Draft RW AP sock study

Red x.svg An editor believes that this user page should be deleted. The reason given is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‘s personal vendetta against a Wikipedia user. Not relevant to Rationalwiki. Off-mission.”
Please discuss this assassination attempt on this article’s entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Because a mangled version of the name (a common AP trait) — and many false accusations about what I have found — has been posted, I am creating this study on RationalWiki. A foundation of this study is found on meta, you can see my contributions there, I’m [1] there. That study, however, is only of WMF socks, beginning with those found in w:Suspected sock puppets/Anglo Pyramidologist/, and adding in new socks identified on Wikiversity and meta, checkusered as “Michael skater” socks (many reports), that being the earliest then-identified account, and found (by me) to be connected with AP socks by private evidence, as well as obvious behavioral traits and claims of the socks, there are more than 200 of them, since 2011 (with one account going back to about 2008, as I recall (but not named as the puppet master).

Since the most recent sock creation here, at this writing, admitted to being a returning user familiar with my account here, and another, clearly having done an obsessive level of research into my internet history (which is extensive, going back into the 1980s, pre-web), and claimed to have 700 socks here (a “joke,” later claimed), I’ve decided to study the RW activity. This page will list suspected AP socks on RationalWiki. Because the identifying behavior could also happen independently, there is no claim here that all listed are AP socks, but most will likely be, from 100% success at identifying them on the meta wiki.

Whether or not RationalWiki wants to do anything about this is not up to me. I am an observer and watcher, reporting what I see and, then, after I have seen much, perhaps some analysis.

One of the characteristics of these socks is impersonation of others, so it is always possible, as well, that some enemy creates an impersonation sock for them. The AP “family” may also literally be a family, early edits claimed that the disruptive sock master was “my brother,” being identified with him by coincident IP. Thus when AP/X claims not to be AP/Y, it might be true. So one of the current aspects of my study on meta has been looking for other behavioral traits, to be able to classify these accounts as one brother or another, and there is also a claim of a sister being blocked as well, for the same reason. There is one clear candidate for that; but the problem is that the interest area of this account was identical to that of another brother, she was merely better behaved. As pointed out on Wikipedia, in the SPI case, this could also be a “good hand” account. Still in violation of policy. Block in spite of apparent positive contributions. A Wikipedia problem, Wikipedia became inflexible and hyper-reactive, it was not always like that.

Many of the account names found in WMF history also show up on RationalWiki. Because of impersonation (or, more rarely, coincidence), no “proof” is claimed that these are the same user (or user family), but it’s an obvious working hypothesis.

To be added to this list: reg date, first edit, total visible contributions as of listing, last edit as of listing, and other qualities.

At this point, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are major AP targets that I have not looked at yet, this is just from a few pages and recent activity.

List of accounts

  1. Abd (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) Not an SPA, but focus on Abd, recently.
  2. Boredatwork (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA. interest in Abd, betrays long-term RW.
  3. Asgardian (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, interest in Abd. Waves sign, “Sock.” See also AP interest
  4. Marky (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, interest in Abd.
  5. EmilOWK (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) not AP, but AP interest area, probably the real Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, could be verified if needed. Probably harmless sock of User:E. O. W. Kirkegaard
Disclosure: I do not know and had zero familiarity with Emil O. W. Kirkegaard.
  1. EmilOWK2 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) impersonation of EmilOWK[2]
  2. BenSteigmans (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA for AP interests, started the Kirkegaard article. Many AP socks impersonate Ben Steigmann.
  3. Igobymanynames (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) long-term but still SPA, AP interests, name is a sock admission
  4. OldSword (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, AP interests, “Sword” is common among AP socks.
  5. Welliver (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) still SPA, many AP interests.
  6. Waller Joel from Florida (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA interest in Abd
  7. Waller MU Joel Abd (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, “Abd” in username an AP trait, trolling for approval of spiritualism
  8. (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) long term, AP interests, persistent ISP matches prior WP SPI for AP
  9. Michael_Coombs_heyguy (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, probable impersonation sock, attempts to impugn EmilOWK
  10. Wing Street (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)
  11. Skeptical (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, AP interests, but just got sysop rights. This requires some serious caution.
  • See [3] where Skeptical blocks a gaggle of socks and deletes harassment article contributions by likely AP socks — or impersonators.
  • On the other hand, AP, to create the appearance of being someone else, has been known to “oppose” himself. He has nothing invested in those socks and pages, knows from the start that they will probably be blocked and pages deleted.
  • I still want to list Skeptical here. This is not a list of proven socks, merely possible suspects. This would be done on Wikipedia, though, hopefully, with more behavioral study; this is not a request, just a study and before it becomes any request (which may or may not happen here), it would be cleaned up. The same is true of the studies on meta that also triggered a firestorm of burning socks, and the same on Wikiversity, when ever anyone openly starts to look at AP behavior, he unleashes an army of toy soldiers. His hope, I suspect, is that administrators will then blame me for “provoking” him.
  • Meanwhile, assuming that Skeptical is not AP, my condolences. AP has been creating conflict between “believers” (or claimed believers) and “skeptics” for a long time. He has claimed or implied affiliation with Guerilla Skeptics and well-known skeptical figures. He is a false friend of skepticism, giving it a very bad name in some circles.
  1. Heyguy 2 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) SPA, probable trolling for attack on EmilOWK
  2. Kirkegaard (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) ditto
  3. Antifa_Ireland (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) Recent socks elsewhere used “Antifa”
  4. Heyguy 3 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) again
  5. Heyguy 4 (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) and over and over
  6. Maybe”Chuck” (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) or maybe not
  7. Muslim (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)
  8. Abd is my hero (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename)

and now a huge pile, created possibly in response to the first version of this page — which did not name anyone except “Anglo Pyramidologist” — simply the Wikipedia name for the sock family — and me. The extreme reaction to something that, in itself, is harmless, (but that is defying AP threats) is an AP trait.

When I was blocked on RationalWiki and this page was deleted — by Skeptical — I created the version here, which has been greatly expanded. The original page had no “doxxing,” i.e., revelation of a real name for an account or other personal information, only suspected socks (which are quite obvious, most of them, when one knows what to look for. It is not, as AP has often claimed, merely being “skeptical.” )

Anglo Pyramidologist

This was the original page here: List of articles edited on RationalWiki.

When this study began, I was aware of claims that behind the Anglo Pyramidologist socks was Oliver D. Smith, and some sources included his twin brother Darryl Smith. I did not mention those claims because I had not verified them. Eventually, I found enough evidence to assert it. It is not necessary to have absolute proof to assert a claim. One of the factors that weight in favor of asserting it was that there was no contrary evidence. That is, there was no sign of the real Oliver D. Smith appearing and denying the claims. As well, some of the people making the claim were reasonably reliable. (Some were not.)

I had identified the real Oliver D. Smith through his interest in Atlantis. He had published a peer-reviewed paper on that topic and all this was detailed on . He had a public email address, he responded to what I wrote, and I quoted and covered that response on Emails.

In those emails, he said he was writing a blog post to answer the claims of Emil Kirkegaard, and that post did appear. As was easily anticipated, the post was taken down, but was archived: http://archive.is/afNnI

These sources are from Oliver, not from some impersonator. (I have always allowed the possibility that some posts that appeared to be Anglo Pyramidologist were actually impersonators. And AP socks commonly impersonate, as well).

However, Oliver has a twin brother, this is reasonably verified. Otherwise it would be possible that the brother story, which was revealed on Wikipedia by an IP sock in 2011, was itself just one more lie. Most commentary on Oliver D. Smith says little about the brother, but it would appear that the strong interest in “pseudoscience” and parapsychology and the paranormal, was the brother. I find it reasonably likely that the Wikipedia and Wikiversity activity that originally triggered my investigation was by Darryl. However, there is much cross-over. Oliver claimed that “99.9%” of the identified socks were his brother, but that was obviously an exaggeration — because I have not identified a thousand socks. Not yet, anyway!

Recently, a new AP sock has been repeating the claims that the “RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is a paranoid fantasy. Nobody on RationalWiki seems to be checking these claims. In general RationalWiki users have supported AP socks — though sometimes they revert and block. It still remains the case that Oliver D. Smith has been salted on RationalWiki — without any article having been attempted. He is being protected. Protection also showed up on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta.wikimedia.org.

(To notice the protection, not logged in, try to create an article with a nonsense name on RationalWiki. I just did this, and I get an option: Create the page “[nonsense name]” on this wiki! Trying that with Oliver D. Smith, no name. This is why:

JorisEnter protected “Oliver D. Smith” 3 November 2016

Following up on this, looking at JorisEnter’s talk page to see a request (I didn’t find one), I do find:

a comment by one HamiticResistance. This would be a Smith brother, very likely Oliver. That comment was waving a big red flag, “Oliver Smith.” It links to a blog devoted to Mikemikev, with the name “Oliver D. Smith.” The blog is pure AP attack and misrepresentation (including “pedophile,” about which it is internally contradictory.”) Looking up the user mentioned, Thorwald C. Franke, I find many likely Smith socks. The article on Franke, deleted by discussion (Smith had over-reached with that article), was archived. It is an obvious AP obsession.

HamiticResistance contributions were quacking like an AP duck, of the Oliver type. The talk page for Thorwald C. Franke has a conversation with Oliver (as user Gorgonite). Naturally, Franke is blocked, blamed on Mikemikev. Franke thus joins a substantial list of people who knew that AP socks — attacking him — were Oliver and who were blocked for mentioning it. Notice: not warned. Blocked.

In spite of all the cats being totally out of the bag, the most recent sock I’ve identified is EvilGremlin (a typical AP username). I would not ordinarily be notable for an article on the London Conference on Intelligence; however, Smith is attempting damage control:

Internet troll and conspiracy theorist Abd ul-Rahman Lomax published a blog post in February 2018 defending Emil Kirkegaard and the London Conference on Intelligence.[87] Lomax posts a bizarre claim that a single individual named Oliver Smith is responsible for all of the news sources and RationalWiki articles that document the UCL conferences:

The tragedy of this is that “mainstream media” repeated accusations from RationalWiki, which then cites those repetitions and highly biased analysis — not mentioning where the newspapers got the information, which is obvious. RationalWiki. So Oliver Smith created a media nightmare and then cites it as proof that the nightmare is true. Nice trick. Not.

However, there’s no proof newspapers relied or quoted from RationalWiki, nor that a single individual was responsible for all mainstream news sources hearing about the London Conference on Intelligence. Contrary to Lomax’s delusions, the sequence of events that led to newspapers and the media to discover the London Conference on Intelligence:

Smith tells stories that omit relevant facts, including what he has previously admitted or even bragged about, and says “there’s no proof,” even when there is overwhelming evidence. That’s a characteristic of believers (not skeptics) and liars.

His tactics include exaggerating or misrepresenting the claims of another, which then he can shoot down more easily. What I actually claimed was that the original stories in Private Eye and London Student were largely taken, in certain aspects, from the RationalWiki article on Emil Kirkegaard, and I have most specifically in mind the accusations that Kirkegaard is a “pedophile” — a common AP claim about enemies, for which there is zero evidence that I’ve seen — or a “child rape apologist,” which is based on a totally obscure blog post of Kirkegaard years ago, which was only as described if one neglected the context. And that is what an unskilled and immature reporter will do. Quick and shallow research, and for Private Eye, looking for scandal. The same language was used in the stories as on RationalWiki. I will cover details below.

And Oliver D. Smith acknowledged having written those articles, and a sock bragged about it. From his email to me:

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.

As I replied, he might be telling the truth about those trolling comments. It might be his brother — or even someone else. However, he ends up, in the sequence of emails, repeating the same claims. I found him unwilling to be specific about his claims. This is all circular. Why was Kirkegaard in headlines recently? Maybe his brother contacted the newspapers. Remember, AP is not one person, it is at least two. But he knows what his brother is doing, reasonably well. He ends up, in the emails, defending his brother’s totally outrageous actions. If they were the brother’s actions. Nothing any AP sock writes can be fully trusted. They lie. This is not ordinary disagreement, it is deliberate and willful deception, there are voluminous — and common and frequent — examples.

Most telling, and the basis for what I wrote, was this comment by a recent and very obvious AP sock, SkepticDave (contributions). First the comment header:

RationalWiki to thank for shutting down conference attended by racists and paedophiles

RationalWiki allows AP to make accusations of being a pedophile. More often, AP backs off from that some with “pedophile apologist” which is a label often applied by hysterics about anyone who points out the definition of pedophilia or asserts that pedophiles or suspected pedophiles might have civil rights. So here the text is:

Lots of stuff in both national and local papers today about Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst who RationalWiki first documented and exposed as far-right extremists and paedophile-apologists: [and then a list of sources] . . .

The person who wrote those RationalWiki articles sent a tip-off to some newspapers. The story now has national coverage. SkepticDave (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Emil Kirkegaard article and John Fuerst articles were started by Ben Steigmans (contributions) and are among the Favorite Topics that identify AP socks, see the RW article sock list for Kirkegaard and Fuerst. (And Ben Steigmann is a favorite target.)

Toby Young at the beginning of January 2018 made news headlines for sending sexist and other inappropriate tweets.[88][89] On 9 January 2018 he resigned his position on the Office for Students regulator for making the offensive comments and apologized.[90][91][92]

Immediately after resigning, journalists looked into Young’s Twitter history and discovered he had mentioned in December 2017 his attendance to the London Conference on Intelligence, that he was told to keep silent about: “[I was] asked not to share the information with anyone else…”[93]

On 10 January 2018, the magazine Private EyeWikipedia's W.svg published an article[94] that mentions: “What he [Young] kept to himself was why the conference he attended was so secretive” and names a few of the white supremacistseugenicists and sexists (including Richard Lynn) who were speakers at the UCL conferences.

After the publication of the Private Eye article, London Student the same day published a more detailed exposure of the far-right extremists and racists who had attended the conferences.[95]London Student informed UCL and the university responded they were investigating.[96]

On 11 January 2018, mainstream newspapers and other news sources reported the story; some of these credit Private Eye and London Student.[97][98][99][100][101]


Deletion log

deletion log, last 961 actions as of February 8, 2018

sections where my pages were being deleted:

145 deletions, January 14-15 probably using  a bot. User pages and two mainspace pages I had edited. Two deletions not related.

next 309 deletions almost all of his welcome bot log, use of the bot was probably a Bad Idea, fake welcomes. To study the effect of this would take undeleted files!. Wikis mostly abandoned the use of evidence and science in determining what to do. It’s all knee-jerk emotional reaction and ungrounded abstraction. (Those bot logs were doing no harm and deleting them actually increases the database in size, as well as filling up the log)

next 368 deletions from December 23, 2017 to January 14, 2018. Most pages were pages I had created.


In his attack blog (covered in the page supra), Oliver D. Smith wrote:

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard is a far-right/neo-Nazi child rape apologist who made news headlines in January 2018 about his paedophilia apologism and links to white supremacists and eugenicists:

And then he listed ten sources. What I notice is that none of the headlines mention Kirkegaard by name. They are all about someone or something else, and only two of the headlines mention him. These stories all appeared within two days. They obviously copy from each other. And where did the information come from about what an alleged Nazi allegedly argues? It came from this RationalWiki article written by … Oliver D. Smith. Smith has claimed that I have abused Google to attack critics. He is a hypocrite, accusing me (and others) of doing what he has done for years.

I wrote the above and the rest of this study before I noticed that Smith actually bragged about creating the media flap:

The person who wrote those RationalWiki articles sent a tip-off to some newspapers. The story now has national coverage.[[User:SkepticDave|SkepticDave]] ([[User talk:SkepticDave|talk]]) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(SkepticDave is an obvious AngloPyramidologist sock, i.e., Oliver Smith — or possibly his brother Darryl.)

Smith just demonstrated how lies on a site that appears to be encyclopedic can create, then, news stories in sloppy media, that then are used to strengthen the original claims (as all those stories then were cited on RationalWiki). I will here look at each story on the claim Smith makes, but first some background:


Kirkegaard would be, perhaps, a speaker on hereditarian views on intelligence or related research, the Wikipedia article has this:

Hereditarianism is the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality. Hereditarians believe in the power of genetics to explain human character traits and solve human social and political problems. Hereditarians adopt the view that an understanding of human evolution can extend the understanding of human nature.

The statement is unsourced, however, I’m going to assume that a hereditarian would agree with the definition. The article goes on:

Theories opposed to hereditarianism include behaviorismsocial determinism and environmental determinism.[citation needed] This disagreement and controversy is part of the nature versus nurture debate. But both are based on the assumption that genes and environment have large independent effects. The dominant view outside psychology among biologists and geneticists is that both of these are gross oversimplifications and that the behavioral/psychological phenotype for human beings is determined by a function of genes and environment which cannot be decomposed into a sum of functions of the two independently. And this especially because human behavior is uniquely plastic compared to that of other animals.

Hereditarianism has major political implications.

Pastore [1949] has claimed that hereditarians were more likely to be conservative,[4] that they view social and economic inequality as a natural result of variation in talent and character. Consequently, they explain class and race differences as the result of partly genetic group differences. Pastore contrasted this with the claim that behaviorists were more likely to be liberals or leftists, that they believe economic disadvantage and structural problems in the social order were to blame for group differences.[4]

The political implications become incendiary when the claim is made of a correlation between race and intelligence. The problem is amplified if “race” is assumed to be a biological reality, which might be one definition of “racialism,” which should be distinguished from “racism,” though obviously racism is racialist.

All this becomes a chaotic mess when implications which may be taken from scientific findings are judged based on the imagined — or real — political consequences. If some fact is shown by scientific research that would lead to a “wrong” policy decision, then the research must be wrong and is to be attacked. That is reasoning from consequences, a major logical error. As well, if research is supported by or funded by or liked by Bad People, with the Wrong Political Views, the research and the researcher are Bad. Guilt by association.

Kirkegaard on pedophiles

I cover this in a comment on an email from Oliver Smith, here. The short of it. Kirkegaard made some socially clumsy statements, but did not intent to legitimate child rape or child sexual abuse. Rather he “thought out loud” about how a moral pedophile might deal with the “problem” of being a pedophile, writing things that were just plain silly and useless. Many have done that, but it usually isn’t picked up and broadcast six years later, in what is a totally irrelevant context, like the UCL conference. A speaker at a conference, many years ago, said something dumb? This is relevant news? Only in the world of “fake news” (and counter-fake news, which is really the same) which seeks for the sensational and salacious, regardless of relevance. The UCL Conference organizers would not be responsible for knowing what Kirkegaard wrote many years before, only his recent activity. The tragedy of this is that “mainstream media” repeated accusations from RationalWiki, which then cites those repetitions and highly biased analysis — not mentioning where the newspapers got the information, which is obvious. RationalWiki. So Oliver Smith created a media nightmare and then cites it as proof that the nightmare is true. Nice trick. Not.

Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links

A eugenics conference held annually at University College London by an honorary professor, the London Conference on Intelligence, is dominated by a secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links, London Student can exclusively reveal.
First of all, was it a “eugenics conference,” and what is “eugenics?” Wikipedia: Eugenics. The concept has come to refer to attempts or study of techniques for “improving” human genetics, which could range from what was done in the past (such as selective sterilization of people deemed to be carrying “defective heritable characteristics”) to genetic engineering, including selective abortion. I.e., aborting a child because it is shown to be carrying some gene for a genetic disorder, would be a form of eugenics. Eugenics, as a field, has a bad name particularly because of concepts and applications in Nazi Germany, where the idea was heavily mixed with concepts of “racial purity.”
Racialism is hereditarian, with a concept of the reality of races as genetic in nature. It’s rather obvious that the characteristics used to identify people racially can have a genetic component.  Is this story factual? The official name of the Conference has been the London Conference on Intelligence. Not “Eugenics.”
The article states that the Conference has its own Youtube channel, but that is gone. No details were given. It is unclear what was the importance of mentioning this.
The co-op article is a massive exercise in guilt by association. If a “link” can be found, that shows “domination.” What we have is a list of persons who have participated in the Conference. I would expect, by the way, that racists would be attracted to hereditarianism, but that does not make hereditarianism racist. There is obviously a genetic component to intelligence; what is the difference, otherwise, between a mouse and a human in intelligence? The issue as to racialism would be the extent of genetic differences between the populations called “races” — which can be very poorly defined — and, for the Conference, how they relate to measures of intelligence, intelligence itself being, often, poorly defined. That mouse is pretty smart, when it comes to being a mouse!
So the “speakers and attendees” named, and then the “links” to “neo-Nazis”:
  • Professor James Thompson, who allegedly “doesn’t understand genetics.” Evidence. Another professor said so. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t!
  • “a self-taught geneticist who argues in favour of child rape,” Which would be Emil Kirkegaard, and what he wrote six years ago and did not promote or repeat, even if he did do what was stated, and … this has zero to do with “neo-Nazi” or hereditarianism, it’s simply mud to toss.
  • multiple white supremacists, not named. Out of how many? and a conference and its organizers is to be judge by those who are interested and attend? Invited speakers, yes, but sometimes anyone is allowed to present a paper, generally based on an abstract presented. A conference will not do deep research to rule out some “neo-Nazi link.” They may not look at presenter qualifications at all, it depends.
  • ex-board member of the Office for Students Toby Young.
  • Richard Lynn (Wikipedia article). A link is given to a web site about Lynn: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-lynn That is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is highly political. 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. 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. Intepretation 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?
  • four of the six members of the UISR’s Academic Advisory Council. The Ulster Institute for Social Research, on the face, is an academic institution. The members are titled “professors,” Edward Miller, Helmuth Nyborg, Donald Templer, Andrei Grigoriev, James Thompson, Gerhard Meisenberg. James Thompson, of course, was the Conference sponsor at UCL, so he’s been mentioned twice. I will list these separately:
  • Edward M. Miller, “is an American economist. He is a professor whose writings on race and intelligence have sparked debates on academic freedom. Indeed, and it is still happening. Academic freedom must include the right to be wrong. When ideas must be “correct” in order to be considered and discussed, we have a new orthodoxy that can and will crush real progress. Miller is my age, a born about four months after me.
  • Helmuth Nyborg is a Danish psychologist and author. He is former professor of developmental psychology at Aarhus UniversityDenmark and Olympic canoeist. His main research topic is the connection between hormones and intelligence. Among other things, he has worked on increasing the intelligence of girls with Turner’s syndrome by giving them estrogen. His research was censured for political reasons[1] by the administration of Aarhus University in 2007, forcing his retirement. He was later cleared by the governmental Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD).[1] From my point of view, with any particular measure  of intelligence, there may be differences between  populations (i.e., “races” or ethnic groups) and between genders. The implications for policies are quite unclear, because there are other issues, and individual difference may be (I’ll simply say are) far larger than the population differences. Nyborg is 81.
  • Donald Templer died in 2016. He was 68 years old and was also quite controversial. Racists will believe in racialism and hereditarianism, and will show interest in these topics, but that does not make them “racist.” As well, political views can become highly biased, but if a researcher does good science, the bias can be separated from it; it will show up in how data is interpreted. If a researcher actually falsifies data, they would be rejected by all scientists. It’s rare.
  • Andrei Gigoriev: co-authored with Richard Lynn A_study_of_the_intelligence_of_Kazakhs_Russians_and_Uzbeks_in_Kazakhstan, published in Intelligence (2014)

Reading the paper, the immediate question I looked to find is how “intelligence” was measured. I find the research itself interesting, but quite inadequately explored. The paper talks about “intelligence” and does actually consider measures of intelligence, and … this is a general problem with “intelligence”: The test was a test designed in Great Britain and was administered in Russian, so higher performance for Russians could simply be related to familiarity with that language. Could there be a racialist or cultural bias here? Yes, my opinion. However, part of a solution would be to repeat the study with a similar test in Uzbek. The paper also suggests another problem: cultural emphasis on certain kinds of thinking and de-emphasis on other kinds. That is, the definition of “intelligence” may incorporate cultural bias. And the paper then goes into what I would call “racist or racialist speculation.” I would fault the reviewers at Intelligence for not insisting on skeptical analysis (i.e., the authors could have suggested further research to clear up ambiguities, but they did not.) (I could rip this paper to shreds, my opinion, but … academic freedom can handle this, and should.

  • James Thompson was the organizer of the UCL conference. He appears to be a recognized academic, see this paper, published by Oxford University Press in the Journal of Biosocial Science. From his Twitter feed, some quotes (All from January 15):

 If you want to combat racism and sexism you need the benchmark of open discussion of racial and sexual differences.

An unpopular idea may be traduced, misrepresented and suppressed and yet be wrong.

We should examine the ideas we cherish with as much ferocity as those we find repellent.

(See Spearman’s hypothesis, which is highly relevant, and G-loading. To my mind, the difference between hereditarian positions and those which consider other factors more important (such as environment, including cultural environment, social expectations, etc.) is one of degree, not absolute. I have been diagnosed with ADHD, and it was not marginal. There are theories that ADHD (which does run in families) is a genetic variant that favors hunter-gatherer survival, whereas “normies” are adapted for settled communities, originally agricultural. Nomadic peoples (like the Kazakhs) would probably fit more on the hunter-gatherer side. All human cultures need intelligence, but the form of intelligence would vary. But how large is the genetic component? The racist aspect of this research shows up in assumptions about what is “better.” It is generally assumed that “higher intelligence” is good, but what is the definition of “good”? It can be highly biased, culturally. The Gigoriev study cites some  specific question differences. It seems the authors cannot see the trees for the forest. A question designed to test the operation of logic included words that would be cultural triggers for Kazakhs, causing them to respond from a cultural position rather than from pure logic. These kinds of differences were then interpreted as an “inability to reason logically.” But all people when triggered into well-established patterns of thought do not apply abstract logic. The test, as designed, apparently, would create a process bias. It is not that a Kazakh could not understand “All A is not B. Given an example of A, is it B?” Different people, on average, and culturally, might have strong reactions to A or B, thus shifting answers. It would only need to shift the answers from some to warp the results. The paper is confused about racialism vs. culturalism.)

The Wikipedia article on Mankind Quarterly covers critique (quite prominently, by the way, a sign of biased editing there.) Generally, controversy should be kept out of the lede, and placing four links to what is obviously political criticism in the lede is not balanced. The Journal itself is clearly a scientific journal, publishing articles in a field with high controversy. For the latest issue, I picked a paper to look at.

“The Relationship between the “Smart Fraction”, SES, and Education: The Sudan Case.” From the abstract, this is neither hereditarian nor racialist. There is a paper by Emil Kirkegaard, ‘Employment Rates for 11 Country of Origin Groups in Scandinavia.” This was the only paper that I noticed as possibly being “politically edgy.” However, such data is needed for public policy review. Without reading the paper itself, I could expect that Kirkegaard might have expressed an anti-immigration position. Whether or not this would discredit the actual research is another issue.

For Kirkegaard: the article has “Kirkegaard’s reputation as a scientific advocate for neo-Nazism was increased last April when he appeared on Tara McCarthy’s ‘Reality Calls’ to discuss “the future of eugenics.” … and then evidence is shown that Tara McCarthy is Very Bad. This is guilt by association. Kirkegaard’s actual views were not described (and Kirkegaard has denied being a “neo-Nazi.” HIs general views on hereditarianism and intelligence — and eugenics — would make him a person of interest to certain racists and white supremacists, but that does not make him one of them. Further, even if he has politically offensive views, that does not discredit his scientific work. The London Student article is attacking an entire field, the study of intelligence and in particular, the origin of differences in measures of intelligence. Hereditarians consider genetics important, but the more mainstream view (and my view) is now that, among human beings (with very similar genetic coding, and aside from specific genetic disorders), other factors are far more important, and that survival pressure optimized for “general intelligence” in all major populations. However, I will argue strongly for the right of hereditatians and racialists to perform and present research, academically. If offensive racist (not merely racialist) views are presented, or, related, pernicious sexist views, not merely a study of sexual differences), then an academic institution may decide to exclude such work. The hysterical London Student article does not consider the real issues, but has merely fleshed out — a little — what came from the RationalWiki article by Oliver D. Smith, who has acknowledged, through his sock SkepticDave, that he fomented the whole flap by email.

Then the article mentions another Conference speaker as having been interviewed by McCarthy: Adam Perkins. Here is a cogent critique of Perkin’s work. “Cogent” means thoughtful and, to some extent, balanced, not knee-jerk, not that I necessarily agree. (But I probably would if I studied the book, which I’m not doing). The political significance is considered, and it is politics that dominate here. Not science. The book title is sensationalist: The Welfare Trait: How State Benefits Affect Personality. I have no doubt that this would appeal to conservatives and, as well, to certain neo-Nazis.

I conclude that the London Student article was sensationalist, focused on easy allegations, not distinguishing between the academic study of intelligence and heredity (by no means a resolved scientific controversy) and “neo-Nazi.”

this was a straightforward news report, reporting an investigation, not conclusions.

This is on the face repeating Oliver D. Smith’s attacks and arguments. It’s pure guilt by association.

Kirkegaard is not a “Nazi.” The article is conclusory, making exaggerated claims, such as “The London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) is a secretive, invitation-only event where they appear to discuss only the most bigoted of topics.”

Topics are not bigoted, unless they are, by their nature, conclusory on bigotry. I.e., “Why are Blacks of such Low Intelligence” would be racist and conclusory (i.e., incorporated racist assumption).” So far, I haven’t seen topics like that. So this is a hit piece, and we know that Oliver D. Smith contacted media to promote these ideas. They fell for it. They quote Kirkegaard (not mentioning that it was years ago):

He has also advocated a “frank discussion of paedophilia related issues.”

Obviously a pedophile because any non-pedophile would not want any discussion of such issues, they are unthinkable to any normal person. See Harris Mirkin. (Seriously, I’m a parent and pedophile hysteria does not protect children, it probably has the opposite effect.)

Top London university launches probe into conference that included speakers with controversial views on race and gender

Yes, they did that. There is some level of incorporated conclusion in the headline. Certainly there are allegations of “controversial views.” But these topics are not generally well-understood. So, looking at details, first in the subheads:

University College London said it was probing a potential breach of policy

Yes, that’s clear. The exact nature of the breach is not clear, not to me, yet.

One professor said the London Conference on Intelligence was ‘pseudoscience’

What did this mean? The source was the London Student. This was a media feeding frenzy. I will later look for follow-up. “Intelligence” is a very hot topic, with strong views being common, and politically fraught.

Some speakers claim certain countries have higher IQs than others, it is alleged

This is shocking, perhaps, until one knows what “IQ” actually is. Intelligence Quotient is measured by performance on standardized tests. Given a set of tests, I don’t think it is controversial: differing populations may have differing average scores on such tests. As a silly point: Countries do not have IQ, people do. Or perhaps robots. Siri is pretty smart! Good, perhaps, the word “alleged” is put in there. But the claim is not controversial! Except that some people will come unglued if one says it.

Public policy formation should not be knee-jerk from shallow interpretations of data. The public policy implications of the measured differences in IQ are a quite different topic than the raw data. There are many issues to be example, which will not be examined while there is shouting about “Racism!” Though with countries, it would be Nationalism, right? Which may or may not be racist.

By Eleanor Harding Education Correspondent For The Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 20:41 EST, 10 January 2018 | UPDATED: 21:01 EST, 10 January 2018

The annual conference, which was first held in 2014, is alleged to have included speakers who have written about people in some countries having on average a higher IQ than those in others.

Again, that is not controversial, once we know what IQ is. It is performance on a standardized test. So, then, it becomes a matter of interest, scientifically (and with public policy implications). Why? Answers to that are not necessarily simple, and would, scientifically, require testing. Or it would be pseudoscience.

It was hosted by an honorary UCL senior lecturer, Professor James Thompson, who taught psychology for 32 years and for the last decade has worked as a consultant psychologist.

Yes. So, surprising that a conference on intelligence is hosted by a psychologist?

Another speaker at the LCI has been Emil Kirkegaard, who gave a talk in 2015 about how far ‘genomic race’ is associated with cognitive ability.

Well, “how far” is actually an open scientific question. It’s difficult to study. Kirkegaard used the term “genomic race.” What is that. Is it different from “race”? How? Here is a blog post by Kirkegaard.

The post shows some problems. First of all, genomic race is race measured by genetic markers, rather than “SIRE” or “self reported race/ethnicity.” Kirkegaard emphasizes the need for strong evidence because “environmentalists are very stubborn.” He is betraying a strong bias, his research is attempting to prove something, which classically leads to poor research. However, that does not make his results wrong, only that the results must be interpreted with caution, because he may then select data to publish that has been selected for value in creating desired conclusions, He is clearly a hereditarian (opposed to “environmentalism”) and a racialist. That is, he believes that the genetic influence on intelligence is strong — which is not a mainstream position now — and that “race” is a biological reality — also a widely rejected view. In my opinion, the statement “race is a biological reality” is neither true nor false, it is confuses interpretation with fact. But the interpretation that race is not a reality (other than as a social construct) is now dominant (and I have expressed that view many times.) We will see a comment on this:

Writer and geneticist Adam Rutherford told the London Student that, based on the titles and abstracts at the LCI, some of the views presented by speakers were a ‘pseudoscientific front for bog-standard, old-school racism’.

“Bog-standard” appears to be British for “ordinary.” I don’t agree. Racism, to confront the core, is a manifestation of what may be a human instinct, to mistrust strangers, people who are different. That made some level of sense for first reactions under “tribal conditions.” It becomes dangerous and pernicious under more modern conditions. But that kind of reaction will occur, it’s mediated by the amygdala, my opinion. So most “normal people” will be racist. Under modern conditions, such people are likely to deny it, since racism is Bad. (This has changed radically in my lifetime. When I was growing up in a white community, Manhattan Beach, California, racism was completely normal. That shifted, to the point that racism is suppressed. But people will still have those reactions, and to move beyond this, declaring the reactions Bad and Wrong will not shift this. Rather, racism is disappearing mostly because of increased exposure and familiarity, such that “black people” are now part of “our tribe.” The first step in defeating that “inner racism” is to acknowledge it, and the atmosphere of strong rejection makes that more difficult, not less difficult. Basically, blaming people is not a part of any skilled pedagogy or social transformation. 

This was not the comment of some careful academic. Basic on the Wikipedia article, Adam Rutherford, I’d expect a certain kind of bias, which is amply displayed here.

“Some views expressed” could refer to one or two speakers.

He added: ‘As soon as you begin to speak about black people and IQ you have a problem, because genetically-speaking “black people” aren’t one homogenous group.

Okay, who spoke about “black people”? Remember, he did not attend the conference and did not read the papers. Here is the list of speakers for the 2016 Conference: It includes a paper that I’d expect might have something like that, by Kirkegaard and Fuerst. http://www.dcscience.net/London-conference-of-Intelligence-2016.pdf#14

‘Any two people of recent African descent are likely to be more genetically distinct from each other than either of them is to anyone else in the world.’

Yes, I understand that is correct. But there is an obvious error here. That fact (i.e., genetic diversity, which can be measured) does not negate the possibility of a genetic influence on intelligence, and the variations in intelligence studied by researchers in the field are not confined to genetic differences. To determine these effects, as well as their causes, research is needed, and especially careful research. But if the field is rejected as intrinsically racist, which is the appearance here, that research will not be done, or if done, may not be reported and criticized.

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

This article depends heavily on the London Student article. With “child rape advocates” (how many?) it shows its the origin with, directly or indirectly. Oliver D. Smith. It is full of the same non sequiturs. 

The use of the hyperbolic plural is a tipoff to the yellow journalistic agenda.

Was it a “eugenics” conference? Notice that this is an incorporated assumption in the headline. The 2016 conference document cited above is headed with a photograph of Edward Thorndike, and a saying from him:

Selective breeding can alter man’s capacity to learn, to keep sane, to cherish justice or to be happy. There is no more certain and economical a way to improve man’s environment as to improve his nature.

“Selective breeding” is actually natural and normal. (But Thorndike may have had something more “scientific” in mind.). There is nothing offensive about the statement, though I might disagree with the weight that he put on it. There is nothing ‘racist’ about this comment. If he was a racist — I don’t know, but many were in his day — the comment appears independent of that, he was not talking about “race purity,” which is, actually, genetically dangerous. Diversity is important for the maintenance of healthy populations.

Richard Lynn has an obvious interest in eugenics. He wrote Eugenics: A Reassessment. However, I see no indication that the Conference is fairly called a “eugenics conference.” It was about intelligence and population studies of measures of intelligence. It was accurately named. I saw not one paper in the list that was about eugenics (which in modern times would refer most strongly to genetic engineering. The study of intelligence could have an impact on that. Can genes for “intelligence” be found? Again, how would we know? Genetic engineering will bring many ethical issues — and it’s already happening. It is common to do fetal genetic testing to detect Down syndrome, and to then selectively abort. However, eugenics would probably be focused on increasing desirable characteristics.


Is it a “eugenics probe”? Or is it a reaction to a massive flap about alleged racism? Is a topic to be banned because someone interested in the topic, and who writes academic papers on it, has expressed, at some time or other, allegedly abhorrent views?  From a comment by a  UCL spokesperson:

“Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead. The conferences were booked and paid for as an external event and without our officials being told of the details. They were therefore not approved or endorsed by UCL.

It would be radically contrary to academic freedom for the university to assert control over speakers and content. From the topics of the 2016 conference, I would expect a normal university response to allow a next conference, if they even took that much interest. The conference organizer was apparently a trusted faculty member, and that would be the extent of it.

I would not expect specific conference speakers and content to be approved in advance by the university. That is quite contrary to actual practice, which is that a conference is planned, often very long in advance, the venue secured for the general topic, and then, once a location is secure, the speakers and papers to be delivered are chosen. 

“We have suspended approval for any further conferences of this nature by the honorary lecturer and speakers pending our investigation into the case. As part of that investigation, we will be speaking to the honorary lecturer and seeking an explanation.”

As a temporary measure pending investigation, this makes sense. Oliver D. Smith, who triggered this flap by private email to the media, probably linking to the RationalWiki article that he wrote, crowed on RationalWiki that he got the conference “shut down.” That has not happened yet. There is a temporary suspension pending investigation and whether or not it affects this year’s conference is unclear. If it stays up in the air, unresolved, Conference organizers may simply move the Conference elsewhere. This was a small conference and does not need to be held at a University. I’d suggest a hotel in Hawaii. Cheaper in China, I’m sure.

The university stressed it was “committed to free speech but also to combatting racism and sexism in all forms”.

We will see how committed they are to free speech.

University College London has launched an urgent investigation into how a senior academic was able to secretly host conferences on eugenics and intelligence with notorious speakers including white supremacists.

The London Conference on Intelligence was said to have been run secretly for at least three years by James Thompson, an honorary senior lecturer at the university, including contributions from a researcher who has previously advocated child rape.

Oliver Smith successfully framed the conversation. The conference was on intelligence, yes. Were any speakers “white supremacists?” That’s quite unclear. Oliver Smith has made this claim about some. The speakers were well-known academics in the field. “Notorious”? Who? This was an appalling piece by the Guardian, polemic, not sober reporting. The “child rape” accusation was false, and the comments he made — which were not advocacy, clearly — were many years before, as a young blogger.

Any actual journalism here? Okay:

UCL said it had no knowledge of the conference, an invitation-only circle of 24 attendees, which could have led to a breach of the government’s Prevent regulations on campus extremism.

This conference was not “extremist.” It was, in some respects, fringe or controversial research.  The actual Prevent document is about terrorism.

Russia Television. Shabby yellow journalism, repeating the Smith claims. Much commentary was about Toby Young, for having “attended” the conference. Young is a highly opininated journalist and has made comments relating to eugenics. The Wikipedia article is, by the way, afflicted with Oliver Smith fake news, my sense is that it violates biography policy, with recentism and focus on a splash of claims in media. (The claims actually contradict sources, but … newspapers like the Guardian are “reliable source.” Nevertheless, it’s up to editors to consider balance. It’s obvious that a series of media sources copied each other having copied RationalWiki. And there was an Oliver Smith sock (tagged as Anglo Pyramidologist) who edited that. (“Rebecca Bird.”)

The quality is a little higher, in a dismal field:

One of Britain’s most liberal universities has learnt that it has played host to a conference for controversial academics and experts for three years without knowing it.

More accurately, the University spokesperson has claimed, to repeat:

Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead. The conferences were booked and paid for as an external event and without our officials being told of the details. They were therefore not approved or endorsed by UCL.

This kind of statement can be quite misleading. “Records indicate” shows that someone didn’t find something in the records, but information may have been provided that was not recorded. “Booked and paid for as an external event” is possible. Who can do that and under what rules? What information, if any, was actually provided? This was, however, arguably “secretive” — from what Toby Young has written, there was a realization that the content could be controversial — but not “secret.” There was ample information about the conference, in public view. I would not expect the University to be informed of conference details, particularly speakers. Rather, what would seem more likely would be that the general conference subject would be revealed. Speakers would not necessarily be known until not long before the conference, and it would not be the job of the University to vet speakers. The Time more accurately describes the topic of the conference than any of the other sources:

University College London has been the venue for the London Conference on Intelligence, a secretive, invitation-only event on “empirical studies of intelligence, personality and behaviour”.

Given the apparent function of the conference, I would not be surprised for it to be “invitation-only.” That does not, in itself, make it “secretive” or “secret.” Just in the last few days, there was a conference for cold fusion researchers at MIT that was “invitation-only.” This is done where the desire is to create a collaborative working environment, among people already familiar with the research.

It has been held at the university every year since 2015 without the authorities being notified, in a breach of its own rules. This year’s conference, scheduled for May, has been suspended while UCL investigates.

The Times is stating that the rules have been breached, but has not provided evidence or a source for that, other than the vague comments of the University spokesperson. The inquiry is into whether or not rules were breached. Who, exactly was responsible for notifying exactly whom? Is there a form for booking a conference. Did it contain the required information. My guess would be, it did, and that the idea of rules violation is CYA from some University officials. But I certainly don’t know.

The conferences have hosted speakers presenting work that claims racial mixing has a negative effect on population “quality”, and that “skin brightness” is a factor in global development.

So, with a rather diverse group of speakers, and many papers over the years, one finds a few studies that sound weird. I could go over all the lists of papers, but I’m not doing that now.

I have seen “skin brightness” used as a measure of “color.” It is a crude marker for certain populations. (Skin brightness can be objectively measured. Skin brightness might be a factor in global development because of endemic racism. How would one know? It’s obvious that there is an attitude of certain topics being forbidden, to be condemned, which is more or less what Kirkegaard has claimed. “Population quality” is vague, but in the few papers I have read, these terms are defined and may not be at all what a reader of a newspaper would assume.  

I find this fascinating: as media picked up the stories, each new report tended to focus on the facts or claims of the prior reports. There is little sign of investigation de novo. So facts or claims that would be, in an unbiased report, considered marginal or irrelevant, not to be covered, are covered, and there is a bias in this toward what is sensational or scandalous.

Standard, ancient problem of media bias, not necessarily a bias toward a political position, but toward scandal and the like. The most obvious example here is the often mentioned alleged advocacy of child rape, that wasn’t. This had nothing to do with the conference (the ostensible topic of the stories) and was simple ad hominem attack and claim of guilt by association.

For a very different (and still very political) view, http://www.vdare.com/articles/then-they-came-for-the-london-conference-on-intelligence

A modest proposal: perhaps there is a gene for racism. (From what I’ve described above, this is not absolutely preposterous. Fear of the “other” may be instinctive and not simply conditioned, it probably has some genetic basis. So, how about the possibility of a genetic test for racism, and there could be fetal tests for it, and then selective abortion to diminish the obviously damaging propensity for racism in the population. Readers should be aware of the history of “a modest proposal.”

My hope here is that UCL makes a sane decision that does protect academic  freedom. If there are aspects of the Conference that are gratuitously offensive — I have not seen that yet — then they may sanely place restrictions. In this field, some of the researchers will hold unconventional views. That’s critical for the scientific process. What would truly concern me would be data falsification, and nothing like that has been alleged.


Below is the original content in the emails I received from Oliver Smith, who wrote to me, I had not written to him, but we then had considerable back-and-forth. If anyone is interested, I will also provide my replies. I was attempting to warn him against continuing his attacks, because they could be reputation suicide for someone aspiring to be an academic. He obviously did not accept the warning. I suggested that he could recover by simply telling the truth, the whole truth, what he knows.

[Comment added 2/17/2018: In a new email, Smith denies “aspiring to be an academic.” The statement still stands, Oliver apparently does not know how to separate a hypothetical from an actual claim of fact. It would be reputation suicide, and, as well, the coverage of an individual by articles on RationalWiki or elsewhere can also be damaging. It can cause rejection for any position where the employer or agency does a Google search for the individual.]


(I considered carefully whether or not to publish the emails. There was no promise of confidentiality. However, it may be, under many conditions, reasonably expected. I originally took Oliver’s email as a possible attempt to clarify the reality, and I would never “punish” that. However, one attempting to create cooperation (as I did with Joshua P. Schroeder — who claimed this was “harassment”) does not sanely proceed by insulting the correspondent, and does not tell the correspondent they are lying or stupid or paranoid. One might question statements, requesting clarification. For others, if you want to send me something with the expectation of confidentiality, say so in the original mail. I’m a journalist. I report fact and analysis. I will use what I receive, and anyone who intends to restrict that must specify it before revealing it. I’d suggest, in fact, obtaining consent to confidentiality before sending me the information. That would be mature behavior. Otherwise one would be attempting to coerce confidentiality, which is actually offensive. I have no subpoena power. I cannot force anyone to reveal anything to me, but people choose, for their own reasons, to reveal. There are many people with whom I have agreed to maintain confidentiality, I know many facts (or allegations) that I’d love to publish, but don’t.)

I will add commentary, interspersed. He misrepresents much, exaggerates. I’m not sure he is lying, but he is clearly careless with the truth, and is minimizing. His comments to and about me incorporate false assumptions. He denies accusations that were not made. My studies identified many suspected socks, some with technical evidence, some by the duck test. The original WMF study,  based on Wikipedia and then meta cross-wiki checkuser reports, simply reported what had already been published by others. The original concern — on Wikiversity — was the behavior of SPAs, single-purpose accounts, and how they could warp administrative decisions, it was not about Anglo Pyramidologist himself, but when I study a topic, I attempt to become familiar with the elements involved. And when this attempt was vigorously attacked, at a level I had never before seen (and combined with threats, later acted out), I then realized I was definitely onto something. That impression has been amply confirmed by subsequent events. I will eventually turn back to Wikiversity to remedy the massive damage done there, to the very core identity of Wikiversity, as it had been founded and long operated, as a bastion of academic freedom, with overall neutrality -by-inclusion — which can create voluminous resources — rather than the neutrality-by-exclusion that Wikipedia attempts.

The distinction between Oliver and his brother was long ago noted, in the study that is still on the meta wiki. They both use the confusion, “that wasn’t me.” (which may be true! But by sharing internet access on occasion — and also by a level of topic cross-over and mutual support, they become responsible for each other.) It can be seen in the correspondence that Smith does not understand that he might be responsible in some way for his brother’s actions, he excuses himself by claiming he has no control over his brother. That’s not the point. He has control over himself, we must assert, and he then becomes responsible for omissions that create and perpetuate confusion.

With these mails (taken together with his new blog post under his real name), this is the first time in a long time, though, that Smith has acknowledged that it has been his brother doing the really disruptive stuff — which he also minimizes, as if impersonation socking with intention is to defame and harm were not illegal.

So he might as well be lying. He is attempting to create misleading impressions. He is utterly careless at best, taking his brother’s position on impersonation (which is very well-established, through the technical evidence that he and his brother deny exists, not only the duck test, and toward the end we can see him defending his own blatant impersonation of Ben Steigmann. Oh, that is such a whopper!).

He started out seeming somewhat reasonable. By the last mail, he was practically frothing at the mouth, as it were. He refers to recent checkuser findings without being specific. Those accounts was very, very clearly him, though if they were his brother, he did a great job of impersonating him. The pattern of creating many socks in a short time is characteristic of AP. One or both brothers?

(So … he really does lie. I’ll cover this in more detail when I add commentary. I do maintain the possibility that he was impersonated, but he had created the underlying issue that these socks were promoting, the RationalWiki article on Emil Kirkegaard. He admits that — and this was what others had claimed, and that I had similarly seen independently. I did *not* get my original information from the others exposing him. And AP socks had claimed that my investigations and the claims of others were a “paranoid conspiracy theory.” Yet they are now confirmed, by Oliver himself.)

It might seem trivial (and he minimizes it all), but real-world damage has been done. If I had not known how to recover it, years of my work would have been vaporized through AP actions (on Wikiversity). The long-standing use of Wikiversity to create balance where an encyclopedia cannot thoroughly cover a project, while maintaining overall neutral, has been trashed. It may take quite a bit of time to fix that, if, indeed, it ever is fixed. There is a faction that has used AP for its purposes, just as he used RationalWiki in turn, and those purposes are antithetical to academic freedom, which is essential to science and more.

January 24, 2018

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

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.

I think he may be telling the truth here. It was his brother Darryl. However, Kirkegaard is particularly in the headlines because of the RationalWiki article on him, which Oliver created, demonstrating the harm of sloppy news coverage. The RationalWiki article, which “exposed” Kirkegaard as a “pedophile apologist,” is now pointing to the news coverage as “source” of the claim, which is highly biased interpretation, not fact, and actually irrelevant to the news stories, it was merely salacious sensationalism. Of course he was contacted by journalists, because Kirkegaard had exposed him as the author of the accusations.

(Minor possibility: the comments on my blog were from another troll, but on the other hand, the IP evidence connected the comments to known AP characteristics, very difficult for some other troll to manage this, though one very, very sophisticated might pull it off. AP has made many enemies, so this must be considered. It does not therefore become likely, at all.)

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: http://archive.is/jprUo (but again deleted today).

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

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

I do not know what MDS knows. Hey, I’ll ask him! (I have not depended on him for information. I rarely look at ED. However, what I notice is the context. Oliver points to a discussion where he requests the article be deleted or cleaned up. He was apparently involved on that page before, using at least one other sock. The sock claims “I never harassed Joshua Moon’s family by emails. Its nothing to do with me, if that even happened. I sent one email to Candy Potter’s employer and her being fired had nothing to do with her having an account on Kiwi Farms” Only one, eh? How many emails must be sent to a critic’s mother’s employer to be harassment?

In the picture that is developing, the highly disruptive meta and Wikiversity accounts would be Darryl, the brother. However, there are cross-connections. His brother, if that’s the case, has edited articles created by him. They support each other. These kinds of linkages cause Wikipedia to tag the accounts as his socks, i.e., Anglo Pyramidologist socks. They don’t care which brother did it. These will be considered meat puppets for a blocked user, thus effectively evading the block. Because of the mutual support, it is not easy for anyone not one of the brothers to be sure who did what in all cases. The meta/Wikiversity/Wikipedia socks recently claimed that the accounts involved were not “Anglo Pyramidologist.” But they never say who they actually are. They use the “not-AP” claim in an attempt to discredit the studies as “erroneous,” when the existence of two brothers (at least, plus other family members who might occasionally edit Wikipedia) was established in 2011 and the studies were clear about this possibility. On Wikipedia, the claim was rejected by some as “what they all say, My Brother Did It.” That’s true, but another pointed out that it might be true, sometimes.

“Refutation” on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, done as AP did it, is against policy. Editors seeking to “refute” are “POV-pushing.” Criticism is certainly allowed on Wikiversity — which they killed. The topics (Cold fusion and Parapsychology are now prohibited there, very new and very remarkable and a violation of site neutrality, never before done on with any academic subject. (There was some precedent for deleting “wiki studies” when they were reasonably alleged as platforms for attacking editors on other wikis.) I am neither a spiritualist nor a ghost-believer, and I was harassed and attacked, so Oliver is being quite selective in how he describes his brother’s activities.

January 27, 2018

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

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

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

I’ve had a look at your blog, and you’re disturbingly defending neo-Nazis and paedophiles. Also, my brother provided evidence Ben Steigmann 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. Steigmann is also a borderline paedophile who thinks girls should be married and “impregnated” about 16 by much older men. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ben_Steigmann#Eugenics_and_anti-feminism This is the guy you consider your “friend”, so I don’t need a lecture on morality from you.

Actual posting time was 2018-01-30T09:13:00-08:00. Times from my email system are UT – 7. So he actually took over three days. Minor point. Lots of people don’t do what they say will do.

The blog post was quite long, a rant. It has now been taken down (which I expected. I cover the post on this page, under construction.) If Emil objects to my coverage, I will work with him to redact it. But the cat is out of the bag, because the post was archived (archive.is) at 30 Jan 2018 17:23:10, that is, ten minutes after he posted it. He archived it, knowing that blogspot would consider the blog (by its very name), a violation of policy. So, then, this is a continuation of long-term AP behavior: violating host policies, excusing it by his strong point of view. The violation was blatant.

Defending “neo-Nazi pedophiles”

The evidence for such is an article authored by Oliver. D. Smith on RationalWiki. That’s covered elsewhere. Here I have a series of responses (I have long known that I could reply simply, I could just say “That’s a lie!” Responding with evidence that addresses the basis for such a claim takes far more words, which are then attacked by Oliver and the like as a rant or too long or other irrelevancies. If something is too long, don’t read it! But be careful about coming to conclusions without someone reasonably neutral reading it!

Smith pointed elsewhere to coverage of Emil Kirkegaard. He created that by mailing probably libelous letters to media, that’s admitted by an obvious sock of his on RationalWiki. His mail to me here was libelous.

Copies with full headers will be supplied to persons with a need to know.

pedophile” is the easy one. There is no evidence I have seen — at all — that Kirkegaard is a pedophile, which is an actual medical term. It is used casually and sloppily by the ignorant or careless to refer to anyone interested in or “defending” age-of-consent reform, as well as certain freedom-of-speech issues, which has been an ongoing process for some centuries now, with legal and sociological realities being quite surprising to many.  If I point this out, I have myself been called a pedophile or, slightly less offensive but still defamatory and inaccurate, a “pedophile defender.” However, were I an attorney, and a pedophile were charged with a crime (pedophilia is not a crime!), I might defend one. 

I was also an officer in the Cal Tech chapter of the ACLU, probably as a sophomore there. (I picketed the House Unamerican Activities Committee meeting in Los Angeles then). The ACLU has defended Nazis and other groups widely considered reprehensible, as action protecting civil liberties. Civil liberties are not just for those with politically correct or popular views, but for everyone, and if it becomes an offense to defend the unpopular, democracy is in double trouble.

I have not “defended” Kirkegaard, though. Rather, as far as I recall, I have described what happened with him and his article on RationalWiki, and then recently pointed to his blog post outing Oliver Smith. (Right now, I’m not finding that page, but I will come back.) It is always possible that somewhere I wrote something inappropriate. One who writes a lot and who never does that is being self-suppressed, not self-expressed. However, key would be how one responds when it’s pointed out. I asked Oliver Smith to be explicit, over and over, if he finds something erroneous or inappropriate. With very, very few exceptions, he remains vague, as he is here.

I have written to Kirkegaard and may have mentioned elsewhere that his 2012 blog post was … “young and foolish.” Kirkegaard is very intelligent (as is shown by sources criticizing him) and from his comments, my guess would be that he could be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a developmental disorder, a cloud with a silver lining. (I’ve been so diagnosed.) A common symptom is an insensitivity to social cues, connected with another trait, hyperfocus. Kirkegaard was “thinking out loud” without regard for what could be expected and normal social responses, and has defended what he wrote as a “thought experiment,” and advocates open public discussion of highly controversial issues — like pedophilia. His comments were clueless and not based on any deep consideration of the issues. I recommended to him that he very clearly disavow them, but he has not taken this advice. Not yet, anyway. His full discussion did hint at problems with his ideas, and he never worked this out. “Promotion of” or “apology for” pedophiles was obviously not any significant part of his concerns. What has happened is that the most shocking sentences have been taken from that context, making it look far worse than it appears to have actually been. And that was six years ago, not recent, and completely irrelevant to the issues in the news, which would more legitimately be concerned about hereditarianism.

There is a connection with hereditarianism, though. In that blog post, which is still up (now amended from the archive copies which Smith quotes) Kirkegaard had this bit of argument:

if sexual orientation is something one is born with (it is), then the preference for children is as well.

He was taking a hereditarian position, as someone with little or no knowledge of how real people deal with real paraphilias, and about the full range of human possibility.

So, no law can make people become not pedofiles. Sad situation.

He has little imagination about possibilities. Yes, law will not, itself, change what might be called “natural sexual preference.” It is only sad, however, if one’s happiness depends on sex. The level of choice involved in sexual activity is not commonly understood, and, as well, how to handle situations where sex is not available. The same argument could be made about rape of any kind, by the way.

Now comes the saddest part: Suppose one is born a pedofile.

Nobody is “born” a pedophile. Nobody born with any developed awareness of other people. How sexual consciousness arises is not well understood at all. But he is simply thinking out loud. Suppose the sexual preference for prepubescents is intrinsic, genetic, which would be a hereditarian position, and that it is fixed, immutable. (Neither of these are known; it makes a handy excuse, though, “My genes made me do it.” which is why this might be called “pedophile apology,” but that isn’t his intention as far as I can see.) Genes do not have exclusive control of our behavior, that I know. Most of our behavior is learned.

What to do? If one is a moral being, then one will avoid actually raping children. One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems, especially when one is young oneself.

What he describes as “sex with a consenting ‘child’ in puberty” is not pedophilia. It is, in fact, normal sexual behavior (or “attraction”) for humans and societies everywhere. By calling such a person a “child,” when many cultures consider this the beginning and boundary of adulthood, the very definition of the end of childhood, Kirkegaard fell into a trap that has caught many.

Kirkegaard is describing sex as a compulsion, when that is not how sex is developed and expressed in mature cultures. It is obvious that the basic function of sex is procreation, but that is not, as we evolved, the only function. Sex is also social glue, and creative of bonding that is life-enhancing. Kirkegaard’s primitive idea of sex is not uncommon, though.

Notice that he clearly suggests that “a moral being” will avoid “actually raping children.” However, his mind runs in certain tracks, which I recognize.

For the rest, one is left to masturbate to porn, perhaps child porn (animated or not), and regular porn. That sucks, and there is nothing to do about it.

Again, this is a primitive view of sex, from someone probably with narrow experience. The concept of total sexual abstinence does not exist for him, and the entire realm of what is possible in life without ordinary sex is missing, the whole realm of tantra yoga, realms of causeless and joy beyond measure. He is revealed, though he probably does not realize it, his own impoverished sexuality. But then he says something: “there is nothing to do about it.”

My mind is dialectical. When a proposition comes up, the opposite immediately comes up. (I just wrote about Neils Bohr and his comments about opposites.)

So when he said, “nothing to do,” he began immediately thinking of what one might do. The ideas that come up will not be restrained by logic or depth, he is “brainstorming.” And the first thing he thinks is a doozie:

Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape.
It was difficult to see for someone with no familiarity with sexual trauma and abuse, someone thinking originally about free-speech issues and not aware of what happens in real life. He thinks that something must be “noticed,” to have an effect, which reveals a shallow ontology. He then ruminates on rape, completely oblivious to the realities of “date rape” using drugs. 
One must distinguish between rape becus the other was disconsenting (wanting to not have sex), and rape becus the other is not consenting, but not disconseting either (so, unaware of the action becus of sleep or coma or something like that).
All systems of law, generally including tribal law, require consent for lawful intercourse. Sometimes having consented to marriage is considered general consent, but that could never be unconscious. A person can become pregnant from “unconscious sex,” and it occasionally occurs that a young woman becomes pregnant at her first biological opportunity, and that can happen very young. Lisa Medina, a famous case, became pregnant at five, but was allegedly menstruating at eight months of age. Puberty is not medically considered “precocious” until it is at under eight years of age.
The suggestion was dumb from many points of view, not the least how it could be presented by a hostile researcher.
He does then start to think of problems with the idea:
There is also the possibility of bodily harm that will be there after the person wakes up. This is especially the case with small children since their bodily openings are not large enuf for a regular sized male penis. To avoid this one shud not penetrate.
Indeed. Why not just avoid involving a child? He’s quite confused, only thinking about “after the person wakes up.” What he suggests will appeal to some pedophiles — who have done things like getting castrated:
Oh, and perhaps the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido.
The problem with not getting aroused? (There is none, and the body takes care of itself.) Someone who is strongly aroused by children, such that there is some danger of acting sexually with the child, would be well-advised to take strong precautions to avoid opportunities, but the idea that this will therefore create a life that “sucks” is surely primitive and confining. People use pornography to create arousal. Why? It’s obvious: arousal is pleasurable. What then? What happens if one is aroused and does nothing to resolve it? Most people never find out. To explore what is possible with sexuality is an aspect of tantra yoga. There are people expert in this, but they are not writing casually on blogs, spouting off about matters they don’t understand, and getting themselves into reputational difficulties for no benefit at all.

Kirkegaard also wrote about “animated child porn,” a legal issue. His views might seem shocking to some, but they are not uncommon and were similar to findings of the U.S. Supreme Court when it considered the issue. (And the law is in flux on this.) His views would be typical for those who seek to emphasize freedom of speech and expression, which, they will think, should only be limited where such causes real harm (not merely some potential or imaginary harm). Hence advocacy of violence is prohibited, but ideological expression, not likely to lead to immediate violent action, is not.

I had not covered all this before Oliver warned me about defending the “pedophile.”


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.

I had taken the Identity page private, but I’ve now restored it as a result of these communications and Smith’s failure to make it clear what was him and what was his brother. I will examine the identity page and include his denial, but he is lying here.

There is strong evidence that Smith sent an email to Joshua Connor Moon’s mother’s employer, what appears to be a sock of his on ED admitted that (denying that he got her fired, but … what was that email and why was Oliver emailing the employer? Smith has pointed to that page here, and if that was impersonation, he’d have said so. He is tangled in a web of lies and misinformation, he created over some years. It is coming unglued.

“Tons of wikis and forums?” One is an actual ban, en.Wikipedia, that was in 2011 and I have never appealed it. I was indef blocked on RationalWiki, by an AP sock, him or his brother, I’m not sure. I am not banned, that takes a particular community process, and AP is unlikely to want that. And I was recently indef blocked on Wikiversity as an apparent result of intense complaints, privately, by AP socks and two Wikipedians with long-term grudges, totally out of process. My unblock request was denied by the same administrator who blocked me, very irregular, but I have not yet undertaken a serious review process because I don’t need to edit Wikiversity at this point; the problem is long-term and will be addressed in time. My first priority was recovering the content and that is under way.

I have accounts on something like 600 WMF wikis. I have been active on a fair number, and I have taken on controversial issues. Until the Wikiversity action, I was blocked on one only. 

Oliver would know that I know all this, and that the representations on RationalWiki are basically lies. So does he think he will convince me of something by lying to me about what I know, and calling me a liar?

Trolls do that. Oliver Smith has recently been amply confirming what had been very strong suspicion before. He has created massive harm by libelling many, expecially through RationalWiki articles. And now he is experiencing blowback.

I asked if he was the parent mentioned in one of those comments that he called “stupid.”

January 30, 2018 (second)

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith <oliveratlantis@gmail.com>
Date: 1/30/2018 4:14 PM
To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@lomaxdesign.com>

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.

So, who is SkepticDave? January 10, first edit to Laird Shaw waves big flag: Smith brother. And then his next edits to the Talk page of that article. Then he immediately reveals, on the Saloon Bar, confirming what I’ve been working on,suspected, that the recent negative coverage of Emil Kirkegaard in “mainsream media” was a result of the RationalWiki article being taken as factual. It was not “independent journalism.” It was repeating rumor with only the thinnest of evidence, and with sources actually contradicting the claims, unless one reads very shallowly, with a conclusion already in mind (and, after all, the thinking would go, all racialists are Racists and Bad People and therefore it is immediately believable that they would be pedophiles or something else bad, they probably blow their noses in their hands and then squeeze the fruit at the supermarket.)

The Saloon Bar announcement by Skeptic Dave claims: “The person who wrote those RationalWiki articles sent a tip-off to some newspapers.” From Oliver D. Smith’s recent blog (now apparently deleted by blogspot), Smith admits creating those articles. In his correspondence, above, he claimed he was contacted. No, he sent in a “tip.” He actively set it up, sending them to RationalWiki, I’d assume. Then when they reported that tip as fact, he added their comments to RationalWiki. AsianDude I had already tagged as a likely AP sock from his constellation of interests (same as Skeptic Dave). This is how AP has operated, creating disruption, and when a target is hit (admins or others respond as he wants), he then cites it back on RW as evidence of the claims. He has gotten away with it many times. And he lies about “being inactive.” (Or the statement is true, the day made. SkepticDave created a user page “joking” about how many accounts he has made, January 19, 2018. He did not then edit until February 1, when he removed the joke and then immediately began editing the Kirkegaard article furiously. (This is an AP pattern: many small edits instead of making small changes and accumulating them and then previewing them.)

So the statement above, as to SkepticDave, was true for the previous eleven days. It remained true for another day or two. Smith commonly relies on vague “truths.” He avoids being specific, because specificity would reveal too much. AsianDude, however, had continued editing. Could this be Darryl? Also Nick Lowles Fan, with interests that appear to be Oliver’s. And Anti racist skinhead. And Hope not Hate member. (Hope not Hate is Nick Lowles’ organization.) These are definitely AP socks; but they could be Darryl, but all this then indicates that the duck test does not necessarily distinguish between Darryl and Oliver.

The sock activity has been starting to irritate other RW sysops, see the discussion on User talk:Merkel. 

That page, by the way, provides a ready list of AP socks (most already identified from other editing.. The edit that started the section (at the top of what I linked) describes how AP works: 

We will just shut your neo-Nazi troll website down – multiple reports sent to its host.

Hosts can be overworked and underpaid, the same as WMF administrators. Some of them will act simply to shut up the complainers. That’s what apparently happened on Wikiversity. Eventually, I suspect, the truth will come out, it’s already visible if anyone looks. What it may take is users who want academic freedom to stand for it; most remain silent. “It’s not my issue!” So, then, the Niemöller insight. Only now it is “first they came for the racists.” And that is why the ACLU defends the civil liberties of racists, while detesting their views.

Smith is confirming what some have written about him (“asexual”) but “antinatalist” adds a new dimension to it. It is a remarkable admission. “Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that people should refrain from procreation because it is immoral.”

This is distinct from a moral concern about overpopulation, which would be situational and dependent on conditions.

Anti-natalism is the very opposite of life-affirming.  Not a fun person to hang out with. (The general argument is that Death is Bad, and that we must avoid creating what is Bad, and the only way to avoid creating Death is to avoid creating Life. It is assumed that Death is a process of such horrible pain and agony and suffering that to allow it is the ultimate moral crime. Yet the antinatalist has not (yet) directly experienced death. I met a man who had an absolutely horrible childhood, but he overcame it and was successful. Then he had a skiing accident and was in pain for many years as a result. He kept a gun by his bed in case the suffering became unbearable. But he did not kill himself, and he was sharing his experience in a 12-step program, and I saw him over some time. From being in a wheelchair, last time I saw him, he was walking with a cane.

I can tell many more stories, including very personal ones. Life is a rare opportunity, well worth the pain and “suffering” that the Buddha wrote was intrinsic to existence, if we take advantage of the opportunity. Pain is inevitable, so are old age, disease, and death (“the three messengers:” But suffering is optional, and the Buddha showed the end of suffering and the path to it, which all those “negative utilitarian philosophers” completely neglect.

Smith, I’m sure, trusts none of this.

Is “Smith” now inactive on RationalWiki? Maybe. I’ve noticed a decline. But then someone is carrying the torch in his absence. His brother? Or is he simply lying? How would we know? He has not provided verifiable information, nor even clear testimony, personal assertion. He actually avoids the issues by providing excuse after excuse, while issuing general denials. At the same time, he calls relatively simple documentation, sourced and attributed, “lies.” He is not trustworthy.

Whoever wrote the article me on RationalWiki — I would think his brother, from the initial “parapsychology” interests that brought me to expose AP activity — appears to be recently active, but last edits were . Who was Skeptical? Just another sock of Darryl? Skeptical vanished when he was called “Oliver,” by someone who was not-me. Oliver is quite vague about when he stopped editing, or what accounts were his, beyond Krom and BenSteigmanns. I think there were many more, and a common sign by which I’ve recognized the socks were SPAs that would show up, full-blown, on articles like Kirkegaard and Fuerst. Many of them. Those would not be the Darryl interests, generally. But Darryl might continue his brother’s work, maybe. There were many who wrote on the Racialism article, but that also showed wider interest. Often the only people interested in the AP article creations are AP socks, with only a few general comments, no serious work, by RationalWiki regulars.

Mikemikev has edited the Racialism article, one can tell by characteristic Korean IP, apparently at that time he lived in Seoul.

It is not simple to disentangle this, the complication created by the history of these brothers. Wikipedia decided to ignore the “brother” claims, and simply treat them both as “Anglo Pyramidologist,” though AP was Oliver and Darryl was more blatantly disruptive — but both were disruptive.

January 30, 2018 (third)

January 30, 2018

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.

Smith is defending himself, he imagines, by claiming that someone else is worse. That almost always fails, in real life, especially when we look at life long term. Truth comes out.

But I have seen nothing like the grossly offensive, lying libels of the Smith brothers, coming from Kirkegaard. He has defended himself, and was attacked by socks on RationalWiki, impersonation socks, which then led to Kirkegaard’s personal real-named and acknowledged account there being blocked. 

Elsewhere he claims that he doesn’t know what his brother was doing. So how could he know that his brother did not impersonate anyone? This whole AP study began with impersonation socks, who successfully convinced Wikipedia administrators that they were Ben Steigmann, and then one of them took this to Wikiversity and succeeded in getting Steigmann blocked there and his work deleted– and another AP sock on Wikiversity stirred this up and fomented it. All these were identified as the original filer of a checkuser request on Steigmann, who had been stalking Steigmann, obviously, reading everything looking for clues that could be used to attack him. The sock master later acknoweldged that he “had to” create those socks because nobody was taking his Steigmann report seriously. Oliver, below, repeats some of the information from those reports. It was him, or his brother told him or he has actually followed it. And all of this resolves with: He is lying.

Ben Steigmann is an online pseudonym, anyone can use it.

Not to defame the owner of that account, which is what has been done. Using a deceptive account name — and making it appear that the user is the original account owner, is widely rejected. On Wikipedia, if such names are detected, they will be blocked on sight. It is not necessarily illegal, unless there is an illegal purpose, such as defamation. 

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

These arguments would be ridiculed to shreds on a RationalWiki article on Oliver D. Smith. As I wrote the other day, that article has been “salted,” which means that it is protected from creation. Why? There had been no prior creations deleted (repeated creation of an improper article is often addressed by salting. It then takes an admin to create the article.) This is part of a growing body of evidence that Smith has been enabled and protected by others. Definitely, others have aided and abetted his activities, but how much they knew is unclear. The story of AP can seem preposterous, if one doesn’t actually look at the evidence, and there is a shortage of those on many wikis who will actually look at evidence. It makes their heads hurt. Too much to read!

The Oliver D. Smith account does not appear to be Smith, for sure. It was first blocked by Weaseloid, after a single act of vandalism, first edit. That was a short block, a few days. Then the account edited a bit until David Gerard indef blocked,  October 10, who identified it as mikemikev. On what evidence?

That the account was an impersonation, obvious obvious. That it was disruptive, obvious, hence the block. However, what I’ve seen on RW is that anyone opposing the Smith activities is called a sock of one of the standard enemies, generally Rome Viharo or mikemikev, sometimes other article targets. Indeed, the Wikiversity socking was transiently attributed there to mikemikev. It is very, very unlikely from the IP evidence. The hint that led to that attribution was provided by a checkuser-identified sock of whoever was behind that huge mess.

Oliver D. Smith had a user page, deleted by JorisEnter. Familiar name in this research, I may check further on this later. The content of that page:

Hi I’m Oliver D Smith.
I studied classics at Roehampton in London.
My dissertation was on Atlantis and I believe Atlantis exists.
I’m here to contribute to refuting pseudoscience.

This was true as to most fact (Roehampton, Atlantis, but “I believe” would refer possibly to Smith’s earlier position. His peer-reviewed paper on Atlantis, published before that user page was written, considers the Atlantis story a myth invented by Plato. So this would be what someone might write who was holding to older ideas from Smith — and attempting to discredit him on RationalWiki, where “believing” in Atlantis would be knee-jerk rejected. Not what Smith would write.

In this case, the Smith User page was created by IP (contributions). That was probably an open proxy. Mikemikev commonly edited, at that time — I should check this — from Korea, but he, like any other troll, might use an open proxy. So might AP. The IP had three edits to Racialism, and I found many Seoul Korea IP edits to that article, it stood out. But, of course, AP socks also edited that article.

An edit of “Oliver D. Smith”:

I’m sorry about all of the sockpuppets. I just want a second chance. Everything on the ED page is true. I just want this one account from now on. I don’t have any friends and my only interaction with people is on the internet. But nobody there likes me either. I’m asexual and live with my mom. Please be my friend. [[User:Oliver D Smith|Oliver D Smith]] ([[User talk:Oliver D Smith|talk]]) 09:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This could easily be mikemikev, It is written in more or less Encyclopedia Dramatica style, and it requires the perverse reverse to suspect it was not impersonation. This would be very unusual. So I think Oliver is telling the truth here and that this was likely mikemikev. Very unlikely to be michaeldsuarez, this would be utterly out of character, and certainly not Rome Viharo. (MDS writes sarcastic ED articles, that is what that project is about, but I have never seen him post the material elsewhere. He is a WMF user in good standing except on Wikipedia (he was indef blocked in 2008. Vicious sarcasm is written on RationalWiki, with a level pretense that it is all “rationally based and verifiable.” RationalWikians know that the standard there is not truth, but snark, but the public doesn’t know that. They don’t make this mistake with ED.)

It could, perhaps, be Joshua Connor Moon, with whom I have had no contact. It could really be anyone who has been offended by Smith, or just some random troll. The edits to Racialism did not clearly identify who it was. They were certainly anti-racist is about all I could say. (Smith critics claim that Smith was racist, supporting fascists, politically. I have not verified this; if it is true, then his apparent anti-racism and anti-fascism could be a cover, allowing him to use RationalWiki to attack personal enemies. It is very obvious that Smith is motivated by high personal animosities, not by some more neutral desire to “combat pseudoscience” or “fascism”. 

 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.

“There is no evidence” is a classic troll argument, because there clearly exists evidence. What this would legitimately mean is that the evidence is not convincing to the person saying that, but saying “there is no evidence” shuts off the conversation, denying that there is any basis for a claim.  Rome Viharo did not claim to have been impersonated, I saw the sock puppet investigation on Wikiepedia and looked at the accounts and page histories and saw some blatant Viharo impersonations, account names that anyone who knows the Viharo history would connect to Viharo. So I asked Viharo to make sure. He confirmed that the accounts were not him (though I already thought that, because those accounts did not act in his style. They were vandals, he never did that, to my knowledge. This is what an impersonation sock will often do, something to attract immediate negative attention. More subtle impersonations are relatively rare.

It often works on Wikipedia, because some administrators will assume that someone who is indef blocked must be Bad, and Bad people vandalize, Wikipedia administrators are often quite clueless about real human psychology. They don’t bother to look back at the person’s actual behavior to see if it matches. That’s too much work!

I’ve now studied a bit of Viharo’s history, and “self-victim complex’ is a very poor description. He’s not a victim. He is someone who has been learning from his experience and attempting to do something about the situations he has encountered. He made mistakes, and he admits them.

His criticism of Wikipedia reflects what many highly knowledgeable critics of Wikipedia have written for years, books have been written about it. Some of these critics have held high positions in the WMF structure.

If I want RW to delete the article, I’ll send them a legal demand. However, I voted to Keep the article when that was considered. Rather, what I’d want is for the AP socks to stop editing it, and, indeed, for them to be blocked on RationalWiki for long-term creation of disruptive material that has brought RationalWiki into disrepute. I’m not particularly hopeful that this will happen, because it appears to me that those behind RationalWiki have supported AP for their own purposes. And this connects to a Wikipedia faction and to paid editing (which is a violation of the WMF TOS if not disclosed). The AP socks have claimed to have been paid, and Oliver roughly confirms that. There is an obvious suspected agent of this, which I’m not accusing, not yet. I don’t have clear evidence on it, merely a growing suspicion based on patterns I have seen. Rome Viharo has been writing about this and appears more certain than I.

I did not ask Oliver to ask his brother anything. I suggested that he clear the air by disclosing what he knows, fully, and by ceasing his vituperative attacks — and cleaning up his own messes in this way. He is apparently not interested in that, but in trolling. Telling someone they are lying, in a personal communication, is generally trolling. It would be intended to outrage or enrage, not to communicate, and that intention is what trolling is about. If one believes someone is lying, why even communicate with them? There can be reasons: a counselor might do it, but Smith is attacking, and I’m not his patient. If one wants to terminate all useful communication with someone, under normal circumstances, tell them they are lying. It is normally a profound insult. You’d better know what you are doing!

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.

Not on that blog, he won’t be writing. As I more or less expected, it has been taken down. There was no “fake report.” There was a checkuser filing by a checkuser, who is certainly not Viharo or Kirkegaard. There may have been some request privately. In the old days, checkusers would not allow that, but one of the last things I did on Wikipedia was that the old rules were dead and checkusers did whatever they pleased. Doesn’t mean it is wrong, and the checkuser involved, Callanec, certainly would not be lying about what he saw with the tool. Someone was socking and that was clear, there were six accounts all run by the same user. Then Callanec stated that the connection with Anglo Pyramidologist was “possible.” All previously tagged AP accounts would be stale, the specific checkuser evidence (i.e., the underlying raw logs that the tool accesses) is dumped after a time. But sometimes individual checkusers keep information and sometimes information is logged on the checkuser wiki, particularly for LTAs, which AP is.

I know enough about suspected AP IP information to know what Callanec may have seen. It would indicate possibility, from technical evidence. As an example, AP edited on Wikipedia, on Wikiversity, and on meta, using a collection of mobile Orange IP, geolocating to the known vicinity of the brothers. Checkusers will not, by policy, reveal this data. I may, I am not bound by Wikipedia policy, nor by law in this matter, as far as anything I know.

Oliver did not link to the alleged comment. Someone was watching that closely, more closely than I. Who would have such a high interest? And who would have an interest in claiming there is “no real evidence,” when there obviously was, and evidence like this could be introduced in a court if needed; it would simply take “attestation,” which is how all evidence is introduced in court. Smith is, it appears, a basement dweller/internet troll with little knowledge of real life.

He claims that “no one cares about random accounts on RationalWiki.” Someone obviously does, because I was indef blocked on RationalWiki for no action there, but for making a list of suspected RW socks on this blog. And he knows who did that, so he knows who cares, so he is lying.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

So, I looked for that “admin comment” alleged. What I found was this.

If that was the source of the claim, it was misrepresented, as have been many such claims by AP, in many places. 

Checkuser was used at the private request or provision of information from Captain Occam, emailed to the Arbitration Committee. This did not include the account “I have a big foot”. Callanec explains that the identification was “definitely confirmed.”

I know what evidence checkusers look at, it’s well-known. I would never call a checkuser result “certain.” However, the probability of a match can be great. In this case, the user claims that he lives in a set of flats with shared IP. That would only give an IP match, and the probability of truly independent users from that set of flats, with the same interests, at the same time, is very low. Then there is the additional information that checkusers can see. From such additional evidence, on my own blog, I can tell that a set of users, all taking the same action (commenting here) and using open proxies, are, probability of perhaps 0.9999 or higher, the same user. Put that together with “duck test” behavioral evidence, the probability of error is very low.

I notice that big foot did not put up an unblock template. Here is why not: it is easier to create a new account! If he avoids the same article areas, he is unlikely to be detected, even if he does this within the checkuser window (before the user logs are dumped). His user talk page access was not revoked (and that has generally been true for AP socks — but the accounts I had checkusered on meta were globally locked, which essentially kills account access entirely (the lock tool is crude, but fixing it has had a very low priority), but it appears that appeals are nonexistent, in recent years, or entirely absent. Why bother? The account’s cover has already been blown, so write it off!

Captain Occam is neither Rome Viharo nor Kirkegaard, but someone with a history of involvement with Race and Intelligence, a favorite AP (Oliver) topic. Again, Smith is lying or, in this case, perhaps claiming as fact what he does not know.

One more point: the interests of “I have a big foot” were those I’d expect of Darryl, not Oliver. This would be why IHaBF points out editing different areas. I would guess that Callanec realized that AP socks have interests both related to race and intelligence or other specific Oliver interests and psychics and spiritualists, i.e,. Darryl’s supposed focus. So were they tagged because of perhaps editing Wikipedia during a visit? Mysteries abound, but the existence of mystery does not negate what we can know. Smith is lying. My operating hypothesis: they each may edit within the primary focus of the other, making it impossible to distinguish them based only on focus. And technical evidence can connect them, and it only takes one incident in the roughly three month window for checkuser evidence to create the technical link, and it may be that checkusers have stored profiles from older than that. They will be, I suspect, prone to look at geographical location. They are not going to tell us because of privacy policy and protecting the more rapid development of techniques for avoiding checkuser identification.

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.

He is referring to comments copied to Anglo Pyramidologist/Comments. These have been posted as blog comments here, generally in an inappropriate place. They are copied there, into a “page,” where they do not appear as featured on the home page (as with the list of recent comments there). 

Oliver has not taken on board the fact that “Anglo Pyramidologist” is not just him, but includes the activity of his brother. He has not distinguished which accounts were actually him, and which were his brother or impersonations, and I have, from the beginning of these studies, considered and have often been explicit about possible impersonations.

I have not impersonated anyone, and I would not ordinarily even consider it. However, AP has demonstrated that impersonation can be an effective tool for demolishing the work of perceived enemies, so I’m not making an absolute pronouncement that I never would impersonate. However, as with any act of war, it would take extraordinary necessity, because of the massive damage it can do to credibility. Ordinarily, impersonation is thoroughly reprehensible, and that the impersonated one is somehow considered reprehensible as well does not change that.

That Smith leads with an assumption that I have been impersonating him — with no evidence at all for that, neither direct nor indirect, as in past demonstrated impersonations — indicates that he is either trolling or reactively blind.

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

The comments are what they are, and I have analyzed them. All have used open proxies or the equivalent. They are trolling, no question, and could indeed be hostile impersonators intending to cast blame on the Smith brothers or Oliver specifically. However, Oliver has himself posted libel in his emails and in the blog post he mentions. He also created libelous articles on RationalWiki, apparently, and all of this has been replete with misinformation, particularly “proofs” that weren’t.

Oliver has information that could help clear up the mess. He is not disclosing it. Instead, he is dismissive and hostile.

It is his right to refrain from careful response and correction, but he is then responsible if the mysteries continue to cast him in a very poor light.

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.

How about pointing to an alleged error with a very brief explanation? “Plenty of falsehoods” is zero information, and useless. The incorporated assumption here is that I have posted a “fascist smear.” He does not point to where this is. However, what’s on the Comments page?

Whether or not I agree, even if I think he might be lying, Oliver Smith has a right of response here. This is very different from the situation on RationalWiki, where he has been extensively defended, and those he has attacked are banned for frivolous reasons. Nobody is banned here. Comment is open to anyone, including trolls. If there were flooding, I could edit .htaccess to block IPs, but that would be largely useless. Rather, all comments are moderated until one from a source is approved, then they are open. I can still trash them easily. I keep all trashed comments — that is, I don’t “empty the trash.” Unfortunately, WordPress does not keep edit history for comments.

His right of response does not extend to libel of others; however; that can be a tricky judgment call that all publications face.

I found this on the Comments page, written by “David Smith.” 

Smith was a former fascist who later became a strong anti-racist and mikemikev considered him a ‘traitor’ and ‘anti-white’. Why is Abd now citing racists and white supremacists as a ‘valid’ source of information about people on a blog dedicated to cold fusion?

In my response:

Here, we get evidence for a story that I had largely developed: Smith’s agenda comes from his history as a fascist. His attacks on Ben Steigmann would come from that. Steigmann, if I’m correct, has also claimed to be a former fascist. So conflicts stemming from all that are being maintained outside of that context, “David” is confirming all that. Steigmann was attacked, not because of his “pseudoscientific beliefs,” but because this was a way of retaliating against him. Vendetta, and quite obviously. What he accuses others of.

I consider this story likely to have an element of truth, but I keep in mind that AP socks commonly lie.

That is, a personal history as a fascist is a “story,” a possible interpretation, not a known fact. Further, the existence of the two brothers complicates it all. The explanation that Smith gives here is plausible, but this is the irony: the evidence for a fascist history for at least one of the Smiths is stronger, in my recollection of it, than evidence that, say, Ben Steigmann is a fascist (present tense) or other similar and common claims. “Evidence” is not “proof” unless examined in toto and with caution. Here, Smith claims “your fascist smear” but I have merely presented, as a hypothesis, an appearance, not fact, what he is denying.

I have not researched the history such that I could make the “fascist” claim based on clear evidence. My research proceeds like this: I look at the record first, often just reading it over. From that, some ideas may arise and sometimes I present them. I am normally careful to distinguish these ideas from fact. The facts are what is in the record, and it is necessary to keep in mind the possibility of impersonation. From continued study, what is clear begins to emerge. Smith, in this email, is suggesting an interpretation of his old editing patterns, an interpretation that I could then research, if I actually cared that much about his thinking. I don’t. It is mostly irrelevant to the work I have done with this situation.

Was David Smith mikemikev? I rather doubt it, but it is not impossible. I have no direct communication with mikemikev. I consider it more likely, though, if this was not Oliver, that it was his brother. However, the evidence is not yet clear on that point. I have private studies I have not yet published. I do know that there is impersonation going on; I was just impersonated on RationalWiki, and similar impersonations of Rome Viharo and Emil Kirkegaard have appeared recently on Wikipedia.

Wiki administration can be radically naive on this. The sock IAmBannedUser, editing disruptively, will often be blocked and sometimes tagged as BannedUser, with no evidence other than the name. As if that is how BannedUser would behave. A few do. Very few. Most will attempt to hide identity. To be sure, the main goal on Wikipedia is to block disruptive users, and such an account is normally disruptive, but the habits lend themselves to attack impersonation.

Wikipedia is lousy with exceptions. I socked on Wikipedia for a brief period, first as IP, and disclosing my identity, and then as one non-disclosed sock, all to study community response. That was part of a long-term project, see the documentation that was openly maintained on Wikiversity. The basic purpose was to study how banned users could make positive contributions without complicating ban enforcement. The study demonstrated that fundamental Wiki policies, established very early on, had been abandoned in favor of ObeyMaAuthorite.

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”.

This is, indeed, silly. So what? There is evidence that Oliver (and I mean “Oliver,” not merely “AP”) has defamed individuals, distorting evidence, from a very personal and essentially insane agenda, and he’s concerned about this trivial business? I did not claim that he considered himself an academic. He should learn to read. I made a statement about possible consequences to such a person. This is in the introduction to this page, above. I have annotated it, reflecting the denial above.

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

First of all, what do alleged “lies concerning Kirkegaard and the London Conference” have to do with “a wild allegation that [Oliver] is the ‘single person’ responsible for the news coverage.” That came from an obvious AP sock on RationalWiki. That doesn’t make it true, merely plausible. And Oliver may well have decided to remove the blogspot blog, just as he says: he can maintain the outrageous claims from that blog by archiving it, and now admits the archiving, essentially. I wrote that I predicted it would be removed. By the way, the first appearance of the claim that the removal was voluntary came from one of the trolls commenting. This is an indication that the troll would be, if not Oliver, his brother, Someone with inside knowledge.

And he is acknowledging that he is continuing to write about all this on RW, though he claimed above that he had stopped writing there. The account this time is EvilGremlin, totally obvious as an AP sock from interests. And putting in an amazing level of work for a “petty internet feud.” Over a very minor incident, not actually worthy of much note, a transient and overheated protest — that also happens to be an attack on academic freedom. The essential “crime” appears to be a failure to disclose the identity and content of expected speakers, which would be rather routine as an “error,” if it was an error. The conference was allegedly “secret,” but the topic has long been highly controversial and I don’t wonder at some level of hush-hush. The hereditarian position was once mainstream science, though some of the research behind it has been heavily criticized. Eugenics is a hot-button issue, when some kinds of eugenics are normal and not racist. And some are racist. There is no discrimination in the protests. Scientifically, the issue is not actually absolute, “intelligence” is poorly defined, often, but if it means “intelligence as measured by specific tests,” there is strong evidence for association with “race,” also poorly defined, but in the more recent scientific studies, that, took, becomes defined, meaning largely “ethnic identity,” with, then, what level of genetic involvement? The research is difficult to assess, and claims of bias fly freely. What Smith relies on is ad-hominem and straw man argument.

If this were merely a “petty internet feud” I would not have gotten involved at all. Rather, serious damage was done to the academic freedom and integrity of Wikiversity, as well as long-term damage (with many others involved) on Wikipedia and elsewhere This affects real people, with, again, academic freedom being at stake.

It is totally obvious that the news coverage was based on the RW article and that reporters did not carefully investigate; they took statements ripped out of context and presented them with identical conclusions to the RW ones. Was there private communication? Oliver has acknowledged it. Was this the instigation? Absent testimony from the reporters, there is only the claim on RW from 

No “lies” are pointed out. This is typical AP vague allegation, without specifics that can be addressed. The page here would be a subpage of this page:  “well-sourced”

I have already covered on that page claims on the RW article. The description of the RW article as “a full rebuttal” is typical for AP, there is an assumption of “truth” on matters that are actually highly politicized opinion. Evidence, neutrally presented, is called “lies” or “defending the conference.” Or, in some places, “defending fascists and pedophiles.” My comment about defending pedophiles, were I an attorney, is presented out of context, as if my goal would be about pedophilia and not about the rights of anyone accused, at law, to a defense. My mention of being an officer in the Cal Tech chapter of rhe ACLA is ignored, as well as the mention that the ACLU defends civil liberties, because to protect civil liberties, it is necessary to protect the free-speech rights and other civil liberties, of all, not just those with “acceptable opinions.” The loss of civil liberties that can happen always begins with the unpopular.

The real Oliver D. Smith stands up

If you are reading this on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL, the paper may have been updated, corrected, or even retracted.

This is new. Oliver D. Smith is now speaking in his own voice, on a blog he created specifically to attack Emil O.W. Kirkegaard.

(and then he calls others “cranks.”)

The blog appears to have been created on blogspot.uk. Then it was moved to blogspot.nl. Both were archived, nl here, and Smith has claimed that he took the site down. “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. A second blog post is shown in the nl archive, but was not saved. This doesn’t look like a voluntary takedown, but maybe.

(Of course, he did write “off RW,” including the blog — a device to get the content on archive.is — and in email to me, as a minimum. He is continuing to write on RW despite claiming that he wasn’t doing that. His latest clearly identified account is EvilGremlin (a typical AP name, obviously designed for trolling). There are many other accounts recently active that might be his brother, maybe. Impersonating me.

What Oliver D. Smith wrote:

Tuesday, 30 January 2018

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard: neo-Nazi child rape apologist


[Note: I cover in this long blog post my encounter and dispute with two weird neo-Nazis,
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and John Fuerst from June 2015 to January 2018. Nothing I post is defamatory, but the truth, and is well-sourced by mainstream newspapers, for example The Guardian describes Emil Kirkegaard as a “a weird far-right paedophilia apologist”, see here.]

So he starts out lying. The headline has that Kirkegaard is a “neo-Nazi,” and a “child rape apologist,” which are not truth, apparently, but defamatory interepretations of fact. It’s easiest to address the “child rape” issue. Kirkegaard ruminated on a blog, many years ago, about what I will simply call a dumb, naive, idea, indefensible, but it was not an “apology” for “child rape.” That is an example of how AP socks defame people. They find some fact that can be used to defame, by drawing conclusions from it. The conclusions are defamatory. In some cases, facts, dredged up from lengthy internet history, can be defamatory. by how they are presented.

The fact is that Kirkegaard has been “described” this way.  By whom? The fact matters. Well, Smith ascribes this to The Guardian, a careful and reputable source? However, it’s obvious from the articles that Smith has cited, the Guardian apparently allowed authors to use the RationalWiki article, which Smith wrote, as a source. The Guardian article cited here is an appalling rant about one Toby Young that mentions “Emil” in passing, in line with the whole piece. This is not a factual account, but a very personal tirade, where the author is going to toss every piece of mud he can think of or imagine. I have never seen anything like it in any reputable newspaper, before.

Subpage: Well sourced in Oliver’s world

Emil Kirkegaard. Source: Le Temps (see here).

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
 is a far-right/neo-Nazi child rape apologist who made news headlines in January 2018 about his paedophilia apologism and links to white supremacists and eugenicists:

What this demonstrates is the effect that a RationalWiki article can have. I have looked at a few of those sources, above. Oliver Smith has long written articles like this. They toss as much mud as possible, and on RationalWiki, mud is encouraged. He may spend weeks researching his target (and then claims that anyone who exposes what he does is “stalking” him, i.e., more mud. He has a rule: if he does it, it is research, to expose Really Bad People, and if someone else does it, especially someone who exposes him or those who enable and empower him, it is “stalking.” Literal stalking can be a crime. “Pedophilia” is a paraphilia, a disorder. It is not a crime. Thinking about it or about how to ameliorate harm from an active pedophile are not crimes. Acting on it is a crime. The definition of pedophilia varies from context to context. Someone who attempts to create clarity on this runs the risk of being called a “pedophile apologist.” Hence, in another article, Smith calls another person a “pedophile” because he suggested that the idea mating, biologically, would be between a 16-year old girl and a 26-year-old man. Many people confuse statutory rape and pedophilia. They are not the same. Cultures vary on when women marry. However, all modern cultures, of which I’m aware, do not allow consummated marriage with a prepubescent. Tribal cultures often defined the age of consent as beginning with sexual maturity.

The other writer was talking about “impregnating.” Getting pregnant. This would be a sexually mature 16-year-old, and most are by that age. (Puberty can hit as young as eight, it is not uncommon. Unusually, it can happen even younger. That’s biology. Societies decide on more specific rules. 16 years old is not uncommonly the age of consent. It is where I live, and it is so as well in England and in most European countries — or even younger. However, Smith searches diligently for mud. His own sexuality? He told me in  email. I had written to him:

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

(I have five biological children, six grandchildren, and two more adopted children, both now teenagers.) He replied:

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.

 Antinatalist, take it away, Wikipedia:

Antinatalists argue that people should refrain from procreation because it is immoral.

What a dark view of life!

Smith goes into detail on the UCL conference, allegedly “secret.” I’m not covering that except to notice that Smith tosses in “pseudoscientific” liberally, fitting with the RationalWiki habits of him and his brother, where “pseudoscientifc” means “stuff we don’t understand or agree with.” As with “pedophile” the actual definition is ignored. I don’t know whether Kirkegaard’s work is scientific or other. If a theory claims to be “scientific,” but is not testable, that is, by definition, “pseudoscientific.” RationalWikians, however, use the term to mean “claims that are not verified to our satisfaction,” or that are rejected by the mainstream. That is not at all the meaning of the term. The faction that dominates on RationalWiki long attempted to apply the “pseudoscience” tag on Wikipedia to various fringe topics and failed.

For this blog, cold fusion is a testable idea, i.e., that sometimes nuclear reactions take place with low excitation energies. In the journals, this is now widely accepted — but the idea that the original claims “could not be confirmed” is still widely stated as well. Information cascade, social inertia. I have proposed research to increase precision in an often-confirmed basic test of the idea. The RationalWiki article on me claims this is “pseudoscientific,” when it is obviously the opposite.

As we can see here, RationalWiki plays on knee-jerk, emotional reactions to words like “neo-Nazi” and “pedophile.” If the author can get the reader sufficiently upset and horrified, they will not read the sources critically.

But a little on the conference:

UCL conferences 

Kirkegaard attended ‘secret’ eugenics conferences at the UCL for 3 years (2014-2017) where he delivered pseudo-scientific lectures; he designed the UCL conference website in 2015 (see here and screenshot). As mentioned in The Independent article, the conferences were not approved or endorsed by the UCL and were a potential breach of room bookings since “the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series”.

“Secret” sounds bad, but this obviously wasn’t “secret.” Was this a breach of policy? The quotation calls it a “potential breach.” Was it or wasn’t it? And, in any case, it surely was not secret!



It should be noted that Kirkegaard’s only qualification is a BA in Linguistics, yet he spends most his time blogging about subjects he has poor knowledge of such as genetics and psychology and always ends up supporting fringe and/or pseudoscientific positions within these subjects such as racialism and hereditarianism, like Fuerst. Kirkegaard therefore fits the definition of a crank well, i.e. as someone who holds unorthodox views on a subject and is very vocal about these opinions, despite not being qualified in them; is a layperson, or an amateur.

If he is paid, he is not an amateur. This is common on RationalWiki. If someone is self-educated or educated by experience and extensive discussion with experts, they are, on RW, “pseudo-intellectual.” Being judged, generally, by the radically ignorant who know, mostly, how to write insults and defamation.

RationalWiki authors wax voluminously about topics they don’t understand, much less have credentials in.

Is Kirkegaard qualified to write about his topics? Some, perhaps, some not, perhaps. He is, among other things, a blogger, and the form is that bloggers say what they choose to say. Many bloggers are “unqualified.”

What are Smith’s qualifications to write about Kirkegaard and what he supposedly believes? Is he trained as a journalist? No, he is a long-term internet blowhard and crank. He was that obviously when he edited Wikipedia, where he was banned six years ago. He continues to be a crank and has been widely exposed as that. 

To date, with perhaps a single exception, Kirkegaard has never had a paper published in a peer-reviewed academic journal . . .

Having a paper published in an independent peer-reviewed journal is evidence of qualification. Smith claims “never,” but has introduced a contradiction. Notice that the exception is stated as “perhaps.”  Is this to maintain plausible deniability, while weakening it? Well, has he been published under peer review in an academic journal, excepting the journals he may control? He has many published papers (see Publications), but most are either conference papers or published in his own journals, with two exceptions: First is The Winnower, which is an open access journal. Some who are clearly scientists publish in such. I looked briefly at one paper. The content made me consider Kirkegaard an advanced student, not an experienced academic. If he continues writing like this and pays close attention to critique, he will learn and will become a true expert.

The Winnower publishes material “for review,” i.e., prior to review, which is then open. That is, the decision to publish is not necessarily a validation of the work. However, Smith turns this into “fake,” and “pseudo-intellectual.” The paper appears “racialist” to me, that is, it treats “race” as if it were an objective reality. But “racialist” is not a synonym for “racist, with fangs.” It is actually a common opinion. It is not going to disappear by being attacked as “racist.” To move forward requires directly addressing it. Or people will assume that the criticism is simple “political correctness.”

To truly evaluate the quality of Kirkegaard’s work would require much more time and study than I can devote today. The Smith “critique” is reasoning from conclusions, which is not scientific. It is simple-minded, primitive thinking, and depends on ad-hominem arguments and fixed ideas about reality, making it pseudoskeptical and pseudoscientific. For example, Kirkegaard’s work is popular with groups considered “racist.” Is it therefore wrong? This is not how academia treats subjects and research, generally.

Kirkegaard has also published in Mankind Quarterly. According to Wikipedia, this is a “peer-reviewed academic journal.” The article also reports on criticism of the journal. In my view, Kirkegaard’s work (and all work in this field) will be properly assessed by the scientific quality of the research, not whether it allegedly supports this or that view. If the author of a report has strong views, that should be considered as introducing possible confirmation bias, but that alone is not enough to discredit work. It is actually an ad-hominem argument. The field of “racial differences” is fraught with hazards and opportunity for knee-jerk reactions (in all directions!). 

Kirkegaard has described himself as a “polymath”, “scientist”, “philosopher” (among many other things) that are all inaccurate, or false (see here), as well as arrogantly considers himself to have “gifted” intelligence without providing evidence of his IQ (see here).

From reading Kirkegaard, I’d assume substantially higher than average intelligence. The terms Smith lists are vague, not accurate, not readily determined as false. Smith is not an authority on any of these. The first source is the RationalWiki article, which is not reliable for anything — and he wrote that article, so he is citing himself, without, in context, disclosing authorship. The second source is Le Temps, in an expose of alleged “fake science,” and actually negates Smith’s point. From Le Temps:

Kirkegaard est extrêmement intelligent et ses mathématiques sont très poussées, explique Emily Gorcensky, mathématicienne et data scientist, qui l’an dernier avait alerté la communauté scientifique sur le danger des méthodes du Danois.

Perhaps Smith has trouble reading French:

Kirkegaard is extremely intelligent and his mathematics are very advanced, explains Emily Gorcensky, mathematician and data scientist, who last year alerted the scientific community about the danger of the Dane’s methods. 

Real scientists of course want nothing to do with him and laugh at his crackpot views.

That would not be the reaction of “real scientists,” but is the reaction of the typical RationalWiki pseudoskeptic. Smith’s research — stalking, actually — demonstrates confirmation bias, which they ridicule in others, but commonly fall into themselves.

(This is a common trait for pseudoskepticals and believers of all kinds, if they are not very careful: evidence is collected and used if it confirms their bias, and that a more careful study of evidence could generate contrary conclusions is missed. They stop looking when they find what they want. If Kirkegaard’s ideas are dangerous, and they may be in some way or other, then a scientific approach is to examine them carefully, not laugh at them. That is the contempt of the pseudoskeptic. Genuine skepticism creates learning and knowledge, phony skepticism fixes the phony into existing belief, often beliefs popular in general or within the phony’s social group.)

This seems to have upset Kirkegaard who published his own survey on Twitter in 2017 (see here) in an attempt to prove scientists take him serious ….

Smith’s English is often poor…. He repeats this error, so it is probably how he talks. The mind-reading is also common for Smith.

he also wrote a blog post: “On crackpottery, why I don’t think I’m a pseudo-scientist” (see here) in response to a fairly detailed essay published on Reddit (not by me) criticising him as a pseudo-scientist. In his online survey Kirkegaard relies on a few academics, merely who “follow” him on Twitter, yet there’s no evidence scholars who click “follow” on his profile take him serious.

Noticed how Smith explains away what Kirkegaard actually does. “Following” is not proof, but is definitely “evidence,” and this confusion between evidence and proof is typical in what I’ve seen from Smith. 

As well, citing the Reddit essay, Smith claims it wasn’t him. How about his brother? Probably not, actually, the critique is far more intelligent than anything I have seen from the Smiths. In any case, the author name is “[deleted]” which often indicates that Reddit decided the author was disruptive. Beyond that, this is a long essay (when Smith likes a long essay, he calls it “detailed,” when he doesn’t like it, or is attacking the author, he calls it a “rant” or “obsessive.”) As to the essay, tl;dr. But I looked at it. He talks about Kirkegaard in a far more nuanced way than Smith implies. He does not call Kirkegaard a “pseudoscientist,” I searched for the word, which does comes up in discussion. He does criticize Kirkegaard. He uses hyperbole in at least one place, at least, saying that “no one reads his work.” And that is what Kirkegaard responded to, it appears. But I have not read the critique in detail. I may. It’s interesting. To Smith, it’s merely a piece of Evidence that “Kirkegaard is Fake and Bad and a Racist and Pedophile,” all mutually confirming.

I’m not going on at this point. I may update this with more, since Smith went on, admitting creating the RationalWiki articles on Kirkegaard and Fuerst, containing the exact language used by the “recent headlines” in media. So Smith is the source he cites, really, but hides this underneath the indirection.

So much for someone who, himself, pretends to be an academic. He has a minimal qualification, a basic degree in classicism, and has published one paper on Atlantis. Thesis: Plato was a liar. He actually uses the word. Nice. Primitive thinking.

A day in the life of a troll

All times are CUT, i.e., AP’s home time zone.

04:13 January 21 2018 I  posted a page with real-life identity information for Anglo Pyramidologist.

04:35, 21 January 2018  the AP sock AstroPhysics replaced an old alias of mine (Daniel Lomax, under which I’d written much), with my birth name, and then gave some relatively correct information, on the Rational Wiki hit piece on me (written entirely by AP socks, with only a few edits by others)

06:38 21 January 2018 “Tron,” an AP sock, commented here about AP evidence. Basic message: “There is no evidence and there is no proof.” I had just spent over three months compiling raw evidence with few conclusions and only began drawing conclusions about AP identity several days ago. I did not find this identity, others had found it, as reported on that page and the page above it, but at this point I took the time to confirm the information. Even the day before, I was calling the identity “alleged.”

04:56, 21 January 2018 In a Fort on the Street (an obvious APsock) added a category “Batshit Crazy” to the RW article. It is common for AP to send messages with account names. In this case, he’s pointing out that he knows the street I live on. As if I’d be surprised.

I used to get bomb threats from fanatics. A personal friend of mine was famously assassinated by fanatics in Tucson. It can be a dangerous world. From my point of view, though, it would be better to die than to live in fear.

16:25 21 January 2018  I replied to Tron.

17:15, 21 January 2018 Nick_Lowles_Fan , an account I had not noticed, added a pile of lies to an already ridiculous article. He wrote:

… disgruntled he then uses his blog to defame his forum debate opponents or admins who banned him, including targeting their families: even going as far as doxing underage children who are relatives of who he is harassing…. In January 2018, he started doxing home addresses of RationalWiki sysops, including targeting their family members, including minors. Although an elderly man in his 70s, Lomax stalks and doxes young teenagers on his blog.

  • One of the AP traits has been that he sometimes loses it, starts raving, and doing so, essentially admits what is being claimed. The comment is dense with misrepresentations.
  • I’m not focused on “debate.” Rather, I present evidence and discuss. I sometimes report on events on fora. No examples have been shown of “defaming,” but the RW article has often called simple and straight reporting of events, for study, such as a list of contributions to an article, intended for an eventual study of an editor’s positions, an “attack.” The article is full of these imputations. They might as well be called lies.
  • On most wikis, such as RationalWiki or WMF wikis, an admin cannot ban, they can only block. One RW admin blocked me, and it was an AP sock, and I’ve documented him (Skeptical, and he was obviously AP, and disappeared when someone outed him — not me). The problem with that is?
  • There is only one “family” that has been mentioned; last year the family was described by the socks themselves on Wikipedia. The “family” has not been “targeted.” Rather, the identity of Anglo Pyramidologist, very long-term internet abuser and sock master, needed confirmation, and part of that confirmation involved knowing his original residence address, thus correlating tightly with extensive IP information. No underage children have been mentioned, let alone targeted. The page in question is archived here. As anyone can see, the youngest person mentioned was 27 years old (and could now be older). So this was the usual usual, an AP sock lying his pants off.
  • So how do I know that this user is an AP sock? The style of writing and the subject telegraphs it, but I then looked at his contributions. I would have tagged this as an AP sock without his commenting on the attack article on me, from the subjects alone. That’s how they do it on Wikipedia. The duck test.
  • Most remarkable, Nick is admitting that the page documented the “home addresses of RationalWiki sysops.” Indeed. Oliver Smith and Darryl Smith are Rational Wiki sysops, under many account names, and Nick would know, because he is one of those two persons.  But it is only one address, and that is, again, another troll tactic: take a single example and make many out of it. Any other persons whose home addresses have been given?

22:09 21 Jan 2018, I archived the identity page and stubbed it. My work is in research, I don’t need to host that page (which creates additional possible complications.) I remain responsible for writing it. if that were defamation or libel, I could be sued. I’m a real person!

23:03, 21 January 2018 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AstroPhysics removed the material Nick Lowles Fan had added, summarizing (he has removed the personal addresses and dox.) This troll is obsessed, following my blog closely. Maybe he didn’t look all that closely, though. The material was archived. Cat Out of Bag. How does it feel, Oliver, to be so easily found by a Google search with material you don’t want to be seen? You’ve been doing it to many others, for years.

My suggestion: come out, be open, take responsibility for what you do (and have done). It’s the only way to be happy, tell the truth.

[note, 1/27/2017, the real Oliver Smith has emailed me, and we are discussing the way forward. I’m not publishing that correspondence at this point, beyond what I state here, and Smith has claimed he will be responding on a blog he just created. I will link to that when it has content. He’s promised that within a day. I’ve warned him, by the way, that what he plans could be reputation suicide. This is territory he has never entered, commenting on controversies as a real person with a real name. But he has the right — as do I. with freedom comes responsibility and vice versa.]

I don’t rush into something like this. It was one step at a time. There are many more steps to take. Wait until this is cited on Quora, where I have over 1600 followers and 3.3 million page views!

23:19 21 January 2018  “Skeptic from Texas,” a likely AP sock, using a probable proxy server (not in Texas), made a not-so-subtle threat to dox my children. Not-Texas Skeptic also gave me silly legal advice, but it’s the thought that counts.

I have some research to do, I may come back with more on this sequence.


To keep trolling, of interest only to few, off of the main page here, I am moving comments from the original pages here (I had inadvertently not enabled comments on some pages, but this is better. Comments that amount to trolling may be deleted, but some stand as evidence in matters of concern. Generally, I do not reveal IP information from my server logs, but Anglo Pyramidologist is an unusual case. I do, here, reveal IP as part of exposing how AP operates, routinely lying. I have additional private information that I have not yet revealed; I will do so if necessity arises. It is, at this point, extra evidence, frosting on a mud pie.

General note: Oliver Smith, in private email from an address known to be his, denied having made any of these comments. (And repeated here.) In one place, he ascribed “99.9%” of the previously-identified AP socks to his brother Darryl, but that is clearly exaggerated. He’s more than that, perhaps much more.

  • Tron “Hilarious stuff, dude”!
  • Skeptic from Texas yeah, right!
  • Eveshi the concern troll and blackmailer
  • IP information covering comments to that point.
  • Ben Steigmann is a nazi lol Is not! Is so! Is not! Who cares?
  • Ari Silverstein isn’t Ari Silverstein, but tells us Ben Steigmann is a nazi, but a nice guy.
  • “David Smith” protests but does not specify the page involved and is quite mistaken, if real, but he’s not real, and I say why I think that, and if I’m wrong, I suggest a way to fix the situation.
  • “David Smith”again claims authorization to speak for the family. I satisfy certain requests.
  • Sarah trolls, repeating the past misleading fact as if present actual fact, common for Smith.
  • “Bill Cooper” lies about being a British attorney, for the Smiths. Isn’t that illegal?
  • “Bill Cooper” lies again, this time to threaten the Smiths with assassination. That is definitely illegal! Is this mikemikev or some random troll? Much more likely: AP (i.e., Oliver or Darryl Smith).
  • “David Smith” continues useless rant about mikemikev.
  • Agnostic Steven offers helpful advice, poison?
  • Roxy the dog — Roxy the fake dog? What?


Tron 2018/01/21 at 11:19

Hilarious stuff dude. Thanks for the laugh. You spent literally tens of hours posting wild allegations you cannot substantiate. There’s no evidence linking any of these accounts you list, nor can prove who owns them; for all I know you own most of them.

“Tron,” thanks for adding more evidence. The IP used here  geolocates to close to your home; it also shows up on whatismyipaddress as a possible proxy server, but the frequency with which you have used it makes me think you have more connection with UK Dedicated Servers Ltd., than just using an open proxy.

Hundreds of hours, not tens. I started by compiling evidence, not allegations, though you treated evidence pages as allegations, often lying about the content, and you continue to do so. Compilations of evidence quickly become long, and many won’t read them.

(I write polemic later; polemic is necessarily brief and to the point. In mature hypertext, evidence will be linked from polemic.)

The evidence I have already provided links the accounts, and there is technical evidence. It’s conclusive, as to some accounts. Others are merely the same obvious MO and special interests. So … you are lying here as you have been lying for a long time. You know I don’t own those accounts, because you do. Were you a sincere, independent user, you would not hide behind a proxy server.

The claim came up of impersonation in my exposure of the impersonation socks, the Wikiversity custodian who had blocked Ben Steigmann asked the stewards if Ben Steigmann was connected with any of the socks. No. He wasn’t. Neither he nor I could fake checkuser reports on Wikipedia and by stewards.

Once I was blocked on Wikiversity, I began mentioning your name, i.e., Oliver D. Smith (though some accounts may be your brother, Darryl), but only as a reported allegation, not as fact. Then, just the other day, I searched for and found compilations of evidence; I checked it, and did some of my own research. I’m a journalist, though not formally trained. I could defend a claim of libel based on the evidence I have collected, and my opinion is that some of those you have libelled have a cause of action. Whether or not it is worth pursuing depends on such details as whether you have property.
You have, with years of work, created a web in which you are caught. Anyone who cares to find out can now readily identify who you are and what you have done. I made the linkages carefully and tentatively, keeping in mind the possibility that one of your many enemies — you created them! — had impersonated you. No. They could not fake your geolocation.

You are an enemy of science and humanity. Your paper on Atlantis was well-written, but contains a fatal flaw, in which you demonstrate that you do not understand scientific and academic reserve. You claim that Plato lied, a very strong claim, for which you present only weak circumstantial evidence.

Your RationalWiki writing is far worse; you make statements giving sources that do not confirm the statement, unless one squints and conflates a single incident with a pattern.

Your habits betray you, constantly. I would not have done all this research if you had not attacked the original study on Wikiversity. Your insanities in that convinced me that there was something worth spending more time with.

You have done us all one service: you have exposed the vulnerabilities of wikis to people like you.

Those who live by outing and harassing will be outed, and such people will consider outing “harassment.”

One more point. “There is no evidence” is the common refrain of pseudoskeptics on many topics, when a more honest statement would be “there is no evidence that has convinced me.” Carl Sagan was aware of the deepest problem when he wrote Contact. In this case, though, your testimony is not to be trusted, because you are anonymous, so your personal opinions have no weight. “You have no proof!” is the common refrain, as well, of con artists and fanatics.

Real life, and real science and Law, run by the preponderance of evidence. We don’t need to wait for “proof.” for a criminal conviction, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I am personally quite so convinced, but I’m not certain I could convince a jury. Maybe. It’s amazing what a skilled lawyer can do. I just watched it in a real lawsuit, over in excess of a hundred million dollars in claimed damages. As to defending a libel suit, truth is a defense, and for a journalist, in particular, it is enough that reasonable care be taken in presenting allegations and conclusions. For liability, the absence of due diligence must be shown. Again, I’ve studied actual lawsuits.

From the beginning, with every study, I invited specific correction. None appeared, except for the MrRowser flap. I had not claimed MrRowser was you (so, among other things, he lied about the study), but when he showed up to attack, two years later, using your arguments practically verbatim, that did convince me. You are totally visible to anyone who actually looks. You depend on the existence of others who jump to conclusions and don’t look. Wiki means “quick.”

Ah, one more point. Anonymous trolling will not be allowed to continue here, but Oliver D. Smith could certainly speak for himself. I would want verification, because there are may be impersonation trolls out there, but he could easily verify his identity. He’s specifically invited. If he remains silent, he continues to be responsible for the obvious appearances. I will write him, inviting this. [Oliver showed up, by email from a self-published email address. It was him, I conclude.]

I am not showing the email address above, probably fake.

Will the real Oliver Smith or his brother stand up? They never do. [except Oliver later did, and I congratulated him. But then it was as if he disintegrated in the sequence of emails. The claims of schizophrenia might have a basis].

Instead, since a few possibly honest posts in 2011, they pretend to be someone else. So far, they have requested nothing, and the various studies invited corrections, which were never offered. Just general attacks.

Skeptic from Texas

Skeptic from Texas 2018/01/21 at 18:38

Mr Lomax.

I do not recommend that you post peoples personal addresses on your website that you are now doing, this may backfire! You are posting peoples addresses (family members) of people who are innocent. This is a cowardly act and could potentially lead to legal suits and your local authorities contacting you. You are encouraging unethical activity and the safety of innocent people may well be put at stake through your blog posts that dox people.

Lomax all your relatives are traceable on 192 and visible on Facebook. Would you like it if someone created a blog about them with all their personal information like you are doing to others? Of course not! So why are you doing this to others? I am not sure why you have gone down this route of stalking where people live. It is a cowardly act to be targeting peoples families and minors, especially according to one website one of these brothers you dislike is a single parent who is looking after a child.

It is NOT illegal to edit or create a Wikipedia or Rationalwiki article about someone, but it IS illegal to openly dox people including houses that may contain minors and encourage violence to their homes. Allah would not tolerate your coward behaviour and harassment.

“Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood, not enmity; peace, and not violence.” Pervez Musharraf

This was probably about this page on Anglo Pyramidologist identity.

The legal advice is not worth the paper it isn’t written on, nor am I inclined to give in to threats (“all your relatives.”)

There is posting and there is hosting. I posted, but am no longer hosting. I’ve been learning tricks from AP. That content is at http://archive.is/MTrp0

I still vouch for it, and if corrections appear appropriate, I will restore the content and correct it, and request a new archive copy.

I have created no blog with “all” of anyone’s personal information. I could find it and publish it, but it is not on-mission. I had a legitimate purpose for all that I have done. The hiding and impersonations (illegal!) — and libel and lies — made it necessary to identify whom I was dealing with. Oliver Smith is monkeying with forces larger than he can imagine, all for what purpose? It is certainly not “scientific skepticism,” because he is lousy at scientific investigation and scientific writing, he cares nothing about faithfulness to sources and to reality. He only cares about making his point, generally that his target is thoroughly reprehensible, tossing as much mud as possible.

No families have been “targeted.” Nothing has been written to inflame passions against any family members, except possibly Oliver D. Smith. Notice that the first post (from Smith geolocation) claimed essentially that the information I’ve presented was false and that I had no evidence. In which case, there is no threat against anyone real. But Smith is real.

This new post very likely is the same person, lying about being from Texas. The IP geolocates to Arizona, but whatismyipaddress indicates that it’s an open proxy. What I have found is that if Anglo Pyramidologist IP (from the duck test) does not geolocate to his immediate vicinity, it is an open proxy.. I have found little or no evidence of “meat puppetry.” If it happens, it is rare. Nobody wants to help him do this. They would have to be crazy.

If there is a brother not involved with the attack socking, I would not expect him to experience any inconvenience at all, and no risk to the child.  “According to one website” is very unspecific. I don’t believe anything AP says unless I can verify it. I am open to communication, including correction, but not by anonymous trolls. As I wrote above, Oliver Smith can contact me directly, and so could Darryl Smith. I’m open to communication with anyone about this affair.

To remove information, I’d want credible assurances that the person involved was either not involved in the disruption, or has regretted it — and is willing to take corrective measures. Otherwise, if we live in a house and are shooting at others, our family in the house might get hurt, to make an extreme metaphor.

I made no threats, but I was threatened with massive retaliation for what was not doxxing, but merely documenting the activity of a sock master. Now, giving the name, it is at the edge of doxxing, but still well within what is legal.

The writer assumes that I “hate” the brothers. That reveals far more about how he thinks than about how I think. I admit to being angry when I’ve seen blatant lies about me and others. But my training is not to allow that to become hatred, because hatred disempowers.

And then an atheist attempts to lecture me about my religion, about which he knows practically nothing. (Several socks on RationalWiki attempted the same.) (It is even less cogent than his comments on science.) Islam does establish peace, but also justice. The two go together. Anglo Pyramidologist socks attacked the innocent, cheating and lying. So I exposed that — there is no doubt about it, evidence is totally clear — and I was immediately attacked, with lies about what I’d written. And it went on and on and is still going on. Oliver Smith will get what he deserves, we all will, unless Reality has mercy on him.

That’s another aspect of Islam.

If he wants peace, he will need to turn from his insane vendettas. He is like a violent criminal preaching peace to citizens banding together to protect the innocent.

Two more comments were added today to our RationalWiki page. There have been many claims that the studies I have done are “wild speculation” with “no evidence,” but the difficulty in studying the activity of this sock master is too much evidence, not too little. My initial contact with AP was from a set of impersonation socks he had created on Wikipedia in order to draw retaliation to Ben Steigmann, and it had worked. Wikis can be really dumb, not see what is right in front of their faces. And then, sometimes, they can be incredibly and collectively intelligent … when users open their eyes and look, instead of just dwelling in knee-jerk reactions.

I have been aware from the beginning, then, that naive trust in appearances could lead down blind. It has been claimed that I got what AP himself called the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” from Encyclopedia dramatica, probably from the writings there of mikemikev or michaeldsuarez. I did get some pointers from michaeldsuarez (openly, on Wikiversity, the IP promptly outed by AP — but I’ve known Suarez for years. I may not always agree with his conclusions, but he doesn’t lie.

And what AP socks do, routinely and constantly, is lie. This is not about disagreements or “skepticism.” It is outright lying that seeks to defame and harm. (It is claimed on RW that I call my “debate opponents” or “anyone who disagrees with me,” “liars.” It’s rare. I don’t use the word often, and I don’t use it unless evidence of willful deception is strong. Simple disagreement is rarely a lie.

One of the characteristics of the RationalWiki article on me is unsourced allegation, or allegation with extremely weak sourcing. I’ve seen it in many of the RW AP articles: some single incident that might be, with a jaundiced eye, described negatively, is presented with misleading hyperbole, in the plural. As an example, I was banned on one wiki, the English Wikipedia, in 2011. That becomes “is banned on wikis,” or the like. I commented on the situation yesterday here. As shown there, allegations were added to the article that were obviously wild and utterly incorrect, about “outing minors.” Then they were removed with a comment that the outing had been removed (but then still implying it had been there). But it was never there in the first place, as the archive shows.

So, today [January 22, 2018]:


Eveshi 2018/01/22 at 12:22 am

Lomax dear sir, I know this may come to a shock to you, but you have been ”had”. You have been duped.

The accounts in question are not AngloPyramidologist, nor do the time zones support that, they wouldn’t be up at 5 or 6 am editing articles. He and his brother are being impersonated by an American man from Florida. They are being impersonated by someone called MU “Waller Joel”.

What “accounts in question”? There are well over 300 accounts described, many of them linked clearly to Anglo Pyramidologist (i.e., to the “sock family” so-named on Wikipedia, which might be two brothers). I have not yet done a time study, it’s on the to-do list. Two AP red flags: “Eveshi” and “MU.”

The IP here geolocates to Seoul, which could indicate mikemikev (is he still living there?), except that it offers a “suspected network sharing device.” In any case, it would make little sense for mikemikev to present this, impersonating AP denying AP. I no longer rely on the “it makes no sense” argument. Some people do things that “make no sense.” Continuing:

There is a Rationalwiki page about here it:


Forests I believe was one of the brothers.

Indeed. It’s obvious. And then this leads me to not trust a word he wrote without careful verification.

He has been impersonated by someone called MU. Now this MU person is a dangerous cyber criminal who has been impersonating people online since 2006 at least. His latest fake name was “Waller Joel”. He even did a radio interview which you can listen to, he is crazy.

No link to evidence (but there is something below). Common. “Trust me! I’m an anonymous user, hiding behind an open proxy, but I’m telling you the truth, all those other people are lying!”

I’m not anonymous, I’ve become a journalist, and my reputation depends on probity. There isn’t any comparison. I have not depended on any unreliable source, but on extensive verified evidences stretching over many years. Each piece of evidence might have some possible problem, but in science and in sane journalism we look at the overall weight (particularly where evidences are independent). And liars and fanatics and trolls claim “you have no proof!” — but do not present proof of that statement, which would likely be impossible. (“impossibility arguments” are generally unfounded in evidence, for obvious reasons.)

I have posted this before on different websites, but here is it again. MU!! has been trolling numerous websites and newgroups, Usenet in particular, for over a decade. Do a Google search on names like “Ari Silverstein”, “Frank Camper”, or “wilburn” (preferably in combination with “Usenet”, e. g. [“Ari Silverstein” Usenet], [“Frank Camper” Usenet], [wilburn Usenet]) to see the full dimension of his trolling. As for Frank Camper: There is a real person with that name who is a former American soldier and mercenary. MU!!, under his various names, often claims to be this person (or uses sockpuppets to create rumors about himself to that effect). However, he does the same with remote viewing researcher Courtney Brown and Andrew B. Chung.

Gee, maybe AP is not the only active troll on the internet. But this other alleged troll is not behind the sock ring that collided with me. Florida doesn’t cut it, at all.

Threads about Waller Joel here:


The author of that post could be an AP sock. I’m not going further into it. AP has been active on many, many fora, as shown on various compilations on him. This is not primary evidence, but it might contain links to evidence. This does not connect Waller Joel to the alleged AP socks. Notice that the user “mac” suspects that the author is himself an impersonator. Is Waller Joel an AP red herring? Maybe. I don’t know, not yet. I do know that many AP socks are obsessed with MU or Waller Joel.

(Or there is a subset of the group of apparent AP socks created by an enemy or enemies of AP. But AP exists as a sock family, with identifiable interests and behaviors — and geolocation, and geolocation data is hard to fake, without travelling to the location. Someone with high motivation might do that. I’ve seen no sign of this kind of behavior yet. If lawyers get involved, which is possible, there might be some, ah, “travel expenses.” But they won’t be creating imitation socks.)


Run an internet search on waller joel mu and you will see what I am talking about. This is an enemy of the brothers and he is impersonating them. You do not need to post this on your website. But follow up the links!

The above link is Eveshi citing Eveshi, pursuing AP interests. So I looked at both links and was not impressed. Eveshi has access to places where a real evidence compilation could be done. However, he is never going to be credible as long as he conceals his own identity.

Science depends on reputation; a scientist who fakes data, if it is discovered, has trashed his or her career (because it shows that the person’s reports have been fake, and science depends on the assumption of true reports of experience. This is very, very different from assuming that conclusions are true. Conclusions can be false, but reports of experience must be honest, or the person’s work is worthless. It’s funny that RationalWiki, supposedly dedicated to rational thinking, completely disregards this basic principle.)

I have been also been impersonated by MU and have been tracking him for years. I am well aware about the brothers activities but they stay on the right side of the law. The real criminal is this Waller Joel MU person. He is still active impersonating people to this day.


And who is Eveshi that he has been impersonated? And what activities are actually those of the “brothers”? Remember, on RationalWiki, the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is commonly ridiculed. Why doesn’t Eveshi confront this error there?

To make any sense at all, what Eveshi is claiming must rest on a claim that the impersonation socking on Wikipedia was, in fact, impersonation of AP impersonating Ben Steigmann. However, there are many evidences connecting the recent “Michaelskater” socks to other AP interests and activities.

If Eveshi is real and sincere, he could support the efforts to clearly document all the activities. He could distinguish between real AP editing and fake. But …

He is not real and sincere. He is just another smokescreen. He could easily prove me wrong, but I doubt that he will, just as AP socks commonly attacked the studies I’ve done as being full of errors, but never actually pointed to a single error, except in one case, which, from my point of view, ended up proving the claim I had not actually made, that MrRowser was an AP sock.

And then we have:

Ben Steigmann is a nazi lol 2018/01/22 at 1:20 am

I will come clean I have been editing your Rationalwiki article and others on hundreds of accounts but I have decided to stop this soon :O, Oliver and his family is entirely innocent. You have been fooled. yet you have been stalking him LOL!! You literally have the wrong guy. Makes me laugh!!!!!!!!

You wanna know who did those impersonations of Leuders and Rome Viharo? It was me. And Viharo he blames it on Oliver and his brother, lol.

I love this, and none of you know who I am!! I have been playing all you guys off against each other. I am using a TOR, good luck tracking me

If someone wants to “clear” Oliver Smith and his brother, they cannot do so using an anonymous account clearly trolling. AP has been claiming that Ben Steigmann is a nazi for years, but what AP claims is a pile of lies, which may or may not contain some truth. It’s meaningless. I have had casual email contact with Steigmann for years (because of the parapsychology resource I created on Wikiversity, not to “promote” anything but to allow neutral study), and I’ve not seen any clue of his being “nazi,” but he’s young and I certainly don’t know about all his prior activities. Young people often hold and express views that later they would disavow. AP attempts to nail his enemies to early errors or transient opinions. It’s funny that he is accusing others of stalking and doxxing, when it is what he routinely does, with many targets.

He told the truth about one thing: The IP is an open proxy. Is that the end of this? Perhaps. Perhaps not. AP sometimes makes mistakes. So I’ll look to see if he has.

IP information had likely edited Wikipedia: Contributions/, The edits in October of 2017 particularly stand out. AP would have a series of identified open proxies and would call on them when he thinks his location might be examined. I will later examine the articles for other hits. AP had used  the open proxy on Wikipedia:  :Contributions/ (I had seen this before, he was stirring up trouble.) “Skeptic from Texas” is clearly AP, lying about his origin. Notice the block for open proxy. I requested that. is blocked as a vandalism account on Wikipedia. The interest in World Zionist Congress could be AP, but this is very weak. More likely, others have used this open proxy for Wikipedia purposes and abandoned it when it was blocked. But it would work fine elsewhere! However, two edits to RationalWiki with AP interest.

From technical data, all three accounts are very likely the same user (odds roughly one in a million of coincidence). “confirmed proxy server.” whatismyipaddress geolocates this to Turkey, but there may be a German reseller. The WMF global contributions display refers to it. Yes. TOR node. The range is The user has not used this range to edit en.wiki. This is the first TOR node hit I’ve seen for AP. I’d expect that usage to increase. This user wants to hide.

And now for something completely different

But actually same old, same old.

Ari Silverstein andrewbchung@gmail.com 2018/01/22 at 11:58

(proxy server)

I am a pagan now converting to Islam and I will help you attack Rationalwiki. This will be my last comment to you as I am now taking up religion and spending time praying to Allah, I will not be online anymore but you can email me, I am Ari Silverstein (Frank Camper). I am now on your side.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe this. If anyone really wants to help, contact me privately. This comment appears — strongly — to be trolling.

The person shows no idea of what Islam is or that Allah is, and uses “converting” in a way that those actually accepting Islam don’t use it. The person assumes my motive is to “attack RationalWiki.” And the names are strong “names of interest” to Anglo Pyramidologist, and there are other signs (such as the use of an open proxy).

Ben Steigmann denies the holocaust “Does it bother anybody that Jews and Jewish organizations have been fabricating hoaxes about “holocausts” of “six million” Jews for YEARS prior to WWII” he wrote on Amazon, but he is a good man despite his racist beliefs

And this is classic AP attack on Ben Steigmann. A link is given:


… because I am not going to pass on attacks on Ben Steigmann, no matter what his views might be. He never attacked me or any critical interest of mine, and, suppose for argument, he expressed some racist views, I am not going to nail him to them. He never expressed anything racist to me and my own position on racism is that it is natural human tribal identification, an ancient survival behavior, that has become dangerously obsolete, but I do not condemn anyone for being racist. I do condemn treating people to deprive them of life, liberty, and the rest. I condemn professionals who allow their emotional reactions to people to damage their professionalist (and racism is essentially an emotional reaction, though some cover it up withi rationalizations).

“he is a good man despite his racist beliefs” is actually an attack. Hitler was kind to his pets, etc.

I will join you in debunking those atheists and skeptics and alt-lefties. I have converted to your side Mr. Lomax.

This person — Chung or AP or some other troll — doesn’t know what my “side” is. I am not a debunker, and I am not against skepticism, merely encouraging skeptics to be careful, to be genuine skeptics.

We are now on the same side. Let’s go and refute those skeptics like Tim Farley and David Gerard!! They are blowhards like you say.

Okay, stopped clock is right twice a day. Tim Farley is indeed opinionated, and Gerard is weird and … something is rotten at or near the core on RationalWiki, but I don’t jump to conclusions and don’t know the extent of it. I will eventually present the evidence I have, with whatever conclusions seem clear to me — after that review! — and readers will form their own opinions, if they wish.

You and me and now friends, yes? Lets close down Rationalwiki. They do not know real science!!

That’s a huge generalization about what is — or was — a fairly large community.

I am now an enemy of Rationalwiki. Me you and Rome Viharo will make lots of money shutting them down. Cold fusion has been scientifically provens. Them lot of Rationalwiki have no idea do they!

And cold fusion hasn’t been “scientifically proven.” There is evidence that there is a real effect (my paper was about that), but it isn’t your grandfather’s fusion. What I’m doing has nothing to do with making money and I would gain noting from RationalWiki shutting down. To be sure, I might be part of an effort to reform RW, to remove the undue influence of the AP sock army, but if there is a target, it is AP, not RW.

Ari Silverstein

And why would “Ari Silverstein” use an “Andrew Chung” email address? The answer is obvious. He is not Andrew Chung, nor is he Ari Silverstein, nor is he Frank Camper. There is an internet story there that would take much research, but … no. Not without clear evidence. Give me a real email address with a coherent name (or email me through the Wikipedia interface or the RationalWiki interface), I can be reached. I’m not even going to send an email to that address.

The real Ari Silverstein/Chung/MU/whatever is welcome to establish identity and comment. An account with a couple of edits on RW, Waller_MU_Joel_Abd had some interesting things to say, or ravings to express. Blocked by Skeptical. Which means what? I’m quite clear that on occasion, Skeptical blocked himself — or his brother.

Technical evidence on this post indicates that this is the same user as the first three on this page. It’s all the same guy!

David Smith

… gives a name, a possible family member, same last name, but it is, of course, very common, but this is very unlikely to be such a family member so I have redacted it. If this is real, the family member could establish it, but the signs are multiple that this is not. The comment posted:

David Smith 
[Given name space Family name, no space, birth year? — redacted]@gmail.com  02.08 at 12:14 pm

Hint: if one wants to complain as a real person, based on privacy issues, doing so with a comment intended for publication is quite unwise. As well, using a like-anonymous and very possibly impersonating gmail address would be counterproductive, and using an IP that is completely remote from where the family supposedly lives, i.e,. at the address that has been given, would raise suspicion that something is awry with the comment. Further, in this case, presenting known AP false arguments would again, raise even more suspicion. Yes, conceivably the person with the name given could have moved to Los Angeles, or already lives there. It is merely unlikely. I’m sure he could get an email address for me from the Smith brothers (Oliver has written me), and send me a private email. So as to details:


Can you please remove the personal addresses you have put on your blog? You are now attacking peoples family members and that is not playing fair.

This comment was made on a page that has nothing to do with Anglo Pyramidologist or Oliver Smith, at least not directly. The page where there is an alleged address is /anglo-pyramidologist/identity/ Comments are enabled on that page. Complaints about CFC content that are not on the page with the alleged problem, and that do not include a link to the page with the specific problem mentioned, may be ignored.

The comment is misleading, because, while I originally reported full details from the document that had been published elsewhere, on January 31, 2018, I redacted the names of family members other than Oliver Smith and Darryl Smith, who are definitely the sock masters behind the Anglo Pyramidologist accounts.

You are tying to put my families safety at risk by hosting my families address on your website. Your source of information for this address was a man known as Michael Coombs, he is a neo-Nazi from Wales. In the past he has sent my family death threats. I have law enforcement watching his activities. Why you are citing this man on your blog, baffles.

Accusing me of bad faith, “trying” to put his alleged family’s safety at risk, is not a way to encourage me to cooperate. This kind of demand for allegedly good behavior is common from AP socks. The user here does not identify the family relationship.

As to the source of that information, the original source of information can often be someone hostile to a target. He does appear to be someone I’d prefer not to associate with. Many have repeated that information, and his alleged bad behavior — I have no information about it except that coming from known liars, the two Smith brothers — does not make the information false or irrelevant, and this alleged family member here confirms that the information is accurate and, in fact, public. He claims it is not public because it is behind a pay wall. That’s a spurious argument, the kind of spurious argument that the Smith brothers often make.

The information is not public, he took it from 192 behind a paywall. It is actually doxing and illegal in some countries to do this. It was not public information.

192 provides information from public records that are not easily accessed, and they charge for it. Whether or not what I’ve done is “illegal in some countries,” it is not know to be legal in any jurisdiction involved with my publication. “Doxxing” is often considered an offense on various wikis, but that does not make it illegal. The sources for 192 are public records, that’s totally clear. So someone paid for the data and provided it to Coombs, as he claimed, or he lied and obtained the information himself. I could now consider it fully confirmed as well, except for this comment itself not being fully reliable. A very sophisticated impersonator could be creating that confirmation. There are many such evidences in the AP record, and I call the possibility of impersonation, in this case, the “perverse reverse.” That is, someone pretends to be one of the brothers, posting content that would clearly pass the “duck test,” slipping in revelations that confirm claims about the brothers. Against this: the Smith brothers are intensely vigilant, seeking and searching for issues to use for libel, and they would see such an impersonation and would immediately confront it. I have found one such probable impersonation account on RationalWiki. It was fairly obvious, though.

Rather, impersonation is a common AP sock trait, and there are clearly known examples, with technical evidence.

If you want to write a hundred articles on your website attacking people or skeptics who edit wikis that is fine, that is not the real world.

I do not “attack” anyone as a skeptic. I do sometimes criticize specific writings or actions of specific people. The story that I’m busy attacking people is an Anglo Pyramidologist story. I am actually a journalist, and I cover facts and then may add some analysis. The fact here is that this comment appeared on my blog. I have deleted it, directly, because it was irrelevant where placed, but it is quoted in its entirety here. He is correct in this: what he describes is not the “real world.” He made it up, or he accepted it from his brother, or, possibly, he is someone else — perhaps from Los Angeles — who has been fed a pile of BS by the Smith brothers. He claims to be a family member, so this would be the same: he believes what his family members have told him, but has not personally verified it, or he would know that the names other than Oliver and Darryl have been redacted. Oliver himself has claimed that “99.9%” of the socks are his brother. He was exaggerating, definitely, but he might be quite correct that most have been his brother, and that was claimed back in 2011 on Wikipedia, the same.

You are taking this too far now by hosting peoples addresses on your website which is the real world and can be damaging to peoples lives. There is no reason to be linking to peoples families contact information. Can you please remove all of it?

It can be damaging. The “contact information,” however, only includes a physical street address, given for the twin brothers only. The crucial information is real names. And Oliver and Darryl, collectively, have created articles that defame real individuals by real names, so that anyone considering doing business with them, or otherwise wanting to know more about the person, will find the RationalWiki articles they created with massive defamation, basically lies. As an example, Emil Kirkegaard is called a “neo-Nazi pedophile.” There is no evidence for either; with the former there is only guilt by association, with the latter, no evidence at all. And even if it were true, this can be defamation unless it could be proven true. What is protecting the Smith brothers at this point is the difficulty of either obtaining police action or filing an actual civil suit. Every repetition of the behavior increases the probability that such action, even if difficult, will go ahead. Simply point this out (it’s obvious) will get one blocked on RationalWiki for “legal threats.” Pointing to patterns of socked can and has resulted in blocks for “doxxing,” though showing evidence for socking is never sanely considered doxxing if the real name is not alleged.

The problem here is that revelation of the real identity is one of the most effective actions that can be taken about the alleged and massive libels. The cat is out of the bag, and that information is now widely available. It would be harmless if Smith was not continually creating offense. Piss off enough people and sooner or later someone will take action. If I were to remove the name, it would not protect the family. Indeed, Smith has made sure that pages are archived, so that alleged privacy violations here cannot be hidden. He archived the page with his emails here, which confirm the claims, and, yes, that was him. Ah, technical evidence! (Which Smith has long claimed doesn’t exist. I don’t necessarily reveal it, just as Wikipedia checkusers don’t reveal how they work, citing WP:BEANS.)

I understand you are tiffed off at skeptics and others who have edited your Rationalwiki article. It is not illegal to edit a public wiki. Nobody on Rationalwiki is hosting your real life address or linking to your family addresses on your article or going after your family members.

Lots of people have edited my article, but it was created by an AP sock as revenge, and that is totally obvious. It is not “illegal to edit a public wiki.” Smith often begins with a true statement. But it is, in fact, illegal to defame people, and most wikis will respond to a subpoena, certainly WMF wikis will, and then service providers will also provide logs. That one can often get away with libel does not make it legal.

AP has revealed, in a sock name, that he knows my real address, so he is certainly threatening to reveal it. And, in fact, it’s public information. I have not “gone after” .. Smith’s “family members.” I have not alleged any illegal or improper activity on their part. However, they all lived together and shared internet access at some point, and I suspect that they knew about the twin’s activities. By not addressing and stopping it, they did create some level of risk for the family. But I redacted those names.

When users edit Rationalwiki they have a right to remain anonymous.

“Right” against the rights of whom? If people are defamed, they have the “right” to know who did it. That is, in fact, a legal right.

In fact, in this case, Oliver Smith has now publicly acknowledged creating the articles on John Fuerst and Emil Kirkegaard. Before that admission, the Smith brothers were claiming that the story of a large family of socks were a “paranoid fantasy,” but they clearly knew that it was not a fantasy, so they were lying. That claim is still in my article. It only survives on RationalWiki because most RW users don’t actually look at evidence, or only look for the most shallow appearances. Basic wiki problem, in fact, this was not created by the Smith brothers, but they have discovered that they can outright and plainly misrepresent what is in sources, and will normally get away with it.

If you want to play detective and try and work out who users are on wikis you have the right to do that, but you are crossing the line when you are posting the home address of peoples families. People have jobs and what you are doing to trying to damage real life people.

That describes what Oliver Smith has actually done. What’s really weird is that he was denying getting Joshua Connor Moon’s mother fired. He defended himself by claiming that he didn’t get the mother fired, he only wrote on email to Moon’s mother. Who was also, by the way, apparently impersonated as a blog owner that was almost certainly created by a Smith brother.  (But I have not confirmed that story.)

The home address is evidence that was used to confirm IP evidence, as shown by how IP geolocations cluster about that home address. The Smith brothers have been spoiled by WMF policies about IP, and RationalWiki’s protection of socks, such that they think these policies have the force of law. They don’t.

Privacy rights, as a matter of common law, are conditional on the absence of illegal activity, and impersonation and defamation are illegal.

Possible damage to the family is unlikely from what I’m hosting, because I redacted the names of other family members. So if one, for example, is googling the father, or the older brother, those names will not show up as mentioned here. However, they might possibly show up on archived pages, and I can’t do anything about that. A person might be able to have such pages removed from Google searches, and I offered to cooperate with someone I’d mentioned in that, and his response was to claim, in a place where this could and probably did, create harm, that I had “harassed him” by email — which the email record, which I then published does not show. The Smith brothers are not the only people involved who lie in order to cause harm to others!

(I then restored the information, because one who will lie about something like that is better exposed. “Privacy” is not an absolute right. If it were, the RationalWiki articles would be very obviously illegal, even more than the defamation that is common there.)

I am requesting that you remove the addresses you have hosting on your website. Your website is hosted by [redacted] and in there terms and agreement policies they do not host personal information. Please do not make this personal. Thanks.

That’s a threat, matching many from AP. I have again read the policies, and I could find no mention of what this person claims. I will, however, take defensive action. He’s not going to like it. (Trying to gain cooperation with threats is a method that generally fails, but some bullies have been successful with this and thus repeat the behavior.)

(I will remove the alleged violations, but may point to archive copies of the information. I would simply keep it, but removing it this way takes the situation out of what might be actioned by a clueless host, and hosts and administrators can be clueless. I remain legally responsible for what I wrote, but Smith would have to actually file a lawsuit. I’d love it if he did, because I would then counterclaim, it takes the matter our of discretion, and would also be a cracker-jack excuse to raise funding. RationalWiki is actually using this excuse to raise donations, Rome Viharo points that out.)

David Smith again

The threats get worse and the defense demonstrates that this family, if it is actually involved, is not taking this seriously. I think this is just one of the twins, but if this is actually a family member, I’d suggest dropping the threats and, even better, have an attorney, a real person whom I can verify, contact me. A lower cost option would be any real person I can verify. The reason for suggesting an attorney is that an attorney can verify the client. Given what is being said here, the client should be the whole family. What is being revealed is, in fact, a collective responsibility for what has been occurring. If this is just Oliver and Darryl, no, no major responsibility. The name given by this user is a Smith, but not one of the known names from the family.

David Smith
[gmail account redacted] 2018/02/08 at 5:47 pm


The thread I was talking about was this one http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/identity/  and comments are disabled.

I just checked and with another browser, not logged in, posted a comment. They were enabled.

I am a legit family member of these people and I have permission to post on their behalf.

I don’t have that from them, and thus this would not be legally binding. It’s simply one more AP or AP-associated claim, and AP commonly lies and misrepresents. This person did not explain the Los Angeles IP and did not establish the actual family relationship. Further, as well be seen, the person has no skill at resolving disputes, but inflames them. That’s not uncommon, so that in itself would not be proof of being one of the twins. If the Smiths actually are concerned, I recommend they have someone with skill contact me. A lawyer is one option. What this person does is repeat the Smith claims that establish his defamation.

On your blog post you have mentioned the brothers family members including their mother and father. You may have ‘redacted’ the names at the top but at the bottom of the article and elsewhere you mention their parents names and their other brother, it is still there. You also link to the address on an external link. First question why are you doing this in the first place? Are people creating blogs about your family and hosting your real life address? No. So why are you doing it to others?

These are not, by the way, “blog posts.” They are “pages,” which exist as hypertext, organized as subpages under topics, whereas blog posts are organized by date and are featured on the main blog page. The difference is that pages are for the organization of knowledge, whereas posts are immediately topical and chatty. I have deliberately not, so far and for the most part, emphasized these research pages by blogging about them. Some of them may be mentioned in blog posts, as I assess that there is wider interest or potential interest.

I have also redacted the names mentioned, and the addresses as well, but will leave that location in the google IP map as the home or former home of Anglo Pyramidologist (i.e,. of the twins).  (Right now, the map will show the actual address, but I will replace that with coordinates and they can be approximate enough to accomplish the purpose but not close enough to find the actual house. I am not actually sure that the address itself is enough for that.). It is clear from these mails that the address was correct. And that is why I pointed out that private email would have been far more appropriate if this is sincere. My tentative conclusion: it is not sincere. This is one of the twins, probably Oliver.

I do not, then, have probative evidence that the family actually knows what Oliver and Darryl have been doing. It has been suggested to me that I actually contact the parents, but I am avoiding that for obvious reasons. That would look far more like harassment than what I have done (but the ones suggesting it were actually thinking of the family welfare).

The information needs to be removed, you have no valid reason to be doing this, it is harassment to intimate these people. The parents and older brother are all innocent and nothing to do with editing wikis. One of the brothers D Smith is no longer there.

I think he means “intimidate.” Intimidate what people? So Darryl has moved out. Oliver still lives there. I suspected that already. “No valid reason” simply disregards what Oliver and Darryl have done, causing massive damage to many people. Including me, by the way, but I voluntarily took the risk. Some of those people did not. Nothing on the page claimed that the parents and older brother had done anything improper, and I think it was explicit. The names have been replaced with “[redacted],” so the information is basically the same (they are identified by “mother” and “brother.”

In the same blog post as hosting this address you also mention the topic of ‘pedophilia’. You may have done this on purpose or it may have been unintentional.

I can’t imagine mentioning pedophilia unintentionally. “Pedophilia” was mentioned by Oliver Smith, so he is responsible for the connection.

But there is no connection between the family residence and ‘pedophilia’.

Sure there is. Someone living there accused others of being pedophiles or pedophile apologists.

You are tying to influence Google traffic by false connections. If someone was doing the same to you, i.e. publishing your families home address or your own one with the topic of ‘pedophilia’, I am sure you would want it removed.

The word “pedophilia” occurs on my blog, and I have written about the topic on various occasions, and Oliver Smith has accused me of “defending pedophiles” or “pedophile apologists” — all untrue. I would not be arguing that the mention of the word pedophile on a page with my name is therefore needing removal. I created a resource on Wikiversity on “Sexual politics,” that refers to a scientific study related to pedophilia. The problem is? Nobody is going to accuse the Smiths of pedophilia, or the family, because of what is hosted here. What is exposed is that Oliver Smith accused people of being pedophiles or pedophile apologists, and then also attacked others because they associate with such a person, when the evidence actually shows none of this. If the Smiths want no association with pedophilia, they should stop allowing one of them to accuse people of it.

I am not sure why a blog on cold fusion research has now stooped to this. You need to some self-reflection. It needs to stop. You may have lived a fantastic life and now you are retired and in your 70s, but remember people are younger than you and still have careers. What you are doing has a potential to ruin peoples careers.

What is on this blog is between me and my organization and its supporters. I am not charging for my services to the organization, and so one compensation is that I can write about what I think is of importance. Academic freedom is an important issue for cold fusion, and Oliver and Darryl Smith have attacked academic freedom, in a big way, causing significant damage. Part of that was a specific attack on cold fusion.

What the “people” are doing have that potential to cause harm, as those attacked respond to it and others intervene for justice.

Oliver Smith wrote me and I advised him that he could recover from all this if he (1) stopped (2) apologized and acted to clear up the messes he created.

Instead, he dove in with more intensity, creating an attack blog going after Emil Kirkegaard — and immediately archiving it so that when it was taken down, as it was rather quickly, it would still be readable. However, I just searched for Oliver D. Smith and “paedophie,” his spelling, and the page mentioned here doesn’t show in ready results. Rather, the top hit is an Encyclopedia Dramatica article that actually says he is not a pedophile.

I would appreciate it if you would remove the information. It comes up on a Google search and is just a way to damage peoples careers or lives. If you want to blog on people you have the right to do that, but posting peoples addresses as a way to intimidate them is not acceptable. You are putting people’s lives at risk. There is absolutely no reason at all to be linking to anyone’s address. None.

I have removed the address, not because there was “no reason” but because it was not necessary. That information is, however, Cat Out of Bag. Trying to get it removed by threatening and harassing people will fail. Unclean hands.

In regard to Kirkegaard I can assure you Smith never contacted the newspapers about him, your evidence is a Rationalwiki ‘post’ that was a joke to feed you false information.

Liar. This person is saying what he could not know, unless he is Oliver Smith, as if he knows it. That is lying. He is not telling us what he knows, just denying my interpretations. This is very much like … Oliver D. Smith. The “joke” was plausible and was consistent with what Smith had written to me. As well, the core of the “newspaper” story is that the media followed closely Smiths’ articles on RationalWiki. The comment on RW that this person is referring to is here and is by SkepticDave who is, from contributions, very clearly Oliver D. Smith (probably not Darryl, but it is possible).

And now this user, WTF, he used the name “David”, proceeds to make Oliver’s claims as his own. This is not a family member seeking to resolve a problem, it’s Oliver himself, once again.

This individual Emil had previously been exposed on Danish anti-fascist blogs years ago.

If it is on a blog with politics I’m pretending to like, it must be true, right?

Yes he was a former neo-Nazi, now he wants to be a ‘race realist’ and hide those former days to seek better public acceptance.

I really have no idea. “Race realism” is not necessary racism, it is more racialism, which is connected with hereditarianism, the idea that genetic inheritance is important to human behavior. The scientific issue is actually one of degree, not of basic fact. To what extent are “races” a biological reality, or are they cultural creations?

I’m generally with the mainstream on this, but that someone is not does not make them “racist” or “fascist.” If someone is a “former neo-Nazi,” and if we think that being a neo-Nazi is a bad thing, we should be congratulating them and letting them move on, rather than continuing to call them by the name of their former associations. Oliver D. Smith dredges the old material that can be found about a person and reports even shallow appearances from it as present reality.

The London Student newspaper investigation was the one that exposed Emil as a racist in 2018, it has nothing to do with Smith.

Total bullshit. That newspaper article was essentially copied from the RationalWiki article without careful investigation, and Oliver Smith has acknowledged writing that article, and not just as SkepticDave, he has acknowledged it as Oliver.

There is an old photograph of Emil doing a Nazi salute with a friend. Emil on his own blog

Liar or radically incautious. There is a photo of Emil where someone else has their arm extended in a salute, it is not at all clear what was happening, but lots of young people make jokes about Nazis. That David repeats all this shows how he’s Oliver. None of this is relevant to anything of major significance. It’s not evidence that Kirkegaard “is a neo-Nazi” or “fascist,” and then we see more dirt being alleged.

also has a blog post defending animated child porn

He did, long ago, again, and the position he expressed was the position of the U.S. Supreme Court; it was a matter under discussion at the time. Basically, Oliver looks for mud to toss. Highly misleading. I’m not going to explain the issue, but the real point is that Oliver’s agenda is clearly revealed: to defame. And David is here supporting that. If I believed that David was real, not lying, I’d think the whole family deserved to be exposed. But I don’t believe that.

and he is associated with the Mankind Quarterly, a racist publication.

Possibly racialist, but I’ve read some of the papers and it certainly does not appear “racist.” And what does this have to do with claims of pedophilia or “pedophilia apology.” (Smith has claimed both.)

You can draw your own conclusions.

I have, on study.

I believe that Emil in the past was a neo-Nazi, but he is ashamed of his former past. He now claims to be a ‘race realist’. He is not really fooling anyone.

Again, this is Oliver Smith, mind-reading Kirkegaard, and defaming him.

If you check his twitter all his friends are Neo-nazis.

I’m not about to do this level of obsessive research. Has David done it? Only Oliver Smith or his brother would invest the effort to discover guilt-by-association. I’ve now had direct correspondence with Kirkegaard. I think he is a racialist and hereditarian on intelligence. I disagree with those stands. But it seems possible to have a coherent discussion with him, which is consistent with his academic bent and inclination. Smith is crazy and routinely lies. I have not seen any lies from Kirkegaard. He wrote some foolish things, and I told him. He’s young. I don’t think he is a “neo-Nazi.” He might be a nationalist or anti-immigration or might have other stands I wouldn’t like, but it appears possible to have a coherent discussion where he will honestly say what he thinks or believes.

And he retweets the neo-Nazi Mark Collett. Admitting to being a Nazi is reputation suicide, so nobody sane will admit to being one. But Emil is definitely far-right. Why you want to side with this man I cannot understand. It seems you will automatically side with anyone who hates Smith, even crude racists.

You, Oliver or David, are an idiot, imagining that other people are as stupid-reactive as you. I have not “sided” with Kirkegaard, I looked at the accusations and investigated them, and found that he was being libelled. I wrote that were I a lawyer, I’d even defend a pedophile. That is now quoted on my RationalWiki article, because it’s obvious that the Smith brothers think this is outrageous. I also wrote that I was an officer in an ACLU chapter at one time, and the ACLU literally defends the civil rights of Nazis and other people with very unpopular opinions. People in modern legal systems have the right to defense, and an attack on the civil liberties of anyone is an attack on mine.

My next question would be though why you make a history of being a busy-body (nosing at other peoples online activities).

Concern troll.

The Kirkegaard battle with Smith has nothing to do with you, nothing. You seem to get entertainment out of other peoples affairs. Just stay out of it, it does not involve you.

You are lying or it does not involve you, either. I’ll pick the former, liar.

In regard to the blogspot you talk about, it was deleted by Smith, not taken down by breaking policies.

I cannot verify that. It would have been deleted, it was obvious, so this is damage control by Oliver, claiming he took it down. Maybe he did.

Smith does not know how to properly operate a BlogSpot and I created it for him.

OMG. David has just admitted creating a blog that was, by name and design, defamation.

Smith actually wants this whole drama dropped and to move on with his life, but Kirkegaard will not allow it.

It does not matter what Kirkegaard will allow. There is a simple and straightforward way to accomplish this alleged goal. Tell the truth, the whole truth. Admit what one has done and if it was improper or offensive, apologize for any offense. (Offense is in the eyes of the offended, by the way.) Anglo Pyramidologist attacked me for documenting what he did on Wikiversity, — lying about what I was actually doing, by the way — and threatened me with retaliation, which he attempted with the RationalWiki article. (this may have been Darryl, but Smith becomes responsible for allowing it and for cooperating with it, just as, should David happen to be real, he is, likewise.)

Emil on his twitter posts about Smith almost everyday. Smith has no blogs, websites or anything on anyone. He has edited some wikis that is it. He does not host things on people like yourself

Smith has created a number of blogs, apparently, impersonating others. Blogs are easy to create, the idea that extensive technical knowledge is necessary is BS. I was documenting the WMF activities on the meta wiki, because it was cross-wiki disruption and I was documenting RationalWiki activities on RationalWiki. Both of those stopped because it became dangerous because of AP complaints. So Smith essentially forced me to use this blog. I don’t mind. We are not short of space.

I offered to help Smith, if he really wanted to clear this up. His response was to insult me and ramp it up. He’s just trying to use various approaches. Again, if “David” is real, I’d suggest using an attorney to contact me. An attorney would know far better than to do what David is doing. (In England, this would be called a “solicitor.”)

Bottom line of this whole affair is the problem that you do not know the whole story.

Nobody does. Ever. About anything.

In regard to Smith, you are probably not aware that he has been defamed in the past on both Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Farms as a ‘homosexual’ ‘pedophile’ or ‘rapist’ and ‘nazi’.

So it is David who is ignorant. I came into this with a question as to who was behind the “Michaelskater” socks who had done so much damage on Wikiversity and then who went completely bananas when I documented them. I found connections with AngloPyramidologist and, of course googled it. The more I was attacked the more curious I became. I had been pointed to “mikemikev.” That turned out to have been by one of the socks. Who would both falsely accuse mikemikev and attack Ben Steigmann? Anglo Pyramidologist! And Google led to Oliver D. Smith, but I did not name that name for a long time, since I only had these accusations from unreliable sources. Rome Viharo had taken it up and he is more reliable, but again, I didn’t know if he was merely jumping to conclusions. He won’t lie, but he could make mistakes.

Eventually I came to confirm the identity and found supporting evidence, and Oliver Smith himself effectively verified this (he attempted to justify and minimize, not actually to deny, as David here is confirming the intention to libel while justifying it.

He is none of these things and takes great offense to being labelled one. The reason these trolls called him these things was reverse psychology, to annoy him and it worked. I have spent a heck of lot of time with him trying to clear his name as has the other brother.

I’m not responsible for the trolls on Encyclopedia Dramatica. If Oliver is offended at being called a pedophile, perhaps he might understand that others might also take offense! And might even retaliate!

The ED article removed this smear, but on Kiwi Farms it remained for over a year until it was finally deleted but archived copies remain. Smith is not a pedophile or a rapist, or anything of that nature.

I have seen no credible accusations of it. He is an internet troll who has called a person a “pedophile” with no evidence, and an advocate of child  rape when the comments quoted were not advocacy, at all, not if one reads them in their entirety. So Smith defames people, and more than that. He retaliates and attempts to cause harm to anyone who has opposed his agenda of damage through impersonation and lies.

At the time he was inquiring for a new job, it is likely he did not get this job because internet harassers on those websites were creating images of him with ‘pedophile’ above his head.

That is bullshit. I have seen nothing that would credibly create that. But claims that Smith does what he actually does — and continues to do — could well have that effect. Again, the way out is clear, but he’d have to start telling the truth. Encyclopedia Dramatica is not designed to believable. RationalWiki is, and I have seen people jumping to conclusions about others from what is hosted there, that Oliver (or Darryl) created. RationalWiki has more pretense of being verifiable from sources. It has higher ranking in searches, generally. And Oliver Smith was protected there. The article “Oliver D. Smith” was never created, but was salted. Why? That was pre-emptive protection. The Smiths have also been protected elsewhere. Why? I find the question of interest. Whose purposes are served by these attack dogs?

These activities are no doubt illegal and have ruined Smith’s mental health.

Oh, that’s funny.

We have had law enforcement following them. In reply to your comment, did he send an email to someone’s employer to report this abuse. He never actually sent the email, he just said he did.

Again, hilarious. David, if you really are from the family, you will need to become much better informed and, as well, to recognize that Oliver and Darryl are responsible for what they say.

The man who was actually behind this was another man with the surname ‘smith’ (hint, first name S.A.M). He still has a Farms thread and is a notorious cyber-criminal. I will not mention his full name, but you should be easily able to find it online and the history of all this.

Oh, I think that I know who is being mentioned. Worked with Smith for a time and they had a falling out, so now a Smith — does it matter which one? — is trying to pin the Bad Stuff on him. But I’m not attempting to keep all the denizens of cyberspace straight.

O. Smith had about 100 images on Google with a ‘pedophile’ smear written above his head. It is a serious smear which would could cause someone to commit suicide. You talk about defamation, but who has really been defamed?

First of all, I might suggest that “David” become familiar with defamation law. What is not believable is not necessarily defamation. What is obvious satire and trolling may not be defamation.

I just googled “Oliver Smith pedophile” and looked at the images. There is one image as described and it links to https://archive.is/8j1V8 which is a page on Rome Viharo (which compares him to Oliver Smith). One commentor posted that photo of Smith with PEDOPHILE written on it. This has no credibility and would be very unlikely to cause damage. What will cause damage is the creation of libelous articles on RationalWiki, and other major disruption.

An internet search for your name Lomax only brings up one supposed ‘negative’ article about you on Rationalwiki that logs your wiki blocks or forum bans.

That is a gross understatement.

You have not been defamed anywhere on the internet.

Untrue. This is ridiculous.

Nobody is stalking your family members (that you seem to be doing to others), nobody is hosting blogs about you.

Damn! I need to try harder! (And I have not stalked “family members.” I simply confirmed the Smith geolocation. I have not found nor have I attempted to find personal information about anyone other than Oliver and Darryl Smith, who originally confirmed each other as socks blocked on Wikipedia as Anglo Pyramidologist, and they have created many socks to harass me and prevent me from neutrally documenting what they did. What they did, in itself, would obviously appear reprehensible to many, but I was just showing, originally, a list of socks that had been identified. In that documentation, I occasionally mentioned other people, without any claim that they had done anything wrong, and I was attacked for “attacking them.” Oliver Smith attempts to get people fighting with each other, that is one of the obvious behaviors.

Nobody is outing your IP addresses or creating maps like you spend your time doing. As said before, I think some self-reflection is in order here.

I’m not creating massive numbers of socks where IP information can help identify them — and can also clear some from accusations. For example, some of the IP information I compiled geolocated to Seoul, Korea. That was almost certainly mikemikev.

Yes, I created the IP map to make it easy to convey this information. It’s a part of the larger picture. And I will be refactoring all this data I have compiled here to make it more accessible and easier to understand.

Oliver Smith is advised to realize that denial and counterattack can never recover the possibility of a decent reputation. His attacks on Kirkegaard may have sealed this, but there were others before. His attacks on me — that “David” denies exist — may result in some reforms, or not. I don’t know the outcomes in advance, I only know that patient study of reality pays off.

I have your phone number and all your details which are public. I could choose to phone you or one of your daughters but I thought no. I do not want to cross the realm of real life. I respect your privacy, so please respect the privacy of mine and remove the details about them from public view.

I don’t know who you are, you have not really told me. Ah, David, other than pointing out that your IP was Los Angeles, I have not revealed your “personal information.” I think you forgot you were pretending to be not-Oliver and not-Darryl. The cool thing about phone calls is caller ID.

If Oliver or Darryl go after my children, well, they used to be called an “urban army” and they protected each other, and anyone who molested them was in big, big trouble. Such might hope that the police would be called instead of direct action taken. I’m an old man, but I have children with children and another one, I just found, on the way.

It is cowardly to start making this whole thing personal, and publicly posting peoples private information that was indeed behind a paywall on 192.

Again, if it was on 192, it was public information. I don’t see why that is diffcult to understand. “David,” here, has saved me what it would cost to buy the information.

You talk about the smiths getting an attorney and filing a claim against you and then you doing a counter claim.

No, that is not what I said. I suggested an attorney for negotiation (as I clarify above, it would be a “solicitor”, who negotiates,  because “David” is obviously incompetent at that, instead arguing as Oliver would. Filing a lawsuit would be nuts, because what I’m doing is not a tort. Really bad idea, but I can represent myself, I’m reasonably competent at it. There are others considering legal action against Oliver, and Kirkegaard seems to have quite a decent case, and possibly Rome Viharo as well. And others.

(When claims are made that are plausible enough to be taken up and repeated by mainstream media, a clear boundary has been crossed.)

None of us really want it to get to that level. You seem to feed off drama, we are the opposite. We want to live our lives. Not have some disgruntled guy blogging about us everyday.

Now I have spoken to Smith and he wants all this drama stopped. Are you willing to move on with your life and stop all of this? Regards.

I’m not seeing anything offered to make up for all the damage that has been done. I am not “blogging about” them “every day.” However, Smith keeps creating new attacks — on me on my RW article — and new attacks on others. If he wants “all this drama stopped,” why, then, is he feeding it so intensely?


Sarah, posting to Identity, at 2018/02/09 at 8:15 am (UT-7)
[yahoo email redacted]


Why are you doxxing peoples addresses on your website? This is harassment.

The IP address for “Sarah” is a TOR exit node.  The email address is on yahoo, useless to publish, it is unlikely to be active (WordPress does not confirm these addresses). “Sarah” is a troll, — nobody else would use TOR for a comment like this — and is repeating an Oliver Smith story. There were, as part of an investigation into the Identity of Anglo Pyramjidologist, some addresses. Those were redacted yesterday, gone well before “Sarah” wrote. It is not harassment, per se, to republish the public real-life information of a blatant promoter of libel and widespread internet disruption, who has been threatening me, in fact, with harassment — and actually haraassing, in many ways, causing damage (i.e., otherwise unnecessary work). Instead of being “butt-hurt,” the term used on RationalWiki and other places like ED and lolcowwiki or kiwi farms, when someone describes abuse, I investigate and publish what I find, and learn from it. Highly educational, including the restoration work, I needed to relearn a programming language to handle enormous XML files. That will now be useful in many ways. When life gives lemons, don’t just make lemonade, make lemon chicken and lemon chiffon pie. Yay for lemons!

“Butt-hurt” is adolescent-culture condemnation of an appearance of weakness. Strong men don’t complain. But the flip side of that is the common dictum, “Don’t get mad, get even.” The more mature expression of that is to actually address social problems with action, not just complaint or narrow retaliation. When one takes such, there will always be opposition. In my training, “If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.” Exemplars in the training are often people who were assassinated. It’s easy to think of a list who made a difference in the world, benefiting many, who were shot.

Because the address is not needed any more on this site for any legitimate purpose (any attorney for a client suing Smith can find it easily, searching on the name of the guilty person, and he’s admitted various actions that amount to libel and defamation and harassment), I voluntarily removed it the day before this comment, and, this morning, as well, a link to an image of it, and will be removing reference to the address elsewhere, but I will be keeping rough geolocation for use with identifying Smith IP. Smith has just created, it appears, a threat to the address, see below. In other words, he is trying to prove that there is an actual danger, by creating a threat himself. Or … it is trolling by an enemy. The threat is not at all believable.

However, suppose I don’t redact the address from that threat? What I will do is investigate evidence I have, to see if  enough clues were left for a definitive conclusion about these comments.

Bill Cooper

posted to To live outside the law you must be honest, 2018/02/09 at 8:28 am (UT-7)

Bill Cooper
[email redacted]

Phone number

Can I call you and we can discuss your cyber-bullying and harassment of my client? There are legal implications of your abuse.

[link to directory listing for my real name]

Bill Cooper (British attorney)

Fun. The phone number is not actually a land line. It is in the directory listing,though. Smith was able to find this by searching on my real name, which is not secret. My identity is not secret, it has long been quite public. I’m not hiding. I did not need proof that Smith would know it (and he has claimed this before).

Now, Bill Cooper. British attorney? No. Radically unskillful if he is. An attorney leading with a pure threat might possibly be just writing a letter for a friend, not caring about actual negotiation. Letters from actual attorneys less hostile and aggressive than this have been met by citing a famous British case in which an alleged media offender for libel wrote something like this: “We have carefully considered your request, and our answer is: Fuck off!” I’ve referred to this before…..

This is actually showing that Smith and make “good” on this threat to publish my “private information,” which obviously is not-so-private. And I knew that. If you are going to threaten someone, make sure that they are vulnerable to it! Threats are a very poor way to gain cooperation, they only work with someone with no critical interest in continuing, and when the “harm” is extensive. Smith has actually threatened my children, but they are quite capable of defending themselves, and will.

(Smith is “disgusted” that I have seven children (two adopted), but that actually could be seen as my “winning the game,” a game which he has lost without even trying, if he continues with what he has claimed about himself, the survival game, he is “anti-natalist,”  and such believe that procreation is immoral (and not merely because of overpopulation, the position is that it is intrinsically immoral, because it creates the possibility of suffering, and to cause suffering, it is believed, is immoral. This is definitely connected with Smith’s internet activity, his obsessions. I’m not worried about his error, because it breeds itself out naturally.

I also have six grandchildren, with another just revealed. Yay!

Yes, life can turn about at any time: Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin’

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’

Nobel Prize. He deserved it, fully.  My children are spread around the map, but, hay, maybe the sun goes supernova, or there is a nuclear war and nearly everyone dies. And in the end, everyone dies, in my training: “Survival is a game you are going to lose.” They mean, eventually — and personally. It’s intrinsic to existence: what has a beginning has an end. That, I will declare, is reality. However, meanwhile, we have an opportunity ….

What was missing from “Mr. Cooper’s” mail was any evidence that he is an actual attorney. The IP is  a TOR Node, or a proxy server, the same provider as Sarah. The email address is on gmail. An attorney would definitely not use such to contact me. He would give me his real contact information, office address for mail, actual telephone number, email, etc. Attorneys don’t hide. Smith does.

So, then, before I even saw this comment, he utterly proves he is a troll, and the purpose of the comment was simply to demonstrate that he has personal contact information, which I already assumed.

Bill Cooper (again)

Bill Cooper posted to To live outside the law you must be honest, 2018/02/09 at 8:59 am (UT-7)
[email redacted, gmail]

I have decided to convert your side. I will not phone you. I believe we should team up against Smith I have sent him harassing phone-calls, do you approve? I am doing good work for you. I am an expert sniper. I have a team of snipers at Aldenham Road. With your permission I will kill Smith.

Bill Cooper (Ex British Army sniper)

Permission denied. Smith has done nothing worthy of a death penalty, and individuals making decisions like that, outside of social consensus and sovereignty,  is against millenia of human culture. Gee, no wonder he anonymizes! I have also not approved and do not approve of “harassing phone calls.” This would not be “good work.”

(If someone wants to do “good work,” I have suggestions, and they are nothing like this. Contact me, comments can be used on any topic here at this time, requesting that they not be published. However, comments that hide identity — like this one — will be rejected or might even be published. I need people willing to be honest and open; specific exceptions will be considered. Don’t hide from me and I will respect your privacy — unless you defame and libel others, so be careful! I don’t need agreement, but honesty and willingness to help with reporting the truth.)

This, however, is how Smith views me and what I have done, as a personal vendetta, fueled by hatred. That is what he does, not what I do.

Is this Smith? I consider it likely. I do keep in mind that it could be an enemy, trolling. Hence I will look more carefully at the evidence I have on this (I may have more evidence, but it is not immediately obvious.) What all this shows clearly is that we are dealing with a serious loose cannon…. strictly speaking, more than one of them.

David Smith yet again

David Smith, posting to Identity, 2018/02/09 at 10:12 am (UT -7)
[gmail address redacted]

In regard to the “Identity” page which appears to be locked because of spam:

Please note that Abd has taken this dox of a personal home address from a notorious neo-Nazi Mikemikev who has a personal vendetta against Smith for being an ‘anti-fascist’. Mikemikev has been spamming this address over the web (illegally) in the past, which he has stopped doing now because the police and his own family were informed about his activities.

The source of verifiable information is legally irrelevant. A factional political memo from Congress regarding the investigation of a person involved with Donald Trump’s campaign promoted the idea that funding for an investigator having come (indirectly) from the Clinton campaign, if not revealed to the FISA court that authorizes surveillance, was legally important. Police and similar agencies often receive even anonymous tips, and that a tipster has some personal agenda is actually irrelevant. Much information comes from such people,and police know that it can be highly biased, even lies. But lying to the police is a crime itself. I did not depend on Mikemikev’s information, it was merely a lead, and I needed to confirm it before reporting it. I confirmed it adequately and reported it. I did give the source, but that is now redacted. Smith has been claiming that there is a “paranoid Smith brothers conspiracy theory.” He’s lying. His name is all over the internet, and I needed to confirm it, and did. And my publication brought the Real Oliver D. Smith out in the open, it flushed him.

For all I know, mikemikev eats Jewish babies for breakfast, Muslim children for lunch, and anyone who documents him for dinner and snacks. It’s totally irrelevant. I have had no communication, as far as I know from mikemikev. I do know that he has been blamed for some Smith activities, and I suspect that he may have trolled similarly. Arguing against that is certain normally-private evidence. He can’t fake revealed IP from Smith’s location. He can’t fake Smith’s known email addresses. (I do know how to recognize spoofed email). All this claim about mikemikev is totally irrelevant.

He published evidence that I confirmed. I factor for possible motives when considering evidence. Any journalist would — but the British journalists who republished Smith’s claims didn’t. It’s hard to find good help.

Smith was a former fascist who later became a strong anti-racist and mikemikev considered him a ‘traitor’ and ‘anti-white’. Why is Abd now citing racists and white supremacists as a ‘valid’ source of information about people on a blog dedicated to cold fusion?

But I didn’t do that, not even before redaction. The blog is indeed dedicated to cold fusion, but who provides the labor? And my compensation for that is freedom of expression. Smith has never recognized that I have not used the full megaphone of a blog for AngloPyramidologist issues. The relevant pages are that, i.e. “pages,” and are not featured on the home page — and here, comments are being copied to a page, not a post. Comments also are featured on the home page. Posts are organized by date, pages by subject and category and by subpage structure. Smith has obviously been searching carefully for anything he can use on this blog, archiving anything he thinks useful for accusations — even if those pages contain alleged privacy violations, revealing that his agenda is defamation, not protection of privacy. He’s quite transparent to anyone who studies his history.

Here, we get evidence for a story that I had largely developed: Smith’s agenda comes from his history as a fascist. His attacks on Ben Steigmann would come from that. Steigmann, if I’m correct, has also claimed to be a former fascist. So conflicts stemming from all that are being maintained outside of that context, “David” is confirming all that. Steigmann was attacked, not because of his “pseudoscientific beliefs,” but because this was a way of retaliating against him. Vendetta, and quite obviously. What he  accuses others of.

I consider this story likely to have an element of truth, but I keep in mind that AP socks commonly lie. Indeed, above, David claims that Oliver lied about having emailed Moon’s mother’s employer. So what we have — by apparent admission — is a family that lies. Or just one or two people from a family, i.e., Oliver and Darryl Smith. From lies one can derive possible fact to be investigated. The same is true for mikemikev. I simply don’t know enough about him to assess him more precisely. He has, as far as I know, never made any attempt to contact me with his real identity. That is not the case with many other AP targets. I have had direct communication with Rome Viharo, Ben Steigmann, Emil Kirkegaard, Michael D. Suarez (without knowing for sure that this is his real name, but this is over a very long period of time, long before any hint of Anglo Pyramidologist — and not always in agreement, either.(

Smith has claimed that Ben Steigmann is “my friend.” That’s quite a strong word compared to the reality: I created the parapsychology resource on Wikiversity, not out of any “belief” in parapsychology or what parapsychology studies, the paranormal, but simply to allow study and “learning by doing,” what Wikiversity is for. Ben Steigmann started to participate, and I restrained him and moved him into creating his own, personally attributed, study of sources. And that was that. I did this kind of work with other Wikiversity users. It wasn’t personal.

There is no way to confirm if the Smiths live at the address, they could be another Smith.

Horseshit. David Smith knows that this is the address, so he is raising a theoretical possibility as a form of deception. I’m not a judge or jury and I am not claiming proof of criminal action. I’m looking at the preponderance of evidence, and David Smith has fundamentally confirmed that this is the address. Why make such a fuss about a fake address? When Smith attacked the original Anglo Pyramidologist studies, claiming that they were lies or fantasies — when there were simple reports of known facts, almost entirely — I knew I was onto something. Why attack them if they were fake? At that point, the only mention of Smith was accidental, in a URL, and that was quickly redacted and revision-deleted, effectively. Yet Smith kept claiming that he was being “outed.” Methinks the lady doth protest too much! Vituzzu wrote, on meta, that the sock master “wasn’t too bright.” Smith did exactly what was needed to fuel my interest investigation. Attack it. Many times I invited him to correct actual errors. He never did, except one account made a claim … but it was as an Smith-meme attack and essentially proved to me that an account I had merely listed as possibly involved, but without much evidence was actually Smith. (That was MrRowser, who had a handful of edits to Wikiversity, not problematic in themselves, simply taking a skeptical position roughly like Smith might have — but so might have others.)

The information may be correct, but it might be wrong, it may be another Smith or the Smith in question may have moved address. I am not going to confirm or deny it (I am a family relative), but this information was behind a paywall originally.

David has already done quite enough to remove remaining doubt about the address, that is, if I assume that David is telling the truth, that he is actually a family member. This time Smith IP points to a web host in Arizona, not Los Angeles as before. This is extremely unlikely to be anyone but Oliver Smith or another troll knowing how to use a web host. (These do not show up on whatismyipaddress as open proxies, but any web host can be abused that way, and web hosts can be very cheap, almost pocket change. One of the IPs, as well, that showed up on the ip site as a possible TOR node was, in fact, a web host, as I found when I accidentally went to the IP as if it were a URL. By the way, if I cared about my own IP being revealed, I would certainly not mention this! I don’t care. I’m not socking anywhere, and my identity is open, very much unlike the history of Oliver and Darryl Smith.

Full disclosure: I do have various socks (additional accounts), created over the years for various purposes, most open and known, a few not.

To be clear, the Smith address that was here was a former address, not claimed to be current. The ages give indicate it was at least a year old or so, and it might have been obsolete in the directory, the date of that information is not known to me. We have IP address information for the Smith home, however, from 2011, on Wikipedia (and this all fits together). Further, David has revealed that Darryl is no longer living there, but that Oliver is.

You have no reason to be hosting this material. It is potentially dangerous and could put peoples lives or careers at risk. Like I said you may have the wrong address.

A wrong address is not going to harm anyone. What, does David think that an air strike will be ordered? We just had a threat that gave the street address. It was almost certainly Smith, attempting to develop a story of probable harm. It was not, in any case, believable.

And I’m not hosting the address. There is one remnant that will take some time to get to. It’s obscure, it would not be found by Google search, I think.

Someone who is willing to take a major risk to actually harass Smith or the Smith family or whoever is at that house on that road (it is not a street address, it appears to be a rural address, i.e., the name of the family and the road name is how mail is delivered), would surely be willing to pay a small fee to obtain up-to-date directory information. A sane Smith family would not have sent “David Smith” with his crazy and incendiary continuation of libel.

Trust me, I had reasons. The purpose, however, was fulfilled, especially when Smith responded as he did. Since my goal is not to harass the family — nor even Smith himself, beyond what revealing the truth behind a wall of damaging lies will do — I didn’t need to keep the address up.

Lastly, Mikemikev’s activities have law enforcement following them. This individual has sent Smith and others death threats over the years.

This is utterly irrelevant and, as well, untrustworthy, like all information from the “Smith family,” so far. I’m not saying that it’s wrong, any particular allegation might be true.

Why is a blog on cold fusion now doxing people? What does any of this have to do with cold fusion research?

The answer is simple: Wikiversityi had hosted many pages on cold fusion, the better part of 200. These were overall neutral, but Wikiversity allows the expression of opinion, if framed as such. These resources were a learning project (and it certainly educated me on the topic! — but, as well, it had educated others, by creating lists of sources and other educational materials. The list of sources was completely neutral, including the very few “negative’ mainstream journal papers from 2005 and later.) Egged on by Smith socks, joined by long-term anti-cold fusion activist editors from Wikipedia (two of them, one an administrator who was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee, based on evidence I provided that they confirmed, and who never forgave me over this, and the other having previously been banned on all fringe science topics, even site-banned, and who was unbanned by the “community,” overturning an ArbComm ban, showing the power of that faction), a bureaucrat made an unprecedented decisions to delete all of it, and in doing that, he lied about the history — it had not been at all disruptive — probably simply believing what Smith had fed him privately.

So, first of all, Wikiversity was a place where any student could study cold fusion, and anyone with expertise could, as well, share it. Smith attacked that. And he also attacked cold fusion and the host of this blog, Infusion Institute, as “pseudoscientific,” which is an outright lie. (That is in my RationalWiki article that he created.) The function of III is to facilitate basic scientific research, as recommended by both United States Departement of Energy Reviews, to be done with increased precision over prior efforts, by a very reputable university, managed by a notable physicist (though the field is actually chemistry in origin) and published through normal mainstream journal or journals.

My original involvement was in protecting Wikiversity and Ben Steigmann, non-disruptive there and using Wikiversity properly, as far as he’d know, he violated no warnings, continued no alleged misbehavior, if it was even misbehavior, after it was criticized, so the original issue was academic freedom, already important. And the, in his campaign to attack the studies occasioned by that, he attacked cold fusion very directly.

There is no mystery here, my reasons for doing this work are transparent. Denial that there is a reason is totally useless. Addressing the reason, working to find a way to protect critical interests, would be a way forward, but this was already offered to Oliver Smith, and he rejected it. David is not doing anything different, and repeats Oliver’s libelous and radically uncivil claims. So I think he is, simply, Oliver Smith.

Minor possibilities: Darryl or an impersonator. That is more likely for the “lawyer” and “sniper” who posted today with a manifest and crazy threat.

Why have you made this personal? No Smith has ever harassed you, but you do it to them?

David, suppose you don’t know about the harassment, which has been heavily documented. You state it as a fact that it didn’t happen, which is quite unlikely to impress me. As a result of Smith’s socking on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, and his threatened, and probably realized, private complaints, I have needed to undertake some weeks of work to recover years of work that had seemed safe.

Now, I knew it was not entirely safe, but I assumed there would be time if it was threatened, and that was so for the cold fusion work itself …. but it had been effectively vandalized, which is still not cleaned up, I’m learning to use AutomaticWikiBrowser, but not so easy for many other pages from my user space, on many topics; for that, to recover it from enormous database dumps, it’s taking learning to program in Basic again. Not to worry, this will all be quite useful if I need to do more data analysis, and there are some possibilities I will be paid for that.

I do not see anyone hosting Abd’s address on a blog, so why is he doing it to others?

I wrote that I had removed the address, but he keeps complaining. Why? Probably gecause a claim of doxxing creates sympathy in a certain crowd, particularly the RationalWiki crowd, and, as well, some of those who edit Wikipedia disruptively.

Perhaps he can answer these questions on this blog post. It would be interesting to see what his readers think. I know Abd pretends to be the good guy all the time, but this is really the definition of cyber harassment.

This is Oliver Smith, not a family member trying to defuse a risk to the family.

I will indeed be informing [redacted] the hoster of the website about this and I have friends in high places who can take a look at this an offer advice. Regards.

Given that what he is claiming isn’t there, what is there to complain about to the host? Smith is persistent and has definitely succeeded in taking down web sites in the past. He might just succeed in damaging RationalWiki with his trolling. Trolls often assert “friends in high places,” and in my experience, nothing happens. It’s a bluff. If, however, there is actually a friend, maybe they will actually intervene and contact me. If they are sane, it would be quite a relief.

To be sure, I was attacked on Wikipedia, years ago, by a highly experienced Wikipedian, sent by a nonprofit that he was supporting. He had a conversation with me, and completely reversed his position, adopting my ideas and promoting them.

I’m not afraid to talk with “friends in high places,” I would welcome it. People in high places tend to be a lot smarter than basement-dwelling trolls living with their parents at almost thirty.

Agnostic Steven

Agnostic Steven 2018/02/13 at 9:32 pm
[gmail email address redacted]  [TOR exit node]

(Anyone posting on this topic should know that IP address and other normally private information might be disclosed. I also have the email addresses, but am not publishing them because they will likely be useless. As well, someone giving useful information should know that they will not be trusted if they use an open proxy — or possible open proxy. These sometimes can then be correlated with other messages, here or in other locations (and by other site administrators, part of why I publish these). If someone wants to privately give information, I will normally respect a request for privacy, but if I conclude that this was deceptive, I reserve the right to disclose it. Truth is my only weapon, but I intend discretion. Truth alone is not enough reason to disclose what might harm. However, this disclosure should do no harm.) is the person who got your cold fusion material on wikiversity deleted. He was the one who first started the deletion request. You have confused this individual with the smith brothers.

The question immediately comes to mind: how does “Steven” know this to state it with such assurance? No information is provided allowing me to assess this. I’ll cover the extremely thin evidence below. What is totally clear is that the Request for deletion on Wikiversity was pursuing a prior declared AP (“Smith brothers”) agenda, and a series of IPs were used, not just the one. is broadband, Virgin Media, dynamic IP, geolocating to Reading, England. From proximity this would be immediately suspect as AP. From the duck test, this would be AP. However, as I have written about many suspected AP socks, it is always possible it’s someone else pursuing the same agenda. That can happen. It would be rare.

This person may be an associate of the smiths or working with them, but I think it is more likely he is working with JzG . He is a skeptic.

Yes. The IP could be, long-term, many people, but the more recent patterns indicate “skeptic” interests, but again, that could be AP.

Run a google search on his IP, this comes up in a comment https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016/04/20/mike-adams-launches-a-sustained-campaign-of-lies-against-a-friend-of-the-blog/

This was a comment by one “sadmar.”

“Before that revision, the second sentence began; “Once the owner of one of the largest cancer practices in Michigan”, and that’s all that was changed. The edit was made by an unregistered user listed as IP address

I registered, and changed it back, adding the following ‘edit summary’ on the ‘History’ page: “(UNDO: Fata was not in any way a “leader” of the Karmanos Institute. He merely leased space for one of his 7 private clinics in the Institutes building. Apparent attempt to defame Karmanos by false association.”

The reference is to the Wikipedia article on Farid Fata. This was the edit.

I see in the IP contributions history many AP red flags, but also other signals. That Farid Fata edit was not pursuing a skeptical agenda. This related edit would be the same user, at that time. I conclude that more than one user has used that IP. It does seem to be reasonably stable for substantial periods of time. It could be, as an example, internet access in some café. It is close to the Smith residence.

There are other connections with JzG. This isn’t one, even though he (Guy Chapman, openly acknowledged) commented in the original blog post. JzG, in particular, has a blatant long-time grudge against me for pointing out his use-of-tools-while-involved wrt Cold fusion, leading to an ArbComm reprimand, and has occasionally pursued revenge over this for many years, it’s obvious. He took the opportunity. has a vendetta against alternative medicine researchers.

The evidence shown does not establish that; further, feeding me a red herring like this, perhaps hoping that I jump on it, would be an AP device. He then would be able to point to how gullible I am for anything that looks like it confirms my “paranoid conspiracy theory” and his story that this is all about hating “skeptics.”

It is possible that “Steven” is sincere, but unlikely.

Roxy the dog

Roxy the dog 2018/02/15 at 6:28 pm
[aol email address redacted]  [Tor exit node]

This is very unlikely to be the Wikipedia user, Roxy the dog.


The link provided had no date and would quickly be stale. I have edited the actual link to permanently show what it showed when sent.

Rome Viharo has been socking on Wikipedia on loads of accounts trying to spam his website on the Deepak Chopra article. These are not ‘impersonations’, they are him.

Those accounts resemble Viharo not at all. They are either a Smith brother or they are someone impersonating their impersonations. I’ve seen actual Viharo socks on RationalWiki. They are straightforward, generally. AP has a habit of creating outrageous, in-your-face socks, that are going to be immediately tagged. That’s what he did with Ben Steigmann, and Wikipedia editors seem to fall for it. The real Ben Steigmann socks — there were a few — were discreet, not blatantly disruptive.

Rome Viharo also had a Reddit account SUSPENDED for impersonating people. https://www.reddit.com/user//?sort=hot

That shows that the account is suspended, but does not at all show why.

However, Viharo has described what happened, and he is describing exactly what AP does. That is how I was blocked on Wikiversity. There was no improper behavior there, but there were “many complaints.” Not public, private. And an administrator decided to ignore policy and precedent and block. AP socks had threatened to do that.

And then they take that outcome and use it for more defamation, as here.

He likes to blame his ‘impersonations’ onto other people.

Anglo Pyramidologist impersonates, including this comment, almost certainly. Else why the open proxy? When Roxy the dog could email me anonymously using the WMF interface (User:Abd), but confirming it was actually him? One would only need the open proxy in order to conceal that identity.

It is not the Smiths doing this nor Tim Farley or Susan Gerbic, they are all innocent. You are defending Rome Viharo a known internet troll and liar.

I have not accused Farley or Gerbic of impersonation. I have also seen no evidence of Viharo lying, ever. I do not always agree with his conclusions, but what he writes is not intentionally deceptive. It is quite the contrary with Anglo Pyramoidologist socks. So, how would this “Roxy the dog” know what actually happened on Reddit?

I don’t know, not as personal knowledge. What I know is that AP socks impersonated Ben Steigmann, on Wikipedia and on RationalWiki, and impersonated others; with transient accounts, it is difficult to be certain unless technical evidence happens to show up, but this Roxy the dog is waving a big red flag, Anglo Pyramidologist. This is how AP writes.

I encountered Rome years ago on the InternationalSkeptics forum, he has been trolling for years.

Roxy the dog (Wikipedia user)

That last claim is irrelevant. However, looking it up, I found Rome Viharo’s commentary on that forum.

Trolls troll. The comments copied to this page are entirely trolling. What does that say about the authors?

One of the sock accounts seen on the Chopra article writes like Viharo, but … AP has taken what others have written and then has posted the text in a disruptive manner. It can fool the unwary. (and apparently did, when he pretended to be me on RationalWiki). This was the source for that Viharo comment. It was blatantly out of place in the article, and Viharo would not have put it there. If he was going to write something like that on Wikipedia, he’d have put it on the talk page where it might actually make some difference.

Tragic, here, that those are not being checkusered. They might turn up some AP socks.



If you see this page on an internet archive, it may have been updated and errors corrected (or even retracted!). Always check the current version of archived pages!

(See below for open public confirmation by Oliver Smith of the basic information here. I have correspondence with Oliver Smith which I am publishing on a subpage under a claim of fair use. He used a previously-published gmail address.)

A post by mikemikev on Lolcow wiki,  provided a screenshot, allegedly from another user, giving what appears to be some kind of directory listing.

Transcribing it:

  • DARRYL L SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 27
  • [name of apparent mother omitted],[street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 59
  • [name of apparent father omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 59
  • [name of apparent older brother omitted], [street redacted], RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 32
  • OLIVER D SMITH, [street redacted] RADLETT,  WD7 8AU, Age: 27

An account claiming to be mikemikev also recently wrote an article on Oliver D. Smith on Rightpedia, with the same information. Reading it generally, mikemikev is not lying. I probably would want to have little to do with him, due to his apparent politics, but Oliver D. Smith is a liar and intensely harasses his targets. He has certainly attempted that with me, for the crime of pointing out what he did on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and the meta wiki. That full story has not yet been told. However:

Famously, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”

It fits perfectly.

And, in fact, Oliver D. Smith has now acknowledged being some of the AP socks, both in correspondence with me, and in a blog he started to attack Emil Kirkegaard. I thought of archiving it, but … it was already archived twice. Here is the latest.

In that blog post, he acknowledges the following:

. . . I was a RationalWiki sysop (Krom) who wrote their racialism article (see here) which refutes the traditional race concept, that Fuerst supports. . . .

Many people hold what I consider obsolete ideas about race. It is not my task to defend “racialists,” much less “racists,” and there is a distinction that can be made, even though racialism sometimes is used to justify racism. For years I wrote that “race” is a myth, (while population genetics is not, and this is a complex topic often difficult to discuss, like some other topics that come up.) I have no idea where these alleged racists or racialists stand, because it really isn’t my business. I’m concerned about impersonation and defamation, and in the latter case, AP socks made it very personal and have cause damage, particularly to Wikiversity, all in the name of revenge. RationalWiki has been used as a tool for retaliation, by the Smith brothers (with some possible collusion from others, that I consider “under investigation.”) Krom actually admitted his use of RationalWiki in his farewell edit there. His real politics are very different from the general politics of RationalWiki, but he, and his brother, found they could gain mileage there.

Near the start of 2016, I created Emil O. W. Kirkegaard‘s and John Fuerst‘s RationalWiki articles. . . .

That had become obvious in my research (which both Oliver and Darryl have ridiculed as a “paranoid conspiracy theory”) But what account did he use? Krom? No. BenSteigmans, thus impersonating a favorite target. Favorite target of which brother? I don’t know. Oliver has denied being the one who impersonated Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia, blaming that activity on his brother (or, alternatively, claiming that this was some other troll, he was quite unclear), but here, in 2016, he was himself impersonating Steigmann. Oliver attacked Steigmann in his emails to me; my sense is that this was all coming from a major political grudge, not mere disagreement.

Kirkegaard and Fuerst were quickly permabanned from RationalWiki for disruption; Fuerst within a single month, while Kirkegaard in 3 months. In contrast, I’ve used RationalWiki for 6 years and have never been banned.

Like most what AP socks have claimed, this is quite misleading. RationalWiki does not ordinarily ban users, that takes a special discussion, called a “cooping.” There was no cooping for either Kirkegaard nor Feurst. So there is no “permaban.” What there is, is an “indef block”. I saw Kirkegaard attempting to defend himself on RationalWiki and I saw impersonation socks appearing. I’ve also seen AP socks create massive disruption that resulted in blocks of impersonated targets, and that has recently happened on Wikipedia, which I will be documenting and may file a checkuser request over.

Has Oliver ever been blocked? Well, it is difficult to tell, because there are so many accounts and each one may be one or the other brother, but right off the top, he has been blocked as an IP editor,

Oliver has claimed that I’m “permabanned” on RationalWiki, but … I was merely indefinitely blocked by one of the AP socks. He talks about that account:

The user Skeptical, a sysop, I know in person; is easy to verify isn’t me by email and he denied being me after a mistaken claim of identity by what could be a Kirkegaard sock (see here).

This claim of knowing one of the socks “in person” has been common for AP, with accounts that were considered by checkuser to be the same person. A massive tissue of lies and confusion has been created, so when does it stop? How can one “easily verify” that Skeptical is not an AP sock? Skeptical does not have RW email enabled. As well, it might be his brother.  Further, at the beginning of this, I thought it possible that there was a group of users who sometimes cooperated, “meat puppets.” However, what has been surprising is that, while others have supported AP socks, checkuser has detected most of them, when requested.

After Kirkegaard was exposed in news sources as a paedophile and neo-Nazi, for example The Guardian describes Kirkegaard a “weird far right paedophilia apologist” (see here), Evolve Politics and RT describe him as a “paedophile” and “Nazi” 

What the “news sources” demonstrate is a totally sloppy reliance on the RationalWiki articles for “fact.” Kirkegaard has an apparent cause of action for several pieces in the Guardian. I have examined the claimed evidence for “paedophile,” and it is completely bogus. While “paedophile apologist” has slightly more support, it is also bogus. (Basically, that is an extremely hot topic, and there are simple truths, which if stated, can cause some to cry “pedophile apologist.” And I mean “truths.” Like the definition of “pedophile” or (British) “paedophile.”

I wrote what is below before this, and I had taken this page down. However, I am updating it with new information. Prior conclusions are largely confirmed. Oliver Smith has objected to some claims and I will note those, but his objections are largely based on “I am not my brother, and he’s created most of the socks.” The rest of us can be forgiven, I think, for lumping these trolls together as one, originally because of checkuser findings that would often confuse such. Both were disruptive, which is one reason why, after an initial attempt to protect one from blocks of the other, the Wikipedians gave up. In my view, unless a brother is fully honest — including what he knows about the other brother — he is responsible. What has been revealed is quite close cooperation.

Of course, the Smiths are not on trial. Not yet, anyway. Rather, I’m a journalist, and responsible to my readers for both accuracy and caution. First of all, is the information — which is not much better at this point than an anonymous tip — plausible? Does it fit what else we know?

The evidence shown below, in addition to much on the page supra, connects Oliver D. Smith, particularly, to the family of sockpuppets called “Anglo Pyramidologist.”

(And then the early socks, before anyone would have been motivated to impersonate them, acknowledged being brothers. I have no clue that Adam Smith has been involved in anything disruptive, nor the other family members. Just Oliver and Darryl.)

So then is the address given a present or former residence? Are Darryl and Oliver Smith brothers, possibly twin brothers? [Smith has acknowledged that Darryl is his twin brother.] For the purposes of my study, I am not attempting to strongly distinguish between the brothers. Oliver Smith is far more visible as an open identity, but it is entirely possible that the more viciously disruptive Smith is Darryl. That is mostly speculation at this point.

Oliver D. Smith has this Facebook page. (archive copy). It gives his birthdate as  22 April 1990. That would make him 27 years old in 2017. Of course, someone may have found that information and faked the directory entry. Smith has enemies, many of them (as he continues creating them). Sooner or later, such behavior will generate real-world blowback. But why would an enemy create a false lead? The known enemies would want to expose him, not create some fake target.

From Facebook: Education:  University Of Roehampton, London Class of 2013. B.A. (Hons) Classical Civilization

The real Oliver D. Smith, if he is not Anglo Pyramidologist, must be aware of the claims. He’s not some shrinking violet who would merely hide. When a person is far better known as a internet troll than as the basic identity, and does nothing visible about it, something is off.

His Twitter account. Oliveratlantis is recent, Joined November 2017, Born in 1990, “Classicist and gamer.”

His blog points to a paper he wrote, published August 8, 2016, in a journal, Shim, a real peer-reviewed journal, though the paper (and perhaps the whole issue) was slightly askew from the general focus of the journal. It was a special issue on Atlantis. A comment from Smith on another blog. I may review this, because it shows that Smith understands the problem of considering “what most think,” when most are not experts.

I see one problem with the paper that connects with the internet style of Anglo Pyramidologist: his thesis is that Plato was a liar, when there are other possible interpretations that would still allow the story to be mythical. The paper is thus flawed by a lack of academic reserve. The paper, however, shows writing skill, aside from that problem.

This Wikipedia single-purpose-account, In an archive, is probably Smith. The account points to the special issue on the talk page for the Wikipedia Atlantis article. If I wanted to add a reference to a paper of mine on Wikipedia, I’d suggest it to a friend, who could do so, as long as the mention iteself was not disruptive. But that friend would not then edit the article, with the common Smith style of very many edits, each with a very small change (very visible on the Wikia articles he wrote, and the RationalWiki articles as well), because the friend would not be the expert on Atlantis, with high interest, I would. These edits emphasize Smith’s thesis and remove sourced material that might suggest the contrary.  Other suspected Smith socks that edited that article, after Anglo Pyramidologist was blocked 30 May 2011:

  • just before block
  • I looked through early 2013. That early socking was mild and not “disruptive socking,” my impression.
  • https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/ 19 February 2015
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ IP is a bit of a stretch, but AP has used Talk Talk.
  • In_the_springtime Probable. Nobody noticed (nor should they have). Last edit: 14 May 2015
  • SolontheAthenian blocked as sock of Quack Hunter, i.e., Anglo Pyramidologist, see the SPI filing Something is missing , an archive for Bender235, mentioned in the SPI case. In the springtime was fresh at that point. However, AP uses different service providers (in addition to open proxies) so it might have been missed. Was this an impersonation sock? Or a disruptive brother? If so, by not openly addressing the problem, Smith leaves little for us but to assume it was not. Meanwhile AP socks — and fellow travellers — accuse others of a paranoid conspiracy theory for what has overwhelming evidence, and is the opposite of a conspiracy theory!
  • JesusWater 10 June 2015, blocked as AP sock.
  • 13 July 2015 (vandalism from possible related IP, not like AP but his brother might do it)
  • Isambard_Kingdom. Nothing leapt out immediately from contributions, but then the retirement notice! I looked a little more and began to see possible AP interests. Before I decide this is to be set aside as unlikely, I’ll want to look further. Something spooked the user. “Isambard Kingdom” is not a named person.  (If one does not wish to call attention to an account, it’s simple: stop editing. Sometimes retirement templates are placed to avoid investigations for policy violations — it has often worked. Then the user takes up the account later (it is trivial to “unretire,” or waits out the checkuser data retention period and starts a new account that cannot be connected with the old by checkuser. This listing is not a claim of editorial misbehavior.
  • Again a stretch but AP has used BT. The edit could be AP or the brother.
  • only adding and removing space.
  • CritiasAtlantis  blocked and confirmed as AP.
  • JonathanJoshy blocked and confirmed as AP.
  • Whitjr this user is noted for an interest in the occult only, for future examination. It should not be necessary to say this … but … not all users with some interest in Atlantis and another AP topic will be AP!

Oliver D. Smith is also administrator of the Atlantis Wikia

According to his bio on Atlantipedia, dated June, 2013, he “studied classics at Roehampton University and is currently studying archaeology at the Oxford Learning College.”

Verifying that address listing

On 192.com, I found listings for Oliver David Smith and Darryl Luke Smith both  age range 26-30). I found a listing for [redacted, the apparent mother}. I didn’t want to spend what it would take to see the listings.

On findmypast.com, I searched the electoral register (up to 2014) and found that Oliver David Smith, from Radlett. voted in 2008 (when he would have turned 18, minimum voting age) to 2014. For Darryl Luke Smith, the voting was in 2009-2014. Either they are twins and Darryl didn’t vote that first year, or Darryl is not a twin, but a year younger. The other brother, [name redacted], first voted in 2003. So [the other brother],if he voted at first opportunity, would be five years older than Oliver, confirming the image data.

Whitepages.co.uk (which is shutting down, so an archive link) shows Darryl L Smith, Radlett, WD7 (the rest of the postal code isn’t shown, but one could presumably buy the data — and perhaps full address data — on 192.com) as voting 2009-2014.

At this point the preponderance of the evidence is that mikemikev was passing on a true image of some directory page. This is mostly useful at this point for supporting the IP information that shows geolocation data consistent with that residence.


Anglo Pyramidologist

If you see this page on an internet archive, it may have been updated and errors corrected. Always check the current version of archived pages!

Claimed to be Oliver D. Smith. (Copyright unknown. Fair use claimed.)

I thought about what to call this page. Anglo Pyramidologist was the name of an early appearance of the user — or family of users –, and the primary Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigation page uses that name. There is another account sometimes used to refer to the user or family (Atlantid). One of the characteristics of AP socks is impersonation, and it is possible that

  • There have been impersonations of AP.
  • There have been accounts incorrectly identified with AP.
  • There are family members — or friends — who have been tagged because of using family IP or computers This can also happen from sharing internet access, not only at home, but also at, say, a cafe or library.

In the fog created by all these possibilities, what can be known? Plenty.

AP has had certain identifiable interests and practices, leading to the “duck test,” which is often so clear on Wikipedia that an SPI will be closed with no checkuser. That process, however, has been vulnerable to impersonation socks, designed to target an individual by creating blatantly abusive socks.

My long-term practice in many fields is to collect and present evidence first, before drawing conclusions. Such collections may involve days or weeks of research. Ideally, I come back and summarize and may draw some conclusions. But understanding derives from experience, not so much from analysis and conclusions. Here I am initially collecting reports on the identity and behavior of “AP socks.” These come from sources of varied probity and reliability. AP has attacked anyone who has exposed him, and he me that he would not rest until all my work was deleted. He’s had some “success” in that; but he does it by presenting “plausible lies” to those inclined not to look  carefully. That all, in time, is being documented. I will stop collecting data when I die, which will happen soon enough. I’m not dead yet.

I have now been looking at many hundreds of possible AP edits and accounts.  Patterns appear. However, I do not expect anyone to “believe” my conclusions, though I do request the courtesy of either examining evidence or suspending judgment. I will review pages and posts reviewing AP socks on subpages.

The first page I saw was one of the Rome Viharo pages. Rome Viharo was Wikipedia editor tumbleman, and a handful of socks. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition,” and not on Wikipedia, countless editors have showed up, believing that Wikipedia was run according to the generally-excellent policies, and it usually is, but where there is a strong faction, a faction that includes a few administrators, with a strong point of view it often is not. This exception will generally aligned with what is believed to be a “majority point of view.” The problem is not the point of view, in itself, but the methods used to imbalance articles well beyond “due weight,” which methods include targeting and banning those believed to have some “minority point of view.”

These methods include what I have called “attack dogs.” These are users willing to stretch the limits and even act outside them, but who are mysteriously protected and often not sanctioned. With many years of experience, I have concluded they are protected because they serve others allied against some minority view, who are not willing to risk sanctions themselves. Rome Viharo independently came to similar conclusions.

Pages here on Anglo Pyramidologist:

Wikipedia/Anglo Pyramidologist list of suspected (and checkusered) socks including IP. Mostly organized by date of checkuser requests or IP discovery.

MrRowser a brief SPA, mentioned in passing (not actually accused), came back recently to attack the studies. Clearly AP from the later comments.

RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist list of suspected RW socks organized by article or page of interest.

Geolocation List of identified IP addresses. A map is in preparation.


AP socks commonly claim that the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is an invention and claim with no evidence. In fact, the idea of brothers originally came from the socks themselves. From the Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigation in April, 2011.(my bolding) we have a claim of that he is not his brother (Anglo Pyramidologist) but that they sometimes edit from the same house. There are details about alleged positions on issues. 

In June, 2011, there are more comments from Livingintheforests (the “other brother,” not Anglo) that Anglo is thulist88, again with more details about points of view.

Many analysts don’t make the brother claim, but some do. My own opinion has become that there may indeed be two major users behind “AP,” matching the stories of “Oliver D. Smith” and “Darryl Smith.” Some alleged these are twins. Another possibility is a multiple personality (deliberate or otherwise), but there are people claiming to have seen evidence on the family composition.

There are various sites and pages covering Anglo Pyramidologist. It has been claimed on RationalWiki that I am supporting the people behind those pages. I have not investigated the various positions of these people (beyond, a little, Rome Viharo). These sites, however, provide clues for further investigation. I will comment a little on each. Inclusion here is in no way an approval of or ratification of the politics or content of a site, unless that is specifically expressed. This is material for research.




Rome Viharo, the blogger, was attacked on Wikipedia by a skeptical faction there. I had also confronted that faction (and anyone who confronts that faction is risking their account).

However, until recently, I was not aware of extensive socking as part of the problem. Rome started out by describing certain users who are not suspected of being AP.

AP socks commonly lie about Rome Viharo, and an AP sock just posted to my RationalWiki article a comment I made several years ago, on RationalWiki — I had forgotten all about this —  that Rome Viharo was a troll (specifically, that what appeared to be his RationalWiki editing was trolling, not that he was trolling elsewhere.) When I first saw this, I thought that I may have been writing about an impersonation sock. No, it was about the RomeViharo account on RW, which was almost certainly Rome. My fuller comment places this in better context. I was critical of Rome, and have been, as well, recently, though about older posts of his.

Rome has been impersonated and extensively maligned and threatened, and people who go through that often are not polite and carefully correct in response. However, I wrote “opinionated self-important blowhard.” At that point, I had given up on RationalWiki, my edits were few, but that kind of rhetoric was common RationalWiki snark. I apologize to Rome for writing that, it was beyond the pale. He was merely wrong.

This is not the point here. The point is what claims are being made about Anglo Pyramidologist (or Atlantid, or other equivalent names).

Skeptic Sockpuppet army gets busted on Wikipedia. November 15, 2015. Understates the problem.

Latest Email threatens to increase harassment if I don’t stop reporting on it. November 30, 2015. The style resembles the style of threats I received. Threat of impersonation socks to ruin his reputation. Actual sock had been created and wrote fake opinion. At this point he did not have a name.

WP Editor Manul tries to bully WP Admin Liz on Wikipedia, continues with ‘Tumbleman’ paranoia. January 8, 2016. There are some claims here that I may follow up on when I begin to document the “fellow travellers” who have supported and been supported by Anglo Pyramidologist socks. I am indirectly mentioned — I had an article in that issue of Current Science, which is a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. I had seen discussion of it on Wikipedia, which was all strange. Long-term, peer-reviewed reviews of cold fusion have been excluded. The argument might generally be “undue weight,” but where are the reviews in the other direction? Recent reviews are disregarded and very old reviews — that may have reflected the status of cold fusion at the time, perhaps more than twenty years ago — are instead emphasized. In this post, however, Viharo mentions the Smith brothers.

One of those editors on Wikipedia is ‘Goblin Face‘, who edited on the Sheldrake article as ‘Dan Skeptic’. Dan Skeptic was one of over 50 sock puppet accounts used by a ‘skeptic army’ on Wikipedia which has now been busted and linked to the Smith brothers, Oliver and Daryll.

The Smith brothers picked up where Manul left off with their original slanderous comments and began a campaign of harassment and slander which they took to Rational Wiki, Reddit, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikia, and a host of other forums.

When I started to study the AP sock disruption, I mentioned Manul (the former vzaak). It was a casual mention, not an accusation of any wrong-doing. Yet I was immediately attacked by AP sock puppets for that mention, one of the attacking accounts was named Friend of Manul.

Viharo does not provide a source for the Smith brothers claim. The page he links (also linked above) doesn’t contain any mention of Smith.

What will Wikipedia and RationalWiki editor Goblin Face/Atlantid do next? February 19, 2016. This is covered elsewhere. It has a claim of identity of the sock master as Oliver D. Smith. No source.

Factual harassment versus fictional harassment, Deepak Chopra’s Wikipedia article reflects larger problem. March 26, 2016. I’ve seen evidence for much of what Viharo claims, but I wouldn’t expect others to believe it from what he writes, there are too many claims without evidence. It’s a blog, one can simply state one’s opinion on a blog. It is also difficult to establish interest such that people will read evidence, but if the evidence is not available, it’s impossible. Few will do independent research. Most people just react, believing whatever they want to believe. So-called skeptics can be even worse than ordinary people in this way.

Clear Language, Clear Mind (Emil Kirkegaard)

This is reasonably correct, but does not directly provide evidence about identity (though this is where I got the photo of Oliver D. Smith. I have verified a few facts stated there. For example, Kirkegaard claims that he compiled a list of RationalWiki socks and was then blocked for doxxing. That’s true. The list was compiled on his user page. It was as archived. It was not doxxing, it was a claim of socking, which is very, very different. It was deleted by Skeptical, an AP RW sysop (who was shortly to disappear when outed).

Just about Skeptical’s last cough (November 7, 2017):

Hi Oliver!

How’s it been holding up big guy? Parkordude91

Abd Lomax’s conspiracy theory about my identity is getting old… I’m not that person. […] Skeptical (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

At that point, “Oliver” hadn’t been mentioned by me, as I recall. It was all over the internet, though, long before I was aware of the existence of these socks. Skeptical’s behavior had led me to conclude, by about the time Skeptical blocked me, that he was indeed AP. Emil points to my small study of Skeptical.

Other links from his page:

  • Lolcow Wiki, archived from April 2017. Someone did a lot of research. The foundation is laid, thoroughly, for a claim that Atlantid and the rest are Oliver D. Smith. There is also mention of the brother, but the link is dead. There are many socks I recognize from my own research, but others I had not found and will investigate. I recall an AP sock claiming that the Smith brothers story came from Encyclopedia Dramatica, and from what I show below, the clear identification as Oliver D. Smith may indeed have come from there. It’s completely plausible and is at least roughly confirmed by other sources, such as a Smith bio on Wikia.

I’m skipping the three Encyclopedia Dramatica links. There is some research there into early activities, but it’s not worth digging through the noise — and exposing others to it through links.

I found another Lolcowiki discussion.

It gives a home address. There is a reference to another discussion which has a list of five names, appearing to have been taken from some directory, all at the same address, which would be Oliver’s mother and father and then his two brothers. Darryl and Oliver are listed as the same age, roughly confirming the idea I’ve seen that these are twin brothers. I’m putting that address into the IP map database for comparison. (that other discussion shows what purports to be a threat from Oliver Smith to harass Joshua Connor Moon (of Lolcow wiki). I’m not showing more evidence here on that, but apparently there was real-life harassment and damage.


On the issue of the real-life identity of Anglo Pyramidologist, I spent a day compiling information, shown on the Identity subpage.

I received some comments from Anglo Pyramidologist (apparently). I don’t want those conversations featured on the blog home page, so they are moved to a comments subpage. 

Dr. Witt

Subtopic: Asexuality. Off topic, actually, but fun to notice.

So, looking at the Dr. Witt user page, I see that he has retired, using the same template as many RW AP socks. I am not the only person to notice this. The page shows my name, as a file link.  (Later, another RW user nowiki’d this out so that it would not display, the page not qualifying for “fair use.”) Looking at page history, the first edit, January  was the text:  “The man with a million accounts, apparently.” Then the next edit added a photo of me, with the caption, “Crazy old man.” The connection?

That has been a theme of AP socks. See the more recent account names on the WMF study. Where did “millions of accounts” come from? Apparently from this Coop filing, by Merkel, with the headline:

A man with millions of accounts here (many which are admin) is creating articles with doxxing to harass his personal enemies.

It was hyperbole. I have not recently counted the accounts I have identified, but one sock claimed there were 700, that’s quoted above. What was complained about has clearly been happening, and for quite some time. I was not involved in that posting, I don’t know who Merkel is (though there is some evidence on RationalWiki), but this is actually widespread knowledge, even if many RationalWikians are playing osterich in the wiki play. Then, that he puts my image on that page indicates that he blames me for the claim. I wrote about that Coop filing the other day and clarified that it was hyperbole. AP may think that the charges came from me, but they were not written as derived from my research, which has almost entirely referred to Anglo Pyramidologist. No, it comes from other studies or posts, by other people, referring to him as Atlantid.

First of all, Dr. Witt wrote this, which is AP telling the truth about himself (at least in round outlines):

quality of sysops

I currently have about active 8 users who are sysops; de-sysop this one makes no difference. And its plain common-sense who is a quality or poor sysop based on article creations and constructive edits. I would rate you as “quality” since you are actually adding informative or useful content; if you look at GrammarCommie: zero article creations and his edits don’t benefit anyone. He wrote an essay, but its about 5 lines as if he took 10 seconds. Dr. Witt (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

So of course he retires. He has plenty of other accounts. However, if “they” use the sysop tools as Dr. Witt did, and it is noticed, they might also be “promoted.” This kind of gratuitous attack is common AP editing, he goes after anyone who frustrates his agenda. The prime problem for him: he gets away with abuse because few notice, and obviously others were looking at his extensive  revision deletions.

(The argument about quality or poor sysops based on article creation, is an old one and that argument being accepted on WMF wikis has caused a lot of damage. Good content creation and regulation of community behavior per policy are quite different skills. A good sysop is skilled at dispute resolution. A poor one wields a meat-axe and creates disruption. Content creators are typically attached to their own content…. and good writers are often opinionated! Even more so, experts.)

The discussion went on:

75% of article creations since October 2017 by examining the past 500 new-page edits, are by the same person. You just don’t realise because he is on dozens of accounts. If you traced this individual back to 2012, you would find most article creations on this site are by him.Epigram (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? That is higher than I’d expect. However, I knew there were many. I looked at New page creations on a subpage.

Epigram was exaggerating as to what the page he linked currently shows. The difference of a few days would not make that difference, but it is possible that a burst of pages just before the log started could make his claim closer to the truth. The actual figure for clear AP sock page creations was 14/96, or about 16%. If all suspected accounts are included (very unlikely), the percentage would become 29/96 or 30%.

To get to a higher percentage, it would be necessary to include accounts with no cause for suspicion that I could see, and perhaps long-term regulars, with high RW investment of time. If so, it would be totally useless to make unsubstantiated claims on RW, especially like this. (The regulars will take you down quickly.) But the basic idea behind what Epigram write is correct, if  exaggerated, and the long-term effect may be as the user claims.

I do not suspect the regulars, nor, contrary to AP claims, do I suspect anyone merely because they are a skeptic. I am, in fact, a skeptic myself, though a Truzzi-style skeptic, not a knee-jerk debunker. I hope! But I do not suggest any account is an AP sock merely because of appearing to be such a debunker. It takes far more than that.

The discussion continued:

Above he admits he has many sysop accounts here. I mentioned this fact and everyone flung venomous insults at me. Elsewhere he said, “I’ve used this site since the beginning of 2012;” he finally admitted.

Merkel revealed in that discussion that he was reactive. He’s not lying, but he uses hyperbole routinely. Unskilled, his diff is not to that “admission,” but to the whole coop filing. This is what a skilled user would have diff’d.

Dr. Witt and User:Anti-Fascist for life put that they retire on their user page at the same time. The second account didn’t get its sysop powers removed like the first. Merkel (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. Those are AP patterns, and it’s all happened before, and I had already identified these accounts as AP, in the study, page supra.  Most of the retired accounts kept their sysop tools, if they had them, and not only can AP then see what is otherwise hidden, but he could return at any time, and occasionally does.

There is this problem with creating a pile of accounts. Keeping them active is far too much work. So one of the signs of an AP account is a burst of activity, followed by disappearance. By itself, that is not uncommon.

What is remarkable here is that DrWitt was disparaging a regular user for not being a strong contributor, while that user has edited since July 2017 and has almost 1200 edits, whereas Dr. Witt edited from December 15, 2017, to January 9 with roughly 250 contributions. In order to claim he is more productive, he must include those many accounts Merkel and Epigram are claiming.

Yes. The fact is> Rationalwiki is protecting a real schizophrenic maniac who owns thousands of accounts on this site since 2012. It was mentioned by Rome Viharo based on a tip-off that this person is also a paid editor, so that explains the large volume of his article creations. “Skeptic” individuals pay this guy to create articles on paranormal-believers or spiritualists, looking at the recent article creations and you can see more of his accounts, an exampleEpigram (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The example he gives is Debunking spiritualism, which I listed as “Possible but unclear.” It is reasonably clear who Merkel is, perhaps, not so who Epigram is. The non-AP RW editors, as happens all too frequently, make a very dumb assumption, that keeps them stupid, not seeing what is in front of their faces.

Paid editors? If only that were true, my financial woes would be over, but alas and alack it is nothing more than fiction. Comrade GC (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, GrammarCommie doesn’t understand what is being claimed, and he is not actually researching the affair, lacking curiosity.

It was not claimed that “RationalWiki” editors are “paid editors,” but that “this guy” — the sock master — is paid. Is he? Epigram is not a reliable source, but … AP socks have claimed that they are supported, including offers of payment, and it is plausible.

There is no link to Rome Viharo’s statement (and mentioning it would be very, very unskillful, though there is another possibility: that Merkel and/or Epigram are AP socks. I don’t consider this likely, merely possible. AP does things like this, particularly where he knows his audience and how they will react.

Most likely, Merkel is relatively clueless and is the person Dr. Witt claimed he was in the Coop filing, linked above.

“Its nonsense from a troll. Merkel is a neo-Nazi who administrates Rightpedia named “A Wyatt Man”

(Quoting this is not accepting that Merkel is a “neo-Nazi,” merely that Merkel writes like someone without extensive general wiki experience, and would have a motive to write what he wrote on RW. Merkel did not disclose his specific interest, just dropped in swinging.)

(But what is hilarious here is that Dr. Witt, in his last edits, mostly confirmed the Merkel claims as having substance — even if exaggerated.)

@GrammarCommie Indeed, comrade! Together, we can make Rational Wiki great by unleashing untold payloads of freedom and democracy! Nerd (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

tbh i don’t really care about sockpuppeting as long as it’s not done by an obvious vandal. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


Goodpost.gif Nerd (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is standard on RationalWiki. Socking is not grounds for sanction there, unless one is what might be called a Favorite Target. However, “I don’t really care” seems to assume that the situation is understood. There is no sign that this is the case.

@BabyLuigiOnFire is also possible these rather paranoid rumors of a conspiracy have given rise to an actual conspiracy. Either that or inviduals such as Rome Viharo are playing both sides off each other in order to justify their paranoid babbling. Regardless, speculating without further proof is pointless and as you say the individual(s) in question appear to lack any malicious intent thus far. Comrade GC (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

What makes alleged facts a “rumor,” and what, then, makes it a “paranoid rumor”? That there is a massive sock farm (called Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, the “Smith brothers” on RationalWiki (by AP socks! — describing the “conspiracy theory,” when it is not a conspiracy theory, unless combined with claims of paid editing or the like) is supported by massive evidence, and what journalists do is confirm or disconfirm rumors, based on evidence. What happens on RatWiki is acceptance or rejection, not based on investigation of evidence, but what makes for the best snark.

The ready description of others as “paranoid” is not skeptical, it is clearly pseudoscientific, unless the claim has been examined and one is qualified to make such a diagnosis. A implicit demand for “proof” is characteristic of pseudoscience, whereas a scientific approach looks for evidence — and tests the ideas. Is what is being presented “speculation” or is it conclusion based on evidence?

“lacking any malicious intent” demonstrates that GrammarCommie has no idea what has been happening, what is being claimed by real people, under their real names, with reputations to protect, but is accepting the story of “Rome Viharo” disruption so often told by AP socks — which commonly impersonate their enemies, like Rome Viharo.

Ha. You have no idea… Dr. Witt (and his countless aliases) was the one responsible for temporarily shutting down Kiwi Farms by phoning the employers of the owner’s mother, that resulted in her being fired, as well as bombarding the owner’s family with threatening emails; he even created the Kiwi Farms article here. He then managed to get his own thread on Kiwi Farms removed – a first, since virtually no threads there are deleted and Kiwi Farms’ policy is never to delete them, notice how Mike’s (his main enemy) remains up.

This general story could be confirmed. Certainly I have seen it. I consider it established that AP has real-life harassed, and he has certainly threatened it. He threatened me and carried out the threat. (But not in “real life,” though what he has done has real-life effects, as have been reported by others. What AP claims about my blog on the article about me is true in spades for RW articles, which are much more visible than my blog, generally.

So basically a digital stalker and doxing community as notorious as Kiwi Farms is even scared of this guy, or finds him too malicious for even their community. Of course though, if you post anything about this individual here – you end up banned for doxing! He’s bizarrely protected here, having made friends with the owners. However, plenty of information you can dig up about him on the web such as the fact he was treated for schizophrenia at Nightingale Mental Health Hospital London. He was/is friends with Ian Keith Gomeche (just Google), who was arrested in 2005 for cyber and real-world harassment (such as phoning people over 300 times in a single day.) Gomeche used to run the website “noncewatch”, and Dr. Witt is also obsessed with not only fighting paedophiles online, but virtually anyone normal who shows an interest in sex, since he’s an asexual and finds sex disgusting. As noted elsewhere by Merkel, Dr. Witt has an Encylopedia Dramatica article, that notes a lot more about this individual.Epigram (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


Ah now you’ve just overplayed your hand, since I’m an asexual and while I do not find the act of sex disgusting, I also have no inclination to engage in it. Furthermore I checked into the claims of an ED article and found none. Please cease treating us as if we’re morons who will believe literally anything you say without verifying it. Comrade GC (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The comment by Epigram did not attack “asexuality,” but rather claimed that Dr. Witt was “obsessed with fighting pedophiles” (this connects with lulcows wiki and other cross-wiki activity that I have not investigated yet — though I’ve read much). ED articles are written for lulz, and Epigram did not mention ED. Epigram does not provide evidence, but claims and some clues. For example, the claim about schizophrenia may have originated with an edit by a suspected AP sock.

what this user has done in other sites has no bearing here. stop poisoning the well. also, your comment about how “asexuality is not normal” is disgusting and i suggest you redact that immediately (also am an asexual too) БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell us his favorite color too? Jesus christ.—Hamburguesa con queso con un caraSpinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice how a comment is attributed to Epigram, with quotes, even, that Epigram did not make. AP stirs shit and loves it when others then generate more shit.

Epigram may be reporting mere rumor, but “morons” would be properly those who refuse to look at what is being claimed, what is in front of them and obvious if they look with open eyes, but attack the claims as silly and preposterous, without themselves investigating.

“Do you think I’m stupid?” is a common response of the less than intelligent and curious (and incurious people tend to not develop high intelligence but remain as reactives.) That, in fact, is pseudoskepticism in a nutshell, or crankcase. It would be stupid to believe anything without evidence, and the particular claim is a damned nuisance, because, quite as Epigram has claiming, RationalWiki is being used as a personal attack platform, and how to deal with this would be work, and RationalWikians often detest work. They would have to look at the articles and make decisions, but unless they actually investigate, those decisions will be based only on the most obvious appearances. No, much more comfortable to sit in the pile of shit and blame the flies on someone else.

By the way, this is a blog page. While I tend to push opinion to blog posts, and use pages for evidence, it is still a blog and users with the edit privilege here may post opinions in either place. And I’m not the only one with such privileges, there are two who are well-known as skeptics on cold fusion, but they are real skeptics, interested in the science.

I would not believe what Epigram wrote just because he wrote it. After all, he is anonymous and may have some agenda. AP has pissed off many people! The article AP created on me is full of claims that I was disruptive and did this and that, based on rare incidents in about thirty years of high internet and forum activity. AP is himself widely blocked and banned. I’ll look at the many-site claims on a subpage, but I’m not going to personally investigate them, beyond finding such investigations by others. Many of these sites are themselves sewers. Some are not. (As an example of one that is not, Rome Viharo’s WikipediaWeHaveAProblem is sane and, as a real person, with a real reputation to protect, his claims are evidence (they would become admissible evidence in court if he attested to them under oath). The claims of the anonymous are disregarded and inadmissible, unless verified — or attributed as “an anonymous source,” journalists do that, but will only refer to an “anonymous tip” if they don’t know and reasonably trust the source — so the credibility of the claim then depends on the credibility of the reporters, and reporters who lie or are reckless on this, if it is discovered, lose their career.

(Wikipedia depends on responsible sources, called “reliable source.”) RationalWiki often depends on anonymous claims to slander the subjects of articles. But to notice that requires actually reading and investigating sources. Trolls cherry-pick and cite sources that do not actually vefify the troll’s claims. And AP is a Troll Extraordinaire, not for brilliance, but for sheer persistence in his agenda, which is to harm and smear his enemies.)

I don’t know who Epigram is, I would suspect mikemikev or maybe michaeldsuarez, or … AP himself, he does stuff like this. He attacks himself in such a way as to discredit attacks. But the only thing he did here was to make claims without citing evidence, and he’s probably going to be blocked anyway (though he hasn’t been, yet), so why bother?. It’s work to collect and cite verifiable evidence. But he could quickly link to pages where others have done that, preferably relatively neutral collections, made with caution (which AP attacks with extra vigor, those are the worst! — Such as the WMF collection, about which he raised a huge ruckus — they had to be neutral or they’d have been immediately deleted!

(However, deliberately, that study did not link to non-WMF socking nor did it claim the real-name identity. From many examples, anyone mentioning the well-known name of the “brothers” will be blocked for socking, and revision deletion is liberally used. However, if the one mentioning it is one of the brothers, not all such socks are blocked. Who created “Smith Brothers conspiracy theory”? Ah, that’s a story all by itself. I was desysopped merely for commenting on that page, apparently, and then blocked by another AP sock. I’ll cover that in detail elsewhere.  Another AP sock requested deletion, and then an AP sock also deleted the deletion discussion. Anyone can verify the round outlines of this from logs, and any sysop can verify what was deleted.)

Evidence makes pages long and then morons don’t read them. It’s too hard! (A sane skeptic who doesn’t expect value from reading may ignore a long page, but the curious — and genuine skeptics are at least mildly curious, because lack of curiosity is, defacto, accepting existing personal beliefs — could ask for a summary! “tl;dr”, though is used as an insult. What I found was that if I took the time to create summaries, mostly, the summaries were then rejected without review of evidence, and in the case of AP and certain others, the summaries were claimed to be baseless, lies, or paranoia.

“What’s the point, man! Get to the frigging point!”

But this is where science leaves reactivity and anti-intellectual annoyance. Science actually spends years gathering evidence, and never considers what the evidence shows as “proof,” the exception being math (where rigorous logic is used according to clearly stated assumptions and process.)

The process of science as the study of reality is never complete, unlike some old and widely-discredited imaginations. However, evidence can become very strong, such that avoiding obvious conclusions, when it comes to practical decisions, can become denial. I would stake my life on the earth not being flat!

Too often, science and “wiki” are in conflict (unless there is protective structure, which is very rare.)

RationalWiki pretends (main page)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

There is an anti-science movement, and it takes on a primary form, which RationalWiki “refutes,” as if “anti-science” were some hypothesis subject to refutation. “Peudoscience” is not subject to “refutation,” because, by definition, it involves untestable theory or belief.

So the secondary form of “anti-science” confuses belief with science by posting a contrary belief, in “science.” Yet in “anti-pseudoscience,” the scientific method is not followed. Rather, and this is obvious from many RW articles, there is some posited “truth,” usually of the form “they are wrong,” if honestly expressed, and then hosts of ad-hominem and knee-jerk impressions are asserted as if factual.

This is political speech, not science, per se. It is founded in a belief in a certain class of models as being “true,” but no model is truth. “Anti-pseudoscience” activists will often oppose research to test what they call “pseudoscience,” and they label, as a clear example, Parapsychology as a pseudoscience, even though it is literally the scientific study of claims of the paranormal. They confuse a field which is a scientific study with belief in the claims studied, and they confuse “belief” with “evidence.” The latter is the product of investigation, which some may then interpret. Belief is either prior to that study — in which case we could call it “pseudoscientific” if it falsely claims “proof,” or after the study, in which case it could again be pseudoscientific or merely normal rationality, an operating assumption based on evidence.

The standard claim made about RationalWiki is that it is “not rational,” and anyone who knows the wiki would know extensive evidence for this.

RW is not a person, though there is a person who has control over it, if he chooses to exercise that control. But it would be a colossal nuisance. Herding cats. What is interesting as a possibility is that the owner or major managers consider AP socks “useful.” Rome Viharo has been exploring that. So far, I see a level of circumstantial evidence that it is so, but this does not mean that I “believe” it. I merely think it possible, and if study of the evidence shows a probability in this direction, I will publish it.

This is actually science, there is a hypothesis (which could be called a conspiracy, to distinguish it from the sock studies, which show almost an anti-conspiracy — “there is no conspiracy, but only one highly disruptive and active user, or close family of users.”

The RationalWiki response to this is moronic. Lies — directly and verifiably false claims — put up by AP socks are trusted, and claims by others, not accompanied by evidence, are rejected. Attempts to put up evidence are blocked and the evidence is deleted. That’s the reality in the AP world, and he knows how to play this violin. “Too much violins on Rational Wiki.”

And then an IP shows up:

 “Epigram” is just a sock of Rome Viharo who was recently blocked on another account. Just ignore and collapse this. All this nonsense is found on Rome Viharo’s website who has written 100,000 words on Dr.Witt and has been stalking him for years. It was also Viharo who invented this misinformation & conspiracy theory about Dr. Witt. No evidence however is ever provided, its all hearsay, rumour and just Viharo’s delusions. Futher according to Viharo, Dr.Witt has been reported to the FBI for his RationalWiki edits. LOL. (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

IP information: Proxy server. This is AP, and would be immediately blocked on WMF wikis on notice, as a proxy server but also by the duck test. The other edit shows this, clearly, for anyone familiar with AP patterns and special interests. From that other edit:

You also think you got a “confession” from Dr. Witt he has used this wiki since January 2012; that’s public knowledge, something he’s said for years. You’re incredibly dumb.

This is a troll, this is how trolls write: to grandstand and enrage. This is on Merkel’s talk page, and was thus harassment. Does anyone notice? No sign. There is no protection for perceived cranks. When the IP claims “something he’s said for years,” to whom is he referring? It could only be to other accounts. Which ones? Merkel did not claim that “he got a confession” from Dr. Witt, but he claimed that Witt had confessed to extensive socking. The IP is actually confirming that, claiming it is “public knowledge.” It is public knowledge, actually, once one knows that Dr. Witt is an AP sock and then sees what AP socks have written, as well as having reviewed independent evidence.

And he believes that the RW users he is communicating with are morons. The claims:

“Epigram is just a sock of Rome Viharo.” That’s unlikely for many reasons … to explain this would take even more words. But this is a common AP claim about anyone pointing to the obvious.

“… who was recently blocked on another account.” This would refer to these accounts:

As I discuss on the main RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist study, these were impersonation socks, not Rome Viharo. This is a common AP tactic. It has often worked, and the discussion shows this. Familiarity with these gruesome details is a common AP trait. Who else is so interested? Well, me, perhaps. Bwaa haa haa haa haa! What is of interest to me, so far, is that the “attacks” on AP have not cited this blog, which could be the most careful study of AP socking done so far. And I did not get my information from Rome Viharo. His work has supplied a few hints, but what I report here is what I found. AP claims that all this is taken, variously, from Encyclopedia Dramatica or Rome Viharo. It’s a lie designed to appeal to knee-jerk impressions. There is material there, therefore any similar material must be taken from there.

However, I mostly avoid reading ED except through archive links. Rome Viharo’s site is safe.

“… Rome Viharo’s website who has written 100,000 words on Dr.Witt and has been stalking him for years.” Viharo has been researching the AP socks for years, because they attacked him, first on Wikipedia. However, one would only describe Viharo’s research as “stalking Dr.Witt [sic]” if one believes that Dr. Witt is AP. Which this IP actually knows,  being an AP brother.

“It was also Viharo who invented this misinformation & conspiracy theory about Dr. Witt.”

No. Much documentation was compiled before Rome started to look at it. My study started before I was aware of Rome’s commentary. Dr. Witt was totally obvious as an AP sock from first glance. All one has to do is know AP obsessions and then look at his contributions. And then there is Dr. Witt’s “confession,” and what the IP has written; he is contradicting himself (which AP often does).

There is no mention of “Dr. Witt” on Rome Viharo’s blog. (If anyone finds one, existing as of today, January 14, 2018, please let me know!) Now, is this IP AP? It’s an open proxy, it could be anyone, and it is not impossible that an enemy of AP has posted it. But the effect is what AP would desire, not the enemies of AP. While it is not always correct, it is a decent place to start, moving toward understanding, to look at the effect of an action, not imaginations of motives.

No evidence however is ever provided, its all hearsay, rumour and just Viharo’s delusions.”

When evidence is provided, it is deleted as “doxxing.” Even if it is not doxxing, but merely equating accounts, which has never been considered doxxing.  Has Viharo provided evidence? Does it matter? I will review what Viharo has written, and one thing I will be looking for is evidence. However, I provided evidence on RationalWiki, and it was deleted by an AP sock, who showed classic AP behavior, Skeptical. Notice that he disappeared, quickly after being “harassed” on-wiki, harassment that was only confronting him with the obvious. AP socks often do this, it’s easy and AP does have many sysop accounts on RW.

The discussion continued:

Sex is gross and I also have reported Dr. Witt to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an RW regular showing regular irrelevant snark. Who claimed that “Sex is gross”? Not Dr. Witt, and not Epigram. 

Asexuality and RatWiki regulars

One factoid that comes out in this discussion. Two or three very recognizable RatWiki sysops declare that they are “asexual,” or equivalent, at the same time as they decry an imagined claim that “asexuality is not normal.”

This confirms an easy stereotype: those who edit RatWiki enough to become sysops may tend to be socially dysfunctional basement-dwellers with no life. (The same may also be statistically evident for some sysops elsewhere.) I am not claiming that a “stereotype” is real, and with any stereotype, individuals may vary widely. I’m just noticing the coincidence.

GrammarCommie: I’m an asexual and while I do not find the act of sex disgusting, I also have no inclination to engage in it.

BabyLuigiOnFire: (also am an asexual too)

LeftyGreenMario: Sex is gross [of course, this may merely be standard RW sarcastic snark].

Allegedly, as well, this was the position of Dr. Witt, but I haven’t seen the evidence for that.

“Normal” is not a synonym for “good” or “bad.” It is a population description. There is no specific level at which “normal” ends and “not normal” begins, however, Kinsey found roughly 1.5% of the adult male population as asexual. See the Wikipedia article for details.

From this, the chance that the correlation is random is low. By no means is this a claim that “most RW editors are asexual,” nor that this is Bad, and asexuality may be conditional and temporary, as well. However, it is counter-survival, if by “survival” we include survival through descendants. It cannot be “normal” for a full population, or that population with the trait would likely go extinct.

(But there may be a species benefit to a trait that does not directly reproduce, and this is sometimes claimed about homosexuality. There may be a benefit to a subpopulation not being “breeders.” This would preserve the “disposition” genes, if they exist, or the social memes, if the variation is not genetic.)


This map plots suspected AP IP geolocation data. When it was compiled, there were many loosely suspected IP addresses from the RationalWiki Racialism article. Those show up in many different locations. There is a series of edits from Seoul Korea, with a likely user who is not AP. Zoom in on the map of England (where the “home” marker shows). There are two markers with that symbol, one is the apparent residence of the AP brothers, the other is the University of Roehampton, which AP was attending when the whole AP affair began in 2011. The edits strewn around the world will mostly be eliminated from this map …. they were only listed to see what IP might look like with non-AP users. None of those show up in the actual AP area. As well, the red icon with the X is an open proxy known to have been used by AP. Those locations are, of course, meaningless.

The original Anglo Pyramidologist study did not include anonymous (IP) editors, largely to avoid claims of privacy policy violations. However, suspected sock reports have often included IPs, and from block logs, it can sometimes be determined that they were block-evading socks. IP addresses are not persons, as such, and have no intrinsic right of privacy and may, through disruptive action, forfeit the special right granted in some terms of service.

This page includes IPs from the WMF study.


  • APG matches generally known AP location
  • OP identified or suspected on evidence as open proxy.
  • UID other location, possibly temporary open proxy or meat puppet — or independent user with coincident interest.

The WMF Study

The RationalWiki study:

Specific deceptive claims

Overall, the RationalWiki article was clearly written as revenge for exposing the activity of “Anglo Pyramidologist” socks, in impersonating and attacking enemies. See the WikiMedia Foundation study, and then the RationalWiki study (created after the attack article was created, and documenting long-term creation of attack articles on many people.)

These studies are long because they do not simply make claims; they are short on “claim” and long on evidence, and they are for the use of this who are interested in reality, rather than mere opinions. Some have discovered that they can play on the reluctance of some to study long pages or complex , and they can then create “fake news” — or claims that sober journalism is fake news, and people then go with knee-jerk reactions.

One of the techniques of trolls, I found this on Wikipedia long ago, is to convert a single incident where there was arguably some problem, into a pattern. So a young woman editing on Wikipedia had copied some materail from a draft page she found. Turned out it was, arguably, a copyright violation, and an obvious troll attacking her claimed that she “creates copyright violations.” Later, in process that I largely created, her history was examined. There were no other examples. But even administrators looking at the original requests of that troll, even if they checked the single example (often, amazingly enough, they don’t!) would see what could be a confirmation (and if they also paid no attention to the back-story, of where she got that material, and she had asked an administrator if she could use it, and the admin had said it was okay.)

Everyone makes mistakes, or takes actions that might be justifiable, or that can look bad if divorced from context. And trolls thrive in an environment where knee-jerk reactions can carry the day. So, from the RationalWiki article, on various topics:


Written on RationalWiki:

Between 2010 and 2017, Abd was blocked 11 times on Wikiversity.[46]

That looks really bad, eh? The devil is in the details. In response to the message quoted below, I examined the block log. 3 of those blocks were by an rogue custodian, reverted quickly as not following policy, and the custodian was quickly desysopped. It is rare that block logs are reviewed and corrected. Most of the time, if one is unblocked, it’s over, and to review these things can be seen, in itself, as disruptive. What I found, in quick summary, was that of the 11 blocks, two were legitimate (and short). In one of those cases, I simply made a mistake and supported the short block. In the other, I was addressing major disruption and decided to do what would get me blocked to force attention — no custodian was active, so I lit up watchlists. It worked, by the way. But I expected to be blocked, I was willing to be blocked to stop what was happening, it was harming the community.

On 31 December 2017, Abd was blocked for a year for disrupting articles.[47]

That was not the block reason. It was for allegedly disrupting a discussion, when the discussion had become irrelevant (and could be continued, if desired,  by reverting an edit, a few seconds). My block log review goes into details. This was the tenth block in my log. It would have been reversed if not for the eleventh, as stated by another bureaucrat who was involved. But “disrupting articles” (plural) sounds worse.

The same day, a bureaucrat extended his block to indefinite, after pointing out Abd has engaged in contentious activity by misusing the website as his “personal podium” spanning 7 years of long-term abuse:

This, my eleventh block, was based on a review of the block log. Wikiversity did allow people to “take the podium.” It’s not an encyclopedia, and opinion was always allowed. But I had not been substantially contributing to Wikiversity for two years. So why the block now? This was the same bureaucrat who had just blocked me, about which the other bureaucrat, with much more experience, had written:

… I would support this unblock request. The edits in question could be interpreted as a good-faith attempt to resolve a content issue.

It was obviously that, but … either the bureaucrat was not understanding the edits, or was looking for proof that I was disruptive — which can lead to misunderstanding. And so then, looking at my block log, he would react to the length. He very much misinterpreted it. What he wrote in the next block:

Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources. The unblocks in your log show repeated attempts by our community to assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve Wikiversity despite much evidence to the contrary. I’m not going to get into the minutia of your individual actions. I’m going to make a call based on the sum of your contributions. Wikiversity is not your personal podium. Your participation here has become a drain on the resources of our community and we will not allow this to continue.[48]

This was effectively a community ban, but without any ban discussion, as Wikiversity traditions required. As a result of this claim, I wrote a block log annotation, see below. The AP sock continued:

Harassment and complaints

Prior to his ban, various editors on Wikiversity had complained about Abd’s disruptive behaviour.

Over the years, it’s true, there had been complaints. Often from very disruptive users, such as the former custodian I had blocked for incivility (my block was later confirmed by a bureaucrat as within discretion) and who then embarked on a vendetta… However, there had not been such complaints for years, except very recently from sock puppets of AP, the same person (or small family group) as wrote the RationalWiki article.

He had also sent another user “harassing” emails.[49]

This is conclusory, not factual. The fact  is that a user complained about harassing mails, giving no evidence or details. He links to an entire page on archive.is, but the actual comment was this:

Delete and ban User:Abd for harassing me in e-mails. Wikiversity should be ashamed of itself for continuing to let him abusively campaign here. I have asked the foundation for a ruling as well. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

He was lying. And there was no “campaign.” I had hardly edited the cold fusion resource — which I did not start as was also claimed — for two years or more. I am informed that the Foundation will be disinterested in these unsubstantiated claims. But one never can tell. Toss enough mud, some may stick. Does anyone notice who is constantly tossing mud? (This user was long banned on Wikipedia for outrageous behavior, but he attempts to conceal his past.) The request for deletion was full of ad hominem arguments irrelevant, normally, to keep or delete.

The emails are quoted on this page. None of this was what is understood as harassment. Disagreement is not harassment, unless continued well beyond a request to stop. There was no request. The correspondence was voluntary. When he ceased responding, I ceased responding, as can be seen in the history quoted. But if this user complained to the bureaucrat, perhaps the bureaucrat believed him.

A Wikiversity bureaucrat noted “We have received numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time.”[50]

The bureaucrat writing that was the same one as the one who blocked me twice without following, at all, blocking policy, particularly in there being no violated warning. The AP socks had threatened they would write complaining emails. Obviously, they did. But normally such complaints, if they are to be actioned, would be documented so that an accused user has the opportunity to defend him or herself. this is normally done with a Community Review on Wikiversity, though there are alternate processes. Instead … he reacted. It was out-of-the-blue, without providing any opportunity for defense, explanation, and no warning.

Abd wrote thousands of words on his blog about the incident, claiming he has been incorrectly blocked.[51] Do You Believe That?

Misleading. The link is to the block log annotation which goes over the 11 blocks, created so that anyone who wants to review that block can see the record and history in detail.

Evidence is always lengthy, compared to summary claims. But does that page claim I was “incorrectly blocked”? Which block? As I wrote there, two were legitimate blocks. There were at least three that were obviously and totally illegitimate. What I actually wrote was that the other blocks did not follow blocking policy, which is rather easy to establish. That does not mean that they were “incorrect.” Some were “involved blocks.” Perhaps there was some emergency, for example. Was there? This would take examination of the log entries and circumstances. Whether the block was “correct” or “abusive” or whatever is up to the community, and if the community doesn’t review it — too often that has been the case, it will stand. And that is exactly how wikis become unsafe. It is common and has happened to thousands of users.

Shooting the messenger

I came across this today on Rationalwiki, on the Chicken Coop, RationalWiki’s central “dispute resolution page.” It was a particularly good example of site bias shooting the messenger.

A man with millions of accounts here (many which are admin) is creating articles with doxxing to harass his personal enemies.

He loses them immediately with “millions of accounts.” There is indeed someone who is creating many accounts, not only on RationalWiki, but on WMF wikis and in many places. And he frequently doxxes his enemies and he does have a lot of enemies. I’ve just begun to study his activity, and boy was he pissed! He seems to think that by attacking me and work I have done in the past, he will discourage me. No, it fires me up!

Not “millions.” I might be a thousand, but I have documented a few hundred. But, hey, what is three orders of magnitude among friends? But he is not among friends, as we will see.

The sock master is called Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, in their Sock Puppet Investigation page. In fact, there are likely at least two people tagged as AP, reputedly twin brothers, Oliver and Darryl Smith. I have not personally confirmed that identity, but he has directly contacted some people directly (by phone and email) and they have provided that information, and I have seen claims that it has been confirmed in public records. But I report what I find from my own study, and then may link to others.

The WMF study was originally written on Wikiversity, but Wikiversity was not well-defended against the massive sock attack that followed, so I moved it to the meta wiki. Here is an archive copy of that study, but after many sock attacks, with resulting locks for the accounts and blocks for open proxy IP, and then the use of mobile IP (which, by the way, was coming from AP’s known location) … it was deleted in a rather strange action, and what I’ve been finding, reviewing logs, is a penumbra of strange actions that often protect this quite vicious sock master. Some are explainable by knee-jerk responses to appearances, but some take on a darker color. He has claimed support, and I’m seeing signs of it. He’s an attack dog, useful to the enemies of those he attacks.

The list of WMF socks taken from that meta study is not deleted, and that was deliberate by the deleting steward, as came out.  (An archive copy just in case.) The study here, linked above, is a bit more complete (and the list of socks from Quack Hunter, mentioned below, will probably add more if study shows identity is likely. )Remember, this is identity with two different users. Atlantid would be the Anglo Pyramidologist brother, and Quack Hunter the one whose best-known account on Wikipedia might be Goblin Face, at least that was a name I immediately recognized.

But all this is foggy. It is as if the anti-quack socks have a manic personality that sometimes displays quite different characteristics (such as very poor spelling or grammar — which he then uses to claim, not not the same!)

I will refer to some of this in commenting on this Chicken Coop affair. The author is Merkel (contributions).  He wrote:

There’s a fellow called Atlantid (I’ll avoid using his real name but you can find all his info by searching Encyclopedia Dramatica) has tons and tons of accounts here. Some examples are User:Krom, User:DougWellerisalunatic, User:PS2, Special:Contributions/Forests Forests, and another Special:Contributions/DinoCrisis Dinocrisis. There’s a ton more.

The headline was sloppy with “millions,” and “tons and tons of accounts is not clear, either, so if he had any hope of getting a point across, he has already largely trashed it. He is apparently not aware of my study of RationalWiki Anglo Pyramidologist sock puppets. It was first created on RationalWiki, and deleted there for alleged doxxing (which it did not do, and such claims are typical for the Smith brothers. Who called them “Smith brothers”? Well, one of them did, creating an article on the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” ridiculing it, though the story that there are two brothers involved actually comes from the socks themselves, back in 2011.) It was deleted by an AP sock, and likewise I was blocked by that sock — all outside of normal RW process, but enabled by … David Gerard, in the end. I will tell that story in more detail when I start to analyze how this sock master has been empowered and enabled, by those who are served by the socks’ actions.

He has used “Atlantid” without establishing it. There is no RW account for Atlantid. Atlantid was active elsewhere, and asking users to search Encyclopedia Dramatica is very much a losing strategy. However, looking on Wikipedia, there is such an account, and it is tagged as a sock of Quack Hunter (which is very much an AP kind of name). The account has only one edit, which, from looking at many hundreds of AP accounts, would raise strong suspicion. In fact, it is so blatant that I would suspect an impersonation account, which cannot be ruled out, but AP has never complained about being impersonated. He is following almost everything I write, so he might now!

56 accounts are tagged as Quack Hunter. The names are dead giveaways. To me, this is simply another set of AP accounts, to add to the 190 or so already tagged or identified in the Sock Puppet case page. I will be adding those to the study, those that are not already there. (Since so many names are so similar, I can recognize a name as familiar that is actually a little different….)

As to RationalWik, he claimed “millions,” or “tons and tons,” but only showed five.

  • Krom retired, but still an RW sysop. In my independent study, I tagged Krom here.
  • DougWellerisalunatic  DougWellerisalunatic I had not seen yet, though the name is a red flag. probably impersonating michaeldsuarez, an AP target. I agree with this one and will add.
  • PS2 already recognized.
  • Forests forests is an error. If you are going to shoot the King, don’t miss. He means Forests. Retired 2013, was a sysop, but desysopped after retiring. Yes, from interests, clearly AP. This discussion is fascinating.
  • (There are many clues to other possible accounts.)
  • Dinocrisis. This link was also broken. Retired 2013, like Forests, and was likely the same user.

Dinocrisis was mentioned in this edit by OldWatch, but mispelled as Dinoscrisis:

Krom/Schizophrenic/Forests/DinosCrisis/Goosebumps are all the same person.

All the same guy. He’s a patient at Nightingale Hospital London being treated for Schizophrenia. OldWatch (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OldWatch had four edits on 15 October 2015, and then only this one in 2016. The October edits betray AP obsessions (particularly with Ben Steigmann). AP deliberately creates confusion. The first four accounts listed were AP, likely. Goosebumps? Yes, AP. Do remember that from early AP sock studies on Wikipedia, it is very possible that AP is actually two people, and less likely that there is more than two. However, both were disruptive, and both socked. OldWatch, like most suspected AP socks, was a throwaway account, probably intended to create suspicion for someone like mikemikev.

Because the Chicken coop filing mentioned Atlantid and other socks, it was predictable how it went. Does it not occur to someone like Merkel that if AP actually has many socks, including socks who are sysops (and that is obviously the case, I conclude upon study, and because I had studied AP behavior before I ever said anything about it on RationalWiki — though I did not yet know the extent of it), that one will have one shot to say something, and it might be shot down, and they have used blocking and revision deletion to hide what they don’t want to be seen, so that first shot had better be clean. It wasn’t. It will usefully reveal more about the socks, anyway. He went on:

On the some of the talk pages, he admits it and admits he has tons more.

No links. Therefore useless. Reports his own conclusions but does not even make them verifiable. Yes. One recent obvious sock claimed to be running RationalWiki, with 700 socks. That is believable, but many of them won’t be so obvious and may not be disccoverable, unless someone with raw log access (better than checkuser) decides to take a look, and as long as all those socks are providing useful attack articles, why do it?

The attack articles stimulate legal threats, which then have been used in fund-raising. “Protect RationaWiki against those who hate skeptics!” It works for a certain target audience.

Who is going to bother trying to find those “admissions” without links? Merkel is not terribly smart, which could be related to who he is. He’s outed by a sock…. (The enemies of AP are not therefore my friends! My care and concern and interest is always evidence and  reality, not some point of view. People who might support me in one way, if they lie or do so unskillfully, because of their bias, can be my worst enemies. So far, Merkel has provided practically no userful information, and certainly not enough to arouse the interest of ordinary RatiWikians. That is difficult at best? But this affair demonstrates the power of the AP socks, there. For that it is useful.

The way to tell is this user always has a feud with Mikemikev. It’s a personal feud going back nearly 10 years. He also has a feud with Rome Viharo. This is how he works, he has tons of accounts here and a large number of sysop accounts.

Obsession with Mikemikev is indeed one of the identifying characteristics. Likewise Rome Viharo, who was a target of socks on Wikipedia, and who has long pointed to the “AP” problem. How many sysop accounts doees AP have? Certainly more than one remains. Some became inactive as sysops, and one of these was desyopped, but the norm is that the accounts retain the privilege. I have not carefully examined all suspected AP socks for sysop privileges, but some received them remarkably rapidly. There is very likely off-wiki communication and support. Other accounts with better and less clearly biased contributions languish, sometimes, with no recognition. That kind of systemic bias can be tricky to document and show. But it can be done. It’s only work.

However, anyone who does the work will be presumed biased, operating out of emotional reaction, because this is how most people think. I first saw this behavior more than thirty years ago, with the on-line forum, the W.ElL,L. Even though, for the first time in a significant social setting, the entire history of interactions was visble, when conflict arose, users would not look back, but depended on emotional reaction to the new content. They might often be correct (emotional reactions exist from causes), but this is hardly “rational.” It’s the primitive brain being allowed to dominate and suppress more sophisticated responses — such as the entire process of science and genuine skepticism. Merkel want on:

Well this time he’s on an account Special:Contributions/Dr._Witt Dr._Witt which has really obvious has he created two accounts on his personal enemies Michael Coombs and Eleonóra Dubiczki while also editing the Rome Viharo article and has all but admitted who he is.

Again, broken link for the alleged sock. This guy is allegedly a sysop on Rightpedia. Goes to show, it’s hard to find good help. (Especially for a site like Rightpedia. This may be mentioned later.)

Dr. Witt Dr Witt is mentioned in the RW study, I had come to the same conclusion.

Where Dr. Witt “all but admitted who he is” is not linked. Who will bother to look? With no link and no exact quotation, and 218 edits at this point, even I may not look. This user may be writing off the top of his head. When I research a topic in order to present possibly complex evidence to an audience not necessarily highly motivated to do their own research, I will sometimes state something from personal knowledge, but far more often, I look for a link to evidence. Anyone accustomed to genuine encyclopedic writing will have this as a habit. So I cite the evidence, which can be done as an in-line link for anyone interested. People may still ignore it, if they don’t like it. But … if one makes lousy arguments for the truth, it can cause real damage!

I have seen many places where AP socks effectively admit who they are. Those admisssions are buried in an avalanche, and besides, any one of them might have been impersonation. How do distinguish these? It takes experience with the overall contributions, and almost nobody obtains that experience, they just react to what is in front of them.

Michael Coombs is indeed an AP diagnostic obsession, already observed.

I may mention an account from such an evidence, but the account will need, to be included in my study, more evidence than that. There are a series of symptoms, and I’m not yet revealing all of them, because some he apparently does not recognize, and once he recognizes them, he may then take compensating action to avoid identification. In some cases, he doesn’t care, obviously, blatantly socking and brushing off the blocks and global locks, but in others, he has some investment. What he has found on RationalWiki is that he can be completely blatant, and then the natural human  reaction to it is used to pick off enemies. RationalWiki is effectively highly censored, while pretending the opposite. Sock are allowed, unless the sock is block-evading. But many RW socks have been blocked, so they are all block evading. Someone else socks, they are quickly outed and whacked, often by an RW sock. There is a pattern, and it is through pattern that we obtain deeper understanding of reality. The study of pattern requires far more work than simple reaction. Few will invest the time (which is a rational choice, often).

Eleonóra Dubiczki I had not seen yet. What many of the obsessions apparently come from is those who have frustrated AP’s agenda in some way. I’m an example, and he vowed revenge, and when massive attack socking failed (as it would on WMF wikis, usually), he created the article on me on RW. So I got far more interested in RationalWiki socking and the studies got deeper. He lied about the history, in many places. It simply did not happen as he has claimed, and that can all be shown, but who wants to see the evidence? Rather, the story of personal grievance combined with allegations (false) of belief in pseudosience is an easier story to “understand,” for some. But that is not the point here.

That article would be significant to Merkel. However, this is unlikely to arouse sympathy. As to AP patterns, creation of that article alone, by Dr. Witt, would not be particular suspicious, though with a quick glance I see some signs. The pattern of articles and edits would. That is, Michael Coombs together with an attack on Dubiczki increases suspicion. Registration of an account and an immediate dive into specific topics increases suspicion. The edit to Ben Steigmann is a strong red flag when combined with the rest. Almost nobody knows or cares who Ben Steigmann is, but AP, long-term, has cared very much, and has vowed to track and expose Steigmann everywhere, and created many impersonation socks to attack Steigmann (confirmed by WMF steward checkuser at my request, and documentation of this is what really pissed AP off.) (Steigmann is not a “parapsychologist,” he is a young amateur student of parapsychology and has never claimed to be a parapsychologist. He studies evidence. Parapsychologists test the paranormal and gather and report their own findings.)

Merkel went on:

There’s another user, Special:Contributions/Anti-Fascist_for_life Anti-Fascist_for_life who acts the same and while the user has talked between Dr. Witt, this Atlantid person often talks to himself with accounts.

Yes, definitely an AP sock, totally obvious. Merkel has been somewhat confused by the vast smokescreen AP socks have created. AP is probably two people, sometimes located at the same house (their parent’s) house or meeting at the same location, and sometimes in distinct locations. They sometimes have apparently squabbled or quarreled, but usually they support each other. I.e., like real-life brothers might!

There is also some evidence of off-wiki cooperation that might sometimes bring in meat puppetry.  This would fade into the other confusion: some other people might be interested in the same topics. I suspect that some of the Wikipedia AP identifications may represent this, but the overall pattern, the vast majority of socks — are socks. There are socks clearly identified by both the duck test and checkuser, which starts to approach “proof.”

I have what amounts to checkuser evidence from some of the socks. They don’t know — or don’t care — but when they claim I have no technical evidence, as they often have, using the same phrase “technical evidence,” they are mistaken. I do. I just don’t normally reveal it. Not yet. Not until I’m ready to issue a final report. Then it all comes out.

Well I’d think the fact that someone has a huge sock farm with tons of accounts, many being admins would be disturbing to people here enough, but well there’s more.

He would think that, showing how little experience he has with RationalWiki. First of all, AP has successfully created the impression that anyone claiming a “sock farm” is a crazy conspiracy theorist (which is a misrepresentation of what a conspiracy theory is. I am coming to something approaching some kind of conspiracy, but the sock farm is only a small piece of evidence in that possibility. AP socks have claimed the support of Wikipedia administrators for what they do, and there is recent on-wiki “canvassing,” (which would be open conspiracy, but other aspects would take place off-wiki, and the socks themselves claim to know each other, and defend each other, i.e., they are connected in real life. That could be a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not necessarily bad, but if there is support for attack socks, which lie and impersonate and libel, is that good or bad? Many RationalWiki users, for years, enjoy the lulz (and then complain about others who also enjoy the lulz, attacking AP or Atlantid or “Oliver and Darryl Smith.”)

However, the first accusation of “conspiracy” was by an AP sock ridiculing the alleged conspiracy theory of others, and in particular me, at a point where I was only claiming obvious socking. It was claimed I got this from Rome Viharo, an AP obsession. No, I discovered the vicious attack impersonation socking first, and only became aware of Rome Viharo documentation later. I had seen the attacks on Tumbleman on Wikipedia (and the mistakes Tumbleman had made …. these people have been running this game for years, and newcomers who are naive about how Wikipedia actually works are easily trolled and picked off by them.)

Firstly, Atlantid made the articles using the real names of his victims: Michael Coombs and Eleonóra Dubiczki. According to RationalWiki’s own policies RationalWiki:Blocking policy, these are not allowed:

  • Doxing: Adding personal information about others into a page. This also includes soliciting for such information off of RationalWiki.
  • Harassment: Adding purely offensive material, solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page.

Even with links, this is not likely to be effective, but without links, it’s impossible. Yes, AP socks routinely doxx users, in many ways. A new user appears and AP will immediately say who it is. This actually was one of the early signs, it’s a standard AP behavior. Even without a real name, it is doxxing (and on Wikipedia can result in an immediate block, if not a necessary part of a sock investigation). However, to make this claim and have it do more than create reaction, requires documentation and evidence, not mere claim.

For doxing, Mikemikev doesn’t keep his personal name that secret but he goes by Mikemikev not his real name. He also is just a random internet troll. Compare his huge article with an article linked from his, Garron Helm. Garron has actually been in newspapers and his article is small. Mike has never been in one newspaper and has no notability and his article is huge. Mike is just a random internet troll, not Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Brittany Pettibone, or Wife with a Purpose. And for the Wife with a Purpose, that article avoids having her real name in the title even though she’s been in newspapers.

It is doxxing all right. Violators of no-doxxing rules often claim that the person has revealed their real name voluntarily, and this is well-known as not an excuse for the privacy violation. However it might make doxxing legal, i.e., revealing the real name behind an account is a form of journalism, protected speech, if true. Suing someone for revealing your real name would be frivolous. Even if you want the information hidden. But AP screams if anyone says “Smith.” And uses tools to delete it, often.

And the Eleonóra Dubiczki, the woman does not use her real name or anything similar at all. This was stalked up by one person and is secret and doxxing. The article has her real name in the title. Eleo has no newspaper articles and is barely known by anyone. She’s just some anonymous person on the internet and should stay that way.

The argument is cogent, but it is being made to an audience which is largely AP socks (or RW users who are tired of hearing about it and just wish all the drama would disappear). We will see.

Both articles have the real names of the victims in the titles. These are victims which have no newspaper articles, no fame, and are simply the personal enemy of the Atlantid person (again you can find the full history on Atlantid at his Encyclopedia Dramatica article). Atlantid created their articles simply to harass his enemies. These two people have never appeared on any podcasts either. They are very small-time people and simply Atlantid’s enemies. Part of the harassment is so the articles will come up as a top search for their real name.

He is repeating himself, and knows he is going on too long, but apparently did not preview it carefully and did not boil it down. That’s what losers do, in discussions like this. He is right (on this point, i.e., I’d agree with it — and so might a court if someone actually sues, which is unlikely but possible), but being right isn’t enough.

Also the photos in the Michael Coombs article have no licensing information or source and I’m skeptical the copyright policy allows this.

That is called “concern trolling” on RW. The copyright owner may complain, but absent that, RW can host the files under a claim of fair use. If there is a complaint, RW will almost certainly take the image down. Or not, if they are prepared to acknowledge service of the appropriate U.S. District Court.  RW is not Wikimedia Commons, where lack of proper licensing information is grounds for removal. This is a losing argument.

Thanks for reading. Sorry it got long. Merkel (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn’t “get long.” He made it long without making it useful. Let’s see the responses:

I’m not too sure about the Michael Coombs one, but there seems to be little evidence linking Eleonóra Dubiczki to those nick/usernames/aliases. All I can find mentioning them as founders are various fora. —Kazitor, pending 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor is ignoring the primary issue and focusing on a detail, whether it is right or wrong. He is essentially confirming the concern about Dubiczki. He is not an AP sock, he shows no sign of it, but AP often diverts users into irrelevant arguments. The point was a pattern of creating attack articles. In this case, Merkel has an undisclosed axe to grind, probably, but regular RW users will often fix and remove unsourced claims. It’s not reliable.

The discussion of the Dubicki article belonged on the Talk page for that article, not in the Chicken Coop. An overall negative behavioral issue would belong on the Coop if other efforts to resolve issues have failed. Going to the Coop with a Dramatic Story (Millions of socks!!!) was doomed from the start. If you get any attention at all, it’s likely to turn out negatively

Its nonsense from a troll. Merkel is a neo-Nazi who administrates Rightpedia named “A Wyatt Man”; Eleonóra Dubiczki is the creator of Rightpedia an anti-Semitic alt-right wiki that argues for Holocaust denial, flat earth, Moon landing hoax and other crankery, who formerly ran Metapedia as “Hu1”. She created an account using her first name on Metapedia; there are also blog links that connect her online pseudonym(s) to her real surname, that I can provide. Mikemikev revealed his real name on Wikipedia, Metapedia and other wikis; so its public knowledge. Furthermore, a mere Google-search of “Mikemikev” and you get his real name on dozens of websites, including Kiwi Farms; he even confirmed his real identity here as Michael Coombs, although he’s permabanned. The RationalWiki user “Anti-fascist for life” isn’t me, nor are 5/6 of the other accounts Merkel listed, that are years old and look inactive anyway. Also, I’m not bothered by what idiots write about me on Enyclopedia Dramatica – satire, rumours and misinformation that no-one takes serious; if I’m not mistaken David Gerrard and several other RationalWiki sysops have silly articles there written about them as well. The real issue here is Mikemikev is worried about getting imprisoned for hate-speech since his RW article now documents all his extreme racist internet postings such as him wanting to shoot and kill black people, Jews etc, so he wants his article deleted and is now sending his neo-Nazi buddies here, since he is banned.Dr. Witt (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This response alone would convince me that Dr. Witt is AP. AP socks routinely lie, but sometimes they tell the truth. Is he “Anti-fascist for life.” I don’t know, but it is entirely that one is one brother and the other is the other. Antifascist for life I had previously identified as a clear RW sock (and, yes, I have technical evidence, these guys don’t realize how much is visible if one looks with care and diligence.)

“Doxxing” is normally based on “public knowledge,” and AP socks have often accused others of doxxing for revealing what was found in public records. As evidence for the Dubiczki account claim, Dr. Witt had cited Encyclopedia Dramatica, but now he deprecates it as to what is claimed about him. AP obviously wants to have it both ways,  to prohibit others from doing what he does routinely. That all becomes obvious if one actually studies the accounts and the histories. If not, one will simply react based on whichever story is more knee-jerk appealing.

Did mikemikev “send his Neo-Nazi buddies”? Maybe. I don’t actually know mikemikev, I have had no direct communication with him. I have no idea if he is a vicious racist neo-Nazi or otherwise. I do know that he has very likely been impersonated, at least on occasion, and impersonation socks can then create public records that say what they want to say. Normal wikis will use checkuser and other evidence to detect this, as actually happened (eventually) with AP socks impersonating Ben Steigmann (though Wikipedia still has not woken up to it, nor have I made serious attempts to inform Wikipedia admins. Only one, who has largely disappeared and did not respond.)

RW is not a normal wiki.

There then ensued a conversation between likely AP socks, DangerZone and Dr. Witt. Classic. They ridicule the sock allegations. In the few places where these conversations have taken place with checkuser available, they have either

  • lied about being independent, or
  • were sharing internet access or even the same computer in such a way for checkuser to tag them as “related.”

It is entirely possible that there are two users. Less likely that there are three, as implied by DangerZone:

It is not doxing because it is public knowledge. Real life doxing is posting peoples addresses or contact information, nobody has done that. I also just discovered that “Dubiczki” is not her real second name, only a fake one she uses online. I won’t link to her real second name but it is obtainable online if one looks deep enough. So in conclusion there is no doxing here. Dubiczki is a fake second name she uses. Merkel is clearly a hoaxer trying to stir trouble about other users. I take this seriously because he has been posting false information about a friend of mine, a user here anti-fascist for life. DangerZone DangerZone (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AP socks have commonly claimed doxxing merely because accounts were shown as suspected socks. Then, when AP doxxes accounts — and here claimed a real name even though he later claims it’s not a real name — he more narrowly defines doxxing. The AP theme is that anyone he does not like is wrong. The argument that information that is somewhere, somehow “public knowledge” is not doxxing, is highly misleading. Actual doxxing may be proper under some circumstances. (The WMF issue is “privacy violation.” If the information revealed can readily lead to real-name information, it can be a privacy violation, but violation of what? Privacy violations can be necessary because privacy can effectively be waived by disruption.

The claim that a suspected sock is not so because “he is a friend of mine,” is a common AP argument. In some of these cases, the sock was checkuser-tagged. I.e., “friend” was actually “close friend” or likely, a brother. There are a number of main topics of interest for AP socks, and they can be roughly categorized into two interest areas, with some overlap. The two areas correspond, again roughly, to claims AP socks have made about themselves and “their brother.” Hence a common generic name for the “organizing principle” is “Smith brothers.”

I have some level of suspicion that the entire “brother story” was, from the beginning in 2011, a smokescreen, that there is only one (which some on Wikipedia also suspected). If I had to choose which story to work on, it would probably be “two brothers.” So when one claims that the other is not him, it might even be true, but it is irrelevant if both are pursuing the same agenda, as if completely independent.

I have noticed that when one AP sock refers to another, or to Angle Pyramidologist, the name is often mispelled, which then can frustrate internet searches. Here, DangerZone (contributions) refers to “anti-fascist for life”.

Anti-Fascist for life is the user name. Capitalization matters. The user is a sysop and the rights log shows very rapid assignment, an apparent AP pattern on RW. (As usually those assigning the right are not suspected AP socks, the significance of this is not clear yet, other than AP socks fitting into a pattern of desired or supported behavior.

The Cooping was closed at the request of RoninMacbeth, who is not at all suspected of being an AP sock.

Fairly obvious troll post, I say archive and move on. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Comrade GC (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard RW response. However, calling “Merkel” a “troll” may be quite inaccurate. I suspect he was sincere, given whom he is accused of being. His response is not trolling, it is emotional reactivity:

I requested to protect people from harassment, personal information put out, and stuff that would cause problems for them in real life. Saying this is trolling shows how sick some of you are. You are really sick people. Let’s say you get doxxed and harassed online and you ask it to stop and the response from your cyberbullies is to call you a troll. Merkel (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is what happens: Someone is attacked on RW, with doxxing or libel, and they create an account (or already have one) and they protest, and point to the obvious socking. They are then doxxed and blocked. Merkel was blocked by Anti-Fascist for Life. RW cares nothing about conflict-of-interest blocks. It’s all part of the Drama that they love and hate, far too many of them.

The Cooping was quite premature, and not carefully prepared, if it was to have any chance of success. I have seen far stronger Coopings dismissed out of hand. In fact, I had almost entirely stopped making any contributions to RationalWiki because gross abuse was tolerated. (And effectively encouraged.) At the time, I did not suspect any conspiracy, as such. That view is beginning to shift. There is some kind of organized effort, which also provides an explanation that will allow some of the AP socks to be, instead, meat puppets, fed bullshit privately (mailing list?) which they then post “independently.” All in a good cause, of course.

The discussion on User talk:Merkel is typical for AP socks, i.e., Krom, Dr. Witt, Anti-Fascist for life, and DangerZone. Non-socks (almost certainly): Comrade GC and Cosmikdebris.

This from Dr. Witt is pure trolling, designed to provoke Merkel (or Mikemikev) into more outraged response, so he can again be blocked.

@ Merkel
Mikemikev posted threats or was trying to intimidate me by saying he will show up on my door. The guy is about 10 stone and almost anorexic; he would crap himself meeting me in person. You forget we have what he looks like on video; put in around2: 10 and he was named the “bean-pole Nazi” on Kiwi FARMS. Even the Nazis from the The Right Stuff were mocking his laughable physique. When am I to expect this lanky ugly weirdo on my door-step?Dr. Witt (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

He might not show up alone…. Insult enough crazy people for being weaklings, they might show up with a gun.

This is classic trolling, insulting the target to provoke a response. Totally irrelevant to RationalWiki. Dr. Witt is also a sysop, quickly assigned. The Smith brothers, allegedly twins, are young (like Mikemikev and many other targets). This is all testosterone-crazed delayed-development behavior.

(I personally would not show up at his door, that would be stupid. Rather, a constable or process server (I don’t know how it works in England) would show up, if I decided to do anything. Mere insult is not generally enough for legal action, it depends on context. What I do know is that some targets have experience real-life damage because of AP activity, and they would have a cause of action. Whether they take advantage of this legally depends on many factors, but I think it may be coming.)

Step on enough toes and eventually one of these toes will be attached to a fist with weight behind it.

Hey, some woo: Karma!!!


In the original Anglo Pyramidologist study, there was this, one name is now bolded as is the disclaimer at the top:

The older Wikiversity SPA accounts possibly involved (listing here is not necessarily a claim of disruptive behavior):

MrRowser, his Wikiversity contributions, edited on 8 March and 14 March 2015.  His edits did not display extreme skepticism or incivility. There were a few hints that raised my eyebrows, but … the behavior was not disruptive. (Some others listed were actually disruptive.)

Then, after no apparent WMF editing with this account, for over two years, he showed up on the meta wiki, to address the Anglo Pyramidologist undeletion request.

Delete I just received an email from another user that I was included in Abd’s study so I will respond here. Abd has now ported this study to his personal website Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist. I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015. I am a skeptic who has published a handful of papers debunking psychics. I am not a fan of the parapsychology article on Wikiversity, it was written Abd’s friend Ben Steigmann a banned Wikipedia user and neo-Nazi. I am not a troll or a sock, vandal that Abd claims. I have never heard of AngloPyramidologist (what a stupid username!) so I would appreciate if Abd would please remove my username from your “study” which is now on your website and contains false information. This is defamation and I will email the Wikimedia project about this. You are not a steward here so I am not sure why you are hosting these personal investigations!? My username is now blacklisted on your personal website. Please remove. MrRowser (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The study was open here for a short time, accidentally. That link is broken now, because the open page was caused by a WordPress duplicate page. Remove the 2 from the end and it would work now. When I saw this comment I immediately took it private. The arguments given are, however, vintage Anglo Pyramidologist. MrRowser was mentioned as shown above. Steigmann did not write the Wikiversity Parapsychology resource, though he contributed to it and was the author of a few subpages. Called Steigmann my “friend” has been common for AP, and so is pointing to his Wikipedia block (he is not banned there), but has been indef blocked. There is a difference. Calling him a neo-Nazi may or may not be correct, but is likely related to old positions, he has moved on. There are indications that the long-term conflict between Steigmann and AP were related to problems on other web sites. AP is possibly a fascist but certainly has a high interest in political organizations that have been called fascist. He was not called a “troll or sock,” then. He is now. He has not pointed to any false information. (Stating that he was possibly involved wasn’t a claim of being a troll or sock. There is evidence of some level of off-wiki coordination — notice the claimed email — but I have not emphasized this yet. He was making a legal threat (“defamation.”) “You are not a steward here” was commonly repeated by AP. His username was not “blacklisted” anywhere.

That density of false or misleading information is an AP characteristic. I suspect that he forgot that in 20165 he was running a good hand account. But AP does not care if he is identified and blocked. After all, he has created hundreds of accounts. An SPA is a throwaway, the only benefit gained is autoconfirmation, and it is easy to get that for a new account.

I considered filing a checkuser request, but … at this point MrRowser is not causing particular harm and I want to be quite careful about filing any more such. There are hostile watchers. So there would need to be benefit. I already know, from the evidence here, that MrRowser is an AP account and I don’t need checkuser for that. If he wants to prove that he is not AP, he could do so. I doubt he will try, but commentary is open here. I’ll see it.


I noticed you deleted his study which is a good thing! He has incorrectly put me on his study. See my edit here. Abd has now ported his study to his personal website [8]. How do I go about getting this removed? I am not the person he claims I am. According to another IP who has complained Abd is also attacking Wikipedia users on his website [9]. Is this behaviour to be tolerated?! MrRowser (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Stirring up shit with stewards is another AP trait. AP has freely linked to my pages that are allegedly attacks, which is the direct opposite of how to handle them. AP has even archived pages allegedly containing privacy violations, so that I could not even hide them, and then linked to the archive. The page he points to is primarily a list of the edits of Joshua P. Schroeder. It consists of a list of his accounts and then a list of his edits to the Cold fusion article on Wikipedia. That’s an “attack”? However, JPS strongly dislikes exposure of his activities, and has been allied with AP socks in the past.

My blog pages do not violate any WMF policy. He was wasting Vittuzu’s time.  The full discussion in which I suggested that Vituzzu checkuser MrRowser, and MrRowser replied, digging the hole deeper:

Abd you included my username in your LTA study and you have been writing about me on your website.

He is not careful. He slips. At that point “MrRowser” had not been mentioned on this site. The other IPs recently commenting also made the same claim, that I was writing about them. But the study is only about AP socks, including recent socks locked and blocked for disruption. Is he one of them? There were a very few users mentioned in the study that were reasonably suspected as being involved in some way, withotu definitive identification, which could include meat puppetry — and MrRowser is effectively admitting meat puppetry here. He wanted the study deleted because, in fact, it is about him. He went on:

I have been emailed what you have been doing, you have now deleted the evidence on your website which is very dishonest because you are now running scared.

That damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t-argument has been used often by AP. “Evidence”? He complained about being “included” in a study that was accidentally published, and so I deleted it, and he claims that this means I am “running scared.” Identified AP socks have claimed that. At that point, by the way, I had not seen the extended evidence that he thoughtfully provided that, in fact, he’s AP (or one of the family).

You wrote to another IP on the undeletion request that your study only included “blocked” users, but that is a lie because it included many unblocked IPS!

Two things happened recently. AP stopped using logged-in accounts and started using open proxies. Those were blocked. Then he started using a mobile phone provider (O2). Stewards will be reluctant to block those, because they are constantly reassigned. I took a look at the range involved, and there are many edits probably not AP. However, geolocation is very close to that of known AP IP. Without looking at the post … he provided no link — I don’t know if the claim was true at the time. AP often distorts what has been written in a way that makes it untrue. It can be a small shift, a single word omitted, for example, and if someone looks at the evidence, they might fall for it!

You have included innocent people in your study such as myself and other IPs who are not socks.

An IP is not a person. An IP which continues the exact arguments of a blocked IP/user will often be tagged as a sock. Vituzzu could have confirmed or disconfirmed this, though AP is getting more sophisticated and knows how to defeat checkuser. The narrow focus and arguments, though, completely betray that MrRowser is AP.

I just told you it is defamation and within 20 minutes of my reply you deleted it from your website.

I did that immediately, giving him the benefit of the doubt. I did that from his first edit, and thanked him for calling attention to it. As have other AP socks, he is making an attempt to comply with a request, at least temporarily, into a claim of misbehavior, “dishonesty.” I explained the page and the removal in my response to him in the request for undeletion he linked to.

I was not agreeing that it was defamation. The comment can be seen above. It was not defamation at all.

You have been accusing innocent people of being Anglopyramidologist, a user you have a vendetta against for allegedly creating your Rationalwiki article.

AP makes up arguments that he thinks will fly with his audience. First of all, he is not “innocent,” but he wasn’t accused. By the way, AP socks, mentioning AP usually mispell it, perhaps so that Google searches will fail. Just one more small sign. Secondly, I did not have a vendetta against AP, but AP attacked a user, using impersonation socks to make him seem far more disruptive than any actuality (the reality was very minor, a small amount of socking, not disruptive in itself, except for being block evasion. AP has done a hundred times that, and disruptively, attacking.) So I investigated, realized what a huge sock family there was, and started to document it. AP went bananas, creating more and more socks. That made me think I was onto something! The RationalWiki article, which he is pleased to link to, did not exist at that point. AP vowed he would get even and he has now succeeded in obtaining a deletion decision on Wikiversity — which is trashing Wikiversity traditions — but I had already decided to not invest more work in Wikiversity itself, and the recent sequence shows that the decision was sane.

No, the vendetta is his, and that will be documented more thoroughly. He announced it plentifully, as a threat! However, I don’t intend to stop documenting what he is done and it will now be on this blog, cooperating with others who have done the same for some time. I can now reveal some of what was kept private because I was still working with WMF policies and traditions. I have much more freedom here.

As the IP pointed out in the un-deletion request, you originally wrote here [10], Friends and Enemies.

And what does that mean? It’s still up, that page. The link is to a diff where I was changing the section name from Friends and Enemies to a clearer expression of the intention, . “Other persons named by AP”

You appear to being using this website to attack users you have personal issues against, your “enemies”.

No, AP names others in many of his account names, and they mostly are his enemies. It’s a behavioral characteristic, that is obvious, if one looks at the list of account names. Apparently this argument fooled a Wikiversity administrator who referred to it.

I also do not understand your other LTA study [11], it lists socks of AngloPyramidologist which are found here [12] active from 2011-2015 on Wikipedia but then you added about 50 other accounts unrelated to AngloPyramidologist that were active on Wikiversity in 2017.

Actually active on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta. He understands. He’s lying.

Your study is not supported by solid check-user evidence and you appear to be making false connections.

Appear to whom? AP made a few mistakes that connected the older and newer accounts. This argument is a particular obsession of AP. “You have no technical evidence” he has said many times. First of all, the duck test evidence is even stronger than checkuser technical evidence. They are, however, supportive of each other. I have private evidence, and he had edited IP on RationalWiki there in a way that connected him with a newly blocked sock in the Michaelskater series. That was promptly revision deleted, but I was a sysop at the time and could read such edits. The IP had edited a Wikipedia article, carrying on the work of HealthyGirl, who had been blocked as an AP sock.

Most of the former meta LTA study is from checkuser evidence, though. What MrRowser is arguing is that there is no proof that there are not two separate families of socks. Who is the judge?

For my own life and what I write, I am. I am responsible.

You are not a steward so you should not be conducting these investigations. AngloPryamidologist was a sockpuppeteer but I do not see evidence he was any of those accounts in 2017.

So? There are many incorrect sock identifications on Wikipedia. (and AP created some of them!) Why is he obsessed with this one? It’s obvious. And “you are not a steward” is a common AP argument. True, but without consequences. Stewards don’t do investigations that lead to checkuser requests. The community does, those who decide to do it.

I just read over what the various IPS have written about all this.

I will be putting all that together to make it easy to review.

Admins have complained about your behaviour [13], you have also accused innocent IPs of being AngloPyramidologist which they have denied [14][15].

They are not innocent. The most recent O2 IPs geolocate to AP’s home location, which, of course, I could not reveal on meta. They were continuing the same arguments as the blocked open proxies he had been using just before that, and those open proxies connect with technical evidence to much AP activity. What they were doing was exactly what AP socks had promised they would do, in an apparent attempt to intimidate me.

You have sent another Wikipedia user harassing emails [16]

He claimed that, yes. Did I actually send harassing emails? I will show the emails to a qualified functionary with a need to know, but I sent one email to Joshua P. Schroeder through the WMF interface, to his current user name, which the IPs had pointed me to.

The way that works is that it is forwarded by the WMF to the addressee, who may ignore it or respond. The original mail was an offer to cooperate in getting certain material taken down from another web site and then saved on archive.is and archive.org by AP. And, yes I have proof of that. JPS responded, which he would not do for a harassing mail (he has claimed to be harassed for years, and it certainly wasn’t me!) We went back and forth and he never requested I stop mailing him, though he did not reply to my last mail, I think. This is not “harassing emails.” However, as a result of that false claim, which was libelous and may have influenced the thinking of others, I have returned all the material that I had hidden.

AP thinks it is perfectly okay to out and defame users on RationalWiki — and he did create that article on me, that is quite clear, but if someone documents what he does, he’s oh, so offended. He is a liar and a hypocrite and probably fucks sheep without their consent.

Ahem. I’m human and I can actually get angry. Reading MrRowser lying, over and over, I am reminded this is not about some attack on “skeptics,” or, from the other side, simply exposing pseudoscience and “woo.” Genuine skepticism — ancient and honorable — does not need to lie, ever. There is a far darker agenda involved here. It’s been exposed on many sites, and I’ll be collecting that muck as well. This is about violations of basic human decency.

 and you defame him on your website [17][18] on several articles

Where is the defamation there? 17 is a link to a page on JPS edits to Cold fusion. It is, at this point, almost entirely a list of edits without comment. If anything there is defamation, I appreciate knowing. (But I will probably begin to analyze the edits, so it could be come more, ah, controversial.

18 is a link to a list of his accounts and, now, what had been removed, his current real name and current position as an astronomer. Information like this is routinely posted on RationalWiki, without the consent of the targets, largely by AP (many articles have been documented in the RationalWiki page). That is certainly not defamation, or is it, Mr. Smith?

According to another admin you spoke to there have been numerous complaints about your behaviour. The same admin on that talk-page says the Wikimedia foundation have received “numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time.”

I’m easily accessible and I have received no indication of Foundation interest and I’m told by someone who should know that the Foundation is very unlikely to be interested. People have complained about me for years. Why? Well, I confronted administrative abuse on Wikipedia, successfully (one admin reprimanded that then one who came after me, possibly in retribution, desysopped), and people who do that had better be prepared to face complaints.

In my training — yes, I’m trained — we were told, “If you are not being shot at, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.” A bit of an unusual perspective, eh?

My own version, before the training, related to Wikipedia Rule Number One: (If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore the rule.) If you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. It follows from the Rule and from human nature.

As this IP wrote [19], you are using these “LTA” studies to “defame” innocent people. You then link to it on your personal website.

He does not name one innocent person defamed! Over 200 socks are listed, plus a few IP addresses globally locked and then a few checkuser-declined (for technical reasons). (And the LTA studies are completely independent from the material about JPS or others sometimes described on these pages, except that AP is now attempting to create allies by claiming a common “enemy.” That is another AP trait.

To defame a person I must name them or show their identity. Mobile phone IP addresses, which this user was so concerned to defend, are not identified people, as such, and cannot be defamed. However, we can share that information because it may be useful to an administrator somewhere, and there are also legal actions being contemplated by some. AP has allegedly real-life harassed people, with phone calls and threats, and his internet activities have caused damage to business interests. Sooner or later someone with resources that can be dedicated to that will say “enough!”

I have not been harmed, or I’d be talking to an attorney myself. But I will cooperate with anyone needing assistance. AP is defaming people under real names (such as me! but many others)

You also have an obsession with claiming different people are “AP” a target of yours, as another IP pointed out this is extreme paranoia.

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.

However, I present evidence, not just wild accusations. I was originally completely ignorant of AP, I knew a little about one sock, Goblin Face, but no idea that this was a sock of a large family of socks. Just seemed like a highly opinionated user, and ready to make accusations of others. It was Wikipedia business which hasn’t been my business, as such, for about six years. Except I am interested and involved with cold fusion, and the state of the article there is atrocious, so I have researched sources that others might use if they choose.

I can assure you none of us are that stupid user from years ago!!

This is absolutely amazing. He is describing himself as “one of us,” which must be one of a number of people named in the study, which describes, for the largest part, blocked and socked users, who have lied and been uncovered and blocked and locked. He could mean the recent IPs, which geolocate the same as AP. It’s like he believes readers won’t put that together. And he might be right. Wikis seem to generate clueless users, or burn them out and make them so.

I do not know what the official rule on off-site harassment is, but as you have been harassing different Wikipedia users on your website I will email the Wikimedia Foundation and see what they say about this. You obviously need to be blocked because you have no intention of stopping. MrRowser (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He will be wasting their time. I doubt he will actually email, because it would reveal more about his real identity, and the WMF will ignore anonymous complaints, I’m fairly sure. I cannot be stopped by the WMF, even if they wanted to, and they don’t. That is, my account could be locked, that they can do. But that would not stop me at all, it would merely give me higher motivation, which all of AP’s fuss has done.

He seems to have believed his own propaganda, that I was using Wikiversity to “push” pseudoscience. I actually stopped most work on Wikiversity years ago because I concluded it wasn’t safe, it was vulnerable to attack from Wikipedians, in this case led by a troll, obviously socking. And that reveals a great deal about Wikipedia and about wikis in general. I just found out out obtuse some administrators can be.

So the guy walks across the street to a police officer to report a mugging taking place, and the officer arrests him for jaywalking. However, when life gives me lemons, I don’t just make lemonade, I make lemon chiffon pie or lemon chicken. Yippee!

I warned AP that I was the Tar Baby and that attacking me was a Bad Idea. His response was to complain about 73-year old cranks who should not be allowed access to the internet. Ah, no respect for elders! His choice, though.

MrRowser now does actually join the list. Previously, there was only a mild suspicion and his edits looked much like common skeptical edits, reasonably ordinary.

MrRowser is not merely suggesting that he was improperly “blacklisted” — the study was not a blacklist at all, and had no such effect — he was attacking the list and supporting and using the block on RationalWiki, which he linked to (such external links will normally be considered harassment), which block was by … an AP sock; one such sock claimed, on RW to be “running the place” and to have about 700 socks. Joke? Maybe. Like editors affiliated with what was called in reliable source a “cabal” had, almost always, a “Cabal Approved” template on their user pages.


And now another clue. An AP sock just posted notes on my Wikiversity talk page:

he also attacks Wikiversity and Wikipedia admins on his website.

I have made references to a Wikipedia administrator,JzG; and I have not reviewed them for consideration as “attacks.” However, Wikiversity administrators? Where? The only Wikiversity users I have discussed here have been AP socks (on the AP study page) and … this page, just created, on MrRowser. Or is he simply lying? In any case, I am putting together a study of recent events on Wikiversity, and connecting them with a long-term trend, where Wikiversity was slowly going down the tubes. I have never told the story in one place. It will name names, which would have been avoided, generally, before now. I’m going to add the IP information to the AP study and tell why I conclude the IPs are Anglo Pyramidologist.


Anglo Pyramidologist



This study of the massive socking called “Anglo Pyramidologist” was originally on the meta wiki, the first study having been moved from wikiversity to avoid disruption, as the file User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist, but was deleted there for mysterious reasons, given that it was the source, the evidence, for a list of socks that was allowed by the same steward. That page was ported here from an archive of the meta page and I am removing all the chatty discussion of why I started the study, etc., the page before such stripping can be read at http://archive.is/iJ1SI

When hosted on meta,  I attempted to comply with WMF privacy policy, and some material was not disclosed there, that is disclosed here, where there is no such restriction. This user is the most disruptive and libelous I have ever seen, and does not deserve protection, and those who are protecting him (and there are some), are taking a side against decency, not to mention WMF neutrality policy.


  • MrRowser deserves a special honor being at this point the most recent identified AP sock to edit using his account. (Identified by the duck test.)  There are other new IP accounts listed.
 There are indications that AP is more than one person, two brothers are often mentioned on other sites (Oliver and Darryl Smith) and there may be a third brother or a sister (HealthyGirl?). Behavioral differences may be seen.
Complicating matters is that, as Anglo Pyramidologist is known to impersonate enemies in order to bring down  the thunder on them, it is possible that he has also been impersonated. He has not complained about this, as far as I know, and it has not been investigated using checkuser or similar tools, to my knowledge. I am finding, for sure, strong signs that almost all of the activity is coming from one location in England, where IP can be identified (the user often uses open proxies, but not always).
This will be covered in the IP section.
On Wikipedia, though, all the accounts are classified as Anglo Pyramidologist, they don’t really care if it is one or two people, if they behaviorally match one of the tagged accounts, and/or are confirmed by checkuser (which can fail to distinguish between people using the same internet access).


Inclusion of an account here is not a claim that identification is correct, only that it — or suspicion — can be documented in some way. If a claim is included that is not documented, correction is invited.
The recent activity has been through SPAs, which register and dive immediately into high conflict discussions, these are easily recognized. Most recently, open proxies and then mobile phone IP addresses have been used
You can delete this message if you like. Just to let you know I will not be further engaging you. It seems you live for this drama, I will not longer be involved. I will do my best behind the scenes via email to get admins to delete all your material.
He meant it, and he has done just that, but was lying when he said he would not be involved. He continued to create sock puppets — or to create disruption with open proxies and then mobile IP>
If you want to spend the rest of your life stalking someone that is up to you, but it is not healthy.
On his favorite web site, RationalWiki, that is called “concern trolling.” The sock master has obviously been stalking Ben Steigmann, then me, and many others.
I object to such a thing. I am done with this.
Excellent, but he just contradicted that with a threat of endless effort.

I would like to add though that AngloPyramidologist is innocent. If you want the debunker of parapsychology/or pseudoscience it is me.

This would be, I tentatively assume, Darryl Smith, whereas AP was Oliver Smith. I don’t really care. Both were disruptive and the checkuser evidence does not distinguish. There does appear to be crossover, i.e., some shared interests. If the original AP is inactive, good for him, but the other brother, then has also taken on some of his brother’s interests, because the original patterns still show up.

I have debated Ben in the past, he knows who I am, I have talked to him on Wikipedia in 2014. I have nothing against Ben personally, unfortunately he uses Wikipedia to promote his fringe beliefs, he promised in 2014 not to come back but his mistake was coming back in 2017.

Obsession with Ben Steigmann is an AP trait.

Take care. Btw I do object to the ‘troll’ allegations. I have written over 250 articles on Wikipedia. As to this very day 30/9/2017 I have four Wikipedia accounts and 12 others I occasionally use, the admins are only interested in banning vandals.

Most of the provocative posts this user made were trolling, poking, attempting to find some vulnerability that could be exploited. On Wikipedia, this user, perhaps hiding his true mission, would poke and provoke until a naive user explodes … and then he can get the person blocked for incivility. There is a trail of wreckage, if one were to look back.

If you are atheist, pro-skeptic like me and debunking fringe beliefs the admins love us.

If admins love this, they have lost the core of Wikipedia, NPOV, in favor of something they like personally. I could think of a couple who might, but most would recoil in horror, and the SPOV faction has lost every time the issue comes to serious community attention.

I can’t go wrong. I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

There are possible connections between AP, the faction mentioned, and a well-known “skeptic group,” but others are working on that aspect of this. I’m not, at this point. That is, I think this may be true, and I may know who that “owner” is. However, I also know that it is possible that some enemy of those people is pretending to be their friend, here.


I still create articles perhaps 12 or so a week. I have serious knowledge and I have improved the Wikipedia in skeptical related articles in relation to fringe beliefs.

I have found some recent activity, but I have not begun systematic study. Now, if this is true, why would he tell me? Indications are that this person is mid-twenties, and is obviously arrogant. He is likely unaware of all the ways that activity can be studied, that socks can be identified. He may imagine that certain defenses are impregnable. Truth, however, tends to out. If he stops attempting to disrupt Wikiversity, and to attack me, maybe I’ll never get to it. He’s been quiet for a day now. I’ve been warned that these people never give up, so we’ll see.

Your statement we are all vandals or doing illegal activity is false.

First of all, there may only be one of him. Secondly, impersonation with intention to defame is a crime almost everywhere.

This is common in his arguments, they misrepresent what has been said. It has not been claimed that the accounts or IPs are “all vandals or doing illegal activity.”

Take care and Good bye. My advise for you would be to give up. You are fighting a war you cannot win.

I’ve already won, thanks to reality. Survival is a game that we always lose, eventually, if that’s the game we play and the war we fight. However, at my age, every day that I’m still alive is a victory, and the mystery is how many more I have left to win.

You will never work out who I am or get rid of me from Wikipedia.

Leon. From a tower (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [this section has a link to the edit in the heading]

Relying on sources I consider reasonably reliable, I have some developed opinions as to personal identity, I’ve mentioned that. This would be AP/D, probably. It doesn’t matter. I’m unlikely to sue, because I have not been damaged. Some, however, might.

If Wikipedia is infested with him, that’s their problem, not mine. No critical interest of mine depends on Wikipedia at all. Nor, in fact, on Wikiversity or any WMF wiki. There are sincere people there, working for the goal of a user-created encyclopedia based on neutral presentation of what is in reliable sources, and that goal is damaged by those who work to selectively exclude some point of view or position, rather than channelling these into collaborative work. Wikiversity, not having limited space for specific topics, is not normally afflicted by factional wars, AP/D attempted to take such conflict there. He failed, because I recognized what had happened and addressed it.

(However, the last attack, by IP, including canvassing on Wikipedia, drawing in his faction, the one that he claims “loves him.” And something was indeed going on behind the scene, because admin response on Wikiversity (1) completely ignored the previous history and obvious personal attacks, and (2) served the AP agenda.  The effect of that is to demonstrate conclusively to me that Wikiversity is not safe, so, unless something drastically shifts, bye bye Wikiversity!

I will continue to document what has happened and is happening. I’m not dead yet.

 SPI investigation archive for Anglo Pyramidologist

roughly 190 socks on Wikipedia, plus IP
11 April 2011

15 June 2011

28 November 2011
13 December 2011
above confirmed mutual.
21 September 2011
27 September 2011
03 October 2011
03 October 2011, take 2
05 October 2011
IP check declined for privacy reasons. There was “other behavior” which the checkuser declined to disclose. I have a suspicion of off-wiki coordinated editing, and the checkuser may have detected actual sock accounts and left them alone. I may look more closely at this later. These are all Verizon wireless. So why doesn’t the account register, if they want to edit that much? Likely reason: they don’t want to be identified. Wikipedia went overboard in privacy protection. Privacy is important, but … sometimes there are higher values. I don’t know if that applies here, yet.
It appears that IPs were blocked. These IPs don’t look like AP, but … open proxies or something else.
02 November 2011
all confirmed. match to BookWorm44.
13 June 2012
claimed to be w:User:Earthisalive
Quack. Previously blocked as User:Earthisalive, now returning as User:The earth has a mind, First edit is to recreate European origin of modern humans as Out of Europe theory. Check user requested to check for sleepers. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up. Mentions a series of articles deleted, that lead to RationalWiki articles and more possible socks there. AP has been claiming that he has created many Wikipedia articles and RationalWiki articles. Yes, he has. Often very disruptive articles, the cloaca of RationalWiki. See the tip of the iceberg in the RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist study. 
29 September 2012

From a combination of the duck test (which I have not confirmed (but the account names!!!), I have not yet studied these account activities) and the checkuser confirmations, I suspect that AP may have been using some kind of open proxy then, though that also seems unlikely.

11 November 2012
24 December 2014
10 June 2015
all confirmed

17 January 2016

At this point investigations were moved to Anglo Pyramidologist

29 March 2016