Erica C. Barnett and Wikipedia done poorly and well

I came across a post on r/WikiInAction about drama around the Wikipedia article on the journalist/blogger Erica C. Barnett and wrote a brief comment responding only to the face of the post, and then wrote a longer comment relating the history of the affair, and now, the throwaway account OP having stirred the pot, want to check some things out, and I also see more, a little demonstration of administrative incompetence. The overall administrative treatment of this affair actually appears proper, as those things go.

07:01:03 23 Oct 2019 Dregor123 posts to r/SeattleWA/ “Erica C. Barnett’s Wikipedia drama” This story was severely warped. Before I give it, some background.


03:04, 4 Sept 2019‎ B k (contribs) created the article, and, after some wikignomes polished it a bit, touched it on 5 Sept, leaving it like this, and the article sat that way until :

13 Sept 2019, Chetsford (contribs), a Wikipedia administrator, substantially edited the article, adding material, some of which appears defamatory (and by Wikipedia policy regarding Biographies of Living Persons sourcing requirements are stronger for such, to establish notability as well as factual claim; how facts are reported can be crucial).

  • 01:10 – 01:18 15 Sept 2019 24.143.121.23 (only edits, geolocates Seattle) removes possibly defamatory material.
  • 01:19, 15 Sept 2019 User account Ericacbarnett (contribs) was created
  • 01:37 – 01:48 15 Sept 2019, Ericacbarnett edited the article.
  • 01:50, 15 September 2019 User account Pshotes (contribs) was created
  • 06:46, 06:48 15 Sept 2019 Chetsford welcomed Barnett and warned about COI policy
  • 06:49 – 7:02 15 Sept 2019, Chetsford removed a link to Barnett’s blog and  restored sourced information improperly removed by a COI editor
  • 16:33 15 Sept 2019 Barnett responds to Chetsford
  • 16:35, 15 September 2019‎ Pshotes (contribs‎) edits the Barnett article: Career: There was a link to an article containing a number of objectively false allegations against Barnett for which the author refused to print corrections. [only edit of this account]

At this point, what has happened is very clear. The IP was Barnett, who then registered an account. Pshotes is likely Barnett, newcomers often do something like this, out of ignorance of policy. However, it is also possible that Pshotes was a friend, that Barnett had told the friend, who was using their phone, the article edit was mobile (unlike Barnett’s edits). In any case, the appearance is of meat puppetry at best and there is almost no harm in blocking an account with only one edit, diving into a controversy. However, that, itself, could be overkill. There was no comment to the IP address, no comment on Pshotes Talk, and no question or warning to Barnett about other accounts, and no discussion on article Talk about the issues, until the next day.

But meanwhile:

  • 18:54 15 Sept 2019 Chetsford filed a Sock Puppet Investigation case, citing Barnett’s named account, the IP, Pshotes, and B k.
  • 21:43 15 Sept 2019 Chetsford filed an AN/I report on the comments of Barnett on her Talk page. He was essentially told to chill.

Filing an SPI report for such obvious (and minor) socking was incompetent. There was no basis to suspect B k, but the others were crazy obvious, though, in fact, the checkuser did call it “Possible/Inconclusive”. It’s unclear exactly what was meant, but another admin blocked Pshotes for meat puppetry, and Pshotes has not appealed the block.

This was all meaningless and was a waste of checkuser time. What was happening here was totally routine for a person who has discovered that she has a Wikipedia article and that some of it is, ah, iffy.

The article stated she made false claims in an article (which is a serious allegation against a journalist, and would the source have a bias?  The source does not establish that definitively.

She is called an alcoholic, present tense. Is she? She definitely had a drinking problem and is quite open about it (commendable!). (This collapse of the past with the present is common in Wikipedia articles, many editors are unskilled about it — or don’t care and do intend to defame.)

(It developed that this language came from Chetsford’s personal understanding of alcoholism — misunderstanding, actually — and he later, on Talk, was willing to abandon that. Chetsford is a bit slow, but not vicious.)

There was discussion on the article talk page on the 16 Sept. B k discloses their relationship with Barnett. Chetsford discloses his massive cluelessness. One point: the external link to her blog. Chetsford claimed that was prohibited by WP:EXT. In fact, that policy expressly allows a link to an “official” site of a person. How could he be so ignorant of such a basic fact? (Honestly, this is extreme ignorance, I could hardly believe that this is an administrator. So I checked. Oh. Yes, very new, 11 August 2019. Okay, I predict he will learn.

In any case, an editor added the link to Wikidata that displays the site.

ter sourcing standards for possibly defamatory material. Instead, he argues for inclusiveness, entirely disregarding BLP considerations, which require more than mere mention in what might be a reliable source. He does not look at specifics, merely justifying his edits on generalities that are not even correct.

The article sat this way for five weeks, then:

05:20 (ending time) 24 Oct 2019 Cptnono (contribs) restored potentially defamatory material without discussion.

Okay, now back to that 23 October comment by Dregor123. The user wrote:

(In which I discover prominent local political blogger Erica C. Barnett has her own “Pierre Delecto” to sanitize her Wikipedia entry…)

“Pierre Delecto” was Mitt Romney’s anonymous social media account. There is no comparison between that and an account that registered and made a single edit, that was blocked the next day and never protested the block. As it happened, the edit was reverting the restoration of material by the Chetsford, and what actually happened then was that almost nothing happened for about five weeks. Very common on Wikipedia.

So this happened a couple weeks ago but, AFAIK, I’m the first one to discover it in the bowels of Wikipedia …

Very possibly the first person to care. Eventually Wikipedia gets to this stuff. But who is Dregor123? The truly active person on Wikipedia away from a negative article was Barnett, not Pshotes. Against that, we have an anonymous throwaway Reddit account. But this concern does show up, next day, on Wikipedia.

A version of local blogger Erica Barnett’s Wikipedia entry in which it mentioned the defamation lawsuit she had been wrapped up in as a result of the article she had written about KIRO-FM’s Ron and Don in The Atlantic (retracted by that publication as a condition of the settlement of the suit) was edited by “Pshotes” to sanitize that away ( [link] ).

This reference to Barnett as a blogger misses that most of the sources treat her as a journalist. Bloggers can be journalists, journalists can be bloggers. A blogger is typically very much like a free-lance journalist, only with his or her own publishing company. Self-published. Self-published journalism is still journalism, but not quite the same for Wikipedia purposes as journalism that is supervised by a responsible organization, an independent publisher. That’s all.

It was simply a removal of a section. The description above reflects some of the problems. From the removed material:

. . . Barnett was named in a 2016 defamation lawsuit against The Atlantic over her reporting on a political issue in Seattle in which she falsely wrote that . . .

Okay, “falsely” is stated in Wikipedia voice as if fact. Is it? What is the source for the fact? It’s a story by Katie Herzog, which is far more nuanced, in which Bernett’s source, a City Council member, apparently gave her false information, which ended up in the story. The Atlantic issued corrections. However, the allegedly defamed radio hosts were not satisfied and filed a suit against a series of parties, including Barnett. The suit was settled, with the City of Seattle covering the plaintiff’s legal fees. The terms of the settlement with the Atlantic were not disclosed. The Atlantic did take the whole article down, and it is quite possible that this is all that they did. My sense: “It’s not worth the legal fees to fight this, and the article did contain those errors.” As for Barnett’s part, she relied on what she would reasonably have assumed was a reliable witness. Deeper fact-checking would have been the Atlantic’s responsibility.

Herzog reads well and appears plausible, but this is also, on the face, a blog and it is unclear how much fact-checking and editorial supervision exists. That story, by the way, my opinion, does not make Barnett look bad.

As far as a biography of Barnett is concerned, this was a minor incident, and the focus of the Herzog article is not Barnett. I don’t see any reason here why good-faith editors could not come to a decision about what to include. The only serious POV-pusher was Cptnono. Barnett and possible partisans appear to have chilled, and there is ongoing discussion of what to include. Chetsford, my opinion, should walk away, though there are signs that he’s beginning to understand BLP policy. Back to what the Redditor wrote:

As a result of the suspicious edit, Wikipedia opened an investigation into this “Pshotes” account ( Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ericacbarnett/Archive ) which led to a ruling that it was probably a Meatpuppet (proxy editor) controlled by the real Erica Barnett. The account was blocked.

“Wikipedia” did not open an investigation, Chetsford did, and it was entirely unnecessary. In addition to Pshotes, B k was also included, without any particular cause other than interest in Barnett, and Chetsford knew by this time that Barnett was actually notable. The matter was clear and this would normally be handled with a simple warning to the Pshotes account and Barnett. There never was any attempt to contact Pshotes, the IP, or Barnett about socking. My opinion is that it was probably a sock of Erikacbarnett, perhaps created for use on a phone, but there was no more editing by that account, a single edit is simply no big deal, and there were very easy ways to handle this kind of situation, which is very common with biographies. The checkuser conclusion was “possible,” not “probably.” The “meatpuppet” idea was by an independent administrator who saw the results and the facts, and Wikipedia runs on probabilities, not proof. The block was proper, and, again properly, talk page access was left open so if it was some kind of mistake, the user could appeal.

:Meanwhile, on her own account’s Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ericacbarnett ), the real Erica Barnett was warned by a Wikipedia Administrator against using Wikipedia to make defamatory allegations against a reporter at The Stranger and for also claiming that anything negative printed about her was “fake news.”

At this point, the AN/I report by the “Administrator,” this was Chetsford, the same as filed the sock puppet investigation case, had been resolved with basically “she has done nothing improper.”

This is common with trolls. That someone is accused of impropriety is converted into an implication that they actually did something. He was explicitly not acting as an administrator, because of his involvement with the article, but saying that an administrator warned her sounds more serious, right?

“Pshotes” — Erica C. Barnett’s Pierre Delecto

Hyped drama with no substance. As I have described in a response to the later post by Dregor123, Cptnono went on to revert war with a far more experienced editor, who, to make a long story short, whupped his ass with a perfectly formed 3RR violation report. Cptnono, totally predictably, was blocked for 24 hours. (They could have been blocked for longer than that, but the time after the last block was long enough that they just went with the minimum.)

Somebody has a serious agenda here, and that somebody appears to have two names: Dregor123 and Cptnono. Strengthening this notion is the argument that Cptnono made with the blocking administrator. In spite of having (mostly from years earlier), over 26,000 edits (and experience with being blocked before (5 times), he behaved like a raw and obsessed newcomer. He was right and they were wrong. But he was very much outside of the bounds of policy, and he knew it. He is personally attached. And the same would explain why he, after writing on Reddit — or alternative, seeing that comment on Reddit and being aligned with it — he did the editing he did, and then revert warred like a mindless noob over it. 3RR is a bright-line rule, more than three reverts in 24 hours, block. The user he was tangling with reverted three times, but there is an exception to 3RR and it’s about BLP policy, so that user could have kept on going. If you want to put potentially damaging material in an article, in theory at least, you’d better get consensus first, if opposed. Revert warring to keep ”possible defamation” in the article? No, no, and No.

Yes, if it is adequately sourced (which usually means more than a single somewhat shaky source where there is possible source bias — and I’m not passing final judgment on Herzog, both her and Barnett are very skilled writers), that a subject doesn’t like it is not sufficient to keep it out. But there is more going on than the feelings of Barnett. The community has handled thousands upon thousands of cases like this. It doesn’t always do it well, but so far, it’s not doing badly with this one. There are ways to find consensus that might even satisfy Barnett. But would they satisfy Cptnono? Not with the attitude he displayed. But people can wake up and smell the coffee and realize that there are better ways.

 

Schedule

Copyright ISCMNS 2019
Subpage of ICCF-22

p# are links to the relevant page in the Book of Abstracts. However, the names link to subpages here for each presenter, for speed of load.

Monday 9 September 2019

08:30 Collis Opening Address / video
09:00 McKubre Thirty Years On. p25 / video
09:30 Nagel Comparison of the Theoretical Results of Kálmán and Keszthelyi with LENR Experimental Results p39 / video
10:00 Vysotskii V Distant behind-screen generation, X-Ray stimulation and LENR action of undamped heat waves p69 / video

Moderator: Steve Katinsky
11:00 Rothwell Increased Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel p47 / video
11:30 Grimshaw LENR Research Documentation Initiative: Progress in Methods and Participants p11 / video
12:00 Ruer How LENR can change the World p23 / video
12:30 Bannister The limits to growth: the intersection of energy and economics. p26 / video

Moderator: Nataliya Famina
14:30 Celani Progress understanding LENR-AHE effects, using thin, long Constantan wires p42 / video
15:00 Ruer Basics of air flow calorimetry p58 / video
15:30 Greenyer Nickel-hydrogen heat generator continuously working for 7 months p76 / video

Moderator: Yasuhiro Iwamura
16:30 Takahashi Latest Progress in Research on AHE and Circumstantial Nuclear Evidence by Interaction of Nano-Metal and H(D)-Gas p9 / video
17:00 Kasagi Possible radiation from thin film metal surface with anomalous excess heat: Can we observe hot spots or Bremsstrahlung? p10 / video
17:30 Dubinko Nuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Isotopes Induced by the Phason Flips in Pd and Ni Nanoclusters p13 / video

Tuesday 10 September

Moderator: Michael McKubre
08:00 Hagelstein Recent Progress on Phonon Coupling Models p31 / video
08:30 Kovacs The Zitterbewegung Orbit of Electrons p48 / video
09:00 Konagaya Development of weak cold-fusion engine (Fusine) assisted by molecular chemical reaction: p15 / video
09:30 Kobayashi Quasi-stability theory with multi-dimensional Taylor expansion: revealing transmutation of atoms in cold fusion p19 / video
10:00 Konagaya Supercomputer simulation and experiment clarifying the maximum level of focusing compression due to pulsed supermulti-jets colliding: in weak cold-fusion engine (Fusine) p14 / video

Moderator: Vladimir Dubinko
11:00 Rusetskii Investigation LENR Processes in Condensed Matter on the HELIS Setup – Overview and Prospects p20 / video
11:30 Carpinteri Earthquake neutrons and Earth-Crust LENR: From seismic precursors to Geochemistry evolution p24 / video
12:00 Metzler Observations of delocalized gamma emission from Co-57/Fe-57 samples during application of mechanical stress p32 / video
12:30 Forbes Initial report on low-energy ion beam experiments with various metal targets p33 / video

Wednesday 11 September

Moderator: Jacques Ruer
08:00 Nagel The LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program (LEAP) p38 / video
08:30 Paillet Highly relativistic deep electrons and the Dirac equation p86 / video
09:00 Garai Physical Model for Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions p28 / video
09:30 Jaitner Condensed Plasmoids – The Nuclear Active Environment in LENR p45 / video
10:00 Fredericks Elliptical tracks: evidence for superluminal electrons? p84 / video

Moderator: Fran Tanzella
11:00 Swartz Pulsing Sideband at 327.37 MHz May Herald Movements within an Active Loaded PdD Lattice p83 / video
11:30 Huang BJ Excess Energy from a Vapor Compression System p75 / video
12:00 Stankovic Nuclear Transmutation with Carbon and Oxyhydrogen Plasma p43 / video
12:30 Uchikoshi Laser Condensed-Matter Fusion Experiments p35 / video

Moderator: Florian Mezler
16:30 Klimov Power Balance in Water Plasma Reactor p50 / video
17:00 Vysotskii V (a) Periodic structure of Fe-Mn geology crusts with isotopic anomalies of self-controlled global biostimulated isotope transmutation in oceans and lakes (b) The possible role of LENR in dentistry p68 / video

Thursday 12 September

Moderator: Mathieu Valat
08:00 Kaal Nuclear Transmutation and Mass Defect explained with the Structured Atom Model (SAM) p62 / video
08:30 Bowen The Electromagnetic Considerations of the Nuclear Force p87 / video
09:00 Hatt Cold Nuclear Transmutations Light Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy p55 / video
09:30 Collis An Empirical Global Calculator of Atomic Masses p74 / video
10:00 Vysotskii V Anomalous LENR effects and its justification based on the method of coherent correlated states p65 / video

Moderator: David Nagel
11:00 Tanzella Mass Flow Calorimetry in Brillouin’s Reactor p41 / video
11:30 Roggeri Opportunities and aid from the European community for the development of scientific cooperation projects p40 / video
12:00 Mastromatteo LENR evidences experimenting with hydrogen and deuterium loading in thin palladium films p21 / video
12:30 Iwamura Excess Energy Generation using a Nano-sized Multilayer Metal Composite and Hydrogen Gas p54 / video

Moderator: Fabrice Davide
14:30 Klimov Review of the Proceedings of the 25th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning p51 / video
15:00 Albertini 228Th, 63Ni, 57Co: 3 anomalous decays suggesting the feasibility of radionuclide neutralization p59 / video
15:30 Klimova Thermal Energy Release in a Swirl Heterogeneous Reactor at Pulsed Repetitive Electrical Discharge p52 / video

Moderator: Jean Luc Paillet
16:30 Vysotskii M Formation, evolution, collapse and application of correlated packets in LENR experiments p66 / video
17:00 Swartz Superhyperfine Structure of the Deuteron Line Emission from Active ZrO2PdD Heralds an FCC Vacancy p80 / video
17:30 Bowen Primary and Secondary Reactions in a LENR with a Li Electrolyte Solution p53 / video

Friday 13 September

Moderator: Dan Szumski
08:00 Alexandrov Cold nuclear fusion in lithium compound alloy p73 / video
08:30 Seccombe Phonon Assisted Nuclear Fusion Mode p34 / video
09:00 Swartz Atomic Deuterium in Active LANR Systems Produces 327.37 MHz Superhyperfine RF Maser Emission p81 / video
09:30 Huang C Temperature Dependence of Maximum Excess Power in 3 New Experiments (Letts, Parkhomov, & Mizuno) p60 / video
10:00 Swartz Buoyant heat transport can produce unreliable estimates of heat generation p82 / video

Moderator: William Collis
11:00 Ruer Experimental setup to detect hydrinos p22 / video

ICCF-22

ICCF-22 was held in Assisi, Italy, from September 8–13, 2019.

  • Schedule (with links to abstracts and videos)
  • Posters
  • Abstracts

 

 

 

Trollsocks

October 1, 2019, a rash of trollsocks appeared on RatWiki, some may be considered impersonations. The targets: Smith targets. It’s clear to me that Karlin has been impersonated. I suspected it when I saw the account names, these were classic Smith trolling. However, what nailed it for me: the copying and spamming of text from Karlin’s blog, The RationalWiki Hit Piece on Anatoly Karlin.

This is exactly what the Smiths did to RatWiki with text from my blog with tacked in personal attacks on various RatWiki users, and legal threats, both with me and with him.

(Karlin is in error about some aspects of the situation; for example, his confusion of EK with Arthur Kerensa is naive, and he cites an EK satirical essay, apparently not realizing it was satire)

And more

A new avalanche appeared October 31, 2019:

One of the redacted names (repeated in various forms) is that of one of my daughters, a minor. The other is the man who was impersonated by Darryl Smith on Wikipedia, creating massive disruption, and that is how I became a target of the Smith brothers, by exposing that.

These trolls are vicious. There is no threat to sue Rats, other than Darryl and Oliver Smith. (Oliver is already sued by Kirkegaard, and my lawsuit is awaiting a judge’s decision before I go ahead and amend the complaint properly, adding new defendants and serving them.) And I have never threatened to sue on that wiki, all those threats and claims that Bongolian was John66, all that, were from Darryl Smith. It’s an old behavior.

If I wanted to be unblocked on RatWiki, I know how to request it. And it certainly would not be this way!!! It appears that the Rats think this was me. I expect more intelligence from Rats. Some of them actually do know what’s been happening, but it does not get talked about because the Smith name must be protected!!! Or else!!!

v29

Subpage of JCMNS
JOURNAL OF CONDENSED MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE
Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion

Proceedings of the 21st International Conference
on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, Lory
Student Center, Colorado State University in
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, June 03–08, 2018


source page: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzb.pdf  pp.,    MB. All pages hosted here have been compressed, see the source for full resolution if needed (or we have a copy).  All files may have undiscovered errors. Please note any problems or desired creation of a discussion page in comments.

Front matter, PrefaceTable of contents.

Videos of presentations are available (including some where no paper is in the proceedings). See  iccf-21/videos/ . * after a listing indicates a video.

J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 29 (2019) 1–547
© 2019 ISCMNS. All rights reserved. ISSN 2227-3123

CONTENTS

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Fabrication and Characterization of Palladium–Boron Alloys Used in LENR Experiments
M. Ashraf Imam* and David J. Nagel
1
Excess Power Measurements for Palladium–Boron Cathodes
Melvin H. Miles* and M. Ashraf Imam
12
Excess Heat from Palladium Deposited on Nickel
Tadahiko Mizuno and Jed Rothwell*

21
Overview of Pd/D Co-deposition
Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Lawrence P. Forsley and Frank E. Gordon*

34
High-temperature Calorimetric Measurements of Heat for Ni–H2 Exothermic Reactions
Edward J. Beiting* and Dean Romein

41
Steps to Identify Main Parameters for AHE Generation in Sub-micrometric Materials: Measurements by Isoperibolic and Air-flow Calorimetry
Francesco Celani*, B. Ortenzi and A. Spallone, C. Lorenzetti, E. Purchi, S. Fiorilla, S. Cupellini, M. Nakamura, P. Boccanera and L. Notargiacomo, G. Vassallo and R. Burri

52
Cavitation Effects on Various Metals in D2O
Thomas N. Claytor, Roger S. Stringham*, Malcolm M. Fowler

75
Temperature Dependence of Excess Power in Both Electrolysis and Gas-loading Experiments
Zhan M. Dong*, Chang L. Liang, Xing Z. Li and Shu X. Zheng

85
Space Application of the GeNIE HybridTM Fusion–Fission Generator
Lawrence P. Forsley* and Pamela A. Mosier-Boss

95
Anomalous Heat Effects Induced by Metal Nano-composites and Hydrogen Gas
Yasuhiro Iwamura*, Takehiko Itoh, Jirohta Kasagi*, Akira Kitamura, Akito
Takahashi* , Koh Takahashi, Reiko Seto, Takeshi Hatano, Tatsumi Hioki*, Tomoyoshi Motohiro, Masanori Nakamura, Masanobu Uchimura, Hidekazu Takahashi, Shunsuke Sumitomo, Yuichi Furuyama, Masahiro Kishida and Hideki Matsune

119
Coupled Calorimetry and Resistivity Measurements, in Conjunction with an Emended and More Complete Phase Diagram of the Palladium–Isotopic Hydrogen System
M.R. Staker*

129
Excess Heat is Linked to Deuterium Loss in an Aqueous Nickel LANR System
Mitchell R. Swartz, Brian Ahern, Charles Haldemann and Alan Weinberg (poster)

169
Aqueous and Nanostructured CF/LANR Systems – Each have Two Electrically Driven Modes
Mitchell R. Swartz*

177
Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys
William H. McCarthy*

191
Nanosecond Pulse Stimulation in the Ni–H2 System
Francis Tanzella*, Robert George and Robert Godes

202
Anomalous Isotopic Distribution of Silver in a Palladium Cathode
Jean-Paul Biberian*

211
Uranium Fission Using Pd/D Co-deposition
Pamela A. Mosier-Boss*, Lawrence P. Forsley and Patrick McDaniel

219
Influence of Effective Microorganisms on the Activity of 137Cs in the Soil Contaminated due to the Accident on the Chernobyl NPP
A.N. Nikitin*, G.Z. Gutzeva, G.A. Leferd, I.A. Cheshyk, S. Okumoto, M. Shintani and T. Higa

230
Comparison of NANOR-type LANR Components to 238Pu as a Heat Source for Space Flight
Mitchell R. Swartz (no presentation at conf.)

238
A Simple Calculation of the Inter-nucleon Up-to-down Quark Bond and its Implications for Nuclear Binding
N.L. Bowen (poster)

249
Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy
Philippe Hatt*

260
The Enthalpy of Formation of PdH as a Function of H/Pd Atom Ratio
Edmund Storms*

275
Reaction of the Hydrogen with Air During the Desorption of Palladium Hydride
Jacques Ruer**, David J. French and Douglas Yuill

286
Development of a Sensitive Detection System for the Measurement of Trace Amounts of 4He in Deuterium, Hydrogen, and Other Gasses
Malcolm M. Fowler* and Thomas N. Claytor

298
Modeling and Simulation of a Gas Discharge LENR Prototype
Bob Higgins* and Dennis G. Letts

309
Building and Testing a High Temperature Seebeck Calorimeter
Dennis G. Letts* and Dennis J. Cravens 

334
Effective LENR in Weakly Ionized Gas Under the Action of Optimal Pulsed Magnetic Fields and Lightning (Theory and Experiments)
Vladimir Vysotskii and Mykhaylo Vysotskyy (poster)

348
Using the Method of Coherent Correlated States for Production of Nuclear Interaction of Slow Particles with Crystals and Molecules
Vladimir Vysotskii*, Mykhaylo Vysotskyy and Sergio Bartalucci

358
Generation and Detection of Undamped Temperature Waves at Large Distance in LENR Related Experiments
Vladimir Vysotskii*, Alla Kornilova, Timothy Krit and Sergey Gaydamaka

368
Electron Quasi-particle Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions
Anthony Zuppero* and Thomas J. Dolan

376
Calculation of the Boosted Spin–orbit Contribution to the Phonon–Nuclear Coupling Matrix Element for 181Ta
Peter L. Hagelstein* 

392
Statistical Mechanics Models for PdDx and PdHx Phase Diagrams with both O-site and T-site Occupation
Peter L. Hagelstein*

401
Investigation of Electron Mediated Nuclear Reactions
Andras Kovacs*, Dawei Wang, Dawei Wang and Pavel N. Ivanov

416
Resonant Surface Capture Model
Xingzhong Li*, Zhanmin Dong, Changlin Liang and Guisong Huang

440
Theoretical basis for Nuclear-waste Remediation with Femto-atoms and Femto-molecules
Andrew Meulenberg* and Jean-Luc Paillet

453
On Highly Relativistic Deep Electrons
Jean-Luc Paillet* and Andrew Meulenberg

472
Lattice Confinement of Hydrogen in FCC Metals for Fusion Reactions
Han H. Nee*, Arsen V. Subashiev and Fracsisco M. Prados-Estéves

493
A Possible Signature of Neutron Quarks – Leptons via Gluon Interaction in Solids
V.G. Plekhanov (poster)

503
Transmutations Involving the Di-neutron in Condensed Matter
Cheryl D. Stevenson* and John P. Davis

512
Electron Structure, Ultra-dense Hydrogen and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
Antonino Oscar Di Tommaso and Giorgio Vassallo (no presentation at conf.)

525

GreenTreesBlue

The text of that post, since it is now removed on Reddit:

Abd Lomax blocked socking again on RationalWiki

12:50, 14 September 2019 Oxyaena (talk | contribs) blocked Abominable (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: Abd)

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anatoly/_Karlin&diff=prev&oldid=2112915

Follows the same pattern: after blocked for socking, Lomax tries to blame his socks onto the Smith’s. He’s already made a blog post, doing exactly that.

And also for reference: Abominable (not me for sure, this was some kind of assumption by Oxyaena for unexplained reasons) was blocked at 12:50, 14 September 2019. Another account was created at 13:12, 14 September 2019, unblockabdnow. This was obviously an attempt to create a confirmation that Abominable was me. But I’ve been blocked on RatWiki since 2017, why would I suddenly make a stupid, useless account like that? I have good communication with privileged RatWiki users, I would not use some trolling sock to request unblock if I wanted it. Greentreeblue was here with this post 11 minutes after Abominable was blocked, crowing about the alleged Abd sock. Someone was watching all that very, very closely, ready to pounce. In the past, this behavior has been associated with the person being all sides of the mess. (creating impersonation accounts and then blocking them and then listing them as my accounts) In this case, Oxyaena is not suspected of being a Smith sock, not even close.

As to my blog, I had a page pointing to some edits on that article, with suspected sock accounts. That page has since been edited, but I’m going to take it back to what it was when the post above was written, the version of (13 Sep @ 21:14 GMT-4) and archive it, so that we can see if this Smith sock was referring to anything other than his own activity. Done, archived. No mention of any sock even remotely suspected of being me, mention of many socks and suspected socks identified by Rats as Oliver Smith. No mention of Abominable, created at 12:34, 14 September 2019, a single edit at 12:37, blocked at 12:50, and the trollsock was here at 13:01. Duck test, this was a single person with an agenda.

The usual: the trollsocks are lying. And they keep using new accounts to make it difficult to track them, which is why I compile lists like this. These are people who attempt to avoid personal responsibility, while attacking others viciously.

Oliver Smith socking on RatWiki after ban

There are many accounts that will be added, but to start this page:

Identified or suspected Oliver Smith socks on RationalWiki:

Some accounts or IP addresses listed here may be impersonations, there are signs of that. Because Oliver Smith does not have an “official” account commenting (which would need to be off-wiki, and proven to be him by, for example, using the known Oliver Smith email) it is difficult to distinguish real from fake, but accounts reasonably believed to be Oliver — and claiming it — are denying being the IP trolls. It’s plausible. The impersonations take material that looks like Oliver material, and spam it. That is what was done on RatWiki with me.

      • Dinosaurs
      • Guards
        • Created page attacking Wyatt in BjornStronginthearm [archived]
        • Trolled Dysklyver with ARTHUR_KERENSA_UNMASKED using File:Small_man.png, image of a midget.
        • Trollsocks are suspected of being impersonations. Against this idea is that Oliver, who could communicate authentically, does not disavow them promptly. Mikemikev, the most likely impersonator, would be unlikely to attack Wyatt. “Unlikely” does not mean “impossible.
        • The breadcrumbs led me to a Smith sock on Stormfront. Pure Smith. Nobody else would consider “finding 15-year old girls attractive” to be “self-confessed pedophilia.” The guy has no life, no idea of what normal sexuality is like, at almost 30. That was Mikemikev and he also said he wouldn’t touch them because he has ethics. Precisely — we hope. That, however, depends on context, in some cultures a sexually mature person is eligible for marriage, age is irrelevant. They don’t care about age. This has nothing to do with a paraphilia. Mike wasn’t even confessing a paraphilia (it would be ephebophilia, if it were exclusive attraction). The “common usage” of pedophilia can be a denial of normal sexuality, which is weird, but it happens. “Attraction” is normal, but it is also normal not to mention it. The source cited by Wikipedia (my emphasis):
          Q. Generally when you read or hear in the news about “pedophilia,” aren’t the media using the term to refer to anyone who is a minor?
          A. Yes. Generally, people use the term “pedophilia” to include ephebophilia. Most men can find adolescents attractive sexually, although, of course, that doesn’t mean they’re going to act on it.
        • Looking for what is mentioned, evidence that Wyatt was BjornStronginthearm. I find this post that made the claim without evidence, 14 Nov 2018. User SythonFilter, started this thread, Smith flags: UK and BNP and, down the page, UKIP. Sythonfilter is called “Matthew Collins” and “Francis.” Maybe, maybe not. Nationalist. So this really could be Oliver. Active 6/8/2016 until 7/2/2016, 69 posts. Upplysning tagged SythonFilter as Oliver (i.e., Atlantid), confirmed by BjornStronginthearm in a reply.
        • Another probable Oliver Smith sock on Stormfront: AngloCornish, joined in 2006, only other creator of threads on Rightpedia. BjornStronginthearm tagged AngloCornish as Oliver in 2017.
        • It does appear plausible that BjornStronginthearm is Wyatt of Rightpedia, but the intense interest is Oliver obsession, long-term.
        • and all this led me to BillConservative on Conservapedia, creator of the Rightpedia article there, then edited by a series of Smith impersonation trollsocks (and others). Troyer was probably Oliver as well, crowing about Rightpedia being taken down.
  • Unblockabdnow, from timing, was obviously created to amplify the impression that Abominable was me. Darryl does stuff like this. I rather doubt Mikemikev would do it.
    Notes

    On Talk:Emil_Kirkegaard

    Mr D/EK you are very friendly with Mr A-B-D and he told you on discord to remove it (I have seen your discord chats with A-B-D). Mr A-B-D defends the alt-right and he is close friend of Kirkegaard, so he wants criticisms of Kirkegaard removed. Kirkegaard wants to legalize incest and A-B-D is embarrassed about this because he has defended Kirkegaard for the last year, so he wants Kirkegaard’s blog post hidden. Mr A-B-D also blogged about IPs editing this article which he incorrectly accuses being one person. Stop the pretending, this is all A-B-D’s doing, nobody else. You did not just randomly log in here and not like an edit, LOL. But sure the autism stuff should be deleted but the incest and rape comments should all be put back. 195.242.213.135 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


    Emil Kirkegaard wants to legalize incest and he thinks incest is perfectly morally acceptable in a sexual relationship – that is irrational and wrong. You yourself (D) a male pretend to be EK a female over the internet, and according to users on a forum that have looked into your activities you are a trying to be transsexual and are very confused about your sexuality so maybe you support incest. But 99% of people in the world do not support it. It should not be “legalized” or promoted as a good thing. 91.132.136.98 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    (@David Gerard , (@Bongolian , (@Cosmikdebris , (@John66 , (@LeftyGreenMario , (@Spud what do you think? 91.132.136.29 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    Other mods can perhaps intervene. EK is totally unhinged. This isn’t the first time they’ve falsely accused someone of an “ism” or “phobia”.Loch (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


    I’m not the IP editors. IP-editing doesn’t fit my behaviour at all; I’ve only used accounts. Unless you’re claiming my behaviour has suddenly changed to IP editing randomly after more than 7 years, why? I claimed you’re unhinged because you falsely accuse people of “isms” & “phobias”. There is no “ableism” in my edit(s), elsewhere you also falsely accused me of “transphobia”. I can only take that as a sign you’re a compulsive liar since nowhere have I ever written anything about transexuals on the internet, so how am I a transphobe? You make up total BS about people.Sea (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


    EK/D are both the same person on this website (although D pretended to have quit). EK is very friendly with A-B-D and regularly talks to him everyday on multiple discords. A-B-D is in regular communication with Kirkegaard. A-B-D converted EK to his side because they were both globally banned on Wikipedia. A-B-D is having a negative influence here and gives in to A-B-D’s demands. EK/D should be cooped. (@David Gerard, Make it happen. 195.242.213.133 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    I use one Discord server only and D (Arthur Kerensa) is not active there every day. I occasionally receive email from Kirkegaard, perhaps every few months, but he did not inform me of the editing in question. D did retire, has no contributions or logged actions since then. (EK removed sysoprevoke he had created and restored his rights, but there has been no explanation of this that I’ve seen.) I don’t make demands, and did not request action. The IP says as if fact what he does not know, which is like lying.


  • D/EK – Abd was originally attacking you, he even created a blog post monitoring your activities. You only became friends with him around June 2019 because you are both globally banned on Wikipedia and you support his lolsuit against the WMF (you regularly post on wikipediocracy in regard to Abd’s lolsuit which you seem to support). Your edits on his RW article about the alt-right cult were made on 11 April 2019‎, long before you became friendly with him. And no, you wouldn’t try and remove that now because David Gerard does not like A-b-d so you would not try and white-wash criticisms from his article, it would like suspicious for you. A-b-d has been defending you on Reddit and on his blog, and on Reddit you keep defending him. I also don’t see why you have to pretend to be female on here or use two accounts D and EK. We all know who you are. As for discord logs, I have screenshots and I could easily email RW staff that reveal you and A-B-D regularly communicate and support each others agendas. 82.102.24.211 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    I’m not at all interested in the Abd drama and some of these Ips flooding this page could be Michael Coombs that are derailing the actual dispute. A sysop should just restore the incest and rape posts — we all actually know the real reason those were removed.Giant (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


    Just to point out the other IPS are not me. I added the original Kirkegaard incest blog post where he said he wants to legalize incest, a few days ago. It is relevant. Can a mod restore the said content. Thanks. 174.128.181.152 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


    D/EK same person

    D/EK on RationalWiki are both the same person in real life, it is the same guy who likes to pretend to be female. He was globally banned on Wikipedia using D and EK accounts traced to the same IP. D has also admitted to being EK on Reddit. This person EK is now friendly with a-b-d and communicates with him on the Wikipediocracy discord, where a-b-d tells him to remove criticisms from certain article. EK even made a-b-d an admin on that discord. They are also on an email chain list together. EK needs to be cooped. His has a secret agenda and is damaging this website in various discord chats. 167.71.62.195 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    (Above spammed to 7 user talk pages, probably with the same message as put on David Gerard talk a few minutes earlier (suppressed by DG).

    About my communication with D (Dysklyver, Arthur Kerensa) and EK (Emblyn Kerensa?)

    I have never told them what to do on RatWiki. They sometimes read this blog and I have linked to it at times. I don’t personally care what is in the Kirkegaard article, other than having noted in the past that the accusations there are grossly distorted. But for my own purposes, it’s better that the defamation be there, it strengthens Kirkegaard’s case against Oliver Smith. But it is better for RatWiki that ungrounded defamatory material be removed, and I presume that any action taken by D or EK is according to their perception of benefit to that project and community. They are highly trusted there, and keeping a trust is what I have come to expect from them.

    I am not on any email list with either of them. I never attacked Dysklyver, but documented him on this page. Simple reporting of open fact, to the Smiths, is “attack.” In any case, Dyslyver saw that page and commented, and that was the beginning of our communication. He is not globally banned by the WMF, nor is EK. There is a lock, but a lock is not a ban. He would be free to create a new account. EK commented on Wikipediocracy in the thread on my lawsuit; as I recall, we had no communication before then. Oliver then attacked EK with the socking claim, which sealed his ban from RatWiki.

  • I was invited to join the Wikipediocracy Discord, and that is where I was given mod status. Nice people!

    Why were legitimate edits removed from Emil Kirkegaard article? see for example 141.98.103.51 that added an incest and rape post to controversies. Questioner (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    You should ask the person who made the removal (@EK) on the talk page for that article first (Talk:Emil Kirkegaard). Bongolian (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    Questioner – EK/D are both the same person. He has become friendly with a-b-d on the Wikipediocracy discord and a-b-d is friends with Kirkegaard and told EK/D to remove it (all three of them are banned on Wikipedia). No legit reason to remove that material. It is a-b-d’s doing. 82.102.24.231 (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    Yea I noticed Abd’s blog wrongly claims (without any evidence) 141.98 is Smith. Abd on discord then got EK to remove it. However those IP edits aren’t by Smith. Questioner (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    Emil Kirkegaard talk-page is locked. IP/S and new users cannot edit there. A-b-d is doing a lot of damage to RationalWiki off-site, people should not side with him here or give in to his demands, he has EK now on his side. [ping]David Gerard – EK/D is now very friendly with A-b-d and both of them communicate with Kirkegaard, you need to be careful about this. It is damaging RW article content. There is no reason to remove any of that content, only because a-b-d blogged about it. 82.102.24.231 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    D/EK are both the same person (very friendly with a-b-d who told him to come here to remove content from Kierkegaard’s article) and according to various sources online EK is trying to be a transsexual in real life. D/EK is obviously very confused about his own sexuality, he pretends to be female on here and has been dressing up as a female in real life, even though he is male. He shouldn’t be discussing sexual subjects because he doesn’t know what the majority think about these topics or what is socially acceptable. He’s got odd-ball views. Legalizing incest is not acceptable, Kirkegaard is wrong and irrational. We don’t need EK to pretend otherwise. 195.154.251.92 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    They’re not the same person. — Oxyaena Harass 21:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    [ping]@Oxyaena Why is EK making up outright lies? They just claimed virtually every poster on this wiki has “threatened them with murder and rape them” – an obvious falsehood with of course no evidence. I certainly haven’t. Some mentally unstable people like EK have a huge victim-playing complex. Additionally, they lied and said I created transphobic articles/Reddit threads about D. No idea what they’re talking about. EK is a disturbing case of a pathological liar, they seem incapable of ever telling the truth.Legend (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    Oxyaena – D/EK are both the same person. On Reddit D after being questioned he has admitted in his own words EK is him. He is an individual who likes to pretend to be a female online. He was globally banned on Wikipedia, using both D and EK usernames both traced exactly to the same ip. There are no public records or birth records for EK, but you can find them for D. They are both the same person. This said person has now sided with a-b-d. Sometimes online D/EK he identifies as pansexual or transsexual. It is one person. You will never see them online at the same time talking. Ask to have a phone call with both this people or a skype, there will never be two people, impossible. It is the same guy. 195.154.230.201 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

    There is a similarity here between this interchange and the recent Reddit trollsocking. Oliver did appear there claiming to be Oliver, and many throwaway accounts showed up, hiding identity and being highly disruptive, with Darryl Smith agenda, apparently. Here, though, Mikemikev impersonation could be suspected, though it would be a lot of trouble for little or no gain. Oliver is banned, and it was originally because of his attacks on EK and Dysklyver. While he claims not to be the IP, he does not actually distance himself from the IP claims.

    EK ascribes behavior to Oliver that might not have been him, but it is not clear. One thing that is clearly going on is that the Rats have lost all patience with Oliver.

    Long-term, and commonly when the Smiths are involved in some way, massive impersonation and trollsocking appears. Oliver has always denied that this is him. He implied at one point that it might be his brother. Oliver has never supported the development of clarity; if, say, Emil Kirkegaard was impersonated, he could have known but never confronted it. Further, he also just referenced why Emil Kirkegaard was blocked: for outing. What outing? Well, Kirkegaard had no idea of the history, and discovered the socking, and mentioned it. He was, after all, being attacked by Oliver (and Oliver later acknowledged creation of the Kirkegaard article). He did not know that there was a Rule Zero on RatWiki: thall shalt not mention Smith. Not even indirectly. It was heavily and intensely enforced, for years.

    Rule Zero

    Oliver wrote, as Oak:

    As for blocks, I’ve only ever supported blocking if someone did harassment such as doxing or serious threats; this explains for example Emil Kirkegaard‘s ban.

    This set off the klaxon. This is actually beautifully clear, and shows the relationship of Oliver and his brother. Did Oliver know what his brother did? I have seen again and again that Oliver appears to believe what is convenient for his world-view, and his view is that Kirkegaard is insane and thus could do almost anything, including, say, impersonating himself, and lying about it. Oliver actually claimed that he did not know his brother’s accounts, but he also complained about the doxxing of his “family” on this blog, and the only other member of his family relevant would be his brother. Truth will out, and he lied about there being no brother, though sometimes he modified that to claim that his brother doesn’t know what is going on, while, at the same time claiming that the goal here is to harass by Google. I.e., supposedly, this is all designed to defame Darryl L. Smith, who is completely innocent and doesn’t even know about it.

    It takes a certain kind of mind to invent these possibilities, and to apparently believe them. Or he is simply lying, and we already know that he lies — or so so delusional that he doesn’t remember what he wrote and claims that reports of it are “lies.”

    What happened with Kirkegaard? He described what he saw on his RatWiki user page. It was not doxxing, it was listing accounts that were clearly acting in a consistent way. This began at  01:09, 19 October 2017. Kirkegaard listed Skeptical among the accounts. He was wrong, but it was an error that many made. Skeptical was not the one who created his article. He had edited it, though.

    And then, see the deletion log.

    • 01:15, 19 October 2017 Skeptical deleted a revision. But what revision? Normally, in my experience, the current revision cannot be deleted, one would revert or edit the page to remove offensive material, then hide what is now not the current revision. At this point, there were only two revisions; the first one created by Kirkegaard by IP, then the second. So there is a mystery here. The deletion summary is “edit summary hidden and username hidden” but the hidden edit summary was the 1:16 edit below.
    • 01:16, 19 October 2017, Emil edited the page to add an off-wiki account clearly impersonating him. The edit summary was ‎(Impersonators and harassment), hidden by Skeptical. (I have previously seen 1-minute glitches in edit timing, this looks like one.)
    • 01:16, 19 October 2017, Skeptical unhid the user name. He’s going to complain, so he wanted it easily visible, my interpretation. The edit summary: (doxxing, posting false allegations about Rationalwiki editors)
    • 01:17, 19 October 2017, Skeptical blocked EmilOWK. (more doxxing from Emil, including links to real peoples names and IP addresses.) 
    • 01:20, 19 October 2017 Skeptical reverted and hid the user’s revision. (doxxing, links to real names and IP addresses)
    • 01:21, 19 October 2017 Skeptical hid again, unclear what, but the summary was (doxing of real life names)
    • 01:23, 19 October 2017, Skeptical hid Kirkegaard’s listing of the Wikipedia impersonation account,  covered in an SPI case. This could have been Mikemikev, except that Mikemikev would impersonate Kirkegaard is unlikely. This is what Darryl Smith impersonation socking on Wikipedia looks like. A trolling edit, clearly intended to foster attention and probably a block. Mikemikev normally shows a little more caution.
    • 02:25, 19 October 2017 Bongolian blocked Kirkegaard indef. (Doxing: more doxxing from Emil, including links to real peoples names and IP addresses.)

    The only editing of EmilOWK after this was on his talk page, this discussion. In it, Skeptical substantiates the “real name” claim with “Ben.” That refers to the creator of the RW article on Kirkegaard. Kirkegaard correctly points out that the RatWiki account was an impersonation. Skeptical makes it clear that anyone who is harassed on RatWiki — as Kirkegaard clearly was, as well as elsewhere in ways that could be linked, they are to be blocked or banned. Yet he and other Rats routinely doxx their targets, claim that such and such an account is a sock of another, and often give real names, having created articles on the person. Skeptical mentions me as a current example — at that time –, and Skeptical was highly involved in that “drama.”

    Skeptical was Darryl L. Smith, brother of Oliver D. Smith, and it is Oliver who created the RatWiki article on Kirkegaard, and these users warp and twist evidence and interpretation, which is effectively trolling the targets, using RatWiki.

    Skeptical was recently desysopped, though he had not edited since a few days after the events above (he disappeared when accused of being Oliver),  for “suspected ban evasion.” He was never banned, it is Oliver who was banned. However, he was intimately involved in long-term disruption, including that begun by Oliver. Impersonation and trollsocking was Darryl’s trademark long-term MO, not Oliver’s.

    This was discussed at User_talk:David_Gerard/Archive2#Doxing

    The “real name” charge was repeated there. In fact, what had been quoted was only the fake name, the impersonation that Oliver later claimed was not an impersonation, because he spelled the name differently. There was also a link to another impersonation of the same user, this time spelling it correctly, but none of this was doxxing the real person, rather, that he would be impersonated, as Kirkegaard was. And, in fact, as that real person was also impersonated on Wikipedia by . . .

    Darryl L. Smith. I.e., Skeptical

    Which is where I came in, having discovered, shortly before this, that impersonation and then, as I investigated it, I was attacked by an army of trollsocks, in what became a familiar pattern, still happening on Reddit. Those pages did not mention Oliver and Darryl Smith. Later, on the blog, when evidence as to their identity became overwhelming, and they were clearly a public nuisance, I did start to name names. By that time, every detail of my life that they could find that might be presented to look bad or weird was documented in detail on RatWiki and that continued elsewhere as well.

    Emil OWK claimed that he had not heard of me, when Skeptical accused him of taking the information from me. Most of that information did not come from me, but I had, by this time, listed connected RatWiki accounts, as suspected socks.

    In fact, anyone who looked at the RatWiki accounts for signs of repeat editing by different accounts, could see it. This was all obvious, so why did the Rats react so strongly? Well, Oliver Smith has claimed to be the major contributor of RatWiki articles. Darryl Smith has also been prolific. So they accept this because it’s convenient and useful for their purposes. Smith socking on Wikipedia, particularly by Darryl, has been defacto accepted because it is convenient for that faction to have an attack dog, to do the dirty work, and they can then be blocked when they go too far, tut tut, showing that they are fair. But they don’t undo the damage. And most Wikipedians do not take the time to investigate. Actual evidence is boring. And, besides, someone who compiles it (it’s work!) must be a fanatic, is disruptive, and should be blocked. So if there is evidence, it is probably cherry-picked and misleadin, right?

    Wiki disease.

    When the author of an article, that the reader likes, cherry-picks, tut tut, so what? The subject is a crazy loon and reading more, to see if the report is balanced, is too much work. And nobody is responsible.

    It’s just the way it is.

    Another note on this: the Reddit account that Kirkegaard pointed to was definitely an impersonation, and it spelled the name correctly, but the message was exactly the same as Oliver’s in his writing on RatWiki, in the article. That included posting on the RatWiki subreddit. That person does not want his name mentioned, he was roundly doxxed and defamed over his history, which he left behind as the product of his own mental disorders, and I’ve talked with him extensively, and, yes, definitely some syndrome, including delusional interpretation (sometimes called “hallucinations”) but also a lot of recovery since then. Part of recovery is authenticity, as distinct from denial. People who go through that can end up wiser than normal.

Lenr Forum on Lomax v. WMF

 

Zeus46, a LENR Forum troll we have seen quoted by the Smith brothers, wrote this mess on the Forum, Jul 30th 2019

#3,424
ABD WATCH!

The easily-bored polymath, alleged *********-enabler (removed at request of lawyer), and budding vexatious litigant, Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax has been a little bit too quiet recently. Clearly a storm of some description had to be brewing…

The lawsuit was filed in February. I have never filed a lawsuit before. and Lomax v. does not qualify as vexatious litigation, though some defendants might not like it. Does anyone like being sued?

Capitalising on time spent indulging in the legal minutae/demented brinksmanship of the ‘Damp-squib Lawsuit of the Year’ (Darden v Rossi)…. And completely failing to acknolwedge the maxim “A man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for client”

Of course, this is being repeated by trolls in many places. The maxim is often attributed to Lincoln, possibly incorrectly. It’s very old, and was apparently originally about all kinds of counsel, referring to the importance (even for lawyers) of obtaining independent advice.

… Adb has fired off a $6,000,000 S.L.A.P.P. suit at his two greatest nemeses – The Wikimedia Foundation – And some 16-year-old kid from the UK. (…And his…”twin brother”…:rolleyes:)

$2 million is the nominal figure. Should I amend that to $6 million? The WMF is not my “greatest nemesis” but the Smith brothers became consistent and persistent harassers, and to understand that would require understanding a complex history.

The twins are 29 years old this year, not 16. One is already being sued in the U.K., actually for accusing an academic of being, variously, a “child rape apologist” and a “pedophile,” and so what Zeus would have in mind is “pedophile enabler,” which even they did not allege, they only claimed I defended this fellow. But what I did was to point out that the evidence asserted was quoted out of context and there is no credible evidence for the claims. This all happened later than the events the lawsuit is about.

Notwithstanding the valid question as to whether the jurisdiction of Massachusetts Court extends to whatever grubby part of the English ‘midlands’ the petulant oik hails from, the young pork pie muncher has already engaged an equally high-powered team of lawyers as Abd has. – Apparent to all, when they dismissed the complaint as merely “a Lolsuit”.

There are possible issues of jurisdiction, but I was filing against the WMF and it was strange to not make claims against those whose conspiracy to defame (civil conspiracy, it’s a thing) was the cause of the WMF action. They have not yet been served, there are some hoops to jump through.

The heinous tort committed by the Wikifiddlers appears to be their public list of shame, doxxing and pillorying those less fortunate individuals, who can’t help but get themselves globally banned from all WikiMedia sites for perpetuity. (Or untill they register a sock account, at least).

“Heinous tort” has not been alleged. Just defamation.

See, as a service provider, the WMF has immunity from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for content provided by others, and they may also, the courts have generally interpreted, ban users for any or no reason. However, their policies make it clear that they do not ban except for serious risk to the community represented by repeated harmful behaviors, so the list has indeed been called the “wall of shame.” That is content that they provided, which removes their immunity.

Not thrilled at being on the recieving end of a $6,000,000 (plus damages and fines to be determined) doxxing lawsuit from the Doxxer-in-chief himself, the Wikimedia Foundation has employed the eye-wateringly expensive services of non other than Jones Day.

Originally $200,000 when I first spoke with Jones Day. Before that, the WMF refused all communication. Clue: want to get sued? Refuse to communicate with someone who has a complaint.

(Presumably Abd is gambling on a risky “last minute settlement” gambit, as seen employed by Jones Day up-close and in-person, thanks to his previous junket to the “Sunshine State”).

Sane people settle ASAP, ordinarily. Jones Day did not “employ” that “gambit,” they had been seeking settlement all along, always refused by Rossi. So the “last minute” shift, I have speculated, was the work of Rossi’s most recently retained attorney, Lukacs, settlement was his specialty, and I suspect he clued Rossi in as to just how much he could lose.

I’m not gambling. I’m simply standing up for what I think possible, and trusting the outcome.

Hopefully the overpaid Harvard Law graduate dealing with this doesn’t spend a few billable hours discovering that Abd maintains an uncannily similar ‘Hall of Shame’ on his own website. 8|:D (Listing the persona-non-grata of this very forum, no less)

Where is that list, and who is “persona non grata,” that is, who is exiled or rejected? There is a page where I listed some banned users on LF, which included me. This does not remotely resemble what the WMF has. The WMF first started banning users as a child protection policy, so the earliest office-banned users were alleged pedophiles, or, more accurately, were being disruptively accused of such, true or not. (And Wikipedia was being accused of enabling them.)

As is becoming de-rigeur these days, a go-fund.me account has been set up to fund this venture. Zero $ has been raised so far, so donations are not just encouraged – but advised… as it would probably be good for him to talk to a lawyer at some point.

Well, thanks. In fact, zero is the figure for the GoFundMe account. I have already been covered for my filing costs and a little more. To talk to defamation specialists will cost a minimum of $250 for probably a half-hour consult. The fellow suing that Smith brother in the U.K. had to come up with about 5,000 Euros to get that started. With no hope of recovery of that, as the only pot the fellow has to piss in belongs to his parents, where he lives.

And its probably best that the lawyer isn’t one from Jones Day, presenting him with an outsized costs claim.

Oh, they have certainly advised me that my suit has no chance, forget about it, I’m wasting my time, but . . . that is not as my lawyer! Jones Day would not take a conflicting case, I’m sure. The GoFundMe is seeking $200,000, which could be what it would take to prosecute this case professionally. Maybe. Maybe the WMF will smell that coffee and seriously negotiate a settlement.

WMF strategy at this point, I suspect, is to see if the case survives a motion to dismiss. If it does, it goes into discovery and their costs begin to skyrocket.

Zeus46 added a comment:

WikiMedia’s latest motion to dismiss argues: “The truth cannot defame, and it’s true you’re banned” – and – “you mention your banning so often on your own website, that you can’t be all that bothered about it”.

That is two separate issues. The first is a legal argument, commonly asserted as a defense against a defamation claim, that the published statement was true. A statement can include what the statement reasonably implies, and a WMF implies very bad behavior. Secondly, a true statement can be defamation in Massachusetts, and this has been tested in the First Circuit, with Noonan v. Staples, the first case and the second case.

The second statement was dicta, legally irrelevant. Defamation is not excused by the target writing about it at a later date. There are a number of comments like that in the Motion to Dismiss. That I increased the claim from $200,000 to $2 million is moot.

I have until August 9 to file a Memorandum in Oppostion to the Motion to Dismiss. I expect to meet that deadline. It has already been drafted, I’m just reviewing it.

Now, about “fool for a client.” It was utterly impractical for me to obtain a lawyer to file this. Lawyers do not take defamation suits on contingency, I’m told. If a lawyer is willing to consult, I’m open to it. Given that, it was either file pro se or not file, and I was concerned about a possible statute of limitations issue. So I filed a simple pro se form the court provides.

That can be amended as things get serious. I was planning on asking, in fact, for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, but realized that it could be better to see how the Motion to Dismiss flies, to see what the court considers necessary. That could be months away.

I have had two phone calls with the WMF, a total of two hours, with two lawyers, plus they wrote two Motions to Dismiss. Jones Day apparently bills at about $500 per hour.

I proposed a settlement concept that would be far less expensive for them than what they are doing. I assume that the WMF is calling the shots, and is concerned about precedent. I.e., if some user can sue them in federal court in another state, bypassing the Terms of Use, as appears possible here, they could have quite a bit of difficulty. My sense is that they are likely to change policies out of this.

Meanwhile the complaints that led to the ban were clearly a conspiracy to harm and defame, and the ban that ensued has frequently been used as “proof” against my reputation, including in a mail to one of my children. The Smith brothers are vicious and well-known for it. The motive was revenge for documenting impersonation socking-to-defame on Wikipedia (of someone else, not me). They threatened what they then did, through “private complaints to administrators.” They sucked others into the plan, who may not realize what they assisted. Or they do. I trust that the truth will come out in discovery.

I have very little to lose here except time, and I’m learning, and I consider learning to be of high value. Yes, as a non-lawyer, I will make mistakes, but I’ve also read a lot of case law, including observing the mistakes made by pro se litigants. Most are avoidable, though not all. My task at this point is, again, to survive dismissal. At that point it all gets much more serious. At that point I might be in a better position to raise funds, and as well, the WMF may be more motivated to actually investigate what happened, instead of assuming that they could not possibly have made a mistake.

The story

DRAFT

Wikiversity

I abandoned Wikipedia in 2011, having concluded that the quest for WP neutrality was hopeless, and focused all my wiki attention on Wikiversity, where neutrality was routinely attainable. I was an administrator on Wikiversity during several periods and was very active developing resources and protecting the site. This, however, attracts opposition, and by 2016, I had decided that Wikiversity, though routinely peaceful, was also unsafe, not a place to develop studies and content, so almost all activity ceased. However, in September, 2017, I received an email from a user I had helped develop a study on Wikiversity, that his study had been deleted and he was blocked.

When I looked, it appeared that he had done some disruptive sock puppetry on Wikipedia, and that, as a response, the deletion of his resource and a block of him was requested, and that, in spite of that being quite irregular and contrary to traditions, was granted.

I reprimanded him for being disruptive on Wikipedia, but he said that of the disruptive accounts claimed, most were not his. So I looked and it was plausible. The complainant on Wikipedia was a single-purpose-account (SPA) with no other history, and likewise the original complainant on Wikiversity. So I went to the coordinating wiki for all WikiMedia Foundation projects (Meta) and requested that stewards look at the private information that is available for all WMF wiki activity.

The user had been impersonated. I was interested in how an SPA could create so much disruption and nobody looked at the SPA, but only at the target! So I started to document this, and immediately massive attack began. Because this was causing local problems, Wikiversity not having many active administrators, I moved the study to Meta. Attack continued, but then I was threatened that all my work would be deleted if I did not stop.

(From later research, I concluded that the impersonator and the one threatening me was Darryl L. Smith).

RationalWiki

All was quiet for some time, then an article written about me appeared on RationalWiki. Then a request to delete the largest piece of work I had done on Wikiversity was filed. Then a bureaucrat who had been inactive blocked me, claiming I had been massively disruptive.

WMF Global ban

And then, before this could be appealed, the WikiMedia Foundation globally banned me. This was immediately noted on RationalWiki, and a user, later identified as Oliver D. Smith, published the email he had received from the WMF, informing him they had acted on his report.

The WMF did not respond to my emails. “Office Bans” are officially not appealable. I sent a certified mail to the Registered Agent for the WMF. There was no response.

Having no other recourse, eventually I filed an action for defamation in U.S. Federal Court against the WMF and nine “John Does,” hoping that the WMF might actually investigate, based on information that they likely did not have when they made their decision.

I hoped that the action might easily be settled. However, at this point, the WMF has filed a Motion to Dismiss, based on arguments I expected. I will be amending my Complaint to reflect a clearer exposition of what happened, with regard to the factual basis for a libel claim. To ensure that this case is argued clearly from the strongest positions, I am seeking support, so that I may obtain legal counsel as well as public advice and funding for expenses.

I will do what I can do without that support, but the WMF has retained Jones Day, the largest legal firm in the United States, to represent them. (The WMF has very ample resources!) I’m living on Social Security. I do receive, through a nonprofit, necessary expenses for the journalism and related research I do. But that nonprofit is not for this purpose. I paid the $400 filing fee out of pocket, being willing to spend that in order to take a stand.

(The ultimate issue with Wikiversity was academic freedom, and the Smith brothers have long attacked this in many ways and with many people.)

The user mentioned, Oliver D. Smith, was obviously a complainant, though I had not violated the WMF Terms of Use, certainly not  with him. He and his brother are known on Wikipedia as “Anglo Pyramidologist,” and I identified the original impersonator as one of those brothers. But I did not, at that point, name him or the brother. Oliver was the original “Anglo Pyramidologist,” which allowed the brothers to claim I was falsely accusing Oliver.

I will amend my Complaint to add names of those reasonably suspected of having defamed me in the private complaints, and I hope to consult counsel before amending. I have until June 10 unless the judge grants additional time.

  • Darryl L. Smith, probably the original impersonator and the creator of the RationalWiki article.
  • Oliver D. Smith, his brother, who collaborated with the retaliation and was a complainant.
  • Joshua P. Schroeder, who falsely claimed I had harassed him by email and who wrote he would complain.
  • Guy Chapman, a Wikipedia administrator who likely collaborated in this, who had a long-term grudge because I had created an Arbitration Committee case in which he had been reprimanded.
  • Michael Umbricht, the Wikiversity administrator who blocked and probably complained.

(Names may be dropped or added based on Discovery, if the case proceeds.)

The case as a whole may continue against additional defendants, even if the WMF is dropped as a defendant. However, the legal principle here, as to the WMF, is whether or not they can be held responsible for harm done to another as a result of their negligence and publication of a ban, which is rare, only 30 in the history of the WMF, and such bans are explicitly for serious hazard to users. That they might block access to an account without notice is their right — and possibly a necessity, but publication is a separate and unnecessary step. So when the Smiths claimed I had harassed users, they could point to the ban as proof, making the claim far stronger thus the published ban served to support defamation.

Lomax v. WMF

Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. (3:19-cv-30025), District Court, D. Massachusetts

This copy of the docket may be ahead of the public version at courtlistener.com, and includes links to free copies of all entries.

      • 1 Feb 25, 2019 COMPLAINT against WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., filed by Dennis G. Lomax. (Attachments: # 1 Cover & Category Sheets)(Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/26/2019)  1-0  1-1
      • 2 Feb 26, 2019 Filing fee/payment: $400.00, receipt number SPR003987 for 1 Complaint (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/26/2019) [no doc]
      • 3 Feb 26, 2019 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson assigned to case. Plaintiff’s counsel, or defendant’s counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Lindsay, Maurice). (Entered: 02/26/2019) 3-0
      • 4 Feb 26, 2019 General Order 09-1, dated January 6, 2009 regarding the E-Government Act and Personal Identifiers entered. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/26/2019) 4-0
      • 5 Feb 26, 2019 Summons Issued as to WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/26/2019) 5.0
      • 6 Feb 28, 2019 Copy re 3 Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge,,, 4 General Order 09-1, 5 Summons Issued, mailed to Dennis G. Lomax on 2/27/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 02/28/2019) [no doc]
      • 7 Mar 8, 2019 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Dennis Lomax. (Figueroa, Tamara) (Entered: 03/08/2019) 7-0 [image shows returned mail with incorrect address per complaint]
      • 8 May 20, 2019 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc..(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 05/20/2019)  8-0
      • 9 May 20, 2019 MEMORANDUM in Support re 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 05/20/2019)  9-0
      • 10 05/20/2019 DECLARATION re 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , 9 Memorandum in Support of Motion by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wikimedia Terms of Use, # 2 Exhibit Bauer v. Glatzer Order, # 3 Exhibit Twitter v. Sup. Ct. Order)(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 05/20/2019) 10-0 10-1 10-2 10-3
      • 11 05/20/2019 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Doughty, Erik) (Entered: 05/20/2019) 11-0
      •  12 06/10/2019 MOTION for Extension of Time to June 17, 2019 to Plaintiff to file amended complaint by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc..(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 06/10/2019) 12-0
      • 13 06/11/2019 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting the Parties’ Joint 12 Motion for Extension of Time to 6/17/2019 for the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 06/11/2019)  [no doc]
      • 14 06/11/2019 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint due by 6/17/2019. (Finn, Mary) [no doc]
      • 15 06/11/2019 Copy re 13 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, 14 Set/Reset Deadlines mailed to Dennis G. Lomax, 40 Fort Street, Apt. 1, Northampton, MA 01060 on June 11, 2019. (Finn, Mary) [no doc]
      • 16 Filed 6//17/2019 AMENDED COMPLAINT against WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., et. al., filed by Dennis G. Lomax. (Rivera, Christina)  16-0
      • 17 MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Dennis G. Lomax. (Rivera, Christina) 17-0
      • 18 06/24/2019 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 17 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. “The court grants permission on the condition that the plaintiff satisfies all applicable training and other requirements for pro se litigants as stated in the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, Page 5. The plaintiff is directed to complete the registration form accessible at https://public.mad.uscourts.gov/ecfreg.html “(Rivera, Melissa) (Entered: 06/24/2019) [no doc]
      • 19 07/1/2019 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc..(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 07/01/2019) 19.0
      • 20 07/1/2019 MEMORANDUM in Support re 19 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 07/01/2019) 20-0
      • 21 07/1/2019 DECLARATION re 19 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wikimedia Terms of Use, # 2 Exhibit WMF Global Ban Policy, # 3 Exhibit Website Excerpt, # 4 Exhibit Bauer v. Glatzer Order, # 5 Exhibit Twitter v. Sup. Ct. Order)(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 07/01/2019)  21.0 21-1 21-2 21-3 21-4 21-5
      • 22 07/11/2019 Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. The Court requests that the parties confer and notify the Court in writing, on or before the close of business on July 25, 2019, whether or not the parties consent to the reassignment of this case for all proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. See attached order for complete details. (Attachments: # 1 Instructions, # 2 Consent/Declination Form.) (Rivera, Melissa) (Entered: 07/11/2019) 22-0 22-1 22-2
      • 23 07/11/2019 Copy re 22 Order mailed to Dennis G. Lomax on 7/11/2019. (Rivera, Melissa) (Entered: 07/11/2019) [no doc]
      • 24 07/24/2019 Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. No document attached to this entry pursuant to General Order 10-1 concerning procedure and counsel in such cases. (Figueroa, Tamara) [no doc]
      • 25 07/24/2019 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Re-Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 07/24/2019) [no doc]
      • 26 07/26/2019 ORDER on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim  26-0
      • 27 7/26/2019 Copy re26 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, mailed to Dennis G. Lomax on 7/26/19. (Lindsay, Maurice) [no doc]
      • 28 08/08/2019 Opposition re 19 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Dennis G. Lomax. (Lomax, Dennis)  28-0
      • 29 08/13/2019 Motions Taken Under Advisement: 19 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. (Bartlett, Timothy) (Entered: 08/13/2019) [no doc]
      • 30 09/04/2019 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Reply)(Morrison, Christopher) (Entered: 09/04/2019) 30-0 30-1
      • 31 09/10/2019 Opposition re [30] MOTION for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law filed by Dennis G. Lomax. (Lomax, Dennis) 31-0
      • 32 09/19/2019 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 30 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum of Law. ALLOWED. (Entered: 09/19/2019) [no doc]
      • 33 09/20/2019 REPLY to Response to [19] MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Morrison, Christopher) 33-0

       

    • To support expenses for this litigation, links:

    Relevant pages:

Oliver Discord fiasco

Oliver D. Smith is openly Tobias, and posted this on User talk:EK

Cease and desist

Hi,

I’ll just ask you kindly to stop spreading lies and baseless rumours about me on Wikipediocracy. You’re as bad as the trolls like Abd. View my user-page for disclaimer. I don’t have a brother who has ever edited RationalWiki or Reddit. The “Smith brother conspiracy theory” was Abd’s invention along with some other trolls from Encyclopedia Dramatica. @D Put your pet Discord troll on a leash. Tobias (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tobias what is the issue exactly? EK (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tired of people repeating the same lies. I don’t have a brother involved in any of this. Mikemikev doxed a family member of mine “Darryl” years back; he’s in full time employment working 6 days a week. He has no social media, doesn’t post on wikis like here and doesn’t have the spare time to troll Reddit etc. Yet that Wikipediocracy thread is filled with misinformation about him including you claiming he posts on Reddit and is behind the recent avalanche of socks there. All those socks are Mikemikev/Abd. Mikemikev is unemployed and Abd is retired. They have all the time in the world to create socks on Reddit.Tobias (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tobias get urself onto this discordEK (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
And you think Abd is bad. :/ — NekoDysk 15:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So, first of all, what was on Wikipediocracy? I do not scan the internet ceaselessly looking for dirt. But I do check Tobias’ contributions! So I looked. My, my. Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al — page 3

Rome Viharo commented there, and so did Emblyn, i.e., EK.  I annotated the page. (and the page before)

Emblyn merely provided links to allow people to research what Rome had put up. However, then:

Darryl Smith tho, has been spamming r/WikiInAction using many accounts while saying Abd and Mikemikev did it

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … inc_et_al/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … wikimedia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … a/ekz9m2o/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … awsuit_on/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … cked_from/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … ng_emails/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … erm_abuse/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … l_article/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … ming_this/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … _spamming/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … dia_after/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … klyver_is/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … wikipedia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … mikemikev/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c … s_working/

Oliver has also been claiming it was me or Mikemikev. (without evidence, by the way). I have speculated that it was not Oliver, but his brother, who has more of a history of that kind of disruption (though this was extreme).

Oliver has many times implicated his brother. Then obvious Oliver accounts that did this were later claimed to be impersonations. Never, by the way, immediately.  From Oliver’s User page:

“”People can view my edits, I’ve not “attacked” or “harassed” anyone rather I’ve documented and criticised their pseudoscientific beliefs; I also have written a rebuttal to Noah Carl’s FAQ that contains many falsehoods and misleading statements. None of this is “harassment”.
—Tobias, don’t be fooled by Emil Kirkegaard‘s lies about my edits
      • Note #1: I don’t post on Reddit. Numerous accounts by trolls though are impersonating me.
      • Note #2: Despite the conspiracy theories and misinformation you can read on Coldfusioncommunity – I don’t have a brother who has edited this wiki.

He’s insane or blatantly lying or both. He did not actually link to this blog but to the article on me, which has a link to the wiki, not to the blog.

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.

And then:

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

There is no brother. I’ve just had fun misleading people, like yourself stalking me as have other RW sysops who have tried to protect their identities. It’s a problem though that you would target and dox an innocent family member of mine, based on this.

Lomax however is obsessed with this brother, writing dozens of articles on him when he has no involvement on either RationalWiki or Wikipedia. He’s never posted on these at all, and doesn’t even know anything about this, and he has no internet or social media presence. I just mislead people who are trying to stalk or dig up information me, as with lots of other stuff. I found all this amusing at first, but it’s now a problem that Lomax is writing all these articles on someone who isn’t involved at all that is abusing search-engine results of a real person who is innocent. […]

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

And then, again, later to Rome Viharo:

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

Oliver lives in a world of blame and defense against blame. Reality and truth and simple honesty are not on his radar. If he lies to protect his brother, he’s responsible for consequences. If he lies about a brother, and that causes problems for the brother, he’s responsible for consequences. What is remarkable here is that he asserts that he created the brother story, but then he blames everyone else for making it up. This is the reality: if there is a brother who is being harmed by what I write, that brother is free to write me to correct the record. “There is no brother” is not consistent with that, by the way.

No, my conclusion is that Oliver became desperate. He had spilled too many beans, and his brother started putting pressure on him. So to protect the brother, the “it was all a lie” was invented. However, two people are different from one, and the record shows two clear personalities, different even if twin brothers. Because of how they have coordinated, they are both responsible for the entire collection of actions, at least to a degree. “Responsibility” is not “blame.” it is a far more grounded concept, it assumes that humans have power and create consequences, and may be socially required to clean up messes they create.

Because Oliver ended up thoroughly and extensively outed, the VDARE article went much further than Mikemikev (and I had done much less, basically, I was just interested in geolocation for identification purposes), Oliver decided to focus on the “no brother involved” story. Hence what Emblyn wrote on Wikipediocracy was utterly intolerable to Oliver. So, he did go to Discord, and this is what he wrote:

Cheers, love! Tobias is here! 05/16/2019 at 15:13 [system message]

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:17
about time
@Tobias hi

Oliver D. Smith 05/16/2019 at 15:27
Just post my response I left you on RationalWiki on the Wikipediocracy thread. I don’t have anything else really to say. If you’re unfamiliar with Viharo: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
Rome Viharo

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:28
ye what u never explained
is why i should trust u over them

Oliver D. Smith 05/16/2019 at 15:31
Because I actually provide evidence for my claims. In contrast the allegation I have a brother on RationalWiki or Reddit – is not only false but Abd/Rome Viharo/Mikemikev present zero evidence. Might as well claim the Reddit socking is my imaginary sister.

Emblyn0 5/16/2019 at 15:32
u wrote the evidence
also

what say u to that

Oliver D. Smith 05/16/2019 at 15:34
Just made up nonsense. You’re obviously another troll.

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:35
it is the opening paragraph of an article i wrote about u but never published
many things are unclear surrounding ur history

Oliver D. Smith 05/16/2019 at 15:41
Is there any evidence you are even who you claim, and not a sock of someone? You could be Abd Lomax or Mikemikev for all I know. I mean do you have social media, a verifiable email etc. Dysk is an utter simpleton who has claimed to use discord to “prove who people are”, yet all I’m seeing here is possible fake accounts with stupid avatars. There is no way to confirm anyone’s real identity here, furthermore I know Mikemikev has been here and was made a sysop on RationalWiki after he pretended here to be someone else.
Anyway, I’m leaving.

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:42 
i am a full admin here and have my discord id on my userpage so ye

Dysk 05/16/2019 at 15:46 
Smith was here. : }
Epic.

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:53
ye

Oliver is literally insane, I’ll say it again. If he wanted to head off the problem, he did exactly the opposite of what it would take. And then, on RatWiki, he added to User talk:EK:

I left a message there, but I don’t trust Discord, anyone can go there and pretend to be someone else. I also suspect you aren’t who you claim and I raised concerns about your account before. You’re likely someone’s sockpuppet pretending to be someone else. Regardless, I don’t have any further interest in [Troll Image].Tobias (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ll only trust who you are if you have a verifiable profile and email etc. Dysklyver has these things, so we know who he is, but he bizarrely uses photos of someone wearing a balaclava. That certainly isn’t normal. I can easily be found with verified profiles on ResearchGate (that requires a university email), Twitter etc. Tobias (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

EK (Emblyn) does have the Discord account on her RatWiki User page.

17:20, Oliver edited User talk:EK with an edit which has been suppressed.

Then, back on Discord:

Tobias has joined the server! It’s super effective! Today at 1:26 PM

Tobias 5/16/2019 at 17:29
I think Emblyn and Dysk are the same person. Lots of evidence to support this. This is very disturbing and one of the most mentally ill individuals I’ve ever come across. I won’t bother presenting this evidence here.

Oliver then more material at 17:41 to that talk page, also suppressed and he was banned for harassment and doxxing. The users who had given him a chance, in the end, whacked him. User rights log. Block log.

Oliver has been blocked many times, it’s almost meaningless to him. However, this is the first major block where his identity has been clearly known.

He can tell his brother he tried.

The followup on Discord shows that people have figured out what the Smiths do. This is Oliver, who is Obvious Obvious. Darryl is generally not so obvious.

TDA WP 05/16/2019 at 17:45 PM
He’ll probably pop back in here later to deny that account was really him and blame Abd/Mikemikev/Viharo/the postman for it.

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 17:47 PM
too late
they admitted it was them on rationalwiki

TDA WP 05/16/2019 at 17:50 PM
Maybe he’ll claim he was hacked.
He’s done that too.

Whoever TDA WP is, they have been paying attention. Atlantid claimed that his last comments on Metapedia, in 2012, were hacked by Mikemikev. Then his brother Debunking spiritualism on RatWiki claimed I had hacked his account last year. In fact, DS had made a pile of Smith agenda deletions and blocks, and then added trolling disruption to cover it up. It worked, in part, and that’s all the Smiths need. They spend accounts to get their mission accomplished, accounts are cheap to them. Or have been so.

Dysk 05/16/2019 at 17:50 PM
I suppressed the last few edits.
But yeah I would like to ban-hammer him.

Oxyaena 05/16/2019 at 17:53 PM
no need
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Log/block

Oxyaena 05/16/2019 at 17:56 PM
I expect to be harassed by Oliver very soon
if he shows up in ratwiki cord
you know what to do
@Dysk ban him from here as well

Dysk 05/16/2019 at 17:57 PM
Idk, it’s a mixed blessing.

Dysk is one of the least ban-happy sysops I’ve seen. He is correct, sometimes allowing a user to comment, even with angry nonsense, can create value. It can be a difficult judgment. Better with a single account than with many.

Oxyaena 05/16/2019 at 17:58 PM
dude needs help
serious help

Dysk 05/16/2019 at 17:58 PM
Yeah that’s for sure.

Now, what is going to happen when Oliver emails David Gerard? We may never know. Or maybe we will. . . .

Oliver and the Wikiversity affair

This began my involvement with Darryl L. Smith and Oliver D. Smith. Oliver was only peripherally involved. However, his brother involved him. Oliver was ZaFrumi (later acknowledged in email). These were the contributions of ZaFrumi, first on Wikiversity:

@ Abd, you agreed with Dan Skeptic/Goblin Face in 2014 about Rome Viharo. On RationalWiki you wrote Viharo is a troll, that he was never doxed at Wikipedia (he posted his real name as a signature), that he was a paid editor, that he posts “deceptive claims”/”inaccuracies” and so on. These are all things Dan Skeptic/Goblin Face and Manul have been saying since day 1. Michaeldsuarez however takes the complete opposite view and runs around the internet defending Viharo. It will be funny to see what you make of this, are you saying you’ve changed your mind on Viharo? Otherwise its unclear why you would side with Michael to now attack Dan Skeptic.ZaFrumi (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And old news. Those Wiki archives are several different people. Lots of people have shared those Ips. It was only Michael who spread the misinformation all those accounts on the Goblin Face archive is a single person. He then wrote a defamatory encylopedia dramatica article accusing this person of mental illness because there are so many conflicting views/post styles etc on the accounts. Any rational person though can see its different editors sharing an IP.ZaFrumi (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledged that you had a twin brother months ago. Anyway, it doesn’t change the facts: the two of you are engaged in massive sockpuppetry and deception. So what if there’s two of you? You both still create a large amount of accounts, lie, and attack others. Also, regardless of how many of you are, your behavior still points to obsession. —Michaeldsuarez (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I defended Viharo because I realized how obsessed you are with Viharo and your other targets. Abd didn’t have all the facts about Viharo’s situation in 2014. I’ll inform Abd via Email. —Michaeldsuarez(discuss • contribs) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yawn. ZaFrumi is denying the accounts associated with the Steigmann drama. You have 0 evidence linking him to any of those accounts. It is libel to accuse someone of impersonation when you have no technical evidence. Abd was banned on Wikipedia, he is not an admin. You cannot prove ZaFrumi, his family members, Manul or any other editor anyone else did those things in regard to Steigmann. You talk about obsession but you have never worked in a job in real life, you are a man pushing 30 and you still live with your parents, you have made nothing of your life apart from attacking people on an immoral website Encyclopedia Dramatica . Your life seems to be ZaFrumi. Again you have turned up on a website to discuss him, not the other way round. Your entire life seems to be stalking other people. You refuse to move on. Why is your life ZaFrumi? You once claimed you were moving on with your life a few months ago but you are back to your old tricks again stalking people and getting involved in things which do not concern you. I ask again none of this has anything to do with you, so why are you yet again poking your nose in? Random person 99(discuss • contribs) 16:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

~ The sock master to those alleged impersonations is “Sci-fi”. I’m not this person. Also, there’s nothing linking that sock master to Goblin Face either; no technical evidence, nothing. My IP is/was also shared by more than 2 people involved with the Rome Viharo “drama”; another person has since come forward after Viharo has now stalked/attacked my entire family on his website. ZaFrumi (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Pump Random person 99 (discuss • contribs) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And then on meta:

Since your other talk is being spammed, I’ll leave you a final comment. I’ve been virtually offline for the past 4-5 months (since Kiwi Farms took down their stuff about me; they even deleted Rome Viharo’s article); so you’re not reading about me, but others… I cannot prevent other people editing from my IP. Most the time I don’t even know what they are doing; I have no involvement whatsoever with “Laird” and had not even heard of him until a few days ago. I only show up when someone doxes me; the fact is I have no interest in “Ben Steigman”, “Laird” etc and my only account on these wikis was “Englisc”; this should be clear by the name/post-styles.ZaFrumi (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So, comments. First, thanks for The Pump, Darryl. Great video. I’ll go to the gym later today with an improved attitude. Every little bit helps.

Second, Oliver (ZaFrumi) sees everything in terms of “taking sides.” He has no respect for truth. He exaggerates or cherry-picks what others report, makes it into a straw man argument, then ridicules it. “All those accounts.” I since reviewed all that Rome Viharo (Tumbleman) activity. Viharo did accidentally reveal his name. However, he promptly blanked it. He was a naive user, he did not know to request revdel. But he was honest. He also did not distinguish between AP socks, and the most visible real person was Oliver. This happened in many places, Oliver was accused of what was actually his brother.

Oliver is raising a smokescreen here. He knows the truth, but is presenting irrelevant arguments, but with someone (MDS) who knows too much to fool like this. What Oliver did not know was that I had known MDS for a long time. I did not always agree with him, but I also knew he was honest, a quality that Oliver was lacking and obviously did not care about — and still doesn’t. He will not recover from his disorders until he commits to rigorous and careful honest. That is what I know from years of experience.

The Smiths have confused many, and then when, in the confusion they created, someone is incorrect, they attack that person as a liar.

Random person 99 then shows up. Checkuser identified this as the same person as Sci-fi, and the rest of the socks. I’ll just call him Darryl. Darryl points out that Oliver (ZaFrumi) is not the disruptive accounts. That is very likely true. He is them. Notice that he does not actually deny it, rather “you cannot prove.” This is the common error of deniers, they believe in impossibility arguments. How could they know what can be “proven” or not? What does “prove” mean? In real life, we have evidence, and we may analyze the evidence to come up with conclusions, which are, in order of strength, suspicions, inferences, conclusions, conclusions by the preponderance of the evidence, conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.

My IP is/was also shared by more than 2 people involved with the Rome Viharo “drama”… “More than two”? Who is the third person? The obvious candidate is the third brother, older. Oliver was essentially admitting “family.” Or he was lying, which he later claimed as well.

Ben Steigman. Notice how he spelled it (the real name has two n’s at the end). He spelled it “Steigmans” when he created the article on Emil Kirkegaard. He’s lying. He expresses extremes to exclude the middle. “No interest” could mean “not much interest.”

Englisc. WMF Global account. Locked.

Wikiversity contributions:

In those first edits, MDS had posted a notice of email sent, as IP. Englisc responded with personal information. MDS replied using his account, restoring the information, Dave did not understand what was happening and blocked MDS for a day. Notice that later Englisc uses this to attack MDS. This is what the Smiths have done again and again, confused administrators, who take action out of the confusion, and then the Smiths cite the action as proof that their target is disruptive.

Dave Braunschweig. Oliver (Englisc) lies about the situation.

Request custodian action. Englisc again lies. He was correct that he was not behind all the other socks. It was his brother. Instead, he cries Lies! On his user page, he writes: “~ This is my only account on this Wiki.” All WMF users have ready-to-use SUL accounts on all the wikis. However, it may be automatically registered when the user looks at the Wiki while logged in, for Englisc this was 19:36, 25 September 2017. Za Frumi was registered 15:25, 27 September 2017. Englisc was blocked 20:16, 26 September 2017. So Za Frumi (Oliver) was block and lock evading (and also on meta).

On meta, Englisc:

Abd is posting nonsense; he was warned by an admin on Wikiversity to stop. He’s now tagging random users who have no relation to each other; I don’t own any other users listed above. The reason a couple of users showed up on his talk-page recently was because he started doxing people while spreading misinformation about their online activities; this also involved Abd’s friend MichaeldSuarez who was blocked yesterday for doxing on Abd’s talk page.Englisc (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That “nonsense” listed 18 suspected socks. (Oliver and Darryl always call these “accusations.” In fact, checkuser requests should be “suspected.” The old tradition was that checkuser was only requested if there was disruption, and there is no offense in listing an account reasonably suspected. Suspicion is grounds for investigation, not prosecution, which requires evidence. All 18 socks and more were globally locked as the same user. That was probably partially incorrect, because there were two users, specifically Oliver and Darryl.  (This kind of “error” is common. Admins will consider people living in the same house as if meat puppets, treated the same as socks. If both persons are disruptive, they don’t care.)

Oliver would have known, though, that the IP was the same, and he could have disclosed what he knew. But he did not. Instead he attacked me. Notice that he lies about MDS. (With the kind of lie Oliver is famous for: misleading truth. It was for doxing. What he does not say is that he had put up the doxxing.

I never accused Oliver of being the sci-fi socks. Rather, in the full checkuser report, it can be seen how, after looking at Mikemikev (based on a red herring) I came to suspect “Anglo Pyramidologist,” the sock family, not Oliver personally. (Because Oliver was that specific account, he confuses this.) In a later report, I added ”

In a later checkuser request, filed after Oliver had written the above, I added Za Frumi.

ZaFrumi (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) suspected related SPA, not clearly abusive.

This was certainly not an accusation. It is not clear that the stewards looked at this account. But this was lock evasion, we now know, because Englisc had been locked. (I did not at the time put that together.)

This was a series of spectacular successes at filing checkuser requests. In short order, I was accused of running a vendetta, by a Wikiversity bureaucrat who had been recruited by private complaints — he stated that.

So, fast forward. As a result of private complaints, not only was I blocked on Wikiversity (totally out-of-process, contrary to policy), but I was globally banned, and then this promptly appeared from Oliver, as ODS, on RationalWiki:

Lomax is a habitual liar. “No harassment by Lomax” shows the insanity and delusions of this guy; he was just globally blocked by Wikimedia Foundation for harassment and I received this confirmation email today:

Hello Oliver,

Thank you for your patience while we reviewed this. I just wanted to close the loop on this matter as we concluded our investigation. We’ve taken what you’ve sent into consideration as we reviewed Abd’s conduct in a larger context in regards to whether the Foundation should take any action. We determined that the conduct did merit Foundation-led action and yesterday, 24 February 2018, we proceeded in enforcing a Wikimedia Foundation Global Ban against Abd. This means that this user is no longer welcome on the Wikimedia projects, under any username he has used or may use in the future. While we obviously can’t guarantee our global ban will stop the issues the community has been facing I’m hopeful that it will help. We will continue to watch and listen for future issues, moving forward, but please let us know if you have any questions or believe there is something else we can do to help. Warm regards.

As I noted above, a Wikimedia Foundation Global is very rare and only applies to severe cases of harassment. I have no further interest in responding to Lomax – he sent me harassing emails. Why is it Joshua P. Schroeder also has said Lomax sent him harassing emails, if I’m making this up? Why is Lomax banned from Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Meta-Wiki, RationalWiki and now a Wikimedia Foundation Global Ban? It’s obvious to anyone the guy is a notorious troll and internet harasser.ODS (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The “harassing emails” are here. As can be seen, Oliver wrote to me, not the other way around. He didn’t like how I responded, attacked, and then the mails stopped. He never said, “Don ‘t write me.” I did not continue writing him after he stopped writing me, I did not reply to his last mail. So, again, he was lying about “harassing emails” sent to him. He is harassed by his own mind.

RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory

This article was posted to RationalWiki by MrOrganic.

It was presented for deletion here:

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki_Smith_brothers_conspiracy_theory

The article was suppressed a year and a half after being deleted.

10:34, 22 April 2019 D (talk | contribs) secretly changed visibility of 16 revisions on page RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory: content hidden, edit summary hidden, username hidden and applied restrictions to sysops (Personal or potentially identifying information)

I have recovered it , so the content is below as it was last archived.


RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory is a paranoid speculation by some individuals with RationalWiki articles, written about themselves, that maintains their articles were created by a duo or trio of brothers (with the surname Smith) from a single household. According to this conspiracy theory — the brothers have created tens, if not hundreds of RationalWiki articles as “hit pieces” to damage people’s reputations via a Google search.

Evidence for the conspiracy theory is non-existent and was started on Encyclopædia Dramatica, arguably as satire. Nevertheless, an assortment of cranksfundiesand pseudoscientists upset at RationalWiki for creating articles about them, now promote the conspiracy theory to vent their anger at a scapegoat, who can be potentially doxed. This article will not provide any alleged dox, only referring to the surname “Smith” (which is very commonw).

Contents

Proponents

Proponents of the Smith brothers conspiracy theory include: Rome ViharoAlex TsakirisCraig WeilerLaird Shaw (all from the woo-forums Skeptiko or Pscience Quest), John FuerstEmil O. W. Kirkegaard and Abd ul-Rahman Lomax.

History

In December 2016 an article appeared on the troll website Encyclopædia Dramatica named the “Smith Brothers” that argued a household of brothers with the surname Smith use RationalWiki in order to bash people online by creating articles to discredit them, by writing about their pseudoscience or irrational beliefs (which actually is in the stated mission of RationalWiki: “documenting the full range of crank ideas”). The article itself was nonsensical, filled with gay pornographic imagery; its purpose was arguably to satirize RationalWiki skeptic editors. The NSFW-porn article was deleted within a few weeks. Before deletion there were some screenshots on an archive webpage.

The folks over at Skeptiko and Pscience Quest discovered the archived screenshots of the Smith Brothers article in September 2017 and absurdly read it as being factual, thus they think there really is a household of brothers who have created most the RationalWiki articles on paranormalistscreationistspsychic-believers and other pseudoscientists over a 5 year time period (2012-2017). Laird Shaw openly links to the gay-porn article on Pscience Quest and recommends readers of the forum he administrates – go there to see evidence for the Smith Brother conspiracy theory.

Evidence?

The short-lived ED Smith Brothers article purported to provide evidence as “connecting the dots” linking the brothers to multiple RationalWiki users and dozens of article creations; in reality, this consisted of unsubstantiated allegations and zero technical proof (noteRationalWiki has no check-user tool to confirm sockpuppetry), with some gay porn thrown in for good measure. This however has not stopped Rome Viharo quoting the article as “proof” for the conspiracy theory on his website Wikipedia We Have a Problem, that has 100,000 words of gibberish dedicated to the Smith brothers.[1] Viharo has also discussed his belief in the conspiracy theory in his YouTube videos.

References


[the original references section was lost in archiving; however, there was only one reference, and it is simulated here, as what it might have been at that point in time. On the other hand, it may have been a more innocuous page.]

  1. Wikipedia We Have a Problem

but this page was a bit earlier than what shows there, and is more on point:

The Smiths’ Dark Entanglement, a criminal report.


Commentary  (by Abd, May 10, 2019)

Unless it was in that reference, this page contained no outing, so the suppression reason was incorrect. The arguments given in the article are still being advanced by Oliver Smith, just today.

As I pointed out at the time, this was a Smith brothers version of the Smith brothers conspiracy theory. But that’s RatWiki. It was treated, though, as if written by a Smith enemy, to harass innocent Rats being accused of being a Smith brother. Like most of what has been written by the Smiths, it was deceptive.

a paranoid speculation by some individuals with RationalWiki articles, written about themselves, that maintains their articles were created by a duo or trio of brothers (with the surname Smith) from a single household.

Oliver Smith subsequently acknowledged many of his article creations. However, the duck test is not a “paranoid speculation.” By looking at article editors, and then at the contributions of each, patterns of interest popped up. An article would be created with many edits. Then there would be sporadic edits by other users who did not show the patterns appearing. Then another account with many edits, whose other contributions showed the same interests. There were two sets of interests, quite distinct. This matched old claims on Wikipedia from the brothers, and other evidences.

Nobody has claimed a trio that I have seen. They are twins, both born in 1990, and living in the same house at one time, i.e., with apparent parents, same surname. Public records were published in a number of places. The Smiths have been attacking others since something like 2012, if not before, and they have managed, over time, to alienate many. Oliver is the most visible of the brothers, has an actual peer-reviewed article (on Atlantis) published in his real name. The brother, Darryl L. Smith, is far less visible and has never openly revealed his name.

The article on me was written by Darryl, who had attacked a Wikiversity user and then threatened me with retribution, and the first sign of the retribution was that article. Shortly after the “conspiracy” article was deleted, Skeptical placed in the article:

RationalWiki conspiracy theory

Lomax was perm-banned from RationalWiki for doxxing and trolling.[36] He now uses his personal blog to spread a paranoid conspiracy theory and misinformation that a group of RationalWiki editors who live in the same house (yes, you read that correctly) created and edited his RW article.[37]

Note 36 refers to my block log. I was blocked by Skeptical. Who was Skeptical? Oliver Smith, of course, the signs are unmistakeable.  Note 37 refers to my blog.

He was lying. “A group of RationalWiki editors.” No. One, using the account Marky (Darryl) which was created for that purpose. That there were two brothers sometimes at the same house was known from way back, on Wikipedia. However, the other brother did edit the article. What I recognize now as Oliver socks which later edited my article are Asgardian (now blocked by D as Oliver, and see his comment about himself) , Skeptical, probably Jog, Dr._Witt (see his last edit), SkepticDave, Vimpto, Pringles, EvilGremlin, Arcticos, Jean, and Tobias.

Darryl would be AstroPhysics, Anti-Fascist_for_life, various troll and impersonation socks, probably Anti_racist_man, and definitely Debunking_spiritualism.

(These are not the only socks of the Smith brothers active in the period since my article was written, just the ones that edited the article on me.)

According to this conspiracy theory — the brothers have created tens, if not hundreds of RationalWiki articles as “hit pieces” to damage people’s reputations via a Google search.

Oliver Smith has certainly created more than “tens” of articles, and describing them as hit pieces would not be an exaggeration. My article was clearly created to damage reputation, and has been used that way, heavily. Others, the same. This is not a “conspiracy theory,” and the brothers do not necessarily coordinate, but . . . it is likely that both of them complained to the WikiMedia Foundation. Oliver bragged about it, in fact, though Darryl actually organized the other complainants.

Evidence for the conspiracy theory is non-existent and was started on Encyclopædia Dramatica, arguably as satire.

Always be suspicious when something asserted by many and allegedly “believed” by many is claimed to be without evidence. That is the claim of deniers, and the guilty.

ED is satirical, yes, but I did not take fact from there without careful independent verification, and most evidence I have found directly on WMF wikis, RatWiki, and then email from Oliver himself, and his comments on ED, and other miscellaneous sources.

(Pages written about the Smiths often have what I consider errors. They have created, over the years, an heavy smokescreen, with, yes, hundreds of accounts — that is not at all an exaggeration, though 700 on RationalWiki might be, unless we include impersonation and trollsocks they created, which they have done at a high rate at various times — like what they are doing on Reddit as this is written — so errors are understandable. I considered the no-brother-all-Oliver theory, but find it difficult to fit it to the facts.)

its purpose was arguably to satirize RationalWiki skeptic editors.

Oliver and Darryl hide behind “skeptics.” Skepticism is essential to science, and my purpose in documenting the impersonations and deception is not at all to attack genuine skepticism, nor even to attack pseudoskepticism, though I write on that topic (just as some skeptics write about pseudoscience.) The ED article was not written to satirize skeptics, in general, and did not mock the Smiths for skepticism, at all. But the Smiths are constantly working to convince other Rats that they are under attack by enemies of RatWiki and of rational skepticism, while they create cause for others to attack, well beyond the necessities of the RatWiki mission.

a household of brothers who have created most the RationalWiki articles on paranormalistscreationistspsychic-believers and other pseudoscientists

That would mostly be Darryl. “Household of brothers” is language chosen to make it seem ridiculous. These are twin brothers, and apparently do not live in the same household, but were checkuser-connected back in the day when one of the brothers was away at college but visited home and accessed the internet.

The brothers have supported each other at times, but are also independent. Darryl has offended “paranormalists”, sure, but more recently has moved into diet and medicine and is attacking people with resources (as he did on Wikipedia with alternative medicine, that’s how Rome Viharo got involved). Oliver has gone after alleged racists and white supremacists — often marginal, but when he tacked in “pedophile” he set up a world of hurt for himself as well as his targets.

this consisted of unsubstantiated allegations and zero technical proof (note: RationalWiki has no check-user tool to confirm sockpuppetry)

Much in the various versions of the ED articles I have seen was supported by evidence. The claim of ” zero technical proof” is common, one more of their deceptions. My original study was entirely based on Wikipedia and WMF steward checkuser evidence, supplemented by some of my own and that of others. As well, some checkuser evidence was published from ED (but that was later, as was some checkuser evidence provided from Conservapedia for Oliver trolling there.)

(When they troll a blog, sometimes the blogger checks IP, that’s easy, WordPress shows it to admins for comments.)

As well, it’s true that RatWiki does not have the checkuser extension installed, but any tech with access to the raw access logs can see not only the same data, but more. I have technical evidence! Those who depend on hiding are depending on something that reality tends to dislike. Not safe.

There are actually many people who have independently investigated the Smiths. Oliver himself confirmed much of the brother story in email to me, but then claimed he had been lying for years, there was no brother. Either way, then, that the story would exist is not a “conspiracy theory” but a conclusion from apparent fact, which is all we ever have anyway, with degrees of reliability.

So either people are not confused and there is a reality to the “brother” story, or the person creating confusion by lying is blaming people for being confused, which is simply more lying. Neat, eh?

Analysis

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/the-threat/

This is not what began the AP affair, but what moved it to a new level and stage. A trollsock, From a tower, left this message on my meta talk page:

No further engagement

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.

Perhaps he lied, or was impersonated. Notice, however, that the next sentence contradicts “not longer be involved.”

I will do my best behind the scenes via email to get admins to delete all your material.

He did, and he sort-of-succeeded. That is, the SPA study material was deleted on Wikiversity (with my consent, moved to meta) and later on meta (because by that time it was moved to this blog). He got two educational resources on Wikiversity deleted, the one on cold fusion (which I did not start, but I had heavily added to it, and the resource on Parapsychology, both of which were rescued and moved to the CFC wiki, kept for historical reasons, along with user pages that had been cited, for example, on Wikipedia.

It turned out that filing private complaints, sometimes from multiple accounts — and he recruits others to complain, was his long-term MO — can work.

The Smiths have bragged about getting web sites taken down that dared to criticize them. They learned how to do this over the years. Administrators are human, often over-worked and certainly, on wikis, underpaid. If they get complaints from what appear to be multiple users (and sometimes they are more than one!), they do not investigate deeply, it is too much work. They just push buttons.

If you want to spend the rest of your life stalking someone that is up to you, but it is not healthy. I object to such a thing. I am done with this.

Again, a lie. He was certainly not finished, and this claim was contradicted by “doing his best.” As it happened, the Wikiversity and meta disruption largely disappeared, but then an article was created on me on RationalWiki by a new user who had obviously done an incredible amount of research. I was a sysop on RatWiki at that time. That ended very quickly without abuse of tools. And, again, that was, it turned out, an old pattern.

I would like to add though that AngloPyramidologist is innocent.

“Anglo Pyramidologist” was the Wikipedia account of Oliver D. Smith, the namesake of the Sock Puppet Investigation Archive.

If you want the debunker of parapsychology/or pseudoscience it is me. I have debated Ben in the past, he knows who I am, I have talked to him on Wikipedia in 2014.

And at other times. Here is a screenshot of a Facebook conversation, which I found on Wikiversity, having been posted by Ben long ago. The claims there are remarkable, partially confirming what is below. But the Smiths routinely lie, so none of it can be trusted. It is clear, though, that these were not Mikemikev impersonations, as later claimed. Mikemikev was in conflict with Oliver Smith (since 2012), not Darryl, and would have had no motive for the verified disruption.

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.

I created the Wikiversity resource partly so that Ben had a place to do constructive work, and that plan worked. The edits in 2017 were mistakes, yes, but harmless. This was the account Darryl used to file the SPI. Notice “globally locked.” The original filing. It outs the RL identity for Blastikus. Nobody seems to have noticed. Blastikus had used his real name for the Wikiversity account.

It’s a bit confused but these accounts were suspected, my comments in all caps. Green account was or was probably Steigmann:

This was an outrageous filing. I have marked self-reverted edits (pink), and stale accounts (With a new SUL account, created for Wikiversity, it is easy to accidentally edit Wikipedia even though blocked there. Did he realize what he was doing? I’m not sure.) They used to deny checkuser requests like this, especially from an SPA who admits he has an account, but is socking. There was an account on Wikiversity that had attacked Steigmann and the resource there. He was socking to conceal his prior interaction, and nobody seems to have noticed.

In any case, nobody was exercised about trivial socking at worst, mostly stale, so he then “must” get attention, so he impersonated, on many accounts. And it worked! Nobody looked at the obvious source of disruption, but only at the blocked user, and why? Well, he’s interested in parapsychology, and aren’t all such people insane?

After that, the filings were amended to show more socks and many highly disruptive impersonation socks, and the troll was clearly pushing for action to ban Steigmann on Wikiversity. What was totally against tradition there, but . . . he and his friends did pull it off! Even after the impersonation had been exposed.

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. If you are atheist, pro-skeptic like me and debunking fringe beliefs the admins love us. I can’t go wrong.

He has admitted creating socks that trolled for outraged response on Wikipedia. He was checkuser-identified with massive troll socking. So he is a troll. How many so-called “good hand” accounts he has is irrelevant.

He admitted massive socking on Wikipedia, with undiscovered socks. Was this an impersonator? It is implausible. He could easily be lying (and he uses lies to create useless hunts for non-existent accounts, and he will blow an actual account and set it up to blame it on someone else, another enemy, by creating accusations on various web sites that the account is His Enemy, and then “retiring” because he was allegedly outed on those web sites. That worked also, until I blew it up by identifying who really was that account.

If he partitions his access, he could survive checkuser. The stewards only came up with the many attackers of Ben Steigmann and me on Wikiversity and this particular troll, plus two Commons accounts, one of which I tracked to RationalWiki, not to Wikipedia. So if he was active on Wikipedia at that time, it was partitioned (i.e., using distinct access, it is not difficult to do, if one makes no mistakes.)

His comment about Wikipedia admin interests is unfortunately true to a degree. That Blastikus filing shows it.

He is POV-pushing, very obviously, but those who push that particular POV are often considered useful there, even though a later WP account was called a “POV pusher” by Jimbo Wales. Their POV is not a “scientific point of view,” as they claim. Science has no POV and is not pseudoskeptical, science is not a body of belief, but a method and an approach, as well as a body of evidence.

This troll is fascist, in the original sense, suppressing opinions different from his, and willing to use deception and disruption to do so. He was able to find several allies, among the Wikipedians.

I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

Later, when there is mention of the possibility of payment, they cry “Lies!” And they use arguments similar to what was argued (see below) with a steward. “No proof!”

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. Your statement we are all vandals or doing illegal activity is false. Take care and Good bye. My advise for you would be to give up. You are fighting a war you cannot 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)

I notice that the Facebook user who was taunting Ben (linked above) — similarly to this! — was Leon Kennedy. Not his name, I’m sure, but this is probably the same person.

Just before this edit to my talk page, Darryl wrote on a steward’s talk page:

Abd stalking wikipedia users

Abd has created a hit-piece here [6] that attacks AngloPyramidologist and other users. The hit-piece Abd has created contains libellous information, accusing users of ‘illegal practices’, he also accuses a Wikipedia user of ‘impersonation’ but has no technical evidence to prove that allegation, yet he presents his opinions as factual. The page is being used as a hit-piece as Abd has had a personal war with this the Wikipedia user. He also claims dangerous things that he knows the real life identities of Wikipedia editors. Abd was warned on Wikiversity for doxing several Wikipedia users [7].. This is not acceptable ‘study’. It is harassment and slander fuelled by Abd’s hatred. Can you delete it? Wikimedia should not be holding misinformation or personal grudges. From a tower (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that someone “has no technical evidence” when what the person has claimed is known to be true, he had impersonated, and the steward technical evidence was already filed and known, and he knew that. However, someone looking at that page (later deleted with my consent) could think it was imagined, and a vendetta. Mikeu from Wikiversity clearly thought so. Mikeu based his later actions on “private communications.” And that is how these trolls work. They lie to people they know might believe them.

This, by the way, was not Oliver D. Smith, i.e., not Anglo Pyramidologist, but the twin brother, mentioned early in the AP SPI archive. The warning mentioned was this. It referred to this request by Antifa activist, another SPA globally locked from this affair (thus steward-confirmed as the same LTA), containing numerous false statements, such as an attack on Manul, which did not exist. The page was almost totally lists of accounts with contributions links, taken from checkuser requests. However, as I was researching this, I came across a web page, and linked to it, and did not notice that the URL contained a name. oliver-smith-dark-entanglement/

So the admin deleted it. I was provided a copy — they certainly did not consider me a troll! — and removed that one link, and put the page up again, and that was accepted. I did not “out” the AP socks by name until much later, when it became obvious that this was already all over the internet, and as I found more evidence of illegal activity and definitely impersonation socking to defame, which they did with me, also.

That web site was incorrect, Rome Viharo had confused the two brothers. It is quite understandable. (And there remains a possibility that Oliver was both brothers and lied about the twin, as he claimed in an email to me. I consider that very unlikely. There are distinct patterns of behavior, as, in fact, partially described by Darryl in what is above. The interest in pseudoscience and debunking of psychics, etc., is Darryl, and the interest in alleged (or real) neo-Nazis and racists is Oliver. Darryl is currently focusing on what he believes is “medical or diet woo,” while Oliver is still obsessed with alleged racists, especially Michael Coombs and Emil Kirkegaard, and it is Kirkegaard who is suing Oliver for defamation.

 

The threat

This is not what began the AP affair, but what moved it to a new level and stage. A trollsock, From a tower, left this message on my meta talk page:

(This troll was conclusively identified and locked by a steward as a Long Term Abuser, the same LTA as had impersonated a Wikipedia user and attacked him on Wikiversity, and who created many troll socks as part of this affair. This has all been shown elsewhere. This was not an impersonator. What he wrote was likely true from his point of view.) I have bolded the threat, that he carried out. I have backgrounded what is likely true in green.

(See detailed analysis on the subpage which contains the content below, other than the colors.)

No further engagement

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.

If you want to spend the rest of your life stalking someone that is up to you, but it is not healthy. I object to such a thing. I am done with this.

I would like to add though that AngloPyramidologist is innocent.

If you want the debunker of parapsychology/or pseudoscience it is me. 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.

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. If you are atheist, pro-skeptic like me and debunking fringe beliefs the admins love us. I can’t go wrong.

I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

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. Your statement we are all vandals or doing illegal activity is false. Take care and Good bye. My advise for you would be to give up. You are fighting a war you cannot 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)

Just before this edit to my talk page, this user wrote on a steward’s talk page:

I have put lies or deceptions in red.

Abd stalking wikipedia users

Abd has created a hit-piece here [6] that attacks AngloPyramidologist and other users. The hit-piece Abd has created contains libellous information, accusing users of ‘illegal practices’, he also accuses a Wikipedia user of ‘impersonation’ but has no technical evidence to prove that allegation, yet he presents his opinions as factual. The page is being used as a hit-piece as Abd has had a personal war with this the Wikipedia user. He also claims dangerous things that he knows the real life identities of Wikipedia editors. Abd was warned on Wikiversity for doxing several Wikipedia users [7].. This is not acceptable ‘study’. It is harassment and slander fuelled by Abd’s hatred. Can you delete it? Wikimedia should not be holding misinformation or personal grudges. From a tower (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(The study was moved to meta and considered acceptable by stewards as an LTA study, against attempts to have it deleted. However, I did consent to deletion later, to reduce disruption, and moved it all off-wiki. Then I was globally office-banned, which is always based on private communications.)

Tobias

Registered 10:46, 12 April 2019, Tobias is the currently active Oliver Smith account on RationalWiki. Many prior accounts were blocked, before or after Tobias started up.

User page was deleted but was archived. Obviously sarcastic, but intended to reinforce later claims that other admissions were also sarcastic. Hypothes.is Annotation of page. See admission of trolling.

Let’s go back and look at Oliver accounts. Aeschylus created quite a splash.

(See Oliver desperate). Oliver requested that pages he had created be deleted. He’s being sued. But instead of simply admitting that, as the original author, he had been creating articles out of a vendetta against Emil Kirkegaard — and nearly everyone associated with Kirkegaard), he simply requested deletion because he was in legal trouble. In other words, a doomed request, because Rats would dig in their heels, not realizing the extent to which Oliver had warped RatWiki for his purposes.) Aeschylus was blocked.

Roberts was a Smith brother, probably Oliver. Blocked as probably Mikemikev. Obviously not.

Edward Dutton was created by Octo (Oliver). [blocked 22:01, 21 April 2019 as Aeschylus]. Edits by:

  • 6857 (probable Oliver) [blocked 15:02, 9 April 2019 as sock, having attacked a Mikemikev sock]
  • SimonandSimon [blocked 21:13, 17 April 2019 for “ban evasion, Smith]
  • Tobias

Tobias created:

Nathan_Cofnas

Venom commented on Talk: Nathan Cofnas with Smith agenda links, but probably is not Oliver. Blocked for ban evasion. But ban of whom?

Greenrd argued with Tobias on the Talk page and there was revert warring by Tobias.

21:33, 25 April 2019‎ Tobias edited the Coop. The edits were hidden. They attacked Greenrd, outing him; his immediate offense? Arguing with Tobias on Nathan Cofnas . This is what the Smiths do. If any editor argues with them, they scour the internet for information about the user and present it in the worst possible light, and Oliver, schizophrenic, will imagine much worse than most of us, and may, in fact, fully believe what he imagines is fact.

The filing was redacted and moved to Talk:Nathan Cofnas. On that page, Tobias continued with standard Oliver behavior, crowing about Noah Carl being dismissed from Oxford, as part of a flap that Oliver created. Yes, “mainstream journalists agreed” but, in fact, what I’ve seen was effectively quotation of RatWiki, including highly inflammatory claims that Oliver is being sued over. Some “mainstream journalism” is sloppy and lazy.

Oliver complains:

Its funny that I’m often attacked across the internet for my activities as “lying” when everything I say on RationalWiki is accurate, well-sourced and backed up independently by other people, including mainstream journalists.Tobias (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Oliver has claimed schizophrenia, which could indicate that he will “see” inferences from evidence that are far from likely. If someone else glances at that evidence, without looking at context, etc., they may well “see” the same. If so, then, Oliver is not “lying” when he claims these things, he believes them. Oliver has written things that a reasonable person would know were false, such as what I cover on WikipediaSucks on Oliver Smith.

Colloquially, he “lied.” But he is not a reasonable person, and he shows no signs of changing his behavior, he is immediately suspicious and acts on suspicions that are far from clear. It can be predicted that he will continue to disrupt RatWiki . . . even if this account is blocked. He has been blocked many times on many sites, and just creates more socks. I have yet to enumerate all I have found.

Tobias says that once Greenrd is banned, he can write an article on him. Again, that is what they have been doing for years. Why should he stop now?

Desysop & ban, then I can create an article on Mr. Green. He’s very similar to Nathan Cofnas. Do we really want hereditarians/racialists as editors, let alone sysops? From what I’ve already found about Green (since he uses the same username across internet), he’s an absolute nutjob. You can find him posting about his support for eugenics on Reddit and he’s in the same HBDcircle as people like Cofnas, Noah CarlHbdchick etc. Tobias (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And Tobias is not a nutjob? This page — from a very right-wing publication, anonymous author, but a legally responsible organization (VDARE, unlike RatWiki) — covers Oliver.

Clear difference: Green is open about his identity. Tobias is now so thoroughly outed that he can’t pretend with an account like Tobias, but it is still difficult to research hundreds of accounts!

(And when one does, of course, and reports it, the Smiths claim “impersonation.” Lies! Even though impersonation is preposterous, in most cases that matter.)

See the Reddit discussion of that VDARE article. It was bombarded with trollsocks, over a hundred comments, most repeating the same thing over and over. This is Smith behavior, attempting to bury anything critical of them with noise and also with lies and deceptions repeated under many different names, that’s classical sock puppetry. (There were many other trollsocks created at this time, commenting on threads that other trollsocks had created about me, about Dysklyver, about Mikemikev. They blame it on me or on Mikemikev, as they have blamed many others in the past.

(As we will see, Oliver claims that I accused him of being the master behind all those Reddit socks. I haven’t, that was simply another false statement from him, not supported by the actual statements. He does that all the time, so people often say that he lies — and I sometimes do this as well. But he’s insane, and may well believe what is completely preposterous. The insane put it all together differently than clearer thinkers do.)

More classic Oliver antics as Tobias:

  • Attacks Glamour Sickle. GS was blocked as Mikemikev, but the evidence for that was that he pointed to a screenshot hosted on EmilKirkegaard’s blog that was a mail from Oliver Smith’s attorney. Since Oliver was attacking GS for . . . for what? . . . GS pointing to that could simply indicate that he realized who was attacking him and found that document.

It was stupid — or ignorant — to post it if he cared about the account, whomever he was. But with no privileges, easier to just create another account if he is silly enough to want to waste more time on RatWiki.

The flap began over this edit. I can see why Oliver would object, it was overstated, and Oliver is obsessed about this issue, but the position was not at all what I would expect from Mikemikev. This is not a racist position, almost the opposite. Tobias attacked GS as Mikemikev, which is behavior that got him blocked before. Here.

The screenshot is present in the archived version of Kirkegaard’s blog page on Oliver, timestamped April 19, 2019. So GS could easily have seen that. This has happened again and again on RatWiki. New user writes something that sets Oliver off, who makes personal accusations. So the person figures out who Oliver is and says so. Off with their head! Or this actually was Mikemikev playing a more patient game than before, creating RW content that can actually be accepted by Rats. Oliver wants it deleted, not because it’s wrong, but because it was allegedly written by Mikemikev. Very old story.

    • Block of CBH by Tobias. CBH was anti-hereditarian, and I suspected him of being Oliver. But it could be Darryl or someone else. This discussion on Talk:Eric Turkheimer shows standard Oliver behavior.
      • Jsolinsky worked on the article as a Turkeimer supporter, perhaps, and was harassed and cooped, driven away. Standard RatWiki.
      • Concerned was obviously Oliver Smith, blocked for ban evasion 23 March 2019.
      • CBH defended his article, he was attacked by Concerned as a troll.  So pattern: Oliver disagrees with someone on the fine points of “hereditarianism,” and so Oliver accuses him of being The Enemy, and blocks him or accuses him of Bad Behavior and gets someone else to block him. It’s been going on for a long time. Tobias claims that CBH was a sock of Jean Lusaz. And see here, by Concerned on CBH.
      • Jean_Lusaz is called a “problem editor.” Never blocked, no rights changes. Lusaz created pages:

So Tobias was deceptive to claim Lusaz was “cooped.” He tried and failed. (But a schizophrenic may remember an event like that differently from a normal person. That he filed it made it real.)

Lusaz and CBH created three attack pages similarly to Oliver. I am not claiming they are the same, not at all. But Oliver could see him/them as competitors in writing pages on alleged racists and racialist pseudoscientists. There is no evidence shown that Lusaz and CBH were the same user. Neither one was particularly disruptive, they were not blocked (except CBH by Oliver, months later, unblocked by Dysklyver). Oliver was blocked for his behavior, which he is repeating, as well as for his own good (i.e., with his legal and health problems, he would be better off not stirring the pot so intensely), not creating more attack articles on RatWiki.

Tobias was given a “probation.” How far does he need to go? I’ve annotated that talk page discussion.

Update May 8, 2019

And this goes on and on.

Tobias commented on the Reddit mess. I have annotated this with Hypothes.is, to put those comments on Reddit without creating tomes, but here is that discussion as well, from Talk:Emil Kirkegaard, the last place he should be touching, given his legal issues.

Impersonations on Reddit

It’s the same pattern with dumb and dumber. Mikemikev creates an account attacking Emil Kirkegaard, then Abd ul-Rahman Lomax shows up claiming it is me. I don’t post on Reddit and none of these accounts are mine. I just blocked several accounts of Mike today here linking to Reddit.

It is implausible that Mikemikev would be attacking Kirkegaard, even if they may have disagreements. Mikemikev can contact Kirkegaard directly if he has the question that was raised in the thread. I did not claim that the account was Oliver. Oliver does not read carefully, because he is simply looking for what is “wrong,” to attack. I don’t know if it was him, but the many accounts created repeat the Smith party line.

It could be either brother, or, less likely, someone else who supports them. Mikemikev is implausible because the throwaway accounts would be counter to his agenda. The “created to impersonate Oliver” is quite a funny argument. I.e., create an account that makes a series of dumb claims, repeated over and over, that are Oliver’s claims, it would be an impersonation. Yes, it would. But nobody is going to block Oliver anywhere because of those socks. Real impersonation socks are created to attrract those kinds of responses from clueless communities.

Many Mikemikev accounts on RatWiki are completely obvious as him, but we should be aware that there have been impersonations for a long time. Dysklyver has received emails that were from Mikemikev, and Mikemikev could deny that from known accounts.

This lack of timely denial — when an impersonation is visible, and from an account known to be the target, such as from a known Oliver email — is evidence against impersonation. The Reddit accounts are not impersonating Mikemikev, but are doing a great job impersonating a Smith brother, pointing to articles created by the Smiths.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/blegca/why_was_emil_kirkegaard_user_deleet_blocked_from/ Tobias (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Mikemikev’s and Abd increased trolling activity is because they know there is an impending lawsuit involving Kirkegaaard;

Schizophrenics routinely believe that they can read the minds of others, that they know incentives. This one is preposterous: the activity that Oliver is calling trolling was not from me, nor from Mikemikev. Mikemikev may well have posted links to the Reddit discussions on RatWiki. Believe me, I’ve been tempted to do that! But I have not. (It is impossible to stop such comments, but socking is not my MO, unlike what the Smiths have claimed. I *have* created RatWiki accounts, and have edited IP there, but it has been far more rare than they claim, and for arguably legitimate purposes; for example, I used an account to ask a Rat if a comment elsewhere, using his name, was him. It was not. Of course, that account was also blocked. Anyone frustrating the Smith agenda in any way will be blocked if they think they can get away with it.

They are fascists, suppressing free discussion. And that’s been consistent for years. They will object to “fascist” thinking that it means “neo-Nazi” or “antisemitic” or something. That is not the original meaning of the term, it is about the suppression of freedom in the name of collective “rightness,” and it can be left-wing or right-wing or even “anti-fascist.”

Fasicists are enemies of academic freedom, which must include the freedom to be wrong. There are limits, to be sure. But a free society permits much and only acts as minimally necessary to contain damage from deceptive ideas. There is always a tension, but the Smiths come down firmly on the side of suppressing whatever they believe is wrong, and in many areas: parapsychology, cold fusion, medical and diet “woo,” including skepticism directed at authoritarian positions, which they will call “denialism.”

Thus they are not genuine skeptics.

I’m guessing Mikemikev is trying to cause me legal trouble hence why he’s trying to blame his Reddit attacks on Kirkegaard onto me,

The Reddit socking does not cause Oliver any legal trouble. He is ignorant. The only way they could cause him trouble is if it could be shown in court that they were him. That is not impossible, but unlikely unless they were him. I would encourage him to realize that, if he is deposed or appears at trial, that lying under oath is truly stupid, very risky, he could go to jail for it, whereas in a civil suit, he only risks damages, and he claims he is judgment-proof.

So Oliver is imagining and asserting (for whose benefit?) what is quite implausible, unless Mikemikev is really stupid. The Rats do imagine that all alleged “racists” are stupid, so they sometimes believe arguments like this. I have not had any political discussions with Mikemikev, but I’ve not yet found him to lie, and when I pointed that out, he suggested that maybe I should consider his political positions in that light, at least that is how I interpreted it. But people can hold and express quite bizarre political positions and not be, therefore, liars. We need political discussion between people of highly divergent views, but who are not willing to lie, because it becomes impossible to find peace and justice if people lie.

Lies are the enemy of humanity, a truly ancient enemy.

and all his socking here today related to spamming Reddit, which is quite pointless since I’ve already shown my lawyer all of Mikemikev’s impersonations

There was socking, indeed, pointing to Reddit, for two reasons: there was an article published in VDARE, a right-wing publication, well-funded, “responsible.” Which means that if they defame you, you could sue their ass off, and recovery is possible. The article was on the wikis (Wikipedia and RatWiki) and Oliver D. Smith. And it thoroughly outed him, far more deeply than I have ever seen before, giving an aerial photo of exactly where his parents live — information I did not have before. (The Smiths have claimed for a year and a half that I “publish the addresses of skeptics” — meaning themselves — when what I actually did was have a street (not the house location) from a document that had been published in various places, with the names of the residents. I redacted that within a day, even though it was harmless. This is how they create defamation, they find something that can be stated that “looks bad” when taken out of context, and then repeat it in dozens of places. Or more.

That he has shown his lawyer alleged impersonations (again, are those impersonations — they do not claim to be Oliver Smith) is meaningless. But schizophrenics create meaning, routinely, it is in the nature of the disorder. He is being sued by Kirkegaard and possibly others. What would Mikemikev’s behavior have to do with this, that his lawyer would be interested? What, “Look how mean they are to me!”

His poor lawyer! The communication from the lawyer, trolled onto RatWiki.

To find the latest scoop on Oliver, I look at logs for his account and see whom he has blocked, then look at their contributions. Oliver has never learned that by reacting to trolling, you can call attention to it. Dysklyver has recently attempted to explain this to him. Deaf ears.

So Oliver (Tobias) blocked Smashism. (Ban evasion: mikemikev) Smashism Contributions are Juicy.

Oliver (as SimonandSimon) created Lance Welton, the pseudonym of the author of the VDARE article on him, after that article had been published (April 6, 2019). This, again, is standard Smith behavior: create articles attacking anyone who exposes what they do. Okay, so maybe this was missional for RatWiki in this case, but did the article mention that piece, which was extensively about RatWiki including in the title?

No. So Smashism contributions:

From the RatWiki meeting page, the Saloon Bar:

Hey Guys

Have you seen this article about you in VDare? Smashism (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

From the article on Lance Welton:

Welton has also written a hit-piece on Rationalwiki editor Oliver D. Smith.[23]

23. Lunatics Take Over Asylum: Oliver D. Smith, RationalWiki, And The Wikipedeans

When I was still a sysop on RatWiki, I made a small harmless change to the article created on me by Oliver’s brother. I was yelled at for COI editing. So, here, Oliver has an obvious COI, and he uses his tools to support it, instead of letting others handle it. That’s not only bad for his own state of mind, but it is also a demonstration of how RatWiki has bent over backwards over the years to accommodate the Smiths.

He reverted the edit without explanation, and semi-protected the article “prevent more mikemikev socks”. He blocked Smashism, of course, Ban evasion: mikemikev). He trolltopped the “hey guys” Saloon bar comment, but then, this is the first Dysklyver action I have seen that I’d question. He deleted it. It is very normal for RatWiki to cover articles written about it, even “crappy” articles.” they have have a whole “Pissed at us” page. So why not this? Both Smashism additions were true and verifiable. But there are Forbidden Topics on RatWiki, and anything Smith brothers is Untouchable. Except some recent approaches.

As long as RatWiki suppresses inconvenient information, there will be continued disruption, and the methods used to suppress make that much more likely. Insulting trolls encourages them, always.

Smashism may have been Mikemikev, it’s plausible. But this is by no means clear. It could have been anyone who saw that and thought it relevant. It is certainly relevant to the Lance Welton article! And Rats, I would think, would be interested in the fact that Oliver had an obvious axe to grind.

Back to what Oliver wrote about Mikemikev.

 

(he seems to have recently also been trolling Kirkegaard on 4chan), furthermore I’ve also made a disclaimer pointing out I don’t post on Reddit. Let me also respond to some of Abd’s lies:

Oliver can make any number of disclaimers, it is not proof, because he is a known and admitted liar. That does not mean he is lying on this, but I did not accuse him of posting on Reddit. I pointed out that the pile of throwaway accounts were pursuing a Smith agenda. Easily, it could have been his brother. As to 4chan, the trolling of Kirkegaard (no reference was given) could easily be from the same source as the Reddit sock farm, and Oliver sees Mikemikev underneath every bed and noise in the night. Again, schizophrenia, not a fun disorder, unless one learns to be careful and rigorously and thoroughly honest. In which case it can be a blast!

Oliver is following 4chan? Someone take his computer access away, he doesn’t need that mind-rot.

  • Abd falsely claims I contacted the media (who?) about Kirkegaard. I never did and he presents no evidence for this outright lie.

From the hypothes.is annotation for an archive.is copy of this page: “The media contact claim came from Skeptic Dave, referring to the author of two articles that Oliver has admitted writing. Skeptic Dave was Oliver (Aeschylus), see the block log.

This is conclusive. It is possible that Oliver does not remember all that he has done. But if he has any sense, he will look at evidence indicating his memory is defective. It could be the first step toward recovering from his disorders. Rational skepticism does not forget to be skeptical of ourselves and our memories. I learned this years ago, by recording and creating transcripts of meetings I had attended. Most people would think that a waste of time, obsessive. But I learned from it that my memories of what happened and what actually happened were different. In later training all this became very clear. This is normal human psychology, but not understood by many.

  • Abd falsely claims I first added the RationalWiki section about Kirkegaard’s writings on paedophilia. Nope. Those were originally added by another editor  (in 2016 those claims were never on the article version I wrote), secondly I never knew about this blog post until Oliver Keyes (not me) posted about. So I never even dug this up.

Again a memory problem? He is correct that the claims were not in the first version, he created. It is also possible that the information came from Oliver Keyes — I have no opinion on that, and it does not matter. Rather, the pedophilia claims were added by Schizophrenic., see my page covering that account.

Schizophrenic admitted being Oliver, and if this was an impersonator, it was not handled until long after, once it had been externally noticed. But Schizophrenic was quite active, on topics of high Oliver interest, not just Emil Kirkegaard.

If Oliver keeps up his historical behavior, faced with evidence, he will foam at the mouth, “Lies! You are defending a pedophile-apologist neo-Nazi racist! You have no proof!” And then he writes about others being nut cases, and ugly as well. (In that little flap, Oliver shows that he believes gratuitous insults are acceptable if the target has done something wrong, somehow, somewhere. This is all linkage that I would expect from the disorders he has claimed.)

  • Abd repeatedly claims without evidence I’ve “defamed” Kirkegaard. That’s for a judge or court to decide. My defence is truth or honest opinion.Tobias (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It is true that “defamation” is conclusory, not factual. However, Oliver writes conclusions as if fact, constantly. I could not testify in court that Oliver defamed Kirkegaard, because I would not be considered legally competent to come to that conclusion. But I could assert this in a complaint, as I’m sure Kirkegaard has. I can assert this in ordinary speech. Now, he asserts that I claim “without evidence,” yet this is simply his opinion, certainly not “truth.” I’ve presented evidence many times, but here it is again, one piece among many. His email to me. In it, he calls Emil Kirkegaard a “neo-Nazi pedophile.” My informed but not-expert option is that this was defamation, and this not marginal, and was not from a possible impersonator.

If Oliver had not also made sure that this libel was widely published and cited and the meme continuing to be distributed, it would probably have come to nothing. But he did do those things.

He is denying that he contacted media. Of course! Spreading that story to media was defamation, intended to harm.

Honest opinion is not enough. If we are not careful with how we express our honest opinions, we easily can create harm to others, and we may be held legally responsible. If what we express is obviously mere opinion, such as “He is an idiot!” it may not be actionable. But if it has a possible factual basis, with serious consequences for the target, such as “So-and-so is a pedophile and I have proof,” then actual harm can be caused through even inadvertent error. We are responsible for the harm caused by our “inadvertent errors.” Such as traffic accidents.

This is civil law, not criminal. In criminal law, there must be mens rea, “intention of wrong-doing”.

Now, Oliver has said things like this many times, “Abd repeatedly claims without evidence …” yet one of the reasons I have a reputation for writing so much is that I present a great deal of evidence. So if his words have any meaning, and if he is not insane, he’s lying. There is evidence, plenty of it.

Of course, he’s also insane, so he might or might not be lying. I’m not a mind-reader, unlike so many Rats who seem to know how “woo-believers” and other objects of their derision think.

Update May 9, 2019

Oliver (Tobias) responded, again on the totally inappropriate page, Talk:Emil Kirkegaard. They are ruminating about this kind of activity on the Moderator’s forum, though the Smiths have long been importing drama from other sites onto RatWiki.

Lomax has responded to above, predictably writing more lies. Laughably his “evidence” for the first claim about me contacting the media is a troll account that made some tongue-in-cheek comments and jokes (which I’ve pointed out to him multiple times, but he continues to quote deliberately out of context for his own delusions); the same account also made plenty of non-serious claims such as “This is my 59809540990228822 account. Whew. I keep loosing track.” According to Lomax, that must then mean I have 59809540990228822 accounts. Apparently if you crack a joke on the internet or shit-post, it must all be true. Tobias (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oliver almost never gives links to the actual claims he calls “lies.” Here, he calls SkepticDave a troll account and claims SkepticDave was joking. It did not look like a joke, and nobody laughed. Again, Oliver draws a conclusion and then attributes it to me, about an actual joke. The reality was that Skeptic Dave had many accounts, how many I have never counted.

SkepticDave edited from 10 January 2018 to 4 February 2018, and was given autopatrolled. While SD focused on Oliver topics, mostly, his first edit was a possible Darryl topic (i.e., Oliver’s brother). I see accessory signs that, however, SD was indeed Oliver. The following is reasonably conclusive:

SkepticDave created  .Anatoly_Karlin. This was later edited by Agent47M87, Arcticos, and Tobias, all Oliver socks. All but Tobias have been blocked as socks of Aeschylus (Oliver), who admitted creating the Karlin article.

So Oliver is either insane or lying.

He’s also still repeating his favourite conspiracy theory I have a brother who edits RationalWiki/Reddit who is somehow paid money by someone to edit here, despite those claims originated by trolls on Encyclopedia Dramatica.Tobias (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is an old story. First of all, the brother. Oliver has many times commented on his brother, or on his “family,” and has often complained that his “family” is being outed on pages that refer only to the two twin brothers. In his email to me of January-25-2018, Oliver wrote, about his brother:

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

(Oliver saw no harm in impersonating a “ghost-believer” to get him blocked and his study of sources deleted.)

The story of payment shows up also in the comment by Darryl to me on meta.

I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

I have never claimed that Darryl was actually paid, but that it is possible.

In a conversation with his target, Darryl refers to the Guerilla Skeptics (who are almost certainly volunteers) but says he is involved much deeper than that, which could be a reference to being a paid editor.

As well, Oliver wrote me, April 7, 2018, that there was no brother, and suggested I ask Rome Viharo for email he had sent to Viharo. I did, and Viharo supplied me with the mails, and this is from the mail of  that same day.

A method to get unblocked on Wikipedia is to claim you have a brother or sister editing. I used that excuse several times to get unblocked many years back. I don’t even have a real sister, but made an account pretending to be female, and so on. I don’t have any links to ‘skeptics’ and I posted the same false information to Farley. At one point he was trying to see what was going on, and I just gave him the brother story I invented. I fed people nonsense about shadow skeptic organisations and paid editing, there’s none of it. It’s all one guy (me) and I have no connections.

There is no evidence of a sister, other than the Wikipedia account HealthyGirl, blocked as an AP sock (good hand account, by the way, caught up in checkuser). There are public records showing a brother the same age, Darryl. The behaviors are different. He was now lying about lying. Now, why bring up Farley? Well, Farley would be a possible connection with the James Randi Educational Foundation, which might have had funding for writing. Again, that’s speculation, but the point is that the paid editing suspicion is not without evidence. There are two organizations, and neither are “shadow,” Guerilla Skeptics (Susan Gerbic running it) and JREF.

And somebody has clearly been protecting the Smiths on RationalWiki. What they have done would have gotten any ordinary user “promoted” and banned several times over.

This had nothing to do with Encyclopedia Dramatica, but that has been a common Smith claim. Blame it all on ED and on Michaeldsuarez. Or blame it all on Michael Coombs or Abd. There have been other targets, such as GethN7, and Joshua Connor Moon and his mother.

Yet if this was all a lie, how can others be at fault for believing it? Oliver arguments can be like this, internally self-contradictory. No brother, and “doxxing my family.”

But if his brother were actually being paid, his brother might not be thrilled at how much Oliver revealed, that could be clearly shown to be him, and to protect family income, Oliver might well take on all the blame. After all, he has no job and is on public assistance, living with his parents, or so his lawyer wrote.

Later, he wrote to Viharo:

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

Oliver has never understood how I think. Since I’ve been very young, I hold multiple contradictory ideas in my mind, and I “believe” none of them. Rather, I explore possibilities. First of all, from what I’ve seen, Oliver was not Dan Skeptic, that was clearly Darryl.

Should he be “criticized” for protecting a brother? Surely that depends on what the brother did! I explained to him, as others had explained to him, that he can become responsible for what his brother has done if he protects him from natural consequences, to the detriment of others. But when a conversation starts to become real, something breaks and he starts frothing at the mouth.

There is very little hope for him with his disorders if he doesn’t make a choice of total honesty. He really can’t afford to screw around with it. As he is, his life expectancy is low, he is at high risk.

Tobias continues to careen from one fracas to another, on RatWiki.

May 10, 2019

Jinx commented, as EverymorningWP, in the Reddit thread Why was Emil Kirkegaard user: Deleet blocked from Wikipedia? He also confirmed his identity as Jinx on RatWiki. Wow! A Rat who is open, this is refreshing! (There are a few, to be sure.)

On User talk:Jinx.

Reddit trolling

The users on the Reddit thread are Mikemikev and Abd. Both of them are notorious for creating countless troll socks, including impersonating other users. @D was also apparently impersonated there and I now see either Mike or Abd has created a sock using my name.Tobias (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean I think I already had a good idea of that since it was pointed out in the thread. I don’t see “Tobias” anywhere there. I honestly don’t know that much about this whole Oliver Smith/abd situation. Jinx (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Tl;dr, Reddit is full of trolls. 🙂 — NekoDysk 09:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, There is only one account in the thread that is at all likely to be Mikemikev, and that is OliverDSmithAntifa, which also explains Tobias’s (Oliver’s) comment about a sock “using his name.”

I have never impersonated anyone. Not ever. An “impersonation sock” is one that pretends to be someone and, with that guise, acts badly or disruptively or offensively in order to throw mud on the target. Mikemikev has created many accounts using Oliver Smith or variations in them, but none of these (that I have seen so far) could have been mistaken for Oliver. Some claimed impersonations, my review indicates, were actually Oliver, such as, on RatWiki, Schizophrenic (obviously Oliver) and Schizophreniac (a little more difficult, but wrote a bio of Oliver that was utterly unlike any of the hostile bios, it was how he sees himself.) As to Schizophrenic, notice who blocked him, and then who blocked the blocking sysop and why.  (Aeschylus  — see above — was Oliver. In fact, Dysklyver erred there, I think, but if not, I’d be fascinated to learn why. DS was not Oliver, but his brother Darryl, and much stands on this intelligence.)

I have also not seen any Mikemikev true impersonations, as distinct from parody accounts, like OliverDSmithAntifa. I am not certain that was Mikemikev, because lately the Smiths have been claiming there are many Mikemikev throwaway accounts on Reddit, for accounts I’m sure are them, and might have created that in order to strengthen the story. But as D (Nekodysk, Dysklyver) has pointed out, without a program, it is a tad difficult to distinguish between a crazy loon, and another crazy loon imitating a crazy loon. — But it can often be done, because crazies still have individual personalities, and there is the issue of what the police call “guilty knowledge.”

But it is certainly possible to distinguish the real people, and Jinx (known open identity), Dysklyver (ditto) and myself, from anonymous trolls. Oliver D. Smith is also a real person and has sometimes been open about it. He claims he is not creating all those Reddit socks, and he might be telling the truth. It might be his brother, which he often does not mention as he blames everyone else. But some recent comments I think might have been difficult for even his brother to write.

What is clear about all those socks is that they are singing the Smith opera, referring to Smith-written articles on RatWiki, repeating the standard Smith memes. By the duck test, on Wikipedia, these would have been whacked as Anglo Pyramidologist long ago. But the Wikipedians are slow, sometimes. This was Oliver, 99.9%. I see three strong signs.

Could the flood of throwaway socks be impersonations of Oliver or his brother? While it is possible, it is quite unlikely, because those socks are pursuing the agenda of the Smiths, attacking their enemies. Most impersonation socks are quick, throwaway, because it’s a lot of work to actually play out, in detail, someone else’s agenda. There are many impersonation socks pretending to me that have edited RatWiki. They have been listed as me by the probable sock master — which was probably Darryl, not Oliver. They will often copy a piece of text I wrote and then spam it, irritating the Rats no end.

Ah, the Smith brothers. Jinx, you have comments from three Oliver Smith socks on your Talk page.  PunisherOcto, Concerned. These were all identified by me as Oliver, well before Dysklyver acted on his own information, and, of course, the Smiths called it all “lies.”

Meanwhile, those throwaway accounts. Oliver will focus on the parody account, as if it has something to do with the others. This is his long-term method of handling evidence. He will point to what supports his point, especially at what makes his enemies look bad, with abundant hostile interpretation, and suppress or distract from all the rest. He does it with all his targets, and it is how he writes articles. In that particular Reddit thread, these are the throwaways:

(The year is all 2019, times are GMT-4)

  1. May 6 12:24 Waters4545 started the thread asking about Deleet (Kirkegaard). Mikemikev — or I — could ask Kirkegaard directly. No, this question was asked to provide a soapbox for smearing Kirkegaard.
  2. May 6 14:06 JamesfromBoston standard Smith deception libelling Kirkegaard, through quotation out of context.
  3. May 8 10:07 sarahfromscotland attacks Kirkegaard and me.
  4. May 8 10:19 sarahfromscotland
  5. May 8 10:29 sarahfromscotland attacks Kirkegaard and me.
  6. May 8 10:40 sarahfromscotland attacks Kirkegaard and me.
  7. May 8 10:53 sarahfromscotland
  8. May 8 11:04 sarahfromscotland extensive rant
  9. May 8 11:16 robertwaltons asserts impersonations but promotes Smith agenda.
  10. May 8 11:26 robertwaltons all seven comments from this account are identical
  11. May 8 11:36 robertwaltons
  12. May 8 12:01 robertwaltons
  13. May 8 12:20 robertwaltons
  14. May 8 12:35 robertwaltons
  15. May 8 12:45 robertwaltons
  16. May 8 20:17 sarahfromscotland claims child rape apology represents Kirkegaard’s “views” because he wrote them, but he wrote them, not as his views, but as a description of how a pedophile might think. And then he rejected the thinking and suggested castration. This child rape story that has been repeated all over the internet, all promoted by Oliver, (and then cited by him as proof it is true), classic deception by quotation out of context, and still supported on RatWiki. Of course that I’ve divorced seven times is brought up, as if relevant, and this is, again, standard Oliver rant. He’s pushed this in many places. (It’s misleading. . . . but this is not the place to explain it.)
  17. May 8 20:32 sarahfromscotland
  18. May 9 10:06 OliverDSmithAntifa parody troll or impersonation of Mikemikev
  19. May 9 10:29 OliverDSmithAntifa copy of above.
  • Total comments: 52
  • Comments by SPAs: 18 (plus OP)
  • Comments by Abd: 23 (I tag all SPAs because they often delete the account)
  • Comments by others: 11

Notice the timings. It is easy to interlace timings tightly, I once tested this on Wikipedia, I was able to create more than three comments with different accounts, with the same minute timestamp. Doing that while avoiding checkuser would be a tad hairy, but possible. The length of the comments does not matter. But this is not how people ordinarily edit, and this sockmaster did not bother, it is too much trouble for too little gain.

Why do the Smiths lie so blatantly and so obviously? They have found that it doesn’t matter. Few care, and he has learned what propagandists wrote about extensively in the last century. Lie often enough, throw enough mud, and many people will believe it. If the mud confirms what people readily believe, they will repeat it, and we place higher credence on what we hear from more than one source. Fake news. It’s a thing. “So many people saying this on the internet, must be true!” And this cuts in all directions.

One more point here. Oliver might believe what he writes. There are conditions that create high certainty from very weak evidence, schizophrenia is one of them. Looking at the claims of the socks, and I’ve seen the same from validated Smith communications, an impression arises and then all subsequent evidence is interpreted to maintain the original impression. This is a very common problem, but it is extreme with certain psychological conditions. More ordinarily, it is “confirmation bias.” Wikipedia. RationalWiki.

The RatWiki article is hilarious.

Additional comment by Oliver

@Jinx It’s the “Smith brother conspiracy theory”, there used to be an article on it but was deleted. Abd still claims there are two “Smith brothers” who edit this wiki. He never provides any evidence and just spreads misinformation.Tobias (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Oliver has acknowledged the brother, Darryl L. Smith, many times. The current Darryl account is John66. There may be others, but John66 is clearly a continuation of the Wikipedia account Skeptic from Britain — fingered as his brother Darryl on Encyclopedia Dramatica by a clear Oliver account (MrStrong).

Michaeldsuarez (JuniusThaddeus) revealed that conversation because Oliver had accused me of being Skeptic from Britain, and MDS hates lying like that. However, because of the accusation, I had already investigated and concluded that, yes, SfB was Darryl. When SfB “retired” from Wikipedia, he took up on the account John66, still active, covering the same subjects. Darryl has been very active for years, with many accounts on Wikipedia and RatWiki, and would be unlikely to just disappear.

The claim of “never provides any evidence” is a clear lie. Oliver may  argue with the evidence, but it exists, and is extensive. I have not shown all of it, by the way, because I don’t want certain sock puppetry investigation techniques revealed (I investigated socks for years on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and it is useful that sock masters do not know exactly how they reveal their identity.)

Oliver confirmed much about his brother in his emails with me, which he later claimed were harassment, yet another lie. Those were voluntary communications, the exchange was begun by him.

In that correspondence, he began by confirming what already I knew, by then. Later, he claimed that the whole brother story was a lie, it was all him. Now, was he lying or telling the truth?

Wait, if he was telling the truth, the brother story was a lie, but it would still be evidence, a confession, so he is lying when he claims there is no evidence — even if there were not a mountain of evidence besides this.

Oliver ties himself up in knots attempting to conceal reality. Oliver is facing real legal action. He’s lied too many times about too many people, some of whom may not care that he is “judgment proof.”

Oliver does not link to the deleted article. This is common, he does not make it easy to check his claims. Here is a link to the deletion request

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/RationalWiki_Smith_brothers_conspiracy_theory

Note added: I have recovered the page and it is at anglo-pyramidologist/rationalwiki-smith-brothers-conspiracy-theory/, with added commentary.

As you will find, the article was not only deleted, but recently suppressed. This article was written from the point of view of the Smith brothers, to ridicule the “conspiracy theory.” It did not out the brothers. I was a sysop at the time, and the deletion requester was Marky, the Darryl Smith sock who had created the article on me, fulfilling on his threats. The article creator was MrOrganic, i.e., Oliver Smith. (see the suppression log for MrOrganic.) (And, by the way, if you look through contributions, Krom was Oliver Smith, that’s very well-known and admitted).

Definitely not Rome Viharo! Some Rats are idiots. Or liars.

If they believed this was Rome Viharo, MrOrganic would have been blocked in a flash. I have generally concluded that David Gerard is not merely deluded, he knows what he’s been doing. But I could be wrong.

How do I know what I claim above? Well, I was there, very involved, for starters. I have also spent way too many hours studying the interactions of the Smiths, especially with RatWiki. They are recognizable and distinguishable by many signs.

How does a tracker know what animal they are tracking by signs on the ground? Well, long experience. I’ll share this with anyone actually interested, but you will not know how to track an animal from a few words.

And, yes, my training is in science, and I have done control experiments with some of the techniques I use. For example, they claim I linked a Smith sock with Bongolian. No, not in the least, but I did show clear evidence that Bongolian was not Debunking Spiritualism/John66.  How they converted that into an accusation of Bongolian is beyond me, but they did.)

Bottom line, this must be understood or the situation will seem crazy and mysterious: They lie. A lot. They lie when anyone could readily determine it as such, if willing to look at evidence. Because Oliver is insane, he might not technically be lying. But Darryl is high-functioning.

This is not some ordinary political disagreement. My general political orientation is progressive. I trust the claims of anthropogenic global warming, but . . . I confronted abuse of tools on Wikipedia to suppress information from reliable sources that might question it in some way, and the blocking of users who were called “denialists,” but who were civil and did not violate policies, because academic freedom is essential to science, and neutrality to a true encyclopedia.

MrOrganic

Oliver has, again and again, frothing at the mouth, revealed what had been concealed. However, to understand this, we need to know that he also lies; he tells whatever lies fit the situation. But he doesn’t realize how much is disclosed, until perhaps later. Then he may say he was lying or joking or being sarcastic. And then sometimes he is, in fact, being sarcastic, but with the truth.

For some background, Block log for MrOrganic:

  • 01:22, 11 May 2019 D (talk | contribs) changed block settings for MrOrganic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (tut tut, you forgot to pull talk page access)
  • 01:19, 11 May 2019 Tobias (talk | contribs) blocked MrOrganic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Ban evasion: Mikemikev or Abd Lomax sock, Lomax is now trying to blame onto someone else on his blog) (unblock | change block)
  • 17:29, 9 October 2017 Abd (talk | contribs | block) blocked MrOrganic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled) (vandalism by SPA supressing completion of expression) (unblock | change block)

and then:

  • 19:59, 9 October 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Abd from Autopatrolled and Sysop to Autopatrolled (attempted harassment, ban may follow)

So now, from User talk:D (Dysklyver, NekoDysk)

this

Special:Contributions/MrOrganic is not who u think EK (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

And this brings up, WTF is EK? And how does EK know who MrOrganic was? EK is a new account created 25 Feb 2019, immediately joined (or was already a member) of the Discord server, is now a mod there, promptly opped by D the next day, with “(unabashed nepotism), ” and when later promoted for lack of demonstrated editing, re-opped by D with “(no reason to desysop, implicitly trusted)”. EK has restrained Oliver, showing much more than normal knowledge. So this is an additional clue.

(Inb4 Tobias dumps a wall of text) I know it’s technically misidentified, but honestly it doesn’t matter who exactly it was since they definitely merited a block, and I can’t be asked to relitigate a drama from 2017. 😏 — NekoDysk 11:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@EKNekoDysk 11:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

MrOrganic was not identified in the block log. So he must be referring to my identification as Oliver. At the time, I suspected this was Darryl, but I have learned to distinguish these socks with far more precision. MrOrganic was Oliver, unless someone was a very sophisticated imitator, unlikely then — and still. It could be done, to be sure, but who would have a motivation to go to so much work, and especially then? I was not yet completely convinced about the Smiths, and was not particularly aware of the ED pages (though I don’t remember when I first saw them). I was only operating on suspicion that the Anglo Pyramidologist sock family was involved in the disruption I had encountered on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. I was not at that point tagging them as “Smiths”, except accidentally, once, the name being in a link that was promptly deleted.

David Gerard knows who it is. Emails were sent when that “Smith brother conspiracy theory” page was made and he quickly deleted it.

Indeed he did. And what has become completely clear is that the Smiths operate through private complaints. Notice that Oliver does not disclose who sent the emails and how he knows it. Gerard deleted the page with “(Harassment: yeah, no)”, but took no action against the creator, but . . . against me for blocking the creator. The formal deletion request was by Marky, i.e., the AP sock who had harassed me on Wikipedia, and who had objected to my using the name “Anglo Pyramidologist” for the sock family — that is the Wikipedia name for the SPI archive — claiming that he was not Anglo, and he wasn’t. He was Darryl. Or there is a third brother, which was hinted, and there is an older brother in the family, which could explain some mysteries. I have not named that brother, but others have shown the documentation.

But the evidence is strong that MrOrganic was Oliver. He still shows the same idiosyncracies.

The problem is Abd/Mike are known to create impersonator accounts, double impersonations (accounts attacking themselves while impersonating an impersonator) and well… it’s just confusing and insane. But the purpose of that account was doxing.

The purpose was to head off doxxing by labelling it a “conspiracy theory,” and that’s obvious. As to impersonator accounts, they have been common on RatWiki for a long time. But Oliver confuses parody accounts and other non-impersonations with impersonations. If MrOrganic was an impersonation, of whom? MrOrganic did display many Smith behaviors, and was recognized — probably by Mikemikev — but . . . the was a Smith sysop account active at that point, Skeptical. If MrOrganic was a Smith impersonator, why did Skeptical not block? Instead, Skeptical went after me.

(I have never created an impersonator account. I have created investigative accounts, and my policy is not to disclose them, not to respond to accusations. These accounts are not disruptive. Impersonation accounts deliberately offend and troll and spam, not as pure trolling, but with an agenda: to prove that the impersonated individual is really bad, vicious, etc. As an example, the account that appears here could easily be Mikemikev. It looks immediately like Mikemikev. That, then, could be an impersonation, or, the obvious, it could be Mikemikev. In the absence of other information, I do assume it was Mikemikev.

Lomax has admitted to using accounts with “Smith” in the title on RationalWiki, see for example Some random Smith.

Just fact: I have not admitted that.

He originally lied and denied that account was him, but since the evidence was so conclusive (Gerard identified his writing style) he’s now changed his mind. Tobias (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not denied that I was that account, either. As I’ve written, policy. Gerard will think any detailed explanation of something is me. No edits were pointed to, and what Oliver is assuming here is that Gerard had intimate knowledge of my style, but from where? Years ago, perhaps, when he tried to promote me. That intervention by Gerard was, to me, diagnostic that Gerard was protecting Oliver, because the edit that got Some random Smith immediately attacked by a probable Oliver sock, with Gerard intervening promptly — rare for him! — was simply to add an obvious comment to a deletion discussion. Absolutely not disruptive and far, far from wall of text.

Using Smith in an account name is not impersonation, and the proof is that there was no suspicion of this account until it was whacked for knowing too much. (And good contributions were deleted. Go figure. Someone in the RatWiki shadow world has protecting the Smiths as a high priority.)

@D Lomax is lying on Reddit already and disputing your hiding of edits “It did not contain ‘Personal or potentially identifying information,’ as you can see was the suppression reason.”

I did not “disparage” D. I merely stated that the article did not contain such information, relative to what is widely known and accepted. I.e., many Rats have called Smith socks “Smith,” now. If I state that a page does not contain something, and someone else thinks it does, this does not make either one of us into a liar, except in the Universe of Oliver Smith, where everyone else is lying.

Which to me is just an acknowledgement that MrOrganic is him since he didn’t see that account as doxing, when it obviously was doing exactly that and I had to complain to Gerard to delete what that user was posting.Tobias (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

People should know this about schizophrenia. The person will see everything as a clue confirming his or her fantasies. It can be overwhelming, because “proof” is everywhere. Humans have exquisite pattern-recognition capabilities, but if we believe the patterns we see, we can fall into paranoid fantasies. I have worked with schizophrenics, and the path to recovery is learning to be skeptical of our own ideas, to notice emotional reactions to ideas, to make reasonable judgments about “emergencies,” (Like, call the police! Don’t just complain!) and to postpone judgment otherwise.

There was no emergency with that article, because anyone looking could find all that information, easily. And then, if it was true doxxing, it would have called for immediate suppression, which was not done.

In any case, I have recovered the article, and D or anyone who can read suppressed files can confirm what I have posted. So people can judge for themselves, which Oliver desperately attempts to prevent. Or someone is attempting to prevent it, to bury actual evidence in piles of trolling and furious argument.

(I’d like to know what the References were. If it was a link to a certain WWHP page, it might have been “personal information,” indeed. But I rather doubt it was that.)

 

Lomax is also still lying and claiming he was unfairly banned because he was not Cooped. However there was a Coop made and all sysops there voted to ban him. So he lies pretty much about everything.Tobias (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What Oliver claims here is not necessarily a lie. Rather, he is interpreting what I wrote, and history, in a very weird way. I was promoted by Gerard without a cooping. I was blocked by Skeptical (Oliver!) without a cooping. And that’s just a verifiable fact. Later, because I had pointed to the deficiency, there was some formality; as I recall it did not follow policy, but there really is no policy on RatWiki, it’s mob rule, and I don’t GAF about “unfair.” “All sysops voted to ban” was after how long, how many, and based on what?

By that time there had been many impersonation socks disrupting RatWiki, attacking users, making legal threats, and taking pieces of text from my blog and spamming them. If you believed I was doing that — and many Rats obviously did believe it — of course you would vote to ban. And this demonstrates how the Smiths have operated.

I had zero history of anything like impersonation, or being accused of impersonation, before the Smiths started claiming it about me — and claiming “proof” from what is not proof. The only example they have given is Some random Smith, who was obviously not an impersonator. If I put on an orange wig and shout “Lock her up!” would that be impersonation of the POTUS? Of course not, not in the sense claimed here.

Is Oliver claiming that MrOrganic was impersonating him? How? The fact is that impersonation socking is relatively rare, I had never seen it on Wikipedia before I encountered what Darryl did there. And it worked, probably because Wikipedians are naive. If an account writes, spamming his message, “I am WikiversityUser, writing the truth about Psychic Phenomena,” and YOU CAN’T STOP ME, IDIOT” it never seems to occur to them that this might not be WikiversityUser, but a declared enemy.

Oliver always lies. Rubber Room (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I’d prefer that Mikemikev — if this is him — stop with the trolling. On the other hand, it does serve an obvious purpose. If you want to know if an account is Oliver Smith, or show it, poke him, especially poke him with his name. If the user comes unglued and starts raving about Mikemikev, it is almost certainly Oliver. In this case, we already know that this is Oliver, and so does Mikemikev, so this was trolling.

  • MrOrganic was accused of being Krom (i.e., Oliver) and responded with Oliver arguments (remember, I was a sysop at this point, starting to notice the mess with EmilOWK and impersonators of him.)
  • Skeptical (see his contributions after that)

Erm no, that’s all you do Mike. I even gave you a chance on your article talk yet you instead resorted to creating more troll socks because you know you have no argument and are an admitted liar.Tobias (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Comes unglued. I was going to write about that nutso “chance.” Oliver is carrying on a conversation with Mike, on D’s talk page. D has been advising him to ignore Mike — which is basic standard wiki advice. If he wants a conversation with Mike, he could go to Rubber Room talk, instead of inflicting it on everyone else. An appropriate name, eh? Had he done so, instead of, say, deleting the comment on Talk:D, and going to that talk page and asking for what he claims to have permitted, he just raved. And so D did block, Mike accounts generally being blocked on sight.

This is what Oliver had done:

D had created that Talk page and protected it, and put up a warning:

    • Michael Coombs loves to troll people in connection to his article. Do not engage.

Oliver ignored that and put this on that page:

Invitation to Mikemikev

Mikemikev has been socking on countless accounts here claiming his article contains “defamation”. As I recently responded to @D:

Is Mikemikev no longer a Nazi/white nationalist and so is complaining the article is defamatory because it only reflects his old political views? The problem with that is his current Gab account is filled with same old extreme racism, anti-Semitism and his support for far-right/Nazi groups. I see no change in his political views whatsoever and everything on the article is accurate and well sourced.Tobias (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

So I would like to see what Mikemikev has to say since he continues to scream “defamation” but cannot show any evidence for this.

I’m unlocking this for 24 hours so Mike has a chance to respond on point. However if he shows up to troll and attack me, it will get locked again. Mikemikev needs to specifically list what is “defamation” on his article and I’m giving him a chance to do that. Failure to do so would mean he’s (as expected) a total liar. Tobias (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There were major problems with this. Mikemike is banned on RatWiki, and Oliver does not have the right to unban. If Mikemikev were to show up, he’d be blocked, so an orderly conversation would probably not be possible. Further, Oliver also imagines what Mike would say and already argues against it. What would be the p0int? Then, this is not directed to any RatWiki acccount and even if it were, it is unreliable that a suggestion like this would be noticed within 24 hours. So “failure to do so” would a “proof” like many of Oliver’s “proofs.” Meaningless. I have never seen a list of problems with the article from Mikemikev, and Oliver does not — as usual — link to any of what he claims, other than the GAB account, which has a lot of traffic. Oliver was grandstanding here, as we can see from follows on User talk:D.

If an actual conversation is truly desired, I could arrange it. If private email (Oliver could surely do this with a known account), fine, but it could be done on the subreddit I started, What_RationalWiki.

I will not tolerate impersonation socking there. Any account purporting to be a real person or an identified account from another site will be kicked if not verifiable. Trolling will not be tolerated. But if Mike, verified, quotes the RatWiki article and claims error or defamation, that would be allowed. Attacking the site or Oliver or anyone else with ad hominem arguments will be warned and possibly kicked first, questions asked later. My goal is free speech, but not license.

That removal of protection was reversed in less than 24 hours, but it doesn’t matter. The whole thing was a Bad Idea disguised as good and reasonable. I am willing to mediate any negotiations, if someone on any of the sides involved here wants to try that. I’m easy to reach privately. Leaving a comment here and asking for anonymity will do it. I will see the comment and will not approve it. But trolls — i.e, accounts that troll — will be roasted for snacks.

On Gab you’re still lying calling me a Marxist or Antifa. After 6 years you’ve never provided any evidence for those false claims (impersonating me on fake accounts like you always do claiming to be a Marxist don’t count).Tobias (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘

Funny how it’s always you whose the Marxist Antifa and not the real one lmao. Regarding the page, that page did contain personally identifying information, but I don’t personally think it was a Mikemikev sock given that accounts other edits. It could be Abd as you say, or it could be that Viharo person, or another third party *ahem*. Like I said, I don’t think it matters a lot. I gave up reading Reddit, but I read what was mentioned about it on the Cold Fusion site so I can see why you acted on it now. — NekoDysk 13:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been accused of “defending” Mikemikev, again and again. I have never accused Oliver of being Marxist antifa, nor do I consider that plausible. Mikemikev may accuse people whatever he thinks may get a rise out of them, as D has been pointing out: it works.

RationalWiki, as a whole, has a habit of insulting trolls and vandals and banned users. Which is the strongest thing you can do to encourage them to keep it up, at least with males in adolescence and often beyond. (Stereotypically, women are more likely to sensibly walk away.) It’s probably genetic, a basic male survival trait.

I thank D for reading the site, at least some of it. I do have strong and relatively direct evidence that MrOrganic was Oliver. However, evidence can be misleading. It was certainly not me. It’s very unlikely it would be Viharo, it is totally the opposite of what he’d be interested in doing, and impersonation was not his game at all. (If MrOrganic was impersonating, he was impersonating the standard Smith brother argument, repeated, for example, by Skeptical on the article on me. So why would Viharo do that? It makes no sense, like many Smith arguments.) Mikemikev, at that point, also makes no sense.

But there is a possibility of a “third party.” It could be Darryl, but that is contradicted by the other evidence. Interests did overlap with Darryl some, but the brothers do that. There have been claims of another person involved. Might as well say the name, since for a long time Oliver has been claiming that his family is being attacked. But is it an attack to suggest that someone wrote material that has been alleged to be written by a Smith brother? Only if the material itself impeaches the person.

So the name is Adam L. Smith. Oliver and Darryl were born in 1990. Adam L. Smith is about five years older. I know nothing about Adam, other than his name in the household. I put the name here in case someone else can connect the dots. As well, the person I came to assume was Darryl used the name Leon Kennedy on Facebook (account since deleted), and Leon on another occasion. There have been hints of a third person complaining to the WMF, and probably living close to the Smiths.

However, it is highly unlikely this was MrOrganic, there are too many Oliver connections.

Another tidbit. 

Uh, hello? Anybody home? There is an obvious suspect for identity of KE, though, in fact, it could be many people, because Oliver has offended many over the years, and they accumultate. This is what KE posted. on Argumentum ad hominem

Case study

A person who’s too dumb to debate and gets so butthurt he resorts to one years long ad hominem is Oliver D. Smith. Ironically he does this on “Rationalwiki”.

This was blatant trolling, even though there is a truth behind it. Oliver’s arguments are often splendid examples of argumentum ad hominem. But there is no way that I’d post this to RatWiki. I don’t troll, except in very narrow circumstances for very specific purpose (in which case you will likely see fireworks, such as the desysopping of a Wikipedia administrator, which can be, eh, a tad difficult.) In any case, Oliver noticed and decided to correct it, he can be a bit obsessive about that.

12:27, 11 May 2019 Tobias (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Kerflicity Entwhistle (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: it’s mikemikev)

I don’t know how Oliver was so sure that this was Mikemikev, unless he does know that I don’t troll like that. He’s claiming that I’m known for impersonation, so how would he know that this wasn’t me impersonating Mike impersonating Michael D Suarez or maybe Rome Viharo or Emil Kirkegaard. Or someone from Kiwi Farns? Or his brother poking him, as brothers sometimes do? In any case I can state with perfect confidence that it’s much more likely to be Mikemikev than me! So thanks, Oliver, every little bit helps.

I thought I might be finished but this went on and on.

For clarification Abd is mistaken about doxing. In 2017 there was an anti-dox policy on my name. Kirkegaard was banned in 2017 for doxing me (among other things) so that’s why MrOrganic’s doxing was deleted by Gerard after I sent an email complaint.

“Anti-dox policy.” No. Anti-dox practice. It could not be a policy. I once wrote about Rule 0 on Wikipedia. Rule 0 is the rule that you cannot mention. You can mention Rule 0, but not the content of it, as long as you don’t hint at the content.

Here Oliver has let us know that it was, in fact, he who sent the complaint and that Gerard hastened to protect him. Numerous users were banned for daring to mention the obvious. I’ve seen many places where account identification were made (i.e., User X is User Y), which is not “doxxing.” Oliver has done this routinely, I could find many examples.

Gerard dysopped me for blocking the user who is now being called an imposter and troll and doxxer. Oliver tells pieces of stories, pieces that back up the point he’s trying to make (which is usually that someone else is lying). He never tells the whole truth, the simple truth. He claims here that I am “mistaken,” but has not quoted what was actually wrong.

Contrary to Abd’s claims there was little public information about me on the internet in 2017 (aside from a troll page written by Mike on Enc Dramatica).

There was a lot of information. “Mike” on ED would be Michael D. Suarez, not mikemikev. There was Kiwi Farms. There was Rome Viharo’s blog. There was GethN7. And, of course, there were the Anglo Pyramidologist sock puppet investigations, which did not give the name. When I accidentally included a link in a page on SPA trolling, that included the name of Smith, a obscure user page study on Wikiversity, an avalanche of attacks descended, my contributions were being closely tracked, because I had interfered with the Smith agenda. This was not Oliver, I’m reasonaby sure. It was Darryl. I did not start using the name of Smith until I had verified much more evidence. But “you know you are over the target when the flak is the thickest.” I was threatened with massive harm if I simply continued collecting data.

So I knew.

Back then I didn’t really come public about my identity on RationalWiki which is why that anti-dox policy existed to protect me.

Makes sense. He’s not lying here. But . . . why a special policy to protect Oliver Smith from his name being mentioned, but not some of his targets? What Oliver is doing here is confirming Rome Viharo’s “conspiracy theory,” that involves David Gerard and others. Viharo had also tangled with Darryl Smith (as Goblin Face nee Dan Skeptic). Oliver only went after alleged racists and neo-Nazis, but that shaded into scientists working in intelligence research, allegedly hereditarians (and racists are generally hereditarian, but not all hereditarians are racists.)

I only identified myself from 2018 after Kirkegaard had gone around the internet writing various defamatory pages about me,

It’s not defamation if it is (a) true or (b) harmless. And he had definitely defamed Kirkegaard, and it was actionable.

hence that year I was on RWW and created a page about myself to counter the lies Kirkegaard was writing about me. RWW was though shut down and I don’t have any further interest in trying to counter lies about me on websites, for example I’ve never bothered with rebutting the VDARE hit-piece and I deleted an old response I made to Kirkegaard.Tobias (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm. Old response where?  Not on RatWiki. Oliver went on RatWikiWiki and started writing about me. And Kirkegaard. And Mikemikev. And himself. And what “lies” of Kirkegaard? Oliver could easily point to a Kirkegaard page and annotate “lies.” I do it all the time with hypothes.is.

However, it is much easier to just call it all “lies,” like a certain President and his “fake news.” I’ve asked Oliver again and again to confirm or deny account identifications. He always responded that it was too much trouble. It should be a few minutes work. (The number of his accounts has often been exaggerated, but there are many troll accounts difficult to identify with only one or two edits; still, I can identify most of the accounts on sight, quickly, so he could do it even more easily.

What I’ve told him again and again is that the way out of this mess is to tell the truth, the whole truth, not to keep claiming that other people are lying, even if they are wrong about this or that. That’s the way to say it, if you don’t want to look like a liar, yourself. “This was correct, but that was incorrect. Any questions?” And then answer the questions honestly. This is about fact, not interpretation. and I would say that Oliver desperately needs to learn the difference. It would save him a lot of grief.

People are mad now that I suppressed stuff doxxing you and not various edits doxxing others. Aw man, I can’t do everything all at once. — NekoDysk 14:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is “people”? I’m certainly not “mad.” I have a suspicion that Dysklyver is operating under some possibly difficult conditions, but I do not convert suspicion to belief. And I trust Dysklyver. The question here is not whether that was “doxxing” under the conditions then, but whether it was doxxing *now*, deserving suppression, where the only apparent “doxxing” was the name of “Smith.” There is an incongruity here, an inconsistency, but I don’t get mad about people being inconsistent. Nor do I call it hypocrisy. Rather, it can be something to look at, that’s all.

Michael Coombs and Abd both have articles here, so its not possible to dox them as all their information is already public.

I have not complained about doxxing. The examples I have seen where doxxing by Oliver was allowed were with much less known persons. I was arguably a public figure, and I revealed my legal name very early as a Wikipedian, because I have never been hiding, and I was writing on topics where, real world, people have been assassinated. I take the risk.

Michael Coombs may be a different story, but I have not investigated that. I’ve seen some shaky stuff, though. People have been real-world harassed, employers, etc. That’s a story for another day.

As for was their information public before their article creations: yes. Mike prior to his article here was already infamous for his trolling and a google search of his name produced lots of pages about him before the RationalWiki article; he’s got a Kiwi Farms thread that runs around 680 pages with 700,000 views.

This is all irrelevant, actually. None of this was about whether or not Mikemikev was doxxed. But Oliver makes up accusations and then answers them with furious argument.

Lomax also has a visible online presence, owns his own website and has written various autobiographical pages about himself across the internet. This was quite the opposite of me prior to 2018.Tobias (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What one will find if one looks is that I’ve been visible since the 1980s, on-line. We can see in recent claims that I am supposedly “well-known” as a troll and impersonator, but in spite of intense internet activity beginning way back then, and amping up in the 1990s and later, accusation of trolling or harassment amounted to single incidents that one can find by intense search — and by ignoring the context.

Yes, Oliver was much more obscure, by comparison, under his real name. Hence the early documentation pages on him referred to his best-known early account, Atlantid, metapedia administrator. That’s where he tangled with Mikemikev, who was also admin there.

A final point: both these idiots Mike & Abd have tried several times to create an article about me here (although they got quickly deleted for being low quality and personal attacks), yet they moan I’ve had some involvement in editing their articles. Tobias (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I never tried to create an article on Oliver on RatWiki. Is he lying or deluded? And does it make a difference? If he were honest, when he’s going to make a claim like that, he’d find a link. Memory is imperfect, we are human and become confused. However, he might be referring to a sock study. Long ago I copied that to a page here.

User:Abd/Anglo Pyramidologist

This was my first study of RatWiki “Anglo Pyramidologist” socks. As can be seen, it does not mention “Smith” anywhere. My identification skills were still primitive (but many socks are very, very obvious if one simply looks).

It was immediately proposed for deletion by Marky. It’s worth looking at, this sequence shows how the Smiths were operating. (It was deleted by Skeptical, i.e., Oliver)

As can be seen, there was no doxxing in the study. It was a list of suspected socks of “Anglo Pyramidologist.” To be clear, AP was the name on Wikipedia of the Sock Puppet Investigations case archive. The original Anglo Pyramidologist was Oliver, but this was not a claim that those accounts were Oliver, and I did not know at the time how to distinguish the two brothers. I also did not know at the time that the Smiths were under special protection, the “policy” Oliver mentions. The AfD has this argument:

Delete

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‘s personal vendetta against a skeptical Wikipedia user who he seems to be stalking across the web. Not relevant to Rationalwiki. Marky (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep

User page study, only likely visible to someone following my contributions (as happened on wikiversity and meta). As created, and as nominated,[1], 34 minutes after creation, it only contained the name of Anglo Pyramidologist (the Wikipedia name for the sock family) and myself. Now, I have added a small fraction of the possible names, I suspect it will be hundreds. This is only a list of suspects for a user who claims to have been a major contributor to RationalWiki, and who has documented many supposed enemies of skepticism, with articles here. On Wikiversity, and on the meta wiki, he threw a screaming fit as he has thrown here upon the creation of this page.[2] The behavior was identical, the same themes. From my history on meta, I expect that 95% or so of these “suspected socks” will actually be AP socks. The outcome there was a massive series of global locks, and, on meta, semiprotection of my study pages. That could be appropriate here. Not my call. But meanwhile, my condolences to Skeptical. AP is insane. This is either two brothers, one saner than the other, or one person who can contain himself to avoid looking so cranky, until it breaks through. I have, as yet, no opinion on the old claim of “brothers.” I form opinions based on evidence, not on wishful thinking or emotional reactions, and not even on what a friend says. People make mistakes, we all do.

As to “mission,” this isn’t an article, but there are plenty of pages in RationalWiki that look at user behavior. I don’t think that AP is notable enough for an article, unless blog sources are to be used. (As they have been for me, so maybe.) This user has long outed others…. So far, nothing I’ve done actually outs him more than he has outed himself. –Abd (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The situation at this point is that Marky had created the article on me and massive disruption has arisen (over the RW Smith Brothers conspiracy theory article).  So, somehow, my looking at RatWiki is “stalking a skeptical Wikipedia user all over the internet.” What skeptical user? AP pretends to be skeptical, may have made a business out of writing skeptical articles, it has been plausibly claimed (by him and others).

Oliver talks about “moaning.” That is troll-speak for describing a situation. What he claims I’m moaning about makes no sense. In context, I looked at the AP socks that had edited my arcticle, after Marky created it. That is just fact — if those are actually AP socks.  “Some involvement”, hah! Very involved, but so what? Oliver Smith evaded much detection by continually changing his accounts, without any apparent necessity. Users who do that are often up to no good. They are making it difficult to track them. They are hiding. Oliver now, is open, and it can be seen how he behaves, over time. RatWiki will choose to allow the continual drama, or not. Some people like it.

Well pretty good quality compared to the normal screed. :p I did suppress those a while back along the page Mike or someone wrote about me, which got deleted pretty quick. — NekoDysk15:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. suppression log. Arthur_Kerensa

(I would not put his here if Dysklyver clearly does not conceal his identity, and I have offered before to redact stuff. He doesn’t care, and, in fact, I commend him. Hiding is no way to live. But there are costs as there always are with what is excellent.)

Stupid waste of time.

When you ban people, that is often what they do, take great pleasure in wasting your time. Some level of this is unavoidable, to be sure. But RatWiki has not learned from Wikipedia, which has also not always learned from their own history (because they keep losing the most experienced users, as they burn out from how inefficient the system is). Insulting trolls is a formula for generating more trolling. Much more.

Discussion here about Smith brother conspiracy theory. Lomax is still claiming User:John66 is somehow a “Smith brother”. No evidence ever presented.Tobias (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I’ve presented it in great detail, but, now, who wants to know? If someone needs to know, they can ask me, and I will consider the situation and probably walk them through it. I’m not documenting that all over again just because an admitted liar and full-on troll claims “no evidence.” Why bring it up here?

But thanks to Oliver for the link to that discussion, where he lies profusely to the RatWiki community. Because these things tend to disappear, archive.is.

Ah but we all know that John66 is acktushally a sockpuppet of Bongolian. /s — NekoDysk 15:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely. Oliver is schizophrenic and while he lives in England, his alter ego lives on the west coast of North America. I analyzed the letter frequencies in their posts and sorted them by revision number, and I found the coded message that revealed the entire evil plot. Hah! No evidence? They think they can hide from me?

March 12, 2019

Oliver keeps supplying more material. I’ve been working on his deceptions about impersonation socking on Encyclopedia Dramatica and RationalWikiWiki — and even Wrongpedia, here, still a draft: anglo-pyramidologist/blaming-it-all-on-mikemikev/

From the same thread:

Lomax is still blatantly lying on Reddit. As I explained above, there was an anti-dox policy on my name in 2017 hence anyone who mentioned my name, or surname was blocked and had their comment deleted to protect me. When two people accuse each either other of being liars – a 3rd party can easily check the truth and Lomax is clearly the liar e.g. there were dozens of accounts blocked for mentioning merely my surname in 2017. According to Lomax’s insane story I created an article here to dox myself (that I then emailed Gerard to delete for harassment). I honestly believe lying to him is a compulsion and he might not know he’s doing it because its so habitual for him.Tobias (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Tobias still claims that what could obviously not have been a “policy,” i.e., an open rule, was in place, and he would not have considered that this “policy” — actually simply common practice — would apply to him. And the purpose of the article was not to doxx, but to ridicule the “conspiracy theory,” and “Smith” would not be enough to actually dox. (See the argument in the AfD for that article, also deleted by David Gerard.)

Oliver is attempting to prove that I’m lying by claiming that I said things I did not say (which has been common). There were indeed many blocked for mentioning Smith. But MrOrganic mentioned Smith and was not blocked then. Except by me, incidentally, for a different reason. Why not, then? Because the article did not doxx him — read it! (unless he actually did link to the doxxing on Rome Viharo’s blog) his argument falls apart. As to lying, again, see this page, where I show — with strong evidence — that Oliver lied about impersonation socks, claiming that accounts that we now know for sure were him, were Mikemikev socks. That is straight-out lying, not merely a difference of interpretation (which Oliver often calls “Lies!”)

Oliver asserts that the article was deleted because of his email to Gerard, but we have no evidence that he sent such an email. He did email Gerard whenever he wanted assistance, but unless copies are provided we have only Oliver’s claim of what was in mails, and he has lied about emails (which I know because they were with me — and anyone can know because they were published more than a year ago, and Oliver certainly knew about that but never denied the mails were presented as they existed.)

Oliver does not understand how evidence and testimony work. Personal testimony, under oath, is legally admissible. What I write on the blog is not under oath, to be sure, but I have a reputation to protect for honesty, as a journalist, it is may major asset. I’m not going to lie to win some stupid argument!

All pages here are open for comment, and correction has always been corrected. Instead of pointing out errors, which would always be allowed from a subject, Oliver has, for a long time now, just cried “Lies!” He has no credibility, from that alone. But there is evidence rising to the level of proof linked from the page referenced above, that Oliver lies — or is truly deluded, not remembering what he did, or the like.

Yet more lies from Lomax (all this guy does is lie, lie and lie more…): “googling ‘Smith brothers conspiracy theory’ and you will find interesting stuff” — No all you find is his crazy blog filled with lies; page 2 of google search shows “John66 – Cold Fusion Community coldfusioncommunity.net/”. Googling Smith brothers conspiracy theory and you only get the lies he writes on his blog, with the exception of the deletion request to the old RW article. Virtually no one else is typing about this nonsense except him.Tobias (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether something is interesting or not is a matter of opinion, and would rarely be a lie. Oliver mentioned “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” which, if he didn’t want this all to be visible, he’d not mention at all. But he is insane, that’s obvious! I simply pointed out what happens if you google the phrase. But it was “brother,” not “brothers,” because that’s how he had written it. What I do which drives him crazy is check out what he writes. He does not expect people to do that. He referred to Wrongpedia in an RWW page, I dug up the page. I don’t just assume he’s wrong. And I have done this kind of thing for many years. I actually research, find and point to evidence, before publishing analysis. And then he claims “no evidence.” Yeah, right!

Virtually no one else? Well, Oliver Smith is, a lot! I write for the future, and what does it matter if someone else is looking at what I write about? Oliver writes for the immediate argument he is trying to win. I don’t care about winning arguments. I learn more when I lose an argument, in fact, but that can be hard to come by! (To be more accurate, I don’t think in terms of winning and losing, I care about reality, and trust it, completely. I do not trust my own opinions, except provisionally, as operating hypotheses. What I trust fully is reality itself, it is actually my religion, and that of anyone who joins me in that trust.)

Perhaps that is the case now, but it is my understanding that at the time Rome Viharo was the main proponent of this idea and although I have my ideas, it is widely believed that it was Viharo who wrote the RationalWiki page on the Smith brothers conspiracy theory. — NekoDysk 20:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Dysklyver knows more than he says, which can be a mark of the wise. He is correct that “Rome Viharo” was an opinion then. That was incorrect, I have no doubt about that. It was the common Smith story that Rome was crazy and believed this “conspiracy theory,” and, in fact, Rome did connect what he’d seen with a kind of behind-the-scenes conspiracy. I don’t promote that, but I will say that there are hints, Rome is not crazy, but not necessarily informed well on details. He asserts from inconclusive evidence, which is not uncommon, is it?

Possibly. My main point is its bizarre to claim I created that article since I sent an email complaint to get it removed & I didn’t want my name mention on this wiki back then. Notice as well Lomax presents zero evidence for his wild allegations, yet is now creating Reddit threads to spread these lies about me. This is what I’ve had to put up with from this vicious troll now for years.Tobias (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oliver asserts unverifiable evidence (the alleged email), as if not believing his unverifiable claims is “wild.” Oliver has admittedly been creating articles on people for years, full of defamation or, at best, presentation of facts about people to put them in the worse possible light.

I was viciously attacked when I protected a Wikiversity user and the academic freedom of that site, and when I blow the whistle, and tell the truth, with evidence, I’m called “King of the trolls.” These are fascists, they hate freedom of expression and are intolerant of diversity.

How does it feel, Oliver? I have not done with you what you have done with others. I have not exaggerated, and I have afforded you full opportunity to respond, without a 24-hour deadline under impossible conditions, as you gave Mikemikev, quite arrogantly.

Thanks for the link to the Reddit thread. Every bit helps.  Expect more if there is more drama. That subreddit is for the uncensored discussion of RatWiki activity. It will be fairly moderated, that’s a commitment. But trolling by throwaway accounts will not be tolerated. Differences of opinion are not trolling, and if anyone doesn’t know what trolling is, ask. Trolling is deliberate, or it is not trolling, it might merely be stupid or ignorant.

And then he added a little more:

Sometimes it’s hard to distinguish between these idiots. For example on some accounts you blocked as “Abd/Mike” and I’ve also confused these two, or if we add RV or another possible troll, three; Lomax then latches onto this and screams on his blog “I’M A PROVEN LIAR!!!” etc when I misidentify his for Mike’s sockpuppet or vice-versa. The reality is they’re both very similar creating countless sockpuppets here and engaging in creating fake accounts and impersonations.Tobias (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Oliver is a proven liar, but over things where he would clearly know the truth. Here, he either does not mention or covers up that his brother has done a great deal of impersonation socking that Oliver blamed on Mikemikev (or sometimes the Reddit socks claim it was all me, who is behind them? Unlikely it’s Mikemikev, Oliver claims they are not him, but that does leave Darryl).

I do not consider an identification error a “lie.” Oliver does, all the time. And he does even when it is not an error!

Suggestion: do not proclaim as fact what is only weak speculation. Be honest. If you suspect, say you suspect. Oliver has called statements of suspicion “Lies.” That is a hysterical over-reaction. If someone suspects, and states the suspicion, it is not a lie unless they know for a fact that it is wrong. This extreme Oliver reactivity is part and parcel of his insanity.

And, my guess, he believes that since others are “lying” about him, it’s acceptable to lie about them. But lies contaminate the liar. If you lie in return, the Father of Lies wins.

I have not edited RationalWiki for months. I started at one point to list all my edits. I may take that up again. There is an exception. I create accounts for investigation. These accounts are never disruptive, are not intended to be visible. Those, I will not disclose unless legally necessary. I have not created accounts on RatWiki to spam or to be disruptive or to troll. But once in a while I might poke someone, to test reaction, to learn from this, which can be a form of trolling. This is actually quite rare. But if I find any, I will disclose those.

Trolls are routinely blocked unless they are supported by the mob. If an account is trolling, it is almost certainly not me. Posting links to my blog has not been done by me for a very long time. But, again, if I’ve done it, I’ll list it.

Nearly all accounts claimed to be mine on RW were not.

If I am correct, Mikemikev is creating many accounts, that’s a long-term behavior, I think. And that is normal at his age, in fact. When a young man is told he must go away, shut up, he will often do the opposite, which is why it is a very bad idea to insult trolls. Unless you want more trolling.

Certainly Mikemikev might point to this blog, here or there. I have never asked him to do this, nor would I. Now, this is the paradox here. RationalWiki documents “pseudoscience” and “conspiracy theories,” and I am allegedly promoting a conspiracy theory. So why not coverage of this on RatWiki?

I think the answer relatively obvious, but it’s not certain, and the matter is complex.

Tobias went on and on and on. Too much to copy. He pointed out some possible errors on other pages, but I’d have to remember what they were and can’t be arsed. I commented on the rest of his ravings here.

End of the road

This got even crazier, and Oliver got himself banned from RatWiki. See Oliver Discord fiasco

He completely bollixed his last chance, for basically nothing but shooting off his mouth about his paranoia. I suppose it’s a compulsion. As they said on the Discord server, this guy needs help, in a big way. I find it sad, because Oliver is merely insane, Darryl, whom Oliver was trying to protect, is downright vicious. He may be a tougher nut to crack. But it can be done.

Oliver D. Smith

This subpage will list RationalWiki accounts identified or suspected of being Oliver D. Smith, with the registration date. Where a subpage exists, it will be linked.

Tobias 10:46, 12 April 2019

Wikipediocracy discussion

Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Some points. Vigilant is, if I recall correctly, the user who was accusing a Wikipedia user of being a pedophile, insistently and without adequate evidence. He’s remained very active with an image of himself as “Witchsmeller pursuivant.” Charming. His constant theme years ago, was that I would write tomes. Anti-intellectuals and people who can’t scan-read hate long posts. Most normal people skip them if not interested. Vigilant would quote the entire post with, then “tl;dr” at the end. Funguy.

He claims that downloading one of my filings would bankrupt him. The fact is that PACER charges 10 cents per page with $3 max per document. If that would bankrupt him, he really should get a life and do something more useful than hanging out at the WPO Bar and Grill. This is the snark that has largely taken over wikis. Facts don’t matter, evidence doesn’t matter, only looking smart and winning matters.

Midsize Jake gets it more or less right, except that in Rossi v. Darden, I was supported by the public because of strong evidence in that case, including paying my expenses to attend the trial. That was fun. It is not every day that I get to hang out with and greet a billionaire (though in the cold fusion field, it’s not that uncommon, nor a famous inventor/fraud. Nice guy, just got a little reality problem. I’ve seen much worse. In fact I would prefer his company any day to most of the wikidiots. Being banned on the WMF, from that perspective, was quite a relief. I no longer had to deal with what was rapidly becoming, through the natural filtering of burnout, far too dense with really not-nice people. But the ban was a libel, having other consequences, hence the case, which is not an attempt to regain editing privileges. If that were to happen, it would be because the WMF, as advised by counsel, considers this a reasonable outcome.

Yes, I have a case, I believe it will survive a motion to dismiss, but even to file a motion to dismiss, the WMF will need to engage a lawyer, and there is an expense to that, substantially more than the $400 I have spent so far. Since I expect that the WMF has competent counsel, I think they will attempt to negotiate, what they should have done when I sent the first registered letter a year ago. It is much cheaper than duking it out in court, but I think they assume that they only ban incompetent basement dwellers who will not file, and they appear to have been mostly correct on that. I know of at least one other case where they banned someone who may have had a case. He decided that he didn’t have clean hands.

Kumioko (also office banned) wrote:

Yeah to be honest theres really no reason for a website or business in general to not tell someone why they were banned or barred from it. I also think it’s possible he could get them to reverse the policy of bans being non appealable.

Now, in general, a business can ban anyone. But can they put up a sign, visible to the public, saying “John Doe is banned from this store”? I don’t think so. I am not going to telegraph what I would settle for. But they could do it without harm and it would be safer and better for everyone.

Yes, “non-appealable” is vulnerable to attack, but it also might be defensible. I can imagine the arguments. I do know what I would do if I were counsel for the WMF. It’s really simple, and just about any attorney would do it. So this is fun. I could have filed in forma pauperis, I’m on social security with not really enough income, but I was looking at a possible statute of limitations and it would have taken time to get a judge to issue the order. So since I did have $400 available, cash in a drawer, actually, just enough, I decided to just file, it was fair enough that someone pay the court expenses, and so . . . I’ll get that from the WMF for starters. If not, they can suck eggs and spend money on attorneys and win or lose. I don’t know what they will do, but I see random idiots claiming they should “never settle,” as if that should be policy. Yeah, policy for the terminally stupid. It can get incredibly expensive. I *can* file in forma pauperis and get free process serving and more. I have studied the rules.

I was the perfect person to be put in this position, to create a possibility of at least some small reform. I have enough legal experience that *probably* the case will not be dismissed, and, yes, I anticipated the arguments that the opinionated opinionators advance.

The case against RationalWiki is different. I mentioned them, but they are more immune, as a foundation that does not itself make content decisions — unless legally compelled. I did send them an email, they ignored it, but I have never dropped the few dollars on a certified mail to them. Maybe I will. And maybe they will fold. They do have sufficient assets to be worth suing, and the law they rely on for protection is not completely clear, and, again, refusing to negotiate is not smart, particularly after someone shows they are serious. At this point, they are not under legal threat. Certain individuals may be, and individuals are not so protected against libel charges.

This was posted, from the Complaint:

See https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.207020/gov.uscourts.mad.207020.1.0.pdf.

Claims (among other stuff) that:-

3. (on) February 24, 2018, without warning or notice and with no violation of the Terms of Service (“TOS”), WMF
published a global ban of plaintiff, and publication continues. WMF has refused response to plaintiff. 

And thus seeks for:-

1. $200,000 to date for harm to reputation and public support of plaintiffs legitimate activities as a writer,
2. Order that alleged Terms of Service (TOS) violations be disclosed to users so that they may correct them.
3. Order for due process with bans, and, failing that, that they be lifted or, as a minimum, hidden for privacy. 
4. Order that Does 1-9, on discovery of identity, cease defamation and, where possible, issue corrections.
5. punitive or exemplary damages for negligence and malicious defamation.

Kumioko wrote:

The WMF doesn’t respond to me either, because I honestly don’t think they care about the effects bans have on the people, the projects or the community. As I have stated before, it is my belief that the so called trust and safety section issues the bans at their discretion and legal and other areas are courtesy copied to make sure the paper work is right and to give the appearance of a fair process.

I think 1, 4 and 5 are unlikely and amount to wishful thinking but it’s worth a try. The law in the US says we have the right to face our accusers but technically being banned from a website isn’t a crime and according to multiple cases in California nor is violating the ToU or ignoring bans for ToU violations. So I don’t know if the courts are going to compel the WMF to divulge the identities of editors for something that isn’t considered a crime.

2 and 3 are reasonable IMO in most cases. Certainly the lawsuit will compel them to detail exactly why he was banned rather than some vague terms of use violation.

In the end, even if the result is NULL, it will cause the WMF to spend time and resources for what amounts to $400 of the individuals money and a few hours of time.

Gee, great minds think alike. (I always knew Kumioko was intelligent, merely a tad obsessed. I tried to encourage him to tone it down. But people do what they are going to do, even very smart people can be blind in some areas. Maybe even me.)
(The process is that the defendant can move for dismissal, but the court must, in ruling for dismissal, consider all my factual allegations, in the complaint (as it might be amended!), and in my response to the motion (which might be as advised by an attorney, that depends on funding or a volunteer), to be true. There are some claims below that have possible answers. I really do know something about the process. But, of course, I am not an attorney and my experience is incomplete.)
Even if the case is dismissed, there is a good possibility that it would be dismissed for some defect, without prejudice. There are issues that could cause a dismissal with prejudice, but these could also be appealed. Basically, fighting this will be expensive for the Foundation, which is why any attorney will suggest communication, not stonewalling, once a complaint gets to this level. I saw the parties in Rossi v. Darden settle as soon as the truly stubborn one (Rossi) had an attorney that actually served him instead of just taking his money for a really dumb lawsuit., by convincing him to settle instead of going out in a blaze for glory, probably ending up in prison for perjury, because that is what his insanity had led him to. Of course, he was going for $89 million and triple damages, and my sense is that he and/or his attorneys thought the defendants — with $2 billion under management — would probably settle for less. What they actually settled for was a walkaway. Complicated story, Rossi’s attorney was brilliant, has been my assessment. Saved his ass from possibly losing everything, including his freedom, and he probably still had a few million left from what he had been paid for a fraud.
Vigilant continued trolling, the Energizer Troll.

He will be lucky not to have the WMF awarded legal fees.
The WMF doesn’t do much right, but they have friends and donors who know which legal firms to retain.

Abd just opened a can of whoopass on himself.

There are advantages to poverty. “when you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” In order to be awarded legal fees, the WMF has to fight this, spending money. Lots of money, probably, but, of course, that depends on what I’d be willing to settle for, which, of course, I’m not revealing.
As to actual rules, there is a $75,000 requirement for filing a Diversity action, which this is (crossing state boundaries). So if I am awarded less than that, they can ask for legal fees. However, collecting them is a separate issue. That was a consideration in Rossi v. Darden. Further, any settlement will supersede that. Obviously, it’s a consideration.
Many of these people on the WMF criticism sites have been useless wimps for years, not willing to do anything that might actually make a difference, but criticizing anyone who tried. Again, being banned on Wikipediocracy was actually a relief. These sites were setups for wasting vast amounts of time, too often. Some good people comment sometimes, but overall, the context sucks and real power is not developed.
Edit: He went Pro Se…
If the WMF want to make an example of him, he’s just committed bankruptcy.
And if I am already bankrupt? Can those who are bankrupt file lawsuits? (of course they can! and that is irrelevant). But the WMF, to make an example of me, will have to reveal what actually happened. I do assume that if they do not immediately enter settlement negotiations, they will try to go for dismissal, but I suspect that will fail. So this will enter Discovery. That gets complicated and can be expensive. But one step at a time. I have a history of not doing fundraising until I actually need the money, and then, the history is that enough money is provided to do what is needed.
If not, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, and I live for the experience, not the outcome, which does not vary. Everything passes away except the face of Reality.
Quote:
Ongoing libel, unremediated injury to plaintiffs reputation, harassment of family, $200,000
As an anonymous account?
Who all knows the Abd account is you?
What more damage could the WMF do to your reputation?
Harassment of family sounds like you’re on the edge of committing libel here.
The anonymous account was never anonymous. It was using a real name (Abd is the name I most commonly use), and connected with the birth name from the beginning. I once asked for rev-del of the original user page, but that was never done.  Now that the lawsuit is filed, it doesn’t matter.
As to who knows, the Does know, and have attempted to damage my family relationships and I do know that the RatWiki article has caused problems with personal relationships.
Libel is libel, and a person with a poor reputation, if I were that, could still be damaged. But try to find a poor reputation before the RatWiki article was written. What can be found is that isolated individuals accused me of this and that. Trolls, for the most part. Or people like JzG, who was outraged that the Arbitration Committee reprimanded him in the case I pursued, and never forgave, and for years blamed me for the state of the cold fusion article, even though I never heavily or disruptively edited it.
My real-world reputation is not my wiki reputation, Vigilant lives in a very confined world, and believes that his shallow opinions are reality.
Quote:
1. Having threatened plaintiff with harm, one or more Does created an article defaming plaintiff on RationalWiki,with malice, and acting to preventing correction.

The WMF doesn’t control RationalWiki and is not responsible for anyone who posts there.

That’s correct, but irrelevant. Those who did post there (“one or more Does”) used the fact of the ban for defamation (by linking to it) and also quoted a letter from the WMF confirming the ban. In other words, they apparently  tell the complainants that their complaint was acted on, and that was then published by the complainant, who was a long-term defacto banned user with no right to edit Wikipedia and very possibly globally locked. (I imagine the basis might be that, by then, I was identifying Anglo Pyramidologist as Oliver, I’m not sure, I’d have to check, though that was already all over the internet, so the WMF was protecting the privacy of a non-user. Except that he was a continued user as a block evader. Still is, by the way. This was him.
This was not on-wiki and was not related to any legitimate wiki activity, nor was my account used. Increasingly, I have seen the WMF use global bans to punish people for exercising freedom of speech elsewhere. There may be a legal issue there, but it is not the foundation of my case. It would be more difficult. If I wanted to go for general fairness, I might have asked for a jury trial, but I decided to keep it simple. (A jury might be moved more by a sense of fairness, but maybe not. And judges are people and I have been successful in communicating with judges, developing rapport. It can make a difference, in fact. I would never abuse that, but it can grease the wheels a bit.)
Quote:
2. Does 1-9 filed false complaints, possibly coordinated, with the Wikimedia Foundation (“WMF”).

What injury does a ‘false complaint’ do to you?
How will you prove this?
Again, close to the libel edge.
How is the WMF liable for this?

Vigilant is demonstrating profound legal ignorance. The Complaint is quite simple. I begins with a recital of alleged fact, which can be alleged on information and belief. I must believe that I can establish this, but I can be wrong. A complaint is never libel! (I saw many people make that mistake, they believed that Rossi, filing his complaint, must have been telling the truth because supposedly he could be charged with libel or perjury if not. No. You can file a complaint if you believe something to be true, or even if you believe it is possibly true. You do not have to have proof. You will be looking to obtain evidence in discovery. And one cannot libel a “Doe.” “Someone stole my shoes” does not libel anyone, does not accuse anyone of being a thief.

The alleged facts do not negate that someone may have filed a legitimate complaint. Only that I believe that at least one complaint was false, and the most likely one is the reported email harassment of a certain user. If he complained about harassment, and I have the emails and have published them, he libelled me. But what did he actually report to the WMF? I don’t know.

I may not be able to find out, but there are procedures for handling confidential material. No, you cannot libel someone privately and then be immune, because of privacy protections. That veil can be penetrated. There were claims of attorney-client privilege in Rossi v. Darden. I think a magistrate looked at the documents and ruled.

The fact recited did not make the WMF liable. They are responsible for their actions, not for the content of complaints.

Too long, Vigilant has been confined to his asylum.

Quote:
3. February 24, 2018, without warning or notice and with no violation of the Terms of Service (“TOS”), WMF
published a global ban of plaintiff, and publication continues. WMF has refused response to plaintiff.

You don’t have a constitutional right to use their platform.

Correct. I have not claimed I did or do.

You don’t have a financial injury from being prevented from using it, unless you’re copping to paid editing now…

I have not claimed and did not suffer financial injury from being forbidden to use the wikis. I have claimed injury from the *publication* of the ban, which was unnecessary and gratitious, and, were there actual TOS violations, they could have been addressed without that publication.

He went on with a bit more “dipshittery.” His legal counsel is worth less than what was paid for it.

Poetlstier wrote”

He’s after the John Does as well as the WMF. He’s demonstrating that one of the John Does has done things other than harass him on Wikipedia, to strengthen the case for the WMF having to help identify said person.

Poetlister is, by the way, another office-banned user. He was the first user to be honored with a “community ban,” which actually libelled him, accusing him of criminal actions which he did not do. But he never pursued recourse. The WMF would not have been liable, but they later office-banned him. So maybe, maybe not. It depends on conditions, and the WMF has been banking on the TOS provisions and that most people will just walk away. But I don’t know that anyone had ever weaponized a ban as the Smiths did, with the help of a handful of other users.

Vigilant piled on more. He’s calling it “suicide by court.” Vigilant has no idea what it is like to live without fear of conditions. He also has no idea of the possibilities. I.e., I have time to obtain counsel. No attorney would advise relying on what he proclaims as obvious.

If I erred in my Complaint, I can amend it. A judge will not grant a Motion to Dismiss without my having that opportunity.  I know many of the facts in this case, and legal precedents, and I was told by someone with substantial legal expertise that I have a case. Having a case does not mean I will win, but that it is possible, and I go for possibilities.

As a result, I have literally lived a life to die for. 7 children (two adopted) (Oliver Smith considers me a disgusting breeder, saying something about him — an anti-natalist), and 7 grandchildren, one very new and amazingly beautiful.

At 70, having been out of the sciences since my early twenties, I was published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal on a topic of high importance, and the work I recommended in that paper has been funded with a $6 million grant.

My writing is widely appreciated on Quora, and it’s fun, I’m followed by some very, very good writers. By comparison, and without protective structure, the wikis are useless time-wasters, and standard fora are even more useless.

Besides, I do the most difficult Sudoku, in ink. Heh! And, yes, I’m getting older. Stealing a meme from Groucho Marx, that’s wonderful if you consider the alternative.

Ah yes, above, Vigilant mentioned paid editing. I’ve done paid editing. Done the way I did it, it is not a violation of policy, and the customer was fully satisfied, so Vigilant can go jump in a lake even though he is already all wet.

Just because Vigilant attacks others for free, perhaps for the sadistic lulz, doesn’t mean that everyone must write for free!

This bloviating went on. BURob13:

The WMF has made no statements about Abd publicly except to say he’s globally banned, so they cannot have defamed him.

The publication of the ban, which is distinct from the ban itself, was, in this case, intended by at least the Smith complainants to be defamatory, that was the purpose.

Moreover, he isn’t even claiming he was defamed by the WMF, at least by my reading. His only claim about the WMF in that filing is that they globally banned him. Obviously, they are legally entitled to bar anyone from contributing to their privately-owned website.

Given many of the representations of the WMF about Wikipedia, that is not necessarily true, but it has never been tested, to my knowledge. I am instead focusing on the publication of the ban as a libelous act. I am, by the way, still allowed to “use” the site. Just not to use an account (or to edit by IP).

I struggle to see where he has even articulated any claim that the Wikimedia Foundation has committed a tortious act. I agree that, if Abd is fortunate, the WMF will move to dismiss, it will be granted, and they will not seek costs. There’s a snowball’s chance in hell this reaches discovery.

Here is what I expect is likely.

The WMF will negotiate and most likely we will reach a settlement without further action. If the WMF is intransigent — or perhaps I’m stubborn and stupid, but I wouldn’t bank on that, unless I decide that whoopee! This is fun! (and I do have advisors involved) — then it is possible for an MTD to prevail, but by no means certain. These trolls have no idea how difficult an MTD is, few are granted if the plaintiff is at all competent and there is any possibility of some aspect of the case prevailing. Any possibility at all, it can be pretty dim, and I’ve seen that up close.

Beeblebrox wrote:

The whole reason the office bans are a total block box is to make a lawsuit like this hopeless. All Abd has done so far is waste four hundred bucks, and that’s probably all that will happen.

I’m sure that’s the idea. But nobody has ever tested this. The $267 million lawsuit I covered was one where an LLC was formed to buy a technology that was quite visible as probably worthless, simply to find out for sure, and they invested about $20 million for that purpose. Was that wasted? They accomplished their goal which was that discovery, knowing that if the technology actually worked even roughly as claimed, perhaps merely being exaggerated by an eccentric inventor, it was worth a trillion dollars. So was their $20 million foolishly spent? The reality is that by being that bold, they attracted a commitment of another $200 million. So those “fools” multiplied their funds to invest by a factor of ten, and that new money did not go to the fraud, $50 million was actually given to them (maybe more, it’s not clear), it went to scientists for the most part. These are very long term angel investors. And I get to meet and work with people like that. So what I invested $400 in was to find out what might be possible. That will not be wasted, unless I walk away from it without finding out. Of course, I might not find out because of making some mistake that someone else might not make. But this life, it’s always like this. If we are afraid of making mistakes, we never learn.

Kumioko wrote:

As for the $400, that’s only for the court costs. That doesn’t include airfare, hotel stay, etc. if he is coming from some where outside the US (which I believe he is).

Of course there is a small chance that he will get a favorable ruling from the Judge but in California it’s doubtful.

Kumioko has missed details found in the Complaint. The filing is in U.S Federal District Court, a Diversity action, filed in Massachusetts. The court is about twenty-five minutes drive away, or I could take a bus there for $0.75 or Uber for not much. This is not a California Court, and it is not clear to me what state law will apply. The WMF is actually a Florida corporation, the Office is in San Francisco, and the servers are in WTF land. Precedent seems to be clear that I can file this way. I did do a fair amount of research before filing.

Vigilant ranted on. Really, this guy is the true nut case.

Given his rapacious online begging for his various “cold fusion””institutes”,

Rapacious? The GoFundMe page has a goal of $20,000. A few years back, I invested about $1200 plus travel and hotel expenses in training as to how to create transformative projects. That has been amply recovered, but only a little of that show on that page. Part of that training is to not think small. Could I use $20,000 for cold fusion journalism purposes? This technology is being researched all over the world! Easily. So why not ask for it? Nobody is required to look at that page, just as nobody is required to read my blog.

In almost two years, that page raised $2750 (which paid my expenses in Florida for the trial, and going to ICCF-21 in Colorado last year. About two weeks ago there was a Colloquium on cold fusion at MIT. I was hesitant about going, I wasn’t sure I’d be able to find a place to stay, and though I could take the bus there for not much, hotel rooms were on the order of $200 per night, and I’d need to stay three nights for the two-day Colloquium, and there would be other expenses. So I asked the research community if they wanted me to be there. What I got was an immediate response from one investor in the field, telling me that his company would pay all my expenses, get myself a nice hotel! And others asked how they could help, and this is where the recent $500 came from, there was no open appeal. But there may be, because coming up is the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Italy, I think in September. That will be far more expensive, but I suspect that the community will also want me there. If not, well, I won’t go! I do almost everything for community, little just for myself. And if the community doesn’t appreciate it, not my problem, I go somewhere else where I am appreciated.

(As it happened, I was able to stay with a friend, so I had no hotel cost. He lives close to MIT, so it was a couple of dollars on Uber Share. Easy Peasy.)

What these trolls and lolcows don’t realize is that the people who attacked me have also attacked many, in the nutrition field, and some of these have money and high motivation. I have not received any funding for what I have done in the Anglo Pyramidologist affair, and I’m reluctant to spend Infusion Institute money for this (which pays my cold fusion related expenses, and which also received much more funding directly, not through the GoFundMe page). Those people in this new field may well contribute to legal expenses. Or not. I don’t demand anything.

Except, of course, an effing response to a Complaint! In fact, I don’t even demand that, because I’d love it if they don’t respond, because that default judgment would, well, take me out of bankruptcy. Far more than enough. I expect, as I mention above, that they will negotiate. They could ameliorate harm rather easily. Why would they refuse?

What a court will actually allow is up to the court, depending on what evidence is presented.

Not on the mindless opinions of Wikipediocracy trolls.

I strongly suspect this is a shakedown for money. In that rat’s nest of a brain, Abd probably thinks that the WMF is a soft target and that’s he’s just the Pooh Bear to extract that delicious mhoney.

I love rats. Amazing creatures. Smart as hell. The WMF may or may not be a soft target, it depends on many factors that I don’t know. But they definitely have deeper pockets than Oliver and Darryl Smith. The former is already being sued and the plaintiff does not expect to see the money, just satisfaction, and defamation is a criminal offense where Oliver lives. Oliver is on the dole, has no job, though he is about 29. Darryl, I don’t know anything about his employment and only where he lived, not where he lives. But all this can be handled, if needed. It only takes money, and Darryl has graduated, probably in biology, but also in targets, from attacking helpless students of parapsychology to going after successful authors and physicians, who just might sue his pants off. Or not. But if I succeed in opening this up, it will provide ammunition for others who are being libeled by the same team.

I only want the truth to come out, as a primary goal. The rest is to recover costs and expenses and damages.

Secondly, there is no lever that Abd can use in a judicial arena to force the WMF to explain why they banned him.

While I have asked for that, I do understand the difficulty. (The question would be protecting the privacy of complainants, great idea.) Vigilant is refusing to recognize the claimed basis for the suit. Maybe I need to amend the Complaint to make it more clear. The basis is not that they banned me, but that they published it. However, at this point, they did publish it and there were consequences. First, was I libelled in the complaints? If so , they are not protected speech, they were defamation. If the WMF refuses to disclose them, they simply become fully responsible for the action they took. Was the ban publication defamatory? That is a factual question, not a matter of law.

The WMF stands to learn something about how to better protect themselves. Will they? I don’t know. I do know this: if they won’t talk with me about the ban and at least hear what happened from my point of view, showing that they have understood it, I won’t settle, unless they offer me a fat incentive. How about “We’ll give you your effing $200,000 if you go away and stop writing about us? I might consider it, because I’ve got a lot of other things to write about. I have no idea what they will do, really, except I expect them to talk to me, because it is entirely too stupid not to, they would be risking too much for too little benefit. I don’t expect them to be stupid, but I have been wrong about things like that before!

They’ll evaluate his fiscal state to estimate how long he can afford to litigate.

I have no ongoing expenses of litigation, and I’m not in a rush. What I have as current assets are irrelevant to what I might be able to raise, if I need to do that. I have competent heirs, one highly competent legally. While we can never be certain about the future, I am very likely to see this through to the end. This alleged legal analysis is idiocy.

The WMF’s legal team will hire local legal counsel to assist. The local counsel will already know everyone in the local jurisdiction’s court system.

And, I assume, they will meet with me face-to-face. I’m really good at that! I do well with judges, too. Now, local counsel will cost them,  for competent counsel, maybe $300 per hour. Vigilant has claimed they will “bury me” with lawyers. In  Florida, the plaintiff (Rossi) had four lawyers sitting there, the defendants had five, and the third-party defendants, one. Ten lawyers. No wonder when settlement talk started up, the jury sent out of the room everyone was smiling, happy, the lawyers joking with each other and even chatting with me. (Rossi’s original counsel was with a firm where the principal, a highly experienced woman, had died, so I commiserated with a junior lawyer from that firm that was part of the team, about the loss.. These internet trolls have no idea what real people skills look like, because they don’t have them.)

So, what, they will bury me with three lawyers, $900 per hour? For how long? As a pro se defendant, if needed, I can ask for additional time for replies, and I am likely to get it if I don’t alienate the judge by being the “kook on steroids” that Vigilant imagines me to be. Under stress, I slow down and become very careful, but I avoid stress as much as possible. Judges like it.

The WMF, on the other hand, has a prime opportunity to display to any other ne’er do well malcontents that there is a ruinous cost for litigation that will be borne by vexatious litigants.
Cool. He seems to be warning a turnip that he might bleed to death. I’ve been legally threatened, not so long ago, by counsel for a $100 million corporation. I’m trained and I immediately, it was almost trivial, turned it around, into cooperation.
I’d love to meet with counsel for the WMF. I hope they find someone competent, and that they listen to counsel, because a client’s failure to do that has, in the past, been very expensive. On the other hand, in this case, expensive to them could mean more profitable for me. Still, I appreciate the goals of the WMF and thing that they have fallen into some traps, and I’d love to help them escape from them.
I also have other possibilities for resolution of this, not to be announced as yet.
Ongoing discussion seems to be unaware of actual process.
If there is going to be a Motion to Dismiss, that comes before Discovery. There is no need for discovery if the filing did not allege a basis for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff may, however, amend the Complaint to remedy defects (in which cast the MTD may need amendment as well). I have studied the rules for this. A successful MTD is actually rare if there is any possible basis for the plaintiff to prevail on even one count of the claim. Further, there can be an appeal if the plaintiff believes that the judge ruled incorrectly. But I don’t expect the judge to rule incorrectly. Normally, a correct decision will be clear and I would not frivolously appeal. By that time, I expect I will have obtained even more expert advice.
So if there is no Motion to Dismiss (because of certain issues, not mentioned yet, I do expect one absent a prior settlement), or if the Motion is rejected, Discovery begins and the parties may issue interrogatories, requests for production of evidence, etc. Depositions may be taken. Discovery is the most expensive part of a suit, it has become. The parties bear the expenses of deposition. Evidence in discovery must be attested, it is admissible later at trial.
After discovery, any party may move for summary judgment, i.e, claiming that there is no question of fact, that only a question of law remains, and urging the court to decide immediately on the basis of law. The standard for Summary Judgment is similar: there is no need for a trial, the conclusion is obvious. If motions for summary judgment fail, whatever issues remain go to trial.
This is one of the issues I expect to be raised. It was written:
Abd filed suit in the wrong jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Terms of Use requires all suits to be filed in state or federal court in San Francisco County, California. If this proceeds to any extent, he’ll need to fly out there.
Yeah, I thought that for a time. Since I have kids living just north of there, I thought I might go.
Further, California law has a statute of limitations on libel of one year and the TOS also provides such a limit, and a limit on damages of $1000.
However, this troll is assuming that the suit is filed under the TOS. It is not. This an action for libel, where plaintiff and defendant are in different states. The TOS does not give the WMF the right to libel me. It does allow a ban, but a ban does not require that I be libelled. That the WMF implements a ban with an openly visible global lock and statements on user pages is their choice, not required in order to ban. I don’t want to go into details more than that. To be clear here, the tort was the publication of the ban, not a ban decision. They could trivially ban the same without that publication, but they don’t, because nobody ever noticed that the publication can be a defamation, until this case, where it was intended as that and was used that way, aided and abetted by the WMF through its incompetent and abusive process.

On User talk:Jimbo Wales no less

Lawsuit_against_the_Wikimedia_Foundation?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why even link to it? This is weird.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lomax complains that his published SanFranBan was negative publicity that hurt his writing career, but it really depends on who his audience was and what he was trying to accomplish. If he was looking for street cred as a wiki-dissident, the ban may have actually helped him, by showing the WMF establishment was against him. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikeu redacted the names. Here is the original text.

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

Anyway, people were saying James Damore’s litigation against Google was an lolsuit too, and you saw how that went. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Is it possible that one of Abd’s enemies tried to manipulate you into having this very reaction by placing that notification, as a joe job move? That was what Abd claimed in his 18 March blog post was likely going on. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gee, is it possible or is it obvious? The sock puppetry patterns match Darryl Smith socking, the same as on RationalWiki. Names are chosen that are totally obvious. I have rarely created socks and I have almost always confirmed them. There have been non-disruptive socks created with obvious names. In fact, I still have one on Wikipedia that I could use to email users. So what? I’m not going to use it. The WMF global ban prohibits all access, under any name or by any means. It even prohibits anyone from accessing Wikipedia or contacting Wikipedians on my behalf, which is a bridge too far, my opinion, but I’m not going to test it without clear reason. (I have not asked anyone to edit Wikipedia or contact Wikipedians on my behalf. Anyone who does this is doing it on their own initiative. I have only provided information, either verifiable (it gets long because of that) or I will provide verification on request.
Those joe job accounts lied. Typical.

174.204.18.89, you should not be mentioning real life names taken from Abd’s blog. This is one of the reasons Abd has been banned all over the internet. He tries to connect peoples real life identities with anonymous online accounts, he then claims he knows “100%” who the accounts belong to and digs up where these people work, but offers nothing more than his opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as he has impersonated Roxy the dog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think impersonation is part of Abd’s playbook; he is not known for being a manipulative guy. Some of his adversaries do have that reputation, though, and therefore it wouldn’t surprise me if an impersonator framed Abd for impersonation. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What I was getting at was, the people who have been banned for off-wiki harassment, outing, etc. have been those who linked those activities to their own Wikipedia account. Another example would be michaeldsuarez, who made it known that he edited Dramatica as JuniusThaddeus. But not every harasser or outer does that, so not all are held accountable. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Might want to ask the man himself at abdlomax@yahoo.com, which is the email address he has been at for years, and which is listed in the complaint. In anything Abd-related, I would caution against making assumptions about authorship, given the amount of impersonation that has been alleged. 174.204.18.89 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Read the thing.

WYSIWYG

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

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

Wikipediocracy discussion