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

Docket

    • 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 document)
    • 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 document)
    • 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 document)
    • 14 06/11/2019 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint due by 6/17/2019. (Finn, Mary) (no document)
    • 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 document)
    • 16 Filed 6//17/2019 AMENDED COMPLAINT against WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., et. al., filed by Dennis G. Lomax. (Rivera, Christina)  16-0  Copy in MediaWiki format with links.
    • 17 MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by Dennis G. Lomax. (Rivera, Christina) 17-0
    • motion to file electronically (as above)
    • 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 document)
    • 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

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

Astroturf or idiocy?

I came across this from Tom Naughton’s Fat Head blog. I’ll be riffing on this. First, Naughton is not a careful reporter, he’s sloppy, but, then again, he’s a comedian, not a journalist or academic, and he is writing about topics that will be obscure to most, such as actual Wikipedia process. What he wrote:

Remember the kerfuffle when a rogue editor at Wikipedia targeted Fat Head for deletion? He was, you’ll recall, the same editor who deleted articles about Malcolm Kendrick, Uffe Ravnskov, Jimmy Moore, and pretty much anyone who recommends low-carb diets or disputes the Lipid Hypothesis.

The editor in question, originally “Skeptic from Britain,” (and my page) could not delete anything, he was not a Wikipedia administrator. Was Skeptic from Britain a “rogue editor”? Not really. There is a whole faction of editors (including some administrators) who act in similar ways, but SfB is actually a long-term banned editor (best known as Goblin Face), Darryl L. Smith in real life, according to my research (extensively documented on pages here). He is able to do what he does because of the cooperation of many editors.

He did propose articles for deletion (AfD). Links to the deletion discussions: Kendrick (deleted), Moore (deleted) and Fat Head (kept) — this was nominated as MatthewManchester1994, SfB renamed.

Ravnskov was not proposed by SfB, but by EEng, a snarky editor. (One of the problems with Wikipedia is that too many users with no life treat it like an MMRPG, an opportunity to display adolescent hyper aggression, to win by making others lose.) SfB, however was quite active in that AfD.

In the Fat Head deletion discussion, Jimbo Wales (co-founder of Wikipedia) commented about the nominator:

Strong keep – As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial namechanger and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project.

When SfB “retired,” he claimed he had been outed on the internet. I was, in fact, accused of being SfB by his brother, on Encyclopedia Dramatica. That is how I came to look at SfB. What I found was that the only outing had been by troll socks, accounts that appear and create disruption (like outing), with no history of comment, and often repeating the same message under different names. The outing named the user who was the only Keep vote in the Jimmy Moore deletion. And that behavior then loudly rang the Darryl Smith bell. This was a sophisticated form of impersonation socking, Darryl’s standard MO, used to harass anyone who criticizes him.

So then I looked at edit timings, spending days compiling and studying data. This was clearly Darryl Smith, previously Debunking spiritualism, now moving from attacking spiritualism and parapsychology (and me, for the sin of having exposed his impersonation socking on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and the WMF meta wiki), into exposing his “Dislikes = Fad diets, LCHF quackery, pseudoscience.” Did he find a new paymaster? I don’t know.

SfB, before going on a massive Wikipedia editing binge, ending with his “retiring” in December, 2018, had made a few edits to RationalWiki as John66, pursuing the anti-low-carb agenda, and when he did retire, John66 started up in earnest and is still quite active. There, he is now a sysop (RatWiki gives out that easily). The entire RatWiki site is largely dedicated to identifying and exposing “quacks, charlatans, pseudoscientists, and conspiracy theorists.” Is that astroturf? Well, maybe, to some degree. More likely it is a pile of nut cases itself (with a few exceptions).

On the conspiracy side, Darryl Smith has claimed (through socks identified behaviorally and sometimes with technical data) that he has been paid by “a major skeptical organization.” These organizations are dedicated to “debunking,” which is where the genuine skeptical movement went, losing its original scientific underpinnings and methods, becoming highly pseudoskeptical.

It is not skeptical at all, it is a “believer” movement, believing in “mainstream opinion,” even when it is not actually “evidence-based.” I.e., “evidence-based medicine” — what a great idea! — becomes “widespread opinion-based” — and widespread opinion can be highly vulnerable to astroturfing, or more deeply, to the effect of research funding and promotion.

Deletion discussions on Wikipedia, while they are sometimes influenced by opinions like “quackery,” turn on “notability,” which in Wikipedia policy is based on the availability of sources for verification of article content, and what sources are usable can be highly controversial, but if there are mainstream “secondary sources,” sources that review primary sources, or that have a business necessity for fact-checking, these will be considered “Reliable source.” Wikipedia policies are arcane to the uninitiated, because “Reliable” does not mean “reliable.” Get it?

The articles on Kendrick and Moore were deleted because of lack of adequate coverage in reliable source. That can change. “Quackery” as claimed by SfB was irrelevant, but it fires up his own support base. By guidelines, the number of votes doesn’t matter, it is the arguments that count, but in reality, some administrators are lazy as hell and just look at the votes. You can tell by the close comments. I have never seen an administrator even reprimanded for a “consensus is delete” close where it was not a “snow closure” — massively obvious — but actually not a true consensus. Sophisticated users will know how to appeal a decision, so, in theory, this is harmless. In practice, the project is slowly warped toward either majority opinion, neutrality be damned, or toward the opinions of a highly motivated faction, which can wear down and burn out users interested in creating a neutral project (i.e., following traditions of academia, that were the basis for the original encyclopedias, or of journalism, as represented by Sharyl Attkisson.)

So, that Wikipedia article on Attkisson. From the message she has in her TED talk, I expect to see her attacked on Wikipedia. Sure enough, this is how it is done (current version)

Anti-vaccine reporting

In her reporting, Attkisson has published stories linking vaccines with autism, despite the fact that the scientific community has found no evidence of such a link.[32][33] Seth Mnookin, Professor of Science Writing and the Director of the Graduate Program in Science Writing at MIT, described Attkisson as “one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved.”[34]

I immediately notice a very unlikely claim reported as a “fact.” “The scientific community has found no evidence,” is essentially a lie. There is evidence, but it is also possibly countered by other evidence. “There is no evidence” is a common claim of fanatics, when there is evidence. When someone is guilty of a crime, they are likely to say, “They have no evidence,” but in court, a case will be immediately thrown out if there is no evidence. Rather, in an unbiased proceeding, plaintiff and defendant will present evidence (vetted for being admissible) and the judge or jury will balance and weigh it.

“No evidence” is rhetoric, fake news, and a tell-tale sign of someone attempting to influence opinion by lying or misrepresenting reality. So how is this allowed on Wikipedia? I will look at the process below, but the notes are:

32. politico.com: sharyl-attkisson-suggests-media-matters-was-paid-to-target-her

Former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson has accused the liberal watchdog group Media Matters of targeting her reporting, and believes someone may have even paid for them to do it. […]

Attkisson’s reporting has come in for a fair amount of criticism as well, and not just because it frequently targets the Obama administration. She has previously published stories about possible links between childhood vaccinations and autism, and stood by those reports on Sunday even as Stelter noted that doctors believe framing the idea as a “debate” is dangerous and encourages parents to not vaccinate their children. (The majority of the scientific community disagrees with that assertion and the CDC says there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. A famous 1998 study that did purport to find a connection between autism and a vaccine was retracted in 2010.)

“I’m not here to fight doctors,” Attkisson said. “I’m just saying that factually, I’m not here to advocate for one side or the other. I’m just saying factually, there are many peer-reviewed published studies that do make an association, and the government itself has acknowledged a link.”

The article’s expression was confused. The “assertion” just before the claim of majority disagreement was that framing the idea as a debate is “dangerous.” This is a classic fascist argument, by the way, used to suppress dissent. Socrates was condemned for “corrupting the youth” by asking dangerous questions. However, they mean that the majority disagree with a “possible link between vaccination and autism.” This is commonly not represented accurately. The claimed link is, as I understand it so far — I’m gradually becoming more informed on this — between MMR trivalent vaccine and autism. I am very skeptical about this claim. But I would not agree that it is impossible. In any case, “majority” implies that there is dissent within the scientific community, and not merely some single crank (or, for that matter, a single visionary). This is actually contradictory to “there is no evidence.” Rather, first of all, most of the scientific community is not specifically informed, that’s normal. Rather, what can be found is that certain organizations, possibly influential, have issued conclusions. Based on balanced weighing of evidence, or otherwise, these, as science, will stand as evidence for the conclusion, but it is opinion, interpretation, not fact. (Evidence is fact or “witnessing.”) It might even usually be correct, in some way, but “science” goes astray when what is interpretation and opinion becomes “evidence,” and is used to deny that evidence even exists.

Is Atkinsson correct? The CDC page cited now redirects to a different page, with no reference to autism. The Politico article was dated 04/21/2014.  The archive.org snapshot of that page the day before shows concern about autism, and then has:

a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism.” CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.

That review clearly is about a weighing of evidence, and does not support the idea that “there is no evidence.” Is Attkisson correct that “the government itself has acknowledged a link”? The evidence shown above does not contradict her statement, which is vague and could mean almost anything. What Politico was reporting on was a CNN interview. 

(the interviewer there actually supported the idea that there is a campaign to discredit Attkisson. That, of course, does not end up on Wikipedia!)

In that interview, it is not impossible, nor would it even be surprising, if Attkisson’s views were not flawlessly expressed, or were obsolete. Her actual stand is that people should not blindly depend on her opinions or anyone else, but should dig and think for themselves, and carefully, because there is a great deal of intentionally or carelessly deceptive information available. On that stand, I agree with her completely. Even if the autism/vaccine link was a mistake. Demonizing critique (anti-vaxers are called “murderers”) “controversializes” the very process of free democratic review that is essential to science and to sane public policy.

It is fascist, and, yes, fascism can be on the left or the right. It always has “good reasons” for suppressing dissent. After all, who can be against trains running on time? Or, for that matter, the public being protected from “quackery” and “pseudoscience”? Those vague hazards are not actual risks except to those who choose to follow them, and so fascism protects the public from its own “wrongness,” which itself alienates elements of the public, which can see that forces are attempting mind control. The anti-vax hysteria is fueled by suppression. (And it can itself be fascist, see my fascism post linked above.)

Whew! That’s just the first footnote.

33. Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes The Worst Whooping Cough Epidemic In 70 Years. This is a Forbes blog story, it has apparently been taken down.  Archive.org. The author is Steven Salzberg. From his Wikipedia article:

Salzberg has also been a vocal advocate against pseudoscience and in favor of the teaching of evolution in schools, and has authored editorials and appeared in print media on this topic. He writes a widely read column at Forbes magazine[19] on science, medicine, and pseudoscience. His work at Forbes won the 2012 Robert P. Balles Prize in Critical Thinking.[20]

The “widely read” is editorial insertion, not sourced. The link is to the column itself, violating policy. (I.e., it does not establish notability of the column, though this can be allowed with editorial consensus.) The Prize is awarded by, surprise!, the Center for Inquiry, the descendant of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, which became, contrary to its title, a debunking organization going after any fringe science. That “Critical Thinking” award is for “Skeptic Authors,” but the only “Skeptics” awarded are those who debunk skeptics as “pseudoscientific,” whether they are or not. (This faction would call “cold fusion” “pseudoscientific” on Wikipedia, and tried many times, even though the basic ideas are testable, have been tested, and the bulk of the evidence confirms that there is an anomaly and that it is nuclear in nature. But who cares about evidence, if you can simply attack “believers” as “die-hards” and “cranks,” and “pseudoscientists” ? and if you can exclude clear Reliable Source (so judged by Wikipedia policy and the community) as “biased” or “written by believers.” (RS policy has to do with publishers, not authors).

His first version of the Forbes post, 7/23/2012. His tag line:

Celebrating good science by fighting pseudoscience and bad medicine

This is an activist, with axes to grind. The headline is not science. Period. No evidence is advanced that “antivax” caused the rise in cases.  He wrote:

Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the credulous, anti-science, anti-vax CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson.

That was a libel, but it demonstrates how the thinks. This is pseudoskepticism that, as Attkisson points out, becomes an extended ad hominem argument, as a red flag. It was changed later by the version cited on Wikipedia, to

Sometimes it comes straight from the media itself, such as the CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has repeatedly and persistently reported on the purported link between vaccines and autism long after such a link was widely discredited.*

Notice the use of weasel words on one side and affirmative statements with no evidence and actually contradicting some evidence on the other. “repeatedly and persistently,” is how many times, out of a very busy career. And she reported on the link, when, and has her reporting been complete. “Widely discredited” simply could mean that a few people have discredited her, or a vast mob of people like Szalzberg. It’s meaningless, showing only a mass of opinion.

Again, I’m not saying he is wrong. I’m saying that this is conclusory, opinion, not fact, and why was this cited?

It appears that the Attkisson article has been used as a coat-rack for attacking her and anti-vaxx. And that is what happens to anyone who offends the faction. I covered the like of this here, on another person who actually supports vaccination but dared to repeat what anti-vaxxers think. , same pattern with Sarah Wilson. Journalist reports fact (in this case, her idea of what some people think), and is attacked viciously. (in this case, all that undue nonsense was removed from the article a few days ago. But Wikipedia process is entirely unreliable, and initiatives that would have made it reliable have been strongly resisted.)

Still on the sources for the Wikipedia article:

34. A blog, The panic virus, entirely devoted to attacking criticism of vaccines. Not reliable source. Vaporized. Archived. More embarrassing anti-vaccine reporting from CBS News’s Sharyl Attkisson, by Seth Mnookin. In addition to much hysteria, what it had on Attkisson was conclusory and based on various concurring opinions (other bloggers!), not any kind of overall survey. This is an information cascade, not “science-based.” There may be some science referenced, to be sure, but science is not a body of conclusions, rather it is a large body of evidence (actual “knowledge”, much of it from, at best, controlled experiment, but interpretation is always conditional and subject to revision based on new evidence, as well as recognition of possible deficiencies in previous analysis. And that is how and why science moves on. Bottom line, this was correctly attributed as Mnookin’s opinion, and he might be considered notable. Is there any balancing evidence? I will look at the history below to see if any was asserted.

Mnookin, by the way, has a book and all this could be seen as pushing his point of view. Authors commonly display a bias toward their own point of view, big surprise? Not.

The book is The Panic Virus, so he could be seen as creating a business around this. (Much as Gary Taubes is accused of doing around low-carb, on the opposite side from the Wiki fanatics. It is plausible that Taubes has a bias, and Taubes actually calls his latest book, The Case Against Sugar, the “argument for the prosecution.” Biased. Now, does “biased” mean, “to be excluded from public discourse and respect”? People with one point of view commonly call opposing views “deluded” or “biased.” The defense very often claims the prosecution “has no evidence.”

Both of which are irrelevant arguments, conclusory, not related to fact.

The Wikipedia article on Attkisson continued:

In 2011, Paul Offit criticized Attkisson’s reporting on vaccines as “damning by association” and lacking sufficient evidence in his book Deadly Choices.[35] In the medical literature, Attkisson has been accused of using problematic rhetorical tactics to “imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit.”[36] Attkisson said that she favors vaccinating children, but claimed that research suggests that “a small subset of children” have brains that are vulnerable to vaccines.[37] She has said that pharmaceutical companies are discouraging research into the vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News to stop covering the purported link.[37]

35. So, again, a book.  Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All

This is the argument of medical fascism. The choice not to vaccinate may, if the mainstream is correct, increase risk, but only very slightly for any individual. There is an increased collective risk only if the number of those making that choice rise to a significant percentage of the public. Vaccines are also not completely effective, complicating this.

If a vaccine were 100% effective, it would fully protect the public that chooses to be vaccinated, and others would be at risk, presumably with their own choice, or that of their parents. It is a common fascist practice to take over parenting from parents, in favor of something “better.”

The non fascist answer to the refusal problem would be education, but if the education is fascist propaganda (i.e., excludes and demonizes contrary opinion), it will increase the power of anti-vax arguments, because the oppression can be seen readily, and it does not increase trust in authorities, it has the opposite effect.

I do not conclude that because fascist suppression is used against the anti-vax movement, therefore the pro-vaccination evidence cannot be trusted, but many people will think that and support, then, conspiracy theories.

In any case, this source amounts to a very strong critic of anti-vax attacking a journalist for reporting the other side. It is clear that Attkisson has been criticized, but what is the overall balance? How notable is this, for a Wikipedia biography of a living person?

What is obvious is that critique has been collected, with weak sources being used.

36. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm – An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Article in Vaccine, a peer-reviewed journal. Copy here.
This is a fascinating article and I could agree with much of it. (I.e, anti-vaxxers use “tactics and tropes.” But so to the critics of “vaccine denialism.” In any case, the article does not mention Attkisson in the body, but cites two sources in footnotes, i.e.,

[92] Gorski D.  Anti-vaccine propaganda from Sharyl Attkisson of CBS
News, . Anti-vaccine propaganda from Sharyl Attkisson of CBS
News, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/anti-vaccinepropaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2; 2011 [accessed 25.08.11]. [Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/61D4kploa]

[179] Attkisson S. Autism: why the debate rages, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/autism-why-the-debate-rages-15-06-2007/; 2007 [accessed 24.04.11] [link corrected]. [Archived by
WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5yAqYL0p2].

[92] was the “science-based medicine blog” which is affiliated with the debunkers at CSI and often is full of attacks on skeptics of mainstream ideas. Snark rules there, as it does in many “debunking” venues. From the Vaccine article:

Works critiquing the anti-vaccine movement are often accused
of being propaganda [89–91]; those on the other side of the issue
accuse anti-vaccine activists of propaganda as well [92,93].

The blog piece has been taken down. This comment about propaganda is certainly true of both sides. “Propaganda” is conclusory information designed to influence. Neutral reporting is not propaganda, through propaganda might refer to it. It is obvious that both sides of this issue create propaganda. That is normal for political activism. 92 establishes the obvious, but this is not what is supported by the Wikipedia article.

179 supports this from the Vaccine article:

4.2.4. “You can’t prove vaccines are safe”
This accusation demands vaccine advocates demonstrate vaccines do not lead to harm [178], rather than anti-vaccine activists having to prove they do. Claims such as “There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out” or “Those who say autism and ADD are not linked to vaccines do not know what is causing the epidemics[179] imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit. This involves arguing based on a lack of evidence – not knowing something is true is taken as proof it is false, or not knowing something is false is proof it is true. Likewise, because there have been no studies conducted with the specific conditions antivaccination groups ask for [180], this lack of knowledge means vaccines are not safe. Lists of questions to ask vaccine proponents [181] are circulated with the intention of stumping them, with the inability to answer taken as evidence against vaccination.

I have bolded the statement from Attkisson. The “trope” here is an alleged “implication,” that “vaccines remain a plausible culprit.” That should be a simple fact (about scientific process). If there were no evidence, this would be a terminally weak argument. At the time, however, 2007, the Wakefield et al article linking MMR vaccine to autism had not yet been retracted, and there is (I think) some other evidence. (Attkisson certainly claims it.) Behind this “trope” is an assumption that there is no basis for suspicion, hence the skeptical argument is converted to a straw man argument, essentially, “Because we are ignorant, I’m right.”

What is actually in the CBS source:

6. There is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and autism or ADD, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.

And, as well, what was quoted. That was a reasonable piece of reporting at that time, and might still be, the question has become more difficult.  The section then goes on to report more, all more or less standard journalism. She points to what was certainly, at the time, a live debate. She was pointing to the incompleteness of knowledge, and, yes, that would still leave vaccination as a “possible culprit,” but she certainly also asserted evidence to suspect vaccination. It’s worth reading that CBS report, it is an example of what she has been attacked for. Reporting.

Fascist attack on the media. It’s not just Donald Trump!

(Many other tropes in the Vaccine article are like the above. Yes, there are fanatics and those using logical fallacies, but, as noted in what was quoted above, this happens on all sides, except what might be called the “journalistic” or “academic side,” sometimes. When we become more interested in reality, as distinct from our opinions and interpretations, we move toward journalism. I like the Vaccine article, in part, but, as presented, it has a likely effect of “debunking” vaccine skepticism as if it were all based on such tropes. What is missing is a list of tropes on the other side. The article author has a clear position: the abstract concludes with: “Recognizing disingenuous claims made by the anti-vaccination movement is essential in order to critically evaluate the information and misinformation encountered online.”

This is an ad-hominem attack on an entire movement, when such movements will be internally diverse and will also be, for the most part, sincere, not “disengenuous.” The author of the article has a clear and strong position, and fails to recognize that behind most of the “tropes” is a reasonable core, a claim that has some truth, at least under some circumstances. It is necessary to recognize “disengenuous claims” by all sides, not just one side. Most urgently, when opinion is considered to rule instead of balanced evaluation of evidence — all the evidence! — we fall into the rabbit-hole of fascism, of the domination of factions and people who believe they are right, which is never “scientific.” In science, we attempt to prove we are wrong!

The article begins with:

… a new postmodern paradigm of healthcare has emerged, where power has shifted from doctors to patients, the legitimacy of science is questioned, and expertise is redefined

“Power has shifted.” Shifts in power are always vociferously opposed by those holding excess power. “The legitimacy of science is questioned.” What the author is calling “science,” is not science, but “expert opinion,” which may or may not be based on science. Experts put their pants on one leg at a time, and are just as capable of attachment and bias, not to mention financial incentives, gross or subtle, as anyone else.

Most people don’t take the time to study issues, even when they are crucial to their health, they simply are looking for whom to trust, as if there is some infallible person to trust. Such people will be vulnerable to propaganda from either side, whichever they trust more, for reasons that can be complex, based on personal history.

What has happened with the internet is that minority opinion can still organize with relative ease. In response, the mainstream (which is loosely defined and there is always the possibility of a “silent majority”), has become more severely repressive and even punitive toward minority opinion (though it always has been to some degree).

In the vaccine debates, minority opinion is excoriated as highly irresponsible, if expressed, and murder at worst. And, of course, the minority, noticing the suppression, readily develops a conspiracy theory (which may or may not be real) and accuses the mainstream of murder. Of innocent children, of course. Both sides shout “Think of the children!”

One more source:

37. The Daily Beast.  Scandal blog. Sharyl Attkisson: ‘I Don’t Care What People Think’ About My Reporting

This is a fairly balanced story. It is used to support this text in the article:

She has said that pharmaceutical companies are discouraging research into the vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News to stop covering the purported link.[37]

Well, did they? I do remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about what can be verified. So the fact alleged fact here is that she said two things. What did she actually say ?

Attkisson says she is very much in favor of vaccinating kids, but that peer-reviewed studies have suggested the possibility of a “small subset of children” who suffer from difficult-to-detect immune dificiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to certain vaccines, much like some children are allergic to polio vaccines.

But she says Big Pharma has actively discouraged scientific research into possible linkages, and that pharmaceutical advertisers similarly persuaded CBS and other broadcasters not to run stories questioning the risk of vaccines for certain children.

Well, have they? I have not seen evidence either way on that, not yet, anyway. This is a personal interview, in which she may state her suspicions, or it might be knowledge. At this point, from the interview, I don’t know which it is. But the story of Big Pharma (and other established interests) influencing research is routine, an understanding of the problem has become widespread, with increased requirements for funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence.

None of the reports I have seen so far were such. I.e, reporting what people think and claim need not be supported by “scientific evidence,” it is ordinary journalism, and the decision of whether or not a claim is “adequately supported” is for review panels of experts (and that itself can be flawed if the panel composition has been warped, which has happened.)

“The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link,” Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. “They simply say it’s not a causal link.”

No link, no way to check this yet.

What I see as factual here is that she suspects influence from large corporations. It is not black and white, i.e., advertiser pressure or “scientific” evidence or lack of same. What if the advertiser points out the alleged problem? What Attkisson is reporting is that she was prevented from reporting on what she found. Now, that’s an editorial decision, but she decided to give up a contract with a million dollars left on it, if I read the source correctly, effectively not being willing to work under those conditions. That increases her credibility, her stand was contrary to her personal interest. As presented on Wikipedia, this looks like “conspiracy theory,” a common pseudoskeptical trope, though it is not really a conspiracy theory to suspect that large interests would act (and spend money) to defend their interests, that the would support research likely to increase their profits and discourage or at least not support research that might damage profits.

But this little piece of the article does fairly present what she said.

Now, how did the article get this way? Looking at history, I see my old friend, JzG, a blatant and obvious and uncivil POV-pusher who has gotten away with it for years, one of the people who may have complained to get me globally office-banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. For what? Unknown. In any case, here are some fun JzG edits, in reverse date order

  • 20:48, 5 February 2019‎ Reverted good faith edits by 193.173.217.58 (talk): It’s significant that she broadcaSTS ON WINGNUT CABLE (TW)
  • 10:53, 27 January 2019‎ →‎Anti-vaccine reporting: don’t especially like primary sourcing but Mnookin is a published authority so probably OK in this case. [Yup. He knew it was a problem, but did it anyway].
  • 10:47, 27 January 2019‎ Reverted to revision 880322583 by Snooganssnoogans: Revert the usual whitewashing (TW) [what he reverted was closer to sources.]

There was a strong level of churning on the Vaccination section. That’s basically quite old news, why was it still in so much flux? (My answer: there is currently a great deal of hysteria about anti-vaxx as pseudoscientific misinformation causing epidemics, etc. From history, JzG’s point of view would be obvious. He is regular and very predictable, has been for years. Whenever a neutral presentation of sourced fact makes an  article subject look less crazy, the faction will call it “whitewashing,” as if the job of the project is to blacken reputations. To the pseudoskeptics, that is exactly their agenda, to attack “pseudoscience” and “quacks” and anyone who gets in their way.

  • 09:54, 26 January 2019Reverted to revision 879123820 by Ser Amantio di Nicolao: More neutral title since she is anti-vax (TW) [He just lied.]
  • 19:10, 10 January 2019 (→‎Reporting on vaccines and autism: more to the point) [Changes the head to “False reporting on vaccines and autism]

Yes, indeed to the “point,” the POV (point of view) that JzG has been pushing for years. The sources do not support that conclusion. Some of these things were discussed on the Talk page, on which JzG demonstrated his standard rigidity and contempt for other users. He was recently reprimanded by the community and may have gone off on in a huff, he has not edited at all for three weeks, from a pace of many edits per day. It has been noticed, see his talk page. 9 March, he was in Bangalore. So maybe he is travelling.

So what’s the point?

Until we wake up to our need for truly reliable journalism, that avoids unnecessary conclusions (or, more practically, that walls off and distinguishes between fact and opinion) — just as we need reliable government and reliable institutions of all kinds —  and until we become willing to work toward this goal, trustworthiness by design, little will change, my prediction. Existing structures are almost all vulnerable to corruption of various forms.

When we become aware of problems, what do we normally do? Most of us do nothing, we don’t believe that reform is actually possible. A few become activists and create organizations, which, of course, we create using standard models, which are intrinsically vulnerable, or in a few cases, we go for an anarchist model, which, without protective structure, predictably devolves into one of the standard models. See the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

It is known how to create organizations that are not as vulnerable to this, (it has been done here and there) but few know it and understand it. And what I’ve seen, when I have described the approaches to others, is that they will say something like: “I am so glad that someone is thinking about this.” Subtext: so that I don’t have to, end of topic.  One of my old questions:

How many people does it take to change the world?

Two, but most people won’t lift a finger. Literally.

Is there anyone out there willing to take responsibility for the future of humanity? Comments here are open. Let me know!

 

 

Tweet

Sara Wilson as a target of medical fascism

Warning: in this review, I cover claims made that Sara Wilson (Wikipedia) had promoted anti-vaccination propaganda. These were false, she supports vaccination and only explained what anti-vaccination parents, in the context under discussion, might say or think, claimed ignorance, and then asked about evidence. She did not realize, apparently, that this was a Forbidden Topic.

To avoid a repetition of this unfortunate incident, a Ministry of Truth should be established, to publish a Journal of Correct Fact, and all public figures should be required to become familiar with its contents, so that they do not accidentally question the Correctness of any Fact covered there. Once fact is published there, any researcher who hints that a Correct Fact might be flawed in some way may then be appropriately and fairly discredited and professionally excommunicated, having willfully or negligently disregarded the norms of civilized behavior, and any public figure who violates the norms can be blacklisted, excluded from public appearances, and his or her work burned, to protect the innocent from corruption by error. Think of the children!


I sometimes look over Wikipedia:FTN (Fringe theories noticeboard), because activity of the Smith brothers sometimes shows up there and because the faction that has, from time to time, supported the Smiths is active there. So I saw this:

Sarah Wilson and vaccination

On 12 March I received a rather disquieting tweet from the subject of this article. The exchange can be seen here. This gained me a number of new twitter followers who seemed to approve of Wilson’s tweet (“go get him!”).

I have copied the tweets here. His presentation on FTN is not clearly supported by the exchange itself, which demonstrates classic Wikipedian belief in lack of personal responsibility. 

Our article is still pretty dire and the content in question possibly undue anyway – but Wilson seems very keen for our article to carry material countering press reports about anti-vaccination comments she made. To my mind the heavy use of her own blog to this end is unduly self-serving. Having been warned-off, I shall leave the content question to others.

I notice immediately that he assumes she made “anti-vaccination comments,” when that is the whole point (she didn’t, as we will see below).

As a “PS” I received a further tweet saying “a Group of media academics and I have been attending to the article repeatedly To update the information”[25] which piqued my interest. Whatever the state of the article, it cannot be right for article content to be decided by coordinating WP:MEAT and twitter. No WP:COI disclosures have been made. I notice in recent times the accounts Writingtask and Fransplace seem to have focused on the content Wilson is complaining about.

This is the standard Wikipedia trope. For people to discuss and communicate about WP content off-wiki is somehow bad and wrong, but to do so on a page heavily weighted toward the “skeptical” faction, and where contrary positions are quite unwelcome, is just fine. The bias introduced by “sceptics,” as Alex Brown identifies himself, is really a “scientific point of view,” but what is at stake is not science, but people and personalities and impressions. Editors make choices, and decisions are made by those with community savvy and clout, with the pretense that it is “the community,” when the community is mostly unaware, and every attempt to create structure that would generate true consensus was killed, stomped on, salted, and anyone proposing reform was harassed off the wiki.

For Brown to back off, fine. But he had to invite his friends to take over? Why is this on FTN? There is no clear involvement with fringe theory here, rather this is all about politics and appearances. The issue of whether or not Sarah Wilson made an “anti-vaccination” comment is not a fringe theory. She did or she didn’t, or it is a matter of interpretation, and is careful journalism practiced on Wikipedia?

It should be, but often it is not, and “anti-vaxx” is heavily attacked by the so-called skeptical faction, even though anti-vaxx is a skeptical position. But the “wrong kind” of skepticism, allegedly. Think of the children!

This may need to go to another noticeboard, but thoughts welcome – this reminds me of a couple of incidents in the past years where there have been issues with decisions about fringe content/BLP being taken off-wiki rather than thrashed-out transparently here. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In a real encyclopedia, there will be a great deal of unpublished discussion. What would matter would be documentation of decisions. Attempts to discuss issues thoroughly on-wiki are often deprecated, and turn talk pages into train wrecks. It appears to be Just Fine for skeptics to coordinate on other than article talk pages — that is this whole noticeboard! — but not anyone else.

Okay, let’s look at what Brown had been doing:

The article was stable for a long time. It was edited by highly reputable editors, DGG, May  2015, adding a “reads like a press release” tag, and by Iridescent, September, 2015, with minor fixes. Before Brown edited it, it contained this section:

On 11 April 2013, Sarah Wilson was heavily criticized for her statements supporting the anti-vaccination movement while a guest on the morning variety show Sunrise. Claims made included suggesting that there was lack of evidence for efficacy and safety of vaccinations. These claims are despite the fact she had no medical or health qualifications at the time. She was quoted as saying ‘What they say is that the gold standard studies, right, that are done to really absolutely conclusively prove things, the double-blind placebo cross something or other tests have not been done and it’s almost impossible to do that on human beings, especially children.’ This was in reference to double-blind randomised controlled trials, of which many are available online.[8]

The source for this was a breathless report by a social media columnist for  news.com.au (a web news source, not a newspaper), APRIL 11, 2013

Sarah Wilson creates controversy after she appears to back anti-vaccine movement
FORMER MasterChef host Sarah Wilson sparks outrage when she appears to tell Sunrise viewers that not all child immunisations are safe.

FORMER MasterChef host Sarah Wilson has caused widespread outrage after a television appearance this morning in which she appeared to advocate the anti-vaccination movement.

Speaking on Channel 7’s Sunrise program about today’s news that immunisation rates are dropping in Australia’s wealthiest suburbs, the author and TV personality claimed research about the safety and efficacy of vaccines was “not conclusive”.

“I’m not going to take a stance on this myself because I don’t know fully but the research is not conclusive,” she said, to vocal opposition from host David Koch and other panellists Kylie Gillies and Daily Telegraph reporter Caroline Marcus.

When challenged by a clearly shocked Koch, Wilson cited claims by the anti-vaccination movement that “the double-blind placebo cross something or other tests” had not been done to prove the safety of immunisation.

“I’m just putting it from the perspective of the anti-vaccination movement’s perspective,” she said.

“What they say is that the gold standard studies, right, that are done to really absolutely conclusively prove things, the double-blind placebo cross something or other tests have not been done and it’s almost impossible to do that on human beings, especially children.”

Wilson also claimed that wealthy parents were less likely to vaccinate their children because “they tend to be older and I guess more educated”.

“They tend to engage in some of the debates a bit more deeply, as a result they weigh up all the different research and so on,” she said.

Wilson’s remarks quickly caused a social media storm, with the author this morning hitting back at hundreds of Twitter users flooding her with angry messages.

“Just to remind irate @sunriseon7 viewers going me, I was asked for the arguments anti-vaccine parents cite NOT my personal views,” she tweeted.

Wilson later tweeted: “OK, once more with balance: I WAS ASKED ‘WHY ARE SOME PARENTS NOT VAXING’. NOT ‘ARE YOU ANTI-VAX’. I outlined the argts OTHERS put forward.”

However many following the debate were unimpressed, labelling her irresponsible and misinformed.

“Not impressed, Sarah Wilson. It’s not unbiased to offer crazy opinions as the other side of the coin, just irresponsible,” tweeted one user, while another branded her “ridiculous and irresponsible”.

Earlier, Wilson had seemingly continued to push the anti-vaccination argument with a tweet reading: “Can someone cite a double blind crossover placebo study proving vaccines work?”

“Eradication of Smallpox pretty compelling, ” was one user’s reply.

That story is itself outrageous. The columnist picks what comments to note, and in a tweetstorm, it would be unusual for someone to not excoriate the person. What was the overall tenor? This was all the same day, where did this settle? Wilson is definitely not an antivax advocate, she would not have said what she said as she said it if she were. Essentially, she asked forbidden questions, not realizing just how fascist the issue had become. (Fascist here refers to the suppression of dissent, even raising questions that can be seen as challenging the TRUTH is prohibited, and will be immediately attacked).

As I pointed out in a post yesterday, both sides of this issue can be fascist, condemning those who differ as beyond the pale, murderers, to be harassed and rejected. All sides (as extremes) exaggerate the evidence that favors their position, and deny that there is any evidence at all in the other direction. This is “populist fascism” which can even be “democratic,” where the rights of minorities and minority opinion are not strictly protected. Deliberative democracy (the kind that is superior to autocracy and mob rule) requires civility in discourse, and maintaining this is difficult. If it is lost, however, Athens democratically condemned Socrates to death for asking inconvenient questions, “corrupting the youth,” and the ultimate result was the defeat of Athens.

Wilson did not ask the question correctly. The issue is not necessarily all vaccines, and those critical of vaccination practices vary. In particular, the poster boy for anti-vax “murderer,” Alexander Wakefield (caution! Wikipedia article!) was not “anti-vaccine,” only questioning the specific triple-vaccine, MMR.

Rather, Wilson was asking about the gold standard for medical evidence, double-blind placebo controlled studies. As well, whenever a treatment is applied routinely to a very large population without symptoms, as a preventative measure, there is the possibility of unforeseen effects, so even if the assessment that the benefit outweighs risks — even greatly outweighs them, overall — is there careful monitoring of vaccinated populations? I have read very little antivax argument, but what little I have seen raises issues like that. Further, there can be religious issues.

A refusal to vaccinate does not generally place a child at high risk (unless there is a raging epidemic! — contrary to what some might think, measles is still very rare). Interfering in the parental relationship can cause great harm; if refusal to vaccinate leads to termination of parental rights, that is a definite harm — unless there is other abuse — it can even lead to fatalities — against a speculative risk, small in comparison with ordinary risks of childhood.

The response of that tweeter, about smallpox, avoided the issue in favor of a one-liner. While some antivax activists may be extreme, smallpox vaccination clearly eliminated smallpox, a far more serious disease than measles, from the planet. It is now only administered in situations of special risk.

To eliminate smallpox, it was not necessary to vaccinate everyone. In some areas, strict quarantine and distance eliminated smallpox (Australia and New Zealand never vaccinated widely).

Now, back to the Wikipedia article on Wilson. It’s a good example of exaggerating what is in a source, and using synthesis to add more, typically from the point of view of the editor.

“heavily criticized for her statements supporting the anti-vaccination movement ” She did not make statements supporting the movement. The source has “appears to back.” The qualification is lost in the Wikipedia restatement. While Wilson was not careful in her wording, to be sure, this was a relatively casual conversation, certainly not a carefully prepared position statement. (The original conversation is shown in a video with the news.com.au post.)

The article includes Wilson’s denial that she intended to support the antivax movement. The Wikipedia article did not. The Wikipedia article confuses Wilson’s reporting of what vaccine skeptics claim, with what Wilson herself claimed (which was actually “I’m not going to take a stance on this myself because I don’t know fully . . .”

What she said (the complete statement) was ignored in favor of the reaction to part of it. If her goal was to avoid controversy, though, she was unskillful in asking the question about studies. I don’t think that she fully realized, then, that even asking a question like that, even though it would be normal curiosity, will appear to pro-vax activists as “supporting antivax.”

“These claims are despite the fact she had no medical or health qualifications at the time.” This is not in the source. The expression of opinion like that is common in Wikipedia articles on fringe topics. A journalist doesn’t need qualifications to present the arguments of others, if those arguments are actually presented (and they are). The Wikipedia text creates an impression contrary to the facts as shown by the news.com.au source and the video itself, where we can see an immediate and horrified response that simply denies the speculative argument of the parents without addressing the scientific issues. Wilson has presented a heretical argument without immediately condemning it, and was treated as if a heretic, with almost religious fervor.

(My interest here is fascism, not the truth of this or that position. A long-term interest is information cascades, especially where they involve allegations of scientific fact, that are actually social phenonmena where the process of science has been short-circuited, commonly for political reasons. It happens.)

(It is certainly possible to go ahead with public health measures in advance of final, definitive conclusions, but the problem arises when the scientific controversy is then suppressed in order to support the policies, instead of questions remaining open. And with medicine, it all gets complicated by major financial interests, affecting funding, lobbies, and reputations.)

“This was in reference to double-blind randomised controlled trials, of which many are available online.” This is also synthesis, not supported by the source. (The first part is clearly correct. The second may or may not be correct, and there is also the issue of scale. Wilson claimed that one cannot do placebo-controlled trials with children, and it is true that there are ethical issues, but it is also true that unless exposure is high, the risk from administering a placebo is low (i.e, the person is not protected, we think, by the placebo, but that is also a small risk in a mostly-vaccinated population) might also avoid a side effect. It might take special legislation to allow it. It is also possible that antivax parents might agree to participate, in the interests of value to humanity, taking a very small risk with their children. But her point was correct in that this cannot be simply done. Some compromise might be possible, especially as the risk becomes very low from herd immunity.

Bottom line, though, this paragraph violated policies, in a way that harmed Wilson.

So what happened?

Brown showed up and removed material from the article, not touching that problematic paragraph.

This was proper or within discretion, but had not been done before, because what was removed was factual but inadequately sourced. (Is Smart Company Reliable Source? Maybe.) Often editors will postpone removing such. “Fringe” was gratuitous and irrelevant. The pseudoskeptical faction still seems to think the idea of removing sugar from diet is “fringe.” Reducing it, even greatly, is practically mainstream now, if one pays attention.

Writingtask made a number of changes to the article. This is not an SPA, but also not an experienced Wikipedian. The account goes back to 2013, and only focused on the Wilson article in November and December, 2018. Alexbrn did, correctly, ping this user over his mention on FTN. The user has not edited Wikipedia at all, however, since March 17. (Pseudoskeptical activists like Brown drive away ordinary users.)

Alexbrn reverted almost everything done by Writingtask, with little explanations and hostile comments. It appears that Writingtask initially spent about two hours adding to the article, with sources (though possibly inadequate), and Alexbrn may have taken a minute to revert it (he allowed a miniscule change the first edit of Writingtask): Reverted to revision 866889202 by Writingtask (talk): Spammy/promotional. (TW). Using Twinkle may have taken him a minute. In all this (and to this day), the Talk page has not been used. After removing material that had long been there about Wilson’s “activism,” he then edited the title of that section.

His “better title”? Exaggerate the error! Anti-vaccine stance

Then he removed a harmless bit of unsourced bio, and failed to notice a blatant typo in the same paragraph, four words before. Writingtask attempted to correct the title shift, 3 but minutes after WT saved, Brown reverted.

21:14, 29 November 2018  (Reverted to revision 870670178 by 203.213.240.210: Rv. undue/illitrate. (TW))

Is this a parody of a Wikipedia editor? That edit reason makes no sense at all, besides the ironic mispelling.

Is it any wonder that Wilson believed Brown was pushing a personal point of view?

At this point, Alex has gone way into abusive editing. Writingtask is a noob, in effect, does not understand how Wikipedia works, but Alexbrn is demonstrating what is far too often wrong with Wikipedia: editors who believe they own the place and can do no wrong. With WT’s edit, Brown would now know,i f he is paying any attention, that the title and section are misleading. (But he may not even have read that.)

An author’s blog can be used for the author’s own position, with consensus. However, unless there are more sources on “vaccine stance,” the whole affair is of very marginal notability, it could be entirely removed. As it is, it was hostile synthesis, made worse by Brown’s title.

A Wikipedia trope is “Verifiability, not truth,” but experienced editors will strive for both. Placing something flat wrong in an article without clear attribution and with lack of caution about truth is abusive and will confuse the general public.

Writingtask was not competent, did not realize what was happening (few will in that context), and added an additional weak source criticizing Wilson, perhaps trying to compromise and perhaps because that source does acknowledge that Wilson claims to not be antivax. But it was a blatantly personal blog, a writer criticizing Wilson because she criticized the writer. There is no authority behind it, it blatantly misinterprets what Wilson actually said. It has “She pretty well said on national television that anyone who did vaccinate was uneducated and did not engage in the debate.”

Sarah Wilson very much did not say that. The discussion was of wealthy parents not vaccinating, and she speculated about wealthier parents perhaps having done more research and being more aware of negative arguments. She was not claiming they were correct, and she said nothing about anyone being uneducated. She was asked why those parents might think as they do, if it is even true that vaccination rates are lower among the wealthy. So when Brown took out the comment from Sarah, which Writingtask had sourced to her blog, he left in the blog reference, but took out what was apparently sourced from it, but that text was also in the original source, above. Brown was insisting on what amounts to cherry-picking the original source, and maintaining synthesis beyond it.

Writingtask gave up, did not edit on the topic after December 2.

Fransplace  (an experienced editor) corrected the section, 04:45, 19 March 2019, putting it all together.  The edit summary: (The Anti-vaccination paragraph was previously biased and seemed to omit any contrary viewpoints. Though Sarah Wilson’s blog was cited in that previous version, her comments were not included in the information in that earlier version of the paragraph.)

That obviously triggered Brown’s comments on FTN at 08:17, 19 March 2019. He then notified Fransplace at 8:19 and Writingtask at 8:20, of the FTN post. (Asking Fransplace “Do you have a WP:COI to declare for this article?”)

Teratix, later that day, trimmed the section greatly and changed the title to Vaccination comments

Fransplace responded to Brown:

Hi Alexbrn. Thank you for your message. I don’t have a WP:COI in relation to this page. I don’t know Sarah Wilson. I added information after reading about this issue from blog entries and I believe my changes/additions did not seek to present information in a biased way (I tried to write only about what had been published “according to…” etc) or promote the living person. Teratix ₵ trimmed back my additions which must have been too wordy. Thank you for adding a link that leads to the Twitter exchanges. I didn’t see them before and see your point entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

So where did Fransplace (who is Australian) find out about the issue? This user is an academic, and a very experienced Wikipedian, see the User page. Alexbrn was outclassed and up a creek without a paddle. The problem is that people like Alexbrn get away with this far too often. Writingtask was driven away, instead of being helped. There used to be users who would notice things like that and intervene. They burned out or were blocked for being inconvenient.

I could not find a blog mention. But Sarah was told about the issue by “academics,” and it was an Australian academic who fixed it. Any one of them might have an obscure blog. Or Fransplace did not disclose the reality. One does not develop a COI merely by knowing someone, for example. Much less by knowing a friend of the person.

Alexbrn simply could not understand that he had created a strong impression of bias from his behavior. However, he did back off. If he had not, he might have discovered the water getting very hot indeed. Or not. What I saw demonstrated there was incompetence combined with a certain ready and quick incivility. It’s a very old story, I was vastly relieved when I was banned from Wikipedia in 2011 because I no longer had any obligation or responsibility to help. Compared to writing elsewhere, editing Wikipedia can be like slogging through molasses. Only dirty, stinky molasses. Maybe mole-asses or the product of them.

Update

There was no serious problem on the Sarah Wilson article except for his revert-warring there. Brown is back on FTN again, with a similar issue (i.e., not a mature dispute for a noticeboard).

Carlton Fredericks

IP editor is objecting to use of QuackWatch to source the fact that this health-guru of yesteryear was a heavy smoker. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Brown is revert-warring with an IP. He claims that the undiscussed change should be taken to talk, but does not take it there, merely revert-wars. This is a classic issue for pseudoskeptics. QuackWatch is clearly an advocacy site with a heavy slant. The Wikipedia article on Quackwatch is entirely laudatory, not a breath of criticism, even though it certainly exists. The contrast with articles on targets of the pseudoskeptics is dramatic, where anything negative, often poorly sourced, will be dredged up.

The problem with the Fredericks article is revert warring, and Brown is violating WP:3RR (as is the IP). So instead of going to the normal Administrators Noticeboardf/Incidents, he goes to FTN, where “QuackWatch” is a dog whistle to his friends.

Going to any noticeboard without attempting to discuss difference on Talk is itself disruptive. I’m seeing a pattern here with Brown.

Looking at the Carlton Fredericks article, I see immediately that it was heavily edited by Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434. This is the user who worked for most of his apparently short Wikipedia career as Skeptic from Britain (see my page) and then briefly as MatthewManchester1994. One of his last acts was a comment in a deletion discussion. About him, there, Jimbo Wales said he was “a serial namechanger and POV pusher who left the project.” (my conclusion, after over a year of study of the issue, is that SfB was Darryl L. Smith, blocked as Goblin Face, and one of the two brothers who are the Anglo Pyramidologist sock family.)

In fact, there is an entire faction of POV pushers like this, and they cooperate and collaborate, and it has long been tolerated.

(Activity on RationalWiki continued as John66, following the same agenda, plus he creates many sock puppets, often blaming them on me.)

Quackwatch is clearly an advocacy site, not neutral journalism. In this case, the statement about smoking is a throwaway comment at the end of a piece by Barrett. We have no idea how Barrett knows this. What that does is demonstrate the shallow and shoddy writing, aimed at whatever will make a target look bad. Kind of like RationalWiki and what the pseudoskeptical faction pushes Wikipedia articles toward. However, RatWiki has a better article on QuackWatch than Wikipedia. But nobody mentions the actual lawsuit where QuackWatch probably lost, but we don’t know exactly, because they settled. The organization behind QuackWatch disappeared, it is an “unincorporated association of people,” as distinct from ducks, presumably.

I don’t see how such could be Reliable Source for Wikipedia purposes. However, it is possible that it could be used with attribution, i.e, “According to QuackWatch, writing many years after Fredericks died, he was a heavy smoker.”

Does “heavy” mean he was fat, or that he smoked a lot of cigarettes. Or cigars, perhaps. big fat cigars. Fredericks died, which proved that his health ideas were wrong, right? People with the “correct scientific thinking” don’t die, only those who are or who follow quacks die. With rare exceptions, of course.

(Material from a hostile source, or a source with an axe to grind (in either direction, not fully independent) should never be used without attribution. Brown wants to continue to use QuackWatch as a source for fact, and, on FTN, calls the smoking claim a “fact”. Is it? How does he know that? The fact is that Barrett wrote it. It may or may not be a fact that Fredericks was a “heavy smoker.” This may be a rumor Barrett heard that he repeated. It may have been true at one time, but no longer true later. There is no connection between the smoking and the death, only a weak inference. Fredericks died at 76, a respectable life span. The New York Times has an actual journalistic obituary, giving fact about some of the controversies in Fredericks’ life. )

Meanwhile, another IP editor appeared to revert the IP objecting, 82.132.229.89. That is Telephonica O2, I strongly suspect this could be Darryl Smith/John66/Skeptic from Britain. All over whether this guy was a “heavy smoker” or not (from a time when it was much more common.) (But this could also geolocate with Brown.)

Continuing to watch this, Brown, as is common for editors like this, instead of attempting to negotiate consensus on the article talk page, which still remains unused — and that material from QuackWatch has never been discussed other than in edit summaries — went to WP:RFPP to request page protection, to stop the IP editing. It’s worth looking at the time sequence here.

Carlton Fredericks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logsTemporary extended confirmed: Persistent disruptive editing – Continued removed of content by IP. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute regarding the reliability of QuackWatch, specifically this, as a source of biographical information. Samsara 07:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Already protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeatherSamsara 19:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Now, this is interesting. Both Samsara and CambridgeBayWeather are long-time administrators. Both would be very familiar with basic adminstrative policy: administrators do not combine making content decisions with using admin tools. In this case, there was revert warring between the RFPP compainant, Brown, and an IP editor. Brown had said that the issue should be taken to Talk, but did not take it there, instead, kept reverting, then went to WP:FTN and then to WP:RFPP. Over a claim that Carlton Fredericks was a “heavy smoker,” combined with a statement of his death from a heart attack (creating an appearance of causation, which is exactly what might be expected of an advocacy site like QuackWatch.) It is not at all clear that notability of the alleged fact has been established.

However, there would have been an obvious compromise, which is what is recommended for advocacy sites that are also considered to have a level of reliability, attributing the reference. That was not done.

Instead, CambridgeBayWeather, reverted the IP and protected the page into his preferred version. I have seen sysops have their tools removed for actions like that, but I have also seen them get away with it for years, and to confront one is to risk one’s account. Even if one “wins.”

Samsara knows this policy and referred to it early in the day.

I had to fix a claim that wasn’t supported by the source, so might be better if someone else examines this for protection. Samsara 07:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

On Carleton Fredericks:

Okay, the admin had the right to do that. However, I’d worry about the use of Twinkle by both CBW and Brown. That tool is designed to simplify the handling of vandalism, and this was not vandalism. But then CBW went further, and notice that this was done within a matter of seconds:

One or the other, not both! (Were this clear vandalism, one might argue for both, but it was not. Samsara recognized the issue.) It has been a fairly common one. Researching the issue of the use of Quackwatch, it has been recommend that it can be used with care, and attribution has been suggested. This is generally true for advocacy sites, but where editors agree with the advocated position, it is often ignored. “According to QuackWatch, Carlton Fredericks was a heavy smoker.” That is simply a fact. One could still argue about the notability. Lots of historical figures were heavy smokers and it is not in the biographies.

Wikipedia is unreliable because there is no reliable editorial process, just a process that sort-of works, and was cheap. It is essentially a social media site with no responsible editorial oversight. But sometimes there is! The whole process is phenomenally inefficient, and measures that would increase efficiency while improving reliability (those actually go together) have been fought tooth and claw.

In any case, the IP did not simply go away. Did they expect this user would?

On User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

Carlton Fredericks Website

You have protected the Carlton Fredericks page from edits at the request of the author.

The page relies for sourcing on a self-published, non-neutral source, Quackwatch.org. Quackwatch.org is the website of Stephen Barrett, and the article is by Stephen Barrett. Wikipedia’s criteria for credible sources provides, “self-published media are largely not acceptable.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). The site is also an advocacy site. It is a non-neutral source, which produces negative articles about individuals deemed by the website owner to be “quacks.”

The page also repeats, verbatim, material from this source without quotations, a violation of Wikipeda’s antiplagiarism policy. The sentence “A heavy smoker, he died of a heart attack at the age of 76.” is a quote from Quackwatch.org. As written, the article suggests Fredericks died from complications due to smoking. In the context of the negative article, this sentence is offered to further discredit Fredericks’ claims about health. No support is offered for this claim.

The article was edited to remove the smoking reference (unsourced and nonneutral) and to remove the citation to Quackwatch (a non-neutral, self-published source). (The edit also had the advantage of eliminating the page author’s plagiarism.) An explanation of the edit was provided when it was made.

The author of the page persistently reversed the edits, without reason or support. To avoid Wikipedia’s ban on edit warring, he switched from his logged in account to editing as IP and continued to reverse the edit. He then reversed the edit again and appealed to you to protect the page.

Please explain why you are preventing a correction of page that would bring it into compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.100.193 (talk)

As is common with the inexperienced, this IP was confused in his or her language. The person is clearly referring to Alexbrn (Brown), as the “author,” because of “persistently” reversing the edits. Alexbrn was clearly revert warring. Then the claim is made that Alexbrn edited as IP. That is possible, but probably unlikely. That IP matches a user who might be expected to support Brown’s position, though it could be Brown, I have not researched his location. I doubt he would take the chance, just for those few words.

You can note that QuackWatch.org is run though an advisory board of experts, so hardly WP:SPS. – Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading. That QW Fredericks article was old, last revised 2012, and Barrett apparently changed the organizational structure after that, facing legal issues (settled in 2017). It is unclear what role the advisory board plays, it may be little more than a rubber stamp for Barrett, but the core issue, not actually disputed, is that QuackWatch is an advocacy site, with a point of view and a bias against anything not mainstream.

The ownership of the site is unclear. Donations are solicited and are sent directly to Barrett.  However, the site is clear: “Operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D.”

(Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, not currently licensed to practice medicine, if I’m correct.)

This site is most reasonably considered self-published, so the IP is correct on that account.

Please see the definition of “self-published.” Also, please explain the basis for the claim that an advisory board exists, that it is expert, and that it has reviewed this article. Finally, please explain why you believe this article to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.100.193 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well IP I most certainly did not protect the page based on a request from Stephen Barrett. Are you making a claim that Barrett is editing as Alexbrn and as IP 82.132.229.89? If you think that is the case you need to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or stop making silly claims. Quackwatch has been found to be reliable for certain things and Ahunt is not suggesting that it/they have reviewed the Carlton Fredericks page. Wikipedia does not have outside organisations review pages. I protected the page due to the Wikipedia:Edit warring that was occurring. Finally, you are at the wrong page. If you think the material should not be included then go to Talk:Carlton Fredericks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Is CBW really this clueless? Maybe. He seems to have no idea what the dispute is about. He protected the page because of edit warring. Okay, who was warned for edit warring? Not the IPs and not Brown. He reverted material back in. He does not seem to be aware of what the dispute was about. That would have taken reading the edit summaries of the IP complaining.

However, going to Talk would have been the way to go. The relevant material has never been discussed, the Talk page was not used. However, knowing the history of the faction that Brown devotes most of his editing to, I would not encourage the IP to put in much effort. You can spend months to get a change of a few words. Time might be better spent to create independent resources on Carlton Fredericks, if one cares about him. Might be an interesting person, certainly knew some interesting persons.

I have not socked on Wikipedia since 2011 (it’s all described on another page). When I see crap like this, it’s very tempting! Fascist administration creates disruption, once the oppressed realize that the banhammer is made of air and does not actually inflict pain — unless one really cares about the encyclopedia, and the growth and development of fascist administration burned out many, many who did care. I was one, and I worked for a neutral project that would seek genuine consensus. It was not wanted and while there were many who liked my ideas (including one who was elected to ArbComm), there was no reliable protection of whistleblowers. Just of administrators, “valuable volunteers.”

(The one elected to ArbComm resigned because of real-world, in-his-face threats to his family. So much for reform. Most Wikipedians have no idea how ugly it can be, under the surface.)

Do I care if Fredericks smoked or not? Does anyone really care? Yet when one becomes addicted to Wikipedia, it all can seem Very Important.

Alexbrn has global edits 36,284 edits over 12 years.

When I have been researching the sock puppet activity of Darryl Smith (aka Goblin Face), the account of Alexbrn often showed up. I have not seen any direct evidence, but in the case above, Alexbrn continued the agenda of Smith (as the former Skeptic from Britain). But he appears to be a real person. If he is. I have been learning that things are not always as they appear, and Darryl claimed, years ago, to have many accounts in good standing. Yet — that IP could have been Darryl and it also could have been Brown, if he grew impatient. We may never know. (And there is even evidence that Darryl Smith does not exist, is, instead, another persona of his brother, Oliver Smith.)

CambridgeBayWeather, global edits 230,398 over 14 years. Here, he seems to have originally spent a minute on the Fredericks article, he was either pretending not to know, or had no idea what the conflict was about, but acted using tools anyway. Why?

I don’t know, but I do know that very long-term admins tend to burn out and become less and less patient and more likely to make mistakes, and if they combine that with an attitude that they never make mistakes, it can create huge messes. Using Twinkle to handle a content dispute, not a good sign.

In the old days, if someone who cared about the community saw an interchange like this, they would go to the IP talk page and encourage the IP to register an account and then they would counsel the IP how to ask for what they want — and would inform the user of what they could and could not do. There used to be lots of users who would do this, though never enough. More common, even then, was punishment of “bad behavior,” or merely lack of clue. At best, the user runs into a brick wall.

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

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

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

From Wikipedia:

Cold fusion deletion

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

From Wikiversity:

Lomax has filed against you and 8 other John Doe
My collegue Abd Lomax has finally filed https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27215121/Lomax_v_WikiMedia_Foundation,_Inc_et_al https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/3:2019cv30025/207020 Friend of Lomax (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit talk by Cold Fusion 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They figured that out on Wikipediocracy.

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

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

[. . .]

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

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

This could be the same troll: Hallwang_Clinic

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

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

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

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

Claim

Repeating the text of the sock edits on Wikipedia:

Cold fusion deletion

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

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

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

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

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

He did not delete it. He argued for deletion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifier

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

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

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

The behavior stands out clearly here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108.174.61.164 sole edit 04:48, 16 March, asking the same question of Ikanreed. Claims to be Verifier. Blocked by John66 at 04:57 (Block evasion: Abd Lomax sock)

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

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

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

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

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

So John66 appears on Kendrick’s blog.

John66

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

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

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

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

I am not a vegan activist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards. John66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

Above, I quoted John66 and mentioned twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

You recently said you’ve never posted on Twitter, yet you have made tweets there. Your earlier tweets were made in January 3 months before you just outright lied in your blog post. https://twitter.com/search?q=abdlomax&src=typd

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

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

The verifiable reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Abd banned on RatWiki?

Brief answer: If two users can ban a third user, without a community process, yes, I am, by this definition, banned on RationalWiki. However, that is contrary to not only RatWiki traditions, but also to long-standing general wiki traditions. Any sysop with the tools can block. Any RatWiki moderator can sysoprevoke, which prevents ordinary sysops from restoring sysop tools for a user (and blocking a sysop is useless, except that Rats use blocks as a messaging method, because any sysop can unblock themselves.)

However, by standard wiki language, I am not banned, but only blocked. However, they used to talk, on Wikipedia, about being “defacto banned,” because no admin was willing to unblock. But that can be reversed by an admin, at any time. The Smith brothers, as AngloPyramidologist, are “defacto banned,” not actually banned, because there is a ban process not followed, nor considered necessary, because of the massive socking.

Any RW moderator can declare sysoprevoke for any user, preventing that account from being given tools by other sysops. However, these are all ad hoc measures, which can be taken as a prevention of harm. Any sysop can actually desysop and then block, but any sysop can reverse that. It is not a ban.

The Smith brothers have blocked a user, then, for further action, declaring that user “banned.” An example is given below, of Debunking spiritualism (Darryl L. Smith) blocking Merkel, and then unblocking his brother Oliver, (as Callimachus), who had been blocked for harassing Merkel, part of which was a cooping that failed.

In my 2nd cooping attempt, an oligarch declared that there is no difference between a block and a ban. That cooping, started by DS, was closed after less than an hour, with only a handful of comments, so it was certainly not a real cooping. There is no community ban established through community process. But the Smith brothers are great at creating Mob opinion, by creating hordes of impersonation socks. It works!

However, this shows that the hierarchy has abandoned not only deference to the Mob, but ordinary wiki language as well (where a block can be declared by a single sysop, but a ban requires community process). These usurpations of community power take place slowly, over time, it’s “wiki disease.” It happens partly because the core (that started the wiki and that had wiki ideals in mind, or others that joined it with similar ideals) burn out and retires, stops paying attention, and only those who love power remain, until they too, burn out, through generations of accumulating loss of collective intelligence.

One of the common phenomena that accompanies this is persistent trolling, the creation of enormous armies of sock puppets, stimulated by normal human response to being abused. Insulting trolls and vandals is highly likely to stimulate more trolling and vandalism, but immature sysops — RatWiki is overwhelmed with such because of how easily it gives the tools — routinely insult those they block or whose edits they delete. And it is rare that anyone points this out.

Cutting off talk page access on Wikipedia is an extreme measure, not done without substantial warning, at least that used to be the situation. Gradually, the protective measures and traditions fall away in favor of severity. Treating people like trolls creates and intensifies trolling, making the sysops even angrier, and this process predictably continues.

My RatWiki user page was recently edited by Dysklyver, and he thoughtfully linked to the alleged coopings that would normally accompany a ban, particularly of a user who was a sysop. So here they are:

This is very odd. This was not a cooping resulting in ban. The discussion was created by Wing Street. Allowing blatant attack SPAs to start disruptive process is a classic problem with wikis allowing anonymous editing. Normally, a new user starting something like that would be whacked. But he wasn’t. Wing Street also copied text from a Talk page, and went after Ikanreed and Ariel31459. This was all reverted by Christopher, but then restored by him immediately. I’d expect Christopher to know better.

There was no discussion on the Coop, only the material copied from elsewhere (which should never be done without explicit reference). There was only one edit to the section on me, by RoninMacbeth, then FuzzyCatPotato archived it all. This creates the appearance of a cooping. WingStreet tried to restore it and was trout-slapped. I see no sign that any sane RW user noticed a desysopping out-of-process, solely on the authority of David Gerard. The discussion copied to the Coop came from the Saloon Bar. So a new user was allowed to remove massive comment from the SB, and take it to the Coop, and that ended up standing.

That discussion was started by Skeptical (whom I think was likely Oliver, certainly a Smith) and referred to https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:RationalWiki_Smith_brothers_conspiracy_theory. Later, Skeptical deleted that page as “containing doxxing.” There was no doxxing on that page, only the name of the article, essentially.

The actual “Conspiracy theory” article was archived. That article was created by Mr Organic, which would be Oliver or Darryl. The same idea (“conspiracy theory”) was added to the article on me by Skeptical. My sin was discussing the article on its talk page. The talk page had been archived to Talk:RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory/Archive1, but David Gerard deleted it.  On that page, I simply told the truth, and did not claim that the trolls I had identified were “Smith brothers.”

Since then, the evidence  about the brothers has become overwhelming and Rats are starting to realize it. Oliver is currently being treated as banned. It is not clear if they realize who John66 is. There may be other Smith socks sporadically active, less easy to detect.

In any case, there was certainly no consensus in that alleged cooping. The only live comment made in it by a regular user questioned the need for sanctioning Abd. The discussion on the Saloon Bar only showed support by David Gerard, who certainly acted abruptly. This was the end of that discussion,

I would like to add that there was quite a bit of back-and-forth about whether Abd should be a Sysop back in 2012, with several people, including @David Gerard removing that status due to abuse. Abd doesn’t have the benefit of the doubt in my view, but let’s see evidence first. Bongolian (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

evil Mod powerz I deleted the article and the talk page, and have deopped Abd. Ban may follow if other mods concur. Abd, stop it – David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC

Again, what was I to “stop”? Yes, David Gerard had promoted me in 2012, but the mods and others had reversed this. The difference in 2017 was that those mods were gone, nobody intervened, David Gerard supported the Smiths (an astonishingly high percentage of his recent logs show Smith support) and so there it sat. I was not blocked by Gerard, the indef block was by Skeptical.

First, there is another cooping on that page, on User:Merkel, started by ODS, who was openly Oliver D. Smith. The attempt to ban Merkel failed. Debunking spiritualism showed knowledge appropriate for Oliver’s brother. (There are many, many signs that DS was Darryl L. Smith, not just initials!). In May, DS went on a sysop rampage, deleting many pages, blocking old inactive accounts, before retiring, claiming he had been hacked. One of his actions was to bl0ck Merkel, who had not been active for a month, unblock Callimachus, clearly Oliver, who had been blocked for harassing Merkel . The unblock comment: (Merkel has been banned for doxing/harassement; everything callimachus said was true) Nobody noticed (unless they were following this blog.)

This was Darryl, without doubt. His deletions covered up, among other things, places where he had been outed as “my family” or “my brother” by Oliver. The hacked story was believed, even though it was ridiculous. I have never hacked an account, it’s actually illegal. But if I did, first thing I would do is to change the password! The history of DS in those few days was standard Smith agenda, only the last few edits, relatively speaking, got crazy.  He was setting up the hacking story, likely. Or was drunk.

So Debunking spiritualism dumps a pile of lies on the Coop, but he has, with many accounts and socks, been setting up the Rats to believe them.

The cooping was filed 17:23, 11 March 2018

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has been socking on hundreds of accounts and proxy IPs recently causing disruption on multiple pages

Nope. I have socked, to be sure, but not to disrupt. As an example, comments on my blog appear with names that are RW users. These are almost certainly impersonations. This is completely normal when the Smiths are involved. But I think those impersonated should know. So I dropped notes on user talk pages referring to the comment, so they could affirm or deny them. But I stopped doing this fairly quickly, because few Rats appreciated it at all. The list of socks from my article. The real accounts are left in black.

  • Abd my long-term account
  • Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax obvious impersonation sock.
  • AbdLomax copied material, mangled, I had written from elsewhere. Impersonation. 
  • ColdFusion Impersonation
  • Lomax Impersonation
  • EnergyNeutral My only blocked sock on Wikipedia, an experiment, acknowledged. Impersonation.
  • Cold_Fusion_Community Impersonation.
  • لله الحمد لله Bad Arabic, impersonation.
  • Cold_Fusion_Team Impersonation
  • DGL My birth name initials. Impersonation.
  • CFC Impersonation.
  • Cold_Fusion_Community.net Impersonation.
  • 35672 I have no idea who this is. Not me.
  • 1,950,258 No idea who this is, unless Smith was angling for site blacklisting. Not me.
  • Defending_myself Not me. Impersonation, in effect.
  • InfiniteEnergy not me, impersonation. (“Infinite Energy” is a magazine that publishes on cold fusion.”)
  • Kujilia (impersonation, this is a Wikipedia user Abd has a vendetta against) Impersonation indeed, pretends to be me. I have no such vendetta. (Smith creates impersonations to cause those impersonated to attack his target.) See meta for cause. (Read the collapse. No vendetta against Kujilia. A mild suspicion, followed up — in too much detail — by a Wikiversity sysop.)
  • Cold_Fusion_Research‎ definitely not me.
  • Deal not me. I never thought ReadyMade was a Smith.
  • Dealer not me, impersonation following a real sock of mine (disclosed) 
  • RealDeal not me, impersonation
  • The_Real_Deal not me. Characteristic of impersonation socks: very disruptive. I have zero history where that was even alleged, until the Smiths created this mess on RatWiki. The real deal was me. Notice how that is not listed.
  • Authentic‎‎ Also me, disclosed on my authentication page. The sole edit was revdel’d by Debunking spiritualism.
  • CF‎‎ not me. Essentially, I would not use a name like that (nor any of the other CF-related names
  • A_full_disclosure‎ impersonation. (of the following account)
  • Full_disclosure was me, blocked with no edits, by DS.
  • 20,000 was not me. I was IP 159.65.94.188. 20,000 reverted my comment back in. Impersonation? Troll?

There were many other impersonations not listed. Because of Smith history, I suspect Smith was behind these impersonation accounts, but it is certainly a possibility that one of his enemies decided to troll him. It worked, or he faked being absolutely hysterical. I think, instead, that Darryl was lying, and he lied many times. He lied about having email communication with me, that was only with his brother.

In the cooping, DS lists also Open honesty as my account, as it was. Blocked by  DS with no edits.

Because accounts were so quickly blocked, even before being allowed to edit, I signed up for a proxy service. (It was only for one month). Wasting time on RatWiki was not worth more than that. If Rats don’t mind being fed continuous BS by the Smith brothers, not my problem. (Defamation is my problem, but editing is actually a distraction from dealing with it.)

He lists IPs.

  • [39] March 1, 2018, edited User talk:ODS. Confirmed. Four edits, one page. No block, non-distruptive.
  • [40] 26 Feb., two edits, responding to ODS. Confirmed. Blocked for doxing, (pointing out that ODS has outed himself).
  • [41] March 4, one edit, Blocked by DS for legal threat. NOT ME.
  • [42] March 4, one edit, clarifying fact  Confirmed.
  • [43] March 4, three edits, probably me, not sure. No block. Problem is?
  • [44] March 1, one edit, no block. Confirmed.
  • [45] March 5, four edits to my article talk,  Confirmed. Blocked by DS for block evasion and trolling. 
  • [46] March 5. two edits, explains what has been happening. No block. Confirmed.
  • [47] (Finally admits to being Abd, in the same range as other 159 proxies) March 5. Indeed. Confirmed. No block, informing user about impersonation.
  • [48] (IP hopping within minutes, as his proxies get blocked) March 5. Message for Christopher, self-reverted.  Confirmed. DS blocked.
  • [49] (In this edit, [50] admits to being Abd, says he can use 20,000 more proxies to troll) 49 Confirmed. 50 linked to a deleted edit, to a deleted talk page. No block. Did mention 20,000 proxies, but not “to troll.” Then account 20,000 reverted that back in (that was not me.)
  • [51] (Same 159 proxy range, back to talking in third person) March 6, Confirmed, and, by the way, I often refer to myself in the third person. Depending on context, it can be meaningless. Were the statements true? Blocked by DS, unblocked by Cow House.

Recent disruption on proxies

  • [52] March 11, reasserts an edit that was mine (see 53), I doubt this was me. Blocked DS.
  • [53] March 11, Confirmed. Blocked by Christopher as “sock of a banned user.”
  • [54] March 11, Responded to DS comment about me on this talk page. Telling the truth, or honest opinion, is “disruption” to DS. Confirmed.
  • [55] March 9, Confirmed and proud of it. Was the headline “a lie” Yes. Easy to confirm.
  • [56 March 9, DS added three misleading mentions of Abd on “Pissed at us.” IP removed them and edited Talk, removed by DS. Confirmed.
  • [57] duplicated 54.
  • [58] edits to User talk:CheeseburgerFace, suppressed March 12. Possible, can’t tell.

On most of the above IPs he has been leaving messages on CheeseburgerFace’s talk-page. Abd in his latest edits claims “If I’m banned, where is the cooping?”) [59].

As I recall, my comments on CF talk were being blanked by others, so I asked him to choose to receive messages from me or not. Again, as I recall, he never answered, but ultimately suppressed all of it. I may have asked that, the edit was among those suppressed.

Kujilia an Abd sock, is actually an editor on Wikipedia that Abd has a grudge against. A month earlier Abd had filed an abusive check-user request against this user which was denied by a check-user steward.

Kujilia was not my sock, for sure, and impersonations like that are a Smith specialty. I did file a checkuser request on a series of suspected “AP” socks — and that was only suspicion, no claim of policy violations was made, just his name added to the request, probably from some transient appearance. Kujilia was shortly checkuser-blocked as the sock of another user, and my recent review of that user does not turn up AP suspicion. That request was closed without action by a steward clearly disgusted by the argument on the request, stewards hate that, and this is another example of how the Smiths have learned to disrupt wiki process (pile in with many socks!). I had filed many such requests and almost all were granted, and that is how I first identified AP socks as impersonators. They continued socking, so requests continued. That one was joined by a Wikiversity sysop, who wrote way too much (which didn’t help!).

I started this coop so people can vote if they want to ban Abd or not. As I understand it he has already been blocked, but he is requesting a ban. No doubt Abd will turn up here on hundreds of proxy IPs claiming he has been impersonated and framed by skeptics. He also a tendency to write thousands and thousands of words and drain out anyone else’s opinion by bolding his own text or trying to get the last word in. I personally wouldn’t let him comment here but leave this vote for other users. But whatever. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not request a ban. I did comment, after others had commented. First, what they wrote:

I’m one of the people Abd doxes and smears on his blog. He’s also emailed me harassing message. So of course I support his ban if that is now made official.ODS (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

ODS was openly Oliver D. Smith. I never emailed him harassing messages. He emailed me and I responded.

He’s already banned, blocked and banned are synonymous on RationalWiki. However, if a coop case making it more official can get him to fuck off, I vote yes. Christopher (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and banned are obviously not synonymous. Users are blocked all the time, and there are users (Such as ODS, for sure), who have been blocked as an account, and who nevertheless create obvious socks, even socks that admit identity, and who are not considered banned.) There is a situation called “defacto ban,” where no sysop is willing to unblock. Obviously, though, this would not prevent a sysop user from unblocking themselves, which has always been allowed. The real issue would be revoking sysop privileges, which has traditionally required a cooping, and that never happened. These traditions maintained a certain diversity on RatWiki. As matters stood, any sysop could have decided to unblock and resysop. There had been a prior attempt at cooping, started by a troll, closed quickly. In order for desysop to be sustained, there normally must be abuse of tools shown. That was never shown, and the only alleged example was trivial. There was no wheel-warring, etc.

It’s all too obvious: the Smith brothers have support in high places, particularly from David Gerard.

I responded to the cooping, after Christopher’s comment. I just noticed, by the way, that there was no User talk page notice of the cooping and no other announcement. These notices create community attention.

And then:

Effs sake yes, the demented poltroon thinks he’s hard done by because there wasn’t a vote. I vote yes, infinite block, and my brother does too. WilderBicycle 18:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Typical Rat, believes s/he can tell what I think. This is what preceded that.

19:35, 5 March 2018 Readymade (talk | contribs) blocked I am being supressed (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (waaaa boo fucking hoo)

Account had no contributions. Christopher unblocked, Readymade reblocked and it was left that way. This was not me.

 19:49, 5 March 2018 Readymade (talk | contribs) deleted page Abd Lomax is being suppressed by Rationalwiki trolls  (Hopelessly off-mission: help! Help! Abd Lomax is being suppressed!)

Page was created by CF, an impersonation account. Why would I create a page on RatWiki when I can create them on my own blog, with total freedom? I would do it if I want the page author to be anonymous, but by a sock waving a flag that says ABD? No way. If I want to send a message to RatWiki users, I have much better ways.

19:50, 5 March 2018 Readymade (talk | contribs) blocked CF (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (I have reported you to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: Lomax being a whining pisspants crybaby again)

CF created at 19:42. Page created at 19:42. The coop comment was canvassed, on Readymade talk:

Abd Lomax
I created a coop about him [1], you can respond there if you like. He has now written about your account on his blog. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

i can’t find a reference to me on his blog. Link please? WilderBicycle 18:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/category/anglo-pyramidologist/ CowHouse (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, I’m a paid AP sock! How delightful. I’ll let the gender assumption go by for now, it’s part of his obsession that we’re all The Smiths. WilderBicycle 08:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no such claim, and no gender assumption. What was there at that point would have been this page on Supporters and enablers, explicitly not socks or paid. Only the account name. This idea that those who realize and write about think that all Rats are Smiths is a standard Smith trope. And those who spread Smith tropes are “supporters and enablers.” It’s a mild accusation, hardly even an attack. It can be inadvertent. The link given by CowHouse would be useless, it is a category link that would pull up many, many pages, because I’ve been writing about the “Anglo Pyramidologist” sock family — originally about the problem of disruptive process triggered by SPAs — for about 18 months. For some reason, this is what Smith socks have usually used, probably because they watch that category. But the display changes as new pages are added.

So I did create a page on ReadyMade, March 16 was the first edit, and it covers all this. Back to the cooping:

ABD was permabanned for making legal threats against RW. No coop case was or is necessary. End of story. I call to archive it now. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre. I made no such legal threats. The RWF is reasonably well insulated against legal hazard, but if there is any possibility, it would come after a formal take-down notice was ignored or rejected. I did send an email to the RWF, it was ignored, but that email would not be sufficient notice, and I have not threatened to sue the RWF. I have mentioned that some users are possibly liable, and that test was quoted as if it was about “RationalWiki.” I have not made anything remotely resembling legal threats on RW itself. But the impersonations socks did it many times. Bongolian is in any case claiming that a cooping is not necessary, and calls for a close. So then:

Abd says on his blog that being blocked and banned is different on RW and that he has only be ‘blocked’ and for a ban a coop is required. He was obviously lying or misinformed. I myself didn’t know either. He said he would stop socking if the community agreed to ban him but judging from his recent socking that was a lie as well. Best to move this to the archive. I apologise for creating it. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not recall saying I would “stop socking” if the community agreed to ban me. (DS has reported me as saying many things I did not say.) However, I will normally request the considered wish of a community. Maybe I don’t recall something. As mentioned above, there is such a thing as a defacto ban, and an action can be taken in an emergency, and legal threats could be an emergency. But I did not make threats. Sometimes any mention of legal issues is considered by naive communities as a legal threat, though. It becomes a “forbidden topic.” An attempt to create a resource on defamation was attacked by Smith socks as being from Mikemikev. This was truly weird. What if there are things that users should know about the law? Wikis are protected by the CDA, except for their own actions, but what about users? Should users know that a plaintiff can subpoena server records? That if the identity of a user can be established (which it often can), that they can be held liable? Or, that, in the UK, defamation is a criminal offense — and in some states, if I am correct? Should users know the difference between protected speech and defamation?

So then I responded to Christopher. DS reverted without comment, and semiprotected the page and then Readymade archived the discussion at 19:40, 11 March 2018, with the comment (he’s already permabanned, archiving this). So it was open for two hours and 17 minutes, with a handful of comments.

My conclusion: this was not a cooping, to the extent that any decision was made, the originator withdrew it. Those who had previously questioned the evidence about me may never have seen it.

So the desysopping, as a defacto ban, stand, but normally “ban” does mean a community action as distinct from an individual or very small group one. The traditions that made RationalWiki have some degree of diversity and stability have been abandoned.

The Mob supposedly rules RatWiki, which is bad enough, but Mobs normally sleep most of the time, and a very few users can effectively dominate wiki process, if it is not announced and left open. I used to say that for on-line process, discussions should be left open for at least 10 days, to allow for weekly work cycles. Wikipedia AfDs have that standard time, and with, normally, announcement requirements. Wikipedia has plenty of safeguards — and even then small factions can dominate.

I came to the conclusion, well before the flap on Wikiversity, that wikis, absent protective process (which is possible, but rare) were inherently vulnerable, and unreliable as places to invest time. Wikipedia works, but with incredibly low efficiency, and the theory that pages would naturally improve with time was naive. It would work if there were stop-loss procedures, but such as were created were so inefficient that few maintain them. On Wikipedia, I took two cases to the Arbitration Committee. In both cases I prevailed, but the cost in time and effort (and other damage) was, quite simply, not worth the effort, and whatever benefit was created fell apart quickly.

The wiki model can be useful, and the original wikis, with coherent communities of users, were very useful and efficient. (The early Wikipedia community was relatively coherent, but the project rapidly outgrew what that community could handle, and I saw those older users drop away, mostly. The wiki ideas got lost, with excuse after excuse, betrayal after betrayal. In the presence of conflict and factionalism, wikis are, uniformly, very, very inefficient, only surviving as social services for collections of largely dysfunctional users. Even the best burn out.

I had decided in 2012 that RationalWiki was not tolerable as a place to regularly participate. I was told to “go fuck your kids,” and the mods thought that was perfectly acceptable. Well, few Rats have children! My involvement with RatWiki over the last 18 months has been dealing with the damage done by Darryl Smith (Oliver was very little involved) on Wikiversity, where he destroyed the core of what had made Wikiversity special. Libelling me was a small part of the damage. Years of work by many people, disrupted, with a defacto prohibition of even rebuilding it. Cold fusion can be studied in real university, in real labs and with real funding, but studying cold fusion on Wikiversity was prohibited in that sequence. And why?

Policies were changed by one person, without community support, only the tolerance of inattention . . . and threats, I’ve been told. This is what the founder of Wikiversity called Wikipedia Disease.

I had considered Wikiversity the hope of the WMF. But I also had come to realize that it was vulnerable to corruption, unreliable, and that the community was not sufficiently attentive to prevent this. And into that rode Darryl Smith, creating massive disruption with impersonation socks and then another sock that accused the impersonated target of serious misbehavior, then taken to Wikiversity, where that target had been working quietly and nondisruptively on Parapsychology, creating a massive attributed subpage of sources. The overall resource was completely neutral as validated by Wikiversity administration. Wikiversity had found ways to gain nearly 100% consensus. Skeptics on fringe topics were not at all excluded, but simply invited to create balancing material, if they thought something was out of balance.

Wikiversity was not like Wikipedia, with one page per topic, and then conflict over position on that page, and notability restrictions, all of which might be intrinsic to an encyclopedia, but not to, say, a University library, particularly one that includes all student essays, seminar discussions, etc. Wikipedians would see Wikiversity and think of it as “articles.” But Wikiversity was not for articles, rather for studies, dissertations, collections of information on a topic.

Destroyed, quickly, by one bureaucrat who believed the Smith propaganda and ignored the rest of the community, who had been inactive for a long time before this, but still had the rights. And then, of course, the Smiths crowed about it on RatWiki. A sysop followed process and requested comment on unblocking me. He was threatened with desysop. He might have done it anyway, but … the WMF then globally banned me, without warning or notice.

And many others who have in any way gotten in the Smiths’ way have experienced massive attack. So I’m standing for them. Many hold unpopular opinions in some way or other, but nobody deserves to be lied about. Not even Donald Trump. Or Mikemikev. Nor, for that matter, Oliver and Darryl Smith. I have always asked for correction of errors, and the response was almost always, “Lies!!!” Not specific corrections. There is an exception, where Oliver Smith did comment on my study of his history as Atlantid, though on Encyclopedia Dramatica.  His responses were noted. I am not the judge. Reality is, and then after that, the human community. Convince me of an error, I will correct it. Object to an alleged fact, I will consider the objection, and at least take note of it, leaving judgment, in the end, to readers.

Mostly, the Smith brothers lie about what is on this blog, or misrepresent it with insinuations, as if, for example, the existence of many pages studying a complex subject proves something. Are the pages accurate? I could make it all much briefer by only reporting conclusions. I do that when a topic is mature for me, it happens within a few years, and when the context calls for polemic.

Taubes

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/john66/

This is a study of the RationalWiki article on Gary Taubes (Wikipedia) as created by John66 (Darryl L. Smith), as of January 18, 2019. The lead:

Gary Taubes is American author, journalist, low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) promoter, anti-sugar campaigner and cholesterol denialist. Taubes disagrees with mainstream medical advice on dieting. He believes that refined carbohydrates and sugars should be avoided, not fat.[1] Taubes disputes the evidence that saturated fat is a risk factor for heart disease.[2]

Taubes has been accused of misrepresenting scientific data and quoting medical researchers out of context to support his biased low-carb agenda.[3][4][5][6][7]

Smith is expert at cramming a series of dense misrepresentations into a few words. As is typical, the “mainstream” is presented as if monolithic, when it never has been on this subject, but rather “majoritarian,” i.e., there is are dominant views, never fully accepted by experts, and especially not the researchers. Dietary advice can lag science by decades.

Taubes is not an ordinary journalist, he is a science journalist, specifically, highly qualified for that. Smith had edited the Wikipedia article on Taubes. Taubes’ qualifications are ignored in the RatWiki article. From Wikipedia:

Taubes has won the Science in Society Journalism Award of the National Association of Science Writers three times and was awarded an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellowship for 1996–97.[10] He is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation independent investigator in health policy.[28]

low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) promoter. So a journalist researches a topic in depth (Taubes spent years on his investigations) and reports what he finds. If what he finds shows that widely-held opinion is not based on science (more than weakly), and that there are contrary hypotheses that fit the data better than what supports mainstreamopinions, and then he acts to secure funding for research to address open issues, is he “promoting” the contrary hypothesis?

Calling him a “promoter” is an attempt to toss him in the basket with “woo diets” and “quack medicine.” Most solidly and persistently, what Taubes is promoting is science and scientific skepticism.

anti-sugar campaigner. His book lays out the case against sugar. In fact, his conclusions (i.e, his formed opinions from review of the evidence) about the general harm of sugar are widespread. Again, though, the attempt is to portray him as a fanatic, as Smith does with all his targets.

Taubes disagrees with mainstream medical advice on dieting. What Taubes does in his books on fat and obestity is to examine, in detail, the history of the “mainstream views,” which radically shifted around 1970, to almost the opposite of what they had been before. On obesity, especially, he goes into excruciating detail on the shift.

Anyone who challenges popular views, that happen to support major vested interests, is going to be widely attacked, it’s like clockwork. As a member of the public, critically interested in the issues (this is about my health and that of my children!), that someone criticizes a skeptic (or an advocate of mainstream views) does not negate the views, rather, if this is done within scientific — or journalistic — protocols, I will want to see specifics.

Perhaps now is the time to use a meme.

I am fully aware of this problem (“confirmation bias”), and so is Taubes. It is possible to criticize anything. Taubes’ general opinion on nutritional science is that the state of it is poor, there is a great deal that has been accepted on faith or wishful thinking about what is actually shown in the studies that have been done. Taubes examines all this, presenting copious evidence. And, of course, he’s not perfect! But is he significantly incorrect?

 

He believes that refined carbohydrates and sugars should be avoided, not fat.[1] This is typical for RatWiki. An unorthodox conclusion or hypothesis is presented as a “belief.” And then everything from that person is presented as flowing from what they believe, as distinct from what they have witnessed, or for a journalist, what they have found in sources and analysis seeking reality.

Was Taubes seeking reality or was he just trying to write a popular story, to advance his career? I’ve been following Taubes for more than a decade. He does far more research into the topics that he has been engaged to write about than makes sense economically. What he has been able to accomplish, besides selling some books, is funding for research, and not research to “prove” his ideas, but to test them (and, as well, “mainstream” ideas.)

His ideas are not new, in fact, but definitive research has not been done, studies have been flawed, etc. Decisions were made based on other than science, based on unscientific ideas that, if wrong, they would do no harm.

Smith is going after a genuine scientific skeptic, because . . . because why? Well, it could be from his relationship with the faction that has, to some degree, protected and encouraged him on Wikipedia and RatWiki. He has discovered that his attack articles are popular with the Rats. He is lying about his identity and motives, and this is a fundamental problem with the wikis, where they allow not only anonymous editing, but anonymous administration. It removes personal responsibility. That was a choice that Wikipedia made early on, and it became fixed in stone. RationalWiki takes this to an extreme, originally for the lulz.

Note 1 points to a Guardian review of Taube’s latest book, The Case Against Sugar. The story covers the same suggestions as I have been making here. Smith clearly believes that the idea of Sugar Bad Fat Good is preposterous and he knows that many, maybe most, of the Rats will agree with him.

The Case Against Sugar review – an unsweetened attack on diet myths

Gary Taubes’s latest assault on the ruinous effect of sugar on our lives and the promotion of fat-free diets is detailed and compelling

For the last 15 years, US journalist Gary Taubes has been the self-nominated public enemy No 1 of the global “healthy eating” establishment. His heresy has been to argue powerfully and publicly that the official diet advice we have been encouraged to follow since the 1970s is fundamentally wrong. It is refined carbohydrates and sugars that we should be avoiding, he says, not fat.

His apostasy was dismissed by many health professionals in a sustained, near operatic chorus of censure. After all, he had committed the cardinal crime of suggesting that august government nutrition professors and the academic researchers who inform them had made an inexcusable error of judgment, with catastrophic consequences: an epidemic of obesity and diet-related ill-health of a magnitude that had no precedent.

Taubes’s latest book, The Case Against Sugar, looks to be less controversial, if only because so-called guardians of public health have of late subtly re-emphasised in government eating guidelines the role of sugar as a dietary villain, adopting what Taubes calls the “we knew it all along” approach. They have yet to admit that the natural saturated fats they have long demonised, such as butter, are healthier than the highly refined liquid oils and polyunsaturated margarine spreads they continue to recommend, even though the scientific inadequacy of this advice is being steadily exposed. In Taubes’s view, major nutrition authorities “have spent the last 50 years blaming dietary fat for our ills while letting sugar off the hook”.

How is it that Smith can cite this article, the sense of which is radically opposed to his article? Well, he needed a source to claim that Taubes “believes” what he wrote. It does not, in fact, support that wording. Taubes has explicitly term his views an “alternative hypothesis.” That is, he infers his views from study of the evidence, and he is, himself, sufficiently convinced to (1) share what he has found and (2) pursue testing. He gathered millions of dollars to do this, and that work is under way. He is going to be called every name in the book, as the Guardian article points out.

Will Smith go on to create an article on Joanna Blythman, who wrote that story for the Guardian? How about a story on the conspiracy of greedy book authors and journalists to deceive the public for fun and profit?

Taubes disputes the evidence that saturated fat is a risk factor for heart disease.[2]

Smith either doesn’t care about accuracy, or doesn’t know enough to distinguish between cause and risk factors, and the history on this issue is huge. “Saturated fat” would have to mean “saturated fat in the diet,” and studies showing that were early, weak, and inconclusive. That idea is almost entirely discredited among current researchers, but still lives on in recommendations, and, even more in the memories of those who followed the recommendations and have not kept up on the research.

Reference 2 is a Taubes article in the New York Times, January 27, 2008. I notice right away that the article is quite old, but it is presented as evidence for a current position. Smith’s text is a misrepresentation of what Taubes actually wrote, even back then.

Taubes does not generally dispute “evidence.” That is an ontological error that Smith could be expected to make. He disputes some of the conclusions from evidence, particularly when one looks at all the evidence. “Believers” and “pseudoskeptics” dispute evidence, often claiming “there is no evidence,” when there obviously is. Practically speaking, and in ordinary language, we become “beleivers” when we have seen enough to come to conclusions based on the preponderance of evidence, but if we follow the scientific method, this is never a certainty, it is provisional — and ideally we are open to correction, particularly if extraordinary evidence arises.

Taubes has been accused of misrepresenting scientific data and quoting medical researchers out of context to support his biased low-carb agenda.[3][4][5][6][7]

These are serious accusations if made about a professional journalist. From the Guardian article, we can expect accusations like this. An accusation like that without evidence is meaningless or worse. Let’s look at each one. First, the link is to the RatWiki article on quote mining, and it is hilarious to see this from Smith. Quote mining is practically all that he does!

3.  A blog post from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the most dedicated promoters of supposedly healthy diets that weren’t, and attackers of anything that disagreed with them. (I used to receive their newsletter, years ago. I never noticed that they were actually promoting science, i.e, research to confirm the recommendations they were making, so they would be a poster boy for what Taubes has uncovered. “Science” that is not. The title: The Truth About the Atkins Diet.

Okay, what is the truth? I was advised to try the South Beach diet in about 2004 by my physician. My wife was on Atkins, and I read the South Beach book and Atkins, and decided there was more science behind Atkins than Agatston, the South Beach author, with what might be called “Atkins light,” which avoids saturated fats. My doctor did not argue with me, and encouraged me. And the diet worked (which is now well known, and that’s what his nurse told me when I mentioned Atkins). I lost about forty pounds, was down to a healthy weight. Sometime around 2005 I did a lot of reading on Atkins, the arguments for and against, and I found that most negative comments flat-out did not understand the Atkins diet, and misrepresented it. So what do we have here?

Taubes claims that it’s not fatty foods that make us fat and raise our risk of disease. It’s carbohydrates. And to most readers his arguments sound perfectly plausible.

Yes. This was about the NYT article, “What if it’s all been a big fat lie?” which was added,
Taubes has mentioned, by the editors. His title was “What if fat doesn’t make you fat?” And that is actually a quite reasonable question. Does fat make us fat? How would we know? I know the arguments, but let’s see what CSPI comes up with:

Here are the facts—and the fictions—in Taubes’s article, which has led to a book contract with a
reported $700,000 advance. And here’s what the scientists he quoted —or neglected to quote—have to say about his reporting.

Right away, I notice that they are effectively claiming to have interviewed or obtained statements from all those quoted. Have they? I don’t know, and it will take some time to research.

Perhaps the most telling statement in Gary Taubes’s New York Times Magazine article
comes as he explains how difficult it is to study diet and health. “This then leads to a research literature so vast that it’s possible to find at least some published research to support
virtually any theory.”

He got that right. It helps explain why Taubes’s article sounds so credible.

“He knows how to spin a yarn,” says Barbara Rolls, an obesity expert at Pennsylvania State University. “What frightens me is that he picks and chooses his facts.”
She ought to know. Taubes interviewed her for some six hours, and she sent him “a huge bundle of papers,” but he didn’t quote a word of it. “If the facts don’t fit in with his yarn, he ignores
them,” she says.

Instead, Taubes put together what sounds like convincing evidence that carbohydrates cause obesity.

However Taubes does massive research. He does not use all of it. This is someone claiming that Taubes ignored what she sent him. She does not know that. She only knows, if it is true, that he did not cite her material. Taubes did explain how the “fat myth” developed. As is accepted here, the literature is vast.

In his 2008 book, Taubes goes of the history of concepts about obesity, and quotes many many publications. That the cause was carbohydrates was a very common idea until roughly the 1970s. The switch to fat being the problem was heavily influenced by the idea that fat also caused heart disease. Much of that early “consensus,” and it did become a widespread opinion, where contrary views were attacked and even suppressed (which is still going on to some degree), was utterly wrong and has been rejected, but the “cholesterol” and “fat” hypotheses keep morphing, with ad hoc explanations, a sign of defective theory.

“He took this weird little idea and blew it up, and people believed him,” says John Farquhar, a professor emeritus of medicine at Stanford University’s Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Taubes quoted Farquhar, but misrepresented his views. “What a disaster,” says Farquhar.

CSPI is not a reliable source. First of all, the “weird little idea” was widespread, long before Atkins and Taubes, and, second, it is not established that Taubes misrepresented anything. It is possible,. for sure, but CPSI does not seem to care about fact, but about spin. They also have this from Farquhar:

“I was greatly offended at how Gary Taubes tricked us all into coming across
as supporters of the Atkins diet,” says Stanford’s John Farquhar.

The plot thickens. Farquhar said something, accurately quoted, apparently, but Farquhar did not like what it implied, in the context of Taubes’ “story.” The Atkins diet was, still, by 2002, roundly condemned and to support Atkins would seem to be a major heresy. By 2002, there was little evidence on the issue of the safety of the Atkins diet, and lots of inference that it must be Bad. What did Farquhar actually say?

Looking for it, I came across a sensible article, and various fanatic ravings. )The latter cites some NuSi research that supposedly falsified Taube’s hypothesis, but that is far from clear. It is simply another claim. That latter also cites the CSPI article. In other words, find a loon, find a flock of loons. No surprise.

Taubes quoted Walter Willet, David Ludwig, Eleftheria Maratos-Flier, Kurt Isselbacher, Katherine Flegal, Kelley Brownell, William Dietz, Basil Rifkindm, Alan Stone, Judith Putnam(?), Michael Schwartz, Albert Stunkard, Richard Veech, George Blackburn, Linda Stern, Sam Klein.

This is what Taubes wrote about Farquhar:

This is the state of mind i imagine that mainstream nutritionists, researchers and physicians must inevitably take to the fat-versus-carbohydrate controversy. They may come around, but the evidence will have to be exceptionally compelling. Although this kind of conversion may be happening at the moment to John Farquhar, who is a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University and has worked in this field for more than 40 years. When I interviewed Farquhar in April, he explained why low-fat diets might lead to weight gain and low-carbohydrate diets might lead to weight loss, but he made me promise not to say he believed they did. He attributed the cause of the obesity epidemic to the “force-feeding of a nation.” Three weeks later, after reading an article on Endocrinology 101 by David Ludwig in the Journall of the American Medical Association, he sent me an e-mail message asking the not-entirely rhetorical question, “Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?”

This is astonishingly clear. First of all, did Taubes accurately report what was said to him? I would assume he has interview tapes. Assuming the quotes were accurate, and the interpretation of what Farquhar said reasonable (it all fits with his later complaints, actually!), he did not want his ideas to be repeated, and Taubes correctly pointed out that these were not to be repeated as his belief. And Taubes did not do that. He was claimed to have mentioned these things as possibilities, i.e., “might.”

The Farquhar complaint appears to be fluff, someone highly involved with the nutritional and policy establishment who did not want his true views or ideas to be known. What was misrepresented? I found nothing claimed. It would only be, then, the context, which was clearly speculative, that Farquhar might be undergoing a “conversion,” clearly presented with some evidence of this, but not a claim that he was a “supporter of the Atkins Diet.” (As an example, he might have been acknowledging the possibility that Atkins “worked,” for weight loss, but then still be unconvinced that Atkins was safe — which was a common comment on the research results coming out by 2002 or so that Atkins did work as well or better than other diet recommendations, that it had not been proven to be safe.

The irony in all this was that massive health recommendations to avoid cholesterol in the diet (Eggs Bad), and fat, originally all fat, only later it became saturated fat, when the obvious result of that advice would be an increase in carbyhydrate consumption, were made without any showing that this was safe, and if Taubes is right — and he’s not far off, I suspect — the cost of that was millions of premature deaths. Millions. The consequence of not distinguishing solid science from weak inference and politics.

Still on the CSPI post:

Farquhar did give more detail to CSPI:

Taubes’s article ends with a quote from Farquhar, asking: “Can we get the low-fat proponents to apologize?” But that quote was taken out of context. “What I was referring to wasn’t that low-fat diets would make a person gain weight and become obese,” explains Farquhar. Like Willett and Reaven, he’s
worried that too much carbohydrate can raise the risk of heart disease.
“I meant that in susceptible individuals, a very-low-fat [high-carb] diet can raise triglycerides, lower HDL [‘good’] cholesterol, and make harmful, small, dense LDL,” says Farquhar.

Farquhar is agreeing with Taubes much more than disagreeing. Taubes did not claim what he is objecting to. It is true that one could synthesize that. The question still stands. Low-fat proponents did not clarify the point and clarify that to be sustainable, low-fat must mean high carb, and they did not limit the advice, nor, in fact, was it based on study of low-fat diets.

Where Taubes differs from Farquhar is in an understanding that carbs are more dangerous than previously recognized, not confined to particularly susceptible individuals. The real issues are quite complex, but yellow journalists and pseudoskeptics make it very simple: there are cranks and fringe believers on one side, and experts and scientists on the other, and if a scientist is on the “crank” side, Q.E.D., they are cranks. Reality doesn’t matter, only opinions.

Carbohydrates are not what has made us a nation of butterballs, however. “We’re overfed, over-advertised, and under-exercised,” he says. “It’s the enormous portion sizes and sitting in front of the TV and computer all day” that are to blame. “It’s so gol’darn obvious—how can anyone ignore it?” “The Times editor called and tried to get me to say that low-fat diets were the cause of obesity, but I wouldn’t,” adds Farquhar.

This is, again, remarkable. So there were fact-checkers at the New York Times, editors who reviewed articles, and Farquhar can read their minds, what they “wanted.” In what Taubes reported, he gave Farquhar’s opinion, apparently reasonably fairly.

Farquhar is weird, my summary. He knows enough to suspect that Taubes might be right, but doesn’t want anyone to know, and his alternative idea is that the problem is enormous portion sizes and lethargy, an idea which Taubes traces back to early origins and intensely deconstructs, with massive data. Cause and effect have been completely confused. There is an obesity epidemic. What caused it? There is an obvious suspect, but there is an attempt is to erase the evidence with a lot of hot air.

I think this topic is important, too important for anyone to sit back and trust anyone without verification. When I started to see Smith going after Taubes, I decided to buy the rest of his books. I just finished Why We Get Fat, and next is The Case Against Sugar. Notice that the title is not Proof that Sugar is Evil. As to why we get fat, Taubes cites centuries of research. Talk about quote-mining, it appears that when the “consensus” was being formed, countless studies and a great deal of evidence was ignored, and as contrary evidence appeared, it was always explained away, even clear and strong evidence that something was off about “mainstream” thinking.

Again, the CSPI article, about the misleading claims.

CLAIM #1: The experts recommend an Atkins diet.
TRUTH: They don’t.

The reality: some do and some don’t, and this is obvious. The article, however, simply did not make the claim stated. Instead, it talks about a “small but growing minority have come to take seriously what the low-carb diet doctors have been saying all along.” It talks about researchers starting to actually study the Atkins diet, and some early results from that. I could find no actual recommendation from any expert, and Taubes was not dispensing advice. So the CSPI article is misleading.

An Atkins diet is loaded with meat, butter, and other foods high in saturated fat. Taubes implies that many of the experts he quotes recommend it. Here’s what they say:

Atkins is an ad libitem diet for protein and fat. It only restricts non-fiber, nutritive carbohydrates. Atkins did not specify saturated or unsaturated fats, and in the early days. the l0w-fat opposition to Atkiins did not discriminate, all fats were considered bad.

So an Atkins diet is only “loaded” with fat if that is what the person wants to eat. Taubes, in his later work, strongly advises against eating more than appetite. However, ultimately, Taubes’ conclusion from review of the evidence is that saturated fats are not, in general, harmful, and may even be cardio-protective. But that goes against the opinions of many!

I still remember buying margarine because the propaganda was that it was better for us than butter. This was everywhere, my adult life experienced the full force of the “anti-fat” crusade. I trusted my doctor and did not actually research the issue, so I reduced fat, and began, for the first time in my life, at about 40, to be a pasta-eater. What Taubes “implies” is in the mind of the reader. That statement, though, is a retreat from what is in the headline. It is just “many,” instead of being a blanket statement about experts. That is still misleading: Taubes was clear that this was still a minority. So the error was?

It’s clear: In 2002, “Atkins” was still a synonym for “dangerous quack fad diet,  it doesn’t work except for a little while, while you lose water, it gives you bad breath, constipation, you lose weight only because the diet is so boring that you eat less, etc., and you will die from the fat clogging your arteries.”

That “artery clogging” trope I remember from the CPSI Nutrition Action newsletters.  When they would describe how much fat was in a MacDonald’s hamburger with french fries, it was always prefaced with “artery-clogging.” They may have convinced that company to replace lard with trans-fats, which switch had no basis in science, only the assumption that trans fats were either safe or less harmful than saturated fats. (I think the idea was that trans fats are liquid at room temp, whereas saturated fats tend to congeal, so the idea that they could clog arteries seems to make sense, until we realize that fats do not actually enter the bloodstream as such.

According to Taubes, Harvard University’s Walter Willett is one of the “small but growing minority of establishment researchers [who] have come to take seriously what the low-carb-diet 
doctors have been saying all along.” True, Willett is concerned about the harm that may be caused by highcarbohydrate diets (see “What to Eat,” page 7). But the Atkins diet? “I certainly don’t recommend it,” he says. His reasons: heart disease and cancer. “There’s a clear benefit for reducing  cardiovascular risk from replacing unhealthy fats—saturated and trans— with healthy fats,” explains Willett, who chairs Harvard’s nutrition department. “And I told Taubes several times that red meat is associated with a higher risk of colon and possibly prostate cancer, but he left that out.”

Again, no misrepresentation, because Taubes did not claim that Willett endorsed the Atkins diet, and because of the heart disease concerns, it could have been unethical to do so, until and unless he became convinced that the heart disease and cancer risks were red herrings. That is a concern about red meat, and the Atkins diet does not require red meat, at all. It merely does not forbid it. As to the claim about an association with cancer, association is the weakest of evidence, unless it is quite strong. Is it? CSPI doesn’t verify this, because they are not interested in reality, but in promoting their decades-old agenda, all the while claiming some reprehensible agenda on the part of Taubes.

I looked this issue up. I don’t trust the official organizations, from years of reviewing what they recommend, I know (independently from Taubes) that these organizations can develop conflicts of interest and, for whatever reason, do not do what I’d hope for them: facilitate genuine scientific consensus, while delineating where there is still a level of reasonable controversy. The Cochrane Collaboration was intended to be that. How successful they have been, I’m not sure. There are difficulties in doing this, and organizations tend to become corruptible if precautions are not taken early on, and maintained.

In any case, what I found was mostly very unspecific, with only vague claims that conflate association with risk. The official cancer organizations tell us their conclusions, but do not reference what they were based on. How difficult would it be to have a page for those interested with sources and more detail about the recommendations, limitations, etc. I do not trust organizations that come to strong conclusions, of major import, but do not disclose how they arrived at them. I have seen far too much to naively believe that being “nonprofit” somehow immunizes them to bias. I have seen the opposite, too many times (and even as a board member of a nonprofit organization, a free clinic, very noble, very good, and easily corrupted).

(Non profits have executives who are often very highly compensated, and these organizations must raise operating funds, and if they make recommendations not to the liking of those who support them, what happens to that support? This is simply ordinary social function, not a conspiracy theory. If a nonprofit recommends what is contrary to general opinion, it can be devastating to their support. We need organizations that are truly supported by those they serve, the public, but mostly the public is asleep.)

This was the best, and could reward more study. I am reminded of the flawed epidemiological studies that set of the whole anti-fat crusade. The risk of cancer from red meat, appears, at first glance, to be quite small, as absolute risk, and in real decisions about diet, what I need to know is absolute risk, to compare, for example, with the risk of obesity, which is very, very risky. If an Atkins diet is more effective at controlling obesity, that could totally outweigh the cancer risk.

There are some recent papers on the protective effect of sun exposure. When this is pointed out, the risk of skin cancer is always brought up, and I’ve seen a generation of people become sun-averse because of all the propaganda about skin cancer. Turns out that if all-cause death rates are considered, sun exposure is associated with a lower death rate. Skin cancer can be caused, but most skin cancers are relatively easily treated, not fatal. Narrow analysis of data on one disease can generate very misleading recommendations.

CLAIM #2: Saturated fat
doesn’t promote heart disease.
TRUTH: It does.

Because we say so. Really, the evidence on this is very weak, at best.

“Fifty years of research shows that saturated fat and cholesterol raise LDL [‘bad’] cholesterol, and the higher your LDL, the higher your risk of coronary heart disease,” says Farquhar

Is Farquhar to be trusted? This is supposedly the “Center for Science in the Public Interest.” Someone who claims “fifty years of research” with no references is unreliable. Farquhar, from what he said to Taubes, not contested, cannot be trusted to reveal what he actually understands and considers possible, but is determine to protect himself, so determined that he errs badly, as he should have known. I understand why Taubes became so noplussed about Bad Science in the field.

Farquhar is repeating ideas, relied on by CSPI as if “fact,” that I think were obsolete by that time, but that certainly are now. Cholesterol in the diet does not raise blood cholesterol, at all. Hence the older advice to avoid egg yolks, high in cholesterol, has been withdrawn. The evidence on LDL is complicated, and studying the effect of saturated fat is difficult. Under some conditions, people with higher LDL appear to have a lower risk of all-cause death.

If we read that section of the CSPI article carefully, they are talking about relative strength of evidence, which can be quite subjective. Basically, the question is controversial, but they take one side and call it “Truth.” This is the behavior of fanatics, which I concluded they were long before I became aware of low-carb diets. They quote another supposed expert, who uses clear scientific terms like “good” and “bad.” Bad sign.

CLAIM #3: Health authorities recommended a low-fat diet as the key to weight loss.
TRUTH: They didn’t.

Ah ha ha, ah ha ha ha ha. This is a huge red herring. Some did, and the net impact of the recommendations, when they tricked down to my doctor, was to go on a low-fat diet. It was not for losing weight, it was over concerns about cholesterol.  This is all about interpretation of what the health authorities recommended, where much of it can be ignored in favor of recommendations that can be interpreted differently.

I see again and again on this page that Taubes was “wrong” because what he pointed out as being an unscientific consensus among health authorities is contradicted by health authorities. The implication was of extensive misquotation and misinterpretation, and they failed to show that. They are misleading their readers, in order to establish that they have been right all along. This is not “science in the public interest,” it was far from it. It was political and self-interested activism.

CLAIM #7: The Atkins diet works because it cuts carbohydrates.
TRUTH: If the Atkins diet works, it’s not clear why.

Well, this is clear: this is an example of how they present opinions as “Truth.” “Not clear” is a judgment, an assessment, indicating confusion. Who is confused? That’s left out, it is presented as if it were an objective fact. Again, very common for fanatics.

The Atkins Nutritional Approach (calling it a “diet” is somewhat misleading) does one essential thing: it encourages the person to monitor the carbohydrates they eat, by reading labels and the link, and to limit those carbs, exempting fiber, and to follow appetite and common sense about everything else. There are indeed speculations, and attempting Atkins low-fat is strongly discouraged, and probably quite dangerous, because the only other possibility is protein, and high-protein, low fat diets are very dangerous. The Atkins approach works for many people, that’s obvious, it’s really not debatable. It can work long-term (because the diet allows thorough enjoyment of food, I have never become bored with an LC-HF diet). Today, I have been seriously restricting carbs, I normally keep them low, but I wanted to see what would happen with zero carbs. I commonly have two meals a day. So for the first meal, I had a 6 oz ribeye steak, lightly broiled. Delicious. For a second meal, I’m still eating it, I savor it, a piece of sushi-quality tuna, thawed from flash-frozen, 4 oz, eaten raw with no-sugar soy sauce. Delicious!

(My other nourishment for the day is heavy cream in two cups of coffee. On other days, I eat eggs (sometimes with a single piece of toast and butter, about 10 grams of net carb), vegetables such as Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Salmon — broiled with parmesan cheese sprinkled on it, which browns like breading would, and I have a wide variety of foods in my cupboards, food that makes my mouth water when I think about eating them, and that I find thoroughly satisfying. I melt butter on the vegetables and sprinkle them with Parmesan.)

So then, as to an alleged danger:

The problem: All the protein that Atkins recommends leads to acidic urine.6 “And there’s no dispute that an acid urine leaches calcium out of bones,” says Blackburn.

What this shows is that Blackburn has no clue what he’s talking about. This is an old canard about Atkins, that it is a high-protein diet. It is not, unless someone cuts carbs and tries to go low-fat. Atkins diets tend to be moderate-protein. As Taubes points out in How We Get Fat, there are cultures where the diet is almost all meat, and in those cultures, strong effort is put into eating as much fat as possible, it is preferred. These people did not have the diseases of civilization until processed foods were introduced to them. Someone doing Atkins’ approach may use ketostix or equivalent urine test strips. I’ve done that many times, the purpose is to verify that one is actually burning fat for fuel. The ketone levels I saw were on the order of 15 mg/DL, occasionally as high as 40, which is considered “moderate.” Ketoacidosis is what they are talking about, a complication of diabetes, and the ketone levels can be on the order of 150-250.

Too much protein in a diet is known to cause health problems. This can arise with an Atkins diet if one eats lean meats, avoiding fat. In general, making major changes in diet, I recommend medical supervision. That does not necessarily mean doing what the doctor says, but communicating about what one is doing, and listening to the doctor, as well as the other side of it, the doctor listening to you. Doctors are constrained by standard of practice, but if one learns how to ask questions, it is possible to encourage a doctor to say what they really think, and, as well, how they what they know, and where they don’t know the answers to questions. A good doctor will admit ignorance, and will, naturally, tell you what the standard of practice is and, if asked, what they think about it.

There is no substitute, though, for becoming informed oneself, there is so much misinformation out there — including misinformation promoted by “experts.” Read the studies! Read the critiques, if it matters for your health, become familiar with the arguments, and then make your own choices, taking responsibility for your choices. That is general advice on how to live, not just about diet and cholesterol and statins.

In this case, my choice is clear: CSPI is full of what the body rejected. They are absolutely not to be trusted.

Okay, but Smith cited five sources for his claim. Impressive! Must be true then. Not. The number of sources matters far less than the reliability of the sources, and we already expect, from other sources, that Taubes is going to be criticized up and down, right and left, and inside and out, for any perceived defect in his articles, which is to be expected when one challenges what amounts to religious belief disguised as science.

[4] Bad sugar or bad journalism? An expert review of “The Case Against Sugar”.

This is a blog post by someone who calls himself an “expert.” Not particularly a good sign. This source, being a blog, was rejected on Wikipedia, absolutely inappropriate there. (And I see an IP edit, rather obviously Smith, reverting the removal, using a Tor node. Because of context, this was certainly Darryl Smith, first edit I have found that was him, there, after the “leaving” claim. But Smith is asserting this as a criticism, which it is.

This is an interesting review, but it boils down to a complaint that The Case Against Sugar is a case against sugar, instead of a neutral scientific review. Guyanet, the blogger, deserves much more attention that I would give him here. Smith in the text that he sourced with five references, actually made three claims:

  1. misrepresenting scientific data
  2. quoting medical researchers out of context
  3. to support his biased low-carb agenda.

Guyanet would be expert on some scientific data, at least (and does write like an expert). On that point, though, he accuses Taubes, not of misrepresenting the data but of cherry-picking, not reporting all the possible relevant information. Quoting out of context is not supported by this source. Guyanet does claim this is coming from a biased personal agenda, but he does not really determine it, and he is not an expert on journalistic psychology. In the book reviewed, Taubes is acting as a book author, continuing a theme, as a result of personal conclusions developed in approaching the topic as a journalist. So I will want to examine Guayanet more closely. He cites another source as a second expert review. Okay, following Guayanet’s thinking, this would be the Defense against Taubes’ prosecution. So who is the judge and jury?

Well, someone who needs to know. And I need to know, so that’s me. I will take my time in deliberations.

And then I find that Guyenet is offering his own “lose weight program.” Basic is free, Pro is only $9.;99 per month. Hey, a Guy has to make a living!

The second expert is intensely involved in conflict with Taubes, over a story that will be told as part of all this. These are not functioning as neutral experts. But Guyenet does point out good things about the Taubes book, he simply advises taking it with salt, which is ironic, because Taubes also, before getting involved in the very hairy controversy over fat and obesity and heart disease, also debunked myths about salt for Science magazine.

I also advise healthy skepticism, that does not depend on authority, other than realistically, understanding that authorities can be, literally, dead wrong. Choose authorities carefully, then trust and verify! I’ve learned with doctors to become informed so that I can ask informed questions. If I don’t know what questions to ask, and so I don’t ask, I usually get no answers, just “advice.” If I ask ignorant questions, I get answers designed to communicate with someone who is ignorant. Funny how that works!

The third source, [5] is another blog, an example of “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.” This is total fluff, an echo of the CSPI post, only 14 years later. I am far from inspired to read it in detail (quite differently from Guyenet, who at least raises issues of interest.

The fourth source, [6] is Big Fat Fake / The Atkins diet controversy and the sorry state of science journalism. by Michael Fumento. The site is heavy with intrusive ads that make it hard to read the page. This is quite old, 2003. He claims, like some others, that Taubes only presented one side of the issue (in a newspaper article, clearly limited for space, with Taubes basically using the opportunity to raise a question. He did not write: “It’s all been a big fat lie,” but “what if?”

My introduction to Taubes on diet was Good Calories, Bad Calories, which is voluminous and heavily referenced. Did he cherry-pick there? Perhaps. Telling all sides of a story can be a formula for creating books that nobody will read. All authors will do it, at least all successful authors. But that’s not the end, if we have a free society. Others can write, and then other still can review and assess, and ultimately reviews appear in journals that are dedicated to science and not to supporting orthodoxy. It can take decades, sometimes more.  Anyway, Fumento has:

There is a nugget of truth in Taubes’ criticisms of establishment dietary fat advice. Well-meaning but misguided health officials and health reporters, joined by opportunistic anti-fat diet book gurus, have convinced much of the public that the major culprit — perhaps the only culprit — in obesity is dietary fat. Avoid fat, we were told, and you won’t get fat. Given license to eat as many calories as we wanted from the other nutrient groups, many of us have done exactly that. This goes far to explain why almost one-third of us are obese and almost two-thirds of us are overweight. But even here Taubes is no pioneer; the damage caused by fat-free fanaticism was pointed out long before. (See, for example, my own 1997 book, The Fat of the Land.)

He is agreeing with Taubes’ central point. Taubes also states, over and over, that his ideas are not new, and credits older sources, going back into the 19th century. Taubes, however, has been very effective in his “pointing out” of what was known for a long time. Atkins based his nutritional approach on scientific research (deficient, to be sure, but as well-founded as what became the wide-spread and heavily-promoted guidelines, and common medical opinion that rather rapidly turned upside down with inadequate evidence. When I told my doctor about my first experience with Atkins, he took me into his office and pulled a book from the shelf, a book from the 1920s about diabetes, in which it is explained that many cases of diabetes (meaning type two) can be resolved by a diet that avoids starches and sweets, and for others, there is insulin (which was fairly new then). Later, diabetics were sold the idea that they could eat anything they wanted as long as they took insulin. This was terrible, terrible advice, and I suspect it had commercial motives behind it. However, he goes on:

Moreover, the Atkins-Taubes thesis of “fat won’t make you fat” encourages obesity in a similar way: It offers carte blanche for consuming limitless calories, only this time swapping carbohydrates for fat. Taubes made that swap while presenting a far less scientific case than is presented in an Atkins infomercial.

This is unrealistic, imagination. People eating a high-fat diet simply don’t consume “limitless calories” unless they force-feed themselves and continue eating beyond appetite — which is quite unpleasant! Fat satiates. The point of the Atkins diet is that, setting aside carbohydrates, appetite will normally restrict how much we eat. Whether Taubes “insulin hypothesis” is correct or not, when I went on a low-carb diet, hunger disappeared. I found that, once in ketosis, burning fat, I simply did not get “hungry” in the same way as when I was eating carbs. That’s what Atkins and Taubes predicted, and this story is repeated by many, many people who have tried Atkins for long enough to go into ketone metabolism. One doesn’t get hungry, that sense of an urgent need. Rather, one continues to eat for various reasons, some useful, some not so useful. One eats for pleasure, and Atkins allows, essentially, most of my favorite foods from childhood. One eats for  health, choosing foods for nutritive value, and one eats for habit, I have called it an oral addiction. Gotta put something in my mouth!

And if I don’t have low carb snacks available, I’ll fudge on the diet. A few bean chips, high fiber, but nice and crunchy …. and I keep eating them. Just another won’t make that much difference. . . . This is all very familiar, since I spent a lot of time studying addiction.

Very important for an Atkins diet: have food available that will satisfy. To satisfy the desire for “crunch,” the best thing I have found is crackers made from flaxseed. I pretty much have to make them myself.

Bottom line, Fumento didn’t understand the Atkins approach. It does not encourage “limitless calories.” It encourages appetite-limited calories (which requires discipline with regard to oral addictions, which is not difficult, once it is distinguished for what it is). I have never enjoyed food as much as since I started Atkins, and quantities are quite limited. I simply eat food that I enjoy tremendously, and it satisfies me. If someone is not satisfied on an Atkins diet, something is missing, and I’d recommend consulting with experts. At the very least, there are forums where questions can be asked, and experts do reply.

Consider this experimental science, where each person can test and find out what works for them. I found forums.lowcarber.org/ very useful, over a decade ago, I haven’t looked lately. Remember not to trust anything just because it is on the internet, but consider suggestions as being ideas to investigate. Find out!

(The idea that there is one diet best for everyone is probably quite incorrect. Taubes makes this point in What Makes Us Fat, we differ genetically, there is variation. And studies and statistics will not tell us what is best for us, they can, at best, give some guidelines, possibilities.)

Fumento deconstructs the CSPI objections to Taubes, the claimed misrepresentations.

“I thought [Taubes’] article was outrageous,” Reaven says. “I saw my name in it and all that was quoted to me was not wrong. But in the context it looked like I was buying the rest of that crap.” He adds, “I tried to be helpful and a good citizen, and I ended up being embarrassed as hell. He sort of set me up.” When I first contacted Reaven, he was so angry he wouldn’t even let me interview him.

But his position on Atkins was all over the Internet in interviews posted long before Taubes talked to him. Do “low-carb diets like The Zone [by Barry Sears] and Atkins work?” one asked. Answer: “One can lose weight on a low-calorie diet if it is primarily composed of fat calories or carbohydrate calories or protein calories. It makes no difference!”

I find it rather obvious what happened. Reaven was attacked by colleagues for appearing to agree with Atkins, which was rank heresy. It makes no difference is the calories-in, calories-out concept that is commonly asserted as basic physics, which is misleading, as Taubes has amply explained. There is the controversial issue of metabolic advantage — which Reaven was denying, without evidence. There is a complex interplay between insulin levels and appetite and “energy.” If it doesn’t matter what kind of diet one eats, as long as calories are low, how about eating something that will satisfy hunger with fewer calories? If it is fat, the argument always was, fat is calorie dense, compared to carbs. But it is also more satisfying, and the idea of eating too much fat actually makes me feel sick. But carbs? This is the common wisdom about “Chinese food,” the commercial restaurant kind, which is often high carb. Eat it and you are hungry an hour later. The mechanism for that is obvious. Fat has no such effect.

The fifth source is another blog, title in all caps, GARY TAUBES IS A BLOWHARD. The blogger seems to think like Rats. He covers a Taubes blog post on the “red meat cancer” issue. In fact, it’s more about Zoe Harcombe. Nuff said. Why should I even read a blog that is so obviously a personal attack, not about the science.

His about page has “So who the hell are you and why should I even listen to your stupid podcast?”

Indeed. He says nothing to indicate why, at least not on the subject of Taubes. He has a BS in Nutrition and an MS in the same, but he is young and I see no clue that he actually understands the issues — unlike Guyenet. It’s appropriate that Smith cited him, because his thinking is like that of Smith: grossly oversimplified, defending I Am Right by claiming Someone Else is Wrong. There is one point he raises that I intend to check, because that issue of red meat interested me, and I wondered what Taubes had to say about it, and he has links. I noticed problems with the conclusions when I looked at what might be the same paper. This is also a blog. The author does not make his identity clear, but appears to be Seth Yoder.

So, reflecting the spirit of opinionated blogging that is amply demonstrated in the cited post:

SETH YODER IS A SELF-IMPORTANT ORIFICE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

This is an issue of extreme importance, affecting millions of lives. People are being accused of being “murderers” for stating their opinions, including journalists and scientists, and it is possible (there is evidence, enough to “indict,” if not to convict) that mainstream advice has caused millions of unnecessary deaths. Some think it is proven, but there is always the question of who is the judge and jury. And in that context, and on that topic, someone who has done an incredible amount of work, whether or not is conclusions are correct, stimulating and facilitating genuine scientific investigation, is condemned as a “blowhard.”

 

 

 

David Gerard

Evidence here will likely be moved to a subpage. When I first saw David Gerard acting with respect to Smith socks (and me, in 2017), I thought that this was the typical inattentiveness of long-term users who just pop in now and then to push buttons. Rome Viharo, however, had made major accusations against David Gerard. I was skeptical.

However, since then, the patterns of behavior are obvious: David Gerard knows quite well who the Smith Brothers are, and almost certainly communicates with them off-wiki, and protects and enables them with far more knowledge than the other “supporters and enablers,” who are mostly ignorant and want to stay that way.

logs as of March 6, 2019, merged from the block log, the deletion log, the user rights log. and the upload log. (All logs are shown here). This was not cherry-picked, all logged actions for the time are shown, except for the patrol log (and there may be something missed, but not deliberately.)

Actions related to the Smith brothers or the Smith agenda are highlighted. This is 11 out of 15 actions, an astonishing percentage if he were truly independent. (I do not suspect Gerard of being a Smith brother, but, now, of supporting them as attack dogs.)

I will explain relevance later. There is more in his personal contributions

  1.  13:47, 6 March 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) blocked K. Peters BSc(Hons) (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: mikemikev)
  2.  09:52, 5 March 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed block settings for RW in the anus (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 10:40, 5 March 2019 (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Unfunny vandalism)
  3.  11:49, 4 March 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Brachiosaurus (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: Mikemikev’s latest weird kick)
  4.  11:49, 4 March 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) blocked Brachiosaurus (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Ban evasion: Mikemikev’s latest weird kick)
  5.  14:07, 9 February 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) restored page Maoist Rebel News (138 revisions restored: I want this one actually – the guy keeps showing up in discussions of tankies, and I think this is a good page on him)
  6.  16:20, 4 February 2019 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Schizophreniac (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: no reason to preserve this username for future use)
  7.  12:38, 7 December 2018 David Gerard (talk | contribs) blocked 188.26.64.231 (talk) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam)
  8.  09:33, 23 March 2018 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed group membership for SirMaxKing from (none) to Autopatrolled (emailed, asked nicely)
  9.  23:04, 29 August 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) blocked 128.177.148.93 (talk) with an expiration time of 3.14 months (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Unfunny vandalism: appropriate applause for your shining wit)
  10.  11:34, 25 August 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) blocked 84.252.209.246 (talk) with an expiration time of 3.14 months (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (mikemikev, viharo or one imitating the other? who cares!)
  11.  16:30, 19 November 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) uploaded File:Racerealist88.png (Screenshot of https://twitter.com/RaceRealist88/status/932084483226046466 Fair use as reply from article subject. {{Fair_use |username=David Gerard |title=NotPoliticallyCorrect |deceased= |low_resolution= |other=Fair use as reply from article subject. }})
  12.  18:51, 18 October 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed group membership for Abd from Autopatrolled to (none) (warrants no rights due to obnoxious behaviour)
  13.  18:44, 9 October 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory/Archive1 (Harassment: attempted doxing … if mods particularly disagree they can put it back, but …)
  14.  19:59, 9 October 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) changed group membership for Abd from Autopatrolled and Sysop to Autopatrolled (attempted harassment, ban may follow)
  15.  22:13, 8 October 2017 David Gerard (talk | contribs) deleted page RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory (Harassment: yeah, no)