to be me, or use names associated with me. I would, for example, never use a sock name related to cold fusion on RatWiki.

Darryl has used my street address as a sock name, telegraphing that he knew where I lived. My children have received harassing email, insinuating that I’m a pedophile. Other people have been harassed like this by the Smith brothers, a woman lost her job because her son had a blog that exposed Darryl’s brother. Darryl mostly stayed hidden, whereas his brother Oliver was much more visible. But Darryl has also claimed to be paid to write “debunking” material. It was Darryl who created the impersonation socks that created an attack on an enemy on Wikipedia.

Years ago, I was a moderator on the usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam. I have very rarely called people “liars,” someone is not a liar merely because they are wrong, but there was an author who pretended to be a follower of Rashad Khalifa, who then made many claims that, in some areas of the planet where fanaticism is common, could get someone killed, and he was pretending these things in order to defame those people. So I called him a liar.

I knew Khalifa, and uncovered and documented his errors, and there are followers of me who have hated me for that, (which is how I knew that these claims were not authentic) but impersonation to defame is about as bad as it gets, beyond actually torturing and killing people, and it can cause very serious harm. There is no excuse for it.

Verifier also posted this, it appears, on that DuceMoosolini talk page:

Seems someone doesn’t want comments verified. I do know why this is done, it has a rational purpose within the mind of a maniac. As I wrote, I enabled email so you could ask if you want. Anyone could. Otherwise, thanks anyway for answering. (The flood of socks using imitation names, like “Verifiers,” were not me.) Verifier (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been more RatWiki account names that have appeared on Kendrick’s blog, I think, but I’m only one person, whereas Darryl is hundreds. Or so it seems. (actually, part of how I link the accounts is by looking at edit timing. The more active users are, the easier it is to distinguish between a single user and multiple users.


Above, I quoted John66 and mentioned twitter.

Lomax has been on the web for the last two weeks (on discord, reddit, Twitter and blogs) trying to stir up a flame war between vegans and low-carbers. The “verifier” account above is Lomax. John66 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(I have not edited Discord, Reddit, in quite a long time, never Twitter. I can see I will need to look at those. … [posted 17 Mar @ 23:02].

I have never “tried to stir up a flame war between vegans and low-carbers,” the opposite. There were a series of socks that did that, and they targeted a particular vegan, who had criticized Skeptic from Britain and who was then “outed” as him by socks, and then SfB “retired,” claiming he had been outed, which was then shown as “proof” that this vegan was SfB, all being one more example of Smith using deception to attack enemies. And then above, he claimed that I was those troll socks.

At that point, I had no memory of sending any tweets, and certainly not in the last two weeks! My memory often fails with what is further in the past. So I said I would “look” and I probably did. In any case, Smith will seize on any possible misstatement, even if the error is meaningless in context. So this twitter issue has been mentioned by recent trollsocks, but I did not understand the reference. Today, I noticed that a message was sent to me on reddit weeks ago:

Are You Senile Or A Compulsive Liar?
GlassMI April 6 22:47 UTC

You recently said you’ve never posted on Twitter, yet you have made tweets there. Your earlier tweets were made in January 3 months before you just outright lied in your blog post.

It may be the case you don’t know the difference between lies and truth given how you compulsively lie all the time

At the time, I did not remember that I had a Twitter account and had used it. However, the substance was that I had not been active on Twitter in the period claimed. GlassMI is a classic trollsock, a throwaway account, no other history (this was a private message, so there is nothing in the profile as I write this), and obviously trolling. The goal of a troll is to enrage. (Sending someone a message “you liar” is never constructive.) It doesn’t work, but this troll does not notice, so wrapped up his he in his own nightmare universe. My trust is in reality itself, not in myself or anything else.

The verifiable reality:

There were four tweets, the only ones on record before my claim, all on January 21. I forgot that I had done that. The tweets were

  • Not in the two weeks preceding John66’s claim, but almost two months before.
  • In content, directly contradictory to what John66 claimed, I claimed that vegans were not involved in the fracas with the low carb community — that Skeptic from Britain had created, and John66 continued on RatWiki.

I tweeted again on March 19, and again on April 2, all in the same line, not doing what John66 claimed, but this was after the mention.

Given what had happened before with Skeptic from Britain, it is likely that troll socks were being created. Finding these can be difficult, but recent intense Reddit activity is revealing many of them. I will compile a page with them. There was previous documentation of comment trolling on the page supra, and the present page was about verification that a comment was an impersonation. This is all Smith sockery, oft-repeated, oft-denied, but very obvious. Could this be Mikemikev?

Well, I don’t say “impossible,” but why would Mikemikev create socks to pursue Smith agendas, in a place where only minor consequence, if any, would fall on the Smiths, and where they could easily negate that impact, by countering the propaganda?

Of course, in fact, what the socks are putting up are what they say when they are clearly themselves, so would it actually matter if the socks were not actually Smith?

Only if the socks add something that creates a twist, like taking something I have written on my blog, and adding a threat to it, or spamming with it on RatWiki, which they have done. Or, heh! Mike has done if they are not outright lying.

But why would Mike do that? He has never treated me as an enemy. And what I know about the Smiths does not depend on him. He knows he can send me an email and I will read it, and check out what he claims, that’s about it. We have the testimony of the Smiths that the offensive mail sent to Dysklyver was Mikemikev. Maybe I’ll ask him. If I get around to it, because Mikemikev is doing nothing like the damage that the Smiths have done and continue.

An email can be spoofed, one has not verified an email until there has been a handshake. So merely because a mail comes from a known address is not, in itself, a proof of identity. Sometimes headers will show more clues. I assume that Dykslyver knows all this.

Oliver desperate

The chickens come home to roost. After writing many times that he was not active on RationalWiki any more, he created yet another account, which is now news on the level of “Pope Catholic!”

I had identified this account as Oliver from pattern and interests. It was obvious, Oliver most commonly uses account names from his interests in classics.


Yesterday (2/7/2019), he filed a series of deletion requests. He also listed on his user page, articles he had created (and articles he claimed were created by others). Here I will look at his claims and behavior, and why the deletion requests would predictably fail in most cases. From his user page (before the removal of one page, indicated in red)

Clarification of some articles I created on this wiki:

Articles I didn’t create but I’m wrongly said to have created by OpenPsych and/or Mikemikev:

Below, I went over each of these articles.

On 7 Feb 2018 I submitted most of the above for deletion requests, and to merge them to London Conference on Intelligence or OpenPsych.

He did. But by not disclosing in those requests his identity and his motivations for creating the articles, he practically guaranteed that the request would fail. He and his brother have done this before. They create massive deception, people believe it. Well-known, people do not like to admit that they were fooled. So all the highly negative impressions created by cherry-picked and misleading evidence, stand, unless the one who created them owns up to the deception and apologizes. Then they might look again. It’s work to clean up a mess like the Smiths have created.

To correct some further misinformation spread by OpenPsych about me concerning RationalWiki:

  • User:Skeptical isn’t me. (US spelling; I spell sceptical differently, also this user created articles I know nothing about and has some user-boxes I don’t agree with.)

Oh, that’s funny! Oliver can say he isn’t Skeptical, but the evidence is fairly strong. Not “proof.” The spelling thing, though, is highly misleading. “Skeptical” is indeed U.S. spelling but British skeptics commonly use Skeptic for the affiliation. I’ve been through this before:  See skeptic-in-user-name/

In particular, as we can see in the lists of articles below, Oliver admitted being SkepticDave. Which demonstrates conclusively that his name-spelling argument is just plain deception.

Yet, with a name like that, one might be excused for thinking that it is one who has created hundreds of socks, at least. From contributions, it remains possible. Oliver has lied so many times and in so many ways, his testimony is meaningless. I will be developing deeper data analysis and I may be able to distinguish accounts, but accounts with only a few edits can be difficult. Basically, so what?

Despite pointing out for years neither of these accounts are mine, OpenPsych still falsely claim they are.

Claims of account identity are generally based on suspicion, and suspicion is not false, particularly given how much of what they suspected turns out to be true. One of the harms done by Smith behavior is that innocent users may be suspected, though in this case, if the behavior is similar, the problem is? As to illegal defamation, which is where it could matter, Oliver has done so much, so well proven, unmistakeable, that whether or not an account with a few edits is actually him or not is of little consequence. Overall, his activity inspired imitation, by both possible friends and enemies. He’s responsible for the consequences of what he did, and being “falsely accused” of behavior by another, that he also engaged in is trivial.

I will look at each of these claims.

Nearly all of these accounts were previously suspected, many with high probability. It is possible that one or even more of the “also edited by” accounts  are not Oliver. I.e., Nissan was an SPA and showed some signs of not being Oliver to this observer. However, he was suspected. Oliver has lied over and over and when he reveals truth he often mixes it with deception. The real problem here is RationalWiki, which by site traditions, leans toward snark and defamation of anything they don’t like, and that opens them to abuse by a troll like Oliver Smith, who, with his brother, Darryl L. Smith, have used RatWiki for that purpose, even when they often claim they don’t agree with site politics.

For years, targets would come to RationalWiki, believing that surely the community would fix problems. They were harassed and blocked and impersonated. If they mentioned who was doing this, when it became obvious to them, they were banned for “doxxing,” but they were freely doxxed by the Smiths, with impunity. RationalWiki is an “attractive nuisance.”

Lists of sock accounts in various locations often don’t discriminate between Oliver and Darryl, and there has been some crossover, i.e., Darryl editing articles of interest to Oliver and vice-versa, increasing confusion. If the transient impersonation and trolling socks are included, they have, together, created thousands of accounts. And then they will complain that some accounts have been incorrectly identified. That can happen when you become known for being a mass creator of sock puppets.

Last year, I suggested to Oliver that if he wanted to clean this up — he was complaining about being blamed for his brother’s disruption — come clean. Disclose everything he knows about his own activity and that of his brother. He chose otherwise. He is clearly under pressure now, because some of what he has done is quite clearly legally actionable, but his efforts to delete, now, will fail. Why? Partly because he has not come clean about what he was doing. He gives weak reasons for deleting the articles, compared to “the whole thing was harassment.” And harassment is what he did, over and over, his brother as well.

So let’s see what else he claims:

    • Richard Haier (created by unknown SPA with one edit) I would assign a reasonable probability this is Oliver. The article was a single edit of an SPA, Kfotfo , yes, but it was well-formed, showing high experience with RationalWiki and reflecting Oliver POV. Certainly it is understandable why Oliver would be suspected. The article was edited by Octo (Oliver) a few days after WikiWomble, who could also be suspected of being Oliver (but probably not), and also touched by CBH.
    • Richard Lynn (created by another sysop, Jinx) I have generally concluded that Jinx is not Oliver. He revealed his real name at one point, which doesn’t matter here. He has some similar interests, but is not as toxic. This article was edited by EvilGremlin (Oliver).
    • Intelligence (journal) (created by another sysop, Jinx) the collapse of possible fringe science into pseudoscience is a general RationalWiki trope. Intelligence is an Elsevier journal and mainstream. Not Oliver.
    • Mankind Quarterly (created by another sysop, FuzzyCatPotato). Yes. However, many edits by Gelzer and Octo.
    • Davide Piffer (created by Mikemikev to blame on me, also note extensive Mikemikev impersonations/trolling on talk page) Created by Gelzer, who certainly looks like Oliver, so if this was impersonation, it was skillful. Also edited by Skeptical, ColonelKurtz, and various trolls. Gelzer also  created and was blocked for a series of trolling accounts like I have seen from Darryl. Only these were attacking Mikemikev. They appear to be a response to similar trolling by IP attacking Oliver. Perhaps Oliver has forgotten what happened, or if Gelzer was his brother, he didn’t figure that out. Skeptical was active at the same time. See the deletion log.  Skeptical deleted revisions calling him Oliver and retired. Why? Obvious. Because he was Oliver. Less likely, his brother. I went back and forth on that for a time, but have concluded that Skeptical was indeed Oliver. His interests were Oliver interests, clearly, with a little crossover.
    • Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær (created by Mikemikev to blame on me; Mikemikev was blocked as article creator) Actually, no, not for that reason. The creator was Schizophreniac, who had an edit August 9, 2018, to an article of Oliver interest.  The creation of the page was revision-hidden by Aeschylus, very odd. See Aeschylus logs. Very busy with Oliver Smith agenda. However, Schizophreniac also created an article, which Oliver (Aeschylus) just salted to prevent creation, Oliver Smith. He was blockef for that, not for creating the  Bjerrekær article. The Oliver Smith article does not reveal anything new about Oliver, and seems like what Oliver might write as pseudo-criticism of himself. The creation of an article like that, on some blog or internet figure, is routine for RationalWiki. So why was this so important that David Gerard personally blocked Schizophreniac as a rare action by him? I’ve seen plenty of material apparently written by Mikemikev about Oliver. This did not look like it. What I’ve seen is evidence that Gerard has been protecting Smith, as some Smith socks have been protected on Wikipedia. Attack dogs. This is more or less the Rome Viharo theory. It’s plausible.
  • Robert Plomin (created by unknown troll, whose edits I mostly got reverted) Maybe.  Created by Jean_Lusaz. Lusaz’s edits seem fairly ordinary for RatWiki. His article on Brain size is almost untouched. However Lusaz created Kathryn Paige Harden, rather promptly deleted. It was indeed pretty vicious, like many Smith articles, see the Talk page.  Chicken coop? Yes, here. Immediately reverted, but then acted upon. RatWiki is downright weird. Was Oliver Concerned? Could be. That would explain the comment about getting the Lusaz edits reverted. The content of User:Concerned was “The hereditarianism and related articles are being destroyed by CBH (aka Jean Lusaz).” Both are Ratwiki user names, which would not be doxxing, but it was deleted as such. This edit of Concerned was bragging about a RatWiki article hitting the news, which Oliver has done before, and it was his article on Noah Carl. He similarly promoted the Emil Kirkegaard article to the media.
  • Eric Turkheimer (created by unknown troll and after I complained – the article was rewritten since it read as a parody…) Created by CBH, attacked by Concerned. Certainly could be Oliver. I’d guess not, but I keep looking. Often evidence appears later. I don’t see where Oliver complained. As whom?

Why is Oliver revealing his accounts and requesting article deletions? There is an obvious possible cause: legal heat. Yet without revealing the full story, he will not protect himself, it is going to be difficult even if he does tell the truth. Spend years attacking people, harassing them, defaming them, cleaning it up is not a matter of a few minutes editing.


Oliver Smith wrote a biography on himself, describing himself the way he wants to be described. It was deleted as harassment. Then, as Aeschylus, he salted the page, protecting it as deleted. Of course, any sysop, realizing that Oliver is much more widely known in the internet than most the subjects of the hit pieces he created, could recreate the article and add to it the usual snark.

Aeschylus (Oliver D. Smith) has been desysopped and indef blocked on RationalWiki by Dysklyver.  Whenever anyone touches a Smith account, I suspect it could be a Smith brother, at least I look. (And Smith accounts have blocked Smith accounts.) Smith brother accounts are normally easy to spot. Dysklyver is not a Smith brother; if he is, it would represent an extraordinary efort, very, very unlikely. I have techniques for comparing accounts. Dysklyver is a known Wikipedian, banned and globally locked, which is not a criticism. After all . . . .

Oliver wrote an article about himself. A copy can be found at

Just to put this somewhere, Dysklyver is openly Arthur Kerensa, see Steward lock requests. His formal Wikipedia ban. He claims to be a lawyer, and what he did with Aeschylus would match that. However, he did not warn Aeschylus that continued socking could be a problem, and the fact was that a sock immediately appeared, Roberts (attacking a user who commented based on information that probably came from this blog, being obviously Oliver).  The block reason:

21:08, 12 February 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) blocked Roberts (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages: Probably Mike)

That’s totally preposterous! Anyone who knows Oliver’s habits and history — and with a little knowledge of Mikemikev — would know this was not Mike, unless he was doing long-term, very sophisticated impersonation, and if so, why would he waste the account just to attack that user? It makes no sense at all, whereas Roberts wrote exactly like Oliver Smith has been writing for years.

Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Dramatica, dealing with another avalanche of vandalism based on a scene that is connected with Oliver Smith, but I never figured out how, the Donny Long mess, has been set to disallow new accounts for some time. But that didn’t stop Oliver.


How did he do it? Easily. He has sleepers. This one registered 7 January and made several edits the next day, then no more until the 13th February.  The blocking admin, I noticed before, blocks him but leaves his edits in place. So what Oliver did was to ask for pages to be deleted, but while waiting, to add more defamation. Does he actually think this will do him any good? The additions show his intention is still to defame, and he knows the removals won’t happen. The same happened on RationalWiki, with Aeschylus and Roberts.


Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/oliver-d-smith-evidence/

(Oliver responded in detail to this page, reported and studied below.)

On Encyclopedia Dramatica recently, Oliver Smith has been complaining about being called a former fascist or racist. He has acknowledged that he was Atlantid on Metapedia. What does the record show? It is long, over 2000 edits (and at one point he claimed he had 10,000 edits. That might be true, because many pages may have been deleted). But I will see what I can find.

10:45, 30 November 2018 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) secretly changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Douglas Weller: content hidden, edit summary hidden, username hidden and applied restrictions to sysops (To prevent access)

Confirming this, there is a suppressed contribution for Boglin, suppressed at that time. So the record shows for any sysop at RW that this was Boglin, who is obviously Oliver.

Thanks for the tip! Someone is protecting Oliver, and recently. Dysklyver was made a tech three days before.  This is the Talk page, archived. On that Talk page, at least two Smith brother accounts show up, DinoCrisis (Darryl) and Boglin  (Really Obvious Oliver). The Talk page was deleted by David Gerard, 12 July 2017. Why the suppression in 2018? All it would show would be Oliver’s opinions apparent race-realist opinions about Weller. While there is a difference between that and racism, Oliver generally claims it’s meaningless.

From Douglas Weller himself on Wikipedia. Clearly identifies the troll as Bookworm44, i.e,. Anglo Pyramidologist. That actually looks more like Darryl. I’ll keep that in mind. It’s a set of accounts I had not linked before. Back to Metapedia.

  • Norse_mythology
  • Huns
  • Anglo-Saxons
  • Celts
  • Picts this might be a racialist addition, removed later. Used white as an description of a people.
  • Alexander_the_Great about hair color
  • Germanic_peoples 1/2013, added section on Racial type,  replaced 10/2013 with “Physical appearance.
  • Race_realism  by 4/2013, removed more blatant previous racism, added much racialism, treats “race denialism” as the view “today” of “race realists,” ‘those apolitical scientists and laymen not influenced by political correctness,” and refers to the denialist arguments as “pseudo-anthropological,” and he claims that “Race realism is apolitical and objective, and should not be confused with race-based political movements or racial supremacist ideologies.” Removed the blatant racialism 11/2013.
  • Scythians used”Race” and left it in October, 2013.
  • Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:

Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].

Conclusion so far: By August 30, 2012, Oliver was certainly “racialist,” but that can be an excuse for racism. From the above, it becomes obvious why it would be claimed that Oliver was racist. The issue with Douglas Weller (articles on Weller appeared on Metapedia, RationalWiki, and Encyclopedia Dramatica), shows how he took his attack on a user cross-wiki, how he induced local admins to enforce his personal vendetta, all of which he repeated later. Later, he added more material justifying racialism, November, 2013, the same kind of arguments he later attacked when they were associated with Emil Kirkegaard and others.

(It is not my purpose here to take a position on racialism, though over fifteen years ago I argued on-line that race was not a biological reality. At the time, a common response was “What? Are you blind?” I have an Asian daughter (probably Han Chinese) and an African daughter (Ethiopian, Kambata tribal region) and have seen subtle racism popping up in surprising places, as well as more “normal” ones. I’m not surprised to see a Nazi skinhead with racist ideas, but how about the director of a preschool, academically run by a university, who would be horrified to realize that she was racist, so she didn’t. But she was, it was completely obvious. We took our daughter to a different school where there were no problems.)

  • Roger_Pearson (April 2013) Oliver explores and expresses Pearson’s ideas and seems sympathetic to him in comparison to attacks on his work.  “Roger Pearson (b. 1927) is a British anthropologist, traditional hereditarian, eugenicist and race realist.” Later, in going after Kirkegaard and the London Conference on Intelligence, those terms become derisive and pejorative epithets.
  • Carleton_Coon by October, 2013, Oliver removed the more extreme racist commentary, replacing it with race realism and objection to “political correctness.”
  • Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”

This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.

  • British_National_Party  removed references, 24 August 2013, to racist nationalism (party organized an anti-Muslim, “rights for whites” march).
  • National_Front “white nationalism.”
  • The_Apricity Oliver’s scandal-seeking opinions show. He removed some.
  • Patria “ethnonationalist” splinter from BNP
  • African_Americans  Racist, 17 February 2013.
  • India
  • Boasian_anthropology quoting racist Oliver
    • The Boasians taught race egalitarianism, and although they didn’t outright deny the existence of races, they downplayed their biological basis (although Montagu later went on to deny them). According to Boas, environment is the deciding factor in understanding racial and cultural difference. In Boasian pseudo-anthropology, unlike real (or traditional) anthropology, racial research is essentially irrelevant because racial differences are considered to be trivial. Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. This inter-ethic in intra-ethnic conflict was commonly ascribed to European colonial oppression and interference. Lax sexual mores and loose pair bonding and are of significant importance in Boasian theories; European societies have traditionally been in strict opposition to such practices. Boasian pseudo-anthropology also comes to the conclusion that Western peoples must learn and adapt to these non-European values and structures.
    • (Struck above because Oliver had not written that, but merely used it from the prior version. He did add a section emphasizing Jewish involvement in Boasian anthropology, using the Star of David template with each alleged Jew mentioned.)
  • Donald_A._Swan “racialist anthropologist.” Some would simply say “fascist Nazi.” Wikipedia. And, of course, if he were not a racialist, he’d be called a “pseudo-anthropologist.” I will move to looking at early Oliver editing on RationalWiki.
  • The_Mankind_Quarterly defends the journal, 12 March, 2013. This is ironic because when, five years later, when “published in Mankind Quarterly” was being used as a code phrase for “racist fascist eugenicist,” by Oliver, I wrote that the journal was a peer-reviewed academic journal, as did Oliver, and which it is and was, which is quite distinct from a possible bias that may or may not reflect all papers. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.
  • Robert_E._Kuttner
  • Gypsies Oliver reverted an anti-racist comment, blocks the user with no discussion. The block reason:  (Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions)

Oliver was not only racialist, he was racist, and he was not only hereditarian, he was ignorant about intelligence. “IQ”is a score on a standardized test. Besides the possible effect of culture on test design and performance, it is obvious that if one is subjected to a toxic environment as a child, it could affect cognitive and learning ability. This is is not “liberal nonsense,” and pointing this out is not a product of political correctness, it’s simple common sense.

That was fascist administration.

  • Wesley_Critz_George whitewashes the Wikipedia article. Racist.
  • John_Baker Racialist at best, September 2013.  The Wikipedia article.
  • Ruth_Benedict very important to point out that she was a ” lesbian Jewish Boasian cultural anthropologist.” He forgot to write “pseudo.”. That was fixed in 2017. Metapedia is so charming.  Wikipedia
  • RationalWiki 2 February 2013. Attacks the RW point of view. Easy enough, but he uses RW type reasoning and argument, makes the standard pseudoscientific “unnatural” argument against homosexuality. Last edit of Boglin on RW was racist, (Torch would be Darryl).
  • Conservapedia Oliver inserted this, 2 February 2013:
    • Strangely despite claiming to oppose macro-evolution, Conservapedia embraces it to explain the physical variation in humans. Since they maintain everyone today descends from Noah’s children from the ark, roughly 4,000 years ago, Conservapedia maintains there were massive mutations in a short space of time to account for such physical diversity we observe today from Noah’s family. For example, they maintain Capoid, Negroid and Mongoloid phenotypes all suddenly morphed from Noah’s son’s in a few hundred years. In reality, Genesis does not explain the origin of these other races, since the authors had no contact with them. Thus, having analysed the Table of Nations, Professor William F. Albright came to the conclusion: “All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called White or Caucasian race”.
  • British_Israelism
  • Race_and_penis_size Yes, Oliver actually created this article. Nothing terribly objectionable in it, but it seems that it was not appreciated, it has been redirected to a single sentence in another article.
  • Ireneusz_Michalski anthropologist who used racial types.
  • Andrzej_Wiercinski “typologist” who “published racial typological and anthropometric papers through to the late 1980’s.”
  • Forumbiodiversity
  • Charles_Galton_Darwin stub left out the juicy bits. EUGENICS! ZOMG!
  • Carleton_Putnam “race realist” Never mind the blatant racism. Wikipedia.
  • Charles_B._Davenport, “race realist” stub.  see Wikipedia.
  • Metapedia:Featured_article_nominations gives Oliver’s views on race denialism as of March 2013.
  • Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party — Oliver was definitely not antifascist. If it might reduce the BNP vote, this is a serious problem. No giggling allowed, or aloud, whatever.
  • Nordicism reveals obsession as of 28 April with on-line forums. Later, by 20 October 2013, removed.
  • Mediterraneanism Oliver was obsessed with Anthroscape. See the RationalWiki sock drawer. Talk page deleted 31 October 2017, by Skeptical (Oliver), reason given (removing a whole page of doxing (enclopedia dramatica links etc) Talk was archived 26 Jun 2016, nothing was lost.  CharlieBass would be Oliver. Dust77 was Oliver, who placed the ED link to attack Mikemikev. In 2015, as Dust77, Oliver explained his change in beliefs, having been a Metapedia sysop. It all matches. Schizophrenic also commented. It was Oliver, all the way down. The Talk page was archived, nothing was lost.

I looked at every Metapedia page that was edited before the middle of April, 2013, and I’m now skimming. If I miss something important, Oliver can tell me! (or anyone can)! (Many talk pages seem to have been deleted by Der Metapedia Fuehrer, so some might be archived, they can be more difficult to find.)

  • Australoids pseudoscience abounds in Oliver’s work in July, 2013. 12 November, 2013, Oliver removed some material (not particularly controversial), two weeks later, Mikemikev restored all of it.
  • Ashley_Montagu this is one of the most outrageous examples of the yellow journalistic style that Oliver developed further on Rationalwiki. He was writing exactly what racists would want to see. See the Wikipedia article.

Around 9 September, Oliver begins removing material, it stands out in his Contributions, from the red text showing removed content. This would be expected to attract the attention of other administrators. So I looked at User talk:Atlantid. He deleted his user talk page. (On RationalWiki, they would generally restore the page and desysop the user. There are good reasons for those traditions.)

There is a note added to the user page later that refers to a LANCB message on the Community Portal, which has been deleted. Incompetent wiki administration does not trust the public. . . .

In any case, it is on

Dear Metapedia

I’ve renounced most my former views, and no longer support the aims of the Metapedia project. For this reason I request my account to be permanently blocked. Since I extensively read and process information quickly, my position on race has changed. However, it was constantly being re-defined or shifting over the last year or more. There are legitimate (scientific) arguments against biological races. The online “race realist” faction do not adress these and just employ the political correctness card, or “you’re a Jew” instead of adressing any of the arguments, this is demonstrated here: [8] and on many other pages. These same online “race realists” also use outdated sources, holding typological or essentialist views, which have been discredited. I know all these well, since I uploaded most of the sources, e.g. Typology and was once a proponent of them. In fact most online content of this nature is mine, or links back to me [even the material on Anthrocape where ironically I am attacked]. All of the following individual entries I added: Anthropologists (race). Note that the literature in their bibliographies (as listed on each entry) I have read, have (formerly) owned, or have been uploading a while back. Increasingly however i’ve read the “other side” of the debate (Livingstone, 1962; Brace, 2005; Glasgow, 2009 etc), and have managed to see how pseudo-scientific must stuff written about race by men like Coon, John Baker or Rushton and the valid arguments against it [race] not existing biologically etc. This has nothing to do with political correctness. I don’t believe I can be tagged in though with race skeptics, since there may be a viable third position: races exist, but not how we percieve them (therefore “whites” etc don’t exist, again I have literature on this stance). I started developing this as my most recent posts show (Andreasen etc) and I wrote an entire book on the ecological race concept which does not mirror folk races/taxonomies. These concepts however also have flaws. Race however is no longer a topic I wish to waste time with, and racism is something I have come to completely reject e.g. race and IQ, or the idea of racial superiority [its all junk science]. Fixation with race has also deteriorated my mental health, since I suffer from various disorders, and it is something I am no longer wasting time with. With that said, my account can now be blocked. Whether you want to remove my edits is up to you, I had around 10,000. Most are still useful edits, where I have uploaded bibliographies. Atlantid 17:53, 4 December 2013 (CET)

Nonsense still

I left this site, however strangely I see today my account is unblocked. I requested it to be perm blocked as I no longer support the aims or views of Metapedia as above clarified. I also see Mikemikev and Thjassisdottir (“Faintsmile1992”) are still posting libel or emailing about me from Anthroscape or elsewhere, even going as far as having created a thread about me and posting on it for several days. The claim I have involvement in the Mikemikev entries or discussion at rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica are lies, I do not. I’m not on any sites and have no interest in either of those individuals. Its seriously pathetic that there are certain people still stirring hostilities up. Anyone posing as me on such websites, are not. The last thing I would do is waste more time with this. Atlantid 21:49, 5 December 2013 (CET)

He was lying about not being involved on other sites. Maybe he had that idea that day or even that week, but long-term, he’s been very, very involved, especially on RatWiki and Dramatica.

There are references to a conflict between Oliver and Mikemikev. I have yet to see much directly on that, but this is on User talk:Mikemikev.


I’m not on rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica and have no interest in you or Faintsmile1992, therefore I don’t know why you are creating threads about me on other sites. If someone is pretending to be me, then ignore them. Our debate on population genetics was settled, and I’ve left Metapedia having renounced my views (I requested for my ban, but oddly I was unblocked, but you or another can perm block me now). I don’t want to waste any more time with this. The faheem account was hacked at Egyptsearch. I’ve left this site and all others, but there seem to be a whole crowd of people elsewhere now reporting our behavior and stirring things up. I have no intention or involvement in this and am trying to move on. Atlantid 01:29, 6 December 2013 (CET)

Yes Mike I also suffer from schizophrenia. I am now bettering my health,renouncing my former views and association with Metapedia, this is my final message here. I’ve blocked my own account and changed the pass,so i won’t be able to log back in. Atlantid 03:08, 6 December 2013 (CET)
Oops I forgot I lost my admin rights, I cannot block myself. You can block me though asap. I’ve changed my pass though and cannot log back on.

I have seen claims that the schizophrenia story was from an impersonation. I don’t think so. What actually happened on Metapedia? It looks like the pages where Stuff might have Happened have been deleted. But the basic story, the reason for my doing this research in the first place, has been satisfied. I will now use this page for reference.


Got him.

We now know how to reduce Oliver Smith to a gibbering pile. Do unto him what he does routinely to others, interpret what he wrote 6 years ago, in a way that he detests. In fact, I did less, above, than what he has routinely done with Emil Kirkegaard or myself, for that matter.

In any case, I afford anyone described here a right of reply, and since this is a page, nobody needs to read this unless they choose to (which was also true of the entire page above), I will copy his entire response below. Take it away, Oliver:

From Encyclopedia Dramatica. Warning: much of that site is NSFW, and it is a parody site, run by lulzheads, like RationalWiki, only with less pretense at being “rational.” Much less.


(He was pissed! Wanna see fireworks? Poke a pompous fascist. Warning: collateral damage is possible.)

Questions are to be answered: No, I won’t ever stop, beyond death, by the sword or otherwise. Just the way things are, until the lies stop and the planet is safe, the universe is safe. That’s a vow taken long, long ago.

His last edit was responding to Yellowbird warning me to stop. Stop exactly what was unclear, but I have decades of on-line experience. When an admin says “STOP,” with a big red sign, stop everything and proceed with caution. I had just called the admin, Yellowbird, a “wikidimwit,” in keeping with ED traditions.  I now apologize for that, he actually responded just about perfectly. He warned me, strongly, and then included Oliver in it, and Oliver responded in a way that I have seen trolls respond in the past. They don’t care about being blocked, they expect it, and if they can get their target blocked, they have accomplished their goal and can then use that fact against the target elsewhere. It’s an old play from the playbook, and some admins fall for it. Especially if they were inclined to block the target already.

(i am playing a very different game. For one thing, except for very unusual conditions, I don’t sock. If a site doesn’t want me posting or editing, to the extent of blocking me, I stop, with little fuss. Warning is generally enough. If I do “block-evade,” normally I disclose who I am except under even rarer conditions. I’m responsible for what I do, whether it has my name on it or not. So is Oliver, but he pretends otherwise.)

This means you too, diebythesword. Yellowbird (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

– Hi, I would appreciate if you could just indef-ban Abd Lomax’s account and also ban my latest now. He’s only using ED to spread lies about me.Diebythesword

Oliver is asking to be “banned.” He’s highly experienced, knows the difference between a block and a ban. In any case, he previously responded in detail to the documentation above, which is useful. (Yellowbird blanked it, blocking him with “23:43, 29 January 2019 Yellowbird blocked Diebythesword with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Butthurt revisionism)”

I’m not planning on testing Yellowbird without getting permission first, and even that I won’t do without a hefty pause.

Using ED to “spread lies,” is what Oliver has been doing for years, on many pages, about many people, whoever become his targets. The talk page for the article he created there on me is full of them, willful, deliberate lies, obvious, easy to see. (And then he excuses blatant as for the lulz, but doesn’t do that in situ, but elsewhere when he is confronted. He does not clean up the messes he makes.) So here is his response.

Lomax is lying about my Metapedia edits, what a surprise

Too bad for Lolcow-Lomax-Liar, there are archives of my old papers on race, roughly from the period I was still editing Metapedia. They easily disprove his trolling, lies and distortions about my Metapedia edits, that seems to consist of cherrypicking comments, taking them wildly out of context, while also erroneously claiming I wrote some things I never did to smear me as a “fascist” or “Nazi” (insane):

I will be looking for any misquotations, and I was aware that what he wrote in articles might be quotations from others instead of his own opinions, so I was careful about that. Further, I was not attempting to prove that he was racist or fascist, my goal was to discover (and I did actually look for contrary evidence and reported evidence for his change of mind — which is what he explicitly claimed on Metapedia when he retired — but rather how those edits would “appear.” I am not exactly a mind-reader but he remains responsible for not only what he intended, but how it appeared. A person who has private definitions may claim he was not lying, but remains responsible for any intention to deceive, or even careless appearance uncorrected. “I did not have sex with that woman” was said under oath = hot water, even for a President. Even if he had a special definition of sex (which I know, having heard thousands of sex addicts talk about themselves). They were indeed “cherry-picked,” i.e., remarkable  statements, out of thousands of edits standing. Nevertheless, they show some consistencies. I will especially be looking for examples of errors, which will promptly be corrected, unconditionally.

And he’s insane. That’s not a “fact,” it’s a judgment. Nobody else cares what he thought or believed six years ago, except that when people have pointed to his former affiliations, he has called them “liars.” He has also claimed, generally without evidence, that he was impersonated. Notice that, so far, he has not claimed that any of what I cited was impersonation. It’s extremely unlikely that it was, and he has had years to point out any standing impersonations.

There may have been (I think I have seen) comments that were even more outrageous than anything I found. Perhaps those were impersonations, but they have apparently been deleted, unless someone can point to them. The fascist admin of Metapedia has deleted many Talk pages, which is where they would probably have been.

For background, the entire site was racist and fascist, and so Oliver was helping to build a racist, fascist project. That, all by itself, would be enough. Creating good articles on non-racists, non-fascist subjects is still serving the Beast. Years ago, when I was eligible for the draft, I declared I was a conscientious objector, and, no I would not serve the military in a noncombatant role, because of a similar argument. I also was not going to flee to Canada. Instead, if required, I would serve time in federal prison. Didn’t happen. But I was willing to go.

  • Race – I wrote 5 papers on race, 1 paper on race and cryptozoology and 1 paper on race and intelligence, uploading them on my Academia profile from 2010-2013 when I was at university and I liked to research controversial things, but over the years some were temporarily removed or revised and none now exist because I lost interest in race and deleted them.

He “lost interest in race” but handles that by trying to erase his past, instead of acknowledging it and explaining his errors. Further, he began attacking people, strongly, exaggerating their positions and cherry-picking whatever can make his targets look bad. So, for example, Emil Kirkegaard posted a photo of himself giving a fascist salute, as an obvious joke. Bad taste, for sure, politically incorrect. But he was also Oliver’s age, early twenties, young and foolish. And that kind of joke is still quite common. So if I point this out, am I, as Oliver has claimed, “defending a fascist?” No, for two reasons: first, it has not been established that Kirkegaard is a fascist, and, second, if he were, it is a political position and is not illegal, and the immorality of it would be highly situational.

Oliver made many statements easily interpreted as fascist or racist (especially the latter), which, to me, simply shows that he was a young, ignorant male, pseudo-intellectual, and pseudo-liberal in the sense of disregarding social norms (perhaps called “politically correct.”). Common in adolescence and “callow youth,” it is even to be respected to a degree, adolescent rebellion probably being instinctive and necessary for species survival under changing conditions. Getting stuck there, however, is a developmental disorder.

Anyway, in 2010, I published “Palaeo-Races: Leiotrichi and Ulotrichi” and “Yeti and the Mongoloid”, in 2012 I published “Race: an Alternative to Hereditarianism”, in 2013 I published “Climatic Race Concept”, “Races, Clines or Populations”, “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race” and “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians”. Archived screenshots of some of these papers still exist, proving I wrote them:

This is possibly irrelevant. The topic of this blog page was his views as expressed on Metapedia.

  • Full paper: “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race”, screenshot dated September 2013 (the paper was written & uploaded in April and was more than 10,000 words and took a while to put together since it references over a hundred sources)

So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why? At one point I called Oliver a “wanna-be academic” or something like that. He denied any academic intention. However, he or his brother have ridiculed me for noting that I learn by writing. He would learn by writing, and the fastest way to learn is to be wrong and correct it. Instead, Oliver attempts to hide that he was ever “wrong.” And if someone points it out, he cries “lies.” Who hides? Truth-tellers or liars?

In any case, that paper has, as its concluding words:

[. . .] although it is widely agreed ecotypic classification below the species level has a biological basis, some biologists assert ecotypes are not races. This largely seems to be rooted in political correctness than anything else. The typological concept should not also be abandoned given the fact if the traits it elects are non-arbitrary and are ecological – it can be used to distinguish races as adaptive phenotypic complexes though polydimensional clustering. It is therefore incorrect to conclude like Lewontin (1972) that while races have no “taxonomic significance” races do not biologically exist. This is a nonsequitur. While races in modern humans are not taxons, they can have a biological basis.

This is racialist, concluding that a contrary definition is “incorrect.” “Political correctness” refers to how words are interpreted by the polis, the people. Yes, Oliver was considering the arguments. If he wants to clean up the mess, I will be showing here how to comment on anything available on the web, using, which was designed for that. At the very least, if there is too much mess to clean up, he could formally disavow the paper, instead of trying to hide it, as he did through deletion. (There are situations where deletion is appropriate, but that’s complicated. On wikis, where a discussion has received response, it is generally considered inappropriate to delete it, rather strikeout and emendation will be used.) That would be much closer to academic practice. Crying “lies” is not part of clean-up, it’s part of the mess.

The page was already archived a year ago. I just archived the comment. Oliver praised the article, with the title “Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation,” but this was 2014, when he had already changed his views. Dates matter. Because I have lost the numbering, due to WordPress idiosyncracies, #3 and #4 were the next two papers, which apparently Oliver has no copies of.

  1. (written & uploaded in September 2013) but no screenshot
  2. (written & uploaded in October 2013) but no screenshot

The title of the first “Climatic Race Concept” appears to be his invention. It sounds like a pseudoscientific attempt to preserve the legitimacy of “race,” it sounds like population genetics through adaptation to local climate. Nice try, though. Variation on “the Nordic races are smarter because they had to deal with the cold?” If that’s not fair to his actual ideas, “unfair” is a natural consequence of deleting work once published, i.e., the next two.

  1. Abstract: “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians” (dated upload to ResearchGate October 2013, unsure when I had actually written it, probably June or August)
  2. . Screenshots of my pre-2013 papers, including paper on intelligence likely exist but I cannot find them right now, although they’re referenced in old comments.

The “Racial Affinities” paper obviously uses race as a concept. How does he do this? From the Abstract:

One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining “race”.


Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.

Tipoff: this is the opinion of a naive student, writing about “truth,” which is not a scientific concept. “Actual fact” here is used to mean “my opinion.” He is correct in one way: “race” obviously exists, but as what? As a “biological reality”? I will express my own opinion: as an “actual fact,” “race” is reactive, a judgement or assessment. It can be made objective, but Oliver is aware of at least some of the problems with that.

While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).

To state this sympathetically, “race” can be used in a way to make it useful, but this process will disconnect it from “folk concepts.” This is therefore dangerous, because the “folk,” the people, the polis, will read the word as what they imagine it to mean, instead of how some academic or wanna-be academic defines it. Given that there are other words to use for the more objective ideas, why would he use “race” at all?

Like most species, there are ecotypes in humans – defined as groups or populations showing region-specific adaptations which vary as a result of climatic selection (solar radiation, humidity, temperature). Since adaptive traits are selected for in certain environments, eco-clines are not randomly distributed; instead they are circumscribed reflecting climatic zones (Krantz, 1980, p. 27: “…there are steep places on the climatic clines and one can draw lines along them dividing mankind into climatic races”).

Why not “dividing mankind into population groups sharing some average genetic characteristics based on long adaptation to local conditions?” Why use the word “race” at all? I’ll suggest how it appears to me:

Oliver believed, still, in something called “race” and was looking for a rationalization. He was, at best, a racialist. Did this translate to actual racism? I used to define “racism” as the belief that race was real, and the unreality of race used to be a fairly unpopular idea in many circles (which were not academic). “What, are you blind?” However, more popularly, “racism” is racialism combined with concepts of superiority or crucial or critical differences indicating a need for separation and the maintenance of power over the “other.” At least in “one’s own region.”

And then we get into IQ studies, which push every political correctness button there is. And that’s a separate topic, though with minor relevance here.

  • In #1 that can still be read: I listed seven definitions or concepts of race to see if they’re applicable to living humans – I concluded taxonomic and ancestry based definitions have been falsified, but that races exist in terms of phenotypic adaptation to climate. The conclusion of my paper: “Races may or might not exist in Homo sapiens depending on the race concept.

Something exists.  Patterns exist. Where do they exist? Generally, a pattern like “race” exists in the mind, not in biology. He is still believing that it is legitimate to call this something that exists “race,” and does not seem to be aware of the difference between interpretation or mythos and “truth.” Yes, whether X exists or not depends on the concept of X. However, in science, concepts are not truth, but are models, organizing tools, and they are useful or not. The issue of usefulness largely revolves around predictive power. However, language, words, have effects entirely aside from the possible intended meanings of authors, and that’s what editors are for, in real academic publication, to identify usages of language that harm communication. What “race” brings to mind is a set of models that have long outlived their usefulness, except as political wedges.

It is possible to have a discussion about these things with a racialist, if I am correct in calling Kirkegaard one. It has not been possible for a long time with Oliver, because it all becomes quickly personal.

  • The multiple concepts and definitions have made race as a word highly ambiguous. Taxonomic concepts of human races are though obsolete, unless one is discussing the early fossil record, for example Neanderthals (Jurmain et al., 2011).”

Yes, got it. However, this page looked at his views as expressed on Metapedia in 2012-2013, not his private thinking at the time or later. Again, is it necessary or useful to use “race” to distinguish the Neanderthals?

  • To further examine the concept of climatic races, I then tested it on ancient Egyptian skulls (using cranial measurements from various collections); in that paper I note: “One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining ‘race’. Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.

He seems to imagine that this proves something. “In actual fact,” Oliver pronounces on the truth as if he is above the debate, when he was heavily plunged in it. The “truth” is not a definition of a word, and definitions are not “actual fact,” except as being facts about people using words. “Races don’t exist” is obviously false if taken literally, because “races” exist as concepts, and do concepts exist? No, to be meaningful, “races don’t exist” is a denial of the usefulness of the race concept, which includes centuries of baggage.

  • While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological [climatic] races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).” It’s mindboggling how any of this makes me a “fascist” – I was debunking taxonomic and ancestry-based definitions of race, but rather than adopt a liberal race denialist view, came up with an alternative between hereditarianism and race denial. Is Lomax trying to troll me again? Fail.

I did not claim that this made him a fascist, and that term came from elsewhere in his work. I will come back to this, but what I had in mind was his own authoritarian behavior, which has been demonstrated wherever Oliver has obtained power to exercise over others. As well, it would be in his general support for a fascist site, Metapedia, and possibly political parties inclined to fascism as a political idea. By not quoting the exact source statements, Oliver follows his habitual practice of crying “lies” without being specific. I was aware that “fascist” was relatively weak, but it was still stronger than the evidences Oliver has used in attacking others. What most impressed me was how he acted when faced with someone defending Gypsies. Fascist and racist, with no necessity. Arbitrary and brutal.

Moving on to some of Lomax’s blatant distortions, lies and taking things deliberately out of context:

  • Hereditarianism – Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian” despite I’ve never agreed with hereditarianism and have criticized it; read my papers old man… He provides no evidence I was a hereditarian, just takes a couple of comments out of context.

Self-contradictory he is. On the one hand, “no evidence,” and on the other “a couple of comments out of context.” That would be evidence. “No evidence” is a common Oliver comment when evidence is presented. Yes, evidence can be misleading and cherry-picked, but it does not therefore become false or misleading unless the context actually reverses the sense.

I first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for “(Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions).” The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation. This was January, 2013. If he revised his views later, did he go back and unblock Rose and apologize? He had admin until November 27, 2013. 

Oliver also has “Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian.” The above study was fairly long (though I did not complete going through his editing). I called him a hereditarian once. The term also occurs in his description of Pearson, but I did not use that to term Oliver hereditarian. So, again, this is Oliver, reactive as usual, exaggerating what he hates. He is not accustomed to someone carefully going over what he writes, he imagines that he can say whatever and accomplish his goals. And he has, often, because, in fact, most people do not actually look at evidence, or if they do, they only look superficially and see whatever they want to see in it. Wiki problem, long-standing, one of the reasons wikis go south, they are afflicted with “quick,” right there in the name.

  • Eugenics – Lomax lies and claims I supported “racist eugenics” because I quoted “Dr. F. L. Hoffman” (who?). It’s a single cherrypicked edit, taken out of context. I know nothing about a “Dr. Hoffman” and merely copied a small quote onto the page, I found elsewhere. Needless to say, I don’t agree with the quote and I don’t support eugenics. There are numerous other sources and content I added on the same page I didn’t agree with. Where’s Lomax’s evidence I agreed with this and am a eugenicist? *crickets*

It’s hard to hear even crickets with one’s ears stuffed. The context is shown. This is significant, it shows the concept I was following of responsibility for what one writes. So here it is again (now bolded):

Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”

This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” is very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.

So, first, “edits appear heavily racist” is a report of my personal impression, obviously. That would be a matter of what he chooses to quote. However, he then added material without sourced attribution. He would be, unless he fixes it, responsible for that content. He was putting up what would be popular on Metapedia. I consider him responsible for content that he wrote without attribution, even if he copied it from somewhere else. I did not quote everything, so here is more, from March, 2013:

Palaeo-anthropological findings question the status of Negroids as modern anatomically Humans (Hss) [sic], since their morphological features are very primitive

This introduces a quotation with slightly blunted language. Editors are responsible for that kind of introduction, because it presented the conclusion of what was quoted as if fact.

There is more, much more, actually.

Most Negroid females will go to extremes to artifically [sic] straighten their hair texture while wigs are also very commonly purchased.

This is not the place to debate “race reality,” i.e,. what it means to be identified as a “racial minority” in some places. As I have mentioned, I have a daughter born in Africa, and I’ve seen some of what such people face here. She has very kinky hair. It’s beautiful, but also a boatload of work. Society is changing, but racism is still alive, though on the run. When I was raised, racism was open and unapologetic. However, the article was not about the difficulties of minority groups, but about condemning them as inferior. That comment was a racial stereotype and probably false.

I am claiming that Oliver is responsible for what he wrote. He is even responsible for what he left in place when he heavily worked on a page, but the examples I have given are text he introduced. Nobody held a gun to his head to make him do this. If he were paid as an editor to follow an editorial policy, I would still hold him responsible for what he chose to do for a living, though it might be a little more understandable. If he retracted it and attempted to undo the damage, that would be a mitigating factor. He did not do this.

He still has not done this. Instead, he cries “lies,” when there were no errors, even, not so far, anyway.

He went on.

  • Boasian anthropology – Lomax lies and quotes something on the Boasian anthropology article I never wrote, but says “quoting racist Oliver”. I never wrote this comment he’s quoting that I didn’t even agree with. This can easily be checked by looking at the article edit history and seeing what Lomax has quoted, appeared on the article before I touched it.

I attempted to avoid that by how I linked.  Here is his set of changes. He is correct, he did not originally write the more outrageous comments. But he left them in place in the middle of his work and so it appeared as if his. Had he merely made a few small changes, his responsibility would be less, but he did not. He did add:

Jewish roots

All but one of Boas’ students were Jewish, and recent immigrant arrivals to America. The sole exception was Alfred Kroeber, who unlike the Jewish Boasians, was the sole student of Boas to reject race egalitarianism (Kroeber was apolitical). It is sometimes claimed Ruth Benedict Template:J was also not Jewish, however Modell (1983) on page 166 of her biography on Benedict, cites various evidences that Benedict was of Jewish descent.[2] It was also no secret that Montagu Template:J was Jewish; his real name (which he changed) was Israel Ehrenberg.

Franz Boas Template:J was also himself a Jewish immigrant, born in Germany, but later moved to America.

Template:J was a small yellow Star of David, it was deleted by Metapedia admin in 2015, so Oliver used that flag. The focus on alleged Jewishness or Jewish ancestry is characteristically anti-semitic, and this was in line with what had been in the article before.

I am accepting this as an error and have struck that comment.

  • Richard Lynn – Lomax claims in 2012 on Metapedia I quoted “Richard Lynn with approval” and that I wrote the following comment: “Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and political correctness the reality of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being deracinated. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing One World Government, with the goal of promoting miscegenation.” Both these claims are false; I never cited Lynn with approval, merely posted his definition of race (that I didn’t agree with and I posted multiple race definitions) and I’ve long criticised his hereditarianism theories as can be seen in my papers. I never also wrote the above statement; it was copied or paraphrased as can be seen in the edit history: prior to me editing the page its found under Deconstructionism of race. This comment is obviously nonsense, I just reworded some of it, but made the mistake of not outright removing it.

Oliver admitted an error! Congratulations! Tell me, did it hurt? Did you bleed excessively? Get help if there is concern about consequential damage. Even major foot-in-mouth insertion can be remedied, the sooner the better.

Now, to the substance. This was in the article on Race. Oliver edited that in three sessions. First in August, 2012. In that edit he introduced a quotation from Lynn on the issue of race.  Lynn was not quoted as one opinion among many. It was “quoted with approval,” as I stated. I’ll stand with that. Now, that does not mean or require that he agrees with it, which would be his mental state. Rather, he is editing an article explaining the topic, and he chose that quote to explain it. The quote is about a definition and definitions may or may not reflect general usage. By the time Lynn wrote that, it was passing out of usage. Oliver was deprecating the rejection of “race” in biology, by picking Lynn (who is practically ancient and is holding to older usages). This sticks. Merely “posting Lynn’s definition” does not relieve one of responsibility for it, even if one silently disagrees or writes disagreement elsewhere. This was on Metapedia where the position he was expressing is the house view. He was establishing himself as a “reliable editor” on Metapedia, and I can speculate that this was so he could use it as an attack platform, of which a few examples may still be visible. “Hereditarianism” generally refers to intelligence and is not relevant here.

As to the quotation, there is much more in his editing that is racist or certainly racialist (“race reality”). Quoting from above:

Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:

Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].

He claims that the language was there before, and, indeed, some of it was. He paraphrased (as a restatement, unless we are very careful, the statement becomes our own. At best, he was not careful, but, in fact, it seems he wanted to appear to be “one of the team” at Metapedia. But the most racist comment here is the reference to miscegenation. That word was not there before, Oliver added it with this edit.

This was not merely a matter of accidentally leaving something in. He is denying what he actually did.  This is typical. The edit history was long and complex. He points to it, but not to a specific place. And he was lying, but most people won’t check, and that’s what he has learned from a decade of editing wikis.

Or he is insane, not actually “lying,” but living in delusion about himself and reality. Take your pick. He has acknowledged schizophrenia. I know very much what schizophrenia is like. It is very possible to factor for it and live well, but it requires a willingness to recognize and distinguish carefully between what we actually experience and how we interpret it. As long as we see the world as an enemy, there is very little hope. As long as we believe what we think, there is little hope.

  • Recent African origin of modern humans – Since 2006, I’ve been critical of the ROA/OOA (“Out of Africa”) human origins theory and still am. Unclear why Lomax mentions me editing the OOA article on Metapedia in 2012 as proof I’m a “fascist”, since disagreeing with OOA outside of the West, such as China, is rather common and has nothing to do with fascism, but science, especially fossils that question the politically correct Westernised OOA theory. Clearly disagreeing with OOA (as does the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, e.g. see the Wikipedia article I created on Wu Xinzhi) doesn’t make someone a “fascist”.

Once again, I did not claim editing that article as “proof” he is a “fascist.” In fact, all that I wrote on this was to note that it was his first edit to Metapedia. At that point I listed every article he edited, and only commented on a few. The only way this would relate to “fascist” would be that he was working on a fascist project. Suppose I had gone to Rightpedia and wrote general articles for them. Suppose they simply improved the overall usefulness of that site. Would I then be open to a claim I was a racist antisemite? Of course I would, unless I did this very, very carefully! — and even then it would be highly questionable. Editing Wikipedia is not like that, nor is editing RationalWiki. by the way. I’ve edited Conservapedia, a little. Making a major project of it would be another matter.

Yes, an AP sock started that article, identified as “Goblin Face,” which was Darryl, so not exactly correct. The account has many Oliver flags. But they don’t care on Wikipedia, they are both defacto-banned, to be blocked on sight. Many of the socks escape notice, because they have actually succeeded in getting some of those who would identify them blocked and banned.

  • Talk:Confessions of a Reluctant_Hater – Lomax takes this comment completely out of context and says I “praise[d] an article on book by white nationalist” to presumably try to claim I agree with white nationalism which is false (I clearly rejected and criticized ethnic nationalism on Metapedia as can be seen on my edits on ethnopluralism, see below). In reality, all I did was be kind to a user who created an article on a book, since I was logged on when it appeared and I saw a new article page creation. I’ve never even read the book, barely had read the article, nor “praised” the article content.

I stated the fact. It’s not worth correcting “praised an article” to “praised a user for creating an article.” Oliver might save himself some upset if he doesn’t react to every imagined claim that might be made. Then again, he fully deserves to soak in his own bile for a very long time. Still, I don’t like to see even nasty people suffer.

  • English_Democrats/England_First_Party/British_Freedom_Party/UK_Independence_Party/National Front – Various political party articles I mostly edited in 2012. Despite Lomax cherrypicking my comments, I was critical of all of them, especially EFP, EDs, NF and UKIP and later BNP. As mentioned in another comment above, I became critical of anti-immigration populist parties by 2013, if not earlier. And for the record, I’ve never been a member of any of these parties, nor even voted for them. Some trolls spread misinformation I was a UKIP or BNP member, both these claims are false.

Again, I am not responsible for what “some trolls” might spread, unless I started the rumor. Oliver had claimed that the idea he had been racist or fascist or far-right was a “lie,” so I looked for evidence. He made a lot of edits, thousands of them, so examples would be “cherry-picked” as to their relationship to the alleged lie. Mostly I just listed the political parties, and in one case I pointed out that he white-washed the BNP article.

What I found was sufficient cause for someone to make such claims (very little based on the political party edits). The liar is Oliver. That he may have later become critical (or even that he was critical at the time) would not change this. I was not claiming that Oliver “is” far-right or hereditarian or whatever, including racist. He might be, he might not be. (And an unfortunately consequence of his lying so much is that I won’t believe he has two feet unless I can verify it.) I am only claiming that what he wrote then can be seen in those ways, and reasonably.

  • Ethnopluralism – An article I started and shows I was a critic of ethnic nationalism; Lomax of course doesn’t mention this. I also had my own ethnopluralist think-tank at the time. This was closed in 2013.

Lots of things I don’t mention, it’s meaningless. Links? The article does not show what he claims, nor does it show him as the opposite.

  • Indo-Europeans/Aryans – Articles I edited where I heavily criticised 19th century Germany and Nazi Germany “Aryan” theories, especially about blondism eg. “This study was a blow to theorists such as Poesche, who argued Germans most closely represented the Aryan ideal, under the false assumption the majority of Germans were blonde.” Again, Lomax doesn’t mention this – after all how could I be a “fascist” critical of Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism? Doesn’t fit his fake biography about to smear me as a “fascist”, so he doesn’t mention what I actually wrote on these two articles…

Ask a question, get an answer. One can be fascist and think the Nazis were wrong about this or that. “Fascism” is as fascism does. From Merriam-Webster:

Fascism: often capitalized a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

A fascist certainly could be critical of, even hating “Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism. We have seen how Oliver acts when he has power, that’s the best test of a “fascist.”

  • Doug Weller – Lomax mentions some off-topic nonsense about a Wikipedia admin named Doug Weller. Note that I deleted the latter’s Metapedia article. What’s the problem? More of Lomax’s trolling.

This is my blog, and unless the community here sets up another process, I decide what is on-topic or not, and that will probably remain the prerogative of one writing a page. I was researching what happened on Metapedia, and recorded what I found, and the Weller incident is of high interest. Sure, he deleted the Weller article. Who wrote it in the first place? This was Oliver using Metapedia as an attack platform. What did Weller have to do with Metapedia? Here is what. From Metapedia Talk:Roger Pearson. So Oliver blames the Wikipedia article on Pearson on  “Two race denier wikipedia admins, including mega-troll Douglas Weller have uploaded lies about him and his research.” There is no denying that at that point, on the POV spectrum, Oliver was a “race realist.” And the ordinary average Wikipedian he would classify as “race denier.” It is correct that “race realism” is not necessarily racism, and I was careful to distinguish it, but the social reality is that race realism is heavily associated with racism.

Oliver added, “I’m glad Metapedia exists as a truthcentric place to set the record straight. Atlantid 21:02, 4 September 2012.”

The Metapedia article on Pearson, written by Oliver, does not do any such thing. What “lies”? This is Oliver’s academic bent. He called Plato a liar for repeating stories that he had probably heard. Academics will rarely call others liars, nor will encyclopedia editors of real encyclopedias, or Wikipedia editors who are following the basic policies and guidelines. (Many don’t actually follow policy, including some administrators, and that’s Wikipedia’s problem.) If Weller “uploaded” lies, that should be exposed, as far as I’m concerned, not by calling them lies, but by showing truth, i.e., for Wikipedia, better, reliably sourced information, or, for synthesis that does not fairly represent what is in sources (a common problem), calling attention to the sources. And, yes, you can get blocked for doing this. That’s life. Stand for truth and there will be people shooting at you.

Wikipedia had Rule Number One: If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it. I wrote that there was a corollary: if you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. Blocks were not bans, by the way, and if one really was trying to improve the project, under normal conditions, one would not be banned for it. That shifted over time, as what Wales called the “administrative cabal” became more entrenched. But most Wikipedia administrators are sincere and would not lie. Some would, and some were — and are — POV-pushing fanatics.

In any case, this was the Wikipedia article when Oliver wrote his complaint about it. What lies? Crying “lies” is nearly useless. Pointing out errors, misleading statements, correcting them or distinguishing between reality and implications by authors (which may or may not reflect reality), that’s useful. Oliver, here, would be a “Pearson apologist,” apologist being a derisive term often used by him to cast opproprium on someone who points out errors in critiques. It is a weak proof, but given that Oliver does not actually point out the “lies,” the reflection on him is earned.

Maybe he did in the articles on Weller. But I have not yet seen a copy, just the talk page. Oliver deleted his own Talk page, covering up the history. So, hey, I looked at his deletion log. Lots of cover-up deletions, including his Talk page, twice. This answers the question I had above about who wrote the Weller article:

  • 21:47, 13 May 2013 Atlantid (talk | contribs) deleted page Douglas Weller (Author request: content was: “”’Douglas Weller”’ is a wikipedia administrator, from South Normanton, Derbyshire (England) who has a long history of trolling pa…” (and the only contributor was “[[Special:Contributions/Atlan)

So, indeed, he wrote that article, with familiar Oliver Smith rant. There are others:

and this led to something interesting:

23 November 2013, he deleted the prior discussion and replaced the page with a new copy, including this comment. I think there are errors with this article? It was posted by Vir, who was banned. So i’ve cleaned his discussion. The talk page can be used to discuss controversial/disputed studies. Atlantid 15:43, 23 November 2013 (CET)

Deceptive, he was. had an older copy. Vir was not the only one to comment, Oliver had commented, so he was covering up his prior blatantly racist comment. (The older comment led me to yet another bio of Oliver Smith. I did not take what I have reported about the Smith brothers from ED or Lolcowiki. I have reported what I personally confirmed. Generally, though, I have confirmed much or even most of what has been put up in other places.

Oliver, I previously reported, has made extensive efforts to get pages about him removed from Google searches, and on RationalWiki and Metapedia, he used administrative tools to cover up his own history, where he could get away with it. If he were merely someone with mistakes in his past, this would not be worthy of any investigation, but he also libelled many and claimed that simple reporting of his history was lies and libel and he has acted to harass many, and actual damage has been done in places (from him and from similar behavior by his brother.)

I’m completing his response:

  • Norse_mythology/Huns/Anglo-Saxons/Celts – No relevance?

My research starts with lists without strong agenda. These were articles he edited, showing interests. This would later be used in comparisions of interests to support sock identification. There is no claim of any reprehensibility because of topics edited. These are only very weakly related to possible racism.

  • Picts – Lomax says “this might be a racialist addition, removed later.” Not sure what he means. Secondly, he says “Used white as an description of a people.” when this simply refers to the UK ethnic census category, which I’ve actually been critical of for a long time. On the UK census it’s not possible for persons to ethnically identify as a Scot, Welsh or English etc, but instead only “White British”.

“This” was in the next words, linked.

The term “white” probably was the basis for an assessment of “might be a racialist addition.” I was inclined to strike that assessment, however, the excuse given is weak. An author is not obligated to use the categories of the UK Census in factual descriptions, and it certainly is “possible” for persons to identify in those ways, just not — if this is true — on the census form. I was always told I was “Scotch-Irish,” not “Welsh” or “white British.” In fact, there was a family story about the “Black Irish,” which I won’t go into here.

  • Several more sections of false or inaccurate claims, I don’t feel like wasting more time rebutting, especially concerning Mikemikev.

It’s really very simple. I quoted Oliver, what is there to rebut? I did not make any assessment of Mikemikev. The fact that Oliver’s last comments were made on Talk:Mikemikev is irrelevant. Mike didn’t force him to say anything. This is Oliver, he’s been doing it over and over, including directly in email with me. He cries “lies.” When asked for specific errors (and a lie would not only be an error, but a deliberate one), he would say that it’s too much work. But he just did a large amount of work, finding very, very little. One real correction, other minor nitpicks.

He makes it difficult by trying to hold back the flood with his finger in a disintegrating dyke.

In conclusion, no evidence was presented for the fascist smear. Lomax also incorrectly labels me a “hereditarian” despite I never was and criticized hereditarianism in my papers.

He is just repeating himself. I called him out on one action which enforced a hereditarian POV (i.e, denied and dismissed environmental influence on intelligence, which is little short of preposterous, but it’s what he did.)

His claim I supported hereditarianism on Metapedia is based on distorting what I wrote or wrongly attributing to me comments I never wrote.

I mentioned hereditarianism twice only, and the first mention did not claim he was supporting it. By the way, this is another play in the trollbook: if there is a single example of something, refer to it as a repeated pattern.

First example I saw on Wikipedia, a troll was after a teenage girl who liked to get DYK mentions. He filed a report on her that had, among other claims, that she “inserts copyright violations.” There was one example only, and it had extenuating circumstances, it was accidental.

My first real block on Wikipedia was related to that incident, in fact, because I defended her. The defense was successful, by the way, and the administrator whom I had supposedly attacked later became my best friend on Wikipedia and said that the whole thing was a mistake. He ran for the Arbitration Committee, telling me that I had inspired him, and won a seat. And then retired because he and his family were threatened in real life, face-to-face, by thugs who knew where they lived. Wikipedia could be, in the darker spaces, very, very ugly.

There was also never any anti-Semitism in my comments. So the “anti-Semite” claim above, is yet another smear.

I see it differently, and if anyone cares, they can read what is above.

The claim I was or am a fascist is not only false, but the opposite of who I am – I’ve campaigned for direct democracy since I was 16.

Direct democracy can be fascist, where the mechanisms are defective, as they commonly are. I used “fascist” in specific reference to Oliver’s behavior as an administrator, which was authoritarian and oppressive. I have seen authoritarian behavior from people dedicated to careers in “democracy.” Oliver assumes the word has a narrow and specific meaning that he can then deny, but he’s not willing to look at what might be real about it.

Basically, Lomax just comes across as an insane SJW who attacks people as fascists or Nazis since they don’t agree with him.

Agree with him about what? And whom have I “attacked” in that way? In this case, Oliver had been called — by many — a racist and fascist party supporter by others and he had claimed that this was lies or based on impersonations. So I looked and found basis for the claims in his Metapedia record. This was not about whether he “is” a fascist or Nazi. It was about that record and what appears in it.

The list of people whom I have “attacked as fascists or Nazis”? Let’s see: I called the administrator of Metapedia who took certain actions “fascist.” It clearly had the dictionary meaning as I gave above, and whether or not he is also fascist in other senses I don’t know, but from Metapedia overall, I would say “probably,” but that is certainly weak as an accusation. It would be rebuttable, for sure.

Wikipedia defines fascism as: “a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society”. He’s not provided a shred of proof I support any of these things, I don’t and never have.Diebythesword (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But that’s simply the Wikipedia definition, and does not confine the word to that meaning. Is Oliver claiming that he never supported the British National Party? He certainly edited the Metapedia article on the BNP massively, and some of it appears to be whitewashing.

Lots of evidence was provided. What is a “shred of proof”? This is reactive rhetoric only.

Corrections remain welcome. Claims of lying are not so welcome, but fact will still be considered.

Oliver responded on Encyclopedia Dramatica, defying  Yellowbird. The admin left the response in place, but blocked Oliver for making it. Here is that self-justifying response, beating a dead horse.

Lomax’s insanity continues…

Lomax responded to my other reply, so I’ll leave this that can be removed since I know he reads here:

He could respond here, but as a confirmed and dedicated troll, he will respond where he is blocked and nobody wants it. And if he stops responding for a few days, he will announce that he is no longer editing that wiki. Then a few days later, a new account continues the same trolling, obviously him, and if someone points to the obvious, he screams “doxxing!!!” and sees if he can get the person blocked. Dedicated troll, and if he and his brother did not do actual damage to the real world, I wouldn’t care.

  • Hereditarian: As explained (and anyone can read my 2013 paper), I never was a hereditarian. Out of 2000 Metapedia edits, Lomax ignores me criticizing hereditarianism, which is how I got to clash with Mikemikev in the first place, and he finds only a single edit in January 2013 to misconstrue i.e. Lomax says “I first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for (Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions). The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation.” — This is a non sequitur. There have been oppressed and discriminated groups throughout history living in squalor, but examples exist of these populations having on average, a high IQ. So the idea Gypsies have low IQ on average because of racism and/or poor living conditions is a liberal fantasy. I’m not sure why Lomax thinks if I point this out I must be a hereditarian i.e. maintain IQ differences between populations are due to genetic factors. I was always critical of the latter and I fully debunked hereditarianism on RationalWiki. My simple explanation for low Gypsy mean IQ is their backward culture, which is environmentalism, but a different explanation than racism or poverty. I don’t believe all world cultures are equal e.g. Australian aboriginal tribes have an undeniably primitive culture. I’m not going to deny this reality to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Liberals of course think all cultures are equal; they’re not, so they avoid discussing culture in the race and IQ debate unless they’re talking about cultural biases on IQ tests, when it suddenly is the white man’s fault… And I consider the liberal view to be as bad as the hereditarian hypothesis; the cultural theory to be common-sense and middle-ground between the two extremes.

One comment referred to “hereditarian,” because it reflected an anti-environmentalist action, not a fixed and exclusively hereditarian view. To justify his hereditarian action, he resorts to cultural racism. I personally consider the hereditarian/environmentalist debate a debate between black and white as to which color best represents reality, but racism is a political position, not a scientific one. “Primitive” is a racist category. So is “fault.” Oliver is taking pseudoscientific positions to justify himself. This I consider fact: he was assisting the development of an openly racist/racialist wiki, Metapedia. His action fit in with that. Does that make him a “hereditarian.” That comment was a single mention and not a categorization of the present reality of Oliver. The action, politically, was hereditarian (or similarly according to culture, which could be seen as environmentalist). Oliver supports whatever local political views will give him power to abuse others, so on RationalWiki he is fiercely anti-racist, but on Metapedia — which he edited at the same time — he was supporting a racist project.

He accuses others of various offensive positions, with, in some cases, far less evidence, yet if someone points out the obvious, he is up in arms because they are “lying.” That others sometimes support him and enable him is even more disgusting than what he does. He’s admittedly schizophrenic, so he at least has an excuse.

  • Fascist: Lomax now claims I’m a fascist not because of my political-ideology (direct-democracy), but my alleged “authoritarian behaviour” on the internet which is a load of BS.

First of all, direct democracy is not in opposition to fascism. It can create mob rule, which can be highly fascist, in all senses. Oliver thinks of political positions as abstractions, divorced from actual personal behavior. Let’s say that I disagree. He is radically intolerant of differing opinions and generally seeks to ban them. On RationalWiki, he and his brother vigorously pursue people he calls “fascist,” and others as well, whoever lands for them as targets. If they try to defend themselves, they are blocked. That’s fascist.

Fascist, fascist, fascist.

  • Racialist: Lomax describes my April 2013 paper as “racialist”. At that time I was indeed arguing for the existence of human races as opposed to a non-racialist who denies their biological reality. I don’t have a problem with this label, but it’s somewhat misleading since in that paper I outline 7 definitions of race and I dispute or rather debunk 5 of them, while being critical of another…

Oliver has gotten himself blocked everywhere, among racists, among trolls (ED is a trollsite), among SJWs (I don’t like that term, but it is often applied to RationalWiki and I think Oliver himself may have used the term), on Wikipedia which pretends to be neutral, on Reddit, but it’s not so easy to document all that because he keeps creating more and more accounts, more and more confusion. He creates new accounts when there is no necessity at all. Usually he abandons them quickly, but sometimes not. He just came back with an obvious RatWiki sock, Aeschylus, after almost a year, going after . . .  guess who! His favorite target, whom he blames for almost everything. That person shows up, probably, in this discussion. This sequence will get some coverage on other pages, it demonstrates exactly how RatWiki went down the RatHole.

Fascist fascist fascist. Did I mention that Oliver is a fascist?

  • So for those 5 (or 6) definitions of race: I’m a race denialist i.e. non-racialist. Depending on what specific race definition someone uses they can be simultaneously a racialist and a non-racialist. This is something Mikemikev fails to understand. He disagreed with my race definition and labelled me a race denialist on Metapedia, when I actually was using a race concept, but not the definition he used that is pseudoscience. And because I disagreed with the more popular definitions of race for an atypical definition (ecotypes), Anthroscapers even called me in November 2013 a “borderline race denier”.

Bottom line, he is insane and every political grouping can see it. He is arguing against Mikemikev everywhere. Mikemikev is irrelevant here.

  • Paper deletions: Lomax asks “So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why?” The simple answer is I lost interest in these topics, as I already said. For the same reason I deleted my papers or essays on UFOs. I wrote about a lot of different things when I was at university; some interests I had ages back, I no longer write or think much about, others I still do. Lomax instead ignores this straightforward explanation of why I deleted these papers, and claims I deleted them to “try to hide” them. No idea what he’s talking about. I’ve never tried to hide anything.

If he weren’t insane, that would be just another lie. I did not ignore the straightforward explanation, but sane people do not necessarily delete their work, crazy people commonly do, I’ve seen years of work vanish in a flash. Oliver will copy whatever he finds from others to so that he can they crow about them trying to hide what they have written. But I showed a clear example of his attempt to hide his racist comments on Metapedia, one of his last acts with admin tools there.

  • Disavow the paper”: Lomax oddly wants me to “disavow” the aforementioned paper I wrote. Unclear why.

No, Oliver has little or no idea of what I want. These papers were published (on the internet). *If* the problem was that he wrote in error or expressed some political or academic position that he later wished to disavow, doing exactly that would be academic honesty. But he is not honest, he is a regular, serial, habitual liar.

  • I disagree with very little I wrote in it; I more or less have the same opinions I wrote in this paper nearly 6 years back, only that my semantics for the race definition I defended has changed. I’ve pointed this out elsewhere, such as a post on Sci Forums in 2016; I no longer consider calling ecotypes as races and neither does Jonathan Kaplan (who co-wrote a paper on ecotypes in 2003), although I cannot be bothered to dig that quote up when he changed his view about the semantics (it was in 2011).

Who cares?

  • Lomax is a pseudo-sceptic and is labelling all this “pseudoscience” when he doesn’t even know what it is e.g. this race concept never has involved IQ, only a handful of phenotypic characters (skin colour, hair texture, nose size etc) as I mentioned in my paper quoting Grover Krantz. Since Lomax knows almost nothing about the topic, he should refrain from further commenting.

Knowing nothing about the topic never prevented Oliver from commenting on my work or that of others. I was writing about race easily by fifteen years ago, but I did not study the topic academically. This is not an academic debate, and I can say whatever I please about what Oliver has done. It is fascists who want to suppress dissent. The right of dissent includes a right to be wrong, to make mistakes, and to state opinions, ignorant or otherwise. Again, Oliver is fascist, it’s his style, and it’s very likely what got him banned on Wikipedia originally. He has not changed on that. His specific opinions change, and former friends become enemies, but the center of it all is not only batshit crazy, but certain that he is right, was always right, except for insignificant details. And he claims that others are insane, racist, pedophiles or pedophile apologists (on crazy-silly weak, misleading evidence), etc.

Is Mikemikev racist? Probably, or a troll.

I really don’t know and it’s not my business. I actually have not, however, seen him lie. I don’t believe that people should be banned for being, much less allegedly being racist, that is a flipped fascist position. Democracy is in danger from both the left and the right. Hence I was a member of the ACLU in 1962.

  • Anti-Semitism: There’s no anti-Semitism in my Metapedia edits, if you want anti-Semitism just view Mikemikev’s edit history who vilified and attacked Jews in nearly every edit and was obsessed with trying to disprove the Holocaust; I criticized him for both.

On a blatantly antisemitic web site, labelling scientists as “Jews” was an antisemitic act. Whether Mikemikev was antisemitic or not does not change that. Whether or not he criticized antisemitism, he would be like a German who criticized someone for being antisemitic, and yet turned in his neighbor in for being Jewish and not wearing a required symbol. That template he used, that placed a yellow Star of David after names, was an emblem of antisemitism, and he was serving an antisemitic agenda, obviously and blatantly. Metapedia apparently decided it was way too blatant and deleted it.

  • According to Lomax out of my 2000 edits, the only “anti-Semitism” he could find was me adding a star of David next to someone’s name who actually was a Jewish person… And I don’t even remember doing this and couldn’t care less, if I did do it, the fact I only did it once out of 2000 edits shows its triviality.

First he will claim there is no evidence. Then he will claim that it only happened once. Yet he once claimed he had many more edits than that on Metapedia, my sense is that the large majority have been deleted. That was blatantly anti-semitic and that doesn’t change if it indeed only happened once, it is merely a clear example of the overall activity, which was supporting Metapedia, ignoring that helping develop that project was serving its political agenda. Writing something in a single article, that would be one thing. People with a special interest will sometimes edit a project which has overall goals that they despise, but Oliver was obviously a dedicated Metapedia editor, putting in many hours. How did he even know the star template existed? What led him to even note that those scientists were Jewish unless he thought it was significant?

This is far stronger evidence than what Oliver routinely relies on in his attack articles.

Antisemitic or serving an antisemitic agenda. The former would be more honest!

— If you continue to smear and lie about me being a fascist, hereditarian or anti-Semite, Mr. Lomax, provide some actual evidence for once…

This is a standard trope for fanatics: claim there is no evidence. When evidence is presented, demand “actual evidence.” Evidence is evidence and is distinct from conclusions. “Proof” is rarely available outside of math, where the logical field is very restricted. I did not accuse him of “being” those things, but pointed out that he had taken actions or made statements that can be seen that way.

I never met Oliver in person, so far, and even if I did, I would not know what he is “actually.”

You also spend a lot of time now setting up straw man arguments. You’ve mostly now shifted from the absurd fascist allegation to claiming I wrote some racist comments 6 years ago. I’ve never denied the latter and no one except you seems to care.The Mark of Kri (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So why does Oliver place his response on Encyclopedia Dramatica, in the Talk page for the article he wrote on me? He could actually comment here if he has corrections to make. It’s much more reliable that I will see comments here.

Fascist. Racist. Antisemitic.

Grandstanding for an unknown audience. The EDiots don’t want it. For whom is he writing?

When I say “GTFO”, I mean it. That is all. Yellowbird (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He meant it, but did not actually enforce it by removing the comment. That’s up to him if he wants that page to be insanely long, as it became, out of Oliver’s trolling. Not my problem.

Looks like Mikemikev showed up.

Great thread there. Obviously you (parroting Kaplan) are just offering a strawman race concept of no relevance to what your opponents are saying. I never worked out whether you were being dishonest about that or whether you were really too stupid. It’s really not complex. Maybe you’re just insane. Vikevikeme (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, tough problem. Not actually my problem, either.

Comment trolling

subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/

Skeptic from Britain retired with this remark.

[…] Unfortunately regarding the Malcolm Kendrick thing I was doxxed by some of his associates such as Tom Naughton, Jimmy Moore etc and these people including Kendrick have posted my real life name etc on various social media platforms and low-carb websites. Jimmy Wales spoke to some of these people via twitter but they ended up insulting him. They are not to be reasoned with! I will leave them to their irrational conspiracy theories. I will be leaving Wikipedia. I have requested a courtesy blanking of my username. [[User:MatthewManchester1994|MatthewManchester1994]] ([[User talk:MatthewManchester1994|talk]]) 00:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The account had been renamed,  December 15, to MatthewManchester1994. It was renamed , December 20, to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434. This is a common tactic when disruptive users “vanish,” they want to make it difficult to find them. (The request will generally be granted, though I have seen the name change reversed when it was later considered to be an attempt to avoid sanctions. Nobody had started any sanction process for this user, one of the signs that nobody with wiki experience was concerned.) However, to find such a user’s new name, find a talk page (or process page, like Articles for deletion), and the old signature will generally be there and then the new name will be in page history.

So, had the real name of Skeptic from Britain or MatthewManchester1994 been revealed? Because the person named is innocent, I’m avoiding using the name, but it’s not difficult to find. Some of the comments may have been deleted by blog owners, but others still exist. Let’s start with the real person behind, not SfB or MM, but this alleged sock master. There was interaction with SfB on  his talk page. In the light of what ensued, this was remarkable.

As well, this edit, December 15, shows me that SfB, obviously an experienced user, was preparing to bail from Wikipedia. He would know that it is totally unnecessary to call someone a troll to remove a comment from one’s talk page, even if it were trolling, and that comment does not appear so. That, all by itself, could have gotten him blocked. He had been warned about outing in the previously linked discussion, and there was a  suppressed revision, undone 01:54, 15 December 2018 .  On that AfD page, there is discussion of the alleged outing, and someone claimed to have seen it. The only “outing” I have seen claimed that SfB or MM were the fellow who had been arguing with SfB, which would mean he was truly and blatantly socking. Yet he is still an editor in good standing.

So I want to see the “outings.” Other than what I have seen on the blogs of Naughton and Kendrick, I have little clue. So I’ll start with those. Naughton first.

Naughton had written:

A few people I follow on Twitter have speculated that Skeptic from Britain is working for Big Food. Maybe. But I have my own two-legged theory: 1) Skeptic from Britain is a disciple of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet, and 2) Wikipedia has been taken over by social-justice warriors.

Both suggestions were, ah, incorrect. Skeptic from Britain is a “skeptic activist,” of the kind that focus on debunking whatever they believe is pseudoscience. They aren’t too swift. There is no clue that SfB was vegan, but picked a target who, in the past, was vegan and so that epithet could be tossed at him. The pseudoskeptics, a better term for them (Kendrick is a sceptic — notice the British spelling. British debunkers call themselves skeptics.)

This is nothing to do with SJW’s. It is because quacks like Malcolm Kendrick are anti-science. Low-carb dieting is not supported by mainstream science, it lacks robust peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Carbohydrates are not bad! LCHF is a fad-diet and pseudoscience, nothing more than repackaged Atkins bullshit.

Malcolm Kendrick is a liar, he says cholesterol levels have no effect on cardiovascular disease and gives dangerous medical advice. He writes nonsense to sell books.

I am glad these low-carb diet nutters are getting deleted from Wikipedia. They are anti-science like this website is!Perhaps Skeptic from Britain will delete a few more of you guys? Hopefully Tim Noakes.

Michael Greger and John Mcdougall are happy about all this

This is all so familiar. Later, a post of December 20, Naughton wrote:

Nailed it. Someone identified Sceptic From Britain. An online profile listed him as a naturalist and vegetarian. (He also appears to be about 12 years old.)

EDIT: Ignore that profile. I’ve received emails from the person profiled, from someone else claiming to the real Sceptic From Britain, and from a third person claiming to have proof that yet another person is the real Sceptic From Britain. Bottom line: we’ve got a weird case of cyber revenge going on in this whole matter, and any name mentioned is likely to be false.

Okay, the person profiled also commented on this blog.

As well, that person is still a Wikipedia editor, though he has not edited since December 22. He had confronted Skeptic from Britain and was obviously not that editor. Emails from the “real Sceptic from Britain” (how did he spell his name?) would generally be fake or highly deceptive. Don’t trust that any email is from who it claims to be from unless there is no reason to suspect otherwise, or you verify the address and have a back-and-forth, otherwise any email address can be spoofed. The “third person” would probably be me, and I’m a little disappointed that Naughton would simply dismiss what I revealed as “likely to be false.” There is a huge difference between a person who is not only open, but also some level of public figure, and people who hide behind anonymity to defame.

December 21, Naughton went on covering further developments, but this was all after the fact.  The claim that SfB was a particular person (not Darryl L. Smith) appeared to have originated as a comment on his blog, which has been removed. I copied this one to the Skeptic from Britain page, where I could surround it with caveats

I have been unable to find any earlier mentions accusing the target of being Skeptic from Britain. The name change to MatthewManchester was at 16:01, 15 December 2018, I don’t know what time zone the Naughton blog is using.

April 8 2019 Update

I found some more socks.

The following might be or are legitimate, there is a long-time editor Bilby and what this user wrote is genuine information about Wikipedia process, not the garbage written by the trolls.

Ongoing socking on Kendrick’s blog

There has been occasional socking over the last few months. But today, there were many trolling socks.  Because what was suggested could be dangerous to Dr. Kendrick’s cause, I responded, and I was not surprised to see the avalanche that followed. What does surprise me to some degree was that Dr. Kendrick approved the comments, but that is his business. If he does not want me commenting on his blog, he’s free to ask, I would respect his choice. (He has written before that he won’t approve more such comments, but he did, and now he has repeated that. Again, his choice. Kendrick is in favor of open dialog, which I understand. But there are limits.)

  1. Jamie Veal March 7, 2019 at 12:16 am asked about work details for Dr. Kendrick. I commented suspecting Darryl, and many very negative comments were posted by others, including Dr. Kendrick himself. No sequelae. No other comments by this user
  2. Waller MU Joel March 13, 2019 at 9:14 pm “David Bailey as you are an admin on the Skeptiko podcast could you ask Alex the owner if you could interview Malcolm Kendrick? I think this would be a great way to promote Kendrick’s ideas and get publicity for the statin debate.” There are many signs in this post that this is Darryl Smith. The name is the first red flag. There is a Waller Joel and there is a MU, but the only simultaneous usages of those names have been impersonation socks, in affairs heavily linked to Darryl Smith. So I commented, warning Kendrick that this would be stepping into a trap, and I explained why. As predictable, more apparent trolls appeared. David Bailey also responded, not taking the bait.  No other comments by this user
  3. Irreligious Survivalist “vegan” trolling. Pushes the idea of a youtube debate. (Generally a Bad Idea, for reasons that would be involved to argue. Debates will be used by enemies, who can cherry-pick any comment that might look bad, so unless one has very high experience and skill at live debate, they can have a negative effect. other than shown below, no other comments by this user.
  4. IrreligiousSurvivalist attempts to pin opposition to low carb on vegans, a known strategy of Skeptic from Britain. I also responded. Other than comment shown above, No prior comments from this user.
  5. Magic Master  just Googled your name Abd Lomax you appear to be a bit of a nutcase, banned all over the place for harassment issues. Why is every single comment you do on Kendrick’s blog is about an imaginary person called “Smith”? It needs to stop dude. Not healthy. Just stop and chill out. As to “very single comment,” this is an obvious lie, common with the Smiths. He cites, a NSFW joke wiki. The article he cites was written by Mr Strong, i.e., Oliver D. Smith, the brother of Darryl Smith. See this and this. (I was not watching ED, but got an email because of the comment on my user talk page.) These are trolls, and Oliver is literally insane, and often does things that end up outing his brother. That comment led me to look at Skeptic from Britain, and because I’d been tracking Darryl for over a year, looking back over many years, I recognized that this was Darryl, and that was then confirmed in many ways. Mr Strong was blocked on that and countless accounts there. Crude photoshops are common from the Smiths, see this. The “Smiths” are far from imaginary, and have been documented by many. Oliver D. Smith has an open identity, and there is public record showing a brother, the same age, living at the same address. There is an article on Smith on ED also. The brother story came from the brothers themselves, on Wikipedia. If it is a lie, then Oliver D. Smith created it, and persisted in it, and has two quite different personalities and sets of interests. And then, on that claim I was SfB, Oliver knew it that this was his brother. No other comments by this user
  6. Tim  Goes on about how Waller Joel is a real person, but no evidence is presented that the real Waller Joel wrote that post. No other comments by this user
  7. DuceMoosolini ‎ There is a RationalWiki sysop by this name. (from prior experience, this is probably an impersonation.) I just checked the RW user talk page, and found this. The comment was, as suspected, an impersonation. What this troll wrote is discussed below.
  8. Ari Silverstein  gives the appearance of a real name, but is almost certainly an impersonation. Notice the clear pattern: many comments appear in a short time that have never commented before. The names are likely impersonations or merely meaningless. And they attack real-name people, citing sources creating by anonymous people with no responsible publisher. No prior comments. See below what he wrote and a detailed analysis.
  9. Vegan dude an obvious troll, not a vegan, pursing a common Smith strategy, to get his enemies fighting with each other. Common Smith name: “[affinity] dude.” John66 (Darryl Smith) has lied about all this on RatWiki, claiming I am behind all these socks. But who is he? I’m a real person, anyone can verify that. No prior comments

Real (who provides evidence, and more on request) vs. Anonymous Troll (who hides and obviously lies, again and again). Who wins? It is astonishing that in some environments, whoever lies the most and longest, wins. RationalWiki is especially vulnerable to this.

Ari Silverstein (see above for link)

Mr Abd Lomax why are most of your posts on here attacking other people? – RationalWiki is a biased skeptic website written by extreme left-wingers, you should stop linking to it! Why link to it when you have your own entry? [link to]

I.e.,. I should not link to relevant pages there, but he can? No, this is classic Smith. He starts with a lie, that “most of my posts” are “attacking other people.” I am highly and very personally interested in the work of Dr. Kendrick, and comment in line with that and my own personal research. I comment here on likely (or obvious) Smith socks because that work is under attack by Darryl Smith. While it is possible that one of the troll commentors is someone else, it’s quite unlikely, the patterns are so clear. It is up to Dr Kendrick whether or not he approves that trolling (and the trolling is not always immediately obvious: for example, the suggestion about a Skeptiko interview could look legitimate, but notice how the person who was addressed, David Bailey, has responded and could also respond about “Waller MU Joel” if I was not correct.

You are trying to link the owner of the Skeptiko website with pseudoscience but your statements are incorrect. Please check their recent podcasts. Michael Shermer a noted skeptic was interviewed by Alex Tsakiris! The Skeptiko podcast is not a pseudoscientific podcast. Speak to David Bailey, he comments here. I am sure he would endorse Kendrick appearing on Skeptiko.

The website is “linked with pseudoscience,” not by me, but by RationalWiki, as I showed in the links “Ari” objected to. I google “skeptiko pseudoscience” and I get 3900 hits. I was not claiming that Skeptiko actually promotes pseudoscience, which is often poorly defined. That Shermer was interviewed does not establish anything (other than Tsakiris being willing to debate a skeptic, perhaps), but I have not listened to the podcast). Consider this (about another skeptic interview. ) I have no opinion at this point on whether Skeptiko is “pseudoscientific,” but I often disagree strongly with that offensive categorization of fringe science or non-science as “pseudoscientific.” Looking at recent posts, the site is certainly interesting. I supported the Wikiversity resource on parapsychology, not as a believer, but as a classic skeptic, who was in favor of exploration and education that is not based on conclusions but on genuine investigation. Darryl Smith’s activities arranged for the deletion of countless hours of work by many people on Wikiversity (that’s not an encyclopedia, and individual research and report of opinion was allowed), that is how I got involved with the Smiths, by exposing what they had done. And then they attacked me, intensely.

For a list of the recent guests

I personally would like to see Dr. Kendrick on more podcasts. It is not a crime or trolling to suggest such a thing. Waller Joel also known as “MU” is a regular poster on Skeptiko. He is a close friend of Alex Tsakiris.

David Bailey can certainly correct me. I have not claimed that it was a crime to suggest that. One is free to suggest harmful courses of action to enemies. My only purpose was and is to warn Dr. Kendrick that an appearance on the podcast would be used, there is no doubt about it, by John66 to amplify and extend the “evidence” against Kendrick on his attack platform, RationalWiki. There are also other skeptics who might form the same impression. As I wrote, the decision would be up to Kendrick (and Tsakiris). It would be used against both of them, by the way.

As to Waller Joel or MU, this is actually irrelevant, except for the probable impersonation here.  However, see below, section MU..

DuceMoosolini impersonation

Classic socking was the creation of multiple accounts to create the impression of wider support for a position than really existed. Impersonation socking of this kind is like that. DuceMoosolini is an ordinary Rat, likely to support what was written. But he did not write it and had no idea who might have done this. Even though it’s obvious. Rats generally don’t care to find out. On to what was written:

I am convinced that statin denialism is pseudoscience, it does not make testable predictions. On RationalWiki (I am a contributor) we have recently created an article on Statin Denialism, it is only in the early stages of creation, but any suggestions welcome. Lomax is banned from editing our website because of abuse but anyone can sign up and post/and or make suggestions if you are civil. DuceMoosolini‎

This is trolling because it is a comment made solely to provoke the people called “denialists,” a derisive term, not a part of any rational discussion. When DuceMoosolini says “we,” he is referring to John66, the continuation on RationalWiki of Skeptic from Britain, which is quite obvious when edit timings are studied, as I have done, not to mention point of view, special interests, etc.

K._Peters_BSc(Hons) attempted to correct that article, and was harassed and blocked by John66, unblocked by a regular, and then blocked again by David Gerard, continuing a long-term pattern of Gerard supporting Smith socks. They claimed this was Mikemikev, a long-term enemy of Oliver Smith. It is not impossible, but it would be trolling, then, by making legitimate edits to show and prove how this is prohibited. (This is why I asked about Peters and other users on the blog page. Nobody has responded.) I am suggesting that supporters of Dr Kendrick contact me, because I know how RatWiki works (and the same about Wikipedia.) Those not familiar with how those wikis function will often be quite ineffective. Things are not always as they seem, and certainly not as one might expect.

Contact me through a comment here, and I suggest requesting privacy. I must approve all first comments, and if you give me an legitimate email address, I will email you and then communication will be private. The comment will not be published if privacy is requested. Trolls, however, will be roasted and served to the rats for lunch.

RatWikians are highly uncivil. Someone who does not agree with the site positions (and RatWiki is explicitly not neutral) will commonly be insulted, sometimes doxxed (i.e., claims will be made about their real-life identity), arbitrarily reverted, and blocked with insults. Wikipedia can be almost as bad, but pretends to be neutral (and, overall, the community will support neutrality, but has never figured out how to deal with aggressive factions, including administrators, that support popular positions among the editorial community — or even just within the faction.) On RatWiki, if someone expresses an opinion or even points to something created by a “banned user,” they are then commonly blocked as a sock puppet of that user. It’s far worse than Wikipedia.

Which should not be surprising. RatWiki has long been dominated by juvenile pseudoskeptics, “debunkers,” with a totally naive idea of what science is. I was told, there, to “go fuck your kids,” and that was considered by the moderators not to be offensive. After all, isn’t this how people normally talk? (i.e., “people like us.”) At that point (this was in 2012) I simply stopped almost all contribution there. So the comment about “if you are civil” is hilarious, RW is one of the most uncivil wikis I have seen, though Encyclopedia Dramatica can be just as bad — but ED is openly for the “lulz,” not for serious purpose, as RatWiki pretends.

My alleged RationalWiki ban is described here.


When I first encountered Darryl, and exposed massive impersonation socking and trolling by him on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and the meta wiki, sock names included various favorites, and the same on RationalWiki. I have not independently researched the person behind this, more than a little, more than a year ago. This is what I find on RationalWiki:

Talk:MU_(internet_troll) was created by Waller MU Joel Abd — remember, this is a troll who created a page on a troll. None of this can be trusted.

This person Waller Joel (previously known as MU) did an interview with Roberta Grimes a few years ago [1], he appears to be on a lot of forums with many different alias names. His latest username on the Skeptiko forum appears to be mat barns, with an agenda to mock physical mediumship. He has used hundreds of fake names such as Andrew B. Chung, Tyler Snotgern, MU!!, Lars, Waller, Frank Camper, Merrick Forrester, abd etc all with the intention of trying to damage the idea of spiritualism or make a mockery of it. All I know is that he is from Florida and in his 60s. [1] I know that this person Waller Joel was also behind the MU trolling and countless impersonations amongst the spiritualist community. He still does this.

MU!! has been trolling numerous websites and newgroups, Usenet in particular, for over a decade. Do a Google search on names like “Ari Silverstein”, “Frank Camper”, or “wilburn” (preferably in combination with “Usenet”, e. g. [“Ari Silverstein” Usenet], [“Frank Camper” Usenet], [wilburn Usenet]) to see the full dimension of his trolling. As for Frank Camper: There is a real person with that name who is a former American soldier and mercenary ( MU!!, under his various names, often claims to be this person (or uses sockpuppets to create rumors about himself to that effect). However, he does the same with remote viewing researcher Courtney Brown so it’s most probably just bullshitting and attention seeking in both cases.

The link to Talk:Andrew B. Chung led me to the main article for that, which has been deleted. It was created by Ecology, which looks like an early Darryl sock to me. It was deleted and restored by Forest, a very well-known Darryl sock. Talk page archive 1 (linked above) is astonishing.  It is riddled with Darryl socks, and this rant is remarkable. There were accounts there, appearing to argue with each other, that may have been the same person. It would take a lot of work to figure it out! Archive 2 has more.

Of course, the mention of Ari Silverstein sounds the klaxon. That is not proof, but obvious grounds for strong suspicion — which I already had.

If I did not already  clearly know that John66 is Darryl, and behind all (or almost all) of the socking, I would have even stronger evidence. I frequently look at the block log on RatWiki, I find all kinds of interesting stuff there.

22:00, 15 March 2019 John66 (talk | contribs ) blocked Verifier (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Block evasion: Abd Lomax sock)

Verifier is the account that asked DuceMoosolini about the Kendrick comment. There were no other edits from that account, and talk page access was cut off. The edits would be obscure, not easily noticed in the avalanche of RatWiki edits. However, Darryl follows my every visible action (at the same time as he accuses me of being obsessed. This page, mentioning the response of Verifier, was posted at 21:33 UT. The only person who would care about this would be a Smith brother. He very much does not want Rats to know they are being impersonated.

An account on RatWiki registered as Verifier, and asked DuceMoosolini about whether or not he had written the comment on Kendrick’s blog.


  • 22:44, 15 March 2019 John66 (talk | contribs) blocked Verifiers (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: Another Abd Lomax sock)

This is, again, typical Darryl behavior. If they want an action to not be noticed, they create a series of socks. Verifier had accomplished his or her purpose and would not create a sock to do what would be unnecessary. Verifiers lied, pretending to be me, attacking Bongolian and David Gerard., with preposterous allegations. And this shows how Smith gets away with this disruption: RWRW enabled talk page access for Verifiers, with “Ban evasion: lets see if he replies to talk page message)”. This was an obvious troll, blatant, not even questionable. But at 22:00, John66 blocked Verifier, Verifiers registered at 22:38, made quick, repetitive trolling edits — very unlike Verifier, and was blocked by John66 at 22:44. This kind of timing I have seen from Darryl in the past. He creates a flock of impersonation socks, and blocks them very quickly.

  •  22:59, 15 March 2019 John66 (talk | contribs) blocked Randoms (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Block evasion: Abd sock)

Randoms was created at 22:53, edited User talk:Some random smith, lying (Randoms is Darryl Smith), and he also lied to David Gerard. I certainly did not give any account to anyone.

So from account creation to two quick edits to block is 6 minutes. That is a strong indication that this is a single person. You can see how it worked.

Once again, Darryl has a clear pattern. If he wants to hide something, he buries it in massive socking or massive edits that nobody will take the time to disentangle. It even worked on the meta wiki with stewards!

Another troll sock appears: A random guy, and drops some text from this blog on User talk:David Gerard. Of course, that will be blocked. But it isn’t. Again, what Darryl is creating is an impression of massive socking by me, which has never been the case. He did do one good thing, though, dropped a link to this blog, to a page that has a massive list of alleged Abd socks compiled by Darryl, showing which ones were actually me. Very few! But David Gerard, I’ve come to believe, knows exactly what he is doing, and I would not waste time asking him for anything. I’d rather send him certified mail, if I ever decide it’s worth the effort.  In this case, the block was by Dyskliver, who knows, I think, what is going one.

John66 commented in the DuceMoosolini/Verifier conversation

Was this you?

Comment on Malcolm Kendrick’s blog by DuceMoosolini‎ March 14, 2019 at 6:27 pm. Verifier (talk)

19:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)No, it wasn’t. I have nothing to do with the cholesterol articles, and I’m not sure why someone picked me to impersonate. Especially since they don’t seem to have said anything under my name that I particularly take exception to that I can see. Weird. DuceMoosolini Your friendly RW dictator moderator 20:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It’s not weird, it is common behavior for certain trolls, has happened to many. If you want to know, I have enabled email. –Verifier (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to notify the commenters that it’s not DuceMoosolini, but stingy log-in and password is annoying like usual. Can someone else do it? –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The impersonations are being done by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax or a troll related to him, probably Mikemikev. Lomax is a cholesterol and statin denialist who has written about a million words about me on his blog, accusing me of being someone else. It appears I am his latest victim. He has gone after David Gerard, Bongolian and now it is my turn. Lomax has been on the web for the last two weeks (on discord, reddit, Twitter and blogs) trying to stir up a flame war between vegans and low-carbers. The “verifier” account above is Lomax. John66 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not posted to Discord, Reddit, or Twitter for quite a long time. The original attempt to stir up a flame war was by Skeptic from Britain, i.e., Darryl L. Smith, who clearly moved his activity to RationalWiki, while claiming on Wikipedia he had been outed, at a point where the accusations on blogs and Twitter were pointing to someone who actually had confronted SfB, who had, at one time, been a vegan. It was working until I blew it up by pointing out what had actually happened.

Verifier offered a method of verification to DuceMoosolini (and, in fact, to anyone with an email-enabled RatWiki account. There are many accounts being claimed to be me, that aren’t. )

If anyone needs to know, I can be contacted through  comments here. Some RatWiki accounts of mine have email enabled, and so, as well, anyone can ask the account. You could even email Abd through his RatWiki account. John66, I notice, does not have email enabled.

And he just keeps going: Journalist. Same crap, repeating some text from this blog, claiming to be me, with disruptive edits. He has done this over and over.

There is a vast difference between trolls who hide their identity and real people. Yes, there can be reasons for maintaining privacy, but someone who hides identity should not have the same credence as someone with whom direct communication is possible. People may give anonymous tips to the police, but the police will verify them, and nobody is ever convicted based on evidence like that. At most they will investigate.

Arguments from Oliver

Oliver has challenged some identifications on the Other Wikis page (supra). Before incorporating new accounts on that page, I will explore them here.

First, that page is a list of suspected socks. Some of these are very clear, some less so. I had suggested that KATMAKROFAN might be Oliver. Stating a suspicion is not a lie, unless one has clear knowledge to the contrary, and I didn’t (though, in fact, I had forgotten some of my prior investigation of that user). When Oliver makes a clear claim of error, I check it out. KMF was not Oliver, he was an batshit crazy wikignome, finally community-banned from Wikipedia, and globally locked, in December. He had changed his name shortly after starting Wrongpedia, and then changed his name again while retiring. The functionaries changed it back. This guy is a loser’s loser.

Oliver and Darryl are not the only insane trolls on the internet.

Then, today, I see that Oliver has challenged another listing. I had written:

The confirmation claim is now removed, see below. It is still likely that Anti fascist was Oliver, this user had access to the CloudFare correspondence about Rightpedia.

Oliver keeps making new socks on Encyclopedia Dramatica, even though he has unblocked accounts with many contributions, MrStrong and then BumChum. Except that maybe these new accounts are not Oliver, maybe they are Darryl. It is possible. This new account is mostly defending John66, which is Darryl.


(posting on User talk:BumChum, a Smith account, who claims to be Oliver Smith, and who is not blocked.)

I don’t own the “anti fascist” account like most the others you listed; “anti fascist” is blatantly a Mikemikev sock. All the “anti racist” or “anti fascist” accounts are Mikemikev who has a history of pretending to be these things before I met him and he’s created plenty of accounts attacking himself and Rightpedia, while pretending to be from Hope not Hate or Antifa. He’s trolled me for past 5 years and created a fake biography of me using these fake accounts that I’m a some sort of Antifa/communist. You now just uncritically repeat these lies about me on your blog without fact-checking anything. The fake biography Mikemikev created about me was that I’m a former Nazi or fascist turned Antifa. Neither of these absurd claims are true, yet you repeat this nonsense about me on your blog.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re also posting yet more misinformation. I never have had any association or communication with “KATMAKROFAN” and I’m not even interested in who that is. All I know is it isn’t me, which is easy to prove. You claim to correct errors on your blog – yet you never apologise for all the misinformation and lies you post and when you do revise or edit something, you still attack me as with your bizarre response I keep “company” with “KATMAKROFAN”. You clearly have some form of personality disorder.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Where are you getting the misinformation you have “confirmation” I’m “anti fascist”. You’re lying again. On Meta-Wiki all I said is I would remove JuniusThaddeus’ name that was mentioned on Wrongpedia – that’s virtually all I did:
The name is a joke in reference to a (deleted) Encylopedia Dramatica article JuniusThaddeus made. The other accounts on Wrongpedia are KATMAKROFAN and a bunch of Mikemikev’s troll socks pretending to be an anti-racist. None of these are obviously mine. Most of the wiki was also blanked by a user named “Joshy”, also not me.Tobias Raper (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The confirmation was was shown as a link to meta, where Oliver posted as Largewarhammer. AP socks are generally blocked on sight, but they often escape notice. In that conversation, Oliver lied about the history, specifically emails. I published those emails, and they contradict Oliver’s claims. When Oliver is exposed, he ignores it and then later repeats the same lies. He’s gotten away with it for years. In any case, it was Oliver who had emailed me, this is crystal clear, and this provides him with an open channel, confirmed to be him, if he wants to make a statement that is definitively from him.
Tobias Raper also claims to be Oliver, so Oliver is running a conversation on the user talk page of one of his socks, or the other sock was lying and is actually Mikemikev. This, in fact, is Oliver’s standard excuse for outrageous sock behavior. It’s supposedly all Mikemikev, or sometimes he has claimed it was his brother, but when I asked him to clarify which accounts were him, and which were others, specifically, he said it was too much work, and then he wrote that it had all been lies, about the brother, and then he cast doubt on that statement. His goal is to create confusion. And then when people don’t get it right (or when they do! It doesn’t really matter!) he attacks them for “lying.”

So this is what Oliver, LWH, wrote, on meta:


I already left that wiki. so you just pointlessly revived things. you posted on 12 april. My last comment was a week before on the 5th.

The main page was created March 29 by KATMAKROFAN. The first edit to that page by anyone else was by EvilDead, who also created the article on Michael Coombs. EvilDead’s last edit was April 4. There was another account with a classic Oliver name: Pindar, who had commented on the 5th. Pindar also blanked the article on Mikemikev’s mother.

No one else is active there and it doesn’t even show up on search-engines. as i said on my talk page I don’t know what you’re doing.

And if you’re all of a sudden against doxing families, when not target rightpedia? It’s mikemikev creating hitpiece articles that include doxes of people’s families.

As for legal action, you’re mistaken. I will be drafting a letter since I have his parents address, either that or I’ll visit his parents. But before doing that I’ve focused on the rationalwiki and other sites to document and build a profile. He going to loose especially when I alert authorities about all the holocaust denial, hardcore racism and his online behaviours combined with the defamation he posts online. Massive log here: Largewarhammer (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


I’ve now removed mention of your name etc on wrongpedia.Largewarhammer (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So I looked at the actions. Anti fascist was active on the 14th, but previously I did not notice the times. In fact, the removal of Michaeldsuarez’s name was done at 3:46 by another account with a Smith-type name, for throwaway accounts, account names with some weird message in them, Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend. What he did, the only contribution, was to remove edits by Pindar attacking Michaeldsuarez, the day before. So this did not confirm that Anti fascist was Oliver, so I will correct that.

However, the story that Anti fascist was Mikemikev is extremely unlikely to be fact. Anti fascist uploaded a screenshot of the response to the complaint filed against Rightpedia with the domain host. It remains likely that Anti fascist was Oliver, but it is always possible it was his brother or some other troll.

An account appeared today, “Anti rightpedia”, and claimed that Wrongpedia had served its purpose and was closed. The user name “Anti rightpedia” had already been used. By the way, I archived the entire Wrongpedia project. It had a robots.txt setting that prevented from working, but a complete site archive is more useful (because all the internal links, including logs, will work). That is why it doesn’t show up in internet search engines. Haters hate and hiders hide.

Another new ED account showed up, FarLeftie. If this is Mikemikev, as claimed by a Smith sock, it is one of the most sophisticated impersonations I have ever seen. The account cooked for a year. I hadn’t noticed it because I had not looked at the Rightpedia article edits yet. This was the only Smith sock I would have found there. FarLeftie made a series of typical Smith edits to Rightpedia, 11 months ago. If this was Mike, way too much work for way too little effect.

Tobias Raper continued to rave on ED. Looks to me like the admins are taking a holiday.  I take claims of “lies” here as being claims of error, because sometimes there is an error, and, for many years, I have known that paying attention to “enemies” can be highly useful, because they are more likely than friends to notice errors. Indeed, they will be fervently dedicated to that. BumChum is an admitted Oliver sock — so why is he posting on his own talk page as another user? — because that’s what Oliver does — ranted on and on about me, and about what is on the page supra. This all obviously pressed some buttons, because a new account showed up on Wrongpedia today, claiming it was “closed,” “Anti rightpedia.”

I don’t own the “anti fascist” account like most the others you listed; “anti fascist” is blatantly a Mikemikev sock. All the “anti racist” or “anti fascist” accounts are Mikemikev who has a history of pretending to be these things before I met him and he’s created plenty of accounts attacking himself and Rightpedia, while pretending to be from Hope not Hate or Antifa. He’s trolled me for past 5 years and created a fake biography of me using these fake accounts that I’m a some sort of Antifa/communist. You now just uncritically repeat these lies about me on your blog without fact-checking anything. The fake biography Mikemikev created about me was that I’m a former Nazi or fascist turned Antifa. Neither of these absurd claims are true, yet you repeat this nonsense about me on your blog.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is typical for Oliver. He relies on confusion. I keep in mind the possibility that an account is Mikemikev, or some other impersonator, and I’ve seen a few that might be him, but not accounts like, say, FarLeftie on ED, who made a series of edits a year ago that Oliver later built on, on ED, and who appears to be doing Smith brother work, with substantial effort. Or Anti fascist on Wrongpedia, who appears to have been one to complain to Rightpedia’s domain host. This is very, very unlikely to be Mikemikev. Nothing is impossible, but how often would a troll go to so much work?

First of all, I have taken nothing from Mikemikev’s biography. There are two claims here:

  1. Former Nazi or fascist. What is clear is that Oliver had right-wing opinions, years ago. One of the  red flags for Oliver accounts, years ago, was an interest in the British National Party. Metapedia is currently down, which is where these opinions were voiced, most strongly, and I’m not looking for archived copies, too much work for too little benefit. So the first part is not false, though it could be exaggerated. If I have claimed this about Oliver, where? What was false? Again, this is typical for Oliver and Darryl. They claim lies, but don’t point to a specific statement that could be corrected. Often I have no idea what they are talking about. So I search, and sometimes I find something. When it is an error, or an interpretation presented as if it were fact (beyond normal journalistic license), I correct it, and I always offer the opportunity of reply in situ, which is rarely done. (Compare their behavior on RationalWiki. A target of their articles replying and attempting to correct articles is normally blocked in short order.)
  2. That he “turned antifa.” Again, Oliver clearly is attacking the extreme right wing, particularly Rightpedia, but also such targets as Emil Kirkegaard, claimed to be fascist and racist, or the London Conference on Intelligence and John Fuerst. Oliver has bragged about creating those last three articles. So this is also not false. So what is he actually denying here? The Rightpedia article was created by Michaeldsuarez, but was immediately taken up by Krom, which was Oliver and there are many other Oliver socks in the history of that article (plus a little Darryl).

There are lists of suspected socks on various pages on this blog. It is always possible, and I frequently state this, that a suspicion is only that, based on an appearance. An impersonator, unless it’s quite obviously impersonation, would appear in such lists, but impersonation accounts normally do not continue long, especially when the real person is around, and Oliver and Darryl have always been around RationalWiki and perfectly capable of immediately confronting an impersonator. As an example, consider user Schizophrenic on RatWiki. This user was active from January to September 2016. His edits show extensive Oliver interest. The last edit of the user was 20 September, 2016. 2 October 2016, there was an edit of his user page by IP. It has been suppressed, but the IP is given in the revert.  All the edits of that IP have been deleted, However, any RW sysop can see five pages edited:

And the content of the edits was

that page can be found on the internet archive, and there are versions on Documenting the Smith brothers can be hazardous, see “This is the end,” a message from Joshua Connor Moon. Talk about families being harassed, his mother was fired as a result of harassment, and Oliver, while denying that he “got her fired,” admitted sending the email that resulted in it. These guys are toxic, much more than a little trolling of “lolcows” on web sites.

Bottom line, Schizophrenic was Oliver. So then, sixteen months later:

19:54, 2 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs) blocked Schizophrenic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Harassment: Impersonation, not real “Oliver” now Abd using the impersonator on his blog:

The archived page refers to an entire category, which is his habit. He is referring to this page, here. Which has plenty of evidence. And then Oliver/Darryl, several days later, claimed I had hacked the Debunking spiritualism account. No, these trolls create disruption and then claim they were impersonated, that’s clear. That does not prove that any specific account is not an impersonation, but impersonation is being claimed where it is radically unlikely.

So this Smith brother went on (I am not entirely clear at this point which brother this is; it is likely that Tobias Rieper and FarLeftie are, together, the brothers, but when one is looking at two smokescreens, how much can be clear?

You’re also posting yet more misinformation. I never have had any association or communication with “KATMAKROFAN” and I’m not even interested in who that is. All I know is it isn’t me, which is easy to prove. You claim to correct errors on your blog – yet you never apologise for all the misinformation and lies you post and when you do revise or edit something, you still attack me as with your bizarre response I keep “company” with “KATMAKROFAN”. You clearly have some form of personality disorder.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Which brother is this? The page supra lists many accounts. It’s very likely that Oliver was not only Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend

Johnny Utah was the first user to edit Wrongpedia after KMF, very possibly Oliver.  Then EvilGremlin, likely Oliver, but it is not impossible that it was Darryl, and the name would be a Darryl-type name.  The site has a robots.txt file that prevents search engines from indexing it. I could fix that, but maybe it’s better left as it is. In any case, it’s likely that Oliver did participate in creating Wrongpedia, and that suffices for “keeping company” with KMF. Next case? “Raper kept right on:


Where are you getting the misinformation you have “confirmation” I’m “anti fascist”. You’re lying again. On Meta-Wiki all I said is I would remove JuniusThaddeus’ name that was mentioned on Wrongpedia – that’s virtually all I did:

The name is a joke in reference to a (deleted) Encylopedia Dramatica article JuniusThaddeus made. The other accounts on Wrongpedia are KATMAKROFAN and a bunch of Mikemikev’s troll socks pretending to be an anti-racist. None of these are obviously mine. Most of the wiki was also blanked by a user named “Joshy”, also not me.Tobias Raper (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice how the claim is that none are “obvious,” not that none are his. Ah, is it “Tobias Raper” or “Tobias Rieper”? I see the troll ‘crat has been active again.

I see no evidence so far of Mikemikev activity on Wrongpedia. As to Anti fascist, from contributions this is extremely unlikely to be Mikemikev. For whom is this Smith grandstanding? The same for Anti-racist_guy and Anti_Rightpedia

All those accounts do what would be expected from Oliver — or maybe his brother — and nothing else. Could this be another RatWiki user? It’s not impossible. A link to Wrongpedia was placed in the RW Rightpedia article by an IP, March 29, 2018, geolocating to British Columbia.  At this point, only KATMAKROFAN had edited Wrongpedia. This IP, then, is likely  KMF.  The IP had many edits to RatWiki, and actually added Wrongpedia to the RatWiki article on Wikis, the same day, when only KMF had edited it., and gives that user name (It is still listed.)

ED accounts

Most what you list aren’t mine, but briefly to correct two of the most sloppy mistakes:

“ShadowofRome – Oliver trolling Rome Viharo”
The name ShadowofRome is a PS2 game. Viharo mistakenly thought the name was a reference to him and I was “trolling” him, you seem to be repeating this error.

So, the account successfully trolled Viharo, but because the name is of a video game, it therefore was not trolling? The logic is brilliant. Let me look at the account again. With its first edit,  this account acknowledged being Oliver Smith.  I see no error here, and only someone batshit crazy would think so. Ah, yes. Batshit crazy. Oliver makes up the craziest excuses.

“Dan_Skeptic Darryl trolling Rome Viharo”
As far as I’m aware, my brother has never posted on ED. This account certainly isn’t him, but an impersonator. You use this fake account on another blog article “Darryl authentic on himself” when this account isn’t genuine. Probably owned by Mikemikev who has impersonated my brother on other forums. Tobias Raper (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation on several levels. First of all, there is at least one ED account where Darryl explicitly posted as himself. There are others that are possible.  Secondly, being familiar with Darryl’s arguments, in many places, this is Darryl and Mikemikev would not likely argue in the same way. In many places, Oliver has claimed that he doesn’t know what his brother is doing, but somehow he comes up with a claim that this was not his brother, and he claims impersonation. If this is impersonation, it doesn’t resemble any I have seen. It is far more sophisticated than what I’ve seen. Sophisticated impersonation is a lot of work, to pull it off this well. This was Darryl, using his Wikipedia user name (disclosed sock, later, Goblin Face), which he knew would push Rome Viharo’s buttons.; Tobias Raper might not be lying, but, if not, he is just plain insane.

This is the page he refers to: anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/authentic-darryl-smith-on-himself/

I did not use that ED Dan Skeptic account as evidence on that page. Rather, it was an edit by Iambic, preserved on Iambic is not listed on the page supra, because the account has no undeleted edits. Perseus also claimed to be Debunking spiritualism, i.e., Darryl.

There was another account “Skeptic,” on ED. It claimed to be Darryl (and Iambic — Oliver — was responding to the conversation). A Smith brother is now claiming that this was an impersonation. In this case, Oliver did claim that at the time. He was lying.

Nothing here worth changing. But I will reproduce the entire comment from “Skeptic,” because I’ve learned quite a bit about Darryl, having read his comments over at least six years. This is Darryl, all right (I’ve seen many other disclosures of his personal history, written in different places. It all matches). In 2016, nobody knew that much about him, to be able to write this so clearly. This was on ED Talk:Oliver D. Smith that was deleted when the article was deleted for a time, and never restored.

Request to delete this page please read

What Oliver has said about the brothers is true. I have not appeared anywhere in relation to this anywhere until now so I will only type one message here, please read this.
I understand that Oliver for the last 3 years has had a personal internet battle with a guy called mikemikev. JuniusThaddeus seems to have got involved in this as well and it has been going on for years now.
Pretty much all the accounts listed by JuniusThaddeus are accurate. I am not denying they belong to us, I only own the skeptic accounts on wikipedia and rationalwiki, it’s pretty easy to see which ones are mine, the ones debunking spiritualism, fraudulent mediums, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quacks etc. The reason Oliver denied owning the skeptic accounts is because they belong to me. He doesn’t want the skeptic accounts under his name for some reason. He does not identify as a skeptic.
A long time ago when I was in my teens I was a believer in paranormal phenomena, even endorsing various silly things like ancient aliens on wikipedia. Over the years I started to realise it was all nonsense after I went to university, based on wishful thinking or the result of fraud or self-deception and I became a skeptic. I debunked a lot of people and things on both rationalwiki and wikipedia. I regret creating the rationalwiki pages I have to to dislike rationalwiki it is not an academic website or as professional as Wikipedia. But I disagree that they are ‘hit’ pages.
All the criticisms I made of creationists, parapsychologists or of fraudulent spiritualist mediums, ancient astronaut proponents etc were sourced to scientific or skeptic publications.
I honestly cannot workout the obsession with my skeptic edits on wikipedia or rationalwiki. What business is it of anyone here? I don’t get it. Millions of people edit Wikipedia. I am essentially a nobody. Nothing I have done on the internet is illegal. I may have upset people by debunking their nonsensical beliefs on wiki websites but there is no crime in this. The majority of the stuff I add is sourced, it is not my own opinion.
Oliver holds a minority of fringe academic views and he has got me banned on wikipedia numerous times for causing trouble on there. They then checkuser our location and my accounts come up. There is not much I can do about that. I am not very much active on the website anymore, I ran out of things to debunk.
Dan Skeptic, DinoCris were me. As were the other skeptic accounts on Wikipedia. Oliver does not know anything about parapsychology, his interest has always been history, mythology etc.
The only controversial thing I have ever done is create a rationalwiki article on Rome Viharo. He is a troll I came across under my account Dan Skeptic on wikipedia. Since then Rome Viharo has targeted Oliver who has immaturely done things on various websites and forums to retaliate, even on this website. There is not much we can do about this, but 90% of it is all deleted. Oliver no longer is interested in creating blogs or websites about Rome Viharo’s abuse. He wants it all deleted.
JuniusThaddeus says he wants a photograph. I’m sorry I am not doing that. I am in full time employment, I have a job and am in a relationship. I don’t want my personal details up or name slandered and pictures put up about me. I have the right to remain anonymous on the internet.
We are not blaming anyone here at ED for being our accounts, they belong to us. Oliver has made the mistake of blaming JuniusThaddeus for these accounts because he can’t mention my name so just decided to blame him. He doesn’t want the skeptic stuff under his name. There is not much I can do about it.
Oliver in the past has made a lot of mistakes. He regrets joining metapedia. He was associated with the BNP briefly. He used to believe that biological races are real. He no longer holds these positions and since turned the opposite debunking the idea of race.
Oliver does not have schizophrenia, he made that up because he fell out with mikemikev and metapedia so wanted to make them look bad but it back-fired.
As for JuniusThaddeus unfortunately he now has a large grudge against Oliver and stalks him across the internet. For example uploading those recent pictures of Oliver is not very fair. Oliver now wants to move on in his life I have spoken to him about this and he agrees. He is going to cease all internet communications with mikemikev, Rome Viharo and all these other people like Lulzkiller (above) who posts on lolcows.
Regarding certain beliefs, Olvier used to hold various views and changes his position over time, this is perfectly natural. Like myself he is embarrassed about some of his former beliefs. Change happens.
Apparently users here seem to think we have to stay static all our lives. Some of the skeptics I greatly admire started out as believers in things but shifted their position drastically over the years. Like I said this is natural.
Oliver was embarrassed about his posts when he was 14 or 15 years old on the tomb raider forum so it is natural he would deny them. Don’t we all posts stupid things when we are young? I think it is ridiculous that this sort of thing has ended up here at ED. Nobody cares about it and it is not funny.
As for lolcows website that now stalks Oliver it contains deliberate falsehoods to try and annoy him. Oliver is not a peadophile or attracted to children in anyway shape or form. His biggest enemy is peadophiles and the sexually immoral, he even used this website in the past and another to attack a peadohpile and warn people about them. It is slander to call someone a peadophile when they are not one and you have no evidence.
My request here is for this page to be deleted.
1. Nobody is blaming ED for owning our Wikipedia or rationalwiki accounts. We created them. But many of these skeptic accounts belong to me not Oliver. So it is actually false and not factual to say they are his.
2. Oliver’s mental health has deteriorated and he wants to move on with his life. JuniusThaddeus has been angry but seems to have an unhealthy obsession with stalking Oliver. I request for this to stop and everyone just move on with their lives.
3. Oliver at the end of the day is also a nobody, this page exists because of his personal feud with JuniusThaddeus. I think it is silly to have three pages here at ED dedicated to him and unfair, and it is getting freaky the stalking behavior. This is Junius’s personal grudge war. I would appreciate if this page could be deleted. Like I said I have owned up to these accounts which were actually mine not Oliver’s. Nobody is saying they belong to ED.
Oliver wants to move on with his life. I have spoken to him and he will not longer communicate with JuniusThaddeus, Mikemikev, post on forums, blogs, reddit or any of the other immature things he was doing. He wants to move on with his life and he is involved with a job now.
JuniusThaddeus says its odd for family members in their 20s to still be living together. I am pretty sure Junious is older than Oliver yet still living at home with his mum and dad. It really is of no interest to ED who Oliver lives with or what he does with his life. Why don’t you guys just live your life? Oliver like myself is a nobody at the end of the day.
It is coming up to Christmas and I just think it is sad that this stupid online battle is still going on. There is a large world out there with many good things to see or get educated about. We all make mistakes but this whole thing is ridiculous. If the mods here have any sense of knowing what is right you should remove this page. JuniusThaddeus has removed other attack pages he has created on people. The whole point in ED is to be funny. These pages on Oliver are off-mission.
I am not posting here again. You guys all need to move on in your lives. The world is bigger than this. We are all going to die one day, and I think it’s sad websites exist like this. I have made a lot of mistakes myself but you guys should just see sense and move on with your lives. Oliver has promised me from this week he will be doing this, so you will never hear from him again. Regards. Skeptic 04:48, 27 November 2016 (EST)
This was Darryl, I’m convinced.
Meanwhile, more suspected Oliver socks:


Clever, that Mikemikev. He uses his known name to make it appear that Oliver is impersonating him. Look how it worked! Likewise Dubiczki also known as Fiala or Vajna . And if you believe that, register as an editor on RationalWiki, you will fit right in.

BillConservative had this in the article creation:

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center noted that the co-founder of Rightpedia Michael Coombs has created hundreds of sock-puppets to abuse Wikipedia.[10] He later confirmed this on his Gab account.[11]

The RationalWiki article on Rightpedia has this:

In 2018 the SPLC noted that the white nationalist co-founder of Rightpedia has created hundreds of sockpuppets on Wikipedia.[7] Mikemikev confirmed these accounts belonged to him.[8]

This is what the SPLC article stated:

One of the white nationalists who co-founded Rightpedia, a far-right free encyclopedia that split from Metapedia, created more than 140 accounts in the past 10 years.

I reviewed that SPLC article. It used to have comments enabled. It was a mess. “Bill Connors” showed up, an obvious Smith sock, his Disqus contributions archived.

The comment section is accessible through Disqus. In any case, Bill Connors had written:

Mikemikev the Rightpedia cofounder has confirmed the socks talked about in this article belong to him… and he seems to find the whole situation funny.

This was classic Oliver smokescreen: As I wrote then Mikemikev referred to the reference about “my socks.”

The Wikipedia link is to the SPI casepage on Mikemikev, so this would be, for him, “my socks.” Were he more careful, he might have inserted “alleged.” But he DGAF (that part was reasonable, he likely does find this “funny”). What I notice was that many of those socks were not mikemikev, that is obvious from the individual reports, so he is definitely not “confirming the socks belong to him.” As well, Mikemikev, like many other AP targets, has been impersonated.  Mikemikev gives the “source” as a person he names in the Rightpedia article as Wikipedia user Maunus. Notice the first report, by Maunus. The finding: “Unrelated.” (But Mikemikev’s comment ascribing all this to Maunus was unfair.)

Back to what the article had:

One of the white nationalists who co-founded Rightpedia, a far-right free encyclopedia that split from Metapedia, created more than 140 accounts in the past 10 years.

That sounds like a lot, though it would only be a little more than one sock per month, and these accounts tend to make few edits before being discovered, so this does not actually bear on the problem of factional bias. However, this was an obvious reference to mikemikev. It was not sourced. However, Bill Connors supplied this:

The cofounder of Rightpedia is neo-Nazi Michael Coombs who users the name Mikemikev, he writes hit-piece articles about anti-fascists on Rightpedia. On Wikipedia he has 143 suspected socks…

I reviewed the issue of Mikemikev socks on Wikipedia, found on this subpage. My conclusions: Mikemikev has nowhere near that number of actual socks on Wikipedia. The actual number is unclear, because Wikipedia sock puppet investigations are erratic and a systematic error can be created by impersonations — or other misidentification, and there have been impersonations. It seems nothing is recent that is reasonably clear as Mikemikev is recent. At least two tagged accounts were far more likely to be Oliver D. Smith (Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia) socks. That is very likely Bill Connors. Haters hate.

Wikipedia does not distinguish between the Smith brothers (Oliver and Darryl). Together, they have many hundreds of identified socks. They are a far larger long-term problem on Wikipedia than the relatively sparse socking of Mikemikev, or other enemies they have attacked.

In any case, the same information was added to RationalWiki by Debunking spiritualism. Leading me to some suspicion that this was Darryl. But there is some level of cross-over.

Mikemikev’s socks

On ED, the latest Oliver sock is EverybodyGolf. A user account appeared, “I am mikemikev.” The user claims, in his single edit, to be mikemikev. So Oliver goes after him — and after me. He put up this:

Clear up your Wikipedia socks with Abd…

Abd Lomax is claiming “you own nowhere near” the 143 (now 145) suspected socks on Wikipedia when we both know 140+ are yours. Rarely a mistake is made.

And then he quotes me (without the link,) that is one of his standard tricks, I’m restoring it):

I reviewed the issue of Mikemikev socks on Wikipedia, found on this subpage. My conclusions: Mikemikev has nowhere near that number of actual socks on Wikipedia. — Abd

Lomax now seems to be claiming I own something like 100 of your sockpuppets which is not only false but defamation since you post racism and anti-Semitism on those accounts and I don’t hold your crazy Nazi beliefs.EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The full comment is above. I went on:

The actual number is unclear, because Wikipedia sock puppet investigations are erratic and a systematic error can be created by impersonations — or other misidentification, and there have been impersonations. It seems nothing is recent that is reasonably clear as Mikemikev is recent. At least two tagged accounts were far more likely to be Oliver D. Smith (Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia) socks. That is very likely Bill Connors. Haters hate.

In Oliver’s crazed universe, “at least two” becomes a claim of “something like 100.” In fact, however, there are two separate issues, conflated to one by Oliver. First of all, how many “actual socks”?

The category is for “suspected socks,” not “confirmed socks.” The context was a discussion on Hatewatch, where assumptions would be made about “accounts,” vs. IP addresses. The SSP category currently points to 145 pages. Of those, 102 are IP addresses, not accounts. Only 43 are named accounts.

Then, secondly, how many are actually Mikemikev, and how would we know? What happens with impersonations? Are there impersonation socks tossed in that page?

This category is a bit more definitive: Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev. It shows 123 pages, of which 52 are IP, 71 are named accounts. In the named accounts I see some apparent impersonations. I have listed these as accounts simply having names to be suspected:

In the suspected category are these accounts:

Where more definitive identifications are found is the SPI archive. This is small compared to the AngloPyramidologist archive (Oliver and Darryl). There are many unsupported reports, and one identification that was retracted.

IonianGreek, suspected of being Mike, red flag Oliver account name. dismissed, but then later checkuser blocked, no tagging. Oliver content so likely Oliver.

In this SPI report, impersonation or other accounts were identified:

KirkegaardEmil was also mentioned. Apparent duck test. Checkuser blocked without identifying master. Not tagged by CU.

(The duck test is highly vulnerable to impersonation from some. Accounts are created on RationalWiki with my name or parts of my address or showing my interests, and they edit by copying something I have written, and then these are blocked and listed as my socks. The Smiths attack enemies by impersonating them and “promoting” their agenda in a radically clumsy way, and some wiki editors jump to conclusions. If a user is blocked on Wikipedia and someone imitates them, they will want to block the new account either way, so they don’t really care if it is accurate. But a pattern of socking like that can enrage some Wikipedians, which is exactly the effect the impersonator wants.)

Reviewing this, I was accurate. There are not “145” socks, as that word is reasonably defined for context. The number of actual socks is a bit unclear, because socks that were suggested to be impersonations were blocked and tagged with the rest. The Emil Kirkegaard socks are almost certainly impersonations, even though the earlier examples were not recognised as impersonations. Quite simply, it’s very unlikely that Mikemikev would appropriate that name, knowing this was someone Oliver attacks.

London Student Journalist is a great example. Oliver interacted with student press in London, feeding them misleading evidence about Emil Kirkegaard. Then, checking the contributions of LSJ, I find that he edited the London Conference on Intelligence. And then I see a familiar name who reverted the contributions of Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard), familiar because I have gone over the SPI case for Anglo Pyramidologist. This was Vihaan Khatri.



subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/

One of the long-term traits of Darryl Smith has been the creation of impersonation socks. A remarkable one showed up on Dr Kendrick’s blog, with these comments:

Simon Derricut
January 16, 2019 at 9:19 pm

This statin denialism thing is not science. This is why Dr. Kendrick and his associates are confined to posting blog posts about it. It is rarely published in scientific peer reviewed papers. Ivor Cummins for example has no scientific papers! Where are all the 2019 scientific peer reviewed papers on it? Wait … there are 0. Medical journals do not publish this statin denialism.

Harriet Hall in the Skeptical Inquirer has blasted it

Statins have saved my life. This is nonsense what people here are saying that they do not work.

Simon Derricut (life long atheist and skeptic from USA).

Trolls lie, it’s that simple. They say whatever they think will outrage their targets. It works sometimes. The target will register an account on RationalWiki and counterattack, and will be quickly blocked and treated as if banned. If someone else tries to point out the problems with the RationalWiki article, they will be treated as sock puppets of the target, and it’s not uncommon for Darryl to create attack socks that are so identified, and this happens especially when the real person, their target, actually shows up. Oliver, Darryl’s brother, also runs this scam.

And then when someone new figures out what has been going on (since 2012 or earlier), they are called “believers in the Smith brothers conspiracy theory.”

On Wikipedia, someone who is “fringe,” meaning holding ideas that are in a minority (“fringe” does not mean “crazy’), who shows up because they can clearly see how outragesously non-neutral Wikipedia articles can be, typically has no clue about how Wikipedia actually works and so is immediately recognizable as an outsider, and easily marginalized, blocked, or even banned, as “SPAs” — single-purpose accounts, or “POV-pushers,” i.e, people pushing a point of view, attempting to make the project violate neutrality policy, whereas skeptical editors who do that are protected. Not completely, when they become entirely too outrageous, they may also be sanctioned, but the faction has developed ways to defang the sanctions. It’s a long-term scandal, well-known among Wikipedia critics.

RationalWiki makes no pretense of neutrality. The Smith brothers, banned on Wikipedia, found a refuge there. And then occasionally create a new account on Wikipedia. If they wait roughly three months, Wikipedia dumps the server logs so checkusers cannot verify identity of an account beyond that, unless they kept copies of logs, which they sometimes do. And then they slip up and are caught anyway. All it takes is one edit, say from their parent’s home or visiting each other, and their cover is blown. But they simply abandon the account and go back to RationalWiki, where they have bragged that they have hundreds of accounts, and it’s quite plausible from what I’ve seen. I haven’t counted the ones I’ve identified.

and then this troll wrote:

Simon Derricut
January 16, 2019 at 9:31 pm

Mr Lomax you come across as obsessive. I would like to see less spam and unproven allegations about this Rationalwiki (not the topic of this blog). Can you please point to 12 peer-reviewed scientific papers that support statin denialism from 2018-2019 please? I found only 1 publication by Aseem Malhotra and it was shot down, easily.

Rory Collins, he compared statin denialism to a belief in a flat earth! He is the sort of man who has saved lives with his research. I am offended by this denialism. Statins have saved my life and my wife’s. How do you explain this? Clearly statins do work! No conspiracy. You said you are 74 and in bad health, perhaps statins will help you. Statin’s also improved my sex life (the wife don’t mind) 🙂

Simon Derricut

I warned the real Simon Derricutt (notice the spelling), , of the impersonation. It has occurred before that a Smith impersonation was caught and the response was that if the name was spelled differently, it was not an impersonation. The comments above are classical trolling, comments designed to elicit angry or other emotional response, both from me and from Dr Kendrik and his blog readers. The first Darryl socking on Kendricks’ blog was comments designed to focus blame for Skeptic from Britain (Darryl) on someone else who had criticised SfB. That, again, is classic. This kind of blatant deception and lying is not a common trait of skeptics, but the problem with some skeptics is that they tolerate it, if the “message” of the troll is one that they like. They more or less believe that anyone involved with the fringe will also lie and deceive, so what is the problem with a skeptic doing it?

Lies and deception form no part of genuine skepticism or the pursuit of science.

Based on that warning, or on my comment on Kendrick’s blog,  (but probably not approved until the next day), this comment appeared here:

no impersonation
January 17, 2019 at 8:49 pm

not impersonation, simon dericut has one t on kendricks blog. abd lying again?

Typical, again, Darryl claims I’m lying, but does not specify the lie. If asked, he normally ignores the question, because he knows is that in some contexts people will make assumptions that if two people are calling each other liars, both are crazy. Using anonymous accounts, he suffers no reputation hit by lying, and people who do not discriminate between anonymous accounts and real people miss the difference. In communities that support (and give administrative privileges to) anonymous accounts, they think nothing of this. This is, however, entirely different from practice in the sciences. Part of what makes the journal system work is that authors are responsible for what they write. Reviewers are allowed to be anonymous, and that can be iffy, but at least there are clear reasons for it. Editors are not anonymous, and are responsible for the decisions they make.

So the real Simon, as I expected (he obviously follows this blog), showed up.

Simon Derricutt
2019/01/18 at 8:21 am

In reply to no impersonation.

“no impersonation” – have you run a search on “Simon Derricut”? That’s two times r and one t, as on Dr. Kendrick’s blog. You’ll find no other comments by that person, and where you find that spelling it’s someone else referring to me and getting my name wrong (Abd has done that as well). I’m “blessed” with a unique name in the world, as far as I’ve seen in various searches over the years. As such, that’s a sock trying (and failing) to impersonate me. Maybe he/she thought that Abd would treat the reply with more respect than an anonymous comment, but of course Abd can tell the difference in tone anyway.

Used to be said that you know when you’re over the target because the flak gets heaviest. It seems to me that Abd must be pretty close to the target.

And on Kendrick’s blog:

Simon Derricutt
January 18, 2019 at 12:41 pm

Dr Kendrick – looks like “Simon Derricut” above is a sock. As such, I doubt if he/she will produce any evidence to the assertions. Check the email address of the sock (which is probably a burner anyway) and if you deem it a good response then delete the comments as spam. For reference, I’m English and have never taken statins either, and would refuse them for the reasons you’ve given. Maybe he/she tried to use my name because I’m a friend of Abd.\

Dr. Kendrick responded:

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author
January 18, 2019 at 5:13 pm

It is getting a bit complicated to know who is commenting. Would that we could look people in the eye.

Dr Kendrick is not an expert blog administrator (nor is he expected to be). It is not complicated, however, if it matters who people are and one takes steps. The software requires very comment given an email address, and generally comes with IP information (I don’t know about the blogs on This can be checked on a service like I’m hosting my own domain and can see raw access logs if I want to. A comment using a proxy server or, even more secretive, a Tor node, is hiding identity. Wikipedia, as an example, will block such IP on sight.

I am not anonymous, I’ve been open on the internet since before the internet (i.e., on the WELL in the 1980s). The RationalWiki article is about me. And I’m easy to verify, just ask and provide a way for email contact. I believe I have sent Dr Kendrick email, and from the email headers he could verify it’s me. We could even talk on the phone. I would be honored to chat with him.

There is a vast difference between real people, not hiding, and trolls who lie with no compunction, believing that they cannot be uncovered (which was precisely the claim of one of the trolls in this series.)

Otherwise comments on blogs can blatantly impersonate people if it’s allowed. In the case of these trolls, anyone familiar with them can spot them immediately. Below I list 13 comments on this particular post I consider likely to be Darryl, or, less likely, his brother. “Steve James,” 2 comments, might be merely confused, but since he has never commented before, this is more likely Darryl.

One might think that some skeptic could pick up on the conversation and post, but . . . how would they find this conversation? The RationalWiki articles are new, with low participation, and the comments(and Skeptic from Britain) have not been discussed there except in one obscure place. Most RationalWiki users are not particularly interested in the diet/statin issues, but Skeptic from Britain found a niche on Wikipedia and didn’t want to waste the experience, so he went back to RationalWiki, and they have a history of debunking quacks (real and alleged), so . . . .

January 17, 2019 at 11:44 am

What is the purpose of all this trolling?

brought a response:

Mr Chris
January 17, 2019 at 6:34 pm

In my opinion there are usually two types of trolling
The first is pure evil, the taking of malign pleasure in annoying other people. Done by the very sick
The second is an attempt to destroy blog communities, by boring them with endless off topic posts, and thus driving the sensibles away
I think we are experiencing the second type.

It is both, Mr Chris. There is more as well. From long experience, this troll knows that sometimes his comments will provoke responses that then cause harm to his targets. That is, in fact, classic trolling.

And then, another comment, more dangerous, perhaps, I will look at this in some detail, and also provide some direct evidence:

January 18, 2019 at 9:19 am

I believe that vegans are behind these “debunking” articles, and they have made it clear the purpose it to use Google, they went behind silly names like “Vegan Warrior” or “Vegan Lady”. You are looking at teenagers or people in their young twenties with nothing better to do but become hooked by a “cause”. They think they are promoting “science” and “debunking” anti-science.

When I saw this, I suspected this of being the troll. I checked and there is previous commenter by “Sarah.” If this were me, I’d check the email address and IP and see if it is the same person (Dr Kendrick should be able to see this information). There is nothing in the software to prevent people from stealing names.

Why would I suspect “Sarah”? Because part of the agenda of the real troll is to stir up enmity between the vegan and low-carb communities. That is not, by any means, a proof, because Sarah’s suspicion is understandable. She is generally correct; but this particular troll is almost thirty, and may be or may have been paid, not by Big Pharma, but by a “skeptical” organization, or individuals supporting such.

Rationalwiki is not a vegan website, they are just using it for their anti-low carb agenda. No doubt the person who created these articles will disappear soon or re-surface under a new name. The people behind this have caused a mass-load of confusion, impersonation, deception and manipulation to try and deflect. Tom Naughton has received fake emails from people claiming it is not vegans, suspicious.

This is SOP for Darryl and his brother. I would suggest that Naughton contact me. There are many people who have been attacked by these trolls. People with widely different views, people with whom I might have little agreement other than detesting lies and deception and impersonation. If someone believes in my favorite ideas, and they use lies and deception to attack the “enemies,” they are the enemy.

Big Pharma are not behind this, this is young adolescents with far too much free-time on their hands. Why else would every mainstream low-carb writer be added to this website, but no criticisms of vegans? This is probably a paid attack. If you look through the editing history of the person who has been creating these articles, he/she is online from 12 at night to around 10am in the morning.

The latest:

“Paid attack” and “young adolescents” are not particularly compatible. As I have mentioned, the age is about 29. Skeptic from Britain started on Wikipedia as an obviously experienced user, first edit was classic Darryl Smith interest in the paranormal and pseudoscience. By March, 2018, there were many signs this was Darryl, but . . . it looks like nobody was watching (Darryl is de facto banned as one of the Anglo Pyramidologist socks, the most notable Darryl sock being Goblin Face). Darryl may be a student of biology and that interest shows in some edits.

I can see the progression in his editing from early “quackery” to “fad diets”.  However, the focus did not become strong on diet and similar topics until November. By the end of the month, he submitted an Article for deletion request, for a probably “non-notable” fruitarian. So much for “vegan activist.”

While this is relatively routine, he would have avoided AfD previously because he knows it can attract attention, and if anyone experienced with AP socks looks his history, and is not allied with him, that account could be toast. Remarkably, it didn’t happen. However, November 22, 2018, he registered John66 on RationalWiki and, over the next few days, created a few articles on quacks. He edited Gary Null, adding standard skeptical material; he had previously edited this as Debunking spiritualism, a clear Darryl sock (who basically stopped editing RationalWiki when Skeptic from Britain started up on Wikipedia. The addition of a see also to Rome Viharo would be a red flag. So he was preparing to bail on Wikipedia, creating a backup on RationalWiki.

He then went more intensely into alternative medicine and alleged quackery, highly controversial topics. He was not naive, he knew this would turn up the heat. Sooner or later someone might figure out who he was. With this edit, December 4, 2018, he advised Jytdog, a skeptical editor who had made a serious mistake and who had retired, that he should take a break and then come back with a new name. After all, it’s worked for him for many years. December 15, his user name was changed to MatthewManchester1994. He apparently claimed he had been outed, but if he had been outed, changing the name would only confuse matters a little, because this can be tracked. All his signatures as “Skeptic from Britain” will remain the same and then if one finds such a signature and looks at the page history, the current name will be there. If one has actually been outed, standard practice would be to ask for revision deletion of any outing and retire the account with no fuss. But he made a fuss. So he had a purpose here.

Then the account was renamed to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434

I’ve seen this before. Very often it is simply a smokescreen making it more difficult to figure out what happened. It will often be done on request, but multiple renames is suspicions. Nevertheless this is not all that unusual. However, Darryl was prepping for his last stroke: to create harassment for someone who had criticized him on Wikipedia. His last edit:

Hey, I appreciate your help on some of the articles I edited and your advice. You are a good editor. Unfortunately regarding the Malcolm Kendrick thing I was doxxed by some of his associates such as Tom Naughton, Jimmy Moore etc and these people including Kendrick have posted my real life name etc on various social media platforms and low-carb websites. Jimmy Wales spoke to some of these people via twitter but they ended up insulting him. They are not to be reasoned with! I will leave them to their irrational conspiracy theories. I will be leaving Wikipedia. I have requested a courtesy blanking of my username. [[User:MatthewManchester1994|MatthewManchester1994]] ([[User talk:MatthewManchester1994|talk]]) 00:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

He was lying. This was all smokescreen. He had made comments allegedly outing Skeptic from Britain or MatthewManchester1994 as another user with the initials in this comment (even after that whole trick had been exposed), giving the full name, an instagram account, and claiming he was a vegan activist.  When this was a fairly fresh, I searched for “outing” of the real name. It was nowhere, and the only “outing” was fake, of that person, who had criticized SfB on Wikipedia, so he was using his retirement (probably planned since November) as an attack device.

Nice, eh? This is the company that RationalWikians keep and facilitate. There is a problem with pseudoskeptical attack on cholesterol and harmful-fat skeptics, but these “skeptical activists” take it far beyond mere scientific controversy.

Now, some more evidence. I will be looking at the edit times of blog commentators, but it’s work to collect those, much more work than it is for a wiki, where a contributions display can be loaded into Excel in minutes. Just from this one post, there are these:

  1. Wikipedia user  See anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/wikipedia-user/ Notice the claim about financial support.
  2. Rationalwiki fan 
  3. Rationalwiki fan 
  4. [redacted] was correct in what he did  continues the claim that [redacted] was Skeptic from Britain
  5. Anonymous admin 
  6. A word of advice from someone who knows about RW 
  7. Jamie 
  8. Steve James 
  9. Steve James 
  10. Simon Derricut  (see above)
  11. Simon Derricut  (see above)
  12. Henry 
  13. Henry 

Edit times of Skeptic from Britain (Wikipedia) and John66 (RationalWiki)

The chart shows edit date (horizontally) and edit time (vertically). “Debunking spiritualism.” the red dots on the left, was the last identified Darryl L. Smith sock with substantial edits on Rational Wiki (there is at least one other account possible, under study). Those are the red dots on the left. The blue dots are Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia. There is no overlap for these editors, they edited on different days.

The orange dots on the right are John66 on RationalWiki, editing many of the same topics on RW as SfB did on Wikipedia. There is an area of overlap, where J66 started editing before SfB changed his name and then “vanished” on Wikipedia.

This is a close-up of those edits.

I have arranged the columns to make the day of edit clear. The date is on the right of each column, so the first edits shown were on 11/22.

As can be seen, the timing is consistent with these being the same editor.

Skeptic from Britain’s last edit was on 12/20.

John66 did not edit again until 12/30.

I intend to find as many blog comments as I can. A gap of 10 days, from past observation, generally indicates another active account.


Meanwhile, there is an issue of the hours of the day editing. As can be seen from the SfB account in the first chart, this user does edit “around the clock” to a degree, but this can be misleading on a plot where different days are close to each other. So here is a plot of John66’s editing, in the period after SfB vanished:

This is also a daily plot. Sorry about the captions. . . .  As can be seen, his editing sessions do leave him time to sleep, every day. The heaviest day was today, but he has not edited since 22:51 (he made two more edits after I compiled the above). This is Universal Time, which is what RationalWiki and Wikipedia use. It is also his local time. There have been times when he has edited through the night. I used to do that, on occasion. He’s young, under thirty, it would not be difficult if he has work to do and miles to go before he sleeps. But when he has a long session, he then sleeps in.

His latest edits on RationalWiki are amusing:

Reverted IP edit of Gary Mannion. This is what he removed:

[. . .] While there is bad publicity the medium has not been convicted of fraud, and is working with lawyers on a benchmark defamation case against Rational Wiki and Banyan Retreat!

And again, and again. The IP addresses:, apparent proxy server UK. blocked by John66 (yes, he was made sysop December 30). He offered “advice,” but it was really just a request. “Please do not insert legal threats into articles.”, domain host Canada, I think I’ve seen Darryl use this, not sure. Any of this could be Darryl playing with himself. Or it could be Mannon or a friend of Mannon. Also blocked by John66., proxy server, same organization as .25. No block because the article was semiprotected so an anon IP cannot edit it. That article was started by Darryl, as Debunking spiritualism, December 28, 2017. There had been previous legal threats. (making on-wiki threats is not how to handle a genuine legal issue, it is completely useless. That is one reason why Smith socks have made legal threats using impersonation socks pretending to be me.

So what is all this about? Is there a real legal case? Maybe. But it will probably go nowhere. What I found was quite interesting. There are believers in psychic phenomena, who hate fakery and took action to uncover it. And see this.

Critical thinking and dedication to truth among “believers.” Who knew?

Other wikis


Encyclopedia Dramatica


This is a list of links to the contributions of other wikis with accounts suspected to be an Anglo Pyramidologist, i.e., either Oliver D. or Darryl L. Smith. Because many of these accounts have few edits, and because of possible of impersonation (frequently claimed by the Smiths, though generally unlikely except for obvious trolling accounts), it is possible that a few of these accounts are not a Smith brother. Several accounts are listed for further research, not necessarily because they are a Smith brother. Where there is more than a little doubt, this is specified. For example, FuzzyCatPotato is not suspected of being a Smith brother.

Remarkable in these, particularly on ED, is open admission, with accounts that do not look at all like impersonations, of the two brothers, massively active, with many socks. The pretense that the story of the “Smith brothers” is just a  “conspiracy theory,” which they sold effectively on RationalWiki, is only occasionally asserted on ED..


(Wrongpedia apparently has the domain set to reject archiving, see showing a 403 error for a series of articles where someone attempted it. So I archived the entire site, including page history and user contribution displays. I had to turn off recognition of robots.txt. There is no simple way to prevent automated archiving of a site while maintaining anonymous public access.) If there is anyone willing to filter this to remove the serious privacy violations, let me know, the material could be published and placed in a public archive.

If the Smiths have raw log access, they can find my IP. Every step they take increases their exposure. I’m nor hiding, they are.

Encyclopedia Dramatica

From revision history for Mikemikev

From revision history for Talk:Mikemikev

From revision history for Oliver D. Smith

(a number of trolling socks probably not a Smith brother)

from history of Talk:Oliver D. Smith

from User talk: JuniusThaddeus

(many comments moved to Archives)

User talk:Abd

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard ‎



To be continued, there are many, many more.




Wikipedia user

subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/

Another fake user appeared on Dr. Kendrick’s blog January 7, 2019.

Wikipedia user
January 7, 2019 at 7:59 pm

Abd, the person you claim Skeptic from Britain is, is the wrong person. Elsewhere, he came forward as “[redacted, three initials]”. I spoke to this person on Wikipedia briefly. I do not know him but he has left Wikipedia for good.

The testimony of those who only comment anonymously is worthless, unless it can be independently verified. Skeptic from Britain did not “come forward as “[redacted].” There is no “for good” in the leaving. SfB retired, but a certain “Wikipedia astronomer” left the same way, and came back. SfB was not blocked. One of the common behaviors of Darryl L. Smith, though, is, for whatever reason, a parting retirement message. I’ve seen it dozens of times. In this case, the last post implied he had been outed elsewhere, by his real name. The only name that I could find was the full name of “[redacted].” So SfB was claiming that he was had been outed as [redacted], creating a red herring. But [redacted] has another Wikipedia account and was active after SfB “retired” and is not blocked or retired. This user wants his name not to be bandied about, or I’d provide links. SfB knows who he is, and almost certainly created the references on other sites, including the Kendrick blog.

Darryl Smith creates a high density of lies. This is not mere disagreement, it is direct and willful deception and misdirection, intentionally misleading readers, and often accompanied by references to evidence that, if read incautiously, sometimes reinforce the false impressions he’s seeking to establish. To respond to this with real evidence takes time and requires many more words than the original mud-tossing. This comment is a very good example of what he does, and it is so blatant that I have a level of suspicion that it is, itself, an impersonation. He has many enemies and there could be some who would be motivated to expose him like this. But, more likely, it’s simply him.

I’m a skeptic and maintain many alternate “explanations” of events without forming fixed beliefs about them. I write what I have witnessed and my hypotheses and conclusions, and always invite correction and especially the provision of more evidence. The book is not closed until the book is closed.

It is not possible to “prove” who this person is beyond doubt.

That makes assumptions that, if this were not SfB, would involve knowledge he could not have. I have been creating spreadsheets with edit records. One for the accounts I have suspected of being Darryl L. Smith currently has over 25,000 records, accumulated over about seven years, covering  21 accounts with significant edit histories. There are many accounts checkuser-identified on Wikipedia with “Anglo Pyramidologist” that I have not yet added to that. As well, AP was claimed, early on, to be two brothers, and the “duck test” — see below — confirms two distinct sets of interests.

Darryl has been concerned with the paranormal, parapsychology, and other standard “debunker” obsessions (which can include alleged fringe science or anything not mainstream or believed to be such by him and pseudoskeptics), and has claimed to have support from a major “skeptical organization.”

Oliver, the twin brother, has focused more on fascism, racism, and it is alleged, with evidence, that he was racist and fascist himself, and went through a change of mind. Or found that he could be a bigger bully by working with others. He is also a student of classics, with a special interest in Atlantis. The original Anglo Pyramidologist account was him. I now have a visual guide to the history of these users, the patterns are quite remarkable.

“Beyond doubt” is a strong standard. At law, in criminal trials, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And in civil cases (including actions for defamation), the standard is “the preponderance of evidence,” as assessed by a judge or jury, reviewing it and the arguments. “Beyond doubt” is for fanatics.

I suspect I have enough to accomplish most of what could be necessary in a trial. Legal process is expensive, and it is not likely that either Smith brother has assets worth going after. However, people file lawsuits for other reasons. The information I have is that Oliver has already been sued. Oliver was more visible and more blatant. But Oliver has also outed his brother.

And both have claimed “there is no evidence.”

My strongest evidence, personally, was that when I came across impersonations-to-defame on Wikipedia, and I confronted them, and they were confirmed by steward checkuser, and when I started to look at the problem, documenting what had happened from edit records, I was attacked, severely. What I had was little more than what is on Wikipedia as the sock puppet investigation case for Anglo Pyramidologist, it simply added the new editing and then the attacks on me. One of these accounts, checkuser-identified as the same user as the others, threatened me with retaliation, that all my work would be deleted, etc. , and surely this wasn’t worth that much damage, why don’t I just forget about it?

That is when I knew that I was definitely onto something worth looking at. The problem was not just these two brothers. The problem was a system that they had learned to manipulate. And then they proceeded to demonstrate exactly that. The retaliation arrived. So I should think this was just coincidence?

I Google searched his username and many different websites say it is someone different. Even some, claiming it is you.

Indeed. Here is what I find, googling Skeptic from Britain. 1900 results. Top results:

22 December 2018 at 3:02 am

Skeptic from Britain is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. He has a history of trolling wikis and attacking people with different points of view. He has closed his account so he will no longer be active on Wikipedia.

The user behind SfB has many blocked accounts on Wikipedia, but SfB was not blocked. The claim is that he was outed. Where? And why would he continue editing the same way on RationalWiki, if he’s concerned about being outed? Fact is: given what he was doing, it was quite likely he’d eventually have been discovered. In this case, though, I was only alerted to SfB when Oliver Smith, on Encyclopedia Dramatica, claimed I was him. Definitely caused me to look. So why did Oliver effectively out his brother, by accusing the one person most likely to recognize him?

Let’s say that Oliver is not particularly sane. Much of his behavior has made no sense, creating messes for his brother to clean up, which then creates even more evidence, etc.

The RationalWiki article on me was started by Marky (Darryl L. Smith) (contributions), as his first edits there, and was clear retaliation for my documentation of his antics on WMF wikis, as he had threatened. At the time, I was documenting all “Anglo Pyramidologist” socks, and had not yet confirmed what was widespread by then among those who follow such things: knowledge that this was either one person (Oliver D. Smith) or two (i.e., also Darryl). RationalWiki, unfortunately, is treated by some as if reliable. It is radically unreliable, it was basically a running joke wiki for liberal refugees from Conservapedia, but it became a home for certain trolls. It is very much not neutral. It is sometimes treated as reliable, even by newspapers which, to Oliver’s glee, have on occasion reprinted his accusations from there. Some reporters are not careful, and if it sounds juicy and a quick glance makes it seem true ….

Encyclopedia Dramatica, as the name implies, is also a joke wiki, designed for “lulz,” i.e., entertainment. I am not sure that Darryl has ever edited ED, but his brother has many accounts blocked there. The article on me there was created by MrStrong, admittedly Oliver D. Smith, known as such on ED. MrStrong uploaded this image:

This appears to be a photo of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, with a photo of me photoshopped onto it. They love this stuff on ED. However, the claim about me being SfB, and other blatantly absurd claims, were removed from that article January 5.

So are there other “sites” claiming I was SfB? Here is what I found:

  • James, comment on Kendrick’s blog, December 21, 2018, the same as he posted a day later, shown above.
  • This comment, also on Kendrick’s blog, is remarkable:
Guy Chapman 

Abd Lomax is a known troll:

He was blocked on Wikipedia in 2017 for impersonating people:

I am convinced the [redacted] claims are real and he is the owner of the skeptic from Britain account. However, nobody here should continue to publish real peoples names in connection with the skeptic from Britain account or any other anonymous account. Kendrick did the correct thing by citing [redacted] only. There are too many unconfirmed rumors about this account that could lead to trouble in regard to doxing. It seems people like Lomax have their own agenda to push. Blaming people for owning certain accounts without evidence is suspect.

Guy Chapman is well-known as the Wikipedia administrator who signs “Guy,” with the account name “JzG.” Chapman very possibly does know who the real SfB would be, and knows that it’s not [redacted]. However, this is very unlikely to actually be Guy Chapman. Guy would not put up that contributions link that does not show what he claims. I was never accused of impersonation, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, until the Smith brothers started up on it in mid-2018, creating impersonation accounts or red herrings and then claiming it was me.

The RationalWiki article no longer supports the impersonation claim. That he would cite that article is, again, evidence this is, itself, an impersonation. Wait! Was SfB [redacted] or me? It doesn’t matter, the Smiths’ goal is to create as much smoke and confusion as possible.

Kendrick did not “cite [redacted],” not that I have seen. He took down links to [redacted] from his blog. Some wrote comments based on the claims of trolls that [redacted] was a “fanatic vegan”. The real [redacted] is not vegan, and the claim he was SfB was preposterous, the situation was the opposite, and he was attacked by SfB, planting “evidence” on Wikipedia supposedly admitting he’d been doxxed, precisely because of that. In fact, SfB had not been doxxed, except by his own sock puppets, with false information.

A common motive of the Smith brothers is to cause other groups to fight each other.

(I see other trolling comments on Dr. Kendrick’s blog, purporting to be from Wikipedia editors: Alexbrn, Roxy the dog. These are very unlikely to be from the real account holders, Alexbrn (contributions) and Roxy the dog (contributions) . The goal would be standard trolling: get people riled up. Few experienced Wikipedia users will comment on blogs with their real Wikipedia user name, defiantly, like this.

I had noticed the block she mentions, and commented on it on the Skeptic from Britain page, asking her to contact me, because something is very strange about that affair. She has not contacted me.

Amandazz100 appealed the block, but was completely clueless how to do so effectively. I’ve seen this thousands of times. When blocked, less is more, you are lucky to get an administrator to read one sentence, much less a number of screens full of text.

I highly recommend, again, that Amanda contact me. The block was a checkuser block. Does Amanda understand what that was? If she continues to add lots of commentary on her user talk page, her access to it is also likely to be blocked, indeed. Quick advice: do not appeal again until you know what you are doing. Get help. There are effective ways to do this and I was a professional for a time advising users. Yes. $50 per hour. Satisfied users, and totally legal, by the way, not a violation of policy. But a little advice for Amanda, if she wants it, pro bono.

She was not totally blocked, because, as the alleged “sock master,” she would be allowed to appeal. She probably believes, this is common with naive users, that she should deny having used more than one account. That is not how to get unblocked, never claim that a mistake was made, unless you know exactlyw what you are dealing with.

How to get unblocked, the standard way, would be to assure administrators that there will be no more problems, which generally involves showing an understanding of the alleged violation. “I didn’t do it,” by itself, shows no such understanding.

(If she did not actually sock, that’s more difficult, actually. But one step at a time. She needs advice from someone who would understand what she did, and what she didn’t do, and the context and how administrators will respond. There was an initiative on Wikipedia at one time to provide Advocates for people getting into conflict. It was killed, as have been many initiatives that would level the playing field.)

There are much more complex issues here, not the least of which is that a real, full name has been identified, by this edit.  Was that her? It does appear to be a real name, and it cites an actual book, and I first encountered the Smith brothers because they did that with a user, created red flag disruptive accounts. She was not blocked, so why would she create another account with her real full name?

From my experience, I suspect she did not. Rather, the person’s actual account was Astanton, as shown in the tweet. This smells very much like a Smith action. On the face, it is much less likely to be Amandazz100, also a real person, from her long-established Twitter account.

So, then, what did the checkuser actually see? They don’t say. There are other checkusers, however, and they are generally honest, I’ve seen very, very few exceptions over the years. If AmandaZZ100 did not create that account, who did? From the behavioral evidence, I would certainly suspect Darryl Smith, who would be, at this point, Skeptic from Britain (or renamed). I had thought that AmandaZZ might be Stanton. Now, I think not.  This would still be within the data retention period for checkuser evidence. Complaining on Twitter about it will accomplish nothing.

These were the checkuser’s actions. 

I see no violated warning. I see no checkuser request. It used to be that checkusers would not block users on their own initiative, and users would not be blocked before violated warnings. Gradually, Wikipedia devolves.

The checkuser’s actions included protecting an article Amanda had edited. There was an edit by “The Amanda ZZ”, and later, she admitted this was her, as an accident. Yet the edit has been hidden, which is normally not done unless it contains sensitive information, such as outing. The edit was reverted by an IP, calling this a sock of “Amandazz100,” which was obvious obvious, and the IP was part of a range blocked by a another checkuser a few days later for long term abuse (which could indicate AP editing). That IP checks out to a mobile service provider, Telephonica O2 UK, geolocation matching where the Smiths have often edited from.

The edit being hidden, however,  required an administrator. On the face, this violated policy (no reason was given). However, policy violations are common, and this might or might not have been harmless.

Other accounts that were blocked had names used by apparent Smith socks to comment on blogs.

This is how it looks to me, first-pass, as one possibility. Amanda believed that Wikipedia was being manipulated by anonymous users with a nefarious agenda. So she reacted with what is not unusual, all’s fair in love and war, right? She created some accounts, not realizing how easily they could be detected if suspected. She was not aware that she was up against a highly experienced faction that includes some administrators. Then, when caught, she lied about it.

Or not. Alternate explanations are possible, and I’d be happy to hear her account. I briefly suspected when I first saw her Wikipedia comments, that she was another Smith troll. But she is apparently a real person (that Twitter account is not new) and definitely not a Smith brother.

(I have never before seen a checkuser incorrectly associate accounts like that, unless they were geographically associated. It could happen, that’s all. Was he careful?)

Back to to “Wikipedia user”:

I am sure Dr. Kendrick is tired of this business, but you should stop spamming forums claiming you know who SFB is. There is no conclusive proof.

Dr. Kendrick can easily ask me to stop, he has my email address. Anonymous trolls have no credibility to those with experience.

There is very strong evidence, much of which I have not yet shown, but I will show it to anyone, other than the Smith brothers, with a need to know. I would also, of course, show it to their attorneys if that ever becomes necessary. Oliver has been effectively daring me to sue. Someone else has recently done that, sued him, and it was richly deserved. I still might file. It’s a PITA, much more work than just documenting this stuff.

It is not possible to identify real life individuals based on anonymous Wikipedia accounts.

It is possible. There is an issue of the level of evidence. There are two kinds of identification, one is identification of accounts with edit histories, based on three considerations:

  1. Content similarity, sometimes definitive idiosyncracies. This is called the “duck test” on Wikipedia.
  2. Checkuser evidence, or, similar, from anyone with raw site log access. This can point to physical location and can connect accounts (this is commonly used on Wikipedia).
  3. Edit timing, and details about this I’m not prepared to reveal yet, because there are active AP accounts. Suffice it to say that concealing identity of accounts, when more than one account is active at a time, with substantial numbers of edits, is very difficult, if anyone looks carefully.Further, if accounts are not active at the same time, but are active in distinct periods, this can also create evidence that they are not independent. Details matter. I have done control comparisons with an active user not suspected of being a Smith sock (in spite of claims that I or others were accusing all RationalWiki or all skeptics of being Smith brothers, far from it) that show what independent users look like. This does not resemble, at all, the edit history of the Smith accounts, considered collectively.

Then, finding that multiple accounts are the same person, the accounts may leave many clues about the person’s real-life identity. If these are consistent, over years, certainty can become high. One of the brothers, Oliver, has bragged about his work, and he wrote to me from a confirmed email address, used for his primary scholarly interest (he was published under peer review on Atlantis.) So that ID is definite. Then he has a brother, and he’s acknowledged that and has acknowledged that his brother has been doxxed (including by me). But, of course, he could be lying. But then, I have seen editing collision, which would be extremely difficult to accomplish, and very unlikely to have been faked (it’s possible! I did this on Wikipedia as a test, to see how rapidly I could create edits. Several per minute was easy. But doing this in context, busy working on articles, not just running a test? And there are still signals I’m not talking about yet. When I was a general Wikipedia user, I was involved with identifying disruptive socks, so this is old stuff for me.

This is a very dangerous business, doxing.

Sure. I’m a journalist, and reporting on things like this is my business, and, yes, it is dangerous. Journalists are sometimes assassinated. Or sued. I’m a real person (and many details about me have been doxxed by the Smiths). I am legally responsible for what I write, my reputation depends on probity. I attempt to avoid errors, but make some anyway, and so I am obligated to correct them. When the early AP documentation pages were called “lies” by Smith socks, I asked for specific incorrect statements. None were provided. What they want is for casual readers to think this is just an ordinary “he said, she said” argument.

No, this is my attempt at accurate reporting, up against users who deliberately lie and obfuscate, who have been confirmed by WMF stewards to impersonate to defame and cause harm. When their lies are exposed, the accounts simply disappear. Then new accounts appear telling the same stories.

You should not accuse real life names without evidence. All of your evidence is circumstantial. There is no robust evidence who that account belongs to. It could be yourself.

I did not accuse “real life names” without evidence, strong enough to report. All this was documented as the evidence was found. I have redacted some of it, because it also showed the names of other family members. I did not invent this evidence, nor did I depend on it exclusively, but what it showed was residence location, the names and ages of the twin brothers, and one was Oliver D. Smith, and Darryl L. Smith was shown as his brother. It was apparently from a public database, and I confirmed parts of it directly.

Then Oliver D. Smith has clearly been identified as the real person behind various accounts, and on this basis he has been served process. There is one question remaining: the brother. Oliver has, at various times, identified another user as his brother. (Many of these edits have been revision-deleted, but were archived.)

Then the edit histories of the other AP accounts, those interested in debunking, can be compared, and the evidence is striking. I have found, so far, two active accounts, so far not publicly outed as AP or a Smith brother. The patterns are different, indicating, possibly, more sophisticated evasion of detection. I’m still studying all this and will be applying more sophisticated tools. There are still gaps in the history, and gradually evidence is appearing to fill them in.

Never say that it is impossible to uncover the truth.

How could one possibly know this? This is what frauds and felons claim: “You have no proof.” It is almost as if they were to say, “I covered it all up, you won’t be able to prove that I did it. And nobody cares, you fool!”

(A troll is someone who makes comments to create emotional reactions, like rage.)

And, about the allegation that I am SfB, I would spend many hundreds of hours, promoting views on Wikipedia that are anathema to me? For what purpose? To make a Smith brother look bad? There are far easier ways that would not involved the insane level of work. Here is the edit timing of Skeptic from Britain, showing 4768 edits, over almost a year, plotted from his contribution record:

There are visible gaps, days when SfB did not edit. Other days, obsessed, he was editing perhaps round-the-clock. He had other suspected accounts. They dovetail with the SfB edits. There are still blanks, where no known account was editing, but this may merely indicate that he has “good hand accounts” that don’t create such obvious controversy and have not been detected. I have found two such, apparently, with high edit counts, for a long time and they edit in the open periods. I’m still studying them, I am not ready to announce. Other people are sending me tips, anonymously. I will not publish them without confirmation.

You can run, but you can’t hide from reality.

Darryl Smith has claimed (on RationalWiki) to be in email communication with me. He was probably lying, but his brother definitely was. It has been claimed (including by Oliver) that the “twin brother” story was an invention to attempt to avoid being blocked on Wikipedia, years ago. The patterns of editing I have seen so far tend to contradict this. There are two people involved, almost certainly. However, “collisions,” when two accounts were editing busily at the same time, are oddly rare. I’ve only found one example in about five years examined so far. However, large numbers of trolling accounts (many hundreds, maybe thousands), with few or no edits, were created, and I have not yet studied them. Oliver claimed that these were his brother, but then he claimed it was all him. The truth will out, it’s merely a matter of patience.

That one example confirmed what I had come to trust as real: the two brothers. But it’s only one example, and it would be possible to create that appearance. (Much harder to create consistent behavior going back more than seven years!) To be sure, I need more powerful evidence, and I’ll get it. If the real Darryl Smith is being libeled, I’m a real person and it is easy to contact me. For example, I see all comments on pages on this blog. That is how anonymous tips are being given to me.

You were globally banned on Wikipedia –

Not exactly false, but misleading. I was “community banned” on Wikipedia in 2011, and have not edited Wikipedia since then (with one accidental and inconsequential exception, not detected.). Then, that contribution page notes that the account is globally locked, an “Office ban.” There was no warning, no explanation, and no appeal, and that was February 24, 2018. The Smith brothers bragged that they had caused this, Oliver published the response he got from the Office, and the action demonstrates that the Office does not carefully investigate, nor do they consider balance, that complainants might have axes to grind and might present misleading evidence. They actually globally banned another person who did not even have an account, he was a journalist, investigating Wikipedia. “Jake Christie of Southern California.”

A google search for your name Abd Lomax says you are known “cyber harasser” and “internet troll”. Your own reputation appears to be rock-bottom.

The Smith brothers have repeated this in many places. I’ve been active on-line since the 1980s (I was a moderator on the W.E.L.L.) , and have only rarely been banned. I have confronted administrative abuse in many places (successfully on Wikipedia, but then, successfully confront administrators there, what happens? Do you think they protect whistle-blowers? Guess again! Troublemakers!) My reputation is enough to raise funding for my expenses. There has been possible harm from the Smith activity, and that’s a legal issue. But I’m 74, and I know I am going to die. I’m not easily intimidated.

So, here, a Smith brother (almost certainly) is pointing to “knowledge” that he created as if proof of something. And he is communicating with me using Kendrick’s blog, and spamming the pages he created. He has done this with many people. Googling from England, you might not find much, because Oliver Smith has filed Google complaints to get results removed from search engines. I’ve documented these elsewhere. He’s hiding, and at the same time, libelling others. He has thousands of blocked accounts, he will be blocked on sight on Wikipedia, if anyone identifies him, but few are watching, and he blends in with the “skeptical faction,” some cheer him on and lament when his socks are identified and blocked.

There are several websites on the internet that claim you own the SFB Wikipedia account. I find it suspicious you have written over 200,000 words about it on your website (?). That is not normal behavior. It is obsessional.

An anonymous user making a comment on a web site is not the site making a claim. What “Wikipedia user” is referring to is a handful of comments, and the closest to a “web site” making a claim is Encyclopedia Dramatica. Where that claim was placed by Oliver D. Smith (as MrStrong) and then removed by a user who knows the history of this troll very well.

As to “over 200,000 words,” he is vastly exaggerating, following a long-term pattern of Smith brothers about the blog (only a small part of my work there has anything to do with the Smiths.) There might be that may words in all the pages relating to the AP socks. But they include lengthy compilations of evidence. I happen to believe in evidence as being far better than mere accusations.

I have written a lot about Anglo Pyramidologist socks and related issues! About SFB there is one page, Skeptic from Britain, 11,400 words at present. That page has three subpages:

  • skeptic-in-user-name/ 1723 words written because some had claimed Brits don’t spell that way. False.
  • comments-from-the-target i.e., “XXX” This is the person called [redacted] by this troll above. 3002 words.
  • and this page is 5978 words and did not exist when this troll posted.

But what is an order of magnitude among friends?

Dr. Kendrick responded, so some comments on that:

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author
January 8, 2019 at 9:45 am

Thank you wikipedia user. I think the central problem here is that no-one knows who anyone is, for sure, and hides.

That’s not true, Dr. Kendrick. “For sure” is two very large words, but we can know with high probability, even certainty. As an example, I’m quite sure that the author of this comment is Dr. Kendrick. That could be false, because the good doctor may have allowed someone else to edit his blog, or it may have been hacked. But there is no reason to suspect that. So I’m “sure,” unless other evidence appears.

As well, Dr. Kendrick and others can be sure that I am Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, and that my birth name differs from that. This information is not only on the pages created by the Smith brothers, but it’s public record, in many places. I’ve been published under peer review, which, by itself, doesn’t prove identity, but, again, “for sure” demands too much. Gary Taubes wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, etc.

And Oliver D. Smith is very clearly identified. Can we be absolutely sure that every account claiming to be him is actually him? No, of course not. But we don’t need absolute certainty, no journalist needs that, it is enough to reasonably confirm what is written, and if it is wrong, it can be corrected. And then there is evidence that leads to Darryl. And the more this is pointed out, the more squeaking we hear. Oliver claims, brilliantly, that I have “doxxed his family,” thus confirming it. Again, if each piece of evidence was all that there is, it could be misleading. One of the Oliver socks was RW user Schizophrenic. Long before I knew about the Smiths, long before they had ever mentioned me, that user was active. Later, a Smith sock claimed that I was Schizophrenic.

The goal is to create confusion. How not to be confused? It’s actually easy. We are only confused when we try to decide to believe or not believe something, when there is inadequate evidence. The path forward is simply to observe, without drawing conclusions, until the matter becomes clear.

Liars want us to believe that it’s all relative, a matter of whom to believe. Really, should I believe you, Dr. Kendrick, or the crap SFB wrote about you on Wikipedia or RationalWiki? My answer is simple:

I believe nothing, not even that I’m real. But I routinely trust many things, and when someone shows, over and over, that they care about reality, rather than mere opinion, I tend to trust what they write and state. That’s all rebuttable, and people who were once probative sometimes lose it. I reserve full trust for reality itself, not anyone’s opinion about it, including my own. I was not familiar with your writing, Dr. Kendrick, before this incident. Pleased to meet you, you are one of the best speakers on your topic, on the planet.

Truth will prevail, I trust that, everywhere.

Clearly, I do not. My identity is absolutely open.

You don’t know who Skeptic from Britain is, because you have not studied the matter, and studying it adequately could take you months, even if the trail has been blazed, as it has been. You have much better things to do with your time. I have worked on a number of what I call “trillion dollar issues.” This Smith crap is not one of them, but diet, obesity, and heart disease could qualify. I only work on this particular Smith issue because I ended up with unusual knowledge (because I was defending academic freedom on Wikiversity, attacked by the Smiths and friends), and when I have unusual knowledge, I have some level of obligation to share it. It’s actually a religious issue.

Perhaps Wikipedia should demand that everyone’s identities are also open and known – and can be checked in some way.

Probably not for everyone. Rather, Wikipedia made a tactical error at the beginning. They wanted people to be able to edit without delay, to make it easy and quick, and that was a major part of how and why Wikipedia grew so rapidly. That required editing without accounts, “anonymous editing.” Wikipedia also came to be based on “reliable source,” which is very much not anonymous. It’s published, with known and responsible publishers. However, who decides what information to maintain on Wikipedia and what to remove? The wiki software keeps everything, every edit, by default. Except what is removed (“deleted”) by administrators — and it is still there, visible to administrators. The early community decided that administrators could also be anonymous, and that is where they lost the possibility of becoming reliable, at least that’s part of it. Wikipedia also disrespected traditional encyclopedias, and avoided the creation of reliable decision-making structures, thus no individual is responsible for bias maintained in articles, it’s fuzzy and vague. Thus what created relative reliability in published encyclopedias, personal and corporate responsibility, was abandoned.

The decision to delete your article was made by a highly biased administrator, JzG (Guy Chapman, signs as “Guy”), who is also, almost certainly, one of those who complained about me, because I had successfully created an Arbitration  Committee case that reprimanded him for some of his obviously biased actions. However, his deletion decision in this case was reasonable (because of inadequate sources found, per policy), and actually better than keeping the article, which would then have become, with the power of the skeptical faction, a coat-rack for whatever criticism they could dig up in “reliable sources,” and they will, for example, treat the Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source, and, of course, every offended “nutritionist” who has a blog will be cited, even though that violates policy. At this point, Dr. Kendrick, you are better off not having an article on Wikipedia.

You say that doxing is a dangerous business? Why? What dangers are there. That you can be attacked – on line. Well, welcome to my world. If you cannot cope with being attacked – on line – then do not attack others. Equally do not hide, and do not say anything to anyone else on-line that you would not say to their face.

The Smith brothers are far removed from that world-view, they have been voluminously and vociferously attacking others for many years. They attack, energetically, anyone who protests. Their goal is defamation, and they use and abuse Wikipedia and RationalWiki and other sites as attack platforms, hence the article creations by John66 on RW are only the most recent examples. There are claims that they have been supported by “a major skeptical organization.” You can find Susan Gerbic’s Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia as an example. Wikipedia has blocked and banned many users for doing less than her to promote a particular bias, but GSOW is probably not a funding source. It’s more likely to be the James Randi Educational Foundation, and a connection would be through Tim Farley. I have no evidence that Farley knows what the Smiths have been doing, but when Oliver Smith “confessed” that he had lied about his brother, he included that he had lied to Farley. About what?

I can cope with being attacked. What I find difficult is that anonymous people feel that they can rip your reputation apart and are allowed to hide. My raionalwiki entry, for example is, libellous. Will I get a lawyer and go for damages? I am tempted. If only to do my bit to reduce this nasty, anonymous, behaviour. Nasty anonymous behaviour that Wikipedia appears to think is perfectly acceptable.

I’m willing to discuss any of this with lawyers. Wikipedia does not necessarily “think” that the behavior was acceptable. Wikipedia does not “think.” (RationalWiki is not connected with Wikipedia, though David Gerard used to be a prominent Wikipedian. On RationalWiki, one can see how some of these people actually thing, they will say things that they would never say on Wikipedia.)

Rather, few who cared, and who knew enough about Wikipedia to be effective, cared enough to complain and act. The obnoxious behavior of Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia is more or less common. Once upon a time, he’d have been confronted, but those who used to do that have largely burned out. if not actually banned. It is difficult and there is a faction that includes administrators who will interdict the efforts, and who just may harass those who complain in return. There is no protection for whistleblowers, I and many others proved that long ago.

[redacted] is still being mentioned. SfB claimed, in his last post and possibly in others than he had been outed by his real name. Until I appeared, after this, Darryl had not been mentioned by anyone as a possibility, even though many AP socks have been identified and blocked with similar agendas. [redacted] had been mentioned on block and similar comments, with zero evidence provided.

Update January 9, 2019

Comments continued from trolls.

Rationalwiki fan January 8, 2019 at 5:53 pm

It is not possible to sue the Rationalwiki Foundation for having an article on Kendrick. Many people have tried and failed. For example a well known creationist’s lawsuit failed, he tried to sue the RW Foundation for $1 million but ended up embarrassing himself.

Typical for pseudoskeptics. They inflate anecdotes into an “impossibility proof.” Notice: zero information allowing the story to be verified. Also typical for Smith trolling. Tim Farley has a whole web site of anecdotes, showing damage or losses from “not using critical thinking,” which usually means following something not mainstream. Yes, doing something stupid can cause harm, but how does this compare to the harm of blindly following the “mainstream”? A collection of negative outcomes cherry-picked from a vast universe of human experience is not evidence that any modality is junk or woo, because there are also negative outcomes from mainstream practices.

First of all, filing a lawsuit is not the first action to be taken. That would be (1) using standard procedures to fix the problem directly; after all, RationalWiki is a wiki and, on the face, anyone can edit it. And/or: (2) sending a demand letter. Such letters from lawyers are particularly impressive, unless they choose to fight. Because fighting will cost them money, they may choose otherwise and taking down an article costs them little. They have done it. Only if (1) and (2) fail would one resort to (3) filing a lawsuit (assuming one cannot obtain criminal prosecution, which is possible for the U.K.)

Every other filed lawsuit has been dropped or thrown out of court.

No list, no reference to a list, rather we have an anonymous troll asserting a very difficult to verify fact. For starters, how many complaints were settled before a suit was filed? Then, how many were settled after filing? Without evidence, I have no idea, except that there have been article take-downs, where ordinary RW users were puzzled. The RationalMedia Foundation, in its fundraising, has used the need to defend themselves legally as a reason to send them money.

David Gerard a skeptical Wikipedia user from the UK is one of their main trustees.

The website is hosted from America so it is under free-speech laws. It is not possible to sue a website that calls someone a crank, crackpot, quack or food-woo promoter. This is within the realm of free-speech.

This is roughly true, for those terms are vague. However, this would be U.S. law. Both Dr. Kendrick and David Gerard are in the U.K., and I’m not sure Gerard will be thrilled by this defiant comment, if he sees it. The legal issues could be complex, and precedent not clear. As well, the author of the RW article on Kendrick is obviously Skeptic from Britain, again a U.K. resident, defaming Dr. Kendrick. Not smart, I’d say, but these trolls have never won awards for their intelligence. Oliver D. Smith is being sued for his claims about Emil Kirkegaard, which were clearly defamatory. I don’t think that suit is likely to be thrown out, and Smith, it seems, is about to get an education of what can happen when you act like a teenage smart ass bully while actually being of age.

You will see their board of trustees here, and legal terms. Please see,

RW are financially supported and backed by several skeptic organizations who give them donations. Their Google trafficking is very high. If Kendrick does choose to try and cause trouble for RW, it will back-fire. Every person that has ever tried has failed. There is a reason for this.

When observers have noticed evidence for such funding, it has been called, by the Smith brothers and others, a “conspiracy theory” promoted only by “cranks,” quacks,” and “trolls.” When I have written what has become obvious on my blog, I’ve been accused by the Smiths of abusing Google to defame them. However, it’s long been clear, they have, for years, used Google to harass and intimidate. The Kendrick article was just created (December 30) by the same user who called Kendrick a “fringe figure” in his nomination of the Wikipedia article for deletion. It is on the first page of Google hits when I search for Malcolm Kendrick, out of 8 million hits (70,000 hits if I put quotes around the name). Dr. Kendrick’s blog is above that. RW does get high and fast Google ranking, and this has caused harm to Smith targets.

The U.S. “service provider” exemption from libel claims for content provided by users does not protect the Foundation from claims for continued libel after a takedown notice. Little of this has been tested in U.S. courts, but that exemption clearly does not protect the Foundation in the U.K. (I am not sure about U.K. officers of the Foundation), and it also does not protect users who defame from locations within the U.K.

In any case, this troll probably was referring to this case (from the RW article):

Kent_E._Hovind_v._RationalMedia_Foundation. That is an incorrect title. (The defendant was RationalWiki Foundation, the former name.) This was a pro se filing, by Mr. Hovind, who was, at the time, incarcerated. It was dismissed without prejudice, December 18,, 2015, for failure to properly prosecute the case. In other words, this result is legally meaningless, and that kind of meaningless argument is typical for the Smith brothers.

From the 2017 fundraising page:

This year, we had a record breaking 33 lawsuit threats, 6 death threats, and 2 cease and desist letters. This is cause for celebration! Why would I say this? It is because we work! These lawsuits are coming from people who do real world harm. Whether someone who sells stickers to cure cancer or peddles doomsday predictions for attention while harassing scientists and calling for insurrection, there is real potential for harm.

So an exciting year? 39 meaningless comments from trolls (or others, offended article targets) and two cease and desist letters, which would be a necessary prelude to a lawsuit. No actual lawsuits, apparently. No clue as to how they responded to the letters. As I’ve mentioned they have taken pages down, without explanation. I’ll see if I can find such a notice, it said that the page was not to be restored. If they took down the two offending articles, it cost them practically nothing. They ignored the 39 “threats,” as I would expect. I did send them a cease and desist letter in 2018, they ignored it, but it was not from an attorney. I’m not about to spend money on this, beyond — maybe — a $400 filing fee.  If I file, then I will seek legal advice.  In the case of the WikiMedia Foundation, the mail was to the registered agent for the corporation. It was received and ignored. That could be expensive, or not. It depends on the future, and I have no crystal ball. Filing a lawsuit is a PITA, but having the Hovind filing is helpful, it gives me some language (fitting what I already knew) (He had plenty of time to research the matter, and the appearance is decent. The legal soundness of the suit might not be.

Toulouse continued:

And here is looking to another 30 lawsuit threats next year!

Okay, suppose it gets around that it is this easy to file a lawsuit if they ignore a “cease and desist letter”? Threats are meaningless. There are legal theories that have never been tested in court. For example, a service provider might host an “attractive nuisance,” and could be negligent about abuse of the site for defamation. Wikipedia has rapid processes for dealing with serious libel.

The filing fee is $400 in U.S. Federal Court and there are other rules. The fee can be waived if the filing is in forma pauperis. $400 is a lot of money to me. But I do have nonprofit support for my expenses. Should I spend it on this? Decisions, decisions.

Meanwhile, I’ve been taunted by Oliver Smith. Tempting! However, would I be suing him? That’s already being done by Emil Kirkegaard, as far as I know. Serving process in the UK would be a pain for me. No, my primary suit would be against the WikiMedia Foundation, because their action responding to libels sent to them has created a cause of action that completely bypasses the restrictive conditions in the Terms of Service, and they just may find out how expensive that was, for zero benefit and zero protection of their users. It’s easy to serve them and I can file Diversity, so it’s a short drive to the court. I’m convincing myself . . . .

Toulouse also wrote, this year, “This website is COMPLETELY supported by our users.” So was he lying or was “Rationalwiki fan” lying?

(“Fan” is often in Smith brothers’ user names. A major account for Darryl on Wikipedia was “Fodor fan”, and other names like that have popped up. Toulouse probably was not lying, and he is not necessarily personally responsible for the mess on RW. I pick: the troll was lying, and the organizational support, if any, has gone to individual authors, such as Darryl L. Smith.)

And then a concern troll: (and RW has an article on that, too).

A word of advice from someone who knows about RW
January 9, 2019 at 3:03 am

You should distance yourself from the Institute for Natural Healing (INH). They are selling a fake cancer cure for $149. Offering a fake unproven cancer cure for money is dishonest. If the FDA investigates this, there could be trouble for you.

You are on the medical board for this institute so you are responsible. There are real people out there who are being damaged by this. I do not see any libel on your RW article. Calling out quackery is not libel. You talk about damage to your reputation but you have done this yourself by associating yourself with snake oil salesmen peddling fake cancer cures. I recommend that you immediately resign from the INH and offer a public apology. If you are a responsible GP you should do this!

Once again, this is Darryl/Skeptic from Britain/John66, who just created the RW article, Institute_for_Natural_Healing. I have no opinion on the INH, other than noticing that a “system” is being sold by someone linked from that site, and it is up to Dr. Kendrick whether or not he continues his relationship. There are other prestigious figures listed as being on the Advisory Board, and perhaps Dr. Kendrick will consult with them. That INH sells a product or products (for “natural healing”) does not convince me that it’s unethical, “snake oil.” It could be. Pseudoskeptics like Darryl Smith announce a possibility, an appearance, as if fact. They are not actually rational.

There were responses:

January 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm

And who appointed you to be an authority on what is and what isn’t quackery?

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
January 9, 2019 at 3:52 pm

They have special powers. I prefer the view of Wilfred Trotter: ‘The truly scientific mind is altogether unafraid of the new, and while having no mercy for ideas which have served their turn or shown their uselessness, it will not grudge to any unfamiliar conception its moment of full and friendly attention, hoping to expand rather than to minimize what small core of usefulness it may happen to contain.’

Nice quote. It led me to TrotterWilfred-Quotations.htm, great stuff.

I particularly like these:

If mankind is to profit freely from the small and sporadic crop of the heroically gifted it produces, it will have to cultivate the delicate art of handling ideas. Psychology is now able to tell us with reasonable assurance that the most influential obstacle to freedom of thought and to new ideas is fear; and fear which can with inimitable art disguise itself as caution, or sanity, or reasoned skepticism, or on occasion even as courage.

In science the primary duty of ideas is to be useful and interesting even more than to be “true.”

Nothing is more flatly contradicted by experience than the belief that a man, distinguished in one of the departments of science is more likely to think sensibly about ordinary affairs than anyone else.

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated.

And this led me to a quote by one of my favorite people.

In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. (1987) — Carl Sagan


The socks are now rattling David Gerard’s cage. New account appeared on RW: Street guy. Classic Smith username. Two edits so far: adding “pissed at us” category to the Kendrick article, and warning David Gerard about me allegedly trying to get Kendrick to sue, claiming I had linked to Gerard’s user page. This is what they do, they create disruption. I did not create that lawsuit conversation. I did not link to Gerard’s user page, that was Rationalwiki fan January 8, 2019 at 5:53 pm. But I did quote that here.

Gerard is a pretty bright guy. Will he notice what is going on? He is aware of the Zoe Harcombe article.

More comments appeared:

Rationalwiki fan
January 9, 2019 at 7:02 pm

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has been claiming to sue Rationalwiki for over a year, because it merely logs his internet bans. No law suit was ever filed. It is impossible.

He wrote that article originally. I have never claimed I would sue Rationalwiki for “logging my internet bans.” I did send an email to RationalWiki, but have never sent a registered letter.

I doubt I would file against RationalWiki by itself, unless they ignore a cease and desist order, but I have a clearer case against the WikiMedia Foundation, which has, in fact, ignored such an order.

No law suit has been filed by me, yet, but a related suit has been filed in the U.K. by Emil Kirkegaard, against Oliver D. Smith, who used RationalWiki as a platform for defamation. It is possible that RationalWiki will see some legal action in that case.

It is not possible to sue Rationalwiki and win. End of story. You will not win because there is no libel on the website, it is not illegal to call someone out for promoting quackery. Abd Lomax has been spreading the conspiracy theory that a group of skeptical brothers edit Rational Wiki for years. No proof has been presented, just allegations because he hates skeptics and is anti-science.

In the adult world, daring people to sue you is a classic Bad Idea. This is adolescent bluster. Darryl is here correct — if this is Darryl and not Oliver — that it is not illegal in the U.S. to call someone a quack, though circumstances can vary and I’d suggest getting legal advice before relying on that. However, it could be illegal in the U.K. And not only are Darryl and Oliver in the U.K., but so are Kendrick and David Gerard, for that matter, and the Smiths are here trying to pull Gerard into this mess.

Claiming an anonymous Wikipedia account is someone because you believe it to be someone is not evidence. You have no real life evidence that can be cited in any court, just anonymous screen names. See you in 5 years time, when you are still complain about this! No laws have been broken. Debunking quackery is not an illegal offense. Quackwatch makes a living out of it. Get in the real world people.

The Smiths are under thirty and obviously with no legal experience. I have evidence. This troll does not understand what happens, at least in the U.S., when a “complaint” is filed. When a corporation is sued, if the forms are properly followed, they must appear, which is expensive. I can represent myself, but they cannot. It is not necessary to provide any proof when filing an action. It is not necessary to even have proof. One simply asserts the complaint “on information and belief.” Rather, once a action has been accepted by the court, and the time for dismissal (on legal grounds, generally) has passed, then discovery begins, which includes legally-compelled testimony. So a party will be faced with a choice: do they lie under oath? “You have no proof” is not a legal argument. Lying under oath is very illegal, and refusing to testify in a matter like this can punished as contempt of court.

(I am *not* a lawyer, but I know enough to file an action.)

The Smiths are facing possible criminal charges in the U.K. The charges in the U.S. would be civil, generally. However, I first got involved because they had impersonated a target, in order to cause him harm. That could very well be illegal here, not to mention in the U.K. I’ve been impersonated as well.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
January 9, 2019 at 7:21 pm

You don’t know what libel is in the UK.

Right. Or if they know, they are lying and don’t care. This person is in the U.K. He is defaming real people and imagines he is protected by his feeble attempts to hide his identity.

Rationalwiki fan
January 9, 2019 at 7:16 pm

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax it is not illegal to create a RW article! But can you point out what is illegal on your RW article?

I don’t have  “my article” there on me in mind. That article was a moving target for quite a while.

It merely logs your internet bans and your pseudoscientific views.

What “pseudoscientific views”? I will cover that question elsewhere, it’s been a while since I looked at the article.

This is all beside the point, I’ve been communicating with Kendrick about events on Wikipedia and on his blog, and about events on RationalWiki. These comments by trolls are an excuse to spam links to the RW article, and I became involved in this affair because Oliver claimed I was Skeptic from Britain, who had attacked Kendrick and others. Attempting to cause harassment, which was done with the user attacked as SfB, is certainly a tort, actionable civilly, but may also be a criminal offense.

This is why you could not sue the RW foundation, because it is a factual article, not defamation. If Kendrick wants to blog on his RW article and point out what is defamation I would be interested. There is no defamation there. The article quotes his own words.

I know the legal theory RW operates on, and Wikipedia used to follow it (they deviated from it, and that creates an opportunity). It is correct that I cannot sue the RationalMedia Foundation (at least get the name right!) at this point, but that can change.

I have created over 600 RW articles going back over 9 years debunking pseudo-scientists.

When I point this out, I am called, by the Smiths, a “conspiracy theorist.” 9 years is longer than I have seen. Care to tell us what account you began with? I have DinoCrisis and Forests for Darryl. DinoCrisis started in July, 2012.

I am not a “pseudoscientist.” I support and work to facilitate genuine scientific research, testing hypotheses. As well, I started a nonprofit to fund this work. It is called “pseudoscientific” with no basis for that at all. I’m published under peer review in a mainstream journal, albeit on an emerging topic. Kendrick is like that, on a different topic. So is Gary Taubes, on the same topics as Kendrick, and, by the way, the same topic as my major work.

I have never been sued and neither has the RW foundation. Why would I stop now?

Obviously, it’s necessary for someone to take a stand. Darryl’s brother Oliver has been sued. “Rationalwiki fan” has claimed that lawsuits have been filed and failed, contradicting what was just written. Yes, Hovind failed and probably got some legal advice, after being released from prison, that he didn’t have a chance. (It is not clear that the RWF ever appeared in that case.) But there can be different circumstances. I know that no lawyer would advise this troll to do what he has been doing.

Of course, on RW it is now being claimed that I’m “Rationalwiki fan.” This is what these trolls do.

Everybody on RW is immune and most of us anonymous.

That is very bad advice, if it’s advice rather than just bragging. I’m not going to explain why.

You can not prove in court of law who we are. I do not live in England btw. So could good luck suing me! I will be laughing in ten years time when I am still doing this. I get paid for it as well.

To show that I can prove identity in a court of law, I’ll have to file an action, right? Problem is, the mail culprits, who have dragged others along who were merely gullible, are in the U.K. and it’s difficult (read expensive) for me to file in the U.K.  I would rather just document the hell out of what these guys have been doing, and perhaps assist others who have been defamed and who can afford the traffic.

He lies constantly, and sometimes tells the truth. He will get exactly what he deserves. I cannot prove, at this point, that this troll is a Smith brother. However, the duck test is very strong. I have not attempted to study the edits of random blog trolls, it’s generally too much work to collect that data. I have, however, identified more accounts than I have revealed. Just, so far, none before DinoCrisis on RW.

Looking at DinoCrisis from the perspective of the claim here, DinoCrisis appears on RW in full swing. I conclude this was not his first RW account. I have yet to study the early accounts from Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Look up Gillian McKeith on RW for one of our best articles. She has never attempted to sue us but is from the UK. her article is 110% factual. Citing facts is not defamation! If McKeith can accept her article, why not Kendrick? =)

I like 110% factual. It implies 10% invented, beyond fact. It’s up to Kendrick what he does, if anything. He’s not buying all this crap.

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
January 9, 2019 at 7:37 pm

You say that I am a pseudo-scientist. What is the definition? Is it yours, or is there some society somewhere that makes these decisions. I am just interested. I have, for example, just been asked to give a talk to the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the UK, which advises the UK Govt on scientific matters. Last year I lectured on diabetes to the Scottish Lipid Society – and suchlike. Yet, you have decided, in your infinite wisdom, that I am a pseudo-scientist. The article on Rationalwiki on me makes no scientific points – at all – it is purely an attempt at character assassination. I have never managed to engage any of these Wiki warriors on any discussion, on anything. They simply attack, and hide, and will not reveal who they are. It is utterly pathetic. Perhaps you would care to stop hiding and tell me who you are. It is irritating being attacked by those who will not argue, are happy to make insulting comments – and hide. I have one called Vegan Warrior who e-mails me from time to time, but blocks any reply. Again pathetic, and the exact opposite of scientific discourse. You seem very proud of yourself – I wouldn’t be.

Two pieces of advice for Dr. Kendrick: do not trust that Vegan Warrior is a vegan. He might be, or he might be a pure troll.

The other piece of advice: keep all the emails with full headers. As well, if you have access or can get it, keep the server logs for your blog. They contain information about the users who commented. This is part of the evidence I have that they claim does not exist.

These trolls are scientifically ignorant, they have no idea about the scientific topics, they only know what can be made to sound bad. Defamation is their entire game. Hatred and contempt, the ancient enemy.

Looking for lawsuits, I found also Matthews v. RationalWiki Foundation. There is a copy of the complaint on RW. This was related to the Hovind case. The copy quotes this text (allegedly from the Hovind article), allegedly published February 8, 2014: “Hovind has filed numerous legal claims with Matthews’s help including FRAUDULENT liens on property the US government seized for his debt.That language is still in the Hovind article, which claims that the lawsuit was never served (and it was also dismissed for failure to prosecute). This was basically BS, at worst a minor error in a mass of defamatory material. Both Hovind and Matthews are out of prison at this point, apparently, and have better things to do.

Nevertheless, I found the dismissal order, which is full of what can be taken as legal advice, what to do and what not to do.

Based on a search for “v. RationalWiki Foundation” and “v. RationalMedia Foundation,” I find no evidence that RW has ever actually been served with a lawsuit; in the two cases mentioned above, they were incompetently pursued, dismissed without prejudice (they could have been filed again), and apparently abandoned.

The Matthews case appears to have been relatively weak, and I have no opinion on Hovind’s case.

Just for completeness, I have reviewed WMF propaganda about Previti v. Wikimedia Foundation, G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (very interesting! — see also this, which names the case differently),  Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., found out about Smith v Wikimedia Foundation Inc (whew! – a pro se plaintiff seeking a billion dollars for being served porn), American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine v. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., filed for discovery purposes (appears to have disappeared quickly, my guess is that the WMF provided the access information they had . . . though they normally require a court order) .

Dr. Evelyn Schels v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc is great stuff. (and see WMF comment on it.) MOIGE v. Wikimedia Foundation shows that if the wiki removes the material, it escapes liability.

Looks to me like the majority of these suits were incompetently pursued, and, given that there are possible errors the Foundation could commit, creating torts, over many, many instqances, my guess is that they settle quickly when faced with something serious. Their lawyers are not stupid. I do expect the Foundation will eventually face a copyright violation suit from the “monkey selfie photographer,” if he ever raises the costs. (The USPTO, my opinion, issued a radically incorrect assessment of that case, neglecting the co-ownership possibility).


This continues, getting more and more ridiculous.

[redacted] was correct in what he did
January 9, 2019 at 10:03 pm

Lomax you are well known for causing internet drama but as you are doing it, I might as well feed you. According to your blog “As well, the author of the RW article on Kendrick is obviously Skeptic from Britain, again a U.K. resident”.

He continues to defame [redacted]. He creates many socks, which enables him to make directly contradictory arguments. In some places, he claims that Skeptic from Britain was [redacted], in other places he claims it was me, and on RationalWiki, a new sock claims that the trolling posts on Kendrick’s blog are me. Kendrick knows (I assume, as blog owner) that those are not me. As to the article on Kendrick, once again, he lies, relying on what someone might see with a shallow glance:

The author of the RW article was Bongolian and John66 wrote most of it.

John66 complained to Bongolian that he was having trouble creating the article, because of the spam filter. So Bongolian created it as a stub. John66 had already written the article, and continues to create articles pursuing the exact agenda as Skeptic from Britain. New user? Guess again!

John66 posted he was French!

I must be wrong, then, surely he wouldn’t lie!

How do you KNOW these are UK residents? More libelous allegations from you Lomax, no facts. How the HELL can you prove any of the allegations you are making? How do you prove a bunch of anonymous Wikipedia accounts belong to a real life name – IMPOSSIBLE!

That is for me to know and him to find out. He knows the reality here. I’m a journalist. I don’t need “proof.” I need sufficient evidence to state conclusions. He is claiming libel? Libel of whom? Is he claiming that the checkusers and stewards were lying? Yes, they did not identify the sock master by name, and we know there are actually two people, who could easily present an appearance of independence . . . or they could slip and be identified as the same. Unless there is only one, which Oliver did claim at one point. Oliver is the brother who is clearly identified, and Oliver has exposed his brother. Not by name, to be sure, that information comes from elsewhere. Public records, which will not be libel. The brother of Oliver D. Smith is Darryl L. Smith. Who, as Debunking spiritualism on RationalWiki, attempted to delete those admissions, then retired and claimed he had been hacked, and they recently began claiming I was known for impersonations, attributing this to Guy Chapman (JzG). To my knowledge, Guy, famous as the hind end of Wikipedia, never went that far.

“Impossible” is the refrain of pseudoskeptics.

You 0 evidence “skeptic from britain” created the Kendrick RW article, you have 0 evidence who these people are, all we have is thousands and thousands of obsessive words on your blog. You sound like a mad man.

Someone is very interested in those words and has been attempting to stop them since 2017.

What you are doing is doxing an innocent person’s real name and connecting it to an anonymous Wikipedia account. This is libel Mr. Lomax!

The man is confused. Doxxing is not libel. It’s considered a social offense on some wikis. The Smiths doxx to an extreme, routinely, but if anyone points out who they are, they start screaming. They also doxx themselves, and if someone points to it, then they scream and often succeed in getting others to sanction anyone who even discusses it.

If it’s libel, it’s easy to handle. It’s called a cease and desist order. Anonymous claims don’t cut it.

He spams that everywhere he can find that will keep it. He wrote it. “Anonymously,” of course. New account (Marky); some weeks after threats he would retaliate for listing his sock puppets on the meta wiki, writes the article, having done an obsessive level of research into my past, though he certainly did not find everything, I have on-line history since the 1980s, when I was a moderator on the W.E.L.L.

Your RW article is still live and well as of 2019. You said you were suing Rationalwiki years ago, why did it not happen? Like I said… it is impossible to sue RW! Shall we have this conversation in ten years when I am still laughing? See you then, shall I get the beers in 🙂

I don’t think I ever said I would sue RationalWiki (and little more than a year ago, I was still a sysop on RationalWiki and knew nothing about the Smith brothers). I have written about the possibilities of legal action. I’m a journalist-blogger, and write about stuff.

At this point, it is probable I will name the RMF as an additional defendant, but that depends in part on what actions they take or fail to take, faced with a clear demand, formally presented. I don’t have a crystal ball, it’s a lot of work to file a proper legal action, there is a reason why attorneys are paid so much. I’m not going to encourage this troll to drink, but he may need it. He just added a “pissed at us” category to the Kendrick article. Piss off enough people, people with means, and they just might act. Oliver has discovered that. He seems to have quieted down lately. Or not. These trolls are nothing if not persistent.

Anonymous admin
January 9, 2019 at 10:26 pm

I am an admin on Rationalwiki, I will not reveal my username as Abd will no doubt attack me. I just want people to know that Abd was banned on both Wikiversity, Meta-Wiki, Wikipedia and Rationalwiki. This is a common theme with this individual.

In other words, he wants anonymity so that he is free to attack real people, by their real names, without personal consequences. (In fact, when he is outed as a RationalWiki user, he simply retires the account and starts a new one, and RW gives out sysop privileges very easily.)

I was banned on Wikipedia many years ago, long story. I never appealed it, I certainly knew how. As to Wikiversity and Rationalwiki, that was the work of the Smith brothers, who recruited a few others, they manage to do that often. All that was in the last year. I was never banned on Meta. There was a global lock issued, obviously based on private complaints. (There is a public ban process, not followed. There was a move afoot to unblock me on Wikiversity, it had sysop support, but was made moot by the global lock.) (check the user-template) (check the user-template)

Here is Abd ban’s reason “repeated doxxing as well as harassment, now attacking rationalwiki users on his personal blog”

That was added to that page by Debunking spiritualism, an obvious sock of Darryl L. Smith — outed by his brother, this was one of his last actions before “retiring,” (later contributions), then went on a deletion spree attempting to cover up the evidence, then claimed he’d been hacked, and . . . they blamed me. I have never hacked anyone’s account and have never impersonated anyone. They do it routinely.) This is all really obvious if one actually looks at editing history. But most people (including most sysops on RationalWiki) do not actually look at history. They just do whatever the F they want, and actual evidence is . . . boring. So the Smiths get away with the most blatant lies.

This is his user talk page as it stands now. He was upset, it’s obvious. He confirms that he and his “family” have been doxxed (and by many, actually. I never doxxed him on RationalWiki, they actually doxxed themselves. Or Mikemikev is more sophisticated and persistent than I thought. It doesn’t matter, this was Darryl, logged in as DS, clearly admitting identity. Nobody else has been doxxed like that. “Impossible”? Sure. If you cover yourself with a blindfold, wrap yourself in linen, and bury yourself deep in the mire of hatred, it’s “impossible” to prove.

Of course he claimed he was hacked. But what he had been doing was totally consistent with prior behavior, at what point did he stop “normal activity” and then the new login was an impersonation? He had gone too far, but not to worry. He could fix it. And, in fact, it serves his purposes, because he can tell the truth, and then, later, when someone else points to the same facts, he can claim that they are following the trolls.

“Consistent with the Terms of Use, Abd has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites.”

What does that mean? That is a standard SanFran Ban (Office ban) notice. It implies a violation of the Terms of Use, but I never violated the Terms, nor was I ever warned of any violation, nor was I ever informed as to what the alleged violations were. (And what I was being accused of by trolls would not be affected by the lock.) They started doing this a few years ago, and I warned them that this could be removing the legal protection they had from the Terms of Service. I guess we may find out if I was correct.

In regard to Wikiversity, an Admin banned Abd and wrote:

“Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources. The unblocks in your log show repeated attempts by our community to assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve Wikiversity despite much evidence to the contrary. I’m not going to get into the minutia of your individual actions. I’m going to make a call based on the sum of your contributions. Wikiversity is not your personal podium. Your participation here has become a drain on the resources of our community and we will not allow this to continue.”

Indeed, Michael Umbricht wrote that. Wikiversity administrators had no authority to ban. That was reserved for the community. But this bureaucrat had been inactive, and showed up simply to become involved in this action, and there was open coordination with the Wikipedia skeptical community. Wikiversity had strong traditions of academic freedom. Umbricht trashed them. I had been extremely active on Wikiversity at one time, I had been an administrator, and was very involved with governance. And then I saw what the founder of Wikiversity called Wikipedia Disease. I generalized this to Wiki Disease and wrote about it. Wikis are vulnerable to factions and to administrative abuse, and community decisions can become mob rule. I had been blocked last previously, about two years before, for claiming that a bureaucrat did not understand dispute resolution process (in response to a claim that he was an expert at it). He made my point by blocking me for the comment. I was unblocked and there had been no further blocks or problems. And then Umbricht wrote the above.

It was well established that bans were only for the community, not for administrators, who can block, but then any admin could unblock. One was actively considering it. He was, I’m told, threatened with retaliation if he did, and then the Office ban made it moot.

This is the house that Smith built. But it is also the house that Wales built. Does he realize this? Wikis were an experiment. They could be absolutely fantastic, but fall short. Why? Could this be prevented? That was my long term study.

This user is repeating arguments well-known to the Smiths. They have been posting them for many months. An administrator wrote about Smith sock arguments, on the meta wiki, that they show “unusual knowledge.” It is one of the signs that a user is a sock. It is not proof, but circumstantial evidence, and as this accumulates, it can become, for all practical purposes, proof. (comment found on the edit history of the talk-page)

The correct link. Notice dissent from the block there. I was most concerned at that point about preserving extensive content, written not just by myself, but others. I was busy archiving it.

There is a pattern here of disruption, no doubt the Kendrick business he is enjoying. He will write 2 million words on it.

I am not saying he should be banned from this blog, but his internet shenanigans is well known. He has been doing this for years. If Kendrick wants his Rationalwiki article removed, please join the talk-page and make a request to why you want it removed. Thank you.

If he does want it removed, that would be the first step. I’d advise him to consult privately first, but it’s up to him. This is, however, almost certainly Darryl.

My guess is that his brother has hunkered down. But I could be wrong. (At some point, to be sure, other RW users might get involved. On RW, most Smith socks are obvious, but . . . there is one I have found that is not. I’m watching. There is also an active Wikipedia who was flagged for me. Again, I’m watching. At this point, both are possible, but both would indicate maintaining “good hand” accounts not so easily identified. Smith has claimed to have many Wikipedia accounts in good standing. He has also claimed to have many hundreds of accounts on RationalWiki. Of course, he can also claim that those were impersonations, yet some impersonations existed for substantial periods without any exposure, such as “Schizophrenic.” Only some years later has Darryl claimed that this was an impersonation of his brother.

If Dr. Kendrick checks the IP address of the trolls, he is likely to find that they are using open proxies or Tor nodes. Once in a while they forget and use their home IP. They also use a particular mobile provider. See  rationalwiki/ip-study/

And Geolocation is more of the impossible evidence. It took me months of study before I announced conclusions as to identity. Why? Was this worth all that time? I don’t actually know. This is life, we climb mountains because they are there.

Dr. Kendrick replied to the above:

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
January 10, 2019 at 4:13 pm

This is the last approval, until you tell me who you really are – in a way that can be validated. I am getting fed up with anonymous people claiming this and that. It is like some prolonged child’s game.

I’d have suggested not approving anonymous defamation from the beginning. . . . This is indeed a child’s game, the Smith brothers have been doing the like of this since before they were twenty. However, they do real harm to real people. Allowing anonymous defamation was an error Wikipedia fell into long ago. Editors should never be anonymous! Providing anonymous tips to reporters is standard, and reporters are normally trained to filter them, and the police, the same. Wikipedia puts real people on a level equal to the anonymous, or even a step down. RationalWiki is an attractive nuisance, encouraging anonymous defamation, even empowering it. They deliberately don’t have checkuser running. It’s all a big joke for them. But they are now swinging at diet and health, a trillion-dollar issue, lives are at stake.

More on Darryl L. Smith. No evidence, my big toe! (Warning, long! This was Darryl in an unguarded moment.)

Skeptic in user name

subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/

In discussions of the Darryl L. Smith Wikipedia sock, Skeptic from Britain (contributions for renamed account — almost 5000), some pointed out that the spelling was not British and that the user was probably from the U.S., and a U.S. candidate was promptly proposed by suspicious accounts and then SfB announced he was again renaming his account and retiring, because of his real name being exposed on those blogs. This was a glorious and effective red herring. The real person behind the account does that kind of thing, though this example shows some development over what he had done before, and he abandoned an account that he had invested many, many hours in.

The facts:

His twin brother, Oliver D. Smith had indirectly outed him on Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) 19 December, 2018, by accusing me of being the second incarnation of Skeptic from Britain. (He also accused Rome Viharo of the same.) That caused me to look at this account, and what I saw was, by the duck test, Oliver’s twin brother Darryl. Nobody active on Wikipedia seems to have noticed, there was no checkuser request. If there is one (it could be done any time in the last few months), it might turn up something interesting. This user would be a sock of Goblin Face, already de-facto banned as Anglo Pyramidologist, the filing would be on this page. 

It always occurs to me to consider the possibility that an account that admits to being Oliver (such as MrStrong) is an impersonator. However, Oliver knows my email address and could easily deny it, disclosing a real account on Encyclopedia Dramatica to me, and then posting on ED. I would confirm the real account based on the known email. There is always a way to be truthful and even to expose impersonations. However, if Oliver maintained the constant lying (which he also did from the known email account, this would lose some strength.

Darryl would have known that a semitruck was coming down the ‘pike, with his name on it, because he knows full well what I would do, at this point. I’d investigate! I would not just complain to Oliver on ED.

These brothers have cooperated on occasion and occasionally edit the same articles, but their more natural inclinations are quite different. Rome Viharo was onto them before I even knew they existed.

(Wikipedia has long been confused about Anglo Pyramidologist, because at times the brothers edited from the same IP, so they were checkuser-identified as the same user. But there are two different behavioral profiles, if one looks more carefully. )

So Darryl decided, I infer, to use the occasion to create more confusion by setting up a baseless accusation. Part of his motive would be to use the response to “prove” that “fringe believers,” a common target of his, were “conspiracy theorists,” ready to believe anything. So he made anonymous comments accusing the fellow, and then his retirment message blamed his “real name” being outed in discussions. And those discussions were easy to find, and there was only one “real name” given.

And it was not his real name. Few people would anticipate such a plan. Generally, on Wikipedia, when an account makes an “admission” like this, they assume it is correct and that the user was simply clumsy, because they tend to assume that sock masters are actually stupid. If that had been his real name, he would have been announcing it to the world, anyone who actually checks. And that’s how I found it, of course. I simply googled “Skeptic from Britain” and it was easy to find! But I knew their history and knew that they create blatant impersonation accounts in order to attack their targets. In this case, there was a transparent motive, which I won’t discuss.

Darryl’s recent activity had been obscure. I was not aware of any recently active accounts, after Debunking spiritualism went out in a blaze of (glory?) on RationalWiki. I was immediately accused of being DS, which, to anyone familiar with my history and his history, and who looks at what DS actually did in that last couple of days, was preposterous. But RationalWiki is a “skeptic” web site, and it happens to be, too often, a collection of the kind of skeptics that give skepticism a bad name, i.e., people who are skeptical only of ideas that are “fringe” or “not mainstream” or whatever they hate.

An argument that appeared on the blogs was that “Skeptic” was an American English spelling and that therefore the user was not British at all, but an American.  That was an ignorant comment, or deliberately deceptive, pick one.

Here is a Guardian article on the subject. It’s right on, definitive, and undeniable. See the web page of an organization founded in the UK in 1997, the Association for Skeptical Inquiry.

Further, the Smith brothers are British and live near London, and “Skeptic” turns up in many user names for accounts shown or strongly suspected of being Darryl L. Smith. Here are some:

On Wikipedia:

Many accounts considered Goblin Face may be Oliver Smith, not Darryl. There are characteristic user names for Oliver, often easy to recognize. That’s not definitive and there could be some crossover, but these names are from  Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Goblin_Face with “skeptic” in the name:

Then there is RationalWiki. From my own RW suspected sock puppet list:

And then, seeing if there are users with “Scep” as the first letters of their user name, I find 8. Only 1,with 1 edit looks like it could be Darryl. I would not include this in a list of AP socks, but it is simply possible:

  • Scepticon led me to one other user I am not listing, the suspicion could exist, but is low. I will watch the other account, but it is inactive.

Beginning with “Skep” there are many more accounts. Skipping accounts with no contributions, and ones with no grounds for suspicion:

I would actually suspect more strongly is Oliver, from contributions. There is a hidden edit, his last, the text is: is troll Mikemikev. He’s been on this page for years. [[User:Skeptic Jon|Skeptic Jon]] ([[User talk:Skeptic Jon|talk]]) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is characteristic Oliver Smith. But crossover is possible. I have not tracked this down exactly, but it appears that the edit was hidden by Debunking spiritualism (Darryl) in his terminal deletion spree. DS attempted to hide many comments by his brother Oliver (there were many other ones hidden.) Many of his deletions were reverted, but not all.

Skeptic elsewhere in the name is more difficult to find. However, WTF, there are only 63,552 registered users. I looked at all of them and found only these accounts that could be suspected.

  • Pseudoskeptic_Jon weak suspicion, would be Darryl
  • RationalWikiSkeptic weak suspicion, claims to be Jon Donnis. Notice Skeptic Jon above.
  • Waller_joel_skeptic allegedly Mikemikev, who is also British. Troll account, which could also be Darryl impersonating an enemy. He does that.

The point: Darryl L. Smith (Goblin Face and Skeptic from Britain) has often used “Skeptic” in names. Even other British users apparently not Smith, have used “Skeptic.” The point: on social media, and blog commenting is a form of social media, people often make meaningless and ignorant arguments without researching fact.

This makes it easier for trolls to fit in. The most damaging trolling: trolling that shows evidence that can fool a casual reader who doesn’t check context, and most of all, doesn’t consider contrary evidence.

Basic rule: never trust the claims of anonymous users without clear verification, beware of being fed conclusions before evidence. Ideally, don’t “believe” anything, but verify and weigh evidence. Beware of someone who claims “proof” (or who claims “there is no evidence”, when evidence is actually presented.) Do not confuse evidence with “proof.” Proof exists in mathematics, within careful definitions and logic. Elsewhere, there is judgment “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And that can fail. People are wrongly convicted of murder. It happens.

Journalists do not need “proof” to report what they find and conclude. To avoid libel claims, they must have a reasonable basis for what they write. They can be mistaken, even, and still escape libel claims if their intention was to be truthful and they exercised reasonable caution.

I am claiming that I am “100% certain” that Skeptic from Britain (Wikipedia) is Debunking spiritualism (RationalWiki), but I have not revealed the evidence that makes it so, not yet, at least. Rather, the suspicion was strong, strong enough to even make the claim, but it only became “certain” when I saw evidence that hardly anyone ever looks at, in many years of working on Wikipedia, I only saw this technique used once, and even then with what I consider low sophistication (comparable to the edit timing histograms I show on the Skeptic from Britain page.

So, then, the value of this information may depend on how much one trusts me to be truthful. And this should never create certainty, because anyone can make mistakes. If you need certainty, ask me for evidence. I will not provide it to those who are anonymous, and I will be careful about even known persons, but . . . it’s more possible.

I have not done it yet, but in an attempt to prove myself wrong — I follow the scientific method when it’s important, not necessarily for everything — I will study and compared the editing of Bongolian on RationalWiki, whom I have never suspected of being a Smith sock (I would consider the possibility ridiculously remote). It is not impossible that Bongolian knows more about the Smith brothers than he has revealed, and may be politically aligned with them, in some ways, so after now, once it is known that there can be scrutiny, it would be easy to fake evidence. But that would be very, very difficult to do with wiki history. Insanely difficult, but never say “impossible.” Not reasonably expected.






Comments from the target

There are two comments from the page supra, from the person alleged by apparent socks of “Skeptic from Britain,” who had claimed, in his “goodbye” on Wikipedia that he had been outed by real name, and, aside from what I wrote later, he had not been named, but someone else was, thus he was confirming, on Wikipedia, claims by anonymous users (and also lying about it in various ways). This was a form of impersonation socking, with a twist. He was giving up an account with over 4600 edits. Usually his impersonation accounts make a handful of edits. But this had not been an impersonation account, it was a straightforward content-pushing sock, and obvious by the duck test. Seeing the writing on the wall (with his brother’s accusation of me as being this account on Encyclopedia Dramatica, he would see the end of that account’s usefulness coming. Even though I cannot (or will not) file checkuser requests on Wikipedia, others can. This account was doomed, so he turned into a purposeful activity, attempting to make “fringe” advocates look like fools and conspiracy theorists.
The two comments:

Here, I’m quoting the second post, because I want to respond to it interspersed, like a conversation, instead of just adding a single comment on a number of issues in one post after it. And I thank “XXX” for emailing, and for his kind thoughts.

I appreciate you removing my name. Please also remove links to my personal instagram account.


I am amazed by how deep this rabbit hole goes. I believe the same person smearing you on encyclopediadramatica and “rational”wiki, ect. is the same person behind the attacks on the low-carb diet pages.

Close, but not quite correct. There are twin brothers, Oliver and Darryl Smith. Darryl was the original sock master creating impersonation socks on WMF wikis, and he threatened that if I documented it (as is common on the wikis), he would make sure that I would suffer for it, and all my work would be deleted. There was a point where there was a lull in sock activity, and then the reason appeared. Someone — obviously Darryl — had gone to a lot of work to create the RationalWiki article on me, digging up some quite obscure stuff. It’s only a small fraction of my long-time internet activity (I go back to the W.E.L.L in the 1980s, I was a moderator there, and also a moderator on the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam.) Basically, put in the article was almost entirely what they could find that if one squinted and did not look closely, might look Bad. I was a sysop on RationalWiki at the time, but was quickly desysopped and blocked, that’s a long story in itself. At one point, RationalWiki not only claimed to welcome other points of view, they mostly followed that. That had changed, and largely as the result of the “work” of the Smith brothers, who create impersonation socks and use other devices to suppress disagreement, and the RationalWiki community never was particularly stable. Power had shifted, and not in a good way.

Oliver D. Smith did become involved in the RatWiki article. However that RatWiki article has been toned down, once the Smith brothers were no longer active (and they are not much active lately, there). What Oliver did was to create the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. You can see it in edit history, this is entirely the work of “MrStrong,” who is openly Oliver.

There has long been some level of controversy on Wikipedia over low carb issues, but the much more intense attacks from Skeptic from Britain went beyond what I had seen before. (To be sure, I don’t follow Wikipedia activity much, it is such a sewer, even though there are still editors trying to do a fair job. Most of the best editors have disappeared. In spite of the name (“wiki”, quick), it is horribly inefficient, particularly whenever there is conflict. It can take months to get a single simple change that one would think would be obvious, if factions get involved.

This activity, by Skeptic from Britain, is not difficult to identify as Darryl L. Smith. I have conclusive evidence, but I don’t want to reveal it yet, because I don’t want to give them hints about how to conceal who they are and what they are doing. I will be using the technique, however, to study all their suspected edits. There are some who think that Oliver and Darryl are all the same person (Oliver) and I an interested in finding a more conclusive answer to that question, beyond Ockham’s Razor. Statements from them cannot be relied on without confirmation. Oliver, in particular, has claimed that he was lying about his brother, that it was all lies, at a point where it looks like his brother was trying to de-escalate. Until then almost all attention had been on Oliver, who was much more publicly visible. So Oliver was trying to protect his brother, who is the one who, it has been claimed, was being paid to edit on “skeptical” topics.

If payment is involved, it would almost certainly not be related to low-carb issues, but more to a general anti-fringe agenda. Possible organizations, at various times, would be the James Randi Foundation, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, or perhaps the Guerilla Skeptics. (Notice that Susan Gerbic, the leader of GS, voted to keep the movie Fathead. It’s pretty unlikely, then, that if SFB was being paid by or in association with GS, that Gerbic was involved. The information about payment comes from both Darryl and Oliver at various times (they brag!) and it cannot be trusted. But it’s possible that someone, somewhere, somehow, paid Darryl. Probably not Oliver. Darryl is more “professional” in manner.

But also has created the wildest displays of sock-trolling that I’ve ever seen.

It is a shame so many are attacking you, referring to dramatic, biased pages written to smear you name by the very individual attacking low-carb diets.

There are few attacking me. On RationalWiki, there are quite a few naive users who have accepted the Smith stories, but I am mostly, and especially from people who matter, supported. When I need funding for expenses (such as attending the Rossi v. Darden trial in Florida, or the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Colorado this year), it’s been provided. I am not funded to document the Smith brothers . . . but I haven’t asked. I might be raising funds for legal action in a few months. Money is not the first issue, my time is.

Quote from this page, from “rational”wiki “User:Marky”

Marky would be Darryl.

“Lomax is an advocate of the Atkins Diet, a low-carb fad diet that most of the medical community have rejected as quackery.” – This is exactly how Skeptic from Britain describes the diet.

They use this kind of language routinely. Notice the use of the present tense to describe something that can be fluid and changing. Further, “most of the medical community” has rejected many ideas that were later accepted. That is no proof of anything. Atkins was actually based on known science that went out of fashion in the 1970s, and not based on scientific research, other than the very flawed epidemiological Keyes study. This is one of the ironies of this situation.

On Wikipedia, I came across an abusive, out-of-process blacklisting of a web site. It was, which I had known nothing about. I simply saw the admin blacklist it in a very strange way. So I asked him, and he blew me off. This ended up before the Arbitration Committee, and contrary to the expectations of some long-time Wikipedians (friends!), my position prevailed. And then one learns what it can cost to win a case on Wikipedia. If it offends a faction, they then can, over time, nibble you to death. Again, long story. That admin was JzG, who is the one who closed the Kendrick AfD. He should be considered involved on all “fringe” topics. He is also one of the people who probably complained to get me office-banned, though I was not violating policy (and the Smith brothers were blatantly violating it, and the law.)

“Quackery” is one of his most used words in discussion with me and others.

On RatWiki, it’s normal. What’s surprising is to see how often it is used on Wikipedia. It’s a highly judgmental, pejorative term, and, if used in an article, should be specifically attributed. Instead, we will see vague claims like “most scientists consider X quackery.” Which means that some source, somewhere, maybe, wrote that. Comments like that will appear in reliable source. If they are controversy, if the controversy is not resolved, and if there is no clear evidence backing up “most,” it’s deceptive use of sources, but the faction does that all the time. I confronted that when I was an active (and popular in some circles) Wikipedia editor. Yes, that’s what Darryl would write. He seems to believe that there is a profession called “quack doctor.” One goes to “quack medical school” and learns to walk funny. Right?

Gary Taubes has written extensively on information cascades, where an idea becomes “consensus” without ever going through a real consensus process, or being conclusively shown by clinical trials of the necessary rigor. Taubes, also wrote Bad Science, The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. Valuable reference, and I have had good communication with Taubes. There is work under way that, when it is published, I expect to bring up with him. He is actually interested in real science. The Smiths have no clue what real science would be.

It seems obvious he has a very long history of editing Wikipedia and other Wikis for malicious intent, and has a very long standing feud with you.

You can see the identified sock puppets on WMF wikis on this page.

However, “long standing feud with” me is not accurate. I had not heard of “Anglo Pyramidologist” or the “Smith brothers” before September, 2017, when I found impersonation socking and filed checkuser requests with stewards, nailing them. Who were these people? Clues started to appear and I followed up on them. I was late to the game, there were many others who knew who they were, though this was also mixed with errors, on occasion. They create enormous confusion and others get caught up in it. However, I had a reputation for caution and neutrality. (My work on Wikiversity was to support neutrality by inclusion, rather than what Wikipedia does, neutrality by exclusions. What Wikipedia does is more imp0rtant for an encyclopedia (which should *not* include everything, unless the range is well-defined), and the former Wikiversity policy was more like academia, where anything can be studied and a professor can just lecture. (And on Wikiversity, one can express one’s views, and someone else can express other views, and the structure presenting these would be neutral. This worked, conflict was rare on Wikiversity. Until Darryl started attacking a Wikiversity user and a Wikiversity educational resource. At this point, the old Wikiversity is dead, though pieces of it remain. Again, that’s a long story. I rescued all the deleted content, and we have, which has a Wikiversity subspace for general rescued content, but for my personal work on cold fusion, the blog is where it’s happening. (This is done with “pages,” not “posts.” Posts are standard blog commentary, chatty, situational. I build long-term content with pages, organized into hierarchies.

I believe most comments attacking you are written by him in various pseudonyms. The man is a pathological liar, as I have discovered from his smear campaign against me.

Yes. I’m covering the comments on the page supra. I’d say most of them do appear to be Darryl. Blog owners can check IP addresses, usually. But Darryl, if he suspects someone will be looking at that information, will use an open proxy or a Tor node. There are still detection methods, but many blog owners are clueless about the nuts and bolts. A clue, though, is a distinctive agenda and language, showing up timely when the brothers would be involved. It is possible that Oliver might show up and make a comment. I do not attempt to classify all socks as Oliver or Darryl, but I do this for major socks that accumulate a record of actions. SPAs that show up, anonymous, and dive immediately into high controversy are always suspect, as they should be.

It appears that some unfortunate author, a woman, got herself involved and socked, arguing against SFB. They love it when people do that, because they can nail them. (And ordinary Wikipedians, not factionally aligned, will support action against sock puppetry. I used to engage with people who did this, attempting to educate them, and it worked, at least sometimes, but most Wikipedians do not have the patience for that. They just want to push block buttons and be done with it, not realizing or not caring that this can create long-term abusers. There are better ways. But the Smith brothers are completely beyond the pale.

Oliver was complaining to me that people were blaming him for his brother’s actions. Which may have been true, to some degree. But he never actually blew the whistle. Asked which accounts were his and which were his brother’s, he claimed that was too much work, and besides, who cared?

I told him that unless he took responsibility for not only his own behavior, but his brothers’ as well, his name was going to be mud. He decided, then to amp up his attacks. Of late, he’s been less successful on RationalWiki and the walls are starting to close in. He’s probably living with his parents and has no assets, so he may not be worth suing, but …. there are some who will file anyway, and defamation is illegal in England. It’s difficult to get the police to act, though.

I am led to believe you are correct in your investigations, very good work.

Actually, there are two parts to my work: one is collecting data, including links for verification. This will be almost totally correct. The other part is interpretation, which is where most errors will be made. If someone wants to know, I’m happy to share what I’ve found, for the basis, and then to explain my conclusions. What has been remarkable about this affair is that compilations that are little more than lists of suspected socks, with reference to contributions and specific events found in the records, are called “lies,” but, asked what specifically was either a lie, or incorrect, they don’t say. If it’s all lies, surely there would be some specific statements that could be pointed to!

Its clear this individual has deep seated, unhealthy hatred against you,

I’m not sure what it is. There are clues in what is massive by now, the edit histories. The Smith brothers attack whoever exposes what they have done. They also attack what they see as racism, fascism, neo-nazism (Oliver) and pseudoscience and fringe science and “quackery.” They readily categorize people as “quacks” or “cranks.” There is contempt for humanity in that. That contempt is a common evil.

Racism is on its way out, is what I’ve seen in my lifetime. It was open and unashamed when I was young. Racism, though, is a form of xenophobia and probably has an evolutionary basis, in tribal identity. To move beyond it will require tolerance, not more hatred. We will, collectively, stand against racism without demanding that everyone agree. We much more need to identify and stand against hatred, not by hating hatred or those who hate, but by creating what moves beyond hatred into communication, cooperation, and collaboration. Someone like Oliver and Darryl are to be pitied and prevented from harming others, but as long as they hold on to the identities they have created, they could not possibly be happy.

and I worry you somehow set him off on this very coordinated against low-carb diets.

No. It was not a reaction to me. He continued his activity on RatWiki until May. His patterns of behavior were familiar, just a somewhat different topic. He probably has no clue about the level of acceptance of low-carb concepts among medical researchers, nor among clinicians. He’s just reacting, knee-jerk, to what some think and write, holding on to ideas that are decades out of date.

What should the encyclopedia show? That’s really up to the project. The public should realize that Wikipedia is not reliable, and that articles may have extensive bias, and if a subject is important, independently research it. The other extreme is to believe everything one reads on a web site. I say, consider these as suggestions, become informed, *and make your own choices.*

If you try to figure out who is “right,” in a field where nobody knows bleep, often, you’ll probably make premature decisions. We will make mistakes, all of us. But we can also learn from them and we can even learn from the mistakes of others, if we pay attention and don’t fall into blame and contempt.

I hope he disappears, but his pathological history of impersonation and fake accounts seems to suggest otherwise.

Oliver has been less careful about libel, and might end up severely sanctioned. Darryl is a more difficult case. You can be pretty wrong and it still not be actionable. And there is the issue of expense.

Thanks for your support.

Skeptic from Britain

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/

Subpages of this page:

Collecting evidence on the “Skeptic from Britain” obvious Darryl L. Smith Wikipedia sock.

They will claim “there is no evidence,” and then they will claim that I will write “endless words.” In fact, what I write becomes long because I show evidence. I do not always provide links, but if anyone has a question about any assertion (anywhere on this blog) ask. If comments are not enabled on a page, link to the page in a comment on any page with comments enabled, which could include all posts (i.e, what can be seen from the main page,

If any page is confusing because too long, comment and ask for a summary. I read all comments. The first comment from a user (which may refer to the email address provided by the user, I’m not sure) must be approved, as an anti-spam measure, but subsequent comments, after one is approved, are automatically approved unless I actually ban the user, which I have never done. Trolls are skewered and served for lunch, not banned. Welcome! Come on over for lunch!

Baseless allegations against [XXX, name redacted]

There were accusations that SfB was [XXX], or [XXX]. (This libel was created by highly suspicious anonymous accounts in the middle of widespread outrage over the activities of SfB. This kind of diversionary tactic was used in the first AP incident I investigated. It is used to stir up enmity toward an enemy, in some cases, or in this case, to make their targets (which would be anyone considered “fringe” by them) look foolish.

(If [XXX] wants these mentions removed, he may comment here, giving a real email address (which will not be published) and I will contact him. The purpose here is to protect him from these false claims, not to increase harassment. But it will be his choice, I would anonymize the references where possible. We should discuss it. Note: he did so request, see comments on this page and on the subpage.)

I do not know [XXX] and have had no connection with him [as this was first written].  My purpose is, as it has long been, to expose deception and impersonation and the creation of conflict through lies.

This is general, not about [XXX]: when someone lies about another whose politics may be questionable, it’s still a lie, and we do not transform the world for the better by lying about anything, nor do we create “hope not hate” by hating anyone; in fact, hating racism, while understandable, is also not going to heal the wounds. Hatred itself is the enemy, and not to be hated, but understood . . . and transformed.

The trolling (or perhaps clueless in some cases) blog comments:

(some of these, since I pointed out the problems, have been deleted by the blog owners):


skeptic from Britain has an Instagram [redacted]

his name is [XXX] . he is a vegetarian SJW, but oddly claims to eat red meat twice a week.

This comment is typical for AP socks (could be Darryl or his brother). They will attempt to create an appearance of hypocrisy. The claims are not evidenced, at all. The instagram page shows no evidence supporting the claim. This is all attempting create an attack on [XXX]. This then is picked up by others, some might be innocent, some are obviously Skeptic from Britain or his brother.

Stephen Rhodes 

Not sure whether this helps but over at fatheadthemovie someone has posted;

skeptic from Britain has an Instagram [redacted]

his name is [XXX] . he is a vegetarian SJW, but oddly claims to eat red meat twice a week.

[SJW == Social Justice Warrior]

That was very fast. However, Stephen Rhodes looks legitimate, simply naive, repeating a story without noting the lack of verification. Isn’t social media wonderful?

Alex Davis 
Skeptic from Britain is clearly the [XXX] guy. The age range and diet matches. Now he has been outed he quickly changed his username as a false flag to detract attention and confuse. Note that Skeptic from Britain submitted Fat Head for deletion yesterday He is clearly angry at Tom Naughton for being outed and wants revenge. I doubt he lives in Manchester, looks like another false flag to me. His editing history matches a US timezone.
It is not clear to me where Darryl currently lives, but he did live in Radlett. He would create, however, many diversions. Naughton had not outed him, rather the trolls had “outed” someone certainly innocent.
It can be tricky to infer location from editing pattern. Notice that non-Wikipedians will not know how to confirm the claim about time zone. This is, again, typical. (Claims without easily verifiable evidence. and anonymous, with nobody to contact to check.)
The current Skeptic from Britain account name is Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 (the link is to archived contributions, there are currently 4622 live edits. (That’s a high rate for the time period involved, though not unusual for someone who has become very involved.) (There are more edits on Commons.)
This is a histogram of edit times (GMT), converted to fractions of an hour:
The minimum edit time is from 3:54 AM to 6:30 AM. Peak activity starts increasing at 1 PM, rising steadily to 10:06, and then falling off after midnight. This is quite consistent with a UK location. For the US mainland, that would be, East Coast, 10:54 PM to 1:30 AM. West Coast, 7:54 PM to 10:30 AM. Far from a typical Wikipedia editing pattern. While it remains possible (someone may have odd work hours and habits), it is quite incorrect to say that edit timing indicates U.S. location.
SfB showed up 12 February, 2018, making classic Darryl edits, obviously an experienced user already. This is not [XXX], at all, but an editor showing a very familiar pattern (Wikipedians should check “Goblin Face,” checkuser-identified. I will do a study of the edit timings, it will take some time (the SfB histogram was easy, but there is a lot more that can be done. I have edit timing for at least one known and active Darryl Smith sock in this period.  At this point, it looks like “Alex Davis” was lying. However, he might simply be mistaken and a bit careless. There is an Alex Davis with an interest in low-carb diets, but, as well, the Smith brothers pick real names for impersonations, it’s not uncommon, and there are no other comments from Alex Davis on that blog. Will the real Alex Davis stand up?
Goblin Face had over 7600 edits in 2014. This chart shows his last 5000 edits, times are again GMT, converted to fractions of an hour:
The match is strong. These two people are likely in the same time zone, with matching edits. Goblin Face was in England, matching the timing of Skeptic from Britain . There could be more found, much more, and again it will take time.
Low-Carb Man 

Because Skeptic from Britain got outed as [XXX] he changed his Wikipedia username and claims to be leaving the website because he was doxed, but he has submitted your Fat Head movie on Wikipedia to deletion, so you must have touched a nerve of his!

You should check Malcolm Kendrick’s blog comments various vegans have turned up to defend [XXX]. This was no doubt an attack from vegan SJW’s and they claim this is only round 1. You were right.

If a vegan is attacked, and vegans show up to defend him, would this be surprising? However, at least some of those who showed up are clearly socks, pretending to be vegan in order to stir up animosity. While there are some vegans who are fanatics about meat-eaters, it’s not normal. To SfB, all fringe believers are to be debunked and attacked, and if he can get them fighting with each other, so much the better! He creates false flag accounts, I’ve seen many of them.

[XXX]– vegetarian fanatic who claims to live in Manchester as of 2018, but there is virtually nothing about him on the internet apart from some old photographs on Instagram. Let’s hope he goes public about all this! If he studies biology like he claims, then he is editing at a university… I wonder what the university is he at thinks about this (!) Editing Wikipedia on their servers?

No evidence of any of the claims.  There is another post by “Jacob” on the blog. Different avatar. What I notice is the assumption that [XXX] is Skeptic from Britain, and “claims to live in Manchester.” Where? The account was named for a few days MatthewManchester1994. I found no claim to be “from Manchester,” either from Skeptic from Britain or [XXX]. So Jacob is either a troll who happens to use a name used before (which can be easy to do in blog comments) or is very incautious. The claims being made would be common for Darryl L. Smith, though relatively mild.

 Low-Carb guy
I think [XXX] is about the give up the game. Check the latest edits on his account MatthewManchester1994 . He says he has been outed by the low-carb community so he is closing his Wikipedia account and never returning.

This is a Smith brother. Skeptic from Britain was a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, with almost 5000 edits and obviously not new when that started. He would know that this announcement would create a red flag for anyone who wants to find his identity. When researching accounts, one of the first places to look would be the last edit. Here it is. No, this was a red herring. However, long-term, the SfB account has created a great deal of recent evidence, grist for the mill.

The twins are the most effectively disruptive users I have ever encountered, in over twenty years of on-line activity. Their behavior will perplex even highly-experienced users. However, they have, over time, been identified and outed, which they richly deserve for behavior such as impersonations (clearly proven) and attack libels against many, and creating harassment for innocent persons, such as [XXX], as far as I can see. Zero evidence to back up the claims. Not even reasonable circumstantial evidence. None. Zilch. Why did they pick him? They might live near him, might know him. They are in their late twenties, but still incredibly juvenile. Or they picked him at random as a “vegan.” [I found another reason, but do not wish to disclose it because it would create breadcrumbs to the real name of this person, but he is not vegan. He was for a time. He is not a fanatic.)]

I will be researching this further. Darryl has, here, created a body of evidence larger than I have seen for some time. He may now be very careful about editing Wikipedia for a time, because it is possible that checkuser would nail him. But there is more, much more. It will take time to review the evidence. Until after his twin, Oliver D. Smith, started trolling intensely on Encyclopedia Dramatica at the end of last month, I had stopped watching Smith activities.

When Oliver accused Rome Viharo of being Skeptic from Britain, I didn’t notice. But when he went to my talk page, where I get email notifications, and effectively accused me of the same, I looked. Wow! It was immediately obvious who Skeptic from Britain was. He obviously wanted me to see that (or he is really stupid in addition to being insane). Why?

Well, maybe he’s angry with his brother, maybe his brother has been angry with him. It happens in families. Or maybe there is some other reason, or no reason at all, maybe he was drunk or actually schizophrenic, as he once claimed.

Conclusive evidence

I have conclusive verifiable evidence that Skeptic from Britain is the same user as Debunking spiritualism on Rational Wiki, which would be Darryl L. Smith. ( a few people think that the “brother” story is just another deception. I consider it unlikely, but I could investigate this if anyone thinks it really matters.) I will share the evidence with anyone with a need to know. (Including WMF sysops or checkusers). Contact me by requesting an email through any comment on this blog (the comment need not use your real name, but, obviously, the email must be yours!) The contact will remain confidential.

(Anyone could find this, one merely needs to know where and how to look.)

Comments continued.

Low-Carb man

Abd Lomax is probably behind the “Skeptic from Britain” account himself.

The above website says he is Skeptic from Britain, it also has a photograph of Kendrick.

Another website claims Abd Lomax has a history of impersonating people

I would say this is a scam. Why are you targeting LCHF writers Lomax?

This looks like a Smith brother, but … “Low-Carb man” was just blocked by a Wikipedia checkuser as a sock of Amandazz100. See the suspected sock puppet page. This is a huge mess. Checkusers do sometimes make mistakes. Amandazz100 is definitely not a Smith brother. There is a real person involved: Angela A Stanton. If Ms. Stanton sees this, please contact me. (Leave a comment on this page with a request for email, and be sure to include a real email address. The comment itself may be anonymous.)

(The comment below appears to have been taken down. I replied to it, and that comment also does not appear, which is more or less what I would expect.)

 Wikipedia Astronomer 

I am a Wikipedia user that has been following this discussion as it was posted on the ScienceProject. Readers here should be aware that Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a 74 year old was globally banned from Wikipedia for impersonating people and doxxing them. Over 40 people complained to Wikipedia about this person including the known astronomer, my friend Joshua P. Schroeder.

Did Joshua P. Schroeder complain? How does “Wikipedia Astronomer” know what he claims? I was not banned from Wikipedia for impersonation and doxing. I was never accused of impersonation, and there were no serious charges of doxxing except from … Smith socks and a few friends. What I had done (of “documentation”) was actually approved by a WMF steward, etc. So the ban claim is  a straightforward lie, and this person would know it if he actually knows JPS and how WMF wikis work. (I was previously banned, years ago, from “Wikipedia,” the only WMF wiki with such a ban. The “impersonations” were checkuser-confirmed as a single person, and this affair embarrassed some admins who had made incorrect conclusions about identity. Some may have been more upset with me for exposing the impersonations rather than with the impersonator … who is almost certainly already de-facto banned from Wikipedia, and who is globally locked, an effective ban from all WMF wikis. But they simply create more socks, most successfully using mobile IP.

What is the “Science Project”?  There is a Wikiproject Science, but I don’t think he is referring to it. Rather it would be Wikiproject Skepticism. And there were discussions. This user doesn’t want to call it the real name because he knows how that will look in this context. So he twists the name a little. Here are the relevant discussions:

These edits to the Fat Head AfD repeated the accusation against XXX as if fact. Quackwatch was a red herring planted by a troll account, this is not completely clear I have not researched connections with Quackwatch, but I did see that Quackwatch was cited on Wikipedia as if a reliable source, which it certainly is not, and that would be expected from Darryl Smith. This discussion indicates the alignment of Literaturegeek with the XXX story and other deceptive information. LG is a long-term editor. Darryl claimed to have many Wikipedia accounts “in good standing.”  I have not seen enough yet to do more than raise some suspicion on this point. If Darryl has “good hand accounts” he would likely partition the interests, but, then, might slip and dive into a discussion like this. I will be looking at what will be massive evidence, now. If he is not Darryl, I should be able to confirm it and likewise identity if he is.]

LG shows high familiarity with the arguments being presented on the blogs, and repeats them. This is remarkable:

British sceptics spell sceptic with a letter ‘c’ whereas in the USA it is spelt with a K so even his username is a red flag.–Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a bogus argument, but LG obviously is British! I covered this here.

This is still not enough to accuse LG, but LG being British, does he know how “British sceptics” spell the word? (Hint, they use “Skeptic.”) Perhaps he doesn’t and he’s just making an ignorant comment. Or he does, and he is making a red herring argument that he thinks will fly with the audience, which is Smith brother behavior. It seems plausible until one actually checks. Sources were easy to find, and experienced Wikipedia editors become quite good at that. I definitely see enough to look more closely at his history, and if this is an Anglo Pyramidologist sock, it would be the biggest one ever caught (almost 27,000 live edits, started in 2007(!), was largely inactive for some years, but edited as another account starting in 2014, an “interesting year.” Loose lips sink ships. (There are doubtless other users who support the AP agenda from time to time, so the coincidences here are not enough to establish anything more than mild suspicion.)

Wikiproject Skepticism is one method the skeptical faction uses to canvass, it is how editors who identify as “skeptics” will know to show up for an AfD or other discussion that might impact the factional interests of “skeptics.” Another method is the use of the Fringe theories noticeboard, which the pseudoskeptical faction uses like a chat line. I’ve seen it used to create biased participation on another wiki, which would be totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. That faction is emboldened by years of being able to violate policies with relative impunity.

The Kendrick article would be a Biography of a Living Person. It is not a science topic, not really in the scope of the Wikiproject, as stated. But the skeptical faction wants to make sure that everyone knows that so-and-so is a quack, etc. The deletion issue for a BLP would solely be the existence of independent reliable sources, and that can be a bit complex to a noob. It does not mean “true sources.” It’s complicated and arcane. For science articles, there may be a weight on peer-reviewed and academic publications, but for biographies, coverage by a newspaper, for example, is adequate. Most blogs are not adequate, etc., but some might be, if they have serious editorial review.

So they canvas, but if someone not part of the “in crowd” on Wikipedia discusses a deletion, that’s “snails and worms.” To be sure, outsiders coming in will often be clueless about what the issues really are….

When a user is office banned, that notice will often be put on the user page.  It says that questions should be referred to “trust and safety.” The only notice to the user is a single email, if the user has email enabled. It gives no reason for the ban, and it states that it is not appealable. There is no warning that a ban is being considered and no opportunity or process for correcting errors. So why was I banned? This user says it. “Over 40 people complained.” That is a larger number than I have heard before. Oliver Smith bragged that he was one, and showed his response from the Foundation. He has long been banned on Wikipedia. I assume that his brother also complained, and he is actually globally banned under many accounts. Did they know all this.

Email access for the user is shut down, because a global lock is simply preventing log-in. But when it was realized that other Wikipedia users could still email the user, they eventually prevented that. In other words, the Office (or locking steward) is also preventing any discussion with the banned user. The community is being censored, not just the user. And hardly anyone notices or cares. This happens in nonprofits, the central authority does not actually trust the membership, because they “know better.” And they might, sometimes, but humans being humans  . . .

Joshua P. Schroeder almost certainly complained. He has often been banned but has nine lives, because the skeptical faction loves him. The page here on his accounts. He came off a self-requested three month block in July 2018. There is story about the history on that page.

JzG would have complained, and the bureaucrat Mu301 (Michael Umbricht) on Wikiversity probably did (he is the one who claimed I was using Wikiversity for a vendetta, though I had moved all activity relating to the sock puppetry of Anglo Pyramidologist off of Wikiversity.) (AP, originally an Oliver account, refers to Oliver and Darryl Smith, though I did not use those names on-wiki, and didn’t publish them until later, after becoming convinced of the identification).

There was a discussion of my Office ban on  Two single purpose accounts show up there Catapult and Max. Catapult was banned as a troll. Max was not banned, but only made four posts. Max wrote:

I received an email from the Wikimedia Foundation that they had received “six” complaints of this nature about Abd. Joshua was not the only person to complain. Regards.

The Wikimedia Foundation, by policy, does not discuss global bans. They don’t explain them. We do have a response mail put up by Oliver on RationalWiki. I’ll see if I can find it.

There are more comments from Max there. He is confronted by the obvious variation from policy that I mention above. I had discussed the situation with a former member of the WMF board. I actually thought he was still a member, but he’d left the board not long before. He told me that what I had actually done would not be considered harassment within the meaning of the Terms of Service. He was wrong, except … the complainers probably lied about what I had done. For example, Joshua Schroeder claimed email harassment, which would have been using the WMF interface originally (but not in later emails). In fact, the communication was voluntary and he never requested it stop. But the WMF could see there had been an email, thus they might consider the “harassment” claim plausible. In fact, I published those emails when Schroeder complained about harassment. Did they look at those? They showed I was attempting to cooperate with him, it was a Smith brother (probably Darryl)  who had really made it difficult to delete the information (which was much more harmless than the Smiths make out), by archiving it in case I took it down. His purpose was not to protect Schroeder, but to attack me. And he announced the “outing” and linked to it on Wikipedia, and he also thereby revealed to me JPS’s most recent name, which I had not known. (I was tracking this IP’s posts. These are Anglo Pyramidologist socks. There is a small chance that there was a third user, geographically located close to the Smith brothers, using the same mobile access.)

The discussion on JPS’s talk page:  You can see there how the plan to complain to the WMF was hatched. None of this would protect JPS in any way. I was not using my WMF account to harass JPS at all. The Smith brothers could complain that I was “outing” them, except, at that point, I wasn’t. The alleged publication of family members was transient, immediately taken down so that only the two brothers showed, and nobody would be able to find the house by what was published of the address. And that information is up elsewhere and basically can’t be deleted. I’ve redacted my copies to even remove the town. Still, what was a single incident becomes “doxes addresses and family members.” These people do much, much more than that. As I said above, I discussed this with a WMF board member, and he did not think I had violated policy.

But these people will use any excuse they can find.

Max went on with more details:

The list of people who sent complaints about Abd:

1. Myself (Public IP on Wikiversity)
2. IP (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)

No proof of this one, but it is obvious (I have emailed him): 
6. Michael Umbrecht – (Username Mu301 – Bureaucrat on Wikiversity)

Indeed. Now, which one is Darryl? Oliver is not the person who had created all the impersonation socks on Wikiversity and Wikipedia. It is that person whom I first documented. Most of the socks I listed as suspected were not Oliver. Oliver was accidentally named in my original study, because the name was in a URL. That was immediately redacted and actually revision-deleted. Michael Umbricht suddenly appeared after long inactivity, attacked me and “fringe science” on Wikiversity, blocked me for an action that the other active bureaucrat thought was within discretion, threatened the administrator who also had made checkuser requests on meta over the socking, and went on a deletion spree. And then he disappeared, he has not edited since February, 2018.

Wikiversity was the place in the WMF wikis where science either fringe or alleged to be fringe, could be *studied.* Contrary to the claims of the pseudoskeptical faction, Wikiversity does not have “articles” in mainspace. It has educational resources, which can include student projects. I developed traditions on Wikiversity (I maintained the site for quite some time) that a mainspace page must be rigorously neutral (even more so than on Wikipedia, it must be neutral by high consensus), but subpages could be attributed and, again by tradition, “owned.” I demonstrated with high success how what would have been major edit warring on other projects turned into collaboration and cooperation on Wikiversity. And Umbricht unilaterally declared that “fringe science” must be first subject to approval by a Review Board that did not exist. And, based on requests from … guess who? … he deleted two projects, Cold fusion (which I had not started, but which I had expanded for a time, and which was not active at this point, I had effectively abandoned Wikiversity, realizing it was unsafe, which subsequent events proved) and Parapsychology. I started that resource as a place where Parapsychology could be studied. I am not a “believer” in psychic phenomena, but the Parapsychological Assocation is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The definition of parapsychology establishes it as a science, it is the *study* of paranormal phenomena. It is not a “belief” in such phenomena, except to this extent. Here, read the resource, I rescued it when it was deleted.

Cold fusion was possibly more problematic. I simply wrote most of what was in that resource. It’s huge, many pages. Skeptics participated on occasion. There were debates that resulted in at least one scientific paper being written (by a skeptical electrochemist, by the way). If the mainspace page was not neutral, no skeptic had attempted to make it so. I previously showed how major and deep disputes could be resolved, but I actually abandoned that resource, leaving it for others, and had not made more than trivial edits for some years.

This was obviously not an “article.” But Wikiversity was “neutral by inclusion,” not by exclusion, like Wikipedia. (This is much closer to academic neutrality.) That has been demolished by Michael Umbricht, whereas other attempts to attack the inclusive neutrality of Wikiversity had long failed. There was a documentation project in my user space that had been proposed for deletion. Community consensus was to keep it. Umbricht unilaterally deleted it. After he’d done all this damage, he then disappeared again. This would be the most “reputable” administrator to complain, probably. The other would be JzG, who was highly involved in dispute with me on Wikipedia, and who blamed me for the poor condition of the WP cold fusion article, though I had been a very conservative editor on it (and that was before I actually studied the field and published in a scientific journal on it). JzG was still grumbling years later, because I had taken him to the Arbitration Committee and prevailed. That’s wiki-suicide for most non-admins. Long story, again.

The cold fusion resource had this at the top:

Welcome to the Cold Fusion learning project. The Wikipedia article on cold fusion is here (link).

These resources and seminars may present personal opinions of the writer(s). As the resources mature, controversial statements should be clarified and sourced, and any contrary opinions presented. Opinions expressed as original research, and not as a general consensus, should be attributed. Please help make this top-level resource neutral.

It was claimed that the resource was such a mess that it would be too difficult to clean up. That would be a claim that would show no understanding of how consensus would be reached on Wikiversity. If a good-faith editor showed up and blanked everything in the resource that didn’t look neutral, there would have been no edit warring. Rather, “neutrality by inclusion” does not require agreement on an unattributed page, rather, the page will be stripped to what there is agreement on, and it could have been as little as that introduction at the top. And then the resource would have links to subpages. As one option that was tried (and it worked spectacularly), “sections” would be created. These have a named and responsible section leader, who would (by tradition) have the right to supervise content on his or her pages. Here is an example of where that was done with a highly controversial subject: Landmark Education. That is, in fact, the most important work I did on Wikiversity. Until now, not noticed by the Smith brothers. It will be interesting to see if they now go after it.

Continuing the comment by “Wikipedia astronomer”:

Abd Lomax has been running around the internet for a year claiming that a group of “brothers” were responsible for his ban. It’s all nonsense. His account was banned by the WMF Office, not anyone else. The Wikimedia Foundation have globally banned less than 50 people out of millions and millions of users. Yes they ban many but rarely ever globally ban.

This is deliberately deceptive. First of all, the “brothers” claim was not mine, originally. I had only come to the conclusion that it was correct shortly before this time. Yes, the account was “Office-banned,” but these bans are not explained, and they have banned, for example, critics of the Foundation, or a journalist who had no account (Jake Christie). Office bans are relatively new. I was familiar with them before being banned, pointed out the hazard, and saw them as a slippery slope, that would, for the first time, expose the WMF to legal jeopardy. They attempt to run them in a way to avoid that, but … this has never been tested. Perhaps it will be. There would have been other ways to protect the project without those risks. But oligarchs (often considering themselves simply public servants) almost always opt for the most direct power and freedom from oversight.

This means Lomax did something very very wrong.

What did Jake Christie do wrong?

The WMF office is not allowed to give any details but to those who were online the day he was banned, we all know what he did.

And then he straight-out lied. He was “online the day [Abd] was banned.” Who is he? I think it’s obvious. He’s Darryl.

He created fake accounts of people on Wikipedia then “framed” certain users of this on his personal website, including posting personal information about where these people live.

I created no “fake accounts” on Wikipedia, but someone did. What I actually did was to identify the fake accounts and request steward checkuser, which confirmed the suspicion, and who was behind those accounts? It’s again obvious: a long-time attacker of parapsychology and of any user who interferes with his agenda. One of the accounts with substantial edits would be Goblin face, discovered accidentally by Wikipedia checkuser. The “brother” story originated with one of the early Anglo Pyramidologist accounts. Oliver confirmed it in many places, then claimed he’d been lying, then retracted that. However, there are clearly two personalities involved. There are claims that Oliver is schizophrenic, and so there might be a multiple personality. I doubt it.

Any time someone edits by IP, information about where they live can be created, and the Smith brothers often failed to take steps to prevent this (less and less, recently. If I receive a harassing comment here, it’s normally coming from a Tor node.) In theory, WMF checkusers are not supposed to connect IPs with accounts, but it happens all the time. Yes, I published information available on the internet with the family composition, but I also redacted this quickly. It’s still up in other places. Quickly, it was just the names of the two brothers and their ages and the town they live in. Everything else was redacted. I did ask a former WMF board member about this.

There are two aspects to this: one is that Wikipedia criticism sites often out Wikipedia users, it’s almost routine. I have always taken down extremely personal information, if I ever post it. These brothers have done far more, actually, with the families of their targets, the mother of one critic was actually fired from her job based on harassing email, and the mother of another was doxxed, even though he wasn’t living with her, in a clear attempt to harass through family. Simply showing a listing with names isn’t harassment, unless presented in such a way as to invite attacks (which was precisely the case in the second doxxing mentioned.)

As of 22/12/2018 he is still doing this. He has faced several libel suits, he has been forced to remove things from his website, but he still continues to go after these “brothers”. He says he “100%” knows it is them, but when you look at his evidence it is non-existent.

I have never been sued for libel. It has never been threatened. I have never been “forced” to remove things from my web site, except for one copy of copyrighted material, subject of a DMCA claim. That’s routine.

There is a contradiction here: there is “evidence” to look at, but it is “non-existent.” Which is it? Evidence can be misleading, the Smith brothers are experts at finding it, but “non-existent” is the common argument of pseudoskeptics: “There is no evidence for X,” they will say, when It is totally obvious that there is evidence. They commonly confuse “evidence” with “proof,” and then deny evidence that is even strong enough to hold up in court. “100% knows” is a reference to what I just found. Nobody, as far as I know, ever looked that this evidence before. What is the “non-existent” evidence? I haven’t stated the evidence that created certainty for me, so how would he “look at” it?

When users are blocked on Wikipedia for sock puppetry, the common remark is “See contributions for evidence.” Okay, I claim that Skeptic from Britain (and see Commons and Wikidata.) is Debunking spiritualism (Rationalwiki), see contributions for evidence. DS (notice the initials) is not ODS, who was rather openly Oliver D. Smith. ODS and other ODS socks, often self-acknowledged, have outed DLS socks. DS is Darryl Smith, behaviorally (as is SFB). Behavior is called the “duck test” on Wikipedia.

It’s a lot of work to document the duck test. They usually don’t bother on Wikipedia. Any admin who disagrees can unblock, and then it might be discussed. But the “100% certainty” is not the duck test. It does not depend on, say, point-of-view or other content issues. I’m not revealing how the data is studied, not yet, but he might figure it out, and his first reaction is going to be “Oh, shit!” because he cannot go back and hide. And it would be very difficult to hide for the future, without seriously cramping his style.

His account on meta-wiki that shows it is globally locked.

Which is obvious.

WMFOffice banned and locked his account on every wiki on the internet, this is exremely rare and only happens in serious situations of abuse.

This is far from “every wiki on the internet, and the lock is only of the global account, that’s one account, and we know that the WMF bans even when there is no account to lock, they just declare it, and in the Jake Christie case, J. Alexander then personally attempted to eject Mr. Christie from a WMF-sponsored event held in a public place where Christie lives, based on the declared ban. He invited them to call the police…. they didn’t. And he was not being disruptive there, nor is there any evidence as far as I have seen that he was ever disruptive. He was investigating, as a journalist. That’s it. They do what they can to silence criticism, and the claim that the global locks are only used to prevent policy violations is completely bogus.

This is interesting: Jalexander-WMF is globally locked. What was the serious offense?  This WMF account lock was unnecessary, unless it was abused. The abuse would be prevented by removing the tools that could be abused, which had been done. The global lock, however, not only prevents the user’s access to email through the system, it also prevents anyone from emailing them through the system. The global lock tool has long been known as a primitive hack. It simply disallows log-in, so the user then cannot see, for example, their own watchlist. The global lock tool has been abused on occasion by stewards. In fact, I documented that at one point, simply studying the previous 5000 global locks (a little over three months). The study was neutral and made no accusations. What do you think the stewards did?

If you know how stewards operate, lucky guess. Oversighted, by the other Italian steward, a friend of the only steward who had made possibly abusive locks (as many as 5 out of 5000, most locks were routine, for spammers, and often with no edits, which revealed that stewards look at Not even admins could see that list and study, only stewards. There was no explanation that made any sense. It was simply a list sorting information in the public global lock log. It did not out anyone nor accuse anyone of misbehavior. It simple looked at what stewards were actually doing.

Wiki theory is that the community can watch and act to correct abusive administration. That was an idea that was never given teeth on WMF wikis.

I was told that if I appealed the action, I’d be blocked. I pointed to it on the meta community discussion page. Nobody cared. And that’s how the wikis go south. Nobody cares enough to look at how they are being administered. And if someone pointed out a problem in the steward re-election process, I saw them threatened with blocks. The system is corrupt, and it’s obvious, and this could be expected to happen, given the structures that were set up. The system could be fixed, but only if the community wakes up, and it would much rather sleep, usually. Unless someone attacks their porn.

(That’s a hilarious story, where Jimbo Wales used his Founder tools to start deleting porn from Commons. Using Founder tools to interfere with Wikiversity academic freedom had caused a meta Request for Comment to be opened, but it had little participation and the vote was running something like “Stop Wales”:”Close Wikiversity”, 1:2.

When Wales then used his tools on Commons, to delete porn, the vote reversed dramatically, with high participation, and Wales caved and surrendered the most intrusive tools, and kept only oversight, because the tool is primitive and the abilities to see oversighted edits (he considered essential, and I agree), and to hide edits, could not be separated.)

There is a substantial segment of the WMF community, and even more the administrative community, that hates academic freedom. It’s long-term obvious.

Meanwhile, Office bans are generally implemented with WMFOffice and what is linked there is the global account log, showing almost 3800 actions. Now, many of those actions are on socks. There is one action for Abd. No socks. (But I had a few declared socks, and a few more undeclared that would be very difficult to find now, I never socked abusively.) I see 26 actions with the tag “WMF global ban.” I see 2923 changes with “banned user” in the summary, which would be sock locks. For example, there was a long-term Wikipedia critic, Thekohser, Jimbo had attempted to ban him and failed, and he was eventually office-banned. I know Greg Kohs, and his offense was being a paid editor, as well as pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. While paid editing does violate the TOS, if not disclosed, it certainly did not require an office action, because “paid editing” is a neutrality and content issue, not a safety issue. I see 9 actions for names including “kohs”.  When office-banned, he clearly created some socks, they are obvious from the names. (Socks named like that, if actually the person named, are not truly disruptive, and not a safety issue. Unless they are impersonations.)

It is possible that the global ban was based on his off-wiki activities, but this is remarkable: if someone is actually harassing users off-wiki, will globally banning the person actually protect the alleged victim? No, it would only prevent on-wiki harassment. More likely, it could sufficiently piss off the banned user enough to cause them to increase the harassment.

It is possible that the threat of a global ban could cause a user to refrain from “off-wiki harassment,” but (1) there is no warning and no definition of what is allowed and what is not (2) there is no appeal procedure, global ban decisions are “final,” and email and even legal notices sent registered are ignored. So there is no possibility of a negotiated settlement that could include removal of alleged off-wiki harassment, or correction of it.

This is done, as it is done, because it seems easy, not because it is effective. Greg Kohs easily could continue his work as a paid editor. I have been a paid Wikipedia editor, at $50 per hour, after I was banned there. This did not violate any policy, because I did not edit anything related to what I was paid to do. (or much of anything at all, I documented what I did on Wikiversity, it was deleted by the admin who blocked me there. But here it is.

I created wikitext for sourcing an article for a business, as one example. As another, I advised a blocked notable person how they could be unblocked, and provided wikitext to the person, who put it on their user talk page and was very predictably unblocked.

Greg Kohs, globally banned, has no incentive at all to refrain from actual paid editing, which is more efficient from the customer point of view. He will simply create hidden accounts. With the first issued global ban (decided by the community), I argued that applying a global ban would actually make the wikis less safe from the user, not more safe, because he was only editing one wiki at that point (Wikiversity), doing good work there, and this would provide a steady flow of IP information for checkusers to look at in case he tried to edit other WMF wikis. The practical argument was ignored in favor of punishment, which was the obvious real purpose. This guy had embarrassed some bureaucrats and others.

So, the predictable result: He did create a sock account, and became a Wikiversity administrator (this is easy to do on the wikis if one has a little patience and knows how the wikis operate), and was nominated for bureaucrat, and was about to be approved, when someone, somehow, figured out who he was and outed him. This, by the way, was real-life outing, and he’d been harassed at work by wiki enemies, who were not sanctioned at all for it. For all I know, he might have done it again. Ham-handed administration fails, easily, it can create endless work that creates no improvement of the projects.

Russavia was office-banned, and that was very unpopular on Commons. I don’t know if he is still doing it, but he might as well have been following “a sock a day keeps the blues away.” He continued his very popular work, only now the Office was spending paid time watching for socks. A Wikiversity checkuser took it on as a personal task to enforce the ban, and ran into massive disapproval and the ultimate followup from that was that he lost his tools, and was, in fact, eventually Office-banned himself. (INeverCry).

The WMF is not terribly sophisticated. The original idea (content and user behavior issues left to the community) was far better than what they eventually fell into. Instead of working to support more efficient and effective community consensus process, including procedures for privacy protection, and continuing to leave content and user decisions to the community, they went in the direction of direct control, which, they will find, I predict, opens up many legal cans of worms. Direct control with no appeal is toxic, but because it only affects a few users, there is little protest. After all, “I didn’t like that editor anyway.” And that is how societies devolve into tyrannies. “They came for the Jews and I wasn’t a Jew ….” is famous. 

As Lomax has a history of doxxing people and libel suits, you should probably remove mention of the real life names that he mentions without proof of owning the SKB account.

That’s up to the blog owner. However, I have no history of libel suits. I have never sued for libel or been sued for it. I have called a spade a spade on the blog. The argument would apply even more to mention of XXX, who was completely innocent, there are no credible assertions as to his identity except for obvious trolls (or someone repeating what a troll has written elsewhere, same problem, really.) However, I’m a real person, widely known, and the comments were attributed to me. If the blog owner allows open comment, then I would be responsible, not him. There is a procedure for takedown notices. It does not involve trusting anonymous users.

What the Smith brothers do is to attack others, real persons, generally by real name, while hiding behind their own anonymity. In this case, I have definitive evidence, strong enough to place before a jury if needed, that SFB was Darryl L. Smith, which then completely exonerates XXX. I have an obligation to communicate that knowledge. If I’m wrong, well, correction is always possible in comments here or there, but correction from anonymous users, replete with lies and claims of lying is not adequate. I will look at any evidence presented. What I have seen, instead, is actual and real-life harassment, obvious, and some of it legally actionable.

He has a vendetta to spread misinformation.

No actual misinformation has been pointed to, only conclusions that they claim are unproven. The cries of “lies” started when I first started simply listing AP socks, based on clear evidence and checkuser findings and Wikipedia decisions (which can certainly be in error, but they are still evidence). It was called “lies,” but when I asked for specific corrections, the requests were ignored.

I’m a journalist. My job is collecting and organizing and presenting information. If any of it is misinformation, that’s a career disaster! But everyone makes mistakes, so what a journalist will do is to invite and allow correction (or even alleged correction.) So they imagine that I hate them and that’s why I’m doing this. No, I’m simply telling the truth about what I have seen, and, in addition, what I have concluded. What I have seen is evidence, and my testimony regarding it is also evidence. My conclusions are not evidence, except if I am accepted as an expert by whomever is making decisions.

(Common law principle, and often statutory as well: Testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Testimony in that case is never anonymous, nor could controversion be anonymous. There must be a real person behind it. Anonymous testimony can be presented in court only with the consent of a judge, who will know who is behind it, and, generally, counsel for the parties will know. It is disliked and there would need to be a strong reason. Juries and judges want to see the person when they testify.)

There is not a shred of proof a group of brothers own the SKB account. He will no doubt turn up here and write thousands and thousands of words about it and try and mislead readers with false flags. He has been banned from practically every blog, forum and wiki on the internet in relation to these matters. Don’t fall for it.

They repeat that over and over. I have participated in hundreds of forums and wikis, and have been banned from few, and as to recent bans, mostly connected with the Smith brothers or the faction that one of them works for. Notice that “every” is a very strong claim. The evidence is? I am most active, in recent years, besides on my own blog, on Quora. Not banned there. Over four million page views and 1900 followers. Oliver D. Smith has a Quora account (they require real names and are totally intolerant of incivility). He’s behaved himself there, so far, and he has  9600 page views and 14 followers. I knew that his email address was authentic when he wrote me because he has published that address in a number of places, and the photo on Quora matches others.

I had activity on over a hundred WMF wikis, significant activity on 10. I had, when banned, over 36,000 global edits. I was not shy about getting involved with controversial topics. I confronted abuse, especially administrative abuse, and often successfully. I resolved and prevented disputes from boiling over, at leaswt

Anyone who is a whistle-blower will see blowback, it goes with the territory. I was banned only on one wiki, the English Wikipedia, and that’s a long story by itself. I’m proud of what I accomplished there, but abandoned the project (I was no longer editing at all when actually banned). I was not banned on any other wiki. I was, at the end, blocked only on Wikiversity, by the unilateral action of a single administrator (Umbrecht) and there was no community consensus for ban (and Wikiversity policy required such a consensus even to maintain a block, though what I saw was that, increasingly, the policy was dead and admins could do whatever they pleased. So I had also almost entirely abandoned Wikiversity editing and only became involved to protect a user who had been impersonated and attacked, and to defend the academic freedom of Wikiversity. I knew it was dangerous, and also that the effort could fail, precisely because of what happened. I can provide links as evidence for all the factual assertions here, but this is already getting way too long.

The faction that has supported the Smith brothers (possibly not realizing what they are doing) hates academic freedom, and also neutrality policy. They are occasionally explicit about this. They had long attacked Wikiversity, and, previously, were unsuccessful, often due to my intervention. However, where I really failed was in not inspiring the community to create protective processes and to build in watchdog roles. The software actually allows it, but the user functions are generally not enabled. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

There are something like 800 WMF wikis. I am not banned on those wikis, except for one, enwiki. Rather, my account is globally locked and a ban was declared by the WMF. At one time, local wikis had discretion to ignore global bans, any local bureaucrat could detach an account. That changed, the ability of local admins to bypass a global ban was taken away with the establishment of Single User Log-in, and I pointed that out. Basically, nobody cared. What was a reality, though difficult to maintain, was destroyed with hardly a notice. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If we don’t protect it, it walks away — or is stolen.

There is a Wikipedia list of 100 notable wikis. As wikis define bans, I am banned on only one: the English Wikipedia. I am blocked on two more: Wikiversity and Rationalwiki. That’s it. In addition to those wikis, I have accounts on about 12 of those notable wikis, not blocked. (|This includes a few WMF wikis where there was no block).

Wikiindex lists something over 2,100 wikis. I’m only banned through normal process on one (many years ago) blocked on two more, (Wikiversity and RationalWiki) and then globally locked by the WikiMedia Foundation Office. That’s definitely not the same as being banned on many wikis,which would require, one would think, misbehavior on many wikis. Or at least wiki administration that thinks so.

In addition, I have participated in many fora over the years, going back to the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s,where I was a moderator. I am banned on, that’s the only one. This latter is a bit ironic. I am not banned on, where I am very well known as a critic of the claims of Andrea Rossi, “inventor” of the “e-cat,” allegedly a “cold fusion” device, but am banned on lenr-forum, where I was, at the time of the ban, probably the most popular user. How did that happen? It’s the same old same old, I pointed out that a moderator was deleting posts with no notice or warning and without providing any way to recover the content, and declared that I was not going to post there unless this was addressed, because unexpected deletion is a problem for a serious writer. So I was banned. With no explanation, and protests from the community were ignored. This happens all over. My position is that the site owner has the right to do whatever the F he or she pleases, though there can be some moral issues.

The Smith brothers lie about me as they have lied about many people. One difference is that I use the lies to expose them, to fight lying, not with yelling and blame, but simply with the truth. They clearly hate that.

Their support has been evaporating, that can be seen in the Skeptic from Britain sequence, if one knows where to look, and on RationalWiki, where users have been getting tired of being used as a platform for personal vendettas, weaponizing Google (i.e., what they accuse me of, but what they have been doing for many years, long before I was involved.)


Darryl L. Smith had been, as far as I could see, inactive on RationalWiki since May. (Though his brother was active). In hindsight, I can see that he turned his focus to Wikipedia, as Skeptic from Britain. Now that Skeptic from Britain is out of the picture, I was watching to see signs of him on RationalWiki. Today, I found them (I only check periodically, it is like inspecting a sewer. Tough job, but someone has to do it.)

John66. Registered 19:52, 22 November 2018. Apparently, Skeptic from Britain was preparing to shut down Wikipedia activity. Articles edited or created (N): (updated 11/10/2019)

Warning: the common RationalWiki user is a so-called “rational skeptic,” and may edit with a showing of views similar to Darryl L. Smith. That, in itself, is not evidence of being this highly disruptive troll/sock master. I do not recommend that people not familiar with RationalWiki attempt to attack the articles or users, on-wiki or even off. AP socks use this and will even create sock puppets that will repeat the arguments. If a critic allows their real identity to be revealed, they will up the game with real-world harassment, I have seen all this reviewing history, but particularly in the last year, when I became involved. If anyone wants to consider action, please create an email connection with me. Leaving an anonymous comment here with a real email address, requesting an email, will do that. Trolls will be sprinkled with parmesan cheese and broiled.

I am careful about identifying socks, and maintain a distinction between mere suspicion (usually based on point of view and interest in specific topics) and stronger evidence. When I was merely pointing to obvious suspicion, from WikiMedia Foundation checkuser reports about impersonation socking to defame, I was warned and threatened, which was a clue to me that I was touching a nerve, that this was bigger than some transient tomfoolery. This was amply confirmed!

I have already seen enough to be quite sure that “John66” is “Skeptic from Britain” and that they are both Darryl L. Smith. I will be looking at further evidence that takes some time to examine. I have already used this kind of evidence to clarify the original identification of SfB, and to confirm my opinion that Bongolian (the RW sysop who has no given John66 sysop privileges) is not the same user.

Something like 1% of registered RationalWiki users may be Smith brothers. That’s quite a large number, but it is normally only a very few at a time, but continued over the years. Most of the socks, as with most AP socks on Wikipedia, only show a few edits. Here is an example that turned up from looking at John66, from history for Courtney_Brown:

Brian_Gene_Kelley, only three edits in 2013, two on that article, one on Rome Viharo, a red flag.

I have edit timing studies of other DLS socks in 2013, I will see how this fits. The behavioral pattern is quite common and not usual, ordinary new user behavior: the user appears immediately creating entire articles, on a narrow range of topics. That is very popular on RationalWiki, and someone who does this in line with the site point-of-view will quickly be given sysop privileges, I’ve seen it over and over again for Smith socks. They know how to do it.

These are anonymous trolls who hide their identity in order to attack real people. I did not get involved because I agreed with their targets, but because they used lies, deception, and impersonations to attack others, which harms everyone. For blowing the whistle, I was threatened and attacked, in many ways. It’s just history.

In my training, “If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.”

The focus of Darryl on “diet woo” is recent, but reasonably consistent. After spending the day looking at the data, my confidence has increased.

  • This is not a vegan plot, nor is it funded by big pharma. This is Darryl L. Smith pandering to where his bread is buttered, the “skeptical” movement, debunkers, aligned with the Amazing Randi and friends. A much milder incarnation of this movement is Tim Farley., whose connection with Darryl Smith has been claimed but is not clear, and if there has been a connection, that Farley knows what Darryl does is even more unclear. Tim Farley’s web site is a collection of anecdotes where people believed in or were deluded by or defrauded by this or that “woo,” and died or suffered losses of some kind. No comparison is made with following “conventional wisdom,” or the “standard of practice” which can also be fatal. The skeptical movement, unfortunately, does not actually educate in critical thinking, the real thing, but rather the site is utterly unscientific, even though many of the ideas covered are often thoroughly wiggy. It is obvious that defective ideas and thinking can kill us, including the ideas that if I do whatever a doctor tells me, I’m safe, and if my doctor follows the standard of practice uncritically, he’s a skilled physician and I should trust him. The standard of practice is not necessarily and truly “evidence-based.” There is science behind much of it, but  not all of it, and the exceptions can be killers.
  • The Malcolm Kendrick article was not deleted because of Skeptic from Britain’s arguments. His claims of “quackery” and the like were irrelevant. The issue was the normal one for biographies that are deleted: a lack of reliable secondary sources. This has almost nothing to do with how well known Kendrick is in certain circles. His popularity has not yet resulted in adequate secondary sources about him. It will, I predict, and then the article could be re-created. That process will be faster if it is not recreated out-of-process, and if unskilled attempts are not made.
  • There are certain people allied with the skeptical movement and Wikipedia faction who use impersonation and other highly unethical (and sometimes illegal) tactics to promote the movement. These do not use critical thinking, they use and promote knee-jerk response to dog whistles. “Critical thinking”, properly understood, looks at balance and does not uncritically accept the mainstream, it only uses reactive thinking to identify what is “wrong” with fringe ideas.
  • Skeptic from Britain is the same user as Debunking spiritualism, Goblin Face and many identified socks, and most recently John66. (The objective evidence on the last account is weaker, because there are not yet as many edits overlapping in time, but there are enough to show consistency, and the duck test — which could be documented — is strong. Skeptic from Britain lied about his intentions, and lied in order to use his alleged departure from Wikipedia to attack an innocent user who had criticized him. That is a classic Darryl Smith behavior. Research is continuing on the set of socks, but overlap of DS and SfB is clear. It takes time to do edit correlation studies. I’m learning, so it gets easier.
  • Wikipedia is vulnerable to factional manipulation. This is not a simple problem, given the Wikipedia systems and structures that developed and became highly resistant to reform. The problem is not the policies (which can seem counter-intuitive to those who don’t understand them). The problem is enforcement of the policies, and this problem is as old as Wikipedia. Solutions are possible but the will to implement them has never existed.

One final point.

Historically, Darryl Smith and his twin brother Oliver were confused on Wikipedia, and defacto-banned under the user name Anglo Pyramidologist. The identification of Oliver D. Smith is definitive. The real Oliver Smith has many times admitted his identity. He has a known public email account, and I and others have received email from that account, responded, and he responded back. This rises to the level of proof. However, he also lied in those mails, changing his story radically as conditions changed. On Wikipedia, they did not care which brother was which account, and the accounts were linked because (according to one of them) they were both visiting their parents when editing Wikipedia. That story was consider the usual “evil twin” excuse and was ignored, but behaviorally, there was always the appearance of two users, with distinct interests and habits.

The existence of a twin brother (probably) was established from a public record for the family, showing the two brothers the same age. Oliver D. Smith has shown a strong interest in Atlantis, and wrote a paper on the topic accepted at a peer-reviewed journal. This interest has all contributed to his positive identification. However, positive identification for Darryl L. Smith, the twin, is not so easily available. Most of my opinion on this is from comments made by Oliver, who, when Darryl was outed, defended his “brother” or his “family.” (And in the emails, he, attempting to deflect blame from himself, he claimed that most of the socking had been his brother. From what I’m seeing, that was a gross exaggeration, as to certain kinds of socking.) It is Darryl, with his interest in debunking the paranormal or fringe, who created impersonation accounts and later, when I documented this, organized a quite visible campaign to privately arrange my global ban on Wikipedia.

There is another brother, older. I have seen no trace of this brother. However, in the cloud of confusion that has been created, it is possible that individual accounts might be incorrectly identified with one of the AP brothers. This is implausible with accounts where long-term behavior is visible.

Darryl claimed that he had other accounts in good standing on Wikipedia. That could be true, and it would simply indicate that he learned to use evasive techniques, to avoid checkuser identification, and partitioned his interests to avoid suspicion. I found one account that I suspected might be such a “good hand” account. When I did an edit timing study, my conclusion was, no, this was not Darryl. If anyone suspects other accounts that are or were active on Wikipedia, that have not already been identified, please let me know by establishing email connection. (which can be done by any comment here, and anonymity will be protected; however, don’t lie. All protections disappear for those who lie. Don’t worry, I know the difference between error and lying.)

(If someone names a plausible sock in a comment here, I will also investigate, at least briefly. I will respond as the situation warrants. Too many people have already been wrongly accused, such as the user attacked as being SfB based on the knee-jerk assumption that SfB would be telling the truth! (And then, that this user was allegedly vegan — it was false — led to claims that Malcolm Kendrick had been attacked by fanatic vegans! That’s a common Wikipedia error, when an impersonation sock says, “I’m BannedUser,” they believe him. That’s not an immediate problem because the response is to block that user, but when, then, there is retaliatory action on another wiki, based on this, harm has been done. That is what happened, and that is how I got involved. These tactics are repeated because they work, and so much for “critical thinking.”)

I have also done one major control study, Bongolian. This is an established RW user with advanced privileges . One look at his contribution history shows immediately, this is not Oliver or Darryl!!! (I have never suspected him of being anything more than an “enabler.”) The level of sophistication that would be required to create the appearance of being distinct would be phenomenal! It would be far, far too much work to be practical.

The comparison between Bongolian and Skeptic from Britain shows that these users are independent, with a very high level of certainty, and it anecdotally confirms the methods I am using.

List of comment socks and timeline

(and possible “meat puppets — if one carelessly repeats as if fact what is from a puppet master, one risks being called a “meat puppet,” one of those charming Wikipedian terms.) (MK is Kendrick’s blog, FH, Naughton’s)

    • MK Stephen Rhodes December 4, 2018 at 5:12 pm provided misleading information, not “first post by [SfB]”, but an essay by JzG, a factional admin. There is a post here about the source of that phrase, “Lunatic Charlatans.”
    • MK Stephen Rhodes  December 4, 2018 at 5:17 pm points to User page for SfB, edit of March 7, 2018. SfB added a userbox created by JzG. This was a notice of factional affiliation, nothing more (or less). That is linked from 59 pages. 
    • FH james    (deleted) Fathead blog appearance of false claim of identity for SfB. No evidence was given.
    • FH Wikipedia editor December 14, 2018 at 9:59 pm
    • MK Stephen Rhodes December 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm repeats the false claim from james.
    • MK Alex Davis  December 18, 2018 at 2:52 pm
    • December 14, 2018 MrStrong (Oliver Smith) hints, to Michaeldsuarez, that Skeptic from Britain is his brother (Darryl), then effectively admits it.
    • December 15, 2018, Skeptic from Britain has his name changed to MatthewManchester1994. He had previously claimed to be from Manchester. This was very likely a lie. He also claimed an interest in biology, and one of his former sock names was Skeptical biologist.
    • December 17, 2018 MrStrong claims Rome Viharo is Skeptic from Britain .
    • December 19, 2019 MrStrong claims I (Abd) am Skeptic from Britain (MatthewManchester1994) (and a host of other accounts well-known to be him or his brother.)
    • (Setting aside Michaeldsuarez — to whom Oliver admitted SfB identity — Rome Viharo and I would be the most likely people on the planet to recognize the work of Darryl Smith.)
    • FH Low-Carb Man  December 19, 2018 at 4:57 pm (that name blocked on Wikipedia as sock of Amanda ZZ, all very suspicious. Repeats the story of “XXX” being Skeptic from Britain, ascribing cause to “outing”. In fact, that alleged outing was almost certainly Skeptic from Britain planting a red herring to cause disruption. Darryl does that. Oliver might do it too.
    • December 20, 2018 MrStrong threatens to expose me to the people upset with Skeptic from Britain, on my user talk page, guaranteeing it would get my attention. So I investigated and published this page, December 21, 2018. I did not know about the conversation with Michaeldsuarez until more recently. All is not well between the brothers, if Oliver was not simply lying again. His story about RationalWiki , told to Suarez, checks out, and he predicted the articles appearing there (under John66).
    • December 20, 2018, MatthewManchester1994 puts up “farewell,” claims real-name outing (which would validate it, if it had happened, SfB was obviously an experienced user and would realize that announcing that you have been outed is inviting everyone to look for it and believe it), and then changes his name again.
    • MK Wikipedia Astronomer  repeats standard Smith story about me.

Jimbo Wales commented on Skeptic from Britain in a !vote on a deletion request SfB had submitted. My emphasis:

Strong keep – As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial namechanger and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to ‘barely’ pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer. In the original deletion way back in 2009, the proposer wrote, correctly “This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it’s a too early for an article now.” I would suggest that it is no longer too early. [Addendum: this review is now beyind a paywall. It is from BoxOffice (magazine), a clearly reliable source.]–Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wales probably is not aware that this “POV pusher” has long been blocked, he is a sock of Goblin Face, who is one of the Anglo Pyramidologist brothers, most sock investigations are under the latter name. When he “retired” from Wikipedia, he took up on RationalWiki with the same agenda.

Wales also is unlikely to realize that this activist is affiliated with a faction, and claimed to have been paid to edit Wikipedia by a “major skeptical organization.” If Skeptic from Britain was such a major POV-pusher, why had he escaped notice? In fact, his POV fits in with that of a faction I confronted long ago. They are “debunkers,” and have strong opinions, they have explicitly rejected Neutral Point of View, but advocate what they have called “Scientific Point of View,” but that is an oxymoron.