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

The harassment shown in the page supra came from one or more of these sources, in order of decreasing probability:

  1. Darryl L. Smith
  2. Oliver D. Smith
  3. An impersonator, Oliver would probably claim mikemikev, which seems very unlikely to me, unless he has some alternate personality that I have not observed.
  4. Someone who has believed what the Smiths have claimed, and is also motivate to support the Cause. It is not impossible there is someone that stupid.

I’m placing my bets on Darryl L. Smith, because of history of apparent impersonation socking and vicious on-line attack, plus Oliver’s testimony about him, put together over a long time.

As to the claims, this will be point-by-point.

Wed, Mar 28, 2018, “Paul Davies”

I am sorry to have to contact you. Is your [redacted] Abd ul-Rahman Lomax aka [full legal name including middle name redacted]?

From various impersonation socks on RationalWiki, I knew he had full doxx, which isn’t difficult for me since I have not hidden, and I’ve been active on-line since the 1980s. He starts with a lie, though (he’s not “sorry”) and ends with a lie (he is not “Paul”) with many more lies in the middle. That is totally SOP for the Smith brothers, both of them, who tell the truth when it is incomplete and appears to support whatever they want readers to believe — or when it is not important.

Your [redacted] is involved in some very dark and disturbing things on the internet.

I am. I was warned to stay away, by Darryl and others. From the ED article on Oliver D. Smith, a comment attributed to Junius Thaddeus:

I didn’t realize what I was getting into when I decided to document the activities of a psychopath. It’s just too much.

Originally I was just looking at Wikipedia activity, which was vicious, but not on the level of what appeared when I began to look outside the WMF wikis. It was like doing research in a sewer. I encountered many trolls and haters, sometimes often-blocked — but simply returning with more socks — or, in one case, effectively running the asylum. 

For the last ten years he has been living a double life on the internet viciously attacking people and doxing people on his website.

Not even the asylum RationalWiki article goes that far. I’ve been highly involved with controversy since the 1980s, but was not known for “attack” nor for “doxxing,” until very recently, with one example — quickly removed — and then Oliver and Darryl Smith, who routinely attack and doxx and have been doing so for years, Oliver is famous for it, but Darryl managed to hide. Or, as Oliver effectively has claimed recently, he was an inactive brother who simply did not object to Oliver pretending to be him. I don’t really care who is doing it, and will likely name both of them in forthcoming actions.

I have not been hiding my internet activity, my family knows my Muslim name, which is obvious if one checks. Every friend knows that name.  “Double life” is stated because it seems reprehensible in some way.

The “website” he is referring to would be this blog, which was only started a little over a year ago.

He has been banned on 7 websites for harassing others [sic] users.

I can’t think of that many, but if you want to count WMF wikis, it would be technically 854 wikis, the only community bans would be one, with an additional admin indef block, never confirmed by the community. None of the blocks or bans show a reason of “harassing other users” (but that was claimed on RationalWiki). I had an account active on hundreds of WMF wikis, and was banned only on the English Wikipedia, and then, as a result of a situation which I am addressing through legal process, was blocked on Wikiversity (out of process) and then “San Fran Banned,” i.e., banned by the WMF office with no warning or explanation, so how would “Paul” know the reason? What he would know is that he is one of a handful who were canvassed or were canvassed to complain, pursuing old vendettas and grudges, because he was one of them, and very likely was in communication with others. This particular troll has enablers, and so an effective response must address them.

And I am blocked on RationalWiki, completely out of normal process. RationalWiki is a hive of Smith suckers. No others that I can think of. Not seven, but if one wants to count WMF wikis, it would be 855.

Then I am currently “permabanned” on LENR Forum, for reasons not actually stated, but I declared I was boycotting that Forum because of unnecessary content deletion without notice or recourse, and was then banned. “You can’t quit, you’re fired!” Some people are like that. No other web sites that I can think of, and many, many where I’m in good standing. 

Recently he has been publishing disturbing articles that defend pedophilia.

Nope. Not one. He’s simply lying, as he has similarly about many others. What he has pointed to is a comment I made that, were I an attorney, I might end up defending a pedophile. Or a rapist or murderer or a traffic offender or a racist or … shocking, I know … a Trump supporter or even a vicious internet troll like the Smith brothers. And then he has accused others of pedophilia with no evidence that makes any sense, and I’ve pointed that out, so he calls me a “pedophile defender,” thus occasioning the remark I made. 

I am not sure if your [redacted] Abd Lomax is a pedophile but he has written articles defending pedophiles.

More accurately, defending a person against accusations of pedophilia, based on evidence that, when examined in full, shows zero indication that the person is a pedophile, and, in fact, the contrary. Notice, here, that he attempts to raise suspicion that I am a pedophile. He is “not sure.” He actually knows that what he is claiming is false, but he makes these claims because sometimes they cause people to react emotionally and to not see clearly. He actually gets away with this, way too often, because way too many people are readily manipulated through such appeals to hatred.

He says he has adopted two young children but I do not understand how he could be fit to be looking after a child. He has a very dark disturbing online presence and he is online nearly all day attacking other people. He is an online menace.

To be approved for international adoption, the mother and I went through very extensive vetting. The troll here could be Oliver, who is an “anti-natalist,” i.e., believes that having children is immoral and is full of hatred in many other ways. “Dark, disturbing” is a description of his mind. I document, and documentation of evidence is not “attack.” I was attacked for merely presenting evidence, originally with little in the way of conclusions. The more evidence I presented, the more severe and extensive the attacks, and then the RationalWiki article was written and there was an effort to get all my work deleted and me banned. And then the ban is cited as proof that I was harassing…. It’s circular, and obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence, and not to those who don’t. The world is like that.

There is a long article that factually documents your [redacted]’s internet abuse:

That was written by Darryl Smith as retaliation, as promised in sock edits on the meta wiki. 

Your [redacted] uses the online username “Abd”. He has been globally banned on Wikipedia, Wikiversity and from the Wikimedia Foundation for harassing and attacking users.

I generally use that name, the Smith use many hundreds of names, sometimes many per day. There is only one “global ban,” from the Foundation, obviously  based on private complaints, and it is routine that the target of a global ban is not told what the ban is for. I think they assume that someone extremely disruptive, which they claim is necessary for a ban, would know. But I did not violate the Terms of Service and was not disruptive, what I did was normal in dealing with long-term abusers. I think they accepted lies, but, of course, not knowing the actual content of the complaints, I don’t know. 

Your [redacted] appears to be online almost everyday, all day doing this, it is not healthy.

If that was all I did, for sure, it could be deadly. He is, here, a “concern troll.”

I am reaching out to you in good faith.

He is lying. He is harassing similarly to what he has done with many others. Anyone who exposes what he has been doing, he harasses them directly, he contacts their families, he contacts their employers, and, in one particularly nasty piece of business, he contacted the employer of the mother of his target. When it was claimed that he had gotten her fired, he acknowledged the contact, but claimed he didn’t “get her fired.” I wonder, what, did he give her a commendation? Nice of him, right?

Is there any chance you can try and get him off the internet? There are people who are looking to take legal action against your [redacted] because of the defamation he has been posting on specific people for years.

“People.” And “for years”? Who? There will be legal action here, very likely. The first demand letter went out today and I expect a few more will go out in the next few days. Apparently there has been legal action before, but it has been difficult to find details. 

Your [redacted]’s block logs:

Those are not block logs, they are contribution logs. They also show the latest blocks and, in addition, global locks. I was most active on the meta wiki before the global ban. One of the likely complaints would have been about allegedly filing “frivolous requests” there, but I was not warned and was not blocked on the meta wiki, and most of the filings were actioned — uncovering extensive impersonation socking and disruption.

And the impersonator was what I have called an “attack dog” for a substantial faction on Wikipedia. So they protected him by attacking the one documenting the history.

I was blocked (it became a “community ban”) on Wikipedia since 2012, and had not edited there since then. I knew how to appeal (as a paid consultant, I advised others how to be unblocked — which is legal and not a violation of the TOS, and they were successful) but I did not appeal. I gave up on Wikipedia, and I had given up on Wikiversity, except for a little maintenance, two years ago. The wikis were dangerous, content could be arbitrarily deleted without warning, and some personal attacks successfully resulted in bans of the target, when the attackers were far more disruptive. (I first saw this problem as far back as 2008, and successfully confronted some of the trolls.) (banned) (banned) (banned) (your [redacted] is on the global ban list)

Less than 30 people have been globally banned in the world by the Wikipedia Foundation. People only get globally banned for very serious criminal offenses.

That is false, and the WMF explicitly says that criminal offenses will be referred to the police, not handled by the WMF. I know many of the underlying situations for global bans, and “very serious criminal offenses” were not the normal cause. I can say for sure that the implication here, that I was guilty of some “very serious criminal offense” is completely false. I did not violate the Terms of Service, and nothing I did was criminal.

There was a steward who seemed to think that I provided the stewards with “illegal evidence,” but he was legally incorrect. The data in raw access logs might be protected by a privacy policy, and disclosure would be a tort, perhaps, and might even be illegal in some places, but … the data came from access to this blog by a highly disruptive user, creating possible real-world harm by his activities, and some of those activities, like this harassment, are illegal where he lives (the United Kingdom), but I can do whatever I choose with my access logs. I won’t arbitrarily reveal the data, but users lose their privacy rights through blatant disruption and impersonation, in my book. (One steward disagreed with that, protecting the “privacy rights” of a user who impersonated another. The impersonated user asked for the checkuser evidence, and the steward refused because it might violate the rights of the impersonator! In fact, checkuser policy allowed the disclosure of evidence to the involved user, if the user waived privacy, but the steward seemed unaware of that.

Your [redacted] was sending other users threats and posting in where they live on these Wikis.

I have not sent any users “threats.” I do not have any postings that show the home addresses of users. I did transcribe a screen shot from a wiki with home address information, using that to connect the two brothers — who some time ago lived at the same house, of their parents — but that was redacted within a day. What is left is the town in England, which is enough for the necessities of the reporting. Further, that “address” was a rural road, apparently, with no house number. It would not be enough by itself to find the residence. It might be useful for mail delivery, that’s about it.

You [sic] [redacted] gets banned on nearly every forum or website he joins.

From a small fraction of them! The troll here is blocked on many fora, but simply creates new accounts. In the last day, he created many accounts on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and he continually changes his accounts on RationalWiki. (Both Oliver and Darryl do this, but it is likely Oliver socking so extensively on ED.

He is involved in some very dark online activities and is known to create hundreds of accounts and impersonations of people to harass them.

That is him and not me. There are no examples asserted of me impersonating others. He writes above that I am known as “Abd.” What are the other names? I’ve used “Abdlomax” in a few places where Abd was already taken. “Is known.” By whom? This claim is not even in the RationalWiki hit piece.

Your family are probably not aware of this. He will no doubt deny any involvement to you or make up excuses for the Rationalwiki article factually documents his internet abuse and his block logs can be found. He has been doing it for years.

Doing what? The RationalWiki article does what many articles created by the brothers on RatWiki do: find some event that looks bad, if one squints, and then assert it as a pattern of behavior. Just the other day, Darryl Smith, as “Debunking spiritualism” proposed a rewrite of the article because it was inaccurate, claiming that he had communicated with me by email. However, he did not disclose that he had written the article, which might have made a difference. Instead, he and his brother (editing as Agent47), claimed that I had agreed to some “truce,” I’d stop mentioning them if they would get the article deleted. I had made no such agreement, and all the emails are shown on this blog. (And the emails had been, not with DS, but with Oliver.) As I’d have expected on RatWiki, the regular users were outraged at “caving in to blackmail.” But it was suggested that DS could still work on the article. Instead, he disappeared.

I mean your [redacted] no harm, I suspect your [redacted] has some sort of mental illness, I just wish he would help himself by getting off the internet. He has been defaming people online for years. He argues with people everyday and harasses them on his blog, I have never seen him type a nice comment to anybody online. I do not know your [redacted]’s real life history but if his internet activities continue he may end up in a lot of trouble.

I might even die eventually. It’s called life, and it ends. Again, there is no history of “defaming people.” I’ve been active on-line since the 1980s. This is all fabricated nonsense. I’m relatively active on Quora, with a strict Be Nice, Be Respectful policy, and I’m doing fine there, and am documentably appreciated.

I recommend that your warn your family about this. As of this month March, 2018, your [redacted] has been spamming Rationalwiki users abuse.

The “spamming” he would have in mind has been impersonation socking on RationalWiki, creating a username thought to look like something I would use, and then copying something I wrote, twisting it a bit to add threats or the like, and then using it to vandalize pages on that wiki. That’s quite similar to what they have done, and are still doing, on Wikipedia. 

I would appreciate it if you would tell him to get off the internet, stop attacking our website and stop attacking people online.

He is an owner of RationalWiki?

In any case, I’m a journalist, and I document what I find, where I consider it relevant to my key missions. I’m not easily bullied. In fact, I’ve never successfully been bullied. Many decades ago, I was cheated by a landlord, but I never took the matter to court. It’s one of the failures I regret. I don’t intend to repeat it. That landlord didn’t just cheat me, he cheated many. By not confronting it as “too much trouble,” I enabled him to continue. Confronting abuse is a collective responsibility, someone must do it, or society fails.

Thank you. I am not interested in email communication about this, I was just giving some friendly advice and trying to reach out to someone who knows him. He wont ever help himself, so maybe you could. Regards.


Of course he’s not interested in email communication. The mail is almost certainly fake. This was not friendly, that was just one more lie, and the recipient immediate saw through this, especially with the next message. I was called when the second message appeared. 

From: [redacted]
Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:41 PM
Subject: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Name: Matthew Philips
Email Address:
Subject: Your [redacted]

Your [redacted] Abd Lomax ([legal name redacted]) spends all of his time viciously attacking people on the internet. He has been banned on many websites.

[link to RationalWiki article on “Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax”]

There are people looking to take legal against your [redacted] for harassment. Can you tell him to get offline? He is online pretty much all day attacking people. He owns a blog Cold Fusion Community that has hosted doxxing of people. Your [redacted] is now a poster on a pornographic racist website called Encyclopedia Dramatica.

No new lies here. However, ED is not accurately described as he did, and he has been posting there for years, and posts far more than I. I simply responded, recently, to comments he made about me, and this would be classic trolling: he trolls for responses and then if the person responds, condemns them for it. ED is a rowdy environment, an uncensored parody, and it parodies racism as well. There is a Wikipedia article on ED. He is being blocked on several accounts per day there, currently, and all my posting there has been on one account, and if I’m blocked — it’s always possible! — I won’t create more, unless a critical interest appears, which is very unlikely.


Many of the AP targets have reported real-life harassment. Some of them do not want their names published, Oliver successfully intimidated them with attack-by-Google, which, ironically, is one of the claims made against me, though, so far, I have only recently begun activities intended to increase Google presence. Unless the issues are resolved, that may escalate, unless legal counsel advises otherwise.

A member of my family just reported messages attacking me. Here are the messages, with some contents redacted to protect the innocent. I have included the email addresses. It is highly unlikely that the email addresses here are legitimate, but if anyone is defamed by this publication, please let me know. (Impersonation is legally relevant.) Comments on this page, if they request privacy and are not themselves abusive, will not be published.

Comments on the claims will be on the subpage, which will also state the probable source of these attacks.

Date: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Subject: [redacted] Abd ul-Rahman Lomax your [redacted]
Name: Paul Davies
Email Address:
Subject: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax your [redacted]

I am sorry to have to contact you. Is your [redacted] Abd ul-Rahman Lomax aka [full legal name including middle name redacted]?

Your [redacted] is involved in some very dark and disturbing things on the internet. For the last ten years he has been living a double life on the internet viciously attacking people and doxing people on his website. He has been banned on 7 websites for harassing others users. Recently he has been publishing disturbing articles that defend pedophilia. I am not sure if your [redacted] Abd Lomax is a pedophile but he has written articles defending pedophiles. He says he has adopted two young children but I do not understand how he could be fit to be looking after a child. He has a very dark disturbing online presence and he is online nearly all day attacking other people. He is an online menace.

There is a long article that factually documents your [redacted]’s internet abuse:

Your [redacted] uses the online username “Abd”. He has been globally banned on Wikipedia, Wikiversity and from the Wikimedia Foundation for harassing and attacking users.

Your [redacted] appears to be online almost everyday, all day doing this, it is not healthy. I am reaching out to you in good faith. Is there any chance you can try and get him off the internet? There are people who are looking to take legal action against your [redacted] because of the defamation he has been posting on specific people for years.

Your [redacted]’s block logs: (banned) (banned) (banned) (your [redacted] is on the global ban list)

Less than 30 people have been globally banned in the world by the Wikipedia Foundation. People only get globally banned for very serious criminal offenses. Your [redacted] was sending other users threats and posting in where they live on these Wikis. You [sic] [redacted] gets banned on nearly every forum or website he joins. He is involved in some very dark online activities and is known to create hundreds of accounts and impersonations of people to harass them. Your family are probably not aware of this. He will no doubt deny any involvement to you or make up excuses for the Rationalwiki article factually documents his internet abuse and his block logs can be found. He has been doing it for years.

I mean your [redacted] no harm, I suspect your [redacted] has some sort of mental illness, I just wish he would help himself by getting off the internet. He has been defaming people online for years. He argues with people everyday and harasses them on his blog, I have never seen him type a nice comment to anybody online. I do not know your [redacted]’s real life history but if his internet activities continue he may end up in a lot of trouble.

I recommend that your warn your family about this. As of this month March, 2018, your [redacted] has been spamming Rationalwiki users abuse. I would appreciate it if you would tell him to get off the internet, stop attacking our website and stop attacking people online. Thank you. I am not interested in email communication about this, I was just giving some friendly advice and trying to reach out to someone who knows him. He wont ever help himself, so maybe you could. Regards.


From: [redacted]
Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:41 PM
Subject: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Name: Matthew Philips
Email Address:
Subject: Your [redacted]

Your [redacted] Abd Lomax ([legal name redacted]) spends all of his time viciously attacking people on the internet. He has been banned on many websites.

[link to RationalWiki article on “Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax”]

There are people looking to take legal against your [redacted] for harassment. Can you tell him to get offline? He is online pretty much all day attacking people. He owns a blog Cold Fusion Community that has hosted doxxing of people. Your [redacted] is now a poster on a pornographic racist website called Encyclopedia Dramatica.


Largewarhammer (metawiki contributions)

first edits to Forum, revision-deleted by Billinghurst.

Acknowledges being Oliver D. Smith. — archive copy.

Interacts with Michaeldsuarez.archive copy.

(ODS has acknowledged that he was ZaFrumi in an email to me (published on this blog) where he said all the other socking in that period was his twin brother, i.e., Darryl L. Smith. Later, a few days ago, he claimed that this was all lies, that there is no brother. Yeah, right.)

Discussion on User talk:Billinghurst. — archive copy. Blanked by MDS.

Billinghurst would know, if he were paying attention, that the new account was the original Anglo Pyramidologist, Wikipedia defacto banned and with associated accounts globally locked. He’s quite correct to say that this mess doesn’t belong on meta. We’ll see what he does with this.

By the way, could this be an impersonation? It’s pretty elaborate. Not impossible, but unlikely. The arguments are fresh-baked Oliver D. Smith.

Then the sock adds more:

Thanks and request

I removed comments I made about that drama not relevant to here. I just have one request. A banned Wikipedia editor whose website is blacklisted for harassment is misusing his user-page on this wiki as traffic to that website. His name is Rome Viharo. His only edits on this wiki was creating a userpage to influence google searches of his name so his website is advertised. The website Wikipedia we have a problem is blacklisted by Wikipedia, it doxes and attacks Wikipedia & RationalWiki editors. I’m a sysop from the latter and we have an article on Rome Viharo that documents more about his harassment against Wikipedians. It’s not appropriate he misuses this wiki for traffic to his website. Largewarhammer (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The page itself is no different from hundreds or thousands of others. In itself I have no scope to delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable. So Rome linking to his own blog (very normal for a user page) is offensive, but linking to Oliver D. Smith’s wiki is not? Billinghurst is not noticing that this is harassment of Viharo, a real person, using his real name, by someone hiding (though he is effectively outing himself in many of his comments).

Final request

I’m no longer posting here, but have a final request. Can you delete this and this. The user Abd was recently globally banned by the WMF for harassment, as part of that he was creating LTA “studies” filled with misinformation on another user. Those separate articles were taken down, but he has two “user-data” links still up that still links to the edits; someone else recently blanked them complaining, but they should be completely deleted. Abd deceptively is linking to this on his blog still since there are still edits on that page if you view the history, as well as it comes up on a google search. Is there any chance these here and this link can be deleted completely? Largewarhammer (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That has already been assessed by another administrator, and I have no need to override their decision by discussion at my user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UT

Smith lied in several ways. The history, in fact, showed the attack socking, of course he wanted that hidden. The links are redlinks as displayed on meta. So I made them red above. That signifies that the pages have been deleted. Yes, Oliver simply forum-shopped, and found an admin who didn’t realize the history and deleted. He cited speedy deletion criterion G3, which would not apply. That content was not created after I was banned. It’s hard to find good help.

Not that it matters. I knew that those pages could evaporate at any time. Wikis are unstable.

OMG! He even deleted my Sandbox! Waaa! My favorite Sandbox, carefully raked! (I’m not going to complain about this — I’m globally WMF banned and any use of WMF facilities would violate the TOS, other than reading what is public — but anyone could. But does it matter enough to be worth the effort?

So, I had exported the pages and imported them to the CFC wiki. With full history, which is what was most important.

(the main LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist study was copied to the blog long ago. The current version is here.)

(The pages use meta templates. They are broken, and it’s not worth fixing them yet.)

Why did he pick that admin? I don’t know, but the fellow is a ‘crat on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia G5 criterion is very similar. One would think he’d know the principle! One might think he would also look at prior history, deletion discussion, etc., but either he didn’t or he wanted plausible deniability.

Just something to keep in mind.

Canaries demonstrate that the air is toxic. Billinghurst knew to be suspicious of a new account demanding sanctions against another user. That deletion request was a personal attack on me. Xaosflux apparently did not suspect a problem, and rushed to satisfy the misleading request. I have seen that many, many times on Wikipedia.






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

Comments to correct errors are welcome below.

Tumbleman, it was revealed, was Rome Viharo, who has written extensively about his experiences on “WWHP,” his blog, Wikipedia We Have a Problem. This is also covered elsewhere, and there is an extensive attack on Rome Viharo on RationalWiki.



Right off, I notice the block log.

Even setting aside the obvious stumbling incompetence of the admin blocking indef, this was an unusual block log. Normally, a user will be blocked for a series of offenses, shorter blocks, gradually reaching to indef. If we look at the Talk page, there will be warnings, generally before blocks.

What happened? There is reference to an AE discussion. On the face, the filing was outrageous, grossly uncivil, relied on off-wiki activity (doxxing!) and consensus was not obvious. Tumbleman was not permitted to defend himself. But I’ll come back to that. What was the background?

Tumbleman was not an experienced editor when he dove in to Rupert Sheldrake. His first contributions, in 2005, were adding links to his own concept or site, OS 0 1 2, and then to the deletion discussion.

(the discussion refers to it being “spammed all over the wiki.” Contributions show three links placed. To some editors, that is “all over the wiki,” but this was, quite simply, an unskillful user, who did not yet know how to sign comments, nor what was appropriate for articles and deletion discussions. Very common for noobs.)

(“OS 1 2”) article on another wiki, written apparently by Tumbleman. I can now see that he was headed for a conflict with Wikipedia culture, which nominally seeks consensus (the only measure of neutrality is the level of consensus found; organizations use lower than 100% as a practical measure, but if the wiki actually valued true consensus, it would recognize anything short of 100% as less desirable; however, “wiki” also means quick, and while full-consensus process was developed extensively in the twentieth century, it requires much discussion, which the wiki tends to avoid and even sanction.  Full consensus process works in small groups, so larger groups require some kind of representative process, and time for feedback and broader communication, all of which Wikipedia, in its naivete, suppressed.)

Edit counts by month shows no activity until July and August of 2006, a burst then, (still not highly active), sporadic for a year, then almost nothing until August, 2013.

In 2006, his user talk page bloviated about AfD process, based on his very limited experience. He thought in terms of “winning” and “losing.” Apparently he had recreated the “OS 1 2” article — a newbie mistake — and it was deleted. He filed a Deletion review (that’s proper process, but the article was doomed, even though enough supported undeletion to allow it.) So the second AfD was created procedurally. Tumbleman argued extensively. That’s a losing strategy on Wikipedia. The way to get an article kept is to show adequate independent reliable source showing notability, but Tumbleman had no concept of this, he was thinking in terms of what people might be “interested” in. (and a user changed his vote in the DRV because he found the article “interesting”). The second AfD was a mess. He still didn’t know how to sign a comment. He was not informed until 2013.

With very little experience, Tumbleman “explained” to experienced Wikipedians how Wikipedia worked. He thought. He also was reactively uncivil. Was Tumbleman warned? No. Too bad. Tumbleman was a bright guy who had thought a lot about group process, and had strong ideas about what Wikipedia should be. People like this often run into trouble, if their ideas don’t match the editors they interact with. Wikipedia can brutal with these. Efforts to create a welcoming culture that would educate new users, mentoring them, were mostly crushed.

So, Tumbleman returned in 2013 and used his User page as a discussion page. He did not realize that what he was writing could be reliably predicted to be used against him. Even a much less explicit suspicion of using Wikipedia as an experiment has resulted in community rejection. Wikipedia is not generally open to new ideas and “outsiders” coming in with ways to improve the project are commonly treated with hostility. He was naive and did not actually study how Wikipedia worked before diving in.

When I became involved with Wikipedia governance,attempting to support balance and informed consensus, I also did a great deal of Recent Changes Patrol, and participated in many and widely varied processes. Tumbleman simply did not know what he was doing, and he was diving into what was, by that time, a quite firmly established editorial faction. How did he handle it?

The place to express personal ideas would be in a user space essay (subpage), if you are going to do it. Then people may comment on the attached talk page. Tumbleman did respond appropriately to the helpful criticism that appeared — which matched more or less what I wrote above.

Tumbleman moved that discussion to the Talk page. The talk page ended up being Archived here. But there was a previous archive (I call that “archiving to history). It is invisible to the Wikipedia search facility, which is why it’s not such a good idea, unless one wants to avoid the content showing up in searches.

I saw this conversation with vzaak (renamed to Manul):

I accept your olive branch and I can assure you I am quite serious about my role maintaining a WP NPOV. I did notice that you took your page down, I undid it without viewing this first so please feel free to take it down once more. If you remove your page, I shall remove this page, and we can return to a purely NPOV conversation on the Sheldrake page when I get back to editing. Sound fair? The Tumbleman (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Vzaak for your honorable resolution to this issue and I look forward working with you again maintaining WP NPOV. See you on the page! The Tumbleman (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The faction does not support NPOV, often explicitly denigrates it. I’ve seen user essays promoting what was called SPOV, or Scientific Point of View (Joshua P. Schroeder used to have that on his user page, as I recall). That, of course, means “mainstream.” When push comes to shove, with wide community attention, the faction loses. And “Scientific point of view” is an oxymoron. The whole point of science is to move beyond “point of view.” “Purely NPOV” would mean, legitimately, “purely detached.” Not going to happen. The skeptical faction is explicitly dedicated to promoting “rational skepticism,” or “fighting pseudoscience.” Yet they get away with it.

Tumbleman was a noob and was slaughtered. A noob with a skeptical (more accurately, debunking) point of view would have been protected by the faction. We will see that Tumbleman made many mistakes, but they are very common newbie errors. His stated goals were noble. There were some who recognized this and who argued against the indef block. They were outnumbered.

How does that happen? It’s easy, factional coordination is facilitated by watchlists. By 2013, there was also increased off-wiki communication. As well, any factional “member” — it’s not necessarily formal — will be protected if any sanction process starts, and enough supporters will show up to prevent anything like a consensus from being formed, even if behavior was outrageous.

So in that discussion with vzaak is a clue to conflict. What are the “pages” referred to? I don’t think they were pages, they were talk page sections. And this could be it.

Vzaak outs Tumbleman as Rome Viharo. One basis was the OS 0 1 2 history, plus off-wiki research. Not legitimate. The other was linked without explanation. This was all a blatant personal attack, not an attempt to communicate with Tumbleman.

Tumbleman’s response was too-typical noob. He tells Vzaak that what he is doing could be sanctioned. It’s a normal knee-jerk reaction, but it is similar to the childhood “I’ll tell!” No, for outing, the standard response is to privately message an administrator to get it revision-deleted. (And the admin might decide to warn or block.) Instead, Tumbleman argued.  Vzaak denied “revealing personal details.” That strongly reminds me of later denials of the obvious obvious by his friends. (or him?)

Notice the diff of Tumbleman’s first response.

He accepted the default edit summary with the section title. Responding at all was a blunder. Basically, at that point, STFU and get help. Now, Vzaak claimed that Tumbleman had “identified himself on WP by real name.” The argument about the deleted article was not adequate, it took off-site research to put that together. Basically, that public records establish an identity (say, by reasonable inference) is not consent to reveal or argue based on off-wiki evidence. Where did Tumbleman identify himself? vzaak pointed to the edit. Looking at the diff: “[[User:Tumbleman|Rome Viharo]] ([[User talk:Tumbleman|talk]]) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)”

One minute later, Tumbleman corrected that, so this was clearly unintentional. Now, we know that Tumbleman was Rome Viharo, that’s water under the bridge. However, that was not a wilful revelation of the connection, and Rome, as a noob, did not realize that he could have requested revision deletion of that version. It would take an admin a minute, if he sent the diff.

… and nobody protected him.

Dan skeptic (declared alternate account of Goblin Face, later blocked as an AP sock) made the claim here, a few days later. Did anyone warn vzaak or Dan skeptic? No (other than Tumbleman himself).

This is certainly not the complete Tumbleman story. But looking for that incident — which shows that those are deceptive who continue to argue that Tumbleman was not “doxxed” — has also shown me what I had seen some years ago. The Tumbleman affair was a factional hit, one of many. Many familiar names show up. And Dan skeptic argues like Oliver, in fact, but so might Darryl. The interest, from prior information, would be Darryl. And then there are the factional editors who slobber over Dan skeptic. And when I mentioned Manul/vzaak in the original AP study, with no accusation of any wrongdoing, AP socks went ballistic. The lady doth protest to much, methinks.

The suspicion that arises from the protest is not that Manul was an AP sock, though that is possible. Rather it would be that Manul was an asset to be zealously protected, even overprotected, because that calls attention to possibilities. Dan skeptic was an AP sock, that’s well-established. Which brother? Who cares?

The story of Viharo’s supposed voluntary self-outing has been oft repeated by AP socks, and then, perhaps, by others. It started with vzaak/Manul, apparently.

A fuller review would look at the factional editing, and the very rough treatment accorded Tumbleman, in spite of a few voices opposing that. Those voices, as I’ve seen happen many times, gave up. A faction with as many as a few dozen editors can be wiki-suicide to confront, and I saw an admin resign when he realized that another admin was going to ignore policy and get away with hit. The sane people walked away, over and over, so what was left?

Not purely left, because some sane people, with time to devote and a lot of patience, remained. Increasingly outnumbered, though, because the community, in spite of many opportunities, refused to face the structural problems that facilitate all the incredibly inefficient disruption, and that create defacto factional domination unless someone invests the enormous effort involved in filing an Arbitration case. To overcome this requires quite what the GSoW have done: cooperation. A faction cannot be defeated alone. At least not easily!!!

Total breakdown

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

If Oliver Smith had, as a goal, thoroughly exposing the idiocy of RationalWiki — and to a lesser degree, also the WMF wikis — he couldn’t have done a better job.

From his own emails and comments on RationalWiki:

Oliver Smith claims

  • He made up the brother story years ago to get unblocked on Wikipedia.
  • He fed the story to many, fooling them. It was a joke, and funny as hell.
  • He lied to Tim Farley.
  • His real brother’s name is now being published. [It is!]
  • Yet his real brother isn’t involved at all. [Is he?]
  • Nobody is paid, that was all his deception.
  • He’s the victim of massive harassment.
  • And Lomax is crazy for declaring as possible the story that Oliver made up and repeated for many years.

Let’s take a look!

His emails to me — and my recent replies — are here.

A few days ago, I protected most pages dealing with Anglo Pyramidologist, requiring a password, which, for the time being ,will be revealed to those with a need to know.

Then, April 4, 2018,  I received an email from  Oliver Smith, from the known and verified email address for him, offering a “truce,” he would fix the RationalWiki article on me if I removed mention of him on my blog (and he sent the exact same oemail to Rome Viharo). I responded as can be seen there. I thanked Oliver for certain things and pointed out that improvement he proposed on RationalWiki would not address many of the problems created by the Smith brothers’ history, including perhaps the most serious (a massive sock and then cross-wiki canvassed attack on Wikiversity and Wikiversity users). I suggested simply telling the truth.

April 5, Debunking spiritualism attempted to edit the RW article on me to make it more about substantial subjects, but was — as I’d have predicted — promptly reverted.  He then wrote on the Talk page (archive copy of the page):

Proposed re-write

I re-wrote some sections, but they got reverted. I’ve spoken to Lomax by email, and he says he will no longer disrupt or make more articles on RationalWiki on his blog etc., if we just focus more on his cold fusion and try to more neutrally present his research on this. The problem is his page has been a battleground and much drama over his activities on wikis that are mostly irrelevant to RationalWiki – its main purpose is to document pseudoscience. I just think its sensible if we rewrite his article and the drama will end.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait? Who spoke to me by email? I was communicating with Oliver D. Smith, who was, until recently, ODS on RationalWiki. Many evidences from ODS pointed to his brother, Darryl L. Smith, as “DS.” Second problem, here, I never did disrupt RationalWiki, this was done by a series of impersonation socks. The user with an extensive history of similar impersonation would be DS, and it was almost certainly a sock of DS who wrote the article, and DS had been obsessively editing it. The page had not been a battleground except, briefly, impersonation socks vandalized it, pretending to be me.

While I have never ruled out the possibility of a third party impersonator, the impersonation patterns were those of the sock master I confronted on WMF wikis as “Anglo Pyramidologist,” and, with evidence and claims from Oliver, almost certainly his twin brother, Darryl. (AP, there, is both brothers — or Oliver Smith lied from the beginning, which he has now claimed.) The other possible troll would have had no interest at that time, and there was no cooperation from the Smiths that would have exposed the impersonations. No, Darryl was the impersonator. Or there is another possibility that arises here, and it’s remarkable. The whole thing was a lie and harassment targets were not the only ones impersonated.

This possibility aligns with the opinion of another critic of the Smiths: there is no brother, this is all one person, pretending to be two. To deal with what has been published, this requires one of two possibilities: (1) there is literally no brother, and the public record that purported to show that was fake, created by Oliver as a red herring, or (2) Darryl is silent, uninvolved.

The appearance here, given the emails to me, is that Oliver is Debunking spiritualism, who has carried on conversations with ODS and other Oliver socks, and this was all fake, deception. There is a more likely scenario, I’ll get to that. GrammarCommie, obviously believing in the tissue of lies created by the impersonator and the Smith editing, continues with

RationalWiki is objective not neutral. Furthermore this sounds like extortion to me, i.e. “do what I say or else I’ll harass you.” ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What “sounds like extortion” is a story made up by DS. I have not threatened anyone with harassment. I have pointed out the obvious: what one writes on a wiki is public and open to examination and critique. I would not attempt to coerce anyone, and have not. But someone has done this, through the impersonation socks, pretending to be me. I have circumstantial evidence — not proof — that the harassment socks were “Anglo Pyramidologist.” Yet the RatWikians who show up in this present discussion obviously assume they were me. In fact, they were designed that way. They copied text from me, using names that someone naive might think I would use — I have no history of disruptive account socking — and then tacking in threats and accusations, or simple vandalism.

I actually proposed to re-write some of it. At the very least there’s been lots of mistakes & errors on the article. What I wrote was actually a lot more objective. I would invite Lomax here to correct things he has a problem with, but he’s already published a response on his blog and I went over it. He’s mostly telling the truth about his cold fusion research. It is misrepresented by the original article creator. Of course I’m not defending Lomax’s antics on wikis and other sites (he recently got blocked on the RW reddit section), but I think the article should more accurately present his cold fusion stuff.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I invited @Bongolian and a few others to discuss my edit.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable. “He’s mostly telling the truth about his cold fusion research.” Who was the original article creator? That creator complained about me and I was promoted (sysop tools removed) as a result. Then another obviously related user indef blocked me for “doxxing,” when I had not doxxed, another sock had, I had merely responded. This was all someone with long experience manipulating wiki communities, preying on the naive, ready to make knee-jerk assumptions that involve primitive models of human behavior.

The “response on my blog” that I wrote was months ago and the article changed a lot since then. What I suggested, with a declared sock, was that I be unblocked and I could then make suggestions on the Talk page. What DS proposes here — and that unblock — would be more or less standard for RW, as to how RW presents itself to the world on the Main Page. But the problem is far, far deeper than my article.

DS knows how and why I was blocked on the “RW Reddit section.” He complained to David Gerard, and it was immediately actioned. There, I had responded to a few blatant attack posts, by users who showed up only to make them, referring to RW articles of which they were likely the author. Someone has been abusing RW, for a long time, as a personal attack platform. (Looking at that now, I wondered how DS knows. Reddit does not show who is banned. I logged out, and a comment I made, visible when logged in,  now shows as “Removed.” This is the thread. My response was

RationalWiki is run by people apparently terrified of real discussion, believing in a mission that involves suppressing whatever they think is wrong and anyone not a true believer in their brand of skepticism. They pretened to be about rejecting authoritarianism. They lie.

If it’s a matter of correcting errors on RW, then, yes, this should be done. We should not however be put in a position of tone policing ourselves because of Lomax. I don’t think that Lomax is a trustworthy actor based on his past documented history here and elsewhere, and we should not cater to his whims. There is no possible guarantee that he could make that he will not continue his harassment on or off of RW. Bongolian (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That “documented” history is full of misrepresentations and deceptions, most recently the massive impersonation socking on RW. Generally, aside from his acceptance of a load of deception, I’d agree with his position. However, there need be no binding guarantee, were I proposing some quid pro quo. Suppose, for simplicity, that the article were deleted. (That is not the most inspiring possibility!). And I committed to not writing about RationalWiki. Not that I would, mind you, I’m a journalist, but I do have choices about where to focus. If I violated my commitment, the article could simply be restored. If the agreement were public, there would be some actual misbehavior — a lack of integrity — to point to. It would take a minute to undelete the article.

These guys have little or no business experience or imagination. It’s hard to find good help. But this was all actually irrelevant, since I was not making or offering any guarantee, this was a Smith initiative, and the question arises, “Why now?”

Lomax wants some kind of deal where his lead is edited, and the cyber-harasser and troll is removed and the article accurately reflects his cold fusion research. Lomax had about 30 articles very negative about Rationalwiki users, some of these contained dox. He has now removed some those from public-view and they are password protected, but he is talking about contacting the media privately about his ban from Rationalwiki and Wikipedia. He says that is a possibility, he also says his obsession with all of this has damaged his health, I can believe that. He was writing thousands of words about this every-day, it was not normal.

I personally would have his RW article deleted, I actually voted delete in the deletion discussion. The whole thing has caused too much trouble here and these petty internet feuds with Lomax are messing with peoples lives. It would be better for everyone if this was all to just end. Obviously many people voted to keep his article so it will not be deleted but I don’t know if it is worth inviting him here to comment on what he wants changed on his article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How does he know what I want? Telepathy? He’d be evidence it doesn’t exist. But, yes, a focus on cold fusion would not be a problem, if that’s considered worthy of an article.  The only “dox” was, eventually, long after being “banned” for doxxing, the names of the Smith brothers. RW articles, written by the brothers, routinely dox targets…. Oliver apparently just created an article on Michael Coombs on Wrongpedia that gives the address of Coombs’ mother, with no excuse other than a suggestion she could be harassed because he visits home sometimes.

DS showed up to comment in that deletion discussion months after it closed. It was pointed out how odd it was for him to show up and vote delete for an article that he was obviously obsessively editing. At a certain point I began to emphasize “Darryl L. Smith,” because I was realizing that it was likely that most actual damage, in many areas, was coming from that brother. Maybe he was realizing that he had attempted character assassination on a target who can defend himself. And there is more.

If Lomax permanently removed and deletes all the negative commentary about Rationalwiki on his cold fusion community blog and decides to move on with his life, is it possible his article could be deleted? This might not be policy but is it not possible to arrange some kind of deal like this? Both parties would win at the end of the day and people could move on with their lives. Several users have been doxed by Lomax on his blog so all this is having real life consequences. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rimuru Tempest, @Readymade, @Christopher @David Gerard your thoughts about the above? Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I know RationalWiki reasonably well. This proposal had no chance of success as stated.

First of all, who is feeling “real life consequences?” There would be one class of such: the targets of many articles created by the crazy duo, and fewer by articles created by other RatWikians. Almost all RatWiki users are fully anonymous. Oliver and Darryl Smith are only not anonymous because they were so massively disruptive in so many fora that they attracted a great deal of attention. The first three pinged are anonymous, to my knowledge, and would not care personally about this. David Gerard probably believes he is completely secure. He might be, the legal theory on which I might sue him is thin. But it doesn’t really cost a lot to try. RW is a more inviting target, and RW actually has raised money on the idea that they need it for legal defense. RW, however, is not yet on the hook, there is due process that remains first.

The only two actually feeling consequences — or simply fearing them — would be Oliver and Darryl Smith. But they are not appealing based on the truth. I’m not sure what the point of this exercise was. It seems that DS wants to maintain the myth of “Abd harassing multitudes all over the internet,” while shutting down attention on himself and his brother. They created that myth, creating evidence for it (such as the Reddit ban, simply a decision probably by Gerard — though there is another moderator), just as they created the WMF ban by canvassing for complaints, all visible if anyone looks.

Let me put it this way: Fuck no!!! We will not cave in to every halfassed crank that suddenly decides that they’ve “reformed”. that is the very definition of whitewashing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. But what “halfassed crank” has “suddenly decided” that he has “reformed”? The DS narrative, backed as it is by several months of bombarding RW with impersonation socks, is accepted, whole hog.

I think he has delusions of self-grandeur if he thinks “the media” will be interested in his petty squabbles and persecution complex. Password-protecting his doxing is not a particularly conciliatory action in my view: this is basically an admission that he has been a harasser. I invite other moderators @CheeseburgerFace, @Christopher, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, as well as the semi-active: @David Gerard to comment. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The story as they would imagine it would not be of interest to the media. Did I mention the media? If I file an action, I would probably create a press release, and an organization might be involved. The main show would be an action against the WikiMedia Foundation, with RationalWiki being a minor player.

I never indicated the password protection as “conciliatory.” It was explained here.

Until this point, all my work was public, my research notes were public. “Going dark” means creating access security, as I work with legal issues, counsel, and develop necessary resources, until a final report is created and action taken. It is tempting to explain more thoroughly, but I’m resisting that. They can guess but they won’t know until this hits them.

The ordinary RW users probably have nothing to fear, it’s not worth going after useless basement-dwellers and twits and anti-crank cranks (and a handful of sincere and perhaps genuine skeptics), but RW itself might see some action, that depends on how they respond to challenges. This is a matter for RMF legal, not ordinary users, and they need not consider it.

I don’t think we should whitewash his past. If he shows signs of a changed man for over 5 years, we can add that to the article and perhaps give him a nicer writeup.—♥€h33s3βurg3rF@€3♥ Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think he’s clueless. I have not suggested, nor would I suggest, “whitewashing” my past. I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished, but he and RatWiki in general have no clue what that is. They have believed a story invented by the Smith brothers, and intensely marketed through impersonation socking. Even as it becomes completely obvious that these brothers are liars and highly deceptive. To accept that, they would need to become skeptical of their own ideas and reactions. Which would make them genuine skeptics. Some of them would rather die first.

On second thought, why are we even covering Internet drama? We care about woo. I was under the impression that we don’t cover Internet drama for anyone on this website.—♥€h33s3βurg3rF@€3♥ Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. My answer for him: RW is covering internet drama because it allowed the Twin Queens of Internet Drama to create hundreds of sock puppets on RationalWiki (probably an understatement) to create articles that were intrinsically attack and revenge and fanaticism, it enabled them and protected them against exposure, opped them and encouraged them, because those who are loudest rueing Teh Drama often do the most to create it and enjoy it. DS here was proposing to focus on woo and alleged pseudoscience, which was, indeed, missional. But the Mob loves Drama! And it cares nothing about truth and careful and thorough research, but only wants to react to the latest hue and cry.

It is the opposite of rational thinking, so RW has a foundational contradiction. Snark is an appeal to quick reaction, and snark is policy on RW. It appeals to the immature. It’s fun. RW is not my problem. However, where the site and its defacto policies create an “attractive nuisance,” there can be consequences.

Honestly, after looking into all of this stuff I’m not so sure we can just throw it under the rug. I agree with Cheeseburger on this, let him show he decided to change through his actions and others will begin to see better of him. Let us not forget what we do here at RW.
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What I notice is a massive confusion of conflicting ideas. If the article were objective, there would simply be no question. If facts alleged in the article were backed by sources that actually confirm the claim, or that are not simply cherry-picked from a vast corpus of work, if conclusions stated in the article could be challenged and discussed with someone knowledgeable (i.e., the article subject if the subject is willing), the issue of “change” would be irrelevant. The thinking here is high-school, as if I were some juvenile critically concerned about how people see me, and whining “But I’ve changed.” If I did any such whining, please point it out, so I can stomp on it. I change all the time, I hope I will continue to change until I die, but I am responsible for all of it.

All this discussion was based on the thinking of a deranged Smith brother, his imaginary presentation of what I supposedly wrote to him, that I didn’t. The full emails are on that page from the recent correspondence.

focusing on each and every crank rather than the ideas they espouse is such a waste of time and energy. Anyways, if this Lomax fellow is vandalizing the article, just lock it down–“Shut upBrx.”02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s RatWiki. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Especially on RatWiki. “If this Lomax fellow is vandalizing . . . .” Well, is he? Brx is two clicks away from seeing the history, but the RW cry is “Don’t confuse me with facts!” I never vandalized the article. I edited the article once only, in October 2017. The edit stuck. The short period of editing by socks with my name on them were not me. It’s reasonably obvious who they were, because the behavior is quite old, oft-repeated, long before I was ever involved, and only one person would be interested at that point.

I stumbled across his site at one point, didn’t think much of it, I kept scrolling down and I saw my name of his “Enablers and Supporter” claiming he was working on a draft of me. Idk what he is or was going to write (as he seems to have password blocked it) but after reading a few things of his I think now see him in a worse light than I did at first. I don’t know why he put me on one of his pages and made it seem like I told him “The Christian God is the real God and not Allah” but seeing what he said about everyone I wont really believe him unless he actually shows a change and apologized to those who he attacked. I’m not going to hold a grudge with him but he needs to show we can trust him.リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 04:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Enablers and Supporters is a page to describe how the AP socks have managed to effectively abuse wikis and sites, and RationalWiki in particular. He doesn’t say what I wrote, it wasn’t anything like what I wrote. He was attacked by impersonation socks and believed they were me. He didn’t ask me. But he did respond to my question about a sock who impersonated him here.

To apologize for an “attack,” I’ll need to have a reference to the attack. Documenting what an account has done is not an attack. If it is, then is Rimuru  acknowledging that RationalWiki articles are “attacks”? Does he and other RatWikians believe that anyone on the internet is fair game for documentation, but RatWikians? “Supporters and Enablers” would actually  be a compliment if what was supported and enabled is laudable!

His report is weird. The main page shows blog posts, but all the AP and related documentation is pages, used for information and studies. There is a sidebar with Pages, which lists all of them. He would see the page hierarchy, which is RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist/Supporters and Enablers, and the subpages with certain people where there are notes. All my page work is “studies.” If he was able to see the S&E page, he’d have seen, in the TOC,

Rimuru Tempest subpage (draft, not yet published)

Some of the above have been added from a narrow suspicion, and S&E may be inadvertent or ignorant or otherwise

Further down the page, there was his name and a link to his RW contributions. That was all. What does this have to do with “Christian God” and “Allah”? In any case, I looked at the draft page and published it so that Rimuru Tempest may comment on it if he chooses. It is just some notes with a little speculation. Nothing to call a lawyer over, in fact, calling that page an “attack” would be just plain crazy. Perhaps I might flesh out the subpage, except I have a hundred things to do more worthwhile at this point.

An apology and even a website wipe won’t be enough to have us remove what he has done with the past. He remains responsible for any harm he has done and he will learn the consequences of being a little less than an unpleasant piece of work. I’m not holding any grudges, but this person will have to do quite a bit to make up for all the the trouble he has caused. –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is belief not founded in fact. What trouble did I cause and how? I did not create the AP sock farm, I didn’t even hear about it until September, 2017. 200 socks on Wikipedia, and then, I began to discover, many more even there that aren’t documented, they are quietly blocked. At one point an AP sock claimed to be running RatWiki, having created 700 socks. That might not actually be an exaggeration.

What harm have I done? Any specifics? I can say exactly what harm has been done by AP socks, and it will become far more visible over the next few months. The waste of time on RatWiki from the impersonation socks I certainly did not create. But RatWiki is not actually that important to me.

You have two users lying to you, here on this RW Talk page, and it’s easy to see if you look, and you don’t care. You win the prize, you have to live with the mess.

Any actual inaccuracies should obviously be removed, but don’t cave in to his threats and don’t remove information about what he’s done in the past just because he claims to have changed. Christopher (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, all this discussion was founded on claims from DS. Nobody seems to suspect the accuracy of his report. This was all radically confused. I have not claimed to have “changed.” I shifted tactics, that’s all.

Since this affair began, AP socks called the studies I was doing — merely listing accounts on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta (mostly checkuser-identified) — “Lies,” but never pointed to any specifics. If I have erred, I always appreciate correction, and I don’t hide my past. I learn from it.

I have made no threats. There were threats made by impersonation socks. By “cave in,” Christopher would be referring to threats of harm if one doesn’t do what is demanded, i.e., coercion. I hate coercion. What was demanded by me? (There were demands by impersonation socks.)

I would appreciate making the changes Debunking spiritualism made to the article. I’m someone Lomax smeared and doxed on his blog. He’s since removed nearly everything and is happy to stop this feud if we make amendments. There are clearly inaccuracies, just like Lomax writing lies and hearsay about people on his blog, so it would help to correct/remove the misrepresentations, errors, poorly sourced content and mistakes from Lomax’s article. Agent47 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Agent47 is obviously Oliver D. Smith. Early on, the AP message was that documentation of AP socking was a “vendetta” or “feud.” It was Oliver who actually emailed me, not DS … if they are different. I did hide material, and I didn’t reject Oliver’s offer, but thought that he would not be able to deliver unless he revealed the truth about the history. His comments here show that he was keeping up the story that I was lying, even while pretending to advocate some reasonable action to do what he imagined would “settle the feud.” I have some sympathy, because the truly vicious behavior was probably not him, probably his brother … but he’s completely insane, this comes out. He demonstrates that no matter how we slices it, he lied or he is lying. Why? That’s what gets interesting.

Perhaps @Debunking spiritualism could write a short synopsis here of each correction along with a supporting reference for each correction, then we can move forward. Bongolian (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sensible. There is actually a better way, I saw used on Wikipedia. A rewrite in user space, to be then compared with the standing article. May the better article win! and then the better might still have some content merged from the old. But it might all be a waste if I demand take-down from the RMF, which is under consideration. If the article were actually improved with a plan for keeping it that way, I might not demand take-down. Criticism of cold fusion research is normal, expected, and actually appreciated. However, I just looked at the article. It is heavily designed to defame, full of appeals to knee-jerk assumptions, single incidents conflated to an alleged long-term pattern, and other niceties that afflict far too many RW articles.

RW is full of articles created by this team. One of them has claimed the other is paid (“to the best of his knowledge”) by a major skeptical organization. It’s plausible, and the other has hinted at the same, and then this all starts to get very ugly.

And then this, together with the actual emails, takes the cake:

Lomax email

The above attempted re-writes or deletions requests is because of Lomax blackmailing, coercing and harassing RW users – so like myself we want the option of being left alone by this nutcase. Below is a harassing email I’ve just received. Lomax believes I have a brother involved in this website, I don’t. That’s the “smith brother conspiracy theory” he’s obsessed with. Aside from this misinformation and conspiracy theory, he claims to be taking legal action. But note how rude and aggressive this old prick is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

I basically retract my claims above. There are no inaccuracies on the article, its just that Lomax has threatened us and doxed our family members etc, that people want a way out of this dispute and some of us were prepared to give in to his demands and whitewash the article. I’ve changed my mind and won’t be further doing this. I don’t see this guy stopping his harassment, he’ll probably end up getting a restraining order against him, or sectioned under a mental health act. Agent47 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What claims is he retracting? His lies and misrepresentations? Who is “us”? The documentation has all been about Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith, twin brothers, long ago (2011) tagged and blocked on Wikipedia as “Anglo Pyramidologist.” Oliver was much better known outside of Wikipedia, and many of those confronting this monster sock drawer have focused on him. Even where Darryl was mentioned, it was almost as a footnote. What shifted with my involvement was shining the disinfectant light on Darryl.

Because of this claim above, I have published the entire email set. What I wrote was not sent to Oliver D. Smith to harass him, at all. It was a response to his mail.

It was assertive, not aggressive. It did not threaten. Oliver Smith published, on RationalWiki, the WMF response to his complaint, so I know he complained. From what he has written about me and others, and from what I know I was actually doing, I can reasonably suspect that he misrepresented the truth (and he has done this with many others, getting web sites taken down, he got the mother of an enemy fired with a harassing email to her employer, and the only thing keeping him out of a U.K. prison is police inertia, which then takes coordinated action to move. Tim Farley, years ago, showed how it was done. And, by the way, I do not consider Tim Farley an enemy, and attacks on Tim Farley on RW were by impersonation socks. The Smith brothers attempt to stir up enmity, to get supposed enemies of their targets angry and to arouse them to attack their target. It’s really an amazing strategy, particularly considering how well it worked in various venues.

So I’m warning him that more lying isn’t going to help. His response: more lies — or, amazingly, his claim that he was lying previously, as if somehow that’s going to prove that those exposing him are wrong. Look how he fooled them with his lies! The stupids!

Will RationalWikians see this and realize how they have been taken for fools? I’m not betting either way. But there is more. He didn’t quote, of course, his own claims, though he refers to them with his “smith brothers conspiracy theory” rant. I will not be so shy. Quoting from his last email to me.

Ask Rome Viharo to see the last email I sent him. There is no brother. I’ve just had fun misleading people, like yourself stalking me as have other RW sysops who have tried to protect their identities. It’s a problem though that you would target and dox an innocent family member of mine, based on this. Ask Viharo to see the full email, or I can post it here later. The ” smith brother” conspiracy theory is a joke.

No, if he is not lying, he created the theory as a joke, and now is disliking the consequences. But does he claim up by telling the truth, the whole truth? No. And what he says is internally contradictory and requires a long-term conspiracy, and, in particular, a compliant brother who doesn’t blow the whistle on this. There are only two “family members” involved in what has been published by me (and by Rome Viharo): Oliver and Darryl. If there is no brother, who, then, is the “innocent family member”?

He has extensively attacked Mikemikev for publishing a page, apparently from a public record, showing the names of inhabitants for a certain house in the U.K., as doxxing his family, giving the “address,” which is a road, with no street number (apparently a rural road, so mail would go to the name on that road). As it was, technically.

Doxxing at that level, per se, is not necessarily illegal, but if it can be considered harassment, it can be subject to prosecution. Briefly, I had the text from that public record on the Identity page here. I redacted that immediately, but the Smith brothers continued to insist that I was doxxing the family. Here, Oliver Smith is claiming that he was lying back in 2011, and then further in his edits to RW referring to DS as his brother, and in prior emails to me (where he blamed “most of the socks” on his brother.” (Those are published on that same page.)

Just a little joke! Heh! Whatsa matta? Can’t take a joke?

Debunking spiritualism is, on the face, an anti-parapsychology fanatic (not actually a skeptic, “fanatic skeptic” is actually an oxymoron), easily identified by his editing patterns and interests, as what I, for a time, called AP/D, probably also Goblin Face on Wikipedia, and others. But this is all called into question by Oliver’s new claims. I do not assume that someone is lying, in any particular instance, because even liars tell the truth on occasion.

I’m not really interested in you complaining about lies, since all you’ve done is lie about me. You’re currently writing all sorts of nonsense and smears about me on Wikipedia sucks on the bizarre mikemikev section on your blog. I’ve never in my life been to Birkbeck college, I never studied at London University and never have been a “white nationalist”. Also, I don’t live close to Birkbeck. None of the accounts you claim are me are mine, but mikemikev.

I wasn’t “complaining about lies.” I was telling him that his lies have consequences. Oliver is either simply lying, or incapable of understanding the difference between a statement of suspicion and allegation. I never claimed he had been to Birkbeck college. It was simply a suspicion, and it would only take one trip, a little outing, on one day, to then create an impression that anyone editing from Birkbeck on certain topics was Mikemikev. Read the SPI reports!

“White nationalist,” a term which Oliver tosses around casually about others, is not a fact but an interpretation, a judgment, and Oliver was a supporter of the BNP, it’s easy to see his Metapedia comments. He claims that those were impersonations of him. Fine. Did he let those impersonations stand, or did he document and disclaim them? Those are matters of fact or evidence.

He is calling “lies” what arises from his own interpretations. The “mikemikev” section is a subpage of a review of a blog post on Hatewatch, where the RW article on Mikemikev was used as a source to make claims about problems with Wikipedia socking.  So I looked at the Mikemikev Wikipedia Sock puppet investigations page and reviewed it. It’s quite long, and my impression is — unverified — that Mikemikev did sock extensively on Wikipedia, originally, but that, later, impersonation socks appeared, and that is a known AP pattern, to take a blocked target and impersonate them, to ramp up enmity toward the target, and that is exactly what has been done with me on RationalWiki: many disruptive socks, using my names or ready associations.

Someone is impersonating me. Who? Default hypothesis: the same person as the one who impersonated a user on Wikipedia in order to arouse attack on his work on Wikiversity. I had assumed the brother Darryl, the one with a long-term declared interest in “spiritualism,” etc., whereas Oliver had settled on other topic areas, such as racism and fascism. Now Oliver is claiming that it’s all him. There is an obvious suspicion to report.

Also the impersonation claims are bizarre, considering Mikemikev has impersonated me all over the internet including at Metapedia. I closed my account, it was then reopened to impersonate me with a false accusation of having schizophrenia. This is proven if you bothered to actually view the logs.

I’m not sure how one “closes an account” on a wiki. I think Oliver claimed to have spiked the password, and if you do this with email turned off, access is lost. Very much, this is not recommended! Anyone with a sufficiently high privilege level can “fix” the problem. Oliver has just set up an extensive task which would take hours. I did review his Metapedia contributions, and some, at least, of the logs. On the face, he would be claiming that there is evidence for what he is now claiming. It should, then, take a few minutes at most for him to point to the logs that I could allegedly examine. I’m not going to go digging through ancient refuse for something that actually matters very little. His Metapedia history is merely ironic, at most. I pointed out that he disclaimed it.

The claim of schizophrenia appears in a number of places. Given what I have seen of his behavior, by email, it’s plausible. Certainly something is radically off in what he is displaying, in the emails and on RationalWiki and elsewhere.

“Proven” is language used by believers, not by genuine skeptics, outside of narrow circumstances. There is a lost performative. Something is “proven” by a claimant to the satisfaction of a judge, an observer. It does not exist in the evidence itself. Evidence is used in a proof. Language around this can be sloppy, though. In this case, the claim and the proof exist only in Oliver’s mind. He could change that, with clear communication, but he doesn’t do “clear communication.” He just makes wild claims, asserted as fact, even when the evidence which he sometimes cites is more contradictory than confirming, when read carefully.

He depends on wiki users not caring to undertake that careful examination, but, too often, reasoning from conclusions, i.e., the conclusions stated match their own assumptions or prejudices, so they accept the claims.

I also find it mind boggling that you dispute Mikemikev is an online nazi.

I haven’t. Smith’s inability to interpret sane text is remarkably poor. He is probably referring to my comment a few days earlier, referring to what he had written that Mikemikev had written to him.

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

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

Where does this “dispute” the claim? Smith apparently sees everything as a dispute or argument or feud. and lack of agreement — or in this case, weak agreement — is seen as crazy opposition, as if it is necessary for me to believe what he believes or I am the enemy. Whoever has been behind all the AP mess for many years does apparently think like that. They are intellectual fascists, who is not loyal to the Cause is an enemy.

your emails are being ignored by the RationalWiki foundation, I was told this.

Far out. Told by whom? In this affair, what has appeared is something long obvious to many, but denied by some. There is a cabal. In my attempt to raise the attention of the Arbitration Committe to the issue of de-facto coordinated editing by a faction — which was actually obvious from the evidence I presented — the Committee reprimanded me by claiming I had not presented evidence of policy violations. But the problem was that this did not violate policy, unless there was off-wiki coordination. It happens through watchlist patterns. However, what has become much more visible since is that there is off-wiki coordination, so policy is being violated. And that is tolerated, and why? I find that an interesting question.

(My solution to the “cabal” problem  would be not to ban cabals, but to actually encourage and identify them and to then regulate activity. It is a soluble problem, but not if the very existence of the problem is denied. Wikipedia got stuck in the idea that it could and should ban “POV-pushing,” which is what cabals do. That then made the attainment of genuine consensus probably impossible. To find consensus — which is powerful and self-maintaining — requires all parties to be at the table. This is all basic organizational understanding that was unclear to a naive Wikipedia community, mostly composed, early on, of computer techies. Not academics.)

So Oliver suggested that I contact Rome Viharo. He provided me with his correspondence with Oliver, so I added it to the Oliver D. Smith email archive here. The story is mind-Boglin.

The emails of

To repeat what I wrote above: Oliver Smith claims

  • He made up the brother story years ago to get unblocked on Wikipedia.
  • He fed the story to many, fooling them. It was a joke, and funny as hell.
  • He lied to Tim Farley.
  • His real brother’s name is now being published.
  • Yet his real brother isn’t involved at all.
  • Nobody is paid, that was all his deception.
  • He’s the victim of massive harassment.
  • And Lomax is crazy for declaring as possible the story that Oliver made up and repeated for many years.

Sometimes the truth, when it is incomplete, can appear implausible. However, Occam’s razor, here, indicates that he is now lying through his teeth, but why?

It’s obvious: His brother is pissed, Oliver shot off his mouth far too much, and his actual family is putting pressure on him, because it is indeed a possibility that the brother could be harmed.

Someone did the impersonation socking on Wikipedia, which was illegal, and Darryl might be in hot water over that, or might fear it. So Oliver, who was not being paid to engage in all this crap, and could more readily walk away, decides to take the rap, but without admitting what was illegal (the impersonation socking, for starters). Nice. Will he perjure himself if deposed? Inquiring minds want to know.

If the brother is actually “innocent,” my advice for him would be the same as I gave Oliver months ago when he was claiming his brother had been the sock master: tell the truth, the whole truth, reveal what you know, or stand as equally responsible. At that point he denied knowing what his brother was up to, even though any warm body could see it from miles away, if it simply looked.

Defamation may be remediated by full disclosure, sometimes. Legally, it’s their best shot.




Correspondence with Oliver D. Smith

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

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

Names of third parties here may be redacted on request.

These were from the email address given on

I will be adding my responses to the mails in January and February and then the second round of recent emails (both sides).

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

There is analysis of the emails here.

The emails:

January 24, 2018

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

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

January 25, 2018

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

Michael Suarez just deleted the ED article on me.

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

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

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

January 27, 2018

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

I can respond in full when I get the spare time. will be where I make the post on Kirkegaard in the next 24 hours, if not sooner.

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

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


January 30, 2018

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

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

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

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

January 30, 2018 (second)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also – I’m now inactive on RW.


January 30, 2018 (third)

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 31, 2018

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

I’ve now spoken with my brother:

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

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

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

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

February 14, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 4, 2018

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

Recently [redacted] emailed me, and I agreed to delete his RationalWiki article. It has since been deleted. I then helped him delete his RW talk page, other stuff that mentions his name and will also help remove some Reddit threads on him in the RationalWiki section (since I’m on good terms with the mods). [redacted] also offered to delete anywhere that mentions my name, such as on Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity, for example he removed this talk page:

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

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

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

I will consider your kind offer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 5, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I assume that Agent47 is you.

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

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

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

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

[and in response to quoted email text]:

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

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

April 7, 2018

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

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

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

(I have not responded to this last mail.)

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

April 6, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

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

look what happened: [I made this a permanent link to the revision of  22:46, 6 April 2018, which would probably be 15:46 Viharo time]

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

April 6, 2018 (To Rome Viharo)

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

Abd lomax has resorted to posting yet more defamation about me such as on Wikipedia sucks, and sending me abusive emails, so the deal is off to help him. The guy is clearly nuts to attacks me when I try to help him and resolve this.

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

April 7, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

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

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

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

April 8, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 11, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

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

I submitted a deletion request:

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

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

To Rome Viharo, April 11, 2018

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

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

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

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

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

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

No way of deleting the article:

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

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

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

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

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

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

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



from contributions of the sock:

Rome Viharo & Abd Lomax filing fake sockpuppet investigations
A known troublemaker and banned Wikipedian and Wikiversity user Abd is filing fake sockuppet investigations; another today was done on MetaWiki, but his request was declined and he admits he is a;sp doing them via email. Some background to Abd's internet antics and stalking of Anglo_Pyramidologist can be found on RationalWiki:

I noticed abd accusing Anglo as creating the tumbleman2018 accounts, that were Viharo’s. So these are fake filed sockpuppets. evidence for viharo and lomax working together is found on Lomax’s website who has a rome viharo section WayoftheSamurai4 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I wondered what he was talking about “admits he is [doing them] by email. Then I realized he was talking about the email sent to the stewards with confidential, private information about IP and editing. The request was public, only the additional evidence was by email.

Someone recently emailed me about this. None of the above accounts are AP. The person who filed the block did it externally, and there is zero technical evidence and the duck test is dubious. A known troublemaker and banned Wikipedian and Wikiversity user Abd is filing these fake sockuppet investigations; another today was done on MetaWiki, but his request was declined and he admits he is a;sp doing them via email. Some background to Abd’s internet antics and stalking of Anglo_Pyramidologist can be found on RationalWiki:  WayoftheSamurai4 (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassment on Krelnik talk.

(notice edits of to the page)

The original history is here.  Edits of interest:

(cur | prev) 14:44, 4 February 2018‎ Defending Rhine (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,246 bytes) (+1,298)‎ . . (Nancy Appleton:

Check February access records for access to the misnamed page (starting with WikiversityParapsychology).

Rhine Defender was the last real Blastikus sock to edit. Defending Rhine was effectively blocked as Blastikus. The AP strategy works, because Wikipedia is utterly naive about impersonation socking. It has occasionally been noticed. Checkusers do not follow up. Why bother, since impersonation or block evasion, the result is the same: block? Hence AP normally gets away with massive impersonation socking, until there are cross-wiki consequences, Abd notices it, and asks for steward checkuser. All those impersonation socks, clearly identified as not Blastikus, are still listed on Wikipedia as Blastikus. In the last checkuser request, these socks were not noticed. Others were. And the stewards had become hostile, and the source of that is fairly clear. Private complaints.

See the Blastikus SPI archive for February 4. Blastikus has acknowledged Rhine Revival (edited 30 November 2017) and Areyoumoral  (a sock that edited none-disruptively in March 2017 and then  November 30 on the Blastikus SPI to apologize for prior views.  Rhine Revival self-reverted. JzG, clearly involved, used tools. That’s what got him sanctioned before, in the case I filed.

AP socks take content from their target and post it, in order to amplify impressions of disruptiveness and vandalism. Back to those edits. There is an additional possible motivation in the FTN filing: to get the cold fusion community blog and wiki blacklisted. I’ll check on that. More edits:

(AP has been doing quite the same thing on RationalWiki, creating impersonation socks, pretending to be me, and pointing to the CFC blog.)

(By the way, Blastikus had not edited the CFC wiki. Rather, that was material exported from Wikiversity, and imported to CFC, as a courtesy, pending restoration of sanity on Wikiversity. AP was here attacking it, using impersonations.) Roxy the dog welcomed the user…. then

naturally. Blocked for username violation.

You are the pseudoskeptic Roxy who has been harassing my friend Rome Viharo and removing paranormal research from Wikipedia articles. [[User:Roxy the dog pseudoskeptic|Roxy the dog pseudoskeptic]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog pseudoskeptic|talk]]) 14:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The goal is to increase conflict with Rome Viharo. I’m not sure that Blastikus even knows about Rome Viharo, but maybe. Anyone who has studied the AP/D editing would immediately recognize this as Darryl, who is an anti-fringe fanatic. Roxy the dog feeds the troll. The snark is so common that it isn’t even noticed. (Guidelines would suggest ignoring this obvious trolling.)

I’ll just leave this here.Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

My, my, linking to an attack article on Rome Viharo on RationalWiki.  Perhaps Guy thinks he is being helpful. Instead, it appears he is one more clueless Wikipedian. Unless he is in on it.

Slaterstephen makes an ordinary skeptical comment. “Extraordinary claims” do not need “extra ordinary sources,” because “extraordinary” is POV. Rather, reliable source is reliable source. Editorial consensus will decide whether or not to report as fact or attributed statement. What has been done, though, is cherry-pick sources according to editorial judgment of “fringe” or not, rather than using RS guidelines, and Guy Macon’s user page shows the problem. He may really believe what he’s saying. His view requires the Wikipedia community to be ontologically naive, to not distinguish between fact and interpretation.

I think Defending Rhine is identical with Rhine defenderRadin Revival and the Rhine Revival who has been blocked indefinitely for using multiple accounts. —Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

He was almost right. Rhine Revival was not the others. The checkuser wasn’t explicit, but would have indicated that Rhine Revival and Areyoumoral was not likely to be the same as the others. Open proxies were being used. When Blastikus edited with disclosure of who he was, he would have had no reason to use an open proxy. But AP socks would. This is all so obvious. Hob Gadling is a bit suspicious…. some overlap with AP socks. Reading this discussion on Atlantis, referred back from a more recent Hob Gadling comment on Talk:Atlantis, I’m reminded of why I was so relieved to be banned from Wikipedia. What could be simple if there was a genuine seeking of consensus becomes tedious and repetitive. One of the signs that consensus has not been found is that argument continues endlessly. Solutions to all this were suggested years ago and ignored. “It is not how we do things,” so endless hours continue to be wasted.

Also Viharo revival. Probably more. Obviously trying unsuccessfully to walk through a wall again and again, like General Albert Stubblebine. —Hob Gadling (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the sock master is doing exactly what he wants and getting exactly the response he wants. Until that is understood and effective response designed and created, disruption will continue, because what he wants is to blame the disruption on someone else, and so that blame, readily concluded in spite of many evidences to the contrary, creates more and more incentive for this troll. The checkuser evidence on Wikiepdia, plus the checkuser evidence on meta, shows the fact. Someone is using impersonation socking to defame and attract a desired response.

What is of more concern, though, is the appearance of signs that the sock master is being protected by a faction. He doesn’t care if his socks are blocked, after all, he has well over 200 blocked socks, that’s meaningless. What he cares about is that his targets and their topics of interest are banned not only from Wikipedia, but from the internet entirely, and he has been on this mission for at least six years or so. He claims that he’s being paid. By whom? By a major skeptical organization. Was he lying? Maybe. AP socks — and even the AP masters (there are at least two brothers — regularly lie or exaggerate.

But the existence of coordination behind the scenes has become obvious and almost open.

For years, I assumed that ignorant comments that supported the factional agenda were just that, ignorant. That may still be true for most who edit supporting the faction. But there is something more, and those who would know about it are tolerating, and to read what AP socks have written, encouraging it.

This is corruption, all for a “good cause,” i.e., lying for truth.

Slatersteven correctly pointed out that FT/N was not the place to discuss socking. But AP accomplishes his purposes by placing what may have some detested truth to it, in front of those who follow FT/N, which is the faction he abuses (or which uses him). He developed a strategy, a bit counter-intuitive for most Wikipedians. If you hate a point of view, create straw man accounts to abusively push it. This should be suspected whenever socks appear that wave red flags, “I’m a sock.” WP:RBI would be a correct response, but often much more than that is done: the socks are tagged with the intended target, making it far more difficult for such a target, if they want it, to take advantage of the Standard Offer, an increasing the perception that those who support that detested point of view are fanatics and lunatic believers. Or, even, sometimes, those who simply want to move articles toward a consensus neutrality, which is not that difficult if the goal is clear and there are users who support it. Too often, though, fringe or alleged fringe articles are “owned” by “majority POV users,” which means, in fact, a majority of those aware of or interested in the article, not a majority of all users.

I’ve blocked Viharo revival. A hearty quack to all. Bishonen pseudosceptic | talk 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC).









Going dark on a topic

I have been documenting the Anglo Pyramidologist sock puppetry and massive disruption. Because of what I have found, and the tasks before me over the next year, I am going dark. All pages in the category of Anglo Pyramidologist will be hidden, pending, and possibly some others. Some have been archived (often on and will remain available there. If anyone has a need-to-know, or wants to support the work, contact me (comments on this post will be seen by me, and if privacy is requested, that will be honored, the comments will not be published. Provide me with an email and a request for contact and I will do so.)

The connection with cold fusion is thin, but exists and is significant.

Warning: documenting AP can be hazardous to your health.

As well, the next year’s journalism will need support, some of this may become expensive. I will be asking for support, to supplement what is already available or in the pipeline.

Sometimes reality comes to our door and knocks. Do we invite her in? Other times we need to search for her. Ask and you shall receive. She is kind and generous.

Don’t ask, and reality might seem to punch you in the nose, and you might be offended. In reality, you just walked into a lamp post. Who knew?


The sock family known on Wikipedia as Anglo Pyramidologist is two brothers, Oliver D. Smith (the original Anglo Pyramidologist) and Darryl L. Smith, perhaps best known as Goblin Face, who continues to be highly active with the “skeptic faction” on Wikipedia. It is possible that there is a third brother involved.

They have engaged in impersonation socking, disrupting Wikipedia while pretending to be a blocked user, leading to defamation of the target user, and they have engaged in similar behavior elsewhere.

I was attacked for documenting the proven impersonation and other socking. My behaviot did not violate any policies or the Terms of Service,

The Smith brothers were able to coordinate or canvass for multiple complaints, (they have bragged about complaining) and it is possible that this led to the WikiMedia Foundation global ban, but those bans are not explained and the banned user is not warned, and has no opportunity to appeal or contest them.

Substantial damage was done to the long-standing tradition of academic freedom on Wikiversity.

Action to remedy this will continue, but privately.

MIkemikev SPI archive

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

Corrections of errors or misinterpretations are welcome in comments here, but trolling may be moved or, in some cases, copied to a page for such, and trolls have limited rights, and impersonators, none.

This is a review of the Wikipedia SPI archive for Mikemikev, undertaken as a result of references to it from Hatewatch. These are my notes as I reviewed it. “Bill Connors” had written:

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…

That points to a Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev. A more reliable page would be Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev

Such categories are highly unreliable. It takes one person to add the category, and it sticks if nobody cares to remove it. Most of these are not accounts, what ordinary people will think of as “socks.” The SPI case archive is much more reliable, but even there they often will tag impersonation socks as being the target. Like much Wikipedia administration, it can be very sloppy. Yes, there are 143 user pages in the suspected category, but only 41 are named accounts.

The more definitive category has this introduction for usage:

To add an account to this category use {{Sockpuppet|Mikemikev|confirmed}} if confirmed by a checkuser or {{Sockpuppet|Mikemikev|proven}} if the behavioural evidence makes the link beyond reasonable doubt. IPs may be added to this category using {{IPsock|Mikemikev|confirmed}} if they have been confirmed by a CheckUser and are static.

Wikipedia process does not allow confirmation “beyond reasonable doubt,” and this can be seen in SPI Archive; the fact is that any user may add the category to a suspected sock page, there is generally no review at all, unless a user appeals the block (which is unusual, and sometimes with sock tagging, the user’s ability to edit their talk page is blocked.

The more definitive category has 120 tags. Of these, 49 are IP addresses, leaving 71 accounts, and looking at this, I immediately see socks, that from the SPI case, are certainly not identified “beyond reasonable doubt.” This is common with Wikipedia, I call it an “unfunded mandate” established by policy or guidelines with no structure in place to actually enforce it. Strangely, Wikipedia pretends to protect the privacy of users, but “block evasion” is about the user behind the blocked account, obviously. The contradictions in policy and practice have never been clearly addressed.

The SPI archive shows 110 reports, from the first in 2010 (“unrelated’) to the latest in February 2018 (“unrelated”). I have not studied the entire archive — it’s long — but there were many unrelated accounts reported, and, as well, many accounts that were socks of each other but not clearly shown to be mikemikev (but they will be tagged as such, often, because it’s simple). That high level of unconfirmed reports is indicative of POV enforcement.  People with a strong POV will often report others with contrary POV of being socks of a blocked or banned user. Of highest interest would be recent reports, so, going back a little more than a year:

15_November_2016 likely unrelated.

19_November_2016 confirmed socking, but not specifically to mikemikev, only to other active sleepers. The sock name, Sam Smith 4, could indicate an entirely different user, known to be associated with Oliver D. Smith. To recognise this as plausible, I’d need to study actual mikemikev editing. As pointed out in the SPLC article, that can be a lot of work…. Edit count: Samuel_Smith_4 49 edits over 1 day, clearly disruptive user to attract attention. Checkuser confirmed as sock of accounts previously identified. The POV of those accounts could match mikemike v, but what AP does is to create additional socks that amplify what actual socks do. So I would not rule out a little trip to the Brikbeck library…

10_April_2017 IP blocked based on subject area (which would also match Oliver D. Smith) and geolocation to Birkbeck College could also indicate a Smith brother, it’s close to where they live. This account was an obvious troll looking to be blocked. Nothing here clearly points to mikemikev. Looking back, an impression is shown as to where mikemikev lives. What came from what? These investigations are not intended to definitively identify the real person behind the edits. They are used to decide block/not block, and if an editor appears to be disruptive, they don’t really care who it is, and they can be quite careless about the identification. Tracking edits long-term, on RationalWiki, I found what was apparent mikemikev edits from South Korea, many of them. But the story is that he moved from there. Where to? What evidence is there? I don’t know.

08_May_2017 Ethicosian was blocked. The first checkuser finding was unrelated, but then checkusers reviewed it and coverted it to “Possible.” And so Ethicosian was blocked and tagged. This is often done on very weak evidence, and when biased administrators become involved, it can get crazy. Bottom line, users with a POV hated by the administrator can be in trouble. This user did claim bias. I handled a case of admin bias, successfully. It took an insane amount of work. The structure is highly defective and there is little value placed on careful investigation and the compilation of evidence. Indeed, it is mistrusted, since the common Wikipedia belief is that someone who puts in that kind of work must be biased. In this case, I do not know if the involved administrator is biased. The user did put up an unblock template, most busted sock masters don’t bother. Ethicosian had 25 edits.

13_July_2017  David Mendlesohn 8 edits, all on one day. No sleepers. Some of the behavioral cues used could indicate expertise in a topic (particularly from a point of view. In these archives, an incorrect identifaction can then propagate down the line to subsequent ones. So there is socking, occasionally shown, but the identifications are weak. The level of disruption is not high, compared to many cases I have studied. The identification was weak. This should be realized: if an account has few edits, it is considered that a false identification will do little harm. All this mess is a result of the Wikipedia schizophrenia about anonymous accounts. In my view, real-name accounts should be given far more care. But sometimes “real-name accounts” are actually impersonation socks, because there is no verification process.

14_October_2017  Rupert_the_Frog 69 edits over three days. This edit, mentioned in the SPI, is a common red flag for an impersonation account. They will be defiant, seeking to get themselves blocked; this especially happens when the impersonator is attacking the target elsewhere and wants to use the socking as proof of BAD. Looking at RPF and the IP’s two edits, I don’t think this was Mikemikev, I would suspect an ethnic Russian or the like. The IP geolocates to Riga, Latvia. Diane Diamond  7 edits. My summary: troll. These are not “civil POV pushers.”

17_October_2017 David_Smythe5 This is very suspicious. The account name DaveSmythe was previously tagged as a Mikemikev sock. The difficult kinds of socks do not telegraph who they are, troll socks do. They are blocked quickly on Wikipedia, and are often tagged as the sock master from the SPI.

17_October_2017_2 Emil Kirkegaard is highly suspicious. This is the real name of a common AP target, who has an active Wikipedia account. AP socks would want to get him blocked. I find it unlikely that mikemikev would choose this name, because he may consider Kirkegaard a beneficial racialist or hereditarian researcher. The account only has a single edit, waving the troll flag. The Smith brothers create accounts that edit like this, contrary to their presumed point of view. A purpose of the edit would be to discredit the source referenced as supporting racialism, such that anyone else who points to that source in the future would then be suspected. The discussion demonstrates a dominant bias, using arguments common with the faction. My point is not that they are “wrong,”but that discussion from a minority point of view is suppressed. Blogs are not generally reliable source, but these could be a basis for discussion, and reliable source is not needed to discuss. “Emil Kirkegaard” would be a likely sock of DaveSmythe5, who was blocked at 21:22, 17 October 2017. It is unlikely, then, that either of these were Mikemikev. I suspect them both of being socks of Oliver D. Smith. There are tools that I will be bringing to bear that may provide further evidence on this. If it is true that Mikemikev was known to have edited from the Brikbeck library, Oliver Smith may have edited from there himself, in order to create responses. I have seen no commentary from mikemikev specific to this. No checkuser was reported, which I find unfortunate in these cases, but that failing is common. When I arranged for it to be run by stewards, socks blocked and tagged as a blocked user were found to be actually from an enemy, yet this information never made its way back to Wikipedia. Vekimekim was also added to the report. Mikemikev spelled backwards.The single edit was in-your-face, following an accusation of editing by mikemikev. I have seen this behavior from Oliver Smith or his brother many times, I have documented it extensively on other pages. The interest area, though, would be Oliver Smith.

18_October_2017 tagged Rupert the Great and KirkegaardEmil. These blatant socks are demonstrating an AP pattern, and Anglo Pyramidologist would be a stronger suspicion than mikemikev. It appears that checkuser was not run. Wikipedians have not figured out that it can matter who the master is, all they care about is block/not block, and a block evader should be blocked and an impersonation sock should be blocked. However, if they were to run checkuser, they might come up with sleepers and good hand accounts. In fact, I’ve seen one do that and then shut up, from not wanting to block a good hand, particularly if it is an administrator. I have also seen administrators create disruptive socks and get caught. Massively embarrassing. Many administrators are very young and it’s fun, to create a sock and then block it.

15_December_2017 leading to the block of This is diagnostic. Oliver D. Smith has been impersonation socking. I’m not checking now, but he has been a student at London University. [This was an imperfect memory, and this report was not a demonstration of impersonation socking, but rather was an identification error. Not all “race realists” — as they call themselves — are Mikemikev!]

[about the reports in general] Impersonation socks commonly provide red flags, since their purpose is to get blocked and discredit any arguments or evidence they present. This behavior became very obvious on RationalWiki a few months later, where I was impersonated with many, many socks, that copied text from me and used it to vandalize, and then the sock master listed all these socks as mine in the talk page for the article he had created on me. It worked. The RW community is convinced that I’ve been massively vandalizing that project., when none of my editing was remotely vandalism.

24_December_2017 A10000000000975 was reported by Sro23. The first edit of the suspect was not skillful, but reasonable, pointing to a neutrality problem. The text is not a fully clear representation of what was in the source. “Claimed” can indeed be a scare word, but the replacement text was clumsy. That this was simply reverted without discussion by Sro23 raises some level of suspicion that Sro23 (who clerks SPI cases) is factional. The suspect went on to what might be a common point of view (up to a few percent of the population). The opinions expressed of Wikipedia bias are also common. This was considered not mikemikev. I agree. The user was blocked for 72 hours (which was well within reason), then reblocked indef (which was, my view, offensive, but not necessarily wrong. This was probably a returning user, but I can see the older caution has been abandoned. Long-term, administrators become impatient and over-reactive). Blocking talk page access when it has not been abused is a bridge too far.

12_February_2018 RespectWamen I see no remote indication this was mikemikev, that this was a suspected mikemikev sock is crazy. Once upon a time, in a wiki far awy, the checkusers would not check on unsupported or weak suspicion. I can see that changed. This was tagged as a sock of another user. 

Conclusions. I have not reviewed the early SPI reports. I consider it plausible that mikemikev did sock for a time or on occasion, even substantially is possible. It is very common for users to do that, and especially users who believe they have been targeted for their opinions. However, recent socking was not actually confirmed as being mikemikev. No careful investigations are done on Wikipedia, so an incorrect identification at some point in the long history could have led to many false taggings. The level of alleged sock editing was low and transient.

It is very obvious that some users began reporting suspected Mikemikev socks based on point of view, rather than more specific behavioral cues. So the reality is that there are new users with racialist or racist points of view, some of whom are contemptuous of the politics of Wikipedia. Nobody should be surprised by this!

There are more serious problems, in my view, particularly socking and biased editing from more popular points of view, violating neutrality policy, because these, if allowed and tolerated, increase conflict and inhibit the formation of the only reliable standard for neutrality, maximized consensus. While some minority point of view editors will not be able to participate in civil discussion, seeking consensus (on sources and what is in them, not on conclusions, necessarily!) some will, and when the majority becomes “intolerant of [alleged] intolerance,” for example, the possibility of deep and reliable articles is damaged. There are academics with “rejected” points of view, and generally academics have training and experience in civil discussion.








If you are reading this on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL for completion, updates, comments and corrections.

A post appeared on Hatewatch, a discussion forum for the Southern Poverty Law Center, –an organization which I generally support, — Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets.

The post was decent, but seemed to assume that far-right sock puppets were a serious problem on Wikipedia, and it cited RationalWiki, which was unfortunate, since RationalWiki routinely defames with misrepresentations and sometimes downright lies, and has no reliable content review process (nor does Wikipedia, but Wikipedia hews far closer to neutrality than RW, which is explicitly and openly biased, site policy is SPOV, Snarky Point of View).

A “Bill Connors” appeared promoting RationalWiki. No surprise, because this person is very likely the creator of articles being cited. (There is an alternate possibility of his twin brother, both defacto banned since 2011 on Wikipedia, the particular topic here is of Oliver D. Smith interest, but there can be some crossover.)

Characteristic of “Anglo Pyramidologist socks” (either one of the brothers) is an account that appears out of nowhere, with very high interest, highly partisan and inflammatory, and recognizable arguments (that have been repeated in many places, often irrelevant to topic, but purely or largely ad-hominem. This commentor showed all these traits. His Discus account.

For comparison, my Discus account.

I responded to a number of the Bill Connors comments on the blog. However, this is distracting from the purpose of the page, so I am creating this as a followup, to avoid adding more noise to that blog. These are comments from Connors (or possibly others) which I am choosing to answer here instead of there. And then I comment in indented italics.

Note Abd Lomax is an internet harasser who has defended Rightpedia and alt-right individuals…

This is classic AP. I have not “defended Rightpedia,” which is a disgusting pile of far-right trash — as far as I’ve seen. The RationalWiki article on me was written as a retaliation because of my exposure of AP impersonation socking on Wikipedia, and contains many libels based on taking fact (I mentioned Rightpedia) and distorting it (I stated that a particular article on Rightpedia — on one of the AP brothers, Oliver D. Smith, very likely “Bill Connors” — appeared to be correct in its factual claims. This is hardly “defending Rightpedia.”

Some — by no means all — of the individuals attacked by AP socks are or are claimed to be “alt-right.” If I expose the deceptions and impersonations and misrepresentations of sources presented by AP socks (often on RationalWiki), this is not “defending” those individuals, it is defending the truth and the common welfare.

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax has also defended neo-Nazi Emil O. W. Kirkegaard.…

“Lomax claims to be a free speech advocate and protector of civil liberties. He has written a series of blog posts defending the far-right child-rape apologist Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and other alt-right activists”

Yes. I was, as an undergraduate at Cal Tech, well over fifty years ago, an officer in the campus chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. I am a strong supporter of free speech, but not libel under the mask of anonymity. People may make anonymous statements, but it is essential that these not be given the same weight as statements made by people willing to stand up and be counted, with real reputations at stake.

What we see in the “Bill Connors” comments is an anonymous hater attacking real people with real names and real reputations. Recently, Oliver D. Smith came out of the closet and acknowledged he had created RationalWiki articles (including those on Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst.) I congratulated him on that, on being open, but then he more or less disappeared and has been active with new names.

“Child-rape apologist” is a favorite claim of ODS about Kirkegaard. It is a drastic misrepresentation of something Kirkegaard wrote many years ago. This is a great example of how to abuse sources, picking a phrase out of a paragraph that is actually contradicted by the rest of the source. Sloppy news media, in January, quoted this conclusion as if fact. Smith knows that the claim will elicit immediate reactions of horror, and those reactions can disable the critical thinking that RationalWiki purports to promote.

Kirkegaard denies being “far-right,” and I have seen nothing that indicates he is. However, he is a researcher with a hereditarian focus on “intelligence” in an environment where the popular and more mainstream view is more environmentalist. Both positions, taken as extremes, are unrealistic. Racists and the alt-right might like some of Kirkegaard’s research because it can seem to confirm “racialism,” which then shades into “racist” when emotional content is added, but that does not make him a racist. All of this actually confuses the scientific issues. My own view of Kirkegaard’s research is that it is not well-founded, but such research is properly assessed through normal academic process, not through political polemic.… for information about the banned wikipedia troll Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax.

This was irrelevant in context, simply spamming the RW article on me.

Lomax you are a bad liar. Mikemikev confirmed the socks belong to him on his racist Gab account. Mikemikev has written offensive hit-piece articles about anti-fascists on Rightpedia and you have defended the neo-nazi Emil Kirkegaard.

I love stuff where we can actually look at evidence, and that’s most of what I do with my time, compile evidence. What lie?

Here, Bill Connors had written:

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

I responded:


[…] Mikemikev did not “confirm the socks belong to him.”

So what does the source show?

Michael Coombs @Mikemikev

a class=”inner-post-url” title=”” href=”” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>……
Their source

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.)

The article had this text on mikemikev socks:

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

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

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

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

Overall conclusion: Bill Connors lied about the alleged “confirmation of socks in the article as belonging to him.” He certainly did not confirm this. Oliver Smith commonly uses accidents of language, the multiple interpretations possible for words, to make definitive claims when deeper examination shows this was not the intended meaning. And then he claimed I was lying, on top of that.

There is one person with an obsession about mikemikev and me and others, who behaves this way: Oliver D. Smith, with some minor possibility this is his brother Darryl L. Smith. He will claim that all this is a “defense of Michael Coombs,” but it is not. It is a defense of truthfulness and accuracy and rationality.


Note Abd Lomax is an internet harasser who has defended Rightpedia and alt-right individuals

Pure ad hominem argument, citing the article he or his brother wrote on me on RationalWiki, in a highly misleading way. This was in response to a comment about the alleged Wikipedia socking of Eleonora Dubcziki. That was not her, it was, high probability, Oliver D. Smith. I did not “defend Rightpedia,” and merely examined claims about certain alleged alt-right individuals. My position is that attacking allegedly reprehensible persons with deception and misinformation is itself reprehensible and sometimes even more so that the original “offenses.”


Abd Lomax… has been globally banned from the Wikimedia Foundation for harassment


Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax is on the global ban list… he was globally banned for doxing and harassing users. He is the 27th person to be globally banned by the WMF.

 Again, pure ad hominem argument, and highly misleading. Yes, I was “office banned” in February of this year. The reason, however, is obscure. There was no warning, no request to cease and desist anything, and no explanation. Star chamber process, and with unclear purpose. What did it prevent? I had filed a series of successful requests for checkuser on the meta wiki. And then something strangely shifted. Something was going on behind the scenes.

However, what is very likely from context is that there were a number of private complaints, claiming harassment. There was no harassment — unless documenting sock puppetry is harassment, which it is not, when the reports are reasonable, even if wrong, and, most importantly, no use of WMF facilities to harass. Because this is being used to defame me — as here –, I am working on a legal appeal process, but it doesn’t matter otherwise, since I wasn’t using the WMF for anything other than to protect users and resources from disruption by … “Anglo Pyramidologist,” who has never been formally banned, but many socks have been globally locked for Long Term Abuse, and I was documenting that and was attacked for it. Anglo Pyramidologist, the evidence is overwhelming, is Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith. That’s “doxxing” to them and to RationalWiki, though they do it routinely on RationalWiki and elsewhere.

Notice that abundant claims about me, a person who uses a real name, with a real reputation, are being made by “Bill Connors” here. So if doxxing is bad, he’s been doing it for years with many people. (I only stumbled across some impersonation socks a few months ago. And when I simply began collecting the evidence, I was attacked. Which gave me a clue that I was onto something. )… “Lomax claims to be a free speech advocate and protector of civil liberties. He has written a series of blog posts defending the far-right child-rape apologist Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and other alt-right activists”.

Once again, Connors is citing himself. The article is heavily misleading. Let’s look at one claim here: “the far-right child rape apologist Emil O. W. Kirkegaard.

Kirkegaard is an academic, or at least his approach is academic. I think he would agree that he is a racialist and, on the matter of intelligence, a hereditarian. That does not make him “far-right,” though it might endear him to some who are far right. “Far” would, here, be hyperbole. You want to see something that looks far-right, look at Rightpedia, which Connors claims that I defend. Absolutely, I don’t, but I’m not going over every detail. A liar can toss mud with a few words that then take many words to answer, unless one just wants to say: “Liar!” And what do we think of people who cry “Liar” without providing evidence? Or, say, “fake news!” And who says that phrase over and over?

Is there evidence that Kirkegaard is a “child rape apologist”? That’s highly defamatory, designed that way, in fact.

Yes. There is evidence for the claim, if you take a comment Kirkegaard made in 2011, out of context, ignoring the rest of the page. I like verifiable evidence, but the problem is that some people — and apparently some newspaper reporters — don’t read carefully. They see a claim on RationalWiki that Kirkegaard is a “child rape apologist,” and there is a link. They follow the link, and, yes he wrote what was quoted. They don’t bother to read the rest of it! And so Oliver Smith got his defamation repeated in mainstream media and then he cited the media as proof it was true. This is the Kirkegaard comment, from 2012.

If anyone can read the whole comment and still think that Kirkegaard is a “child-rape apologist,” well, congratulations on the ability to maintain an opinion in the face of clear contrary evidence.

There is a little more. That was in 2012. Here is what Oliver D. Smith was writing in 2012, as Atlantid

He has acknowledged being Atlantid. Blatantly racist. Is this unfair? It could be. He changed his mind, see this farewell to Metapedia (which was definitely right-wing). (He did apparently lie, later, just below, about his connection to RationalWiki, but I haven’t checked the exact dates, and there is some disruption that has been attributed to Oliver Smith that was actually — more likely — Darryl.

The point is that to characterize someone prominently based on an obscure comment they made many years ago is … not fair! In 2012, Darryl was 22, and he has acknowledged a diagnosis of schizophrenia. From my direct email contact with him, he is still unstable, his sanity seems to come and go, fairly rapidly. There is correspondence with him reproduced here, and what starts out as reasonably calm and sane, as in the first part of that farewell, becomes highly reactive and blaming. “Lies!!!” Notice the mention of mikemikev, a long-term obsession of his.… Liar. You are not a sysop on Rationalwiki you have been trying to vandalize Rationalwiki for years because they exposed your internet harassment and racism.

This is easy. To convince communities and administrators, the Smiths rely on most people not checking sources or investigating independently. RationalWik allows any sysop to remove the sysop privilege, and it gives the privilege relatively easily. My RationalWiki user rights log

I did not claim to be a sysop. I claimed that I was a sysop. The log shows that the right was first given in February 2012. That went back and forth, as these things do when someone is not a hard-core RationalWikian, but a neutral skeptic — with some opinions or wanting to present unpopular evidence. David Gerard removed the right in August, 2012. Gerard was still only a tech, not yet a moderator, he was elected in 2013. There is a story there…. Two weeks later, the right was restored by Blue, who was a moderator. (Moderators have the power to prevent a user from being “demoted,” they call it, to sysop. The removal reason shows how RW used to operate. No “cooping,” i.e., discussion of the removal of rights. Later, Gerard had enough power to ignore that, and he removed the right, after a complaint by Anglo Pyramidologist socks, 9 October, 2017. So I had the rights for over five years.

However, my contributions and the history of my RW user page shows the situation. The page was vandalized in 2012 by Occasional use. I indicated an intention to avoid RW, This edit shows the summary.

The harassment that appeared in October was preceded by my first edit in years. That edit told what had preceded the creation of the article on me, which was created 5 October 2017 by an obvious AP sock, almost certainly Darryl L. Smith, with this, and other actions, carrying out threats to retaliate for documenting Wikipedia socking. This pattern of threats and libel and impersonation — which appeared in strength after I was blocked on RW — is a widely-known behavior of AP socks. Oliver D. Smith, who was, from interests, probably Oliver D. Smith, and the RW sysop who later blocked me (Skeptical), claimed in an email to me that most of the socks were his twin brother, Darryl. Sometime around this point, I suspect that Oliver became involved in the attack on me on Wikipedia (where I had not edited since 2011) and Wikiversity (where I had been mostly inactive for two years, but returned to deal with impersonation socks and attacks on Wikiversity and a Wikiversity user).

Those RW attack socks have names characteristic of socks created by AP, probably Darryl, but there is crossover with the brothers. Oliver admitted creating two articles that were started with an impersonation name, and there is circumstantial evidence that Oliver created the lulu book impersonations.

(It is possible it was his brother. There are no other reasonable suspects. Bill Connors appears there, claiming to be an RW sysop. Yes. He is, through several accounts. The photoshopped image of with my face on an obese almost-naked man was definitely first published by Oliver D. Smith, that evidence is very strong. There is a worse image (the man  is completely naked) on a book pretending to be by Rome Viharo, but like all the impersonation books so far, the content is from RationalWiki. The image is of Tim Farlyy. Why him? Well, because Viharo suspects him of behind-the-scenes involvement with the AP socking. I am unconvinced.)

This is a common AP tactic: using impersonations, present the imagined arguments of his targets as parodies, extreme, and do this especially with something that might have some truth to it. It creates an apriori “paranoid conspiracy theory” impression. I’ve seen it work. On RationalWiki all the material relating to the AP socking has been deleted, some of it revision-deleted so that even sysops cannot see it. Yet anyone else socking in other places is documented in articles. It’s a fascinating public relations technique, that can work for a time.


Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax you have been globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its funny when you call other people socks. You have also defended the neo-Nazi Emil Kirkegaard. You have 0 respectability.

Again, repetitive and irrelevant. It would imply that I am massively socking, which I have not done. This is coming from a person who has about 200 tagged socks on Wikipedia, and who has claimed to have more active accounts. He definitely has active accounts on RationalWiki, see rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/list-of-articles/

(With the retirement of ODS, the current Oliver account appears to be MrsBlintz, and Debunking spiritualism has returned to strenuous activity.)

As to Kirkegaard, I have defended the truth. A judgment of Kirkegaard as “neo-nazi” is not apparent from what I’ve seen. However, he’s been accused of being a “child rape apologist,” which claim is radically unsupported by the evidence, which has been cherry-picked and presented out of context, and the actual context would lead to very different conclusions. Technically, yes, this is defending him from false claims. Is that reprehensible? Apparently, Bill Connors would have it be so. Who cares about the truth? Lynch the lying rapists!!!… “Lomax takes issue with the Southern Poverty Law Center which he claims is “highly political”. He criticizes their report on Richard Lynn, claiming “this hit piece is simply hitting on stereotypes about racism and sexism, knee-jerk expectations”. On his blog, Lomax links to the neo-Nazi encyclopedia Rightpedia as a “valid” source of information”.

This is a clear example of the divisive AP tactics. The RatWiki article sources the claim about the SPLC to a page where I studied the claim of Oliver D. Smith in a short-lived blog about Kirkegaard that information was “well-sourced.” In fact, the media cited got their leads from RationalWiki or Oliver Smith himself, and apparently did not carefully check. So I looked at the sources claimed by Oliver, hence that page.

These pages are generally study notes, finding sources and summarizing or analyzing them, and this writing is not generally polemic, i.e., succinct, sound-bite, and is not designed to rabble-rouse. The issue I was looking at was attendees at the London Conference on Intelligence.. Richard Lynn was listed, and I wrote about him (with comments now inserted)

Richard Lynn (Wikipedia article). A link is given to a web site about Lynn: That is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is highly political.

This was a comment about Wikipedia reliable source. “Highly political” is not an attack on the SPLC, which is particularly valuable for its political work! SPLC would not be a reliable source for fact on Lynn, by Wikipedia policy, if policy were being followed. That is generally true for political sources, it is like blogs. I could look at how the source was used, but this was not “taking issue with the Southern Policy Law Center.” I might agree with their conclusions, in fact. I was, instead, examining the solidity of sources, faced with a claim that they were “well-founded.”

In 2016, Lynn spoke on “Sex differences in intelligence.” If Lynn is smart, he would be talking about how much smarter than men, women are. Seriously, I have two immediate reactions: comparing intelligence between woman and men is extremely difficult, what one can do is to compare measures only. and there are hosts of stereotypes to deal with. Men have trouble understanding cooking and taking care of babies, right? And especially men have trouble understanding women, famously.

Does Lynn give a decent speech, raising questions worth considering, or was this uninterrupted racist or sexist propaganda? To know, one would probably have to be there! This hit piece is simply hitting on stereotypes about racism and sexism, knee-jerk expectations. The Wikipedia article provides much more balance. I’d be amazed at a Conference on Intelligence that did not include Lynn. Yes, his views might be highly controversial, and he might take positions on social issues that I might find offensive, but the man does have academic qualifications.

This does not defend views. It is about objectivity, neutrality, and the SPLC article isn’t neutral, it leads with conclusions. I read what Lynn allegedly wrote there, and I don’t have time to research it in detail. The SPLC page has an apparent political purpose: to discredit Lynn, it is not simply to inform about his views.

I’m starting to smell academic censorship, rejection of research because it offends political correctness (which is more or less what Kirkegaard has been claiming). The existence of that kind of bias does not mean that the research is sound, but a free academy will not be reasoning from consequences. Data is data. Interpretation of data is distinct from that, and interpretation is often quite biased. According to the Wikipedia article on Lynn, he sits on the board of the journal Intelligence, published by Elsevier. He is also 87 years old. Someone is surprised that he attends and speaks at a conference on intelligence?

This was much more abou the general academic milieu than about the SPLC article, which would simply be reflecting it, from their own political perspective.

The purpose here was to examine how a collection of selected facts were used to create an impression in media of a blatantly and offensively racist conference. The problem, from my point of view, is that racialism and racism are not the same, and, if we are careful about language, statements that might appear racist, knee-jerk, may simply be factual. These kinds of semantic difficulties foment and foster division among people, and if the goal is to “hate nothing but hatred,” if hatred is the true enemy, polemic that fails to allow diversity of thought fosters and creates hatred.

On RationalWiki they claim I am vague about racism. I’ve been explicit: racism is, in my view, an extension of ancient and probably instinctive survival reaction. We evolved under tribal conditions, small groups, family groups, not large populations with high genetic diversity. The visible markers that people use to quickly discriminate “race” are signs that a person is probably different, from some different tribe, and under some conditions, that would be a danger signal, requiring rapid response for survival.

There are many examples where our instinctive survival responses (fight or flight, generally) have become dangerous in themselves. It is difficult to define “intelligence.” It is obvious, though, that there is a genetic component to intelligence, but core to intelligence is experience. Intelligence doesn’t exist in the human brain when it has no training or experience. It is obvious that genetic variations might lead to differences in brain performance under differing conditions, but I see no sign that these differences are major; rather, all the evidence I have seen is that it is the programming of the brain, the accumulated experience, which includes the learning of technique and analysis, is environmentally based. It is that programming that is crucial, the hardware, so to speak, is less fundamental. However, no hardware, no intelligence.

“IQ” is not the same thing as “intelligence.” IQ is a test result, on a standardized test. I have no doubt that the tests will include cultural bias, or, more subtly, may include “triggers” that can statistically alter group performance.

Further, even if there were substantial genetic differences affecting intelligence, that does not automatically lead to what amount to racist political decisions. In fact, some people have disorders or diseases which impair performance. “Eugenics” has a very bad name because of mixing up the possibly laudable goals of eugenics with racist and inhumane policies. Remarkable, here, is what I found about the RW user behind the hatred of the racialists and hereditarians: blatant racism, expressed on Metapedia,  that would indicate what kinds of traits he would consider “good,” i.e., “improvements.” Definitely not kinky hair! He later renounced the racism, though I’m not sure he really understood the issues, but kept the high intolerance, the attempt to attack any views different from his, the intellectual fascism.

Racism is not going to be long-term addressed through hating racists. Absolutely, violent racists should be disempowered, but racialism (which I’ll define as the belief in race as a biological reality, more than simple population genetics) is very common. When we label people with these views as “deplorables,” we lose elections. To combat racism, our goal must be to educate (Not indoctrinate, i.e., forced education) and when we do that, people will transform themselves. At least most will.

I should mention: Black Lives Matter.

Of course, all lives matter! But that slogan arose in a context where black lives, too often, did not matter. It’s a medicine and certainly not a claim that “white lives” don’t matter, or that police lives don’t matter. An antidote to racism is caring about people. All people.

Continued comment

“Bill Connors,” an obvious fake account, continued to attack. Responding to my single comment, place in lieu of individual responses, since this mess is not likely the interest of the SPLC blog, he wrote two comments. My responses are in italics.


Abd-Ul-Rahman Lomax says in the above link his friend Emil Kirkegaard is not racist or far-right, that is laughable… for the real facts.

For starters, I did’t say that. I wrote that I had seen no evidence that Kirkegaard is these things, but that he is a racialist, and might have some views that are right-wing. “Far-right” is not generally a fact, it’s a complex judgment relative to an overall view. The RationalWiki article includes much which is not “real fact,” such as the claim that Kirkegaard is a “child rape apologist.” From the evidence, that’s preposterous. And this is irrelevant to the issues raised in the SPLC article.

Racialism is not racist, though some racialists might be racist. See also this HuffPost article, explicitly on this point. The confusion causes political damage to the cause of disempowering racism, a cause which I firmly support. The Wikipedia article on this is … weird, and shows evidence of POV pushing. Instead of a focus on racialism and the history of it, it is mostly an argument that racialism is wrong. I happen to agree with that, but … on a separate page, I explore the distinction between racialism and racism, and what is said in that Wikipedia article.

However, the postings of Bill Connors are an example of how hatred is neither right-wing nor left-wing, and my view is that the real enemy of humanity is hatred, which sometimes masks itself as anti-hate. Falling into hatred is an obvious hazard for anyone who is confronting hatred.

The end of racism will not come from hatred of racists, which perpetuates conflict. Even less will it be furthered by hating racialists, the fundamental concepts of which are very common. Yes, they are in error, but the error is not corrected by hating people with those beliefs, at all. The opposite, in fact.

RationalWiki is a joke wiki, started by mostly adolescent refugees from Conservapedia. It is founded in snark, and snark — dismissive and contemptuous comment — is policy there. (I was a sysop there until the AP affair, but I had given up on using it for anything serious.)  Citing it as if reliable source is proof of ignorance or extreme bias, full of hate. In the case of the author of the article, it would be ignorance, in the case of “Bill Connors,” who, from evidence, is the primary author of the articles cited, it’s effectively the lies of a hater.


“Inflammatory claims”? No all factual. You are globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for harassing users… and you spend your time defending racists like Emil Kirkegaard and Mikemikev.

Bill Connors is not a known person. On another site, he claimed to be a RationalWiki sysop, almost all of which are anonymous, but there is no sysop by that name. However, behaviorally, he may well be one.

Yes, I am globally banned, but Connors has invented the reason for it. Others think I was banned because I was a critic. Global bans never stated a reason, it is private (even if a user waives privacy, they don’t explain.) I did not harass users, but it is entirely possible that I was accused of this, and, if so, the WMF believed lies. That happens on occasion.

This claim of defending racists is just another deception from one who has been attacking Kirkegaard and Mikemikev — and many others not arguably racist — for many years. I defended a target of this person from the consequences of his impersonation on Wikipedia, and there is clear and abundant evidence of that, which will be cited on request. I exposed the abusive socking and was attacked, and threatened with deletion of all my work. And, remarkably, that happened! Extensive work that had stood without disruption for a decade was deleted. (Though I was able to recover all of it.) How did that happen? I became even more interested! How did an obvious long-term abuser, globally banned as such by stewards, manage to accomplish this?

The answer is that there is a much deeper problem than a pair of crazy brothers. The problem cuts to the core defects in Wikipedia and its vulnerability to manipulation by factions. These factions need not have majority support, and years ago, I concluded that a handful of users could strongly manipulate Wikipedia through off-wiki coordination to promote their point of view and attack what offends it.

I previously had seen evidence of such coordination, but … I had dismissed it. “Never ascribe to a conspiracy what could merely be ignorance.” I no longer dismiss it, because, particularly with the ban, and the evidence I found researching this matter, the evidence becomes overwhelming that collusion exists. To discover the full extent of it may take legal action, and the ban gives me a wedge into discovery.

Protected: Bongolian

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

impersonation books

These books, on, impersonate favorite-target authors and attack other favorite targets of the Smiths.

The first to be seen by me was Abd Ul Rahman Lomax Internet Troll, archived  19 Mar 2018 23:22:40 UTC. The promotional image was a photoshop of an obese man, almost naked, with my face pasted on. Content was the RationalWiki article on me. The author was an impersonation of a long-term target of Darryl L. Smith, but also occasionally attacked by Oliver D. Smith.

Tim Farley and Wikipedia War (first archived ) author impersonates Rome Viharo, with a photoshop of a naked obese man given the face of Tim Farley (well-known skeptic), suspected by Rome Viharo of involvement with paid editing on Wikipedia. (I have not seen anything more than weak circumstantial evidence of this, and Tim Farley is not a target for my investigations.) Content is the RationalWiki article on Rome Viharo. Obviously Rome Viharo would not write and post this. A fake reviewer shows up to blame the book on me, pretending to be “Bill Connors,” a RationalWiki syop [sic] .

Rome Viharo Pseudoscience Crank author impersonates Craig Weiler as author, with a photoshop of Rome Viharo into cartoon of Donald Trump. Content is RationalWiki article on Rome Viharo. (Craig Weiler is a long-time target of Darryl L. Smith.) Same fake sysop showed up.

On RationalWiki yesterday, a troll appeared, Stop this now. The edits:

A page was also created by this user, Http:// (Bongolian deleted)

The sock master has been focusing on Readymade, GrammarCommie, Cosmikdebris, and RoninMachbeth, see impersonations commenting on the Supporters and Enablers page and Comments (where most comments were moved). He is harassing those users in the apparent belief that they will then think it is me. And trying to harass me because he may think I will be angry with them. He’d have to be really stupid or insane. Probably the latter, there is plenty of evidence for this.

Stop this now accused Readymade, GrammarCommieCosmikdebris, and RoninMacbeth of creating the books, which is contradictory and preposterous to boot. On the Saloon bar, Stop this now pointed to the Craig Weiler impersonation and that “Rome Viharo and abd are being targeted by Rationalwiki users.”

That is the Darryl Smith talking point, the standard straw man argument. A number of RationalWiki users have been, at times, complicit (“Supporters and Enablers“) but only two users are suspected of “targeting” people, and that would be Oliver D. Smith (most recent identified sock, ODS) and his twin brother (this is openly confirmed by Oliver), Darryl L. Smith, current account: Debunking spiritualism. While there is still Oliver Smith involvement (the photoshopping of me in the first book was taken from a comment he posted on, archived within a minute and posted by ODS on RatWiki within a couple of minutes), the massive, over-the-top socking, including impersonation socking, has been a long-term Darryl Smith device.

This has become completely and totally obvious. I do reserve as an alternate hypothesis that someone else is attempting to defame the Smiths and RationalWiki here. There have been sock allegations here that it was mikemikev. However, those same allegations were made before, by a checkusered sock that was certainly Darryl. Implausible.

If some RationalWiki users want to keep their heads in the sand, I’d suggest shutting up about this. They’ll get sand in your mouth.

Pseudoskeptics are classically lazy. They want to make snarky conclusions about anomalies, unusual phenomena, without actually doing the work. In this case, I have heavily documented what eventually led me to my conclusions about Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith. It’s verifiable, and if any part of it is not, I’m available for questions. Many genuine skeptics have complained about the infection of the skeptical movement by “debunkers,” who are more interested in ad hominem arguments than science.

I never before encountered aggressive and abusive socking like this. But then again, I didn’t know about Dennis Markuze which was linked by a sock impersonating him here. (Totally preposterous, like all these impersonations. But preposterous socking worked on Wikipedia to get the targets attacked.) There is a page by Tim Farley that tells the story of how he was busted. Lots of complaints finally got the police to act. The Smith brothers have been depending on police inaction.

That page by Farley was fascinating. He did what I’m now doing, documented the activity … and then filed complaints and worked with others filing complaints. The only difference: Markuze was a religious fanatic, and the Smiths became fanatic “skeptics” and “anti-fascists.” The behavior is essentially hatred, acted out.

Finding more books:

Eleonóra Dubiczki Rightpedia author impersonates Junius Thaddeus, harassment target of Oliver D. Smith. First archived 17 Mar 2018 19:17:24 UTC

Mikemikev Rightpedia Neo Nazi author impersonates Junius Thaddeus, harassment target of Oliver D. Smith. First archived 

I may write an actual book on this affair…. Why not?

Meanwhile, there is a list of favorite targets. Taking a look:


Protected: Comments

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Christopher

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: IP study

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Readymade

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: ODS

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Complaints

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: