subpage of reddit/wovigilant (which covered 72 WOVigilant posts since the end of 2019)

u/WOVigilant continued to troll on Reddit, with my response generally limited to a single word, as a link to the page supra at the end. This page lists those continued comments. He states as if fact what is not fact, repeatedly, trolling for argumentative response, with no respect for context and Reddit readership. He fails, simply creating increased visibility for who and what he is. All these posts are varieties of attack on Abd except those tagged as “NAA.” (those are still recorded here to be able to see balance). If Vigilant attacks someone who questions his attacks on me or who is associated with me by him, that is considered an attack on me.

  1. 21:51:01 20
  2. 20:20:06 20
  3. 20:13:28 20
  4. 20:08:00 20
  5. 19:16:55 20
  6. 18:36:59 20
  7. 05:36:42 20
  8. 05:36:07 20
  9. 01:00:01 20
  10. 00:52:43 20
  11. 00:35:09 20
  12. 00:33:13 20
  13. 09:43:52 19
  14. 04:27:51 19 
  15. 04:24:42 19
  16. 04:21:22 19
  17. 04:19:53 19
  18. 02:36:11 19 
  19. 02:35:17 19
  20. 02:33:12 19 
  21. 20:23:15 18
  22. 20:19:54 18
  23. 19:44:06 18
  24. 19:41:28 18
  25. 00:18:15 18 
  26. 19:10:52 18 
  27. 00:17:30 18 
  28. 00:15:54 18 
  29. 22:41:44 17 
  30. 22:20:12 17 
  31. 22:07:21 17 
  32. 21:53:16 17 
  33. 21:51:16 17 
  34. 21:24:33 17 
  35. 20:24:57 17 
  36. 19:03:02 17 
  37. 19:02:50 17 
  38. 13:30:17 17 
  39. 13:14:13 17 
  40. 12:52:54 17 
  41. 20:11:26 16 
  42. 19:49:53 16 
  43. 19:50:46 16 
  44. 23:02:54 15 
  45. 22:08:22 15 
  46. 22:06:19 15 
  47. 22:05:08 15 
  48. 21:54:03 15 
  49. 21:52:43 15 
  50. 19:35:58 14 
  51. 18:16:40 14 
  52. 17:41:51 14 
  53. 15:03:10 14 
  54. 14:46:36 14 
  55. 14:39:48 14 
  56. 01:28:53 14 
  57. 00:44:50 14 
  58. 00:42:44 14 
  59. 00:40:30 14 
  60. 00:40:05 14 
  61. 00:31:44 14 Apr 2020
  62. 00:30:03 14 Apr 2020
  63. 18:37:46 13 Apr 2020
  64. 18:35:58 13 Apr 2020
  65. 18:34:59 13 Apr 2020
  66. 00:51:56 13 Apr 2020  NAA but related
  67. 22:40:28 13 Apr 2020 NAA but related
  68. 17:34:53 12 Apr 2020
  69. 17:15:54 12 Apr 2020
  70. 17:10:49 12 Apr 2020
  71. 17:08:56 12 Apr 2020
  72. 17:07:10 12 Apr 2020
  73. 10:40:57 12 Apr 2020 NAA
  74. 10:39:14 12 Apr 2020
  75. 10:36:47 12 Apr 2020 
  76. 22:16:51 11 Apr 2020
  77. 21:58:55 11 Apr 2020
  78. 18:42:41 11 Apr 2020
  79. 18:42:07 11 Apr 2020
  80. 18:34:43 11 Apr 2020
  81. 18:21:06 11 Apr 2020
  82. 18:19:54 11 Apr 2020
  83. 18:17:55 11 Apr 2020
  84. 17:32:38 11 Apr 2020
  85. 08:48:53 11 Apr 2020
  86. 08:48:32 11 Apr 2020
  87. 01:53:44 11 Apr 2020
  88. 01:52:17 11 Apr 2020
  89. 01:39:34 11 Apr 2020
  90. 18:43:32 10 Apr 2020
  91. 11:29:16 10 Apr 2020
  92. 22:15:38 9 Apr 2020
  93. 18:05:28 9 Apr 2020
  94. 17:53:49 9 Apr 2020
  95. 17:51:23 9 Apr 2020
  96. 17:50:12 9 Apr 2020
  97. 17:47:37 9 Apr 2020
  98. 17:46:55 9 Apr 2020
  99. 17:15:02 9 Apr 2020
  100. 15:54:32 9 Apr 2020
  101. 15:48:53 9 Apr 2020
  102. 15:39:54 9 Apr 2020
  103. 04:57:28 9 Apr 2020
  104. 01:45:01 9 Apr 2020 
  105. 19:48:39 8 Apr 2020
  106. 19:47:41 8 Apr 2020
  107. 19:44:34 8 Apr 2020
  108. 19:42:42 8 Apr 2020
  109. 16:26:44 8 Apr 2020
  110. 14:40:18 8 Apr 2020
  111. 06:08:27 8 Apr 2020
  112. 04:22:04 8 Apr 2020
  113. 02:02:08 8 Apr 2020 NAA
  114. 01:44:09 8 Apr 2020 
  115. 22:31:18 7 Apr 2020
  116. 18:30:43 7 Apr 2020 NAA
  117. 18:28:24 7 Apr 2020
  118. 16:58:27 7 Apr 2020
  119. 16:55:36 7 Apr 2020
  120. 16:53:13 7 Apr 2020
  121. 16:49:28 7 Apr 2020
  122. 23:53:28 6 Apr 2020 NAA
  123. 17:07:57 6 Apr 2020 NAA
  124. 19:23:04 6 Apr 2020
  125. 19:15:06 6 Apr 2020
  126. 15:13:16 6 Apr 2020
  127. 16:40:31 5 Apr 2020
  128. 15:21:46 5 Apr 2020
  129. 15:20:36 5 Apr 2020
  130. 19:26:54 4 Apr 2020
  131. 19:11:24 4 Apr 2020
  132. 19:06:36 4 Apr 2020
  133. 19:05:00 4 Apr 2020
  134. 17:33:34 4 Apr 2020
  135. 17:28:58 4 Apr 2020
  136. 17:10:55 4 Apr 2020
  137. 16:38:50 4 Apr 2020
  138. 16:13:49 4 Apr 2020
  139. 13:13:55 3 Apr 2020
  140. 13:11:21 3 Apr 2020
  141. 12:58:36 3 Apr 2020
  142. 12:56:35 3 Apr 2020
  143. 04:18:05 3 Apr 2020
  144. 04:15:25 3 Apr 2020
  145. 03:13:13 3 Apr 2020
  146. 03:02:56 3 Apr 2020
  147. 03:02:01 3 Apr 2020
  148. 00:28:02 3 Apr 2020
  149. 17:47:26 2 Apr 2020
  150. 23:13:13 2 Apr 2020
  151. 17:41:13 2 Apr 2020
  152. 01:53:25 2 Apr 2020
  153. 01:52:39 2 Apr 2020
  154. 01:45:40 2 Apr 2020
  155. 15:37:00 1 Apr 2020
  156. 15:38:23 31 Mar 2020
  157. 01:12:44 31 Mar 2020
  158. 20:13:43 30 Mar 2020
  159. 20:12:17 30 Mar 2020
  160. 17:25:26 24 Mar 2020
  161. 17:23:30 24 Mar 2020
  162. 16:40:50 24 Mar 2020
  163. 16:38:20 24 Mar 2020
  164. 19:15:11 23 Mar 2020
  165. 19:13:18 23 Mar 2020
  166. 19:10:56 23 Mar 2020
  167. 16:41:46 23 Mar 2020
  168. 12:41:46 23 Mar 2020
  169. 22:56:18 21 Mar 2020
  170. 17:24:59 21 Mar 2020
  171. 01:30:07 20 Mar 2020
  172. 01:24:32 20 Mar 2020
  173. 22:41:17 19 Mar 2020
  174. 22:38:04 19 Mar 2020
  175. 22:34:16 19 Mar 2020
  176. 18:40:35 18 Mar 2020
  177. 17:47:14 13 Mar 2020
  178. 16:10:58 13 Mar 2020
  179. 20:48:40 9 Mar 2020
  180. 20:46:50 9 Mar 2020
  181. 20:45:20 9 Mar 2020
  182. 02:49:54 9 Mar 2020
  183. 02:49:08 9 Mar 2020
  184. 22:30:54 8 Mar 2020
  185. 22:30:32 8 Mar 2020
  186. 22:30:14 8 Mar 2020
  187. 21:46:32 8 Mar 2020
  188. 21:45:56 8 Mar 2020
  189. 21:45:15 8 Mar 2020
  190. 20:40:45 8 Mar 2020
  191. 00:27:40 8 Mar 2020
  192. 21:46:39 7 Mar 2020
  193. 19:16:45  7 Mar 2020
  194. 19:16:39 28 Feb 2020 “Wow. What a dick.” [deleted]
  195. 18:10:20 28 Feb 2020
  196. 15:39:53 28 Feb 2020
  197. 17:45:57 28 Feb 2020
  198. 02:54:46 28 Feb 2020
  199. 00:12:07 28 Feb 2020 
  200. 02:06:40 27 Feb 2020 
  201. 22:12:55 26 Feb 2020
  202. 00:56:18 26 Feb 2020
  203. 23:44:03 20 Feb 2020
  204. 22:30:51 20 Feb 2020
  205. 22:30:23 20 Feb 2020
  206. 22:29:25 20 Feb 2020
  207. 22:14:02 20 Feb 2020
  208. 23:57:27 18 Feb 2020
  209. 19:35:08 18 Feb 2020
  210. 16:47:40 18 Feb 2020
  211. 16:42:12 18 Feb 2020
  212. 16:41:30 18 Feb 2020
  213. 16:40:18 18 Feb 2020
  214. 06:35:52 18 Feb 2020
  215. 20:46:02 17 Feb 2020
  216. 20:45:34 17 Feb 2020
  217. 18:48:12 17 Feb 2020
  218. 18:45:45 17 Feb 2020
  219. 17:17:40 17 Feb 2020
  220. 16:23:45 17 Feb 2020
  221. 18:43:14 17 Feb 2020
  222. 18:42:15 17 Feb 2020 
  223. 18:41:09 17 Feb 2020
  224. 17:24:44 17 Feb 2020
  225. 17:19:50 17 Feb 2020
  226. 16:46:29 17 Feb 2020
  227. 16:46:04 17 Feb 2020
  228. 26:16:23 16 Feb 2020
  229. 26:16:02 16 Feb 2020
  230. 21:16:29 16 Feb 2020
  231. 21:16:10 16 Feb 2020
  232. 15:10:38 16 Feb 2020
  233. 24:55:14 15 Feb 2020
  234. 24:33:01 15 Feb 2020
  235. 24:30:09 15 Feb 2020
  236. 24:15:58 15 Feb 2020
  237. 24:14:57 15 Feb 2020
  238. 24:13:55 15 Feb 2020
  239. 23:37:35 15 Feb 2020
  240. 23:53:47 15 Feb 2020
  241. 23:51:11 15 Feb 2020
  242. 23:09:52 15 Feb 2020
  243. 23:06:52 15 Feb 2020
  244. 23:04:09 15 Feb 2020
  245. 22:32:45 15 Feb 2020
  246. 22:31:20 15 Feb 2020
  247. 19:47:14 15 Feb 2020
  248. 18:46:50 15 Feb 2020
  249. 18:42:21 15 Feb 2020
  250. 13:09:13 15 Feb 2020
  251. 10:22:56 15 Feb 2020
  252. 26:01:51 14 Feb 2020
  253. 26:00:50 14 Feb 2020
  254. 22:42:42 14 Feb 2020
  255. 22:21:04 14 Feb 2020
  256. 21:06:05 14 Feb 2020
  257. 20:43:51 14 Feb 2020
  258. 20:42:03 14 Feb 2020
  259. 20:41:06 14 Feb 2020
  260. 20:39:41 14 Feb 2020
  261. 20:30:21 14 Feb 2020
  262. 20:23:13 14 Feb 2020
  263. 20:21:07 14 Feb 2020
  264. 20:19:59 14 Feb 2020
  265. 20:18:29 14 Feb 2020
  266. 20:16:31 14 Feb 2020
  267. 19:28:02 14 Feb 2020
  268. 19:25:25 14 Feb 2020
  269. 17:17:40 14 Feb 2020
  270. 16:23:45 14 Feb 2020
  271. 21:33:03 12 Feb 2020
  272. 21:32:44 12 Feb 2020
  273. 21:30:33 12 Feb 2020
  274. 21:29:37 12 Feb 2020
  275. 21:28:07 12 Feb 2020
  276. 14:25:24 12 Feb 2020 (attacks a WP noob for calling him a troll)
  277. 23:32:51 11 Feb 2020
  278. 22:28:28 9 Feb 2020 [deleted]
  279. 22:24:47 9 Feb 2020
  280. 00:16:59 9 Feb 2020
  281. 22:16:23 8 Feb 2020
  282. 22:07:25 8 Feb 2020
  283. 22:07:06 8 Feb 2020
  284. 4:36:59 7 Feb 2020
  285. 01:50:55 7 Feb 2020
  286. 22:57:01 6 Feb 2020 
  287. 23:22:14 5 Feb 2020
  288. 23:22:06 5 Feb 2020
  289. 20:31:36 5 Feb 2020
  290. 18:01:04 5 Feb 2020
  291. 01:08:52 5 Feb 2020
  292. 00:51:35 5 Feb 2020/
  293. 00:42:55 5 Feb 2020
  294. 00:27:23 5 Feb 2020
  295. 00:26:40 5 Feb 2020
  296. 00:04:09 5 Feb 2020
  297. 23:21:54 4 Feb 2020
  298. 23:17:49 4 Feb 2020
  299. 20:40:06 4 Feb 2020
  300. 20:55:54 4 Feb 2020
  301. 20:37:23 4 Feb 2020
  302. 15:00:08 4 Feb 2020
  303. 02:45:04 1 Feb 2020
  304. 01:57:12 1 Feb 2020
  305. 01:52:54 1 Feb 2020
  306. 01:10:26 1 Feb 2020
  307. 23:34:46 31 Jan 2020
  308. 23:32:50 31 Jan 2020
  309. 23:32:18 31 Jan 2020
  310. 23:31:26 31 Jan 2020
  311. 00:02:44 30 Jan 2020
  312. 22:59:46 29 Jan 2020
  313. 22:41:36 29 Jan 2020
  314. 22:40:47 29 Jan 2020
  315. 21:08:49 29 Jan 2020
  316. 21:07:55 29 Jan 2020
  317. 20:20:30 29 Jan 2020
  318. 03:09:30 29 Jan 2020
  319. 03:00:50 29 Jan 2020
  320. 02:37:10 29 Jan 2020
  321. 03:42:09 28 Jan 2020
  322. 01:33:31 [deleted] 28 Jan 2020
  323. 01:09:34 28 Jan 2020
  324. 00:53:49 28 Jan 2020


This material was originally posted on, here. It is occasionally updated here.

Re: Vigilant!!!

Post by Abd » Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:49 pm

Most recent Vigilant posts have been his reaction to being confronted by me and Strelnikov, obviously he is what he says about others, “butthurt.” However, today he began making comments not about me. I’ll be listing them here so that others can see exactly what he does. (ABD means that the comment contains an Abd reference.)

Jan 07, 2020 9:29 am – excuse for “dipshittery”
Jan 07, 2020 10:13 am – “Great Britain sucked a lot of nazi dick right around that time”
Jan 07, 2020 11:28 am – on topic re an off-topic meander, but still treated another WPO user as if blind.
Jan 07, 2020 6:57 pm – “TL;DR – He’s jealous.” inferring Someone’s state of mind (RfB? Kudpung?) from what he did not read, right?
Jan 07, 2020 7:19 pm “OK, Boomer.” To RfB, and the previous comment was also to RfB.
Jan 08, 2020 11:41 am Actual link to ArbCom!
Jan 08, 2020 2:04 pm [Member-only forum] “The dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia.” Where has he been?
Jan 08, 2020 2:11 pm coat-rack to dump on Eric Corbett
Jan 08, 2020 2:15 pm tl;dr doesn’t work with a page cited elsewhere, so he goes for snark that has the same fact behind it.
Jan 08, 2020 2:21 pm snark about “funny shit”
Jan 08, 2020 2:30 pm “garbage human,” “cowards on ARBCOM.”
Jan 08, 2020 2:34 pm “Kudpung seems like he’s really disappointed he missed WWII and the chance to be in the Gestapo.”
Jan 08, 2020 2:42 pm one of the more reasonable Vigilant posts. then I noticed “<snip video of cold fusion supporter>” ABD video link
Jan 08, 2020 2:48 pm [to Eric Corbett] Go back to your pints, you steaming tosspot
Jan 08, 2020 2:59 pm Many people are ignorant [true] and [use as coatrack to troll ABD
Jan 08, 2020 3:05 pm Video: Let the hate flow through you (ref to that removed video, about countering hate with love?).
Jan 08, 2020 3:06 pm phpBB business, normal.
Jan 08, 2020 4:19 pm relatively calm exchange with a WP arbitrator — who did confront him over an inconsistent position.
Confronted by Poetlister over that: “Are you asking me to put back my avatar?”
Jan 08, 2020 4:34 pm Mild.
Jan 08, 2020 4:56 pm Wherein Vig admits he had not seen something and changed his view from evidence. Wow!
Jan 08, 2020 8:55 pm “Jehochmoan shows up to be wrong about everything as usual.”
Jan 09, 2020 12:22 am “This is pretty fucking dark.” Yes. Wikipedia structure encourages it. Confront it, be harassed.
Jan 09, 2020 12:38 am Standard for the anti-woo faction: “there is no evidence.” Reality is that source considers evidence inconclusive. Long story.
Jan 09, 2020 1:55 am grave-dancing over Timothy Usher who was cause in the Offwiki block of Abd.
Jan 09, 2020 1:17 pm Ashley van Haeften aka Fae, is a contraindicator of common sense and decency
Jan 09, 2020 1:20 pm a ton of shitty, shitty decisions last ARBCOM
Jan 09, 2020 9:57 pm normal human comment, no venom
Jan 10, 2020 9:58 am “habitual lush”; V. quotes himself from 7 years ago, and frosts the mudcake with “ferret lover.”
Jan 10, 2020 10:26 am merely lame: “WP:AC, where AC now stands for Admin Conduct”
Jan 10, 2020 11:26 am “dick-o-meter” but mild for V.
Jan 10, 2020 11:39 am waste of space, applauds a completely dumb post from Giraffe Stapler.
Jan 10, 2020 5:32 pm “Adios, Kudpung.”
Jan 10, 2020 5:35 pm “Like watching a fish ride a bicycle.”
Jan 10, 2020 5:36 pm “Would somebody kindly tell Jehochmoan to STFU?”
Jan 10, 2020 7:19 pm Good times, good times… his own post from 2013 re Ironholds
Jan 10, 2020 7:35 pm Someone sure went quiet Cat got your tongue? (1 day silence on a wiki is meaningless)
Jan 10, 2020 11:54 pm “Kudpung is about to get integration scrummed.”
Jan 10, 2020 11:57 pm … “shitheel” …
Jan 11, 2020 1:04 am nice about Lila Tretikov
Jan 11, 2020 11:15 am cites an article, then “… good lord, is that a terrible article.” [he’s right, but then why cite it?]

The above are all posts for the period. I will now only post cherry-picked juicy tidbits calculated to expose Vigilants hyperactive anus. So stop reading this if offended. It is claimed that some love the lulz. I will remain responsive to users and site staff considering what the readership here wants. I am not the boss here, not a dictator, as some have claimed, just a user, and in addition, an appointed servant subject to supervision. There is a decade of Vigilant’s vicious rants, mostly with no grounded response, to catch up on!
Jan 12, 2020 8:19 am “Snowflake culture at its finest.”
Jan 12, 2020 8:23 am “Prepare your orifice, Kudpung.”
Jan 12, 2020 9:19 pm “cockholster”
Jan 13, 2020 6:47 pm “Eric’s biggest regret is that he never got to perch his dimpled tuchus atop the golden throne of wikipedia power. What a foul tyrant he’d have been. Stalin would have blanched.” Trolling Eric Corbett.
Jan 14, 2020 1:47 am [Wikipedia administrators] “share a common thread of cowardice”
Jan 15, 2020 11:55 am

Under the righteous rule of Abd, this refusal to honor the right to administrate would not stand! My suggestion is to send Eric to play with the other chromosomally superabundant over at sucks.

Coatrack to attack Eric Corbett, me, and Sucks all in a few words! Some of us might love to see this in a movie where the vicious hater ends up eviscerated, stretched naked on the rack, and the crowd calls him a whiner and laughs at his tiny genitals. They consider that entertainment on Wikipediocracy. Corbett did not defy moderation, and Vigilant hates all “stupid people,” including people with Down Syndrome. He’s asking for one he hates to be banned, yet has called the policy I declared on Sucks — no blocking without violated warning — “dictatorial.” The lowest pit of hell, in fact, is reserved for the hypocrites.
Jan 15, 2020 4:02 pm (WPO member-only) Public “What a zoo of inbred speds.” Intense ableist contempt of Sucks, with a link displayed with a lie.
Jan 15, 2020 8:38 pm (Public) “BANNED … for being a giant dick” Both are lies from a fount of lies. I was blocked for 7 days without warning, not banned. And while I’m honored to be called a Giant Dick by the biggest dick on the internet, or at least on WPO, the block was about what the link shows. “Be sure to also write them up on your honeypot website, you fucking nut.” Not a honeypot, that’s insane, this trivial BS would not be documented there, and thanks for the compliment.
Jan 15, 2020 8:38 pm (Member only)(Public) “his recent autofellatio around moderators’ rights” Writing reality is called autofellatio by a hater of reality.
Jan 15, 2020 8:40 pm 9 member-only (Public)“What kind of monstrous dipshit do you have to be to get banned from a puzzle subreddit?!” It is far easier to be banned from a single-moderator, low-conflict subreddit, in active moderator to boot, than from the ordinary flame war subs. But I was not banned. However, Vigilant has now posted twice to the sub with attacks. Both have been deleted and it is possible he was banned. I’ll cover this elsewhere.
Jan 15, 2020 8:49 pm “Let the whining commence” Opinion about Wikipedia reality, shared by critics, is called “whining” though it includes no complaint. No surprise, Vigilant is a dedicated troll, and “whining” and “butthurt” are among his favorite words.
Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:15 pm (member-only) (Public) “Absurd Brainless Dolt” … “raw chaos wall-o-text masquerading as a response” … “Like a cur … shitting all over the bed” … “spedling”. Is this a “wall of text”? Be aware, arcane topic. and, of course, more ableism from a troll.
Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:30 pm “suggest you tards” … how to ensure that any suggestion is ignored, present it that way. Grandstanding troll.
Jan 16, 2020 6:19 pm “pretty mild and then Kudpung loses his fucking mind in response.” We all do, at least for a moment, when we react to a perceived attack. Vigilant included. But Vig continues the lizard brain response for a decade or more. And trolls know this. The troll goal is to create amygdala hijack, that, if it dominates, looks bad. Sidestepping makes him furious.
Jan 16, 2020 7:19 pm “Seems less insane than the average admin.” Combining weak compliment with general contempt.
Jan 16, 2020 6:50 pm Public“Merkey” “most net.kooks” “raw narcissism” “intellectual and moral frauds,” w/ unsourced refs to his obsessive stalking of 30 years of net history, all deceptive, and most obscure. Troll farts. Yawn.
Re comment from Beeblebrox: “I can only imagine the shrieks of fury were that particular unblock made.” Vigilant could be unblocked on Wikipedia and the only basis for reblock would be off-wiki critique, which will normally be ignored. Opposition is here referred to in Vig style, about projected emotion, not fact. But could Vig compose a sensible unblock request? His opponents, which could be legion, might agree to the unblock on the “give him rope,” exposing him to ridicule. Doubt he’d risk that. This exposes this question as insincere. Vig has only one sincere bone in his body, and it isn’t a bone.
Jan 18, 2020 1:48 am Hyperbolic, but if this were Vig’s standard fare, I’d consider him a positive contributor. Kudpung could be fucked, but Vig relishes it. The lesson in all this. Don’t piss off people, unless it is a necessity, in which case prepare for incoming. Some have resources. Piss ’em off enough, they will die rather than let you live.
Jan 21, 2020 3:24 pm STFU, Eric. You are the poster child for hypocrisy here.
Jan 22, 2020 3:28 am dipshittery,” “[Maher’s] twitter is a cornucopia of strangeness.” Strange to this hater. Not to normal people.
Jan 22, 2020 3:33 am“Do me next!” — makes no sense in context.
Jan 22, 2020 6:14 pm He explains the above. He’s trolling Worm.
Jan 23, 2020 11:00 am“100 angry chimps.” He whines about his 14-year-old block as “out of process.” It was perfectly ordinary. He never put up an unblock template and there it sits.
Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:59 am “Eric Corbett, a chav on the lash”

Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:47 am “‘globalist’ is dipshit slang for Jew.”

Jan 27, 2020 10:01 am “You should head over to sucks and deal with Abd. (a reference to my use of a common reply on Reddit with only one word and a link.) This was to Osborne, who would be totally welcome on Sucks.

Jan 27, 2020 3:42 pm “Fucking auto co-rectangle”

Jan 27, 2020 4:22 pm (about Prince Andrew:) “Child rapists are like that.”

Jan 27, 2020 4:47 pm “What this says about you is beyond putrid.” (about Corbett)

Jan 27, 2020 4:56 pm “reads like someone had a brain injury.”

[ Jan 27, 2020 7:00 pm moderator removed several “personal attack” posts, so what is here from earlier the 27th may not be the worst.]

Jan 27, 2020 9:23 pm (About Lomax v. WMF:) “Is it dead yet?” Ignorant, fervent hope.

Jan 30, 2020 8:16 pm (to Corbett) …”reading comprehension must be slipping in your twilight days. Or, perhaps, dial back the ethanol self medication efforts.

[pedophile accusations on Sucks is going down, against Abd and Corbett]

Feb 05, 2020 4:16 pm “while sacrificing your pride and dignity like a used condom at a truck stop ” … “all the while wiping the copious leavings of the ARBCOM bukakke session from his eyes.”

Feb 05, 2020 4:29 pm [To Corbett] “Do you need help finding the door, old man?”

Feb 05, 2020 4:55 pm “A trashed chav slag” … “Has Eric no honor nor shame?”

[and this forum has now been made fully-private, ordinary members cannot read it.]




Claims have been made that this site is unsafe to access. Site management is unaware of any problem with this, and trolls do not want you to see this content, but to make it accessible here to those concerned, with guaranteed safety, many pages here exist on

Some page links are published with an anchor appended, to go to a particular section. Anchors are not generally displayed on and cannot be directly used. However, this information may help:

Page last archived at as of 20 Jan 2020 00:40:54 UTC
This page uses anchors of the form “#tMMSS” where MMSS is the last four digits of the timestamp of the source post. Searching the archived page for “MM:SS” should go directly to that content. (On Reddit, see the full post timestamp by mouse-hover over the displayed time.)

Comments are open here on the blog. Please report any security issues.



Google revives controversial cold-fusion experiments

Researchers tested mechanisms linked to nuclear fusion at room temperature — but found no evidence for the phenomenon.


Lessons from cold fusion, 30 years on

Why revisit long-discredited claims for a source of abundant energy, asks Philip Ball? Because we are still learning how to treat pathological science.

Erica C. Barnett and Wikipedia done poorly and well

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

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

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

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

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

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

But meanwhile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article sat this way for five weeks, then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Copyright ISCMNS 2019
Subpage of ICCF-22

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

Monday 9 September 2019

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

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

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

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

Tuesday 10 September

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

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

Wednesday 11 September

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

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

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

Thursday 12 September

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

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

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

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

Friday 13 September

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

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


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

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





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

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

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

And more

A new avalanche appeared October 31, 2019:

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

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

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


Subpage of JCMNS
Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion

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

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

Front matter, PrefaceTable of contents.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light Hydrogen LENR in Copper Alloys
William H. McCarthy*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atomic Nuclei Binding Energy
Philippe Hatt*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Abd Lomax blocked socking again on RationalWiki

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver Smith socking on RatWiki after ban

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

Identified or suspected Oliver Smith socks on RationalWiki:

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

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

    On Talk:Emil_Kirkegaard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    D/EK same person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Rule Zero

    Oliver wrote, as Oak:

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

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

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

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

    And then, see the deletion log.

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

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

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

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

    This was discussed at User_talk:David_Gerard/Archive2#Doxing

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

    Darryl L. Smith. I.e., Skeptical

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

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

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

    Wiki disease.

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

    It’s just the way it is.

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

Lenr Forum on Lomax v. WMF


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zeus46 added a comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The story



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).


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

WMF Global ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lomax v. WMF

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

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

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


    • To support expenses for this litigation, links:

    Relevant pages:

Oliver Discord fiasco

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

Cease and desist


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 … inc_et_al/ … wikimedia/ … a/ekz9m2o/ … awsuit_on/ … cked_from/ … ng_emails/ … erm_abuse/ … l_article/ … ming_this/ … _spamming/ … dia_after/ … klyver_is/ … wikipedia/ … mikemikev/ … 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:
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

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. : }

Emblyn 05/16/2019 at 15:53

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

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:


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).



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.


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.


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.


[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?