Dysklyver

Dysklyver (contributions, logs) is an interesting case, much more interesting than the general RationalWiki sillyplop.

  • Fairly new, registered 17 June 2018
  • Rights. Autopatrolled 19 June 2018
  • Sysop 12 July 2018
  • Created troll sock 18 August 2018. Nominated himself for moderator. The acceptance speech is actually pretty funny, as a parody. Or is it simply a description?
  • Ninja and Tech 27 November 2018

Personal information: this was all openly revealed. If Dysklyver wants any of this removed, he may request this. Good-faith requests will not be published without permission (an ordinary comment will ordinarily be published, permission is assumed). Commenters here as a message to the administrator reviewing comments (that’s me at this point!) may request that the comment not be published, and this will normally be respected.

However, trolls will be chopped into kindling and burned for heat, it’s cold!

User:Dysklyver (various revisions) and with a little help from my friends:

    • Wikipedia: User:A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver very blocked on wikipedia. Indeed. Global account. Globally locked, “(Long-term abuse)”  The block logs do not justify “LTA.” Alternate account on Wikipedia, Arthur Kerensa. Looking at the history of that talk page, and making no conclusion about the legitimacy of his blocks (he requested them?), they are assholes. This is, unfortunately, was becoming very common by the time I abandoned wikipedia (as is common, abandon the project and they community-ban), and whenever I have occasion to look, it seems to have gotten worse. What was the harm of that notice?
    • https://wiki.org.uk/article/User:Arthur_Kerensa chilling on a wiki site. Link is dead, wiki.org.uk died sometime between September 13 and December 1, 2018. Not in wikiindex. Some pages archived on archive.is. Not that one.
    • On IRC (freenode) as Dysklyver@unaffiliated/dysklyver
    • On wikipediocracy as Dysklyver memberlist (requires registration)
    • In and around various sites like Ubuntu, Reddit, TheStudentRoom, and more
    • Lawyer.
    • I live in Cornwall, in the United Kingdom.
    • I am the primary sysadmin (not sysop) of World Wiki. (dead link) So what happened?
    • On Reddit as Dysklyver.
    • I have a blog called The Wiki Cabal
    • My email address is dysklyver@linuxmail.org
    • Follow me on  Twitter
    • I am on Discord as Dysk#2545

 

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.

Aeschylus.

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.

Update

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 http://archive.is/HKZyR.

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.

Bumblebee

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.

Atlantid

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 archive.org.

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 that day or even that week, but long-term, he’s been very, very involved.

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.

Mike

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.

Follow-up

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.

Diebythesword

(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 (be 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.

  •  http://archive.li/gvSQN 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 hypothes.is, 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. https://www.academia.edu/6045331/Climatic_Race_Concept (written & uploaded in September 2013) but no screenshot
  2. https://www.academia.edu/5920220/Races_Clines_or_Populations (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. http://archive.li/oyKBh 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”.

Obvious.

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 comlete 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, 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. Archive.org 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 archive.is 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 wasa  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.)

Wikipedia editor
December 14, 2018 at 9:59 pm

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

.James 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Tobias_Raper

(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)

Wrongpedia

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:

http://wrongpedia.referata.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend
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:

Wrongpedia

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: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Racism_and_anti-Semitism Largewarhammer (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

removed

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 archive.is 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 https://kiwifarms.net/threads/oliver-d-smith-atlantid-tibetanfoothills-markofkri-many-more.17515/

that page can be found on the internet archive, and there are versions on archive.is. 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: http://archive.is/ydies)

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:

Wrongpedia

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: http://wrongpedia.referata.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend

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 archive.is. 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:

Conservapedia

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 https://gab.ai/Mikemikev/po… 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev

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.

 

Impersonations

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 https://www.csicop.org/si/show/statin_denialism

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 WordPress.com. This can be checked on a service like whatismyipaddress.com. 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 . . . .

Sasha
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

Sasha
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:

Sarah
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:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes

“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:

5.62.43.25, 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.”

144.217.105.196, 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.

31.14.72.47, 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

Wrongpedia

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Introduction

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

(Wrongpedia apparently has the domain set to reject archiving, see archive.is 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 ‎

Miscellaneous

 

To be continued, there are many, many more.

Metapedia

Atlantid

 

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:

James
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.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Abd_Ul-Rahman_Lomax

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:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

He was blocked on Wikipedia in 2017 for impersonating people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/abd

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 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/abd

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. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard

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, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:RationalMedia_Foundation

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:

Sasha
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

Update2

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.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

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? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

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. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gillian_McKeith 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).

Update3

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.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

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.)

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Abd (check the user-template)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd (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.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd#Blocked_2 (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:

123.140.240.40 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.

Done.

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” https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax&oldid=1878895:

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 lenr-canr.org, 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 coldfusioncommunity.net/w, 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, http://coldfusioncommunity.net).

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):

James 

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head. 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.

Jacob 
[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.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Abd_Ul-Rahman_Lomax

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

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

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….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd

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 Wikipediasucks.co.  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 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (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.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Abd

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 login.wiki). 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 lenr-forum.com, that’s the only one. This latter is a bit ironic. I am not banned on e-catworld.com, 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.)

Update

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. 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.

Checkuser evidence

Checkuser evidence has become available from Encyclopedia Dramatica, and it is being claimed that it shows Oliver D. Smith impersonation socking, something that has been a known practice of the Smith brothers. I will compile that evidence here and connect it with other information I have. The most clear page available shows the edits of 86.14.46.42, which is immediately recognizable as likely Smith IP. This page was apparently obtained by Junius Thaddeus, also known as Michaeldsuarez (WMF accounts). I have known Michael for years. He could be mistaken on this or that, but he does not lie, and Smith is reduced to that, simply accusing him and the other checkuser involved of lying. It’s a long-term pattern, and many in the RationalWiki crowd fall for it. If someone supports or appears to support anything fringe, therefore, it appears the thinking appears to go, they are likely to lie or troll. The thinking may be: “After all, some of us lie and troll, so if reasonable people (us!) lie and troll, obviously unreasonable people would do it even more!”

Everything is fair in fighting pseudoscience and quackery, right?

 

That is a screenshot from the MediaWiki checkuser interface. While anything can be faked with enough work, Michael has no motive to fake this. It would be a big job to create all those entries and convert them to the image. I will be checking edit histories on ED to verify that these are real.
File page. [archive.is copy] [archive.is image] https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.14.43.42

IP: 86.14.43.42
ISP: Virgin Media
Type: Broadband
Assignment: Dynamic IP
Continent: Europe
Country: United Kingdom gb flag
State/Region: Hertfordshire
City: Watford
Latitude: 51.6667  (51° 40′ 0.12″ N)
Longitude: -0.4  (0° 24′ 0.00″ W)
Postal Code: WD17

The probability is very high that this is Anglo Pyramidologist or his brother. See the list of IPs at geolocation/ and, in particular, 86.14.2.77. This is very unlikely to be Mikemikev, who sometimes edits from locations in the London area, but not these IPs.

The evidence here, behaviorally, is blatantly Anglo Pyramidologist. The accounts:

Contributions/ODS matches the checkuser report. The content is typical Oliver D. Smith. ODS is a name used by Oliver D. Smith on RationalWiki in February and March of 2018. He is sill editing RationalWikiWiki as Oliver D Smith, creating revenge articles on Michaeldsuarez yesterday, as this is written.

Contributions/Nivea matches. The content is ODS agenda attacking Mikemikev.

Contributions/Rupert_Smythe  matches. Anglo Pyramidologist agenda.

Contributions/Rupert1488 matches. Rupert1488 accuses JuniusThaddeus, on his user page (that’s vandalism),  of not deleting articles on individuals. But he did. See the log for Mikemikev

He did not create the article on Hu1, which is now at Vajna, this is Eleonóra Dubiczki, an obsession of Oliver D. Smith. Rightpedia is not an individual. This could appear to serve Mikemikev (active on Rightpedia). However, the checkuser log shows that this would be impersonation. I saw a series of socks on Wikipedia pretending to be Dubiczki and other Rightpedia people, blatantly Oliver D. Smith.

Contributions/DueSouth

follows up on agenda of Nivea and other ODS socks. The habit of many edits to say little is an Anglo Pyramidologist trait. If it was not already obvious, this is Oliver D. Smith, on Talk:Rome Viharo.

The full discussion there. (archived copy) ODS has been busted by so many people, and essentially he claims they are all lying. He impersonates people, and then claims that another enemy was the impersonator. However, there is also his brother, and with two people, sometimes they can fool checkuser. But here he did not bother with evasion. He apparently felt secure enough to use home IP.

The first checkuser was Hipcrime. It appears that JuniusThaddeus was posting old screenshots so he asked Hipcrime to verify. See this discussion. DueSouth, as is usual, gunks it up with a farrago of accusations. Oliver D. Smith continually creates new accounts and massive confusion. The claim of “you have no proof” is very common when he is talking to people holding proof. He’s a bald-faced liar.

the prior checkuser screenshots:
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/File:DarrylAndOliverSmithKiwiPyre.png
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/File:DarrylAndOliverSmithKiwiPyre2.png
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/File:DarrylAndOliverSmithKiwiPyre3.png
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/File:OliverSmithEgyptianMongol.png
All these are on archive.is.

The accounts involved:

Contributions/EgyptianMongol. MDS apparently thinks this is ODS. This one account might not be him. The log snippet shows only that the checkuser looked at it, not what the checkuser found. (But those who can see the log were asked. If MDS was misrepresenting it, this would likely come out.) However, the other accounts are AP (which could be Oliver or Darryl), but most appear to be Oliver, from the names alone, but also contributions.

Contributions/Barkhang_monastery
Contributions/Caves_of_Kaliya
Contributions/Mycenae
Contributions/Kiwi_Pyre
Contributions/NorseSword
Contributions/AncientSword

Kiwi Pyre is not  clear as Oliver. The account was blocked because “confirmed as Oliver,” i.e., presumably checkuser confirmed, but Oliver and Darryl have commonly used the same access, so this could be Darryl. The rest of those names are standard Oliver user names. What is clear is that this is not Mikemikev, and is a Smith brother.

As to editing RationalWiki, it has become more difficult to distinguish between Oliver and Darryl Smith, since there has been subject cross-over. My studies generally refer to AP, or Anglo Pyramidologist, which is the name applied on Wikipedia to both brothers, though Oliver was the original AP account.

He, in context obviously Oliver D. Smith, claims on the RV talk page, linked above,  “I’ve not edited RationalWiki in over 6 months.” The date of the claim is September 22, 2018.

ODS last edited RW on March 22, 2018. Six months. However, this was not the last Oliver Smith editing of RW. Others since then have been very clear.

The most recent identified Oliver Smith sock on RationalWiki is Contributions/Octo. Very standard Oliver Smith working-account behavior. Octo edited a few days ago. Before that, we have many trolling accounts, which could be him or his brother, but an accounts with more edits would be:

Contributions/Callimachus “retired” May 22. Oliver Smith accounts display very clear and very idiosyncratic interests. He’s lying on Encyclopedia Dramatica, though I suppose it is possible someone is creating an elaborate ruse. Nah, they’d need to get access to his service provider, which would be a lot of work, and to do that over days … extremely unlikely. Octo, like many Smith brother accounts on RW, was very quickly given advanced privileges. I’ve been involved with RW for many years, and this is unusually fast. Autoconfirmed, yes, that’s very easy. Usually sysop takes a bit more, unless the user is recognized as returning. If RW sysops don’t recognize Oliver, they are strikingly brain-dead. I don’t think so. I think they tolerate him, because he serves certain purposes. (However, Octo could be Darryl. Callimachus was certainly Oliver (he admits it here), in which case I’ve shown four months instead of six. But Octo is obviously Oliver as well. See this discussion. The mention of Octo, before this, was quite obscure. (And they lie about “no evidence.” There is actually too much evidence, i.e., it’s overwhelming. No, I don’t think that only one person edits an article. In fact, for many articles, I identify only a very few as being AP socks. Oliver and his brother attempt to convince RW sysops that they are all being attacked. Some of them appear to fall for it. I’m just documenting what I have found, and that’s intolerable for Oliver and certain other trolls.

(I don’t think I have ever claimed that there have been 1000 Oliver D. Smith accounts “here,” i.e., on RatWiki.) However, at times there have been bursts of impersonation socking that has obviously been Oliver or his brother, and I consider them together, as does Wikipedia, where there are over 200 socks listed, as I recall. I list all the accounts I have identified, but I have not counted them. There are, indeed, many. It is possible there are some misidentifications, because when someone creates hundreds of small-edit count accounts, there will likely be some. However, the longer-term accounts are quite clear, because the behavior is obvious. In addition, there is, in some cases, technical evidence. I received email from Oliver, and published it. This was back and forth with a known public email address for him. This was not somone impersonating him, and he acknowledged being some of the accounts I had identified. But he also claimed most of the other accounts were his brother. Then, later, he claimed they were all him. He lies, routinely. There is independent evidence about his brother.

And, again, he uses the confusion that he and his brother created. In the recent discussion on Encyclopedia Dramatica, he taunts JuniusThaddeus about his former opinion that Darryl, the brother, did not exist. That’s a not-uncommon opinion, that it’s all Oliver. If so, something is very, very strange about the brother, because there is independent evidence of a twin brother, and there were two distinct personalities, from the beginning of the Anglo Pyramidologist history on Wikipedia. Two distinct sets of interests, and that bifurcation continued. Oliver is very public in certain ways, the brother is far more private. The brother is more disruptive, was behind the massive impersonation socking, during which Oliver showed up and claimed it was not him. But he was not revealing what he knew, that it was his brother. Later, he revealed that, and then denied it, and then tossed all the cards in the air. And accused everyone else of being confused.

What is truly remarkable and diagnostic of the situation on RationalWiki is that what has become widely known is treated there as if it was some weird conspiracy theory. As if a thousand accounts was implausible. The fact is that a sock master running socks for years can easily accumulate that many accounts. In some bursts of impersonation socking, there might be ten accounts in a day. How long does it take to accumulate a thousand accounts that way? On Encyclopedia Dramatica, he’s often blocked quickly, so he just creates a new account, I’ve seen many in one day. He has admitted using RationalWiki as an attack site, but he retires the accounts and the RatWikians really don’t care. Anyone who points out what he’s been doing on RatWiki is immediately blocked for doxxing, though pointing out sock accounts is not doxxing. Yet when he claims that others are socking, it’s usually ignored. RatWiki is weird, and many RatWikians know it. And they give Oliver and Darryl Smith accounts sysop privileges readily and quickly.

There are other accounts to look at but I have Actual Useful Work to do . . . .

Trolls

Subpage of RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist

This is a collection of accounts showing a kind of troll behavior characteristic of some AP socks. These accounts appear, often create pages with disruptive names, and are intended to be immediately blocked. Sometimes these accounts are intended to be seen as socks of someone else.

It is not impossible that some of these are themselves impersonations of AP. However, I find that explanation generally implausible. The particular interests and foci are those of AP. If impersonations, they succeed.

I’m starting this page August 20, 2018, showing recent examples. There are a large number of examples. As well, these are only on RationalWiki. I have sometimes documented these accounts. Where they edit covered RW articles, they have been listed there when noticed, or sometimes when impersonation was clear. Accounts are shown articles or edits, and content of articles. Analysis is in unindented italics.

EMIL_OW_KIRKEGAARD (impersonation) created

EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKIEMIL OW KIRKEGAARD (talk contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The lack of a space between the comment and the signature is commonly seen with AP signatures.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Some of the material copied to RW above was taken from the linked blog. But not all, and this practice of quoting exposés of AP, disruptively, is a known AP tactic. It actually works on RW, on occasion. Since the sock quotes X, RationalWikians may assume that the sock is X, increasing dedication to opposing any genuine X activity, and presenting the apparent target (here, Oliver Smith) as a victim. Generally, these prolific impersonations socks may be, not Oliver himself, but his brother, Darryl.

ElfredaTheCalm blocked 12:24, 4 August 2018 GrammarCommie for “spam” created

[[File:Emilkirkegaard Nazi salute.png]]

This file was uploaded by Dr. Witt, an obvious Oliver Smith sock.

RIGHTPEDIA.ORG EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI

EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI

EMIL KIRKEGAARD IS CLOSING RATIONALWIKI ANTIFA DOWN

 EMIL KIRKEGAARD CLOSING RATIONALWIKI ANTIFA DOWN U GEY

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

David Gerard and Oliver Smith both antifa

Jump to: navigation, search

A sign of careless copying.

(aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia

Oliver has stated that he believes he can get away with defaming and abusing European dissidents, as they will be less likely to contact the authorities. This suggests he is motivated by psychotic behavior disorder rather than political views.

On his autobiography, he falsely claims in the D&D alignment he is “true neutral”. In reality, he is chaotic evil. Chaotic because he’s a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder and he’s a pathological liar — he even constantly lies on the talk pages of his autobiography, such has here he lied and claimed Rightpedia said they were doing to dox all Rationalwiki Sysops and nobody said this. Evil because he cares not for right or wrong, but only power, and chaotic evil because he has no goals other than his emotions. And just look at his photo which he chose to upload for his autobiography; that’s clearly chaotic evil.

Other enemies of Oliver Carolyn Emerick – A European Pagan who teaches ancient folklore. She has never responded to him. She bought one of Evalion’s paintings, the one with the four seasons in Celtic mythology. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax – A based Muslim

This was partly based on the Kirkegaard blog with more AP raving. However, I’m a blogger and here is an opportunity for some eye candy. Sorry about the rest, but I can think of a medicinal use for it. So perhaps I have an opportunity to chat with one of two people: Carolyn Emerick or Oliver Smith.

from

OR

 

Tough call, eh? Politics? Who cares about politics? Presence is everything.

[[File:Kirkegaard.png|800px|thumb|Emil Kirkegaard]]

File uploaded by https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:CheeseburgerFace not an AP sock.

RationalWiki (nicknamed IrrationalWiki) and Wikis on politics tend to have a certain viewpoint, such as Wikipedia is mainstream US liberalism. Conservapedia is mainstream US conservatism. For IrrationalWiki, it is pro-neo-Marxism, pro-Globalism, and the hypocritical position that conspiracy theories are hoaxes. Although the viewpoint in its articles is often too extreme, it is run professionally. They prevent doxxing and have banned members that behave crazy like traditional Communist activists. Crazy viewpoints are fine, but behaving uncivil is not allowed.

For its pro-Neo-Marxist stance, the wiki supports things along the lines of secular humanism, cultural degeneracy, and old-fashioned Economic Communism, race denialism, New Atheism, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, pro-sodomy, pro-gun restriction and basically that sort of thing. It even claims rape culture in white countries is only done by white people and the masses of rapy immigrants from African, Muslim and other countries that have a real rape culture aren’t the ones doing the raping. It’s the viewpoint that a man looking at pornography is “rape culture” while the common occurrence in Europe these days of a gang of foreign men gang-raping a small child and then the government imprisoning anyone who speaks against it on Facebook or Twitter is not rape culture.

For pro-Globalism, while that tends to conflict with old-fashioned economic Marxism, current Neo-Marxism is a modification that isn’t totally at odds with Globalism. Even people typically on the left oppose globalist things such as genetically modified foods, smart meters, fracking, Monsanto, Aspartame, cancer danger from cell phones and that sort of thing. Irrationalwiki is of the point of view that these conspiracies are pseudoscience and corporations in general can do no wrong.

The delusion that all conspiracy theories are hoaxes really just overlaps with the pro-Globalism viewpoint. The wiki holds that if it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s wrong. This can be conspiracy theories not related to Communism or Globalist corporations such as 9/11 conspiracies, water fluoridation, and DDT banning conspiracies. rightpedia.info/w/RationalWiki

This was material taken from http://en.rightpedia.info/w/RationalWiki

Also August 4, from the block log:

11:35, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . Oliveratlantis
11:33, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . Oliveratlantis

11:41, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+1,414)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual: new section)

Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual

Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

A massive wikisperg, Oliver is infamous for going to extremes to remove websites or articles that he believes have offended, disparaged or merely criticized him; this includes accusing his opponents he has met online wikis (e.g. his arch-enemy) of various crimes, setting up attack blogs on them, hounding, stalking and impersonating them using sockpuppets, accusing his opponents of being his own impersonations, and even sending threats with the purpose of trying to coerce them into deleting everything written about him. In numerous cases this has worked. Emil OW Kirkegaard (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

1:39, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . (+185)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎

EXPOSING THIS MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034 Emil OW Kirkegaard (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

11:37, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Talk:Oliveratlantis (Created page with “oliver is a traitor to the European people and should be shot. ~~~~”) [entire content shown in summary]

11:54, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+2,064)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (emil kirkegaard is being stalked by a schizoid antifa: new section)

emil kirkegaard is being stalked by a schizoid antifa

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

11:56, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff ) . . Emil kirkegaard is being stalked by an antifa (Created page) 

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:00, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . OLIVER SCHIZOPHRENIC ANTIFA (Created page) with 

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?
[code block] There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

[code block] Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:14, 4 August 2018 (diff | hist. . (-2,173)‎ . . Michael A. Woodley of Menie ‎[replaced content with:]

THIS SMEAR ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY A MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA

11:31, 4 August 2018 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Oliveratlantis (Created page)

(aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia

11:29, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+192)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎

EXPOSING THIS MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034 Emil Kirkegaard Real (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • 12:34, 4 August 2018 GrammarCommie  blocked Oliver boglins (contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam) [created 11:22, 4 August 2018]

11:25, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+665)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Impersonations)

oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Oliver boglins (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

12:09, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Schizophrenic antifa oliver (Created page)

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:07, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Talk:EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI (Created page with “EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI~~~~”) [all content in summary]

12:10, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Michael a woodley of menie close down rationalwiki (Created page)

[[Image:Michael Woodley.png|thumb|2500px|U GEY]]

File uploaded by AP sock M87.

Reviewing M87 edits led me to Octo, created  09:25, 14 August 2018. Caught a fish! This is Oliver.

Back to the task at hand, troll accounts:

17:37, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets Hilariously the other socks are Oliver attempting to frame me.”) [text=summary]

17:01, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets”) [text=summary]

 User:MrSheen (shows deletion log)

Account renamed by LeftyGreenMario

16:00, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff. . (+686)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Lol, how Kirkegaard sees his politics…) [revdel by Bongolian]

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppetsEMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. EMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

15:59, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff. . (+581)‎ . . User talk:MrSheen ‎[revdel by Bongolian]

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

 15:58, 8 August 2018 (diff  . . (+161)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (edit summary removed) [by Kazitor]

Edit summary was content:

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppetsEMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

15:38, 8 August 2018 (diff. . (+182)‎ . . Talk:Michael Coombs

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets“)EmilOWKirkegaard1488 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Geolocates to region for AP or Mikemikev.

Yes, Virgina, there is a cabal

A link to this was posted here, and I didn’t see it until recently. By itself, this is only a rant of a disturbed fanatic skeptic, who is known to lie, but there are breadcrumbs, pieces that fit together over time, and this comment caused the picture to pop into view. I wrote in 2009, there is a cabal, presented evidence of de-facto coordinated editing on Wikipedia, by a faction. I did not claim that this violated policy, in itself, but the effect was a warping of Wikipedia process, and I wanted ArbComm to look at that. Unfortunately, ArbComm was infected by the cabal or the cabal point of view.

The cabal uses attack dogs to create a cloud of confusion that allows others to intervene to “prevent disruption,” blaming the target and the dogs, and the dogs don’t care, because there is an endless supply of dogs, a dog can be created from any non-blocked IP.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

From later research and evidence, this was Darryl L. Smith. The story matches information from his twin brother, Oliver D. Smith.

Authentic Oliver on RWW

I happened to look at RW Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and found this:

RWW
I made an article on him. (font used does not copy to this blog, this was RW user Bigs) 01:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is he will probably now show up there on accounts & complain to wikia. He spends his life attacking people on his blog, but if someone merely spends 5 minutes writing something about him it’s unacceptable…Callimachus (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what you wrote was good. I don’t think I will edit and leave it to others. You mentioned Lomax has 29 articles on RationalWiki; he has 51 on me. It’s done to abuse google traffic to my name, i.e. search my real name so the lies and smears show up on his blog.Callimachus (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind and wrote a little. Abd has been divorced 7 (!) times; not surprising is it. Callimachus (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Callimachus is admitting what was already obvious: He is Oliver D. Smith. However, it’s also misleading. I have a few pages on Oliver specifically, but my original contact was with Darryl L. Smith, his twin brother. Oliver was the original Anglo Pyramidologist, but it has been known — or claimed — since 2011 that accounts belonging to both brothers were investigated on Wikipedia under that name. I simply picked up that name for the “sock family.” I was not claiming, and do not believe, that all these were Oliver, and, very likely, the large majority were not. I have also consistently pointed to the possibility that he has been impersonated. There are certain confirmed cases where the Smiths have impersonated others, verified by checkuser, and there is a substantial series of socks impersonating me on RationalWiki. Could those, in turn, be double impersonations, i.e., someone else imitating Smiths impersonating me? It is not impossible, but it all begins to become a Rube Goldberg fantasy. There are far simpler explanations. Impersonation socking is illegal and there is a probability that this will be tested in court.

As to “lies and smears,” I have many times invited Smith to point out errors. He just keeps repeating “lies and smears.” Errors are not lies. However, simply describing what Smith has done will be considered a “smear” by him, even if done with caution and care. On the other hand, Smith and his brother routinely smear others, taking what others have written out of context and twisting it into real defamation.

Meanwhile, Oliver D. Smith’s activity on RationalWikiWiki is quite interesting. I have not complained to Wikia administration, not yet. That wiki is not nearly as damaging, as defamation, as the RationalWiki articles, because the public and some who should know better may treat RationalWiki as a serious site. Bigs is an “angsty teenager,” according to what he wrote about himself on RWW. He is a more or less typical RationalWikian: he likes the idea of rational skepticism but is far, far from actually practicing it. He believes total BS when it’s fed to him by someone he thinks is “on the right side.” That’s classic believer behavior.

To what is on RWW:

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets

I’ve linked, but what shows now for that page is the deletion log:

00:37, May 26, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (moving to http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Mikemikev_sockpuppets)
00:40, May 25, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (recreating to remove too many edits)

Oliver, especially, has often done this: he spills the beans, thinking he is defending himself, and then realizes and attempts to cover it up. “Recreating to remove too many edits” is BS. It is a fact that making many edits when a few would do is a Smith trait. But did he move the page where he claimed? No. He lied.

But the page was archived, so we have the content. Since the core is a list of alleged socks, taken from the Rightpedia list, with his indications of which ones were him, I reproduce it below.

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets is a conspiracy-theory-esque article about RationalWiki filled with misinformation, written by the troll Mikemikev on the wiki Rightpedia.[1] The article lists 38 RationalWiki accounts and falsely states they are owned by Oliver D. Smith, furthermore that this is only 1% of the total… the absurd allegation is Smith owns 3800 accounts. In reality, Smith owns only a tiny fraction of the accounts; Mikemikev is known to impersonate Smith on sockpuppets and so some, or even many of these listed accounts are Mikemikev himself.
This is classic Oliver argumentation. He takes what someone has written literally and then turns it into what appears to be an absurdity. Writing to me about the accounts I had documented, he claimed that “99.9%” of them were not him, but his brother. Given how many accounts he has admitted, this would require a very large number of accounts be his brother. In a context like that, the numbers are hyperbole, not literal. When I invited him to identify which accounts were his, he declined, claiming it would be too much work. But he did that work on this page, and then deleted it. He is hiding, and in the end, in correspondence with me, claimed he had been lying about the brother since 2011, that “there is no brother,” and my conclusion is that this is simply One More Lie, which should not be surprising with someone who says he’s been lying to everyone for years, including Tim Farley, an apparent ally and possible supporter of his brother.
In May 2018 Smith contacted Mikemikev on Gab requesting him to remove the ridiculous article; Mikemikev said he isn’t interested in fact-checking who owns all these accounts and admitted to mistakes and lying; he also didn’t deny impersonating Smith, but that he will still blame them all on Smith to abuse Google searches of his name.
There are plenty of examples of where Smith has misrepresented what others wrote. From Smiths’ behavior with me, I can easily imagine that Mikemikev, as an example, said something like “There may  be errors in the list, and I don’t really care if it was you or your brother. Right now, you are very visible on Google and your brother is far less visible, so you can go jump in a lake.” All of that would then be likely to be interpreted by Smith as he has. He complained to me that Michaeldsuarez also didn’t care if it was him or his brother, which I explained to him as “collective responsibility,” which arises when people act in conspiracy and mutually support each other.
I do not agree with many of the identifications on Rightpedia as being Oliver himself. Many are his brother. I do rather doubt that Mikemikev would support the listing there of his own impersonations, if such exist. However, Darryl, Oliver’s brother has listed accounts on RationalWiki as being my socks, when none of the ones listed were me (other than “Abd”), and they were almost certainly created by Darryl (who was Debunking spiritualism and who knew my actual history and behavior and would in addition know that I would not behave as those socks behaved.) Oliver and Darryl are both trolls, who assign no value to honesty and integrity. Their goal is to attack and anger and harm anyone seen as an enemy, which is quite what they think about others, it is not at all surprising.

Account list

† = Smith. ₪ = Not Smith.
Notice how no evidence is presented Smith owns any of these accounts, but in numerous cases it is easy to prove accounts aren’t his, for example Georgie Enkoom is a practising Muslim from Canada and obviously isn’t Smith.[2]
On Wikipedia, they will say, blocking a suspected sock, “see contributions for evidence.”
Georgie Enkoom is, my view, an error, but this account did engage with certain articles, so the error is understandable. As well, Darryl often supports his brother’s positions, and so can look casually like an Oliver sock. On Wikipedia, they decided not to bother with the distinction, both are blocked and they don’t really care which is which. All of the acknowledged Oliver socks above had been identified by me. I generally review the entire edit history of an account, Smith socks show certain very familiar characteristics, and accounts that merely overlap in some way, on one or a few occasions, look quite different.
I will review all this when I have more time. An interesting listing is “–san” (Misnamed above, but the contributions link is accurate.)  –san created an alternate account, “Mike V.” It is easy to see how Mikemikev might think this is Oliver.  I had already seen and suspected Mike V, and on review, concluded that if this was a Smith sock, it was a “good hand” account, with most activity not being “Oliver Obvious.” RationalWiki users are in general snarky and provocative.
So I would not claim this was Oliver. There are other accounts with very few edits; they are disruptive, generally. When I have doubt about an account, I either don’t name it, or put a question mark after it. As well, Oliver has always been welcome to correct errors. I may or may not accept his claims, and Oliver has claimed, remarkably, to have been lying to everyone since 2011, but, regardless, if he denies something I’ve reported, his denial would be reported. This is standard journalism.
Putting this list together with Oliver’s prior claims to me, I can then review identifications and start to specify “Oliver” and “Darryl” and “Possible” more clearly. I have been deprecating Darryl L. Smith for search engines, but that reserve will pass. Darryl was actually, for me and my long-term interests, far more disruptive than Oliver. For others, particular Oliver targets, the reverse is true.
Mikemikev’s has a history of creating accounts impersonating ANTIFAs, or so-called SJWs; the accounts with ANTIFA/anti-fascist/Hope Not Hate in their usernames above are easy to identify as his for his sockpuppet history,[3] while others appear to be impersonating Smith more directly.
I will review those accounts with that possibility in mind, but I already know that in some cases, Mikemikev has been impersonated by Smith socks, and the Smiths have lied about Mikemikev’s public statements. He did not “admit” as they have claimed, that all the Wikipedia socks were him, he merely referred to the Sock Puppet Investigation page there as being “my SPI page” i.e., about him. And some of those socks were indeed him, but Smith claims that all were, when it’s actually preposterous.
With very few exceptions, Smith’s real accounts (†) usually have names related to classics (Aeschylus, Callimachus, Nemean) or video games he plays (Agent 47, i.e. Hitman), but at least one account (not listed above) is an impersonation based on this.[4]
There’s unfortunately no check-user tool on RationalWiki, like on Wikipedia; this means the only way to identify someone’s account is by behaviour (e.g. editing habits[5]) and not by technical evidence such as IP checks.
Right. However, impersonators imitate behaviors. Common for the socks impersonating me on RW: they take something I have written and copy it, then spam it all over the place, and add threats to it and attacks on individual users, accusing them, for example, of being Smith socks, when, in fact, if those users are mentioned on my blog, it would be incidental or as “supporters and enablers,” which explicitly denies that they are suspected socks.
One of the suspected Smith socks actually wrote, on his user page, that it was great that RW had no checkuser tool, because he had created 700 accounts and was basically running the place. Was that an exaggeration? Maybe. Maybe if transient attack socks and short-history impersonation socks are included, it was a rough estimate.
The term for a behavioral test is the “duck test,” and Smith socks actually accused a Wikiversity sysop of being my sock because he also used the term “duck test.” These guys are either idiots or insane or vicious — or all three — they know how to create disruption and confusion, because they often succeed in it.

[redacted]ns

Smith once atypically created a throwaway account with a name unlike all his others; he edited on this account for only a single day in February 2016. Rightpedia and Abd‘s blog claim this account name [redacted]ns was an impersonation of an individual named [redacted]nn, however it clearly wasn’t as the names are visibly different, Smith never claimed to be anyone else and even had no prior communication with the person he was supposed to have impersonated; Rightpedia/Abd are either lying or have a reading comprehension problem.
Smith made that argument to me. The names are visibly different, that’s true (though a casual reader might overlook the difference) but that does not show that the intention here was not impersonation or trolling. Further, not addressed is why Oliver keeps “retiring” but then creating new accounts. The practice is attempting to conceal long-term behavior. This would be blocked on Wikipedia, when it can be shown (i.e., within the checkuser window, assuming that open proxies or TOR nodes are not being used, and even then sometimes Wikipedia will conclude account identity, and the default there is that this is not legitimate, if the topic areas overlap.
When Oliver’s BS is not accepted, and the rejection is reported, Oliver then claims “lying” or “reading comprehension problem.” In fact, I have clearly acknowledged the argument, and rejected it. The effect of what he did was impersonation, and others have pointed to that account as connected with [redacted]nn, the real person. Darryl and Oliver believed that this person was a supporter of the extreme right. In fact, for a time, he was, but later admitted that he had been, let’s call it, “temporarily insane.” At that point, when he created the account, Oliver would have known him as right-wing and thus as a perfect name to use for trolling the right wing, and creating possible hostilities within it.
Other than this, I do not know any examples of “Oliver Smith” claiming to be someone else. (A claim with a small twist that then makes it plausibly deniable is still intended to deceive or troll). There are examples of blatant impersonations, but these may have been from Darryl, the brother, and I do know that Darryl claimed to be [redacted], and this is not deniable.
As well, an account recently appeared on Wikipedia claiming to be Emil Kirkegaard and another on RationalWiki with the same name. This was blatant impersonation in both places. Was it Mikemikev? I find it unlikely. The behavior is long-term Smith: wave a red flag saying “I am so-and-so,” be directly and obviously disruptive, and watch the fireworks as users assume the disclosure is honest.
On Wikipedia, the primary goal of sock puppet identification is deciding to block or not, and they would block an account either way if it claims to be a block evader, someone considered banned. So they often won’t bother with checkuser, and many of these get tagged with the wrong sock master, and that isn’t cleaned up even when later evidence appears that is far more clear.
The Smiths take full advantage of that sloppiness, and then claim that those socks were the target, proving how disruptive the person is, to sock so much. But there is no doubt that the Smiths have created at the very least hundreds of socks. The Encyclopedia Dramatica socks of Oliver have sometimes been several per day. Attack socks often appear as many, in rapid succession. They did on Wikiversity and the WMF meta wiki, they were attempting to intimidate WMF users, and these were all tagged by stewards as the same user (and then, through two accidentally caught Oliver accounts, were traced by me (and another) to RationalWiki and his account there, Welliver. Notice that the list of socks, alphabetical, does not get to Welliver.

Notes & References

  1.  http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_D._Smith_sockpuppets
  2.  See user page.
  3.  List of Mikemikev (banned) socks
  4.  Raider Fan, see also the information about the impersonation on Wrongpedia.
  5.  However this is clearly a problem when someone is impersonated!

Providing links to current version of originals, as distinct from archive.is pages:

  1. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Georgie_Enkoom (this is only evidence of what the user claims about [him]self, but I agree that Enkoom is unlikely to be a Smith sock.)
  3. The link is to a single Krom (Oliver) claim (i.e., Oliver). A link to an archive of the whole list, which I will show below) This list was removed as disruptive by an RW sysop. This was common for Oliver: he would start to experience blowback for his obessions from other users, and he would then retire the account and start a new one, to create confusion. (That is not considered a violation on RW, unless the account is a mob target). Note 3 does not support the claim in the text, at least not without extensive further research.
  4. This amounts to an admission that Oliver is active on Wrongpedia, a blatant attack site, in this case attacking Wyatt. The RW account is “RaiderFan,” not “Raider Fan.” Smith socks have been very active on RW attacking Merkel (“Wyatt”). The current active Oliver account on RW being Callimachus (acknowledged), who was blocked for harassing Merkel, while Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith) unblocked him and blocked Merkel, in a period when, they claim, the DS account was hacked, and Oliver claimed it was me. And that DS account attempted to hide many open admissions of identity, and also blocked old alleged impersonation accounts. It’s completely bonkers. More on RaiderFan below.
  5. Yes. RationalWiki has some level of pretense to be a serious site, but, in fact, the community is focused on “lulz,” they call it “snark,” or SPOV, a play on the usage of that term on Wikipedia, where it means an oxymoron, “Scientific Point of View” but on RW the S stands for “Snarky.” They really don’t care about any RW target, and targets are routinely blocked when they object, in spite of RW inviting criticism. Blatant attack socks are common blocked and blamed on a target, when the behavior is not target behavior, but Smith behavior. Or a very sophisticated and long-term dedicated impersonator. I know the world of major Smith “enemies,” and none are reasonable suspects for that level of impersonation. Occasional impersonation is not impossible. And then Smith will point to it, if he can show it, and claim that’s the whole show.

Oliver’s list of Mikemikev socks from 2015

See above. This begins with a list of IPs, all claimed to be Korean. At that point, Mikemikev was living in Korea, and I had already, studying possible sock puppetry in RW articles, noticed the Korean IPs and considered them very likely Mikemikev. It is possible, however, using open proxies, to select a Korean open proxy, so this is not absolute proof. However, it’s likely, and the abundance of these actually shows Mikemikev not routinely using open proxies, but rather, readily available local IP. The list is long. This is not account socking, and would not be impersonation without clearer evidence. I’m not looking at them. These are the accounts alleged, in addition to Mikemikev:

Mikemikev1
Kevin
FrankDickman
Sam Rainbow
Philphilpot
Social Justice Warrior
Social Justice Internet Scientist
Michael C

There’s plenty more that can be added to the list. He easily has 20+ more accounts. Krom (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That’s a short list to cover years of activity. When users are blocked on RatWiki, they are sometimes told it’s not a big deal, and that one can always create a sock. From the extensive IP editing, as well, it looks like Mikemikev didn’t bother to do this very much. Remember, the supposed point of this is to show impersonation socking, and impersonation implies someone impersonated, who should be reasonably obvious from the name or from behavior. What do we see here?

Mikemikev1 is plainly claiming to be Mikemikev. Oliver is claiming this also. The account has two edits, this is basically irrelevant. The account was blocked, however, a year after the last edit, 14 November 2014. Weird. Not impersonation.

Kevin edited with apparent Mikemikev POV. See this version. Not impersonation.

FrankDickman Possible Mikemikev POV. No evidence of impersonation, certainly not of Oliver. This account resembles the next, and if not Mikemikev, could be the same user. Contrary to Oliver opinion, Mikemikev is not the only “race realist” active on the internet.

Sam Rainbow All contributions hidden. Disruptive user, revert warring. Not blocked! Contributions were hidden 2 May 2018 by Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith)  (in his deletion rampage,the whole page was deleted). Possible impersonation of Mikemikev ? but this was Mikemikev POV. Not impersonation of someone else.

PhilPhilpot (mispelled above, but link correct) Single edit No evidence this is Mikemikev other than POV, which for one edit, is generally inadequate. That edit linked to this display. Mikemikev (apparently) linked to the same display previously. This is about human biodiversity, and the apparent “race realists” participating on that RW discussion were making cogent arguments, faced with ad hominem arguments coming back, for the most part. (If we consider, on the matter of intelligence, hereditarianism and enviromentalism as extremes, I’m well toward the environmentalist side, but it is also obvious that there are genetic variations and it is possible that these could be associated with population genetics, sometimes called “race.” In any case, not impersonation.

Social_Justice_Warrior claims or pretends to be a Social Justice Warrior, but also attacks the term. It is true that the extreme right wing uses SJW as an epithet. I see nothing, however, to confirm that this account is Mikemikev. The five edits before being blocked amounted to a very small amount of text. (The user then reverted a removal of that text, and made a trolling comment on the talk page of that article), and was short-blocked. Then one edit to his own User talk page. That discussion ends with

Social Justice Warrior is Mikemikev, he has no life. He’s been creating these socks impersonating for years and is the clown.Arcticos (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior was then blocked as Mikemikev, not just once, but three times, and with no additional evidence. This is very much RW commonplace. Who was Arcticos? The user has only nine edits, in two sessions, 13 July 2015 (the above was his first edit — so why was he trusted?) and then 1-2 November 2016. From my list of RationalWiki AP socks already published, I had written “extremely likely.” With more careful review of the edits, many evidences, I am now completely convinced, Articos was Oliver, not his brother Darryl, and repeating the story of Mikemikev “impersonating,” so far not actually confirmed (even if SJW was a Mikemikev sock, this was ordinary trolling, not impersonation. But SJW doesn’t smell like Mikemikev. Not an impersonation (impersonation refers to actually creating the impression of being another specific person, not pretending a point of view, though that can also be offensive sometimes. Smith has been claiming that Mikemikev impersonated him, not some random SJW.

Social_Justice_Internet_Scientist  block log. How is it that a user with 7 edits, all within little more than an hour, 15 May 2015, is blocked three times, the last by Darryl Smith, on his rampage May 3, 2018? The first block was by WatcherIntheDark, 15 May 015. SJIS was unblocked by a regular as the  block was obviously excessive. Three months later, Krom accused SJIS of being Mikemikev and blocked. (See the next edit after SJIS’s first edit). Reviewing all the edits, I see no sign that SJIS was Mikemikev and quite a bit to contrary.  While WatcherIntheDark has some interest overlap, the user is very unlikely to be an AP sock. Not an impersonation.

Michael_C is a real-name account (i.e., with real name last initial. 2 edits, 6 September 2015. Plausible as Mikemikev. Not an impersonation.

I see several possible Mikemikev accounts, but most, probably not. Perhaps Mikemikev will have something to say about this. In any case, Oliver’s claims are not substantiated by what he cited, and, in fact, this shows Smith brother reactivity and obsession with Mikemikev.

Other Oliver D. Smith RWW articles

I will review these on separate pages.

Mikemikev_sockpuppets impressive list, but I see some accounts included that were likely Darryl Smith. Maybe many.

Oliver_D._Smith lies straightaway about no longer being active on RW. Uh, Callimachus? To be sure, Callimachus “retired” after his comments on the talk page of my article. So 4 days, no edits on RW, AFAIK, but furious activity on RWW.

Rome_Viharo Rome actually tangled with Darryl first

Abd Obviously Oliver’s first priority. (started by Bigs) (as of latest Oliver edit).

Mikemikev  of course.

http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard

The common thread: Smith writes about those who were attacked by him or his brother and who fought back by telling the truth about what had happened. That doesn’t mean that they never made mistakes, they did. But the story of the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” so intensely ridiculed on RationalWiki, was fundamentally true, there is no longer any reasonable doubt, no matter how furiously Oliver and Darryl have been trying to cover it up.

Update

Oliver supposedly retired from RWW June 17, though he left an out.

No longer active on this wiki unless I have to block Mikemikev‘s sockpuppets.

JD Bigs announced this on The End of an era.

However, Oliver came back. His contributions. His logs (Obsessed user!)

Example of editing after “retiring”: Mikemikev sockpuppets. Almost all socks claimed to be Mikemikev are either Oliver,  or, more likely, his brother. (Rightpedia editors commonly think that there is no brother, or that the brother is completely inactive. I don’t think so. There are two personalities and sets of behaviors. As well, the brothers no longer live together, apparently, and thus they have been able to create support from independent IP, which made a difference in dealing with WMF stewards (who are not at all accustomed to this kind of coordinated socking).

The massive impersonation I found on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and the meta wiki were not Oliver D. Smith (“Anglo Pyramidologist) but were the brother, Darryl L. Smith, and Oliver claimed that most socks were his brother in email to me (which has been published here).

Smith has lied about this, for sure, because he has made sourced claims that, when the source is examined, are not supported, such as claiming that Mikemikev admitted all the Wikipedia socks. That was actually preposterous. All he did was to call the Wikipedia Sock Puppet case as “his case.” Which it was, i.e., he was Mikemikev and he did, long ago, sock. He may also have socked more recently, that’s unclear. But that case is a confused mess, if one reads it. The Wikipedians have made gross errors, on occasion, it’s been shown conclusively, and they don’t correct them. Why should they care if some blocked user was impersonated?

(Because those cases get used as evidence elsewhere, that’s why! It also can make a difference if the user requests to be unblocked or unbanned.)

Or these edits to the article created on RWW about my RationalWiki account. Again, Smith would know that I did not create those RationalWiki sock accounts, and I did not “harass RationalWiki sysops.” I did document, originally, Anglo Pyramidologist, and the related accounts of his brother, and eventually, as attacks on me for exposing the impersonation socking escalated, I listed RationalWiki accounts of these two people, and they have often been sysops there (as was I when this started). These two trolls have been impersonating socking for many years, they are famous for it. The only accusations against me in this regard came from them.

I have described how RationalWiki sysops have enabled and encouraged Smith socking and disruption, but I have not doxxed them, for example, as I have been doxxed. The Smith brothers are real persons who have been libeling real people, and they are being held accountable, legally.

(Because they have been outed by others, years ago, as to real identity, and when I was still investigating the case, I did put up information from a directory giving names and addresses. However, I took that down except for general location, useful for administrators to compare with their own server logs. These guys are radically toxic, this is not mere skepticism or anti-pseudoscience, and they real-life harass, my family has been contacted by them.)

In this thread, Oliver D. Smith implies that a member of the RationalMedia Foundation board is stalking him, and then doxxes IP editors as being Mikemikev. The fact is that Oliver or his brother (more likely the brother) could be using the same service provider as Mikemikev, they live in the same general area.

The Wikipedia sock puppet investigation for Mikemikev is heavily contaminated with old socking that was not actually confirmed as Mikemikev, and there was definitely some impersonation there. This is a known Smith brother tactic, it is how I first encountered them. They find a target who is blocked and create impersonation socks, and then troll for response, then they use the response to prove that the user is highly disruptive. Checkusers on Wikipedia are not dedicated to discovering the truth about this: such impersonation socks are to be blocked no matter if they are impersonations or not!

RationalWiki is even more naive. Many impersonation socks there will quote material from their target, making it look to the naive like editing by the user impersonated. I created, several times, a disclosed sock. They then created a mass of accounts with similar names, and repeated what I’d written in many places, as if I were daring them to block me. Anyone who examined the behavior with care would have seen this. But . . . RationalWiki users rarely take such care. It’s too much work.

However, looking at the accounts he lists:

Could be Mikemikev. It is what Mikemikev might say, and it is pointing to reality, in fact. Mikemikev was being attacked, and so if this was him, he responded. One edit, blocked immediately by JD Bigs for “harassment.”  Essentially, Mikemikev and others were being libelled, and he responded, so that’s harassment. Very much like what happens on RationalWiki itself.

This account directly denies being mikemikev, and the only evidence that it is would be the very general, large internet service provider, that may or may not be actual Mikemikev IP. I do not make claims like that when I investigate accounts. I might say “possible.” (This is not “abusing multiple accounts.” It may be “block evasion,” but the Smith brothers do this routinely when blocked. They just start new accounts, and nobody on RationalWiki really cares about that. They tolerate it, and joke about it. If someone is libelled on the site, and defends themselves, and mention the very obvious use of sock puppets to create the libels, they block the user for “doxxing,” even when there is no real-name revelation, and then continue to block any and all attempts to clear the record.

While Mikemikev cannot be ruled out, this is looking less and less likely to be Mikemikev and more to be another RW user, familiar with the site and the history, saying what more and more RationalWiki users are starting to realize: RW and then RWW have been used as attack platforms, to go after anyone who has confronted the Smith brothers.

Right. What the IP wrote was simply true. So when the RMF board member pointed to what ODS was doing, that’s why ODS found him suspicious.

Obviously not Oliver. (Except that sometimes there are pretend impersonations, accounts pretending to attack Oliver and his brother, but I doubt that in this case.) Participated on the Emil Kirkegaard article and talk page. There were also impersonation socks of Kirkegaard. This account was blocked by CozmicDebris, who often supports Oliver/Darryl agenda. However, I’d have blocked the account also.

Account had no contributions. Obvious trolling. As is common, Oliver is obsessed by accounts with very minor contributions and disruption, compared to his own. This is funny. Yes, there were Kirkegaard impersonations, including the account Emil Kirkegaard, who wrote what naive RWikians would think was a Kirkegaard message, but wasn’t. The reference by MrSheen, who is rather obviously Oliver D. Smith, to Wikipedia is to an account blamed by Smith on Mikemikev, but very unlikely to be him; rather, these kinds of impersonations have been common, they popped up in massive quantities when I first confronted the Smith impersonation socking. They have been doing this for years, and it’s no wonder that people become confused. On Wikipedia, they didn’t believe the “two brothers” story because it’s a common excuse. But it was apparently true, and the most disruptive brother, by far, was Darryl. Oliver is merely crazy.

MrSheen is the only Smith sock I have seen editing RationalWiki after Callimachus, setting aside the impersonation socks, more likely to be Darryl. But Emil Kirkegaard would be a special target for Oliver, so it cannot be ruled out. (Oliver eventually admitted many socks, but blamed “most” on  his brother. — as I recall, he wrote “99.9%”)

The brother (as “Debunking spiritualism” — who had actually been outed by Oliver) stopped editing as a “good hand” account on RationalWiki and went on a deletion spree — clearly pursuing Smith agenda to cover up accusations and admissions — and then claimed the account had been hacked, and his brother (Oliver) then blamed it on me. Fun, aren’t they? (I have never hacked anyone’s account and was widely trusted on WMF wikis, making the recent global ban very, very strange, but I will address that through the courts. The Smiths file private complaints and recruit others to complain, and they lie, and some administrators fall for it.)

I’m not the only one to notice MrSheen. IPs edited the MrSheen user page today with a link to the Rightpedia page on Oliver Smith sockpuppets.

17:37, 8 August 2018 . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets Hilariously the other socks are Oliver attempting to frame me.”)

He’s referring to the other edits on Talk:Emil Kirkegaard, I think.

Generally, once an account is confronted like this, it disappears.

 

 

 

Oliver D. Smith evidence

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist

See subpage atlantid/ for Oliver account on Metapedia, a right-wing wiki, 7 August 2012 – 6 December 2013

Originally, I encountered Darryl Smith, not Oliver, because of Darryl’s impersonation socking on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. However, there was opinion on the internet that the disruptive user was Oliver Smith. Some of this was incorrect, but the brothers have created a massive cloud of confusion. However, as my focus moved to RationalWiki, it was easy to identify the socks, at least the ones that did more than hit and run. I originally found a sock identified with the impersonation socks, through the usage of a photo of John Fuerst that had been added to Wikimedia Commons and thence to RationalWiki by Welliver, which would be Oliver. (That sock was caught by checkuser, probably from sharing IP with Darryl.) Then, at my request, that Commons user was blocked and the John Fuerst image was deleted, leading to a conversation on RationalWiki. (I was a sysop on RationalWiki at that point and could also see deleted edits).

Reviewing contributions of Welliver led me to the Emil Kirkegaard.

Welliver edits of note:  to Emil_Kirkegaard

edit summary: “(tying to tone down or remove the fact this sicko is a pedophile apologist is itself a defence for pedophilia. stop.)”

and his comment on the Talk page repeats the distorted, defamatory allegations.

(After complaining about some changes to the Rome Viharo article to make it less defamatory, Welliver disappeared. This, however, was him: 86.14.2.77

That’s known Smith IP. (On Wikipedia, used by Darryl, but previously by Oliver. Blocked in 2016 on Wikipedia as a checkuser block.)

Eventually, the heat started to get to Oliver, and he wrote me, using a known public email address. Those mails are here.

They, and the blog Oliver created to attack Kirkegaard, explictly admit having created the Kirkegaard and Fuerst articles as “BenSteigmans.”

Recent accounts involved:

 

The following are older account listings from http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/list-of-articles/

(remember that “Anglo Pyramidologist” or “AP” refers to both Oliver and Darryl.)


 

  • Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

    Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&action=history ‎

    Talk:Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

    Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&&action=history

    See this edit specifically from IP 86.14.2.77. This is admitting bringing off-wiki conflict on-wiki (which is what AP does, using RW for vengeance). I looked at the meta wiki for that IP. Globally blocked for long-term abuse. Stewards will not disclose information about IP, but this IP locates to Virgin media, reputed to be common for AP socks (in addition to using proxies) and I have seen the Hertfordshire location for many AP IPs. This is additional “technical evidence” which AP socks have claimed to be lacking (there is more).  On Wikipedia, the IP is also “checkuser blocked.” Recent interest on Wikipedia: paranormal biographies. Edit compare utility . Edit compare with HealthyGirl (identified as an AP sock on Wikipedia, blocked 5 August 2016) See also the comparison with Goblin Face, blocked 5 December 2014).

    This is likely the same user, which is additional technical information tying the RW socks to the Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist family.

    The real Emil  confronts the RW “doxxing” policy (and points to impersonations) and AP socks show up: Skeptical is there, and Asgardian.. AP is intensely interested in his targets. Mikemikev is an AP enemy (on Wikiversity, an AP sock — identified with checkuser — attempted to raise suspicion that the massive socking was by mikemikev.) Asgardian, then, is following standard AP practice, using his own socking to attempt to create enmity toward others, and points to a Wikipedia SP investigation on the account Emil Kirkegaard.  The SPI did not checkuser, the account was considered throwaway, which would also be the case with the other account Asgardian pointed to, KirkegaardEmilSPI mention (no checkuser)

    Asgardian also pointed to a Talk page for mikemikev evidence. Skeptical has deleted that page, but it was archived. 

    AP has been impersonating others for a long time, apparently. Disentangling this takes caution. I do not know mikevmikev, but there is no resemblance between the alleged mikemikev socks and the behavior of AP socks, there is only some overlap of interest in racism.

    I originally discovered the AP habit of creating disruption with impersonation socks because he had done it with [redacted], a Wikiversity user. AP has discovered that if a sock waves a big flag saying “I’m a sock puppet of So-and-So, blocked user),” Wikipedia administrators buy it, lock, stock, and barrel. So-and-so gets tagged as having created not only a sock or a pile of socks, but directly and clearly disruptive and defiant ones to boot. Asgardian points to a block of mikemikev on a site run by Emil. And then Skeptical blocked EmilOWK, the one being impersonated, for “posting dox of someone including full real name of someone called “Ben”, also linking off-site to other accounts and IP addresses.”

In correspondence, a “family member” of AP claimed that the name [redacted], was not a personal identity, therefore not doxxing. Basically, he claims whatever serves his purpose at the time. Doxxing, not doxxing, depends on whose ox is being gored.

  • This is what Skeptical blocked him for, and then hid. “Doxxing” is a splendid reason to use, because one can hide it and only sysops can see it. But this had been archived just in case. He listed RW user names for Asgardian, Aza, Skeptical, Welliver, Antifa Ireland, Ben Steigmans, and OldSword. He also pointed to a reddit account for [redacted],. The way he did it indicates to me that he had no idea who [redacted], actually was. The Rational Wiki account was impersonating him for sure, and as to the Reddit account, correctly spelled, it may also have been an impersonation. Aza I had noticed and rejected as probably not AP (but I can see why he thought so). Antifa Ireland looks like an AP name, but has only one edit. Probable. There was no actual doxxing there. Kirkegaard did not claim that any of those names were real names. However, Skeptical would know what these were, because Skeptical (or his brother!) created those accounts — or most of them. Back to the socks on that Talk page:

     

  • The “real” Heyguy shows up and blows the whistle, and here.Maybe”Chuck” may be John Fuerst.  What he mentioned there leads me, finally, to “Krom.” He quotes the alleged creator of his own article and the Kirkegaard article: “I created both their entries at Rationalwiki”… and that then can be found with Google. Krom1991 wrote that. Unless he was lying, then, Krom1991 is BenSteigmans, an impersonation account that started both articles. Krom1991 is involved in massive flame warring with Michaeldsuarez, there on Reddit, and MDS is also a common AP target.On RationalWiki, Krom “retired” in 2015, but he is still a sysop there (so he can see ordinary deleted material). His parting comments reveal what was important to him. This could be Anglo Pyramidologist, the original, the one who complained about his brother socking on Wikipedia. But they are both highly disruptive.

File talk:John Fuerst

File_talk:John_Fuerst.jpg&action=history

  • Englisc
  • RV (probable Rome Viharo impersonator)
  • Muslim_man (I blocked)
  • Welliver [see edit adding image uploaded to Commons by AP sock] 12:37, 20 August 2017. That image was originally added by an IP address, shortly before. The IP address had edited Wikipedia on at least one article that was a focus of an identified AP sock (and the image had just been added to Commons by an AP sock.) probably just before  12:15, 20 August 2017, from the Commons welcome bot. As I recall, the IP edit here was originally visible to sysops. It is now completely gone. The suppression log shows nothing. Someone with serious tools is seriously protecting AP. [Actually, I now think that my memory was incorrect The image was added by Welliver. I must have seen some other edit by IP.]
  • Debunking spiritualism (Darryl) attempted to hide the conversation.
  • The page was archived back in February. I have also archived history and the log.

Authentic Darryl Smith on himself

A kind reader supplied me with a link to an archive of deleted material on the Smiths. This was from late 2016, long before I had any awareness of the Smith brothers (and only a dim awareness of one of the Wikipedia socks of Darryl L. Smith, Goblin Face).

The material is exactly what I’d expect from Darryl, in an unguarded moment. It confirms my own conclusions from research. I can imagine that someone familiar with this research, by myself and others, could write such a thing, but it would be a piece of work, and why would it be done? (though the only persons likely to have that knowledge could not have done it in 2016). If this was impersonation, as Oliver claims, it is by far the most skillful impersonation I’ve ever encountered. No, I consider this clearly Darryl, the arguments would be his, and the facts rarely known. At that point, there was substantial skepticism that there were actually two brothers. Later, Oliver played on this by claiming that it was all him, but this was blatantly deceptive, probably attempting to protect his brother (and requiring that very much he had written before was lying, not merely false).

The only way that the brothers could have covered up the deception would have been to, using technical terms, “effing shut up and effing stay shut up.” They did not, and defamation and, yes, illegal activity, still continues.

The material: Talk:Oliver D. Smith/Connecting the dots, edit of  18:27, 27 November 2016 (to deleted page, by Iambic,  Oliver D. Smith, replying to Lulzkiller, who rejected the post by Skeptic, Darryl L. Smith). What “Skeptic” had written:

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.
 
Oliver has written a lot. What Oliver had written was, at least sometimes, true, but misleading. That is, it was not the whole truth. Because of the Wikipedia history, and other events, the brothers had become confused, and it appears that this confusion was encouraged. So, then, Oliver could claim “I was not that account,” and it could be completely true. But if he knows that it was his brother, and he would often know that it was not the whole truth, and Oliver often frames the possibly false statements of others as “lies.” Which would be a lie! He would know that there was some truth to them, and that the writer was merely confused.
Skeptic, by the way, would be a standard Darryl L. Smith sock name. Many of his names have “Skeptic” in them. An impersonator might also use Skeptic, to be sure, but no impersonator exists who could have written, in 2016, what Skeptic here so clearly expresses. I have other “semi-open” writings from Darryl, and the style and sense is identical.
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.
 
Nice. Later, Darryl and Oliver dismiss, on RationalWiki, documentation on this, as the “paranoid Smith brothers conspiracy theory.”
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.
Notice that, later, he actually created a RatWiki account, “Debunking spiritualism,” that was made sysop. This account was obviously Darryl. It went out in a blaze of attempts to delete embarrassing material, and then retired and then a new account was creating that the account had been hacked. This is extremely unlikely, it is merely that the account revealed too much, including about the “family,” clearly identifying himself as Oliver’s brother — as Oliver had previously referred to him on RatWiki. Darryl decided to bail, and the new account and Oliver blamed it on . . . me, and the RatWikians appear to have believed that.
One thing the Smiths have been very good at is demonstrating how idiotic a wiki community can be.
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.
Right. He uses RatWiki to pursue an antifascist agenda, attacking people who believe as he possibly once believed. He has a number of times stated that he does not agree with the general RatWiki politics. The brothers are similar in that.
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.
Yes, he stated that in a comment on the Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist SPI case. (Below, we see evidence that he was a supporter of Larmarkian evolution.
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.
Unfortunately, “debunking” is generally pseudoskeptical. I see no sign that Darryl L. Smith ever developed enough understanding of science to write from a genuine skeptical perspective, and I’ve seen him reject genuine science because it conflicted with his own ignorant concepts.
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.
Partially incoherent, possible typo. Some are hit pages, and were created, at least in some cases, as revenge. My article was clearly so, and Darryl had, through a sock puppet, threatened retaliation for my exposing his impersonations of another user. The argument here is exactly what I’d expect from Darryl.
All the criticisms I made of creationists, parapsychologists or of fraudulent spiritualist mediums, ancient astronaut proponents etc were sourced to scientific or skeptic publications.
At this point, he had not encountered my work, and his attacks on me and some others were not of what he describes above. He admits, below, another “criticism” that doesn’t fall into these categories. Yes, he sources his articles, generally. However, sources have often been cherry-picked, because the RatWiki general agenda is snark, not balance. That is standard pseudoskepticism, and would not have led to my involvement. Rather, it was impersonation-to-defame, and, to a lesser extent, long-term sock puppetry and “attack socks,” SPAs or IPs that only edit to attack.
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.
The wikis are public and what happens on them is of public interest. What business is it of Darryl that so-and-so is interested in or a believer in, say, parapsychology? Darryl, creating those articles, he calls them “skeptic edits,” scours the internet for dirt, what is popular on RationalWiki, things that make the target look like a crank, and documents them on RW, attacking the person by their real name, and outing any accounts they attempt to use (or that might appear to be used) to correct articles, as well as outing anyone who attempts to intervene (sometimes correctly, sometimes not). And he wonders why people are interested in clarifying the situation?
Some people documenting the Smiths have been heavily attacked by them, some were more neutral. I did not start out because I was attacked, but because someone else was attacked and the academic freedom of Wikiversity was attacked. And that attack became more intense and was supported by some Wikipedians, who happened to be long-term POV pushers there, one of whom was site banned for a couple of years for it. The other was reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee out of . . . his clearly improper actions, and his refusal to correct them when I suggested it. At that point, the whole faction came after me.
RationalWiki took a general, so-called “rational skeptic” position, before Darryl, but it was not dedicated to exposing every crank or fringe believer. It became so, largely because of Darryl’s work. And there is a pattern: Darryl creates an attack article, the target shows up, and eventually realizes that the creator of the article has been creating many such articles through extensive serial socking, and says so. The target is then banned for “doxxing” — even if this is not actually doxxing, i.e., doesn’t mention the RL names. And such bans are often by a Darryl sock.
(But sometimes they do mention “Smith”, and sometimes, even, Smith socks have themselves pointed to the “Smith brothers theory” to ridicule it. The page was not as pretended in the deletion discussion. It was started by MrOrganic, an obvious Smith sock. Which Smith? I am not sure, not yet, but probably Darryl, in which case Darryl was running multiple socks. The article was then attacked by a series of impersonation socks. At that point, I was a RationalWiki sysop, and this mess was used as an excuse to remove the tools without cooping (the normal process, if anything is normal on RW. Attempts had failed years earlier.)  and then to block me. That deletion discussion was either stupid or collusively deceptive.
As well, many impersonation socks appear as vandals and attacking RationalWiki users, pretending to be the target. Meanwhile, Darryl and Oliver retire their accounts and start new ones to continue the same. )
Millions of people edit Wikipedia. I am essentially a nobody. Nothing I have done on the internet is illegal.
He is now notable, by RatWiki standards, except he is protected there. So he is covered elsewhere, such as on Encyclopedia Dramatica or lolocow or other sites. The claim of “nothing illegal” might possibly have been true in 2016. It became untrue in 2017. Impersonation socking to defame is illegal. It is a form of harassment, and is illegal specifically where the Smith brothers live, assuming that they both still live in the U.K.
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.
Material exists in sources, which is then used to create an image, and that image may go far outside what is actually in the sources. Again, this is quite what I would expect from Darryl. By the way, such an agenda would be a violation, not of law, but of Wikipedia policy, as blatant “POV-pushing.” With biographies of living people, it can be an additional violation. However, there is a whole faction on Wikipedia with that agenda, and it has often gotten away with it. In addition, there is an organization more or less dedicated to this, which may be violating policy against off-wiki coordination, and there is substantial evidence that Darryl has been paid to serve that agenda.  Again, that is not illegal in itself, but if people have been defamed by a Smith brother who was funded, the organization and its organizers could become liable for defamation.
The idea that if a statement is sourced, it is therefore true and proper, is insane. You can find sources for almost any position. Sanity (and encyclopedic wiki neutrality) involves considering the full range of sources and balancing them, and on a wiki, ideally, this is done through consensus. But the faction acts, often, to arrange the ban of anyone with contrary opinions, and has developed skill in accomplishing this. RatWiki is practically a parody of it. The same thing happens on Wikipedia, just a bit less obviously.
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.
That’s deceptive. There is a great deal that he could do and could have done. Darryl could have exposed his brother’s activities instead of waiting until he accidentally got caught. Here, he doesn’t state it, but he is claiming that his brother lied when his brother claimed that most of the accounts were his twin brother.
I have not yet done an overall analysis of accounts. Most RatWiki accounts, though, appear to have been Darryl, my rough impression. Especially when the transient attack and impersonation socks are included. I know that Darryl does engage in this massive socking. As well, if someone was impersonating them in doing this, a proactive response would have been to immediately confront it and disavow — and support the targets against whoever was causing the disruption. I have never seen that happen. No, the attack socks are going after people Darryl or Oliver consider as enemies. Darryl on RatWiki has often blocked them, but …. the timing, when I’ve looked, indicates to me that he also created them. He also, as Debunking spiritualism, attributed many attack socks to me, when he would know that they were not me. He was obsessed with me, based on his edits to my article there. He would know exactly what was me and what was, instead, displaying a very different pattern.
I am not very much active on the website anymore, I ran out of things to debunk.
He may have slowed, I have not yet analyzed this. But he became intensely active there, after he attacked Wikiversity and me.
Dan Skeptic, DinoCris were me.
DinoCrisis. That was obvious. That is, Dan Skeptic was an earlier name of GoblinFace, tagged on Wikipedia as an AP sock from checkuser. DinoCrisis was an early RationalWiki account.
As were the other skeptic accounts on Wikipedia. Oliver does not know anything about parapsychology, his interest has always been history, mythology etc.
Right. This was how I have distinguished the accounts, already.
The only controversial thing I have ever done is create a rationalwiki article on Rome Viharo.
Bingo. The above was written in late 2016. Darryl’s anti-parapsychology obsession led him into attacking the Wikiversity resource on parapsychology, and going after the single major active user there, who occasionally socked on Wikipedia, with massive impersonation socking to induce Wikipedians to attack the Wikiversity user and the educational resource the user was working on (a collection of sources). It worked. Wiki users can be effing naive. If a new account says “I am Banned User, I’m showing what idiots you are on Wikiversity, and you can’t do anything about it!” they believe it. It’s one thing to block the account — that would be obvious — but quite another to go after than person, now under his real name, and attack his work as “cross-wiki disruption.” Which is what happened.
As to the Rome Viharo article creator, This could be Dave1234, who created a redirect there, or Debunker, who actually wrote the first article. Both were very likely Darryl, from other contributions. Millenium Scallion? No. It is not difficult to distinguish the socks from ordinary RatWiki users.
He is a troll I came across under my account Dan Skeptic on wikipedia.
And, of course, when Viharo claimed Smith brother involvement, that was cited as proving he was a troll.
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.
It is quite unlikely that Oliver created the impersonation socks on Wikipedia, targeting a student of parapsychology and his studies on Wikiversity. Steward checkuser also identified the socks that massively attacked my documentation of those impersonations and the Single-purpose accounts that followed, as being all the same user. It is very unlikely that this was accidental IP coincidence, it was extended, and we know that the Smiths often have used open proxies; by this time, late 2017, that became routine.
Oliver no longer is interested in creating blogs or websites about Rome Viharo’s abuse. He wants it all deleted.
Ah, but was that Oliver? Why would Oliver have been interested in Rome Viharo in 2016? Maybe if Rome was starting to document what had happened to him, and believed that Dan Skeptic was Oliver. At that point, there was no information about “Darryl L. Smith,” if I’m correct.
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.
By doxxing others, which the Smiths have done, and by their mutual tolerance and failure to stop it, both become responsible and the right to privacy vanishes when it is abused. Obviously, though, Darryl has no obligation to provide photos, nor to identify which brother is which in old photos. These are twin brothers, but I don’t know if they are identical.
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.
That’ s a disclaimer of responsibility, when there is much that he could do. Oliver, by the way, has taken a similar position that he is not responsible for what his brother does. That is a shallow and self-serving opinion. We are responsible, in reality, for what we allow in those close to us. If we help them cover up, say, illegal activity, we can be committing a crime ourselves in that.
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.
Yes. (and I have seen evidence for all of this.) However, from my point of view, his fundamental position remained the same. He’s a hater, and simply changed targets.
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.
Notice the theme, this is repeated. It is claimed that “schizophrenia” was a lie., but, then, it is admitted that it was a lie created by a Smith brother to make others look bad. And then that they repeat what the Smith brother wrote, they are called liars, because it is “false.” I see in Oliver definite signs of deranged behavior, but I have also seen this in Darryl. If it is schizophrenia, which it could be, that tends to run in families and if they are identical twins, it could show up in both, and even if they merely shared their mother at the same time. There is other evidence of mental disorder, with different names. In the cloud of confusion created by years of deception, I consider none of this reliable. However, I do conclude that this present comment is from Darryl, it fits far to well to be an impersonation, as Oliver will claim.
As for JuniusThaddeus unfortunately he now has a large grudge against Oliver and stalks him across the internet.
And this is mind-reading.  Junius Thaddeus has suffered real-life harassment from Oliver, apparently. Junius is a person who researches topics that seize his interest. Now, consider my article on RationalWiki. When that article appeared, after what may have been weeks of research, I was amazed at how much had been found, by someone obviously “stalking me across the internet.” “Stalking” is what RatWikians do to write articles on people. Apparently they think that this is okay if the person is a “crank.” But not if they are fine upstanding citizens like … like themselves, of course.
They can doxx others all they want on RationalWiki and it is mostly tolerated or even encouraged there. But if anyone doxxes them, on RationalWiki or elsewhere, they act to ban the person on RatWiki for “doxxing RationalWiki users,” even when they are the only users whose identities are revealed.
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.
I have found that promises from the Smith brothers are utterly useless, whether or not they are lies.
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.
Yes, it does. But some changes are superficial, like changing from hating, say, other races, to hating racists. It’s still hate, and the approach is still the same: expose and debunk and defame — and lie and hide and sock and impersonate if that helps “the cause.”
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.
It is.
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.
It is natural to change views, and natural that adolescents will do something embarrassing. And others even older. However, it is not necessarily natural to deny that it ever happened. Basically, Darryl is here making excuses for his brother for lying.
As for lolcows website that now stalks Oliver it contains deliberate falsehoods to try and annoy him.
Yes. That’s lolcow. So? Nobody looks to the lolcow wiki for reliable information. The Smith brothers have done all this in spades and it is done routinely on RationalWiki.
Encyclopedia Dramatica is also for lulz, it is a satire and parody site, with some underlying actual research. Indeed, that’s what is done on RationalWiki, but with a veneer of serious intention enough to fool readers, as it did with media about Emil Kirkegaard in January 2018, with all that being solicited by Oliver contacting media.
I use nothing from those sites without careful independent verification. However, the page being discussed here was a sober account of investigation, essentially the personal testimony of Junius Thaddeus. It is as reliable as he is. Over the years, I have found him trustworthy. I still personally verify everything and don’t use ED as if a “reliable source.”
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.
That’s correct, and Oliver has done exactly that. This is not actually arguable.
My request here is for this page to be deleted.
And why? It’s a personal account of a study. It is not actually an attack, just a history, and in this request, Darryl admits it is basically accurate. By the way, Darryl and Oliver also sought to delete my meta LTA study, and forum-shopped until they got the answer they wanted. It was, by that time, completely unnecessary, having long been moved to my blog.
The Smiths attempt to hide, even as their actual activity created a great deal of attention. The intense attacks actually convinced me that there was more to this than appeared at first, i.e., some isolated pseudoskeptical fanatic. I’m still uncovering what actually happened, and how deep this goes and who is involved. It is not just the Smith brothers, who are what I have called “attack dogs.” There are those who use attack dogs.
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.
They are “Smith brothers” accounts. So what would be appropriate is to make that clear. Eventually, that was, indeed, made clear. When Oliver Smith actually wrote me, from an account known to be his by public usage, he made statements that confirm what is written above.
However, when I documented “Anglo Pyramidologist socks,” using the Wikipedia name for the sock puppet investigations, and being quite clear that these were likely two brothers (and maybe more), the studies were still attacked as lies. This, again, is typical for AP socks: instead of correcting errors, they want it all deleted. When I asked Oliver, in those emails, to detail which accounts were his and which were his brother, he declined. Too much trouble, was his excuse. Okay, but in that case he remains responsible, as a collective responsibility.
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.
Again, this is what I expect Darryl to say. The Smiths create massive disruption and then want everyone to just forget about it and move on. And some do. And then they repeat the pattern with others, and the damage grows and gets deeper.
3. Oliver at the end of the day is also a nobody, this page exists because of his personal feud with JuniusThaddeus.
This is obviously not true now, but he could reasonably have alleged that, then. Junius Thaddeus did delete the page, and others restored it. Junius retired from his documentation crusade, and why? It simply became too much for him, and this is quoted in the current Oliver D. Smith article:
“I didn’t realize what I was getting into when I decided to document the activities of a psychopath. It’s just too much.” —JuniusThaddeus who regrets encountering Oliver
I understand. I had no idea what all this would lead to. I was being heavily threatened, but am not easily persuaded by threats. (I’ve been internet-active, in controversial areas, where real people actually get assassinated, and there are real fanatics, and I have received bomb threats.) Threats on the meta wiki were from Darryl, I’m reasonably certain, and Oliver has confirmed that, my opinion. These are serious bullies, who do what they accuse others of, attack by Google.
What’s it like when you have a business meeting, and you are asked about your RationalWiki article? What’s it like when you have a woman friend, and her children confront her about her friend, based on believing what is in the RationalWiki article? What’s it like when one is covered in major media as a “pedophile” or “child rape apologist” when this is based on insane interpretations in the RationalWiki article on you, and has never been your position or activity, and was nothing more than out-of-context interpretations of what you actually wrote? What’s it like when your mother is fired from her job because Oliver Smith wrote her employer? These have all actually happened to Smith targets.
I decided that I could take the heat, and …. I’m not dead yet. I will be, soon enough. It’s a challenge. I need to write legal documents, filings or pleadings, which I haven’t done for years. It’s a pain in the ass. I’ll do it anyway. Back to Darryl:
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.
When Oliver wrote to me this year, expressing the same desire, I told him the way forward was clear: disclose everything about all the disruption he has created, just what he knows and actually did, and, as well what he knows about his brother. If his brother were to do that, the entire mess could be cleaned up. As it is, the brothers have created real-world responses. It may be more than they can clean up, but they could take a stand and support the cleanup, fully. They could, for example, apologize to me and to the WikIMedia foundation for any deceptive implications in what they wrote (and they were complainants who, with a few others whom they recruited, created the WMF global ban and, as well, the major damage to Wikiversity academic freedom, with long-term implications). I don’t know how they will compensate Joshua Connor Moon’s mother for her job loss, but, again, becoming willing to be completely truthful would be a start.
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.
On Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms (lolcow wiki) this can be of high interest! This is basically irrelevant and would not be a reason for deletion on ED.
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.
It will soon be coming up on two years later, and the drama continues. If it was so stupid, surely the one arguing that, here, would give it up. The evidence I have indicates that Darryl was being paid. It is currently circumstantial, not direct. This admission was remarkable. It may have been completely sincere, even if misguided. The page and the talk page were moved by Junius Thaddeus to a Smith Brothers article, and then both were deleted on ED. How did the Smith Brothers respond?
To me it looks like they took this as “we won,” and continued playing the same games. After all, if you are winning, why stop? Recently, though, it appears that Google results are freaking them out, and they have been getting desperate. There are other effects working their way through the process. It takes time to consult with attorneys and time to create and file demand letters and legal actions.
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.
The Smith escapades are beyond hilarious. They are utterly and completely outrageous. There was a RatWiki user who has (had) a blog, “I’m not making this up.” That was generally about what passes for “conservative.”
I fully understand why ED users would want to keep the Oliver D. Smith page, and why there would be interest on Kiwi Farms. If Darryl doesn’t understand it, it could be because he’s a socially dysfunctional basement dweller. (Does he really have a job? Maybe. One of the socks appearing on the blog claimed that one of the brothers had a family he was supporting. Let’s say that this could not be Oliver. Yet Darryl is obviously dysfunctional, continuing to stir the pot, as he did with the impersonations on Wikipedia (illegal!) and the attacks on me for pointing that out. There is an obsession there, obviously, and I have other material to publish on this.)
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)
That did not happen. This year, Oliver attacked me on Junius Thaddeus’ talk page, and created many socks pursuing all this. Did Darryl ever again edit ED?  Not with that account, for sure. I haven’t seen any other Darryl edits there, but it’s difficult to tell, there are brief snarky comments in sequences of Oliver sock attacks (or continued attempts to get his article deleted). All of these could be Oliver. There was an immediate response from one user:
Fuck off Oliver. Cobalt Cat.jpg CobaltCat 05:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
CobaltCat appears to have been a regular ED user, and then

17:13, 27 November 2016 LulzKiller (talk | contribs) blocked Skeptic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Sockpuppet wankery: oliver we know it’s you m8)

This reminds me so much of RationalWiki…. simply turned around.
In any case, what appears to be the real Oliver Smith shows up. He had already been arguing on that talk page:
The vast majority of these accounts are not mine; this article doesn’t record my internet history, but other peoples. Michaeldsuarez is a deranged liar. Barkhang Monastery 18:26, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
and then this, after more documentation from others

Response

  • 1. Vordrak has seen a family photo of me and my brothers. He knows I’m telling the truth and you’re a bunch of delusional idiots. I requested he covered a blog post on his forum about how Michael D. Suarez and Kiwi Farms have harassed me for the last year. He accepted, but I changed my mind a few days ago when I realized Rome Viharo was creating defamatory threads about me on forums (Wikipedia Sucks, Wikipediocracy etc). Vordrak doing an article on me will just feed Viharo’s trolling. Instead I will request to Vordrak he does a separate blog entry on Viharo.
  • 2. Providing a family photo to Suarez is a obviously not an option since he’s cyberstalking and harassing me (just look at this creepy “connecting the dots” link where Suarez is trying to dig up my internet history, but failing), do you really think my brothers want this nutcase following them and writing more Encylopedia Dramatica articles filled with smears, lies and personal attacks?
  • 3. Suarez has just admitted if I provided the photo – he still wouldn’t retract any of his misinformation about me because somehow its all my fault – when he is the dim-wit who confused my identity. As I mentioned in my post on Wikipediocracy: Suarez is one of those people who thinks he’s correct 100% of the time. He will never admit when he’s wrong and has a narcissistic personality disorder.
  • 4. Several accounts/links of this “connecting the dots” include impersonators and dubious/no evidence to link my IP to them. So even if I showed what accounts were my brothers, it wouldn’t remove the accounts Suarez is outright lying about and trying to pin onto me.
  • 5. It’s rather laughable Mikemikev falsely accuses me of impersonating people, when that’s all he does. Today Rationalwiki blocked yet another of his sockpuppets using my real name. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_smithBacchylides 19:24, 25 November 2016 (EST)

The RatWiki account demonstrates absolutely nothing. The account was blocked on registration, it has no contributions (not even deleted or suppressed). There is no evidence shown that this was Mikemikev, other than purely circumstantial (i.e., perhaps nobody else would impersonate Smith). Or it could be a red herring. However, compare this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax, blocked as soon as recognized, but with two contributions. Absolutely not me, and this was one of many socks created there impersonating me, and claimed to be me, by Debunking spiritualism, i.e., Darryl.

This post rings totally, to me, as authentic Oliver Smith, as I have read a great deal directly from him. There are persistent mentions of another possible brother. It might explain certain anomalies. But I have no definitive information on this. One thing is clear to me: Michaeldsuarez may have been mistaken about this or that, but I’ve known him for years and I have never seen him lie. Crying “lies” is a common behavior of liars and trolls, and Oliver is both.

The Smiths commonly claim “there is no proof,” even when evidence is completely overwhelming. They claim impersonation, and very recently, Darryl L. Smith, as Debunking spiritualism on RW, went on a deletion rampage, mixing that in with a block of an enemy and an unblock of his brother, creating vast confusion, ultimately admitting to his “family being doxxed” to justify it, i.e., admitting he was a Smith brother, and then, next day, he retired and a new account appeared, claiming to be him and that the old one had been hacked, and, of course, I was accused of being the culprit. I think that trick was used by Oliver before, he claimed that the accounts on Metapedia, where he made racist comments, were hacked.

Yeah, right.

So then Darryl showed up and wrote the screed quoted above. And, after that skeptical rejection also quoted above, Oliver responded again. Damage control:

  • 1. “Skeptic” isn’t mine, nor my brother. Its a troll impersonator from Kiwi Farms, probably Dynastia (I noticed him doing something similar here: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/User_talk:GethN7). The IP on “Skeptic” also won’t be mine.

That Dynastia comment bears no resemblance to what Skeptic wrote. Here is the discussion on that wiki. They conclusion there: this was “copypasta” from Oliver, not Oliver, it was actually Dynastia. That Oliver then jumps from that to attempting to connect Skeptical to Dynastia is his classic deception. The argument holds no water at all. Skeptical was not an Oliver impersonation, at all, but rather precisely how Darryl had behaved and had written, in many places, and at this point, Darryl was not at all well known, the focus had been on Oliver. I find it impossible to imagine that someone, in 2016, knew the situation well enough to create such a sophsticated impersonation. Only if Oliver was telling the truth when he claimed that he had been lying since 2011, and it was all him, then, of course, he’d have known that he created that persona and would have known what he had written before.

No, very unlikely, and it conflicts with checkuser evidence from WMF wikis, and just plain common sense.

Apparently Oliver IP and Darryl IP are almost always distinct, but they occasionally use the same address, so Oliver was setting up a red herring here by mentioning IP. ED does have checkusers, but checkuser would likely have provided zero useful information. Apparent Oliver socks are immediately blocked on ED, and they don’t care enough to go through the motions of verifying by checkuser.

  • 2. Most of the above is misinformation; I do though share a Wikipedia IP and the edits on parapsychology were never me – so yes its true large chunks of the “connecting the dots” are not my accounts and Michael Suarez is a dim-wit who confused my identity. Needless the say, all the talk about me and sex at Kiwi Farms is libel; Lulzkiller is the sick freak spreading these lies about me because I exposed him as the pervert (https://lulzkillerblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/connor-evans-pests-females-on-twitter-for-sex-admits-to-watching-porn-all-day/).

    The link is to an obvious attack blog created by  an obvious AP sock, in a common tactic. They create these blogs and immediately archive them before the host takes them down. It purports to present the real name of “Lulzkiller.” (If Lulzkiller requests it, I will redact that link.)  It is completely deranged to expect any other result than dedicated enmity if one does this. My guess? Lulzkiller doesn’t care about what he wrote being “exposed,” or he wouldn’t have written it. Lulzkiller is not far from normal as a young man. And, yes, this could later be embarrassing. Yet this was all irrelevant, feuding. It’s what Oliver and Darryl do.

No wonder the ED article was restored after Junius Thaddeus deleted it!

Oliver is deranged about sex, he acknowledged to be being an anti-natalist, and he commonly accuses others of “perversion,” sometimes for acknowledging normal male sexuality, about which he appears radically ignorant. At that point, Junius Thaddeus had not apparently realized the issue of two brothers. He did, later. The Smiths have lied for years, and then blame others for being “confused” “dim-wits.”

  • 3. My brothers are not stupid and know nothing here will be deleted by requests. This site won’t remove content about people since its used to harass them like at Kiwi Farms.

Except they, and especially Oliver, keep pestering ED, with hosts of sock puppets. Hundreds, maybe thousands. They are very quickly blocked and immediately new socks replace them. Recently, AP socks requested the deletion of Rational Wiki articles that they had created. They did not, however, reveal that they had created them. In one request, for example, the article was called a revenge article. But they did not admit their own role. And they had succeeded, with years of impersonation socks and other tricks, that the article targets richly deserved the articles. So simply asking for deletion was not enough. To clean that up, they would need to admit, in detail, exactly what they had done. They would need to apologize to the community and to the targets, using real names and confirming how much disruption they had created, on RationalWiki and elsewhere.

  • 4. I did not cease going after Gethn7; I work with Vordrak and we are obtaining his personal information by going through his internet history; the same for Lulzkiller. Eventually Vordrak will cover a blog post on them both. We just now do this behind these scenes. Lots more to come.

Notice that he admits stalking and harassment and attempted doxxing. Was this an impersonation? If so, brilliant! The impersonator knows exactly how Oliver would write and think. But I don’t think so. None of the people who might be candidates would be this accurate.

He worked with Vordrak for a time, (Samuel Collingwood Smith, no relation, apparently). Then apparently Vordrak figured out how crazy he was and that fell apart.

Yes, he does a lot “behind the scenes.” The Smiths file complaints with administrators, privately. They often succeed in getting their targets banned, and perhaps web sites taken down.

  • 5. These ridiculous ED pages on me do not affect “my mental health”, whatever that is supposed to mean. My work colleagues and family have seen it all and know they are full of lies and smears and so they paint a false picture of who I am. And you don’t get many page views on my articles here because (a) I blocked them from UK search-engines for defamation and (b) I’m of little interest; few people search my name. Michael Suarez should have his own Kiwi Farms thread called the “goofy documenter with no life”. Iambic 13:27, 27 November 2016 (EST)

I cannot be sure that Oliver is lying about “Skeptic.” That is, he might not have known this was Skeptic, except he’d have known that the “impersonator” was mostly telling the truth. Later, Oliver personally confirmed much of the story. GethN7 is associated with RationalWiki, I’m not sure of his account there, but he ran into Oliver and wrote an expose, but eventually gave up, being so broadly attacked.

One of the extant Google complaints from Oliver is about the GethN7 blog. Google does not completely remove all trace of search results. The search I used was for Oliver D. Smith, and in the U.K. (where Oliver would care), there is a note with results that responses have been suppressed, and there is a link to see the complaints. On that linked page there are URLs with the critical name redacted, if it was in the URL. By knowing the name already, I was able to find all of them. Many still exist or have been archived. If a new employer is looking for “Oliver D. Smith” and sees the omitted results, they might do something similar. As well if the employer is in the U.K. and is at all sophisticated, they could use a proxy server to access Google in, say, the U.S. Trivial to do.

Hiding is not a decent strategy, particularly when one keeps up the behavior that one would want to hide, continually motivating others to document it. I explained all this to Oliver, and he rejected it, claiming that I was “immoral” because I was supporting alleged racists and pedophiles who had been defamed. He is clearly deranged. (I have never supported racism and pedophilia. There are no pedophiles associated with this situation, to my knowledge. I have pointed out that someone who was accused by Oliver D. Smith of being a pedophile was not, and Darryl pointed out that a false charge of pedophilia would be libel. He was right.)

His complaints would only affect Google access from the EU. Further, the huge pile of complaints would be a red flag to someone investigating that something was amiss.

Update: Darryl as Darryl

Public information showing Darryl as Darryl is rare. However, it exists, in spite of apparent efforts to erase it.

First of all, the famous “doxxing my family” image, which is in many places. The Smiths apparently don’t realize that by saying this is “my family” they are confirming it. Not terribly bright. (On Wikipedia, the standard advice, if you are outed, is not to mention it on-wiki, but email a functionary privately, to get it revision-deleted. Making a public fuss will call attention to it. However, if your goal is to prove that someone is Bad, not actually caring about your “family,” then you will wave it about and archive it!

(There is some evidence that this is not the “birth family,” but the home of a relative. At this point it does not matter. For me, the concept of two Smiths, rather than one, helps organize the data, and there are clearly two behavioral patterns and special interests. That there can be some overlap could be confusing. Oliver might edit “Rome Viharo” pages, as an example.)

Then there is https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mutations_random, apparently a question asked by Darryl Smith (“Deleted profile”, as can be seen by responses that quote him and refer to him as Darryl.)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_scientific_alternative_to_neo-Darwinism_for_understanding_biological_evolution/2

Can_Neo-Darwinism_ND_today_be_considered_a_valid_scientific_theory begins with [Tip of the hat to Darryl Smith.]

In it, “Deleted profile” refers to another question of his. What_is_the_scientific_position_on_the_inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics_Lamarckism, In that, as well, he is called “Darryl.” That Answer set contains why he left ResearchGate.

In an Amazon discussion, the user was apparently Forests, one post refers to him as “Forrests [sic]/Drifter/Darryl Smith”.  Another quotes him as claiming to have created the RationalWiki article on William Fix. That was created by DinoCrisis, a known Darryl sock.

Since I am collecting edit times, there are these notes:

  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:38:42 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 3:23:02 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:38:53 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 5:48:56 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:39:00 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 5:50:52 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:39:07 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 10:10:51 PM PDT

Going to the internet archive, I find more for that thread.

  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:30 PM PDT]
  • Initial post: Sep 2, 2012 2:28:50 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 31, 2013 5:37:10 AM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 3:28:17 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:38 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 5:00:05 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:49 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:17:24 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:55 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:22:32 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:10:04 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:30:29 PM PDT

The middle of the discussion (which went on for a long time, for 1871 comments by last capture, April 7, 2013) is missing, AFAIK. So Darryl started the thread, about “Darwin believed in God.”

DinoCrisis retired from RatWiki, 22 August 2013, (Perm Retired moving to NZ.)” Retired messages are common for Darryl socks. He had previously announced retirement 8 June 2013 with “(Retired from this site. Too busy in real life. Got an entire biology dissertation to finish :)” 5 June 2013 Forests “retired” and requested that DinoCrisis lock his talk page, still pretending they were different accounts.

 

Sites with evidence and claims

If you are reading on an archive site, be sure to check the URL for possible updates, corrections, and retractions.

This is a draft, incomplete, to be expanded.

The realization that there was a family of disruptive users, and that one of them was Oliver D. Smith, goes back to at least 2012. Many of the targets of the Smiths were marginal in some way, fringe or provocative. However, the level of sock puppetry was quite unusual, and the intensity of attacks and harassment. Early documentation was often not clear on which brother was involved in a particular incident, and there were impersonations (both by the Smiths and possibly impersonating them as well), creating a veil of confusion, and there were deliberate actions to create confusion.

Nevertheless, it is possible to see reality through confusion. Such perception may not be free of error. Consider looking at some scene through a dirty window, one particular snapshot may be almost unintelligible. But if we move, we can see through the visual noise, by what remains constant behind it. The AP socks do not come with ready tags when we observe them (usually). It is much easier to, however, consider them as if the same, to distinguish the sock family from others who might resemble it in some way or other. When an account has substantial edits, I have become sufficiently familiar with the traits to identify “AP socks,” and, as well, there are two obvious general families of interests and modes of expression.

I did not develop this facility by reading what others have written, I developed it from integrating the study of the account behaviors with my own experience and confirmed knowledge. As an example, there has been massive impersonation on RationalWiki, including impersonation of me. I know it wasn’t me! So for my own purposes, I don’t need to find specific evidence for that, I may assume it. As well, I concluded quite some time ago that Debunking spiritualism was Darryl L. Smith, and have covered evidence for that. When Dubunking spiritiualism continued some patterns of behavior, becoming more and more extreme with them — not abruptly but more or less gradually — and then appears to have realized how much he revealed, he then told the story that his account had been hacked, and probably by me.

The story did not match the actual evidence of his behavior, but on RationalWiki, studying actual evidence is deprecated in favor of snark and quick judgments.

Here, some other web pages have been pointed out to me. I will link to them here and make a few comments. Listing here is not an approval of those sites, and those pages may have many errors. Few of them, in my experience, are lying. (It is a common Smith practice to call documentation of the behavior of the brothers “Lies.” He does not specify which statements are lies, or if he does, it’s misleading. I.e., if some source misidentifies the activity of Darryl as Oliver, say, Oliver will call it “lies” and Darryl will remain silent. Calling a possible error a “lie” is common among fanatics and trolls.) To the pages:

The archive.is search for *Oliver Smith returns almost 55,000 pages. Oliver has filed Google blocks for many sites, I documented those on another page; these affect google results, but not archive.is searches.  *Darryl Smith returns over 8,000 pages, but almost all are not the same person as is of interest here.

Encyclopedia Dramatica.

That project is down at the moment, it may be restored [note 5/11/2018: it’s back up], but many pages are archived. ED has long been a parody site, for the lulz, not to be taken seriously. This was commonly obvious from articles themselves, but it was also well-known. The site was somewhat cleaned up recently, the pornographic and pop-up ads were removed, but some of the pages linked here, through archive copies, are NSFW. (All of the pages linked here are for information and further research, they are not “approved” other than for possible usefulness, to be confirmed, later.)

In listing pages, I may comment as to the general content of the page, without necessarily approving all the content. Anyone may point out errors to me, and I am committed to correcting what I cannot personally confirm. As well, my intention is to allow the Smith brothers the right of comment, if comment comes as verified. (I.e., Oliver Smith has a known email address. He can write me and I know it’s him. — and if someone spoofs that address, he’d still see it when I reply, as I would.)

Other comments will be approved based on my discretion.

Oliver D. Smith as of 4 Feb 2018, recent version of the article, which is sarcastic, lulzy and dramatic. There is factual basis underneath.

Oliver D. Smith/Connecting the dots 15 Jun 2016. This was well-organized but defective in one way: the author does not apparently realize what is now seen as a probability that Forests was Darryl, not Oliver. In order to link them, the author depends on an assumption that conversations between the accounts was faked to divert researchers. A certain level of common article and mutual support would be expected from the brothers.

There are some who believe, apparently, that there is “no brother,” and that it is all Oliver. It is plausible, but, because it is known independently that there is a brother of the same age, Darryl, it must be interpreted as “the brother is not involved,” not that he doesn’t exist.

This is inconsistent with many claims from Oliver, except a very recent one where he claims he was lying to everyone for many years, including lying to a possible supporter of Darryl’s work. Tim Farley. (Farley has claimed to not know the Smith brothers, as I recall, but he has not yet been asked more specifically.)

To me, there are visibly distinct personalities that can be seen. On the other hand, Oliver claimed at one time to be schizophrenic, which could create very erratic behavior.

Oliver D. Smith Brothers in spite of the displayed capture date in 2012, shows that it was last revised 20 December 2016. It begins with a description of the brothers:

The Oliver D. Smith Brothers are a duo or trio of brothers involved in massive online arguments, sockpuppetry, impersonation, deception, and harassment. Of these brothers, Oliver D. Smith is the most prolific, as well as the only one whose name is known. Topics of interests to the brothers include Rightism, Racialism, Atlantis, and the paranormal. Known pseudonyms used by the brothers include Anglo_Pyramidologist, Atlantid, Boglin, Dan Skeptic, Jake Speed, DinoCrisis, Cassiterides, and Krom, as well countless others. Oliver is a former Neo-Nazi and a former British Israelite, whose autism and bibliomania lead him to keep changing his political and religious views. Oliver is “hetero-demisexual” and lack of interest in sex leads him to wage an online war against what he calls “sex pests” and other immorality despite the fact he claims to love violent video-games and once watched Cannibal Holocaust. Oliver’s internet history traces back to least 2005. He also has a disturbing history of impersonating people and inventing personae on forums and is a pathological liar who will blame his impersonations on his enemies, apparently unaware of how transparent his efforts are. As “Atlantid”, Oliver was a sysop on Metapedia, while his brother (“DinoCrisis”, “Forests”) was a sysop on Rationalwiki. Oliver, as “Krom”, later became a RationalWiki sysop as well. Together, they’ve upset various people with their edits. Hundreds of the brothers’ Wikipedia accounts have been blocked.

“Neo-Nazi” is a problematic claim, possibly an exaggeration (but there is evidence for it). I have seen clearly racist comments from Oliver, but that was years ago, on Metapedia, and he claimed to have changed his position (which then is roughly consistent with the article description). I consider the allegations about his sexual interests irrelevant, other than his having a penchant for accusing others of pedophilia based on statements that reflect normal male sexuality rather than anything pedophilic.

I suspect that Oliver has been impersonated, but it is clear that the Smiths collectively employ impersonation socking to defame, there are many examples. From circumstantial evidence, the most extensive impersonation socking was by Darryl, not Oliver.

In the list of interests, they were all Oliver’s interests except the “paranormal,” which was Darryl. This distinction of interests is found back to Wikipedia in 2011. Interest in the paranormal can slide into interest in pseudoscience and fringe science (which some skeptics call pseudoscience, though that is clearly a misapplication of the term) and then we see claims that racialism and associated intelligence studies are “pseudoscientific” (which some may be). As well, the brothers communicate and help each other out, as is described in the ED pages.

RationalWiki

RationalWiki has a salted page, Oliver D. Smith. Only a sysop can create a page with that name. Why? It was never created. I don’t know the history. However, the Smiths claim that there is no “Smith brotherconspiracy” it is all a paranoid fantasy by crazies.

Oliver claims to have been harassed, meanwhile he and his brother create many articles on RationalWiki about their enemies

Further, someone is creating massive impersonation socks on RationalWiki, and it unlikely to be Mikemikev and it sure is not me!

In the most recent craziness, Debunking spiritualism went on a massive revision deletion and blocking spree, and then, next day, retired the account and claimed it had been hacked. Meanwhile, though most of his actions were reversed, some were not. Here is a page from RationalWiki today:

He blocked Merkel, Oliver’s harassment target (for which Calimachus had been blocked), and he also unblocked Calimachus, and both actions are standing.

User:Merkel (history). The current text was added by Merkel January 9, 2018.

Vindicated about Oliver/Atlantid[edit]

I mentioned this fact and everyone flung venemous insults at me. He later admitted it. He never apologized for lying nor did anyone else.
Dr. Witt and User:Anti-Fascist for life put that they retire on their user page at the same time. The second account didn’t get its sysop powers removed like the first.
Debunking spiritualism removed this and added:

This user is banned indefinitely from editing RationalWiki.
The reason given is doxing, impersonating and posting libel about a RW editor; also off-site harassment.”

Why I permabanned this editor:

Doxing and posting libel about a RW editor.
Ongoing harassment: Merkel is a sysop on the neo-Nazi wiki Rightpedia.
He uses Rightpedia to dox and harass the same RW editor.
Merkel has also impersonated the RW editor.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So that was reverted, but the block was not.

Analysis re Kirkegaard

The sources cited by Oliver Smith on his Kirkegaard attack blog.

In the introduction, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/14/how-toby-young-got-where-he-isnt-today-universities-regulator-resignation (archive) Sun 14 Jan 2018 05.00 EST attack vituperation (see below) and then:

(the number at the beginning of each link is a link to an anchor for details below. Archive copies are also linked in the details.)

Opinion piece in Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/14/how-toby-young-got-where-he-isnt-today-universities-regulator-resignation (archive)

(I was astonished that the Guardian would put up a piece like this, even as “Opinion.” This is not listed as an official Guardian editorial. The author, Stewart Lee, is a “standup comedian, writer and director.His latest “opinion piece” (really sarcastic satire like this), and, my opinion, funny … as long as one does not take it literally. There are truths behind sarcasm, but it is not “the truth.” These pieces are selected by the Guardian from submissions, see “pitch guidelines.” I have found no disclaimer, however, to warn the reader that pieces are the opinion of the author, not the Guardian. Nor that a piece by a “standup comedian” might be a satirical roast.)

The following is only what relates to Kirkegaard, but the general theme regarding the London Conference on Intelligence is that there would be “nazism … being handed round .”

secret conference on “intelligence”, featuring notorious speakers including in previous years white supremacists and a weird far-right paedophilia apologist called Emil.  

Private Eye

Toby Young Breeds Contempt. Private Eye, 10 Jan. 2018. The link was incorrect, returning an internal link to the deleted blog. With some effort, I found a screenshot of the paper’s article. (archive) Quoting from it, re Kirkegaard, and about the London Conference on Intelligence:

The conference serves as a rendezvous for academic racists and their sympathizers. One speaker, Emil Kirkegaard, whom Young follows on Twitter, presented papers at the 2015, 2016 and 2017 conferences. Writing about pedophilia on his website, he argued in 2012 that a “compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont (sic) notice, it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed. He added in April 2017 that he advocated a “frank discussion of pedophilia-related issues”.

The author generally is searching for what is wrong, Private Eye is a scandal sheet. Kirkegaard, in his 2017 comment, did not realize the problem: public reaction to mention of pedophilia can be highly reactive, and high reactivity does not allow clear insight, and “frank discussion” is unsafe, outside of a safe context. Even then it can be dangerous! It is easy to say things that are clearly true, and be attacked for “advocating pedophilia.” — and saying that is not advocating pedophilia and does not imply that pedophilic activity — that’s the legal issue, not pedophilia per se, is or should be acceptable, it is quite the contrary. However, to actually protect children, we need to step back and generate deeper understanding than the simple horror that is common — and understandable.

Kirkegaard is a hereditarian, i.e., tends to look for genetic causes of behavior. So he was thinking about pedophilia as genetic. If it is genetic, a conclusion can come to mind that pedophiles “can’t help themselves.” So he was thinking about what one could do if one was unfortunate enough to be a pedophile. He is quite correct that if we want to control damage, we must consider this. However, where one goes from there is not obvious. Someone with an innate disposition to uncontrollable violence — which may have genetic roots — is not therefore to be excused and tolerated!

Kirkegaard’s language “it is hard to see,” would easily be taken as a claim that there is no harm. And so his statement, quoted out of context, seems to be “approving” of child rape. However, he did not claim that, and his post actually goes on to discuss the actual and potential harm. That part was not quoted, and the selective quotation implies that it was missing.

He meant by this that it might be hard for the pedophile. It obviously was not hard for him, as he complete his thinking about the problem. He was not, and probably is not, aware of what real pedophiles, or people who seem (to themselves!) like pedophiles, can actually do to avoid harm to themselves and others.

The author clearly did read the original post, not merely the RationalWiki quotation, but searching for confirmation of the shocking revelation she had seen there, serving the purpose of her article (to smear Toby Young by association), reading the post in the context of a claim that Kirkegaard is a pedophile or pedophile apologist, she missed the contradiction.

As well, it is a common public reaction to believe that pedophiles and pedophile apologists want public discussion of pedophilia. No, they don’t. That is the opposite of reality, in my experience. Genuine pedophiles don’t want the topic brought up at all! (I ended up counselling pedophiles in several instances, there are three examples that I came across. Only one of them would want a “frank conversation.” He had been convicted and had thoroughly accepted the serious wrongness of what he had done. (He was also involved in counselling pedophiles. And he had actually managed to get the sex offender registry lifted, having demonstrated to the satisfaction of the courts that re-offense was very unlikely, and largely because everyone in his life — his family, etc., — knew what he had done. Pedophiles, far more commonly, want it never mentioned. Pedophilic activity thrives in secrecy.

There are organizations that advocate for “boy love” or the like. They create walled gardens for their members, not public conversation. The “frank public conversation” is actually from academics, professionals and the like, actually studying the issue with scientific research and academic publication. Kirkegaard has not apparently been part of the academic conversation.

Hence the author here cites the “frank conversation” comment as if it is advocacy, and that attitude (that conversation must be advocacy) does little or nothing to actually protect children, and may actually cause harm. The archive image on imgur was archived from a photo of the page, for a post on reddit. The title given to the scan, the next day, was “Private Eye: Toby Young attended secret eugenics conference with white supremacists, paedophiles”

The Evolve Politics page (see coverage here) has a complete scan of the Private Eye article 

The Telegraph

UCL launches ‘eugenics’ probe after it emerges academic held controversial conferenceThe Telegraph. 10 Jan. 2018. 10 JANUARY 2018 • 6:49PM  Still up, original link.

Since 2015, Dr James Thompson has overseen the London Conference on Intelligence, which has seen a researcher who has previously advocated child rape online speak on campus on three occasions.

. . .

Speakers who have attended include researcher Emil Kirkegaard, who previously wrote that a “compromise” for child pornography would be for paedophiles to have “sex with a sleeping child without them knowing”.
In a blog published on his personal website in 2012, Mr Kirkegaard wrote: “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself.”
“If they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”

The second quotation is simple truth, actually, and describes behavior that is often legal. What was confusing here was the use of “child” to refer to someone sexually mature. Whether this is legal or not depends on unstated details. “Rather young” doesn’t mean “children” in this context. The juxtaposition of this sentence with the one about rape is confusing as well. The second sentence actually came first, and there was an intermediate sentence in the original post that made it clear that these were about two different situations.

London Student

London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links. London Student. 10 Jan. 2018.

Among the speakers and attendees over the last four years are a self-taught geneticist who argues in favour of child rape, multiple white supremacists, and ex-board member of the Office for Students Toby Young.

. . .

Another major organiser of the LCI is Emil Kirkegaard, who has attended all four conferences and even designed the website. Although he refers to himself as a “polymath” and Thompson describes him as a “very bright young guy”, Kirkegaard is not an academic. His highest qualification is a Bachelor’s in linguistics.
Having dropped out of his Masters degree, instead preferring to be “self-taught in various subjects”, Kirkegaard now runs OpenPsych, a platform for non-peer reviewed psychology papers, along with Davide Piffer of Mankind Quarterly. Piffer is a fellow LCI-speaker, and was praised by Richard Lynn as having done “brilliant work identifying the genes responsible for race differences in intelligence.”
. . .
Kirkegaard’s own personal blog is home to topics such as ‘Is miscegenation bad for your kids?’ and how one could empirically verify a Jewish conspiracy. His Facebook features alt-right ‘promotional videos’and once featured a friend’s Nazi salute with the caption ‘There will be an heir to the Führer.’
A post on Facebook featuring a Nazi salute behind Kirkegaard alongside his ‘Führer’ comment
By far the most disturbing of part of Kirkegaard’s internet presence, however, is a blog-post in which he justifies child rape. He states that a ‘compromise’ with paedophiles could be:

“having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine. If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape. One must distinguish between rape becus the other was disconsenting (wanting to not have sex), and rape becus the other is not consenting, but not disconsenting either.”
He qualifies this with a note that “bodily harm” would undermine this justification, and especially “with small children since their bodily openings are not large enuf [sic] for a regular sized male penis. To avoid this one shud [sic] not penetrate.”
Kirkegaard’s reputation as a scientific advocate for neo-Nazism was increased last April when he appeared on Tara McCarthy’s ‘Reality Calls’ to discuss “the future of eugenics.” McCarthy was banned from YouTube for alleging a Jewish conspiracy to commit “white genocide”, supports deporting naturalized citizens and “killing them if they resist”, and said that she hopes “zero” migrants crossing the Mediterranean “make it alive”.

Unfortunately, the author did not complete the quotation, for Kirkegaard ultimately rejects the whole idea.  The author is again using guilt by association, a common theme. 

University probes eugenics conference with links to white supremacistsThe Jewish Chronicle. 10. Jan. 2018.

The article does not mention Kirkegaard except very indirectly.

University probes eugenics conference with links to white supremacists
The London Conference on Intelligence has connections to a number of controversial racial theorists

There are connections to “racial theorists,” and they are “controversial. This article is not a problem at all. The only quibble I’d have is that the Conference is not actually a “eugenics conference,” but eugenics is a topic that comes up. That is, the practical usage of information about genetics. Eugenics has a bad name because of Nazi eugenics, which was racist, but eugenics, in itself is not racist, and genetic testing is commonly used for selective abortion, as one example. This is about genetics, not race.

Evolve Politics

Toby Young spoke alongside Nazi who argues raping unconscious children is fine. Evolve Politics. 11 Jan. 2018. (original post includes scan of Private Eye article. I have saved a copy if needed.)

This is straightforward defamation.

It is fast becoming clear that Toby Young’s controversialist career is far darker than first appeared, with Private Eye drawing attention to his attendance of a secret eugenics conference alongside white supremacists and advocates of paedophilia.

. . .

Several of the speakers were controversial beyond their presentations. One speaker, Emil Kirkegaard, who presented papers three times at the conference, defended paedophilia suggesting that drugging the child before sex might be a “compromise” as they were unlikely to know it had happened and therefore wouldn’t be harmed. He has also advocated a “frank discussion of paedophilia related issues.”

. . .

It goes without saying that Young follows the openly fascist Kirkegaard on Twitter.

. . .

The obvious question that emerges from this is whether Young is fit for his role as director of the state funded New Schools Network who advise on the education of our children. It is the firm opinion of Evolve Politics that anyone palling around with literal paedophile advocates and white supremacists should have absolutely no place whatsoever in education.

I notice the “quotation creep,” going further than cherry-picking, where what was actually written is twisted to exaggerate impressions. In that context, then, “frank discussion” can imply advocacy of the alleged “no harm” position, which was not Kirkegaards expressed view.

Top London university launches probe into conference that included speakers with controversial views on race and genderDaily Mail. 11 Jan 2018. (original URL still up).

Presents controversy, seems to be responsible journalism, even if incomplete. (i.e., what is the other side of the “controversy”?  

Metro

University investigates ‘racist’ eugenics conferenceMetro. 11 Jan. 2018. (Original URL is still up.)

Defamation.

The London Conference on Intelligence included talks by controversial speakers including white supremacists, child rape advocates, and those with extreme views on race and gender.

. . .

Another speaker was blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has argued that men should be allowed to have ‘sex with a sleeping child’.

I find it fascinating how collective interpretation can invent what was not in the blog post. There was no “should be allowed” in that post, none at all. The fact of active pedophiles is that one might make an argument like that to him or herself. Kirkegaard actually rejects the argument. Fed an interpretation before reading it, and not reading carefully, though, can create an impression that one has verified it. In this case, it is not necessarily likely that the author actually read the blog post itself.

The Independent

University College London launches ‘eugenics’ probe after controversial conference secretly held on campusThe Independent. 11 Jan. 2018. (original URL is up.)

Other speakers at the conference have included Emil Kirkegaard, a researcher who justified child sexual abuse on his personal blog. In a 2012 post, he wrote: “Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont [sic] notice it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”

He later added a note to the post in which he said he did not support the legalisation of paedophilia but advocated “frank discussion of paedophilia-related issues”.
Mr Kirkegaard presented research – which was not published by peer-reviewed journals – on differences in cognitive ability between ethnic groups at the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISID) conference in Montreal last July, at which Mr Young also lectured.
Kirkegaard has published research in peer-reviewed journals, and conference papers are commonly current work, presented before publication. Technically, the research is not on “differences in cognitive ability” but on “differences in performance on tests,” and the whole field is a difficult one. The theme being followed is like the RationalWiki article, and as well the extreme assessment of Richard Lynn from the SPLC, which is hardly a neutral organization. (But a good one, by the way, my view, simply very political, and the topic is one which is highly politicized.)
This author did present the later clarification (the only one so far to note it), but the original post did not “support legalization of pedophilia” at all. Again, the “frank discussion” comment can appear to be supporting pedophilia, or at least a conversation over legalization.
The text simply ignores the “not support” comment added and reports that Kirkegaard “justified” child abuse. That reading only appears when one ignores the context and conclusions of the original post.

The Guardian

UCL to investigate eugenics conference secretly held on campusThe Guardian. 11 Jan. 2018. (Original URL is still up.)

Defamation.

Previous attendees included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based research group Southern Poverty Law Center labelled an “unapologetic eugenicist”, and the blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively about pedophiles being allowed to have “sex with a sleeping child”.

. . .

Kirkegaard did not respond to requests for comment. But Thompson told the Daily Telegraph that the conference’s main subject was how IQ was inherited between different groups and races. “Eugenics is one topic, but many topics are discussed,” he said.

At least they tried, but it looks like Kirkegaard had very little time to respond. To make the statement they made, and as professional journalists, they would be presumed to have carefully checked that the statement made was true from the evidence they had, and the blog was available, particularly before going ahead with publication. Did it support “allowing pedophiles to have sex with a sleeping child”?

No, it did not. It did not talk about legality at all. Indeed, in the thought-experiment, which is what it was, imagining the thinking of a pedophile, it would be essential to the idea of no-harm that nobody found out about it (as well as other problems, such as physical injury or … pregnancy can happen with a child who has not yet menstruated, it’s rare, but it is known to have happened, and precocious puberty is a thing, meaning first menses before 8. The earliest known pregnancy was a famous case at something like five.) And, again, with many illegal actions, a potential offender may think “if nobody finds out, what’s the harm?” Kirkegaard, however, came up with the conclusion that potential harm cannot be avoided, that the whole line of thinking was ultimately defective, and that perhaps castration was the solution.

It is unfortunate that Kirkegaard did not respond. When major media contact one for comment, they are wanting to publish ASAP, it’s their business. Kirkegaard is young and wanted to consult an attorney, I’ve been told. My suspicion: he was afraid of being misinterpreted, and fear leads us to make poor decisions. Nevertheless, Kirkegaard is not hiding, he is facing this situation, head-on.

The real story here was how a long-term troll managed to manipulate major media, and many others, on RationalWiki (and in the full story, Wikipedia and the WMF wikis) with a story that he largely invented out of thin and misleading evidence.

As well, racism and racialism and hereditarianism vs. environmentalism re intelligence are complex issues that deserve “frank conversations,” because the polarization of hate groups does not allow society to heal and move on, it does not allow us to make sane decisions based on evidence — and based on what we freely choose for society.  

RT

Shamed Toby Young ‘attended secret eugenics conference with neo-nazis and pedophiles’. RT. 11. Jan. 2018. (Original URL is still up)

Defamation.

Shamed Toby Young ‘attended secret eugenics conference with neo-nazis and pedophiles’

Also at the lecture series was Emil Kirkegaard, who was invited despite previously claiming a“compromise” for child pornography would be for pedophiles to have “sex with a sleeping child without them knowing.”
Mr Kirkegaard wrote: “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself. If they don’t notice it is difficult to see how they cud [sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.”
The quote is inaccurate, mashing together separate statements.  (The original, again.) The headline follows classic trolling practice: first, allegations are stated as truth without qualification: (“Shamed, secret, eugenics, neo-nazis, and pedophiles) and then what may be a single fact — if true — becomes many. How many “pedophiles”? RationalWiki is full of that. This is the stuff of “genuine fake news.”

The Times

University College London under fire over its conferences on ‘eugenics’The Times. 11 Jan. 2018. (Original URL is up — but requires registration for full text (free for two articles a week). I have my own copy password protected.)

Not defamation. Some of it was conclusory: that the conference was secret, that rules had been violated, and the conference was characterized by speakers allegedly making certain claims that — I suspect and have some basis — are not presented fairly. Commentors on the article noticed! However, this was, by far, the most balanced coverage. There are 9 comments,quite good, considering. Deeper coverage would explore the real controversy, not the social-media yelling at each other version.

And his brother, Darryl L. Smith

May 2-3, 2018, Darryl L. Smith, as Debunking spiritualism, thoroughly outed himself before retiring. He still does not reveal to the RationalWiki community, with this, what it would take to get his libels deleted, but the Smiths still have not figured out that the prime way to recover, from indiscretions that come to light, is full disclosure, not half-measures. He may still be active on Wikipedia, as he claimed, and may still be able to collect financial support for it, so … he’s attempting to limit damage. While guaranteeing that he will fail.

He retired, creating a new account to claim Debunking spiritualism had been hacked. He had unblocked an account of his brother (, wheel-warring with Spriggina, and taking other actions that would clearly be Smith agenda, mostly in an attempt to scrub references to the Smith brothers (mostly Oliver, including places where Oliver accounts admitted who he was) not some new strange initiative. But the RWikians are about as gullible a group as I have ever encountered, most of them are far from “rational.”

His deletion actions merged with contributions and the block log:

This speaks volumes. That page was started as a redirect by Dave1234, which was Darryl L. Smith. Oliver Smith was not lying when he denied being Dave1234. The article itself was started by Debunker, also Darryl.

For Darryl to link to the WWHP page was completely remarkable. However, he has enough experience with RationalWiki (and he tried also to fix the article on me), to know that the deceptive impressions that he spent years to create would not vanish just because he, on the face someone different, says that it was wrong. He engaged whole generations of RationalWiki editors in his crusade as retaliation for Rome Viharo documenting the “wikipedia problem,” which intimately involved him, certainly as Goblin Face and likely other accounts.

Notice that DS claims “author request.” That’s because he was the author!

(We can think that an impersonator wanted to establish this. For what audience? I know of no person who has investigated the AP/Krom/Atlantid/Gobling Face sock family who still thinks that it was one person (i.e. Oliver Smith). That opinion has been expressed in the past, but this was before there was serious investigation, using better evidence. In addition, I have the equivalent of checkuser evidence and I’m suspecting I’m going to see some interesting facts when I look — it takes time, I have no automated tool like Media Wiki checkuser, on the blog. In the past, commentary focused on Oliver Smith, because he has been public about his identity. I began, some time ago, to document Darryl L. Smith. There were reactions). They did not begin on May 3!)

So, naturally, his deletion was reversed, by Cozmicdebris.

admits it is about doxxing of his family. I.e., the Smith brothers.

and 12 more revision deletions on that page. These were all restored by Grammar Commie. What was he hiding? Until I saw this, I didn’t realize there was an early incarnation of “Racialism.” Some archives I found: Talk page history\

This was the second attempt to hide all that, see below for the first. Both failed.

Archive 1 history (notice edit by Gorgonite, attempting to hide discussion.) Gorgonite was blanking an edit by Windir, replying to IP (Mikemikev? Maybe). Archive1 was deleted by FuzzyCatPotato, with the summary “13:42, 25 October 2016 FuzzyCatPotato (talk | contribs deleted page Talk:Racial realism/Archive1 (content was: “{{talk archive}} == Stupidly One-sided == So stupidly one-sided. This page is a complete joke. Clearly written by a “race denying” crackpot.<sup>— Unsigned, by: 202.171.168.146 / User talk:202.171.168.1…”)

Did FCP know what he was doing? The only edit of that IP was to create the Talk page back in 2012. FCP was indeed scrubbing history. Gorgonite was an obvious Oliver sock. (These users only effectively hide from others who are paying little attention, a common problem on wikis.) RationalWiki does not, per se, sanction sock puppetry, unless the user is unpopular.

The edit that Gorgonite blanked was by Windir (contributions). Naturally, I look for hidden  contributions.

Nice. To Talk:Race as an additional comment after his comment of 18:12, 8 October 2014

Btw, this is the level of Mikemikev’s intelligence:>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_didn%27t_want_to_wear_purple_pants

User:Excuse Me I’m ON LSD

I don’t want to wear purple pants and “i’m on LSD” are listed among two of Mikemikev’s socks.

Maybe it was the LSD he takes that turned him into such a mental-case. Windir (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Classic trolling. The entire RW site is like this. Articles troll for outrage, and if the target shows up, he is harassed, sometimes impersonated, and commonly blocked.

The Talk archives for “Race” have been deleted. However, Talk:Race is still up, so I’m creating archives based on the page as archived by the bot or others, including extensively blanked text. The full page history.  These are snapshots of the page just before removals. They are not as convenient as normal Talk page archives, but edits can be found. Some of these already existed. Text in collapse is also shown.

Users and IPs were outed as Mikemikev. Doxxing is Bad when AP socks(Goody Guys!) are doxxed, Good when Bad Guys are doxxed. The difference between Good Guys and Bad Guys is that Bad Guys hide. Oh. Wait! That talk page was deleted. Lots of RationalWiki discussion has been, later, deleted, with no explanation. Who is hiding?

Removed an edit by Torch (Darryl!) about Mikemikev.  Reverted by Spud.

  • 01:33, 3 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Racial realism: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Deletion_of_Talk:racialism_and_Talk:race)

and 16 more. GrammarCommie restored 13. What revisions are still hidden? Three revisions were previously hidden, one by Skeptical (Darryl) 02:27, 31 October 2017.  (which would be three or more years after the edit. Skeptical did the same thing as DS did later, only not so extensively. There are a total of five hidden. discrepancy of one. Nothing particularly striking on the page. Some more AP socks.

removed edits by Jon Donniz, Saxton, and possible Mikemikev IP. The first two are likely AP socks.

why would Darryl block this IP 4 years later? To tag the IP with “Mikemikev” for anyone seeing this later. The IP is Korean, which could indicate mikemikev at that time, but it’s also possible to choose an open proxy there.

Oliver and Darryl have both supported this, eventually. But that article was created by ODS (Oliver) and Oliver there acknowledges that it was as revenge against me. (Darryl, DS, created the article on me.)

The page was created by an AP sock, that’s clear. Which one, I’m not entirely sure. This is a common tactic: ridicule reality, call it a “conspiracy theory.” The creator comments, MrOrganic (possibly Oliver). The article on me was created by Marky (DS). While MrOrganic created that page, it gets blamed on Rome Viharo by Marky, and David Gerard bought that. The fact is that the “Smith brothers” theory is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is that there are two brothers, Oliver and Darryl Smith. The Oliver half of that is far beyond proven. “Darryl” remains somewhat circumstantial. There really is a brother, that’s clear, but Oliver recently claimed it was all him and that he’d been lying for hears about the “brother.”  So lying then or lying now, how much does it matter? This will get sorted legally, I strongly suspect.

Schizophrenic was Oliver. I found the edit and documented it, so Darryl is trying to cover it up.

 

Callimachus is Oliver D. Smith.