Readymade/Bicycle wheel/Sophie Wilder

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

This is a subpage of rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/supporters-and-enablers/, about the RationalWiki account Readymade, formerly Bicycle Wheel, renamed from Sophie Wilder.

I discovered confirmation of gender, looking at this account’s history. What I write below shows the discovery process.

I wasn’t terribly interested in Readymade  until she (I suspect female, which is very unusual and might be incorrect, but there are women who do participate, on occasion, in the otherwise very male RatWiki culture) displayed a series of possible AP traits, so she could fit as a suspect. If so, AP is broadening horizons, as I expect to see. It was once very easy to detect AP socks by characteristic interests, immediately displayed. It may become more difficult.

Readymade is a “returning user” who does not reveal the former account(s). First edit.

Registered Jan 1, 2018, was immediately welcomed by Christopher, a moderator.  Unusual.

Edited the Saloon bar as IP accidentally. Talk talk IP has been used by AP. This does identify Readymade as likely resident in the U.K. The IP has not edited WMF wikis, but I haven’t checked the range. [note added: Readymade is not an AP sock, the probability of that approaches zero.]

With a handful of edits, in 8 days, Readymade was given autoconfirmed, and in another four days, sysop. I have found rapid opping before with AP socks. In this case, she may be an ally, communicated off-wiki. Or it is just a coincidence. [In fact, she was a well-known user to those who had been active up to a few years ago.]

This early edit provided two names:, “testing.” Carole Hersee and Totnes. The latter is a town not far from where the IP geolocated.  Other than confirming probably UK location, I find nothing else interesting there.

She hates doxxing, obviously. Who hates doxxing? Two kinds of people: Wikipedians who want to encourage anonymous editing in spite of the massive problems it creates (this is being abandoned by sites that want to encourage reliability) — the original concept was to allow the expression of unpopular or politically dangerous opinion, as well as to make it “quick” to edit –, and people who attack and libel others. In a word, liars. Journalists doxx, and that is called “fake news” by those who hate it. Fascists hate it.

This edit reveals a likely former account.Notice the use of “bicycle” with no link in the signature. Bicycle wheel used “wheel” in the same way. Then see in the archive Readymade created, [ these comments] by an oldtimer, definitely referring to Bicycle Wheel as female. And this user would almost certainly be able to communicate with RW sysops off-wiki. The Bicycle wheel account goes back to 2012. There is no sign of AP obsessions.

The first edit of Readymade revealed the gender issue, and that, then, explains the discrepancy with behavior from “normal female” and “normal male,” This was Sophie Wilder, and the edit claims to be a “female trapped in a male body,” and transgender. I have worked with transgender male -> female people.. Behaviorally, in many ways, they — at least one that I knew, who had transformed himself to a sort-of-attractive female, who surroounded herself with female employees remained male, it was obvious.

This is not an accusation, simply an observation. It explains the anomaly I mention above, what was at first weak evidence of being female (the comment about “gender” seen below, would normally only be made by a female, but also by someone transgender, which I had not thought of). I did not know that Sophie was transgender, but that also explains much. I thought she was merely ugly, ah, “unattractive.” — and lots of unattractive people are nice. Sophie is not nice, as we will see, the photo is above. More to the point is the aggressive communication style. Many women learn to be assertive, but this is far beyond that.

The “community style,” which, in conflict, becomes highly aggressive, is “male.”

I’m sure those more familiar would have known, especially from “Wilder” in the signatures. So she isn’t hiding from people who know RatWiki. Again, this explains the rapid sysopping, even though the pretense was that this was from the quality of edits.;

Bicycle Wheel’s user rights also went from (none) to Sysop quickly. These were actually Sophie Wilder rights, because Wilder, when she had the tools, renamed her account from Sophe Wilder to Bicycle Wheel. I could find no User Creation log entry for either. Bicycle Wheel

Why did I became interested in Readymade?

This edit to User talk Christopher, 20:16, 5 March 2018 mentioned me by name and showed her point of view, aligned with the AP claims and agenda.

These block log entries showed a focus on the alleged Abd socks. And these deletion log entries. (However, some of the impersonations I did not see until now. Because of one action, I dropped a comment on her talk page. (All those impersonation page creations are designed to desensitize the RW community to the truth. It seems to be working.)

Readymade removed the comment with summary: (yeah yeah jimmy jimmy). Rude.

The impersonation sock in this case was CF. The edits Readymade hid on the Salooon bar and on User talk:Christoper were CF posting this:

CF also created pages.  Abd_Lomax_is_being_suppressed_by_Rationalwiki_trolls. The content was this: (bolding added, see below)

Abd Lomax is being suppressed by Rationalwiki trolls

My comments have been supressed on the talkpage Abd ul-Rahman Lomax by a skeptic troll debunking spiritualism. Here was my reply

Abd, if he were going to “attack” like them, would make the posts very brief and would put a URL in them. The impersonation socks are attacking users that Lomax has no beef with, merely because they, say, blocked a disruptive impersonation sock. This is all very obvious and is a widely reported behavior of a certain “family” of socks, obviously becoming desperate.

And now, another IP shows up with an unverifiable stories, repeating what the sock master has claimed. Are they independent? They could be. How would we know? There are ways to know, sometimes, and there are RatWiki users with access to the raw logs that might show more. (Those people can see everything that a WMF checkuser can see and more, raw logs show, for example, what pages are read, not merely those that are edited. For all who access the site.)

Short of that, there is behavioral evidence. If it quacks like a duck…. Lomax allegedly attacked “skeptics,” but, in fact, what he documented was an impersonator. He also, long-term, criticized extreme pov-pushing skepticism (not merely ordinary skepticism) on Wikipedia and mentioned users, but these claims of attacks have never been accompanied by specific references … so that if there were errors, he could fix them. Simply writing that User So-and-So did X, with a diff, is not an attack. Unless someone is trying to hide what is already public.

The first quote, indented, was from this edit. 

The rest is familiar, I may have written this on RW or on the blog. However, the text at the beginning, I bolded it, was by the impersonator. Looking at other sock edits at this point (it included IP edits that I did not make), the framing presented is that I am blaming “RationalWiki trolls,” instead of documenting a very specific set of socks run by two brothers, this is designed to frame all of my work as an attack on RationalWiki and “skeptics.” So, of course, RW users, who generally identify as skeptics, will reject this claim. Which wasn’t my claim. After events in which Readymade was involved, I have shifted to a concept of community responsibility for what it tolerates, not to mention what it encourages. There are still RW users, however, who are active and who have not joined the Smith bandwagon.

(CF also posted that text to the Saloon bar. Creating attack pages or trolling pages is a long-term AP trait, seen elsewhere. In spite of what the socks would have RWikians and readers of my article believe, I have no history at all like this.)

So I responded to Readymade with wishing her luck. She removed it without comment. Readymade is reactive. A sane person would say “Thanks,” even if they thought it was insincere. People who spit in the face of those who are being polite do not do well.

More activity March 5, DS revision-deleted two impersonation sock edits. [] and []

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‎‎ is being impersonated and harassed by biased skeptic Rationalwiki trolls. It is clearly Tim Farley doing this. This was the same man who has harassed Rome Viharo. Lomax will document all this on

This is the story that AP wants to communicate, that skeptics are being attacked. Tim Farley is a well-known skeptical speaker and blogger. Rome Viharo has suspected Farley’s involvenent with organizations coordinating — or even paying for, and there is some evidence for that — but I have seen nothing from Farley that rises above a level of minor snarky comment. Farley, I suspect, would very much not approve of what the Smith brothers have been doing., if he became aware of it. He actually confronted a Rome Viharo impersonation sock on Wikipedia as very suspicious and he was asking for checkuser. Which was not done, and if it had been done, what followed shortly might not have happened.

Tim Farley is not behind the Smith brothers. The original heavy disruptive impersonation sockiing I saw on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, leading to my checkuser request that exposed it, and then massive attack from socks, was by Darryl Smith, evidence is strong. Oliver was either involved not at all, or was minor collateral damage from some coincident IP to possibly two accounts with few edits.

Both brothers are very bad news, attacking, among other things, academic freedom, as well as defaming and libelling their targets. (Much worse than the old RW snark.)

March 14, 2018, DS created a section on Readymade talk with my name, and Ready made commented on a page here. She lied about the page. I commented.  GrammarCommie reverted it, but Readymade restored it to reply. She wrote nothing relating to the issue involved. Instead, just a question:

(As an old-time RW denizen, she could not resist the urge to get down and dirty.

What in the name of Horatio Ooze Gruntmangler XXIII are you whimbreling on about? WilderBicycle 19:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It was all simple and explicit. But, since she asked, I told her:

Ask a question, get an answer. Readymade, you made false statements about what was on that page. Those falsehoods promulgate the straw man arguments of the most abusive and vicious family of socks I’ve ever seen. You also obviously disliked being reminded of reality, because of [ this block], which is completely useless, since I’m using open proxies, the most mobile of mobile IP. So you blocked someone else, in the future. Not really a problem, because the site already blocks as many open proxies as it can stuff into the DNSBL. Unless that IP is later not an open proxy. However, if your goal is to ask me not to edit your user talk page, the most powerful method is to ask me not to edit here. I know that conflicts with the Rules of Obey Ma Authorite, but suit yourself. It usually works.

By the way, it was not me who vandalized your user page with that link. I don’t do vandalism, but the impersonators do. Very few socks being blocked as ostensibly me are, including ones with my full name, etc. And, yes, they “push” what they imagine is my agenda, in order to make it look crazy. They have actually done this with many people, they are highly experienced at it. But RatWikians live in a bubble, isolated from the real world, and if someone claims to be a skeptic, GOOD, and if they attack others — even other skeptics — as long as they make “positive contributions,” hey, op them!

If you want to know why the impersonator dropped that note on your user page, I could probably explain. He does whatever he can do to get people fired up and fighting each other. — (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

ODS and DS, the Smith brothers, blanked that and protected the page. Her response shows what Sophie is made of:

[deleted reply, search the diffs if you’re a masochist]

Abd, I don’t care. You’re a colossal doxing, shitsquirting arse, and furthermore, cold fusion is a load of steaming bollocks. Don’t bother replyong, you’re a ginormous self-regarding twat and I wish you’d see yourself as others see you. WilderBicycle 09:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is too common for RW users: intolerant of clear exposition and text, very intolerant of detail, heavily relying on ad homimem arguments, snark, and pure insult. This person, not a woman, not a man either …

  1. Is literally shit-for-brains.  Sophie knows nothing at all about cold fusion, I doubt that she could say what it is — and what it is not. (I’ve been published under peer review in a mainstream journal. She has what qualifications? RationalWiki editor? She should try putting that on a resume.)
  2. As to seeing ourselves as others see us, that is an aspect of training (very useful!) that Sophie would probably run from the room if it started.
  3. Welcome back to RW, Sophie. It is appearing that, in general, you deserve each other, and the worst curse I could lay on you is “Be Sophie Wilder and spend your time breathing the RW air.”
  4. You are not personally important to what I have been documenting. You are just a big (“ginormous”) toad in a small pond.
  5. Your talk page is off protection now. Will I comment? On my article, you confirmed “Make sure not to feed the troll.” She just did it, a number of times.

A number of RW users have complained about all the “drama.” But they tolerate those who massively create it. Since I was blocked, I have edited RationalWiki only a few times, by comparison with all the impersonations. They get what they create. I will probably inform Sophie of this page. That’s actually a courtesy, she could correct errors, if she cares. My guess? She won’t care. That’s up to her, I have no information that Sophie Wilder is her real name, nor am I about to do some extensive doxxing. If Sophie keeps attacking me, she might get mentioned again and then sometimes others feed me verifiable information.

She is the first RW user, not a AP sock, who clearly and repeatedly supported the AP disruption and thus becomes responsible for it.

This is what she is supporting: see an edit to User talk:ODS, a few days ago, pointing an archived copy of  a comment he created on the Forum for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and archived a minute later, and then posted to his user talk page a few minutes later. The full conversation can be seen by any sysop on his talk page, even though it has been hidden by his twin brother, DS.

So you made a jokes about “brother,” in the coop case that DS had opened, that you also closed. The mob has decided to skip with declared process. Was it assumed that I would just roll over and go away if I was cooped? If so, a premature close, which that certainly was, would not accomplish it. However, I decided to treat the indef block — by a Darryl sock, almost certainly, unless Oliver was totally lying in several places — as a “defacto ban,” because nobody is willing to undo it. Christopher’s comment about RW practice was not correct, or the practice has changed. Same as on Wikipedia, there is a crucial difference between a block and a ban, and I took that to the Arbitration Committee and won. There would be a similar difference on RW, and it was proven in practice.

That I am banned does not mean that I don’t edit. It means that I treat the entire community as an enemy of decency and truthfulness, until and unless the community opens its eyes to reality.

This is my conclusion: you have no concern about the truthfulness of what you write. To you, RationalWiki is like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Efforts have been made to pull up the standards … but I noticed that one of the last remaining early editors retired with a concern that RW was being way too lax about libel. This will all be documented on the Rational Wiki study here. Meanwhile Rome Viharo is accusing the RationlWiki Foundation of using possible lawsuits as a fund-raising device. My comment was that by raising funds, the Foundation makes itself an attractive target.  What has protected the Smiths, so far, is that they have no known significant assets to go after. Their anonymity was lost a long time ago, before I was ever involved.

They have also broken British law. It could be argued that you have, as well, by the way. The case is very clear with the Smiths, not so clear with you. Apparently law enforcement is weak on this, and that isn’t surprising. So I expect that some of those who have been defamed will create civil process, which could also, then, lead to criminal process. I expect that the RationalWiki Foundatinon, faced with this, will cave, as it has many times in similar cases. The legitimate goals of the RWF are not furthered by lies and deception.


If you see this on an archive site, check the original URL to see if it has been updated, errors corrected, responses received, etc.

This page is under construction. Due to restoration from a crash, after starting to recreate it, it has redundant material. It’s a mess. Read it only if insanely interested in following this as it is edited. (This is not a blog post, it is an information page. Blog posts always have a date in the URL. Information pages may exist in information hierarchies, and multiply like bunnies as information is organized, which takes time.)

As the initials imply, this RationalWiki account is Oliver D. Smith, who apparently decided to register a new account at RatWiki, and he has openly acknowledged being the well-known troll and harasser. He is being protected by his brother, Darryl L. Smith, who is currently using Debunking spiritualism (DS), which would be a classic Darryl Smith user name. In a number of communications, Oliver has essentially outed his brother. But this page is about Oliver.

ODS contributions.

The following sequence took the cake, and shows what DS is faced with, attempting to handle his brother. It also shows a small piece of the cross-wiki behavior, with massive socking on Encyclopedia Dramatica (at the same time as ODS crows about small-scale socking by his enemies).

With his first edits he lied about the Emil Kirkegaard page on him. (Archive copy just in case). Contrary to his claims, and as can be seen by reading the Kirkegaard page linked, Kirkegaard did not claim that “every single editor on his article is Oliver Smith.” This is a classic AP straw man argument, both brothers do it. Oliver claims that “Like 90% of the accounts he lists are not mine and he provides no evidence I’m any of these users.” And then, “For example “igobymanynames”/”Skeptical”/”Antifa Ireland”/Dinocrisis etc I’ve never edited or posted on. Basically he’s looked at the history of the [[Emil Kirkegaard]] article, sees it has about 25 editors over past years, now says I’m all of them, when I;m not.”

Kirkegaard made no such claim. He quotes Oliver (in the archived copy): “Also, I created both their entries at Rationalwiki to warn the internet about these people.” (Referring to John Fuerst and Kirkegaard).  Both articles were created by Ben Steigmans, an impersonation account. Ben Steigmann was the user attacked on Wikipedia and Wikiversity by Darryl Smith; the interests are crossover, but Ben Steigmans’ focus was Oliver, and we have Oliver’s admission. Then, showing a screenshot of the edit history, Kirkegaard claims:

Skeptical is Oliver’s chosen sockpuppet in this case. He appears to have spent 2 days writing my page on this occasion. A list of suspected sockpuppets and IP’s is given later

When Kirkegaard wrote that, the extent of Darryl’s socking was not widely known. Skeptical was very likely Darryl, certainly Oliver claims that. Darryl was also definitely some accounts listed by Kirkegaard. AP socks have played on the confusion caused by the massive socking. Oliver claimed, in email to me, that “99.9% ” of the socks I had identified were his twin brother, based apparently on my Rational Wiki article list page. That was an obvious exaggeration, since he was some accounts and I had not claimed a thousand of them.

When I asked Oliver to identify his accounts, he wrote that it would be too much work.  The following identifications are based on the preponderance of the evidence. In many cases, there is not enough evidence to definitively conclude which brother it was, or even that it was an AP sock (and on Wikipedia, suspected socks will be listed based on thin evidence. Many of these end up being confirmed where checkuser is run.) My sense, however, is that few of the identifications listed on the List page are incorrect. The Smiths often claim this is all stupidity, but they don’t actually point out errors. Notice, the only error Oliver claims is that certain accounts were not him. But that allows them to be his brother, and the two have created massive confusion.

(The following has not yet been thoroughly researched. Links will be added as found)

  1. Asgardian
  2. Aza]
  3. Skeptical probably Darryl
  4. Welliver I suspected Oliver, from interest, but other evidence points to Darryl.
  5. Antifa Ireland single edit to RW. Oliver interest, but Oliver denies.
  6. BenSteigmans
  7. OldSword
  8. Krom As I recall, Oliver admitted this.
  9. Kromscape Encyclopedia Dramatica, definitely Oliver
  10. Krom1991 Reddit account, Oliver from interest
  11. Atlantid well known.
  12. BlackGoatCabal early Smith account
  13. Scionic Evil old account, widely identified as Oliver
  14. AngloSaxon
  15. Hyperboreanar
  16. pyramidologist old account
  17. Truthseeker
  18. cassiterides
  19. Anglo_Pyramidologist
  20. Boglin the name would indicate Darryl
  21. Thule
  22. DinoCrisis certainly Darryl
  23. PS2  see the RW account contributions
  24. Goosebumps the name would be Darryl
  25. Arcticos
  26. Atlantid
  27. Onion_hotdog
  28. Morpheus
  29. Dale
  30. HaraldBluetooth the name would indicate Oliver
  31. BenSteigmann (impersonation)
  32. … and 100s more (list heremeta-Wiki investigation found ~190 sockpuppets) [most of these socks would likely be Darryl.]

This is a list of suspected Anglo Pyramidologist socks. The socks claimed that the original AP account was not the same as the massive army of socks that have been blocked as AP. I consider this likely to be true. It was Darryl (as Oliver said in 2011 and repeated recently.) However, I have bolded accounts that I would consider Oliver, and have put in italics accounts where I don’t have an opinion. I have not yet researched some of the names, but out of a list of 31 specific names, 15 appear to be Oliver. That’s quite about more than “90% not me” would suggest.

That was not a list of editors of the Emik Kirkegaard article. See the list page for a non-yet-up-to-date list of suspected AP socks (which would include Oliver and Darryl).  (and the same for the talk page).

The use of straw man arguments has been common, for both Darryl and Oliver. They depend on most users not carefully checking sources, reading them with expectation bias.

(I will continue with this page, to add what Oliver Smith revealed as to his Encyclopedia Dramatica activity, and how his twin reacted to this.)

User talk:ODS history currently shows DS hiding edits, including mine (expected) but also very embarrassing edits by Oliver.

ODS had published the WikiMedia Foundation response to his emailed complaint about me. DS advised that this was unwise. Gee, I found it quite useful!

First of all, there was [ material added] to ODS talk that extensively explored the account history. It was reverted by Darryl as DS.

What this will come to is a trolling page added to the Encyclopedia Dramatica Forum, created by Oliver, with proof that this was him from the timing of his creation and archiving, and adding the archive link to his user talk page, in response to a comment that pointed to his very recent ED socks. He did not deny the socks (which were obvious), but attacked. The page he created may be seen here:

He has not changed his behavior at all. His brother tries to hide it…. Meanwhile, in many places, Oliver outs Debunking spiritualism as his brother, and denies that the massive socking was him. He is lying, but behind that is a likely truth: much of the socking that has been blamed on “Anglo Pyramidologist” was actually his twin.

Right now, I only see two active socks (aside from socks impersonating me): ODS and DS.

A system reset — Windows Update Sucks! — caused the disappearance of this content from a previous version of this page. This is now a mess. But it does show what is mentioned above. I will clean this up later.
If this page is seen through an archived copy, check the original URL for possible revisions or corrections. Errors may be noted in comments here, and replies from affected parties will be allowed, as long as they are not, themselves, illegal.

This page will document the RationalWiki user ODS, who is openly Oliver D. Smith. He is widely known to have a twin brother, Darryl L. Smith. First, a brief incident.

Because there was a section there discussing me, I had commented on User talk:ODS.  This was later collapsed by Debunking spiritualism which is DS, the twin brother, convenient as a name. DS, in his comment accompanying the collapse, lied about the content of my blog pages. That’s been typical.

Cheeseburger face had [ pointed out that the alleged doxxing above] wasn’t. (That is one reason I reached out to him, but … too bad. So far, he is either actively enabling AP socks or he has his head firmly wedged in the sand. I had actually been careful, but AP socks call any identification of their accounts “doxxing.” Whereas the freely identify the accounts of others … and practically nothing is done about it.)

ODS commented on his talk page. It’s been revision-deleted. He wrote:

 I have to laugh at crazies like Lomax calling me an “internet harasser” for merely documenting and debunking pseudo-scientists. Also, the vast majority (90%+) of my articles creations for past 6 years are/were not on people e.g. [[Multiregional hypothesis]]. So he just cherry picks a few articles, disregarding my main contributions that have helped many people over the years. What a nutcase.[[User:ODS|ODS]] ([[User talk:ODS|talk]]) 07:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, here ODS admits being Oliver D. Smith (as he has in many places, no biggie), but … Oliver D. Smith is widely known as a harasser, and little of it has to do with “documenting and debunking pseudoscientists.” This page will document some of that history. However, what has come up is that at least some of the most serious harassment, that got me involved in the first place, was not him, but his brother, DS. But that is not the point here, it’s coming up.

After a series of sock puppets were created on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and with discussion of me standing on User talk:ODS, I dropped a post there.

How is ED treating you?

Hey, Oliver, have you created enough socks on the Dramatica Encyclopedia? I don’t see any today. Are you sick, or what? Wait! Never mind! What am I thinking?

You are sick!

Temple OldKnight Oedipus Stesichorus Corinna Anoncreon Run Herodotus

By the way, “average male life expectancy” of, say, 76, doesn’t mean that if you are 66, you have an average of ten years to live. That’s from birth. Average male life expectancy at 66 is another 17 years. Your education is quite deficient. — (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Some comments about this post: RatWiki has an edit filter that prevents naming or linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. I have, here, linked to the sock accounts, that was not done in the post. But, of course, Oliver knew full well that they were his. It’s not deniable. The comment about age was in reference to this edit of his.

Further, this was trolling. a form of harassment. It is normally reprehensible. There are exceptions. What I found, more or less by accident (including observing their interaction with others), is that when they are trolled, AP socks (Darryl and Oliver) often respond with actions that reveal more information, and information is the advantage I have, I have no “weapon” other than the collection of true evidence. Darryl Smith basically declared war on me on the WMF wikis, threatened what actually came to pass.

(Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they right wrongs, and this is ancient law, and the ancient law also limits such reactions. I have done nothing with the Smith brothers that they have not done with others, more extensively and without justice.)

I continue to trust the truth. What Oliver had written was also trolling, you can judge what was more reprehensible. In context, “harming back” can not only be allowable, but obligatory. These people have harmed many, over many years. He had written:

You will be dead old man, so why bother with this?

You’re 74 years old, and the average life-expectancy for a male in the US is 76.9 (77).

So why bother with this pointless internet feud and stalking my family? You will (hopefully) be dead in 3 years, and all the nonsense and lies you write on your blog will be deleted. You’re just wasting the final years of your life with this. Herodotus (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer his question here, I “bother with this” because I care about the society that I will leave behind. Oliver is an anti-natalist, who believes that having children is immoral. So he only thinks about himself. Consistent with his beliefs, his parents were immoral to have children. There has been no “stalking” of his “family,” only documentation of the harassment managed by his brother and him. My blog has a backup administrator, it is not likely to disappear. While it is possible I won’t live long, Oliver’s understanding of life expectancy was deranged, like much of what he writes. Now, this comes to the real point.

Oliver responded to that comment. I can imagine his brother seeing it. “Idiot! Why don’t you keep your mouth shut!” Oliver’s response apparently kept him up late, photoshopping.

http://archiv ODS (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This was perfect. Oliver could not link to Encyclopedia Dramatica, the edit filter will prevent it. But they cannot filter out, they use it extensively. They could filter out an individual page, but anyone could re-archive a page and bypass that. In any case, the archive shows Oliver Smith in all his trolling glory. Really. It’s hilarious. The archive is timestamped 13 Mar 2018 03:39:01 UTC, and it shows the comment as being created “1 minute ago.” Then his RW edit linking to it was at 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC).

This definitively shows that ODS on RW wrote that attack thread, and archived it and then linked to it, and the context confirms what as already obvious: he was the ED editors named, and they connect with other editors there, eventually I may document them, but the ED socking has been so voluminous, I’m not sure I’ll get to it.

His brother, DS, didn’t see this, apparently, until 10:46, 13 March 2018 . DS removed not only my comments, but his brother’s, and revision-deleted, covering up for his brother. The comments were archived only a few minutes before DS removed them. I did not do that, then. I believed I had archived the material, but couldn’t find it….

ODS, meanwhile, was today given autoconfirmed status. Does RoninMachbeth know what he or she did? I don’t know. RM is generally sane, but RatWiki is a corrupted and corrupting environment.

Was RoninMacbeth aware that ODS triggered the edit filter 9 times as of today?

(Some of these were innocuous, to be sure, though they show the Oliver Smith obsessions.)

There are secret filters that are not documented in the log. March 4, ODS was attempting to edit the Saloon bar. His edits including that time are here. My guess is that he was attempting to mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Oliver Keyes, or on Emil Kirkegaard — which links to it. Naughty. There is a lot more that could be said about Oliver Keyes, but not here and not now.

March 7, a minute later, Oliver edited the Chicken coop.

I don’t see how anyone could miss it, if they look. This is the infamous Oliver D. Smith. The possible problem is that ODS is a serious troll and will use the ability to edit protected pages. How much difference this will make, I don’t know. (None of my comments anywhere should be construed as defending Rightpedia, which is beyond racialist and deep into racism, unapologetically. They do have a copy of a public record showing the former home residence for Oliver and Darryl, and, in addition, the names and ages of other residents. Contrary to frequently claims, I did show the data from that briefly, but quickly redacted it, it now shows only the two names — as highly relevant to the socking — and the UK postal code. The street name has been removed, but AP socks continue to claim, long after it was removed, that I their home address is no this blog.

(Remember, I was accused of promoting the “paranoid RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory, and my RW article still calls me a “conspiracy theorist,” and still has:

He now uses his personal blog to spread a paranoid conspiracy theory and misinformation campaign that the two brothers described above created and edited his article, for which there exists no evidence.[63]

This is a straw man argument. I identified a family of socks, using the Wikipedia name Anglo Pyramidologist. That family was originally, in 2011, identified as two brothers. I did not distinguish between them. Nor, in fact, did I emphasize the “brother theory.” I considered it likely, but did not publish it untii I had far more direct evidence, much more recently. The two brothers did not create and edit my article. One of them did, and this would be Darryl Smith. So showing that there were two brothers, twins, that shared at some recent point residence, which would cause checkuser identification, was important. to the research. The actual address was not so important. The geolocation was, and the house location is still on the map, but not precisely, just good enough to show how the IP addresses locate with respect to the residence.

This was not an attempt at harassment. If harassment were my motive, this would not have been on an obscure page that hardly anyone would have noticed except for Darryl Smith obsessively following everything. They accuse others of stalking, but stalking became totally obvious very early on, and what was done to create my RW article was detailed and extensive searching of everything he could find. And this was obvious, and, like many other article targets before, when I simply responded, I was desysopped and then blocked.

Oliver and Darry Smith were being protected, this became obvious, and the extent of this is still becoming visible.

March 10, 14:14. A minute later, this edit. 

Michael Coombs is an obsession of Oliver’s. This is “mikemikev,” and a checkusered Darryl Smith sock (that’s a long story) pointed to mikemikev as a suspect for the sock master. It tricked one sysop for a time. I never trusted it, don’t trust SPAs bearing gifts, unless they can be verified. (They may point to “evidence,” but evidence can be misleading if taken out of context. These sock masters are expert at it.

Obsession with Michael Coombs is an Oliver Smith characteristic. (There are many of these, as will be found by anyone who actually studies the history, and we now have the benefit of beyond-doubt Oliver Smith accounts, admitted openly to be him.) So this shows up in the next filter triggers:

March 13, Oliver was putting together this edit.



RationalWiki had a wide reputation as a joke wiki, where skeptics and atheists — and adolescents — fully engaged in unrestrained snark. There are many reviews, but start with the Wikipedia article. It will be fun to compare that article to the favorite targets of the RatWikians and their allies, the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia. Any socks there? Some much to research, so little time…. That one is for later. I immediately see POV-pushing in the editing….

This was reasonable, on the face, this was not, it involves synthesis, unless there is reliable source for the claim that criticism is because “beliefs” are challenged. That kind of claim is difficult even when reliable source can be found for it, it should be attributed … unless there was a formal study!

Lets start with a list of reviews. First, from Wikipedia:

At first glance, this source is misrepresented in the article. (note 13). What the article has is synthesis from the source. The source does not actually say that.

  •  Smith, Jonathan C. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp 77. 9781119029489
  • Shvets, Alexander (October 2, 2014). Filev, D.; Jabłkowski, J.; Kacprzyk, J.; et al., eds. Intelligent Systems’2014: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference Intelligent Systems IS’2014, September 24–26, 2014, Warsaw, Poland, Volume 2: Tools, Architectures, Systems, Applications. Series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 323Springer Publishing. A Method of Automatic Detection of Pseudoscientific Publications, page 533 et seq. ISBN 978-3-319-11310-4.

This is a conference paper, such are often not carefully reviewed. This is the sourced text:

In Intelligent Systems’2014, Alexander Shvets stated that RationalWiki is one of the few online resources that “provide some information about pseudoscientific theories” and notes that it attempts to “organize and categorize knowledge about pseudoscientific theories, personalities, and organizations”.

What RationalWiki does is to organize, not knowledge (Wikipedia does that), but snark, loosely based on very irregularly collected sources, often terminally weak.

This is a conference paper as well. The mention of RationalWiki is shallow, the authors do not appear to have done more than look at the stated purposes, and a hosted essay by Carl Sagan. The impression one would get from reading the article is not the impression I would see from the source.

  • Einspruch, Franklin (September 6, 2016). “Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists”The Federalist. Retrieved August 14, 2017

These are sources that mention a specific RationalWiki article to expose it or argue against it. No source so far is actually a review of the site, anything more than a passing mention. I’ll keep looking.

Dissertations are not generally considered reliable source, they would be primary sources. This dissertation simply mentions an idea taken from RationalWiki, and it describes the purpose of the site, with no analysis of whether or not the site actually accomplishes that purpose.

This went on with links showing that someone referenced RationalWiki in some way. Actual reviews? None (neither positive nor negative.)

Okay, I know to look at history. Did anyone attempt to add actual reviews? Wikipedia does not make it easy to search history. While that could easily be done from the database, no priority has been given it. Someone might take advantage of that and create a site with full-database search access. It would make certain kinds of wiki studies far easier!

I found a brief review that had been added and immediately removed, as it was a “blog” and thus “not reliable source.” This was only a superficial analysis of “site bias,” not actually controversial and not very informative.

There was an Articles for deletion discussion on RationalWiki. I find no assertion of source sufficient to establish notability. Passing mentions don’t count. It was kept, though there was much opinion to keep it as a redirect to the Conservapedia article. In the discussion I found these sources:

  • (page 2 is important. I couldn’t find this at first.)

Those are passing mention, really about Conservapedia. This was weak, but that’s Wikipedia. An admin takes a glance at a discussion, makes a snap decision, and unless someone cares enough to appeal it, there it goes, enshrined as a community decision (which it didn’t look like to me! Most wanted to see better sources. My own opinion as an inclusionist would do something very different…. )

Not considered reliable source, but an actual review! With details! This report describes RatWiki as it was when I was active there. Some of that atmosphere is still there. the report was by “Rational Wiki Exposed,” not exactly an encouraging author if one is looking for neutrality. But it was fairly sober.

Okay, I found a genuine revert war, starting with [ this edit], adding a review.  The user, an SPA, was warned for edit warring and disappeared. The source:

RationalWiki guts a reader’s attempt to correct its article on female genital mutilation

This is another source that is based on “RationalWiki is wrong on X.” This happens to be a topic I know a great deal about. Many sources misrepresent the position of Islam on the topic. What upsets people so much is not what is allowed or approved, and the majority opinion is that the extreme practices are prohibited. But this is not our topic here. The RatWiki article on this topic is far from the worst there.

I round a reference to the RW article where they brag report about mentions.

That quotes from many mentions. Indeed, it quotes from the book mentioned above:

Smith, Jonathan. Critical Thinking: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, 2017. 9781119029489. Lists RationalWiki as a logical fallacy library.

This is hilarious. I’m not really sure what the author intended. The instructions are to “select an example of a logical fallacy.” So RatWiki is a place to find the expression of logical fallacies. The training that I can imagine is to teach students how to spot logical fallacies. If a site is merely a list of logical fallacies with examples given, there would be little or no challenge. Rather, each of those sites, it is highly likely, expresses logical fallacies. The site is not about logical fallacies, as such, it is political. If one’s political beliefs align with the beliefs of a source, one is far less likely to spot the fallacies.

Sound training will practice identifying logical fallacies in our own thinking or argument, or in the arguments and thinking of those we might agree with. I generally agree with the substance of what is on the Nizkor site. But there is at least one blatant logical fallacy on the home page. Can you spot one?

5.4 Group Exercise: Identify the FallacyIn this exercise, divide into two teams. Each team selects an example of a logical fallacy (from this chapter) from one of these websites:

Team 1 presents its example to Team 2. Team 2 has five minutes to identify it and explain it. If the explanation is acceptable to the moderator, Team 2 gets a point. Repeat for Team 2. Complete until each team has a chance to identify five logical fallacies. The team correctly identifying the most fallacies wins.

I have created a link for each site. How the exercise would be done is unclear. There is a form of logical fallacy, “straw man,” where one presents an argument that is allegedly the argument of another, but it is not actually what the other says, thinks, or believes. So if students pick a description of someone else’s argument, they would be explaining a fantasy. Much more interesting, I’d think, to identify logical fallacies presented as factual or logical, and RatWiki is full of those, it is practically the norm in some articles.  For extra credit, identify logical errors in the thinking of people you agree with, and for a doctorate, identify them in your own thinking, because everyone does this (at least until it is distinguished). A loglcal fallacy does not mean that the conclusion is wrong, set that right/wrong mess aside. It merely means that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Something may be missing.

from other sources:

This refers to the RW article, Michael Prescott

(If Mr. Prescott sees this and requests that the link be removed, I’ll do it. Links raise Google ranking. Unfortunately, to study RationalWiki and create something verifiable, I need to place links, but I can find less convenient ways to do it, on request. I have not yet studied the Prescott article, but I’ve certainly seen worse on RatWiki!)

The public comments are interesting…. I decided to look at who created this article.

This then led me to more socks…. another day, another set of socks documented. There are certain red flags, easy to see, sometimes. Some identifications are not so easy, and there are probably some errors. The Smiths have no monopoly on snarky defamation.

to be continued ….

Supporters and enablers

Oliver and Darryl Smith (“Anglo Pyramidologist” and see RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist) would not be able to user or abuse RationalWiki as they have without the the support or enabling of some active in that community. The RationalWiki community was always difficult. It was what one might expect from a collection of rowdy “skeptical” teenagers, though some were older, to be sure. I had edited there for a time, and was given sysop privileges, but ultimately scaled far back on my contributions because I concluded that the community was impossible. The last straw was when a user told me to “go fuck your kids,” and the “moderators” thought there was no problem with that.

David Gerard and another had attempted to remove my sysop privileges, and that had been reversed. My user rights log.

As can be seen in the log, permanent removal of rights required a vote. That would normally be done on the “Chicken coop.” However, David Gerard had grown in power, as often happens with “techies.” So when an article was created on me on RationalWiki as retaliation for my documentation on the WMF meta wiki of the Anglo Pyramidologist socks, I showed up and commented. And David Gerard removed my rights. Did anyone notice? I don’t know. I was then blocked for “doxxing,” but I had not mentioned the Smith — except as Smith socks did.

Still, there was a possibility of taking the issue to the Chicken coop. I didn’t do that, waiting. There was eventually a discussion raised on the coop, by the major active Darryl Smith sock, and it was quickly closed. I was not allowed to participate, violating coop rules. However, by now it is apparent to me that nobody is willing to stand for the older traditions, which at least allowed the targets of articles a fair opportunity to argue for correcting errors. Researching the AP sock activity, I saw again and again that article targets were impersonated and harassed, and were blocked based on the activities of impersonators. They were also blocked for “doxxing,” when they didn’t name names.

I now hold the entire community responsible for the situation at RationalWiki. RationalWiki is an enemy of genuine skepticism and, as well, of academic freedom. So this page will document the users involved, which I’d avoided, only, until now, documenting suspected AP socks. Some of the people I will describe here might indeed be AP socks. he creates sleepers that only move to his favorite topics later. But being listed here is not an accusation of being a Smith brother. Most probably are not.

Some may be listed simply as those who had an opportunity to recognize what was going on, but who turned away from it (example: CheeseburgerFace).

Some of these simply repeated the claims of AP socks as if fact, even when grossly and obviously incorrect. Others appear to have assumed that impersonation socks were me. That’s a stupidity that many have fallen for, including Wikipedia administrators — and that is how I became involved in the AP mess, I requested steward checkuser, which, insanely, is not normally done with impersonation socks, because they “self-identify” as a blocked user. So who needs checkuser, they are blocked, end of topic. But these “sock puppet investigations” and blocks are then used to defame the impersonation target, and it worked, many times.

If any user named here wishes to contest this claim, comment and verify the comment on RatWiki as the user, and I will review and I will, at least, show the protest.

The list of users

(These are not claimed to be socks, in spite of what was claimed on User talk:Readymade.)

David Gerard Long-term involvement as mentioned above.

Bongolian to be documented.

CheeseburgerFace This was unfortunate. I thought this user might be willing to consider evidence and reason, including the massive and unnecessary disruption shown on his talk page. But it was not to be.  CheeseburgerFace did not merely hide revisions, he suppressed them, so that even sysops cannot see them. What was in them? A note that an edit to his talk page had been an impersonation sock. So he acted to protect the sock master and not to actually communicate with the one impersonated, who offered verification of identity. If he believed that the edits doxxed (that claim has often been made when it was false), he still could have established communication. No, he is responsible for continued disruption. (The disruption long predates my involvement, and will continue, I predict, unless the real causes are addressed.) See also, this edit from the real Emil Kirkegaard, [ removed by CF].

Cosmikdebris many actions.

GrammarCommie see many edits suppressing communication, such as blanking of the edit to User talk:ReadyMade — and many more

Readymade see archived user talk (as this is written, Readymade has not responded. Response may shift this characterization. Otherwise it is quite clear.) Readymade did respond. See the subpage.

Christopher to be documented.

Leuders to be documented.

Others will be added as cause appears (and names may be removed if they smell the coffee and act). Remember, inaction when faced with clear evidence of abuse can be considered cause for listing, when a reasonable person would recognize the issue. They also serve (abuse) who only watch.

The discussion on User talk:Readymade, linked above, shows how this works, when it is most clear. Readymade lied about a page here. Why? I don’t know, but anyone can verify it if they care. When a community tolerates lies like that — and RatWiki has been doing this for a long time — the community has lost coherence, unless lies and deception are the goal.

Draft RW AP sock study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of accounts

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

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

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

Anglo Pyramidologist

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

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

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

(Later, he claimed that I harassed him by email, but he wrote me, and when he stopped writing, so did I. Oliver Smith is either a liar or insane. Toss a coin.)

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

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

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

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

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

JorisEnter protected “Oliver D. Smith” 3 November 2016

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

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

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

In spite of all the cats being totally out of the bag, the most recent sock I’ve identified [when this was written, there are many more now, in March, 2018) is EvilGremlin (a typical AP username). I would not ordinarily be notable for an article on the London Conference on Intelligence; however, Smith is attempting damage control:

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

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

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

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

The issue is not “hearing about the LCI,” but, for me, the wild, misleading, and exaggerated claims about Kirkegaard, often conclusory, with very thin circumstantial evidence,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


“ODS”, the first open RationalWiki account for Oliver D. Smith, claimed that Google had de-listed Kirkegaard’s blog. I saw nothing of the kind, but an IP user on RationalWiki, accessing from UK IP, saw the existence of filtered results and pointed to them and to descriptions of the requests, which are documented on this page.

Deletion log

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

sections where my pages were being deleted:

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

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

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

In Memoriam: John Perry Barlow

A page popped up in my Firefox feed: John Perry Barlow’s Tips for Being a Grown Up

The author adds this:

Barlow was determined to adhere to his list of self-imposed virtues, and stated in his original post about the principles in 1977: “Should any of my friends or colleagues catch me violating any one of them, bust me.”

This was written in 1977 when Barlow was 30. It’s a guide to live by, and living by it can be predicted to create a life well worth living. I would nudge a few of his tips, based on more than forty additional years of experience and intense training, but it is astonishing that someone only 30 would be so clear. Whatever he needed beyond that, he would find.

Barlow’s Wikipedia page.

His obituary on the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.

I never met Barlow, but I was a moderator on the W.E.L.L. when he was on the board, and I’d followed EFF in general. This man accomplished much, but there is much left to do. Those who take responsibility are doing that work, and will continue.

While his body passed away, as all bodies do, his spirit is immortal, at least as long as there are people to stand for what he stood for.

We will overcome.

And, yes, “should anyone (friend or otherwise) catch me violating the principles of a powerful life, bust me.” I promise to, at least, consider the objection, and to look at what I can rectify without compromising other basic principles. There is often a way. Enemies may tell me what friends will not, and I learned years ago to listen carefully, and especially to “enemies.”

Farewell, John Barlow. Joy was your birthright and your legacy.

To live outside the law you must be honest

–Bob Dylan, Absolutely Sweet Marie (19 freaking 66)

This is a call for action.

Wikipedia Policy: Ignore all rules.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Years ago, I wrote an essay, Wikipedia Rule Zero. When all my Wikipedia user pages were put up for deletion by JzG, in 2011, the essay was rescued. So I can also rescue it now. Thanks, Toth. (Those pages were harmless, — there were lies  — ah, careless errors? — in the deletion arguments. Why the rush? Notice how many wanted the pages not to be deleted, or at least considered individually.) Well, that’s a long story, and it just got repeated on Wikiversity without so much fuss as a deletion discussion or even a deletion tag that would notify the user. Deleted using a bot with an edit summary for most of them that was so false I might as well call it a lie.

The talk page of that essay lays out a concept for Wikipedia reform, off-wiki “committee” organization. This has generally been considered Canvassing, and users have been sanctioned for participating in a mailing list, a strong example being the Eastern European Mailing List, an ArbComm case where the Arbitration Committee — which deliberates privately on a mailing list! — threw the book at users and an administrator who had done very little, but the very concept scared them, because they knew how vulnerable Wikipedia is to off-wiki organization. However, it is impossible to prevent, and a more recent example could be Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia. 

It is quite obvious that GSOW is communicating in an organized way, privately. The Facebook page claims high activity, but the page shows little. And that’s obviously because it is all private.

I have spent a few months documenting the activities of Anglo Pyramidologist, the name  on Wikipedia for a sock master, with more than 190 tagged sock puppets on Wikipedia, and many more elsewhere. AP has claimed to be paid for his work, by a “major skeptic organization.” There are claims that this is GSOW.

Lying or not, the recent AP activities have clearly demonstrated that WMF wikis and others are vulnerable to manipulation through sock puppets and what they can do, particularly if they seem to be supporting some position that can be seen as “majority” or “mainstream.” They routinely lie, but design the lies to appeal to common ideas and knee-jerk opinion.

Recently, cold fusion was banned as a topic on Wikiversity, (unilaterally by the same sysop as deleted all those pages of mine), entirely contrary to prior policy and practice. It was claimed that the resource had been disruptive, but there had been no disruption, until a request for deletion was filed the other day by socks — and two users from Wikipedia canvassed by socks — showed up attacking the resource and me. So this became very, very clearly related to cold fusion.

However, the problem is general. I claimed years ago that Wikipedia was being damaged by factional editing without any claim of off-wiki organization — at least I had no evidence for that. It happens through watchlists and shared long-term and predictable interests.

Wikipedia policy suggests that decisions be made, when there is dispute, by users who were not involved. Yet I have never seen any examination of “voters” based on involvement, so the policy was dead in the water, has never actually been followed. It just sounds like a good idea! (and many Wikipedia policies are like that. There is no reliable enforcement. It’s too much work! When I did this kind of analysis, it was hated!)

So … a general solution: organize off-wiki to support generation of genuine consensus on-wiki. I will create a mailing list, but to be maximally effective this must not be, in itself, factional. However, having a “point of view” does not make one factional. People can easily have points of view, even strong ones, while still recognizing fairness and balance through full self-expression. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is neutral through exclusion, but if points of view are excluded in the deliberative process, as they often have been whenever those were minority points of view — in the “local mob” — consensus becomes impossible. Wikiversity was, in the educational resources, neutral by inclusion. And the AP socks and supporters just demolished that.

These off-wiki structure must also be security-conscious, because all prior similar efforts have not taken precautions and were crushed as a result. In the talk page for that Rule 0 essay, I described Esperanza, a clear example.

This will go nowhere if there is no support. But even one person participating in this could make a difference. A dozen could seriously interrupt the activities of the factions. Two dozen could probably transform not only Wikpedia, but the world.

Wikipedia was designed with a dependence on consensus, but never clearly developed structures that would generate true consensus. Given how many efforts there have been on-wiki, my conclusion is that it isn’t going to happen spontaneously and through on-wiki process, because of the Iron Law of Oligarchy and its consequences. Reform will come from independent, self-organized structures. I will not here describe the exact details, but … it can be done.

I used to say “Lift a finger, change the world. But few will lift a finger.” Sometimes none.

Is that still true? Contact me if you are willing to lift a finger, to move toward a world where the people know how to create genuine consensus, and do what it takes for that. Comments left here can request privacy. Email addresses will be known to me and will be kept private for any post with any shred of good-faith effort to communicate.

Another slogan was “If we are going to transform the world, it must be easy.”

There will be participants in this who are public, real-name. I will be one. More than that will depend on the response that this sees. Thanks for reading this and, at least, considering it!



A day in the life of a troll

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

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

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

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

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

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

16:25 21 January 2018  I replied to Tron.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Transcribing it:

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

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

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

It fits perfectly.

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

In that blog post, he acknowledges the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver D. Smith is also administrator of the Atlantis Wikia

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

Verifying that address listing

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

On, I searched the electoral register (up to 2014) and found that Oliver David Smith, from Radlett. voted in 2008 (when he would have turned 18, minimum voting age) to 2014. For Darryl Luke Smith, the voting was in 2009-2014. Either they are twins and Darryl didn’t vote that first year, or Darryl is not a twin, but a year younger. The other brother, [name redacted], first voted in 2003. So [the other brother],if he voted at first opportunity, would be five years older than Oliver, confirming the image data. (which is shutting down, so an archive link) shows Darryl L Smith, Radlett, WD7 (the rest of the postal code isn’t shown, but one could presumably buy the data — and perhaps full address data — on as voting 2009-2014.

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


Dr. Witt

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality of sysops

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

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

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

The discussion went on:

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RationalWiki pretends (main page)

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then an IP shows up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, I mostly avoid reading ED except through archive links. Rome Viharo’s site is safe.

“… Rome Viharo’s website who has written 100,000 words on Dr.Witt and has been stalking him for years.” Viharo has been researching the AP socks for years, because they attacked him, first on Wikipedia. However, one would only describe Viharo’s research as “stalking Dr.Witt [sic]” if one believes that Dr. Witt is AP. Which this IP actually knows,  being an AP brother.

“It was also Viharo who invented this misinformation & conspiracy theory about Dr. Witt.”

No. Much documentation was compiled before Rome started to look at it. My study started before I was aware of Rome’s commentary. Dr. Witt was totally obvious as an AP sock from first glance. All one has to do is know AP obsessions and then look at his contributions. And then there is Dr. Witt’s “confession,” and what the IP has written; he is contradicting himself (which AP often does).

There is no mention of “Dr. Witt” on Rome Viharo’s blog. (If anyone finds one, existing as of today, January 14, 2018, please let me know!) Now, is this IP AP? It’s an open proxy, it could be anyone, and it is not impossible that an enemy of AP has posted it. But the effect is what AP would desire, not the enemies of AP. While it is not always correct, it is a decent place to start, moving toward understanding, to look at the effect of an action, not imaginations of motives.

No evidence however is ever provided, its all hearsay, rumour and just Viharo’s delusions.”

When evidence is provided, it is deleted as “doxxing.” Even if it is not doxxing, but merely equating accounts, which has never been considered doxxing.  Has Viharo provided evidence? Does it matter? I will review what Viharo has written, and one thing I will be looking for is evidence. However, I provided evidence on RationalWiki, and it was deleted by an AP sock, who showed classic AP behavior, Skeptical. Notice that he disappeared, quickly after being “harassed” on-wiki, harassment that was only confronting him with the obvious. AP socks often do this, it’s easy and AP does have many sysop accounts on RW.

The discussion continued:

Sex is gross and I also have reported Dr. Witt to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an RW regular showing regular irrelevant snark. Who claimed that “Sex is gross”? Not Dr. Witt, and not Epigram. 

Asexuality and RatWiki regulars

One factoid that comes out in this discussion. Two or three very recognizable RatWiki sysops declare that they are “asexual,” or equivalent, at the same time as they decry an imagined claim that “asexuality is not normal.”

This confirms an easy stereotype: those who edit RatWiki enough to become sysops may tend to be socially dysfunctional basement-dwellers with no life. (The same may also be statistically evident for some sysops elsewhere.) I am not claiming that a “stereotype” is real, and with any stereotype, individuals may vary widely. I’m just noticing the coincidence.

GrammarCommie: I’m an asexual and while I do not find the act of sex disgusting, I also have no inclination to engage in it.

BabyLuigiOnFire: (also am an asexual too)

LeftyGreenMario: Sex is gross [of course, this may merely be standard RW sarcastic snark].

Allegedly, as well, this was the position of Dr. Witt, but I haven’t seen the evidence for that.

“Normal” is not a synonym for “good” or “bad.” It is a population description. There is no specific level at which “normal” ends and “not normal” begins, however, Kinsey found roughly 1.5% of the adult male population as asexual. See the Wikipedia article for details.

From this, the chance that the correlation is random is low. By no means is this a claim that “most RW editors are asexual,” nor that this is Bad, and asexuality may be conditional and temporary, as well. However, it is counter-survival, if by “survival” we include survival through descendants. It cannot be “normal” for a full population, or that population with the trait would likely go extinct.

(But there may be a species benefit to a trait that does not directly reproduce, and this is sometimes claimed about homosexuality. There may be a benefit to a subpopulation not being “breeders.” This would preserve the “disposition” genes, if they exist, or the social memes, if the variation is not genetic.)


This map plots suspected AP IP geolocation data. When it was originally compiled, there were many loosely suspected IP addresses from the RationalWiki Racialism article. Those showed up in many different locations. There is a series of edits from Seoul Korea, with a likely user who is not AP.  There were also various IPs at random locations, transient, but not identified as open proxies (many open proxies are not detected and any one with web host access may be able to create internet access through the host. There are here are two markers with a “home” symbol, one is the apparent one-time residence of the AP brothers, one still apparently lives there, the other is the University of Roehampton, which AP was attending when the whole AP affair began in 2011. (I have removed the precise location of the home, it should now not be adequate to actually find the house.) The edits strewn around the world were eliminated from this map …. they were only listed to see what IP might look like with non-AP users. None of those show up in the actual AP area. Open proxies were eliminated as not providing useful location data.

The original Anglo Pyramidologist study did not include anonymous (IP) editors, largely to avoid claims of privacy policy violations. However, suspected sock reports have often included IPs, and from block logs, it can sometimes be determined that they were block-evading socks. IP addresses are not persons, as such, and have no intrinsic right of privacy and may, through disruptive action, forfeit the special right granted in some terms of service.

This page includes IPs from the WMF study.

Abbreviations: (not yet used)

  • APG matches generally known AP location
  • OP identified or suspected on evidence as open proxy.
  • UID other location, possibly temporary open proxy or meat puppet — or independent user with coincident interest.

The WMF Study

The RationalWiki study:

Specific deceptive claims

Overall, the RationalWiki article was clearly written as revenge for exposing the activity of “Anglo Pyramidologist” socks, in impersonating and attacking enemies. See the WikiMedia Foundation study, and then the RationalWiki study (created after the attack article was created, and documenting long-term creation of attack articles on many people.)

These studies are long because they do not simply make claims; they are short on “claim” and long on evidence, and they are for the use of this who are interested in reality, rather than mere opinions. Some have discovered that they can play on the reluctance of some to study long pages or complex , and they can then create “fake news” — or claims that sober journalism is fake news, and people then go with knee-jerk reactions.

One of the techniques of trolls, I found this on Wikipedia long ago, is to convert a single incident where there was arguably some problem, into a pattern. So a young woman editing on Wikipedia had copied some materail from a draft page she found. Turned out it was, arguably, a copyright violation, and an obvious troll attacking her claimed that she “creates copyright violations.” Later, in process that I largely created, her history was examined. There were no other examples. But even administrators looking at the original requests of that troll, even if they checked the single example (often, amazingly enough, they don’t!) would see what could be a confirmation (and if they also paid no attention to the back-story, of where she got that material, and she had asked an administrator if she could use it, and the admin had said it was okay.)

Everyone makes mistakes, or takes actions that might be justifiable, or that can look bad if divorced from context. And trolls thrive in an environment where knee-jerk reactions can carry the day. So, from the RationalWiki article, on various topics:


Written on RationalWiki:

Between 2010 and 2017, Abd was blocked 11 times on Wikiversity.[46]

That looks really bad, eh? The devil is in the details. In response to the message quoted below, I examined the block log. 3 of those blocks were by an rogue custodian, reverted quickly as not following policy, and the custodian was quickly desysopped. It is rare that block logs are reviewed and corrected. Most of the time, if one is unblocked, it’s over, and to review these things can be seen, in itself, as disruptive. What I found, in quick summary, was that of the 11 blocks, two were legitimate (and short). In one of those cases, I simply made a mistake and supported the short block. In the other, I was addressing major disruption and decided to do what would get me blocked to force attention — no custodian was active, so I lit up watchlists. It worked, by the way. But I expected to be blocked, I was willing to be blocked to stop what was happening, it was harming the community.

On 31 December 2017, Abd was blocked for a year for disrupting articles.[47]

That was not the block reason. It was for allegedly disrupting a discussion, when the discussion had become irrelevant (and could be continued, if desired,  by reverting an edit, a few seconds). My block log review goes into details. This was the tenth block in my log. It would have been reversed if not for the eleventh, as stated by another bureaucrat who was involved. But “disrupting articles” (plural) sounds worse.

The same day, a bureaucrat extended his block to indefinite, after pointing out Abd has engaged in contentious activity by misusing the website as his “personal podium” spanning 7 years of long-term abuse:

This, my eleventh block, was based on a review of the block log. Wikiversity did allow people to “take the podium.” It’s not an encyclopedia, and opinion was always allowed. But I had not been substantially contributing to Wikiversity for two years. So why the block now? This was the same bureaucrat who had just blocked me, about which the other bureaucrat, with much more experience, had written:

… I would support this unblock request. The edits in question could be interpreted as a good-faith attempt to resolve a content issue.

It was obviously that, but … either the bureaucrat was not understanding the edits, or was looking for proof that I was disruptive — which can lead to misunderstanding. And so then, looking at my block log, he would react to the length. He very much misinterpreted it. What he wrote in the next block:

Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources. The unblocks in your log show repeated attempts by our community to assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve Wikiversity despite much evidence to the contrary. I’m not going to get into the minutia of your individual actions. I’m going to make a call based on the sum of your contributions. Wikiversity is not your personal podium. Your participation here has become a drain on the resources of our community and we will not allow this to continue.[48]

This was effectively a community ban, but without any ban discussion, as Wikiversity traditions required. As a result of this claim, I wrote a block log annotation, see below. The AP sock continued:

Harassment and complaints

Prior to his ban, various editors on Wikiversity had complained about Abd’s disruptive behaviour.

Over the years, it’s true, there had been complaints. Often from very disruptive users, such as the former custodian I had blocked for incivility (my block was later confirmed by a bureaucrat as within discretion) and who then embarked on a vendetta… However, there had not been such complaints for years, except very recently from sock puppets of AP, the same person (or small family group) as wrote the RationalWiki article.

He had also sent another user “harassing” emails.[49]

This is conclusory, not factual. The fact  is that a user complained about harassing mails, giving no evidence or details. He links to an entire page on, but the actual comment was this:

Delete and ban User:Abd for harassing me in e-mails. Wikiversity should be ashamed of itself for continuing to let him abusively campaign here. I have asked the foundation for a ruling as well. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

He was lying. And there was no “campaign.” I had hardly edited the cold fusion resource — which I did not start as was also claimed — for two years or more. I am informed that the Foundation will be disinterested in these unsubstantiated claims. But one never can tell. Toss enough mud, some may stick. Does anyone notice who is constantly tossing mud? (This user was long banned on Wikipedia for outrageous behavior, but he attempts to conceal his past.) The request for deletion was full of ad hominem arguments irrelevant, normally, to keep or delete.

The emails are quoted on this page. None of this was what is understood as harassment. Disagreement is not harassment, unless continued well beyond a request to stop. There was no request. The correspondence was voluntary. When he ceased responding, I ceased responding, as can be seen in the history quoted. But if this user complained to the bureaucrat, perhaps the bureaucrat believed him.

A Wikiversity bureaucrat noted “We have received numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time.”[50]

The bureaucrat writing that was the same one as the one who blocked me twice without following, at all, blocking policy, particularly in there being no violated warning. The AP socks had threatened they would write complaining emails. Obviously, they did. But normally such complaints, if they are to be actioned, would be documented so that an accused user has the opportunity to defend him or herself. this is normally done with a Community Review on Wikiversity, though there are alternate processes. Instead … he reacted. It was out-of-the-blue, without providing any opportunity for defense, explanation, and no warning.

Abd wrote thousands of words on his blog about the incident, claiming he has been incorrectly blocked.[51] Do You Believe That?

Misleading. The link is to the block log annotation which goes over the 11 blocks, created so that anyone who wants to review that block can see the record and history in detail.

Evidence is always lengthy, compared to summary claims. But does that page claim I was “incorrectly blocked”? Which block? As I wrote there, two were legitimate blocks. There were at least three that were obviously and totally illegitimate. What I actually wrote was that the other blocks did not follow blocking policy, which is rather easy to establish. That does not mean that they were “incorrect.” Some were “involved blocks.” Perhaps there was some emergency, for example. Was there? This would take examination of the log entries and circumstances. Whether the block was “correct” or “abusive” or whatever is up to the community, and if the community doesn’t review it — too often that has been the case, it will stand. And that is exactly how wikis become unsafe. It is common and has happened to thousands of users.

Alleged harassing emails

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

Joshua P. Schroeder claimed, on Wikiversity, that I had harassed him by email.

  • Delete and ban User:Abd for harassing me in e-mails. Wikiversity should be ashamed of itself for continuing to let him abusively campaign here. I have asked the foundation for a ruling as well. ජපස (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that his complaint was one that the bureaucrat who blocked me was referring to. He was lying two ways: first, I did not harass him with emails (this page documents them). Second, I was not “campaigning” on Wikiversity, and, for two years, I had been mostly inactive, becoming active only because I saw genuine harassment, involving impersonation, leading me to identify massive disruption, cross-wiki and on other web sites, and I documented the WMF portion of it on the meta wiki. Many socks were blocked and locked, but the user vowed revenge.

I first wrote, through the Wikipedia interface:

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Wikipedia <> wrote:

I see that, who is a very crazy person, probably Daryl [Darryl] Smith, has kindly pointed out your new user page, and has elsewhere called you a “very old friend.”

(I have asked for that edit to be rev-del’d for obvious reasons.) I am not obsessed with you and hadn’t thought about you for quite some time. However, there may be some issues between us. If you ever want to talk, you will now have my email address. My talk page on Wikiversity and on meta can also be used.

Meanwhile, if you have friends like Smith, you are in trouble. You might take a look at the global contributions of this IP and also the .10, which was just globally blocked and .9 will probably be blocked soon, it’s so obviously socking, block evasion. The guy has at least 200 socks on wikipedia and was just stirring up shit, calling a lot of attention to himself. And now to you. I have no plan to publish your new user name unless some reason appears. If you have any requests to make, you may make them.

Good luck with your work. Astronomy is fun. Real science is fun.

This was, by the way, taking some risk, because my email has never been blocked on Wikipedia. So his later claim of harassment could be very serious, if taken seriously. He replied:
From: X X <[redacted]>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 13:07:40 -0500

Why did you post the post to Would you be willing to delete it?

 To be clear, that post is exactly why I changed my username.
We then corresponded directly.
Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]> wrote:

That post was in an obscure forum. It was then posted, about a month later, on my blog. (the blog post has a date, but that is the date it was created. It was private at first, only made public later, as I was under extensive attack by your “friend.” Your “friend” also pointed me, very handily, to your new account. This[Thus] if my motive were actually to expose and attack, as he is claiming, he made it easier.

But that is not my motive, and I hope for your career success.

Why I posted it is irrelevant now, but we can discuss that later. Yes, I am willing to delete it, but that may be useless, since your “old friend,” he called himself, archived both it and the later copy on my own blog. I already deleted the personal information there, but he’s linking to archive copies. (I have IP and timestamp evidence that he is the one who archived it.)

This is an extremely disruptive troll. I will attempt to delete the thunderbird post. I don’t know if I can do it, but I will certainly support a deletion request by you if it helps. Let me try first.

We can then discuss any issues we have, which might go into the reasons I posted that.

But first things first.

I did, in fact, take the post on my blog private, as a courtesy. I did that immediately. I also requested that the thunderbolts post be taken down.

From: X X <[redacted]> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 13:07:40 -0500

Look, I don’t care one way or another about any of this and I have no idea who the IP is who is posting to my page. I just want you to stop writing long screeds about me around the internet, okay?

Someday maybe you can take a step back and consider what evidence there is that I have been personally attacking you. I can point to a lot of times where you have personally attacked me on fora where I am not active.
The same user behind the IP also canvassed him to come to Wikiversity and vote in an RfD that was hardly even disguised as an attack on me. To not care who is leading him around by the nose is foolish.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <> wrote:

This is not encouraging, Joshua. I took down what I could and did what I could and you show zero appreciation. I have not been writing “long screeds” about you on the internet. I have written much more about Joshua Cude, which I do suspect is you from a number of evidences. That was old. Mostly he’s smart and relatively knowledgeable, like you. I said we have issues, and I’d hope we can talk about them and possibly come to some agreement, but if you prefer to maintain hostility, I don’t predict a good outcome.

I have not claimed you were personally attacking me, unless you did so as Joshua Cude. (I [And] that’s not how I think about him.) However, there are other issues. What you do has effects. At this point I’m not making any claims or asking you to change anything, except maybe that battleground attitude. I’d prefer to see you let go of the past and move into a future that will be far more satisfying.

Your comment on that Noticeboard in response to the IP, who was clearly attacking me, in a completely inappropriate place, it had nothing to do with the business of that Noticeboard, was discouraging. (He was doing [this] on Wikiversity and on meta as well, and that’s why he was globally blocked. He was also lying, about many things.)

JPS was essentially supporting the anonymity of an user who was blatantly attacking, in a place where it was irrelevant.

That person is vicious, and vicious people will make “true accusations” but mixed with poison. He is the one who has made it difficult to get that material on you taken down, not me. If you don’t know who he is, maybe it’s time you learn. You have worked with him, I’m pretty sure. But I have not researched that specific issue.

I have specific technical evidence on that claim about who ordered the and copies being made. “Worked with him” might only mean as a Wikipedia editor, before the AP accounts were identified and blocked. But it might mean more than that. However, if JPS had not worked with him before, he proceeded to do so, clearly and aggressively.

I have not done anything, as far as I know, to real-life harass you. Documenting your accounts is what I did, which would not be harmful unless (1) those accounts did things which will harm your career or (2) others will real-life harass you. But they could also do what I did. It wasn’t that difficult!

The socks of Anglo Pyramidologist/Dan Skeptic/Goblin Face and many other names have attacked people — and continue it — who might be interested in harassing you, if you appear to be allied with them. That comment in the Noticeboard made me think you might actually be allied.

In other words, you may be creating causes for your own harassment. (By others, not by me.) Doing that while attempting to hide is crazy. Attempting to hide actually motivates search and discovery.

I’m not really that interested in you, you are not anywhere near as much of a threat and harm as Anglo Pyramidologist.

You could, you know, have asked me months ago to delete that material. If you had done that, it would have been gone before they found it and archived it.

One more comment. You wrote: ” I can point to a lot of times where you have personally attacked me on fora where I am not active.”

“personally attacked” is often not an objective statement. It is more of an emotional response. If I wrote anything about you that was untrue, do point to it and maybe I can correct it. I could even correct old material on Wikipedia, indirectly. Don’t assume I would not be cooperative, and you might actually see cooperation!

Good luck. Again, if I can assist with the removal of that material from and the internet archive, let me know. (they are attacking me for removing the material from my blog!)

From: X X <[redacted]> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:50:42 -0500

I’m sorry, I’m not in the mood to thank you for taking something down you shouldn’t have done in the first place.

The fact that you think I’m “Joshua Cude” still is just more evidence of your continued paranoia. Stay in your lane.

That was suspicion, not belief. It is not paranoid to suspect what is reasonably obvious as a possibility, on evidence. So he was accusing me of being crazy. In spite of years of Wikipedia experience, he has no idea of how to calm disputes and find agreement. He does the opposite of what it would take.

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]> wrote:

Joshua, you create the response you get. You must prefer insults and fighting to actual discussion and cooperation. That explains a lot.

“Joshua Cude” was reasonable surmise and I never attempted to prove it. Too much work for too little value.

I may or may not restore the material. I may or may not cooperate with you as I said I would, hoping that you would appreciate that much. I may or may not point to your new account, except that I now have, because of that discussion that you encouraged on your Talk page, which leads into some very dangerous territory, attacking not just me, but Wikiversity and, in fact, academic freedom.

Instead you prefer to maintain that I was “wrong” to write what is available in public logs and documents you created about you. Your friends, and you are treating them as friends, when I documented the ruthless attack they made on Ben Steigmann (Blastikus), impersonating him and then attacking his Wikiversity account, where he had done no harm, and, I can see, Wikiversity itself, which you are seeking to destroy, created an article on me on RationalWiki. Enjoy it. It’s probably how you think.

This was not created by “skeptics.” It was created by one of the Smith brothers. That’s all making it quite clear how they operate. That’s what I’ve been documenting, not your sorry history, that was over two months ago, and I actually don’t remember at this point why I wrote that. You are motivating me to look at your edit history. Proud of it? I’m proud of mine, and I’ve always been public, real name available. I’ve never hidden and I’m responsible for what I write.

You are collateral damage and I was hoping to ameliorate it. Forget that!

From: X X <[redacted> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:56:12 -0500

You are behaving unethically. It is really amazing.
Some days later I responded:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 12/07/2017 (11:45:21 AM MST)

confirmation bias. your approach to interpersonal communication can be predicted to fail. How often have you succeeded in creating cooperation by accusing someone of unethical behavior?

In none of this conversation have you shown that you were actually paying attention to what was said.

If you actually cared about removing that material, one would think you would cooperate first, then deal with “issues.” That’s exactly what I proposed.

However, you don’t, it’s obvious. Sanely, you would have immediately deleted that material from the obvious sock on your talk page, and would have located all other occurrences of WMF references to the documentation, and asked a steward or the stewards list (better) for rev-del or suppression of all of it (easy to find those, just follow the sock edits — and, of course, you can find all the recent socks on my study page on meta. That’s what it’s for. I would have done this except if you don’t care, why should I?

You could start at any time. Meanwhile, because that sock is active and has been encouraged to file a complaint with the WMF, I’ve taken precautions.

Can you point to any evidence that what I did was “unethical”? It is contrary to Wikipedia policy, but, Joshua, I’m banned. I have no contract with Wikipedia. (One of the stupid aspects of banning instead of working with a user to create cooperation, which is possible and I’ve proven it.)

I could sock there and point to the archive copies that I did not create — that sock did, and the evidence I have is conclusive — and keep it up. If I actually wanted to harass you, you’d be experiencing a lot more harassment. As it is, because of this incident and your response, I am studying your history more closely, something I’d never done. But that’s not being documented openly and won’t unless it appears to be useful, which I don’t know yet.

I do not start with an assumption of bad behavior and then look for proof. I don’t know what I will find. But I look.

The world is much broader than Wikipedia.

He did not respond. Again, a few days later, with developments as they arose, I wrote:

The problematic material I was willing to delete (and the rest, temporarily) was your present name and employment. I apologize for posting that information. It is not relevant to what you have done on wikipedia. I would advise you to live openly, but I have no intention of aiding those who might harass you.

My interest is in community process and often Wikipedia. Your wikipedia history and activity is quite relevant to my work and it is not private information. Your extensive attempts to cover it up are an attack on the ability of the community to police itself. You got away with a lot that would have resulted in blocks for anyone else, because of lack of documentation and short institutional memory.

As a courtesy, I am informing you of a study I have begun on the blog. This is on a “page,” not a “post,” i.e,. the blog part of the site. It may or may not be referenced from blogs, which more people read.

Comments on it are open and you may, if you wish, correct any errors there (or at least assert your position). You may also do so by email. I will consider removal of material, but make no promises on that.

Reviewing the history, you got in with a bad crowd. Hipocrite especially, a troll who told me on RationalWiki to “go fuck my kids.” (When that was tolerated by mods, I stopped doing anything much on RationalWiki.) Sometimes, Joshua, we suffer for the behavior of our friends, sometimes our “friends” are our worst enemies.

No response is required.

(I remain willing to cooperate with you in getting those archived pages deleted and the Thunderbolts forum post deleted. I asked again and this time actually posted a request, and the mod just responded to me, seeking clarification. “Corrections” would be useless. Cat out of bag.)

That was my last email to JPS. He did not complain about either of the last two. I would ordinarily not publish private email, but when “harassment” is claimed, privacy rights have been waived.

The moderator of Thunderbolts decided to delete the posts as a result of my communication with him. So at that point, the truly private information (even though found in public documents), his changed working name (legally changed? I don’t know) and current employment as an astronomer, was hidden except for the and copies his “friend” made in order to attack me. He showed no interest or inclination to confront the obvious disruptive troll.

So … I republished that information. The page I pointed to was retitled “Joshua P. Schroeder on Cold fusion,” and at this point it is mostly a list of 313 edits to the Wikipedia cold fusion article. Contrary to what is claimed, that page is not an “attack, ” unless describing with links what JPS has actually done on Wikipedia is an “attack.” It would not be the first time research and documentation has been considered an attack. But is it an attack? Perhaps he did good work?

He did some socking, those accounts are listed. I have not yet checked to see if they edited cold fusion.

The information, besides existing on and, might end up being actually useful to someone. I don’t know. I have not yet analyzed those editings, I merely spent the considerable time to copy them into the page, so I saw some idea of the extent. I could jump to conclusions, but it would not be thoroughly grounded. It might be contaminated by my understanding of Joshua Cude. Was he Joshua Cude? Elsewhere I state the reasons why I suspected it, but it doesn’t really matter.

It is not illegal to create and use an anonymous account. Whether it is ethical or not depends on how one uses the account.

With his comments on that Wikiversity Cold fusion request for deletion, he established himself as an active enemy of academic freedom, and someone willing to be highly deceptive in order to disparage another, with a serious charge, of harassing emails. He deserves no protection (even though I redacted his email address above. Perhaps he might want to communicate in the future, so I will protect that, at least … unless he actually started harassing me by email, which I doubt he would do.

Shooting the messenger

I came across this today on Rationalwiki, on the Chicken Coop, RationalWiki’s central “dispute resolution page.” It was a particularly good example of site bias shooting the messenger.

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

He loses them immediately with “millions of accounts.” There is indeed someone who is creating many accounts, not only on RationalWiki, but on WMF wikis and in many places. And he frequently doxxes his enemies and he does have a lot of enemies. I’ve just begun to study his activity, and boy was he pissed! He seems to think that by attacking me and work I have done in the past, he will discourage me. No, it fires me up!

Not “millions.” I might be a thousand, but I have documented a few hundred. But, hey, what is three orders of magnitude among friends? But he is not among friends, as we will see.

The sock master is called Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, in their Sock Puppet Investigation page. In fact, there are likely at least two people tagged as AP, reputedly twin brothers, Oliver and Darryl Smith. I have not personally confirmed that identity, but he has directly contacted some people directly (by phone and email) and they have provided that information, and I have seen claims that it has been confirmed in public records. But I report what I find from my own study, and then may link to others.

The WMF study was originally written on Wikiversity, but Wikiversity was not well-defended against the massive sock attack that followed, so I moved it to the meta wiki. Here is an archive copy of that study, but after many sock attacks, with resulting locks for the accounts and blocks for open proxy IP, and then the use of mobile IP (which, by the way, was coming from AP’s known location) … it was deleted in a rather strange action, and what I’ve been finding, reviewing logs, is a penumbra of strange actions that often protect this quite vicious sock master. Some are explainable by knee-jerk responses to appearances, but some take on a darker color. He has claimed support, and I’m seeing signs of it. He’s an attack dog, useful to the enemies of those he attacks.

The list of WMF socks taken from that meta study is not deleted, and that was deliberate by the deleting steward, as came out.  (An archive copy just in case.) The study here, linked above, is a bit more complete (and the list of socks from Quack Hunter, mentioned below, will probably add more if study shows identity is likely. )Remember, this is identity with two different users. Atlantid would be the Anglo Pyramidologist brother, and Quack Hunter the one whose best-known account on Wikipedia might be Goblin Face, at least that was a name I immediately recognized.

But all this is foggy. It is as if the anti-quack socks have a manic personality that sometimes displays quite different characteristics (such as very poor spelling or grammar — which he then uses to claim, not not the same!)

I will refer to some of this in commenting on this Chicken Coop affair. The author is Merkel (contributions).  He wrote:

There’s a fellow called Atlantid (I’ll avoid using his real name but you can find all his info by searching Encyclopedia Dramatica) has tons and tons of accounts here. Some examples are User:Krom, User:DougWellerisalunatic, User:PS2, Special:Contributions/Forests Forests, and another Special:Contributions/DinoCrisis Dinocrisis. There’s a ton more.

The headline was sloppy with “millions,” and “tons and tons of accounts is not clear, either, so if he had any hope of getting a point across, he has already largely trashed it. He is apparently not aware of my study of RationalWiki Anglo Pyramidologist sock puppets. It was first created on RationalWiki, and deleted there for alleged doxxing (which it did not do, and such claims are typical for the Smith brothers. Who called them “Smith brothers”? Well, one of them did, creating an article on the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” ridiculing it, though the story that there are two brothers involved actually comes from the socks themselves, back in 2011.) It was deleted by an AP sock, and likewise I was blocked by that sock — all outside of normal RW process, but enabled by … David Gerard, in the end. I will tell that story in more detail when I start to analyze how this sock master has been empowered and enabled, by those who are served by the socks’ actions.

He has used “Atlantid” without establishing it. There is no RW account for Atlantid. Atlantid was active elsewhere, and asking users to search Encyclopedia Dramatica is very much a losing strategy. However, looking on Wikipedia, there is such an account, and it is tagged as a sock of Quack Hunter (which is very much an AP kind of name). The account has only one edit, which, from looking at many hundreds of AP accounts, would raise strong suspicion. In fact, it is so blatant that I would suspect an impersonation account, which cannot be ruled out, but AP has never complained about being impersonated. He is following almost everything I write, so he might now!

56 accounts are tagged as Quack Hunter. The names are dead giveaways. To me, this is simply another set of AP accounts, to add to the 190 or so already tagged or identified in the Sock Puppet case page. I will be adding those to the study, those that are not already there. (Since so many names are so similar, I can recognize a name as familiar that is actually a little different….)

As to RationalWik, he claimed “millions,” or “tons and tons,” but only showed five.

  • Krom retired, but still an RW sysop. In my independent study, I tagged Krom here.
  • DougWellerisalunatic  DougWellerisalunatic I had not seen yet, though the name is a red flag. probably impersonating michaeldsuarez, an AP target. I agree with this one and will add.
  • PS2 already recognized.
  • Forests forests is an error. If you are going to shoot the King, don’t miss. He means Forests. Retired 2013, was a sysop, but desysopped after retiring. Yes, from interests, clearly AP. This discussion is fascinating.
  • (There are many clues to other possible accounts.)
  • Dinocrisis. This link was also broken. Retired 2013, like Forests, and was likely the same user.

Dinocrisis was mentioned in this edit by OldWatch, but mispelled as Dinoscrisis:

Krom/Schizophrenic/Forests/DinosCrisis/Goosebumps are all the same person.

All the same guy. He’s a patient at Nightingale Hospital London being treated for Schizophrenia. OldWatch (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OldWatch had four edits on 15 October 2015, and then only this one in 2016. The October edits betray AP obsessions (particularly with Ben Steigmann). AP deliberately creates confusion. The first four accounts listed were AP, likely. Goosebumps? Yes, AP. Do remember that from early AP sock studies on Wikipedia, it is very possible that AP is actually two people, and less likely that there is more than two. However, both were disruptive, and both socked. OldWatch, like most suspected AP socks, was a throwaway account, probably intended to create suspicion for someone like mikemikev.

Because the Chicken coop filing mentioned Atlantid and other socks, it was predictable how it went. Does it not occur to someone like Merkel that if AP actually has many socks, including socks who are sysops (and that is obviously the case, I conclude upon study, and because I had studied AP behavior before I ever said anything about it on RationalWiki — though I did not yet know the extent of it), that one will have one shot to say something, and it might be shot down, and they have used blocking and revision deletion to hide what they don’t want to be seen, so that first shot had better be clean. It wasn’t. It will usefully reveal more about the socks, anyway. He went on:

On the some of the talk pages, he admits it and admits he has tons more.

No links. Therefore useless. Reports his own conclusions but does not even make them verifiable. Yes. One recent obvious sock claimed to be running RationalWiki, with 700 socks. That is believable, but many of them won’t be so obvious and may not be disccoverable, unless someone with raw log access (better than checkuser) decides to take a look, and as long as all those socks are providing useful attack articles, why do it?

The attack articles stimulate legal threats, which then have been used in fund-raising. “Protect RationaWiki against those who hate skeptics!” It works for a certain target audience.

Who is going to bother trying to find those “admissions” without links? Merkel is not terribly smart, which could be related to who he is. He’s outed by a sock…. (The enemies of AP are not therefore my friends! My care and concern and interest is always evidence and  reality, not some point of view. People who might support me in one way, if they lie or do so unskillfully, because of their bias, can be my worst enemies. So far, Merkel has provided practically no userful information, and certainly not enough to arouse the interest of ordinary RatiWikians. That is difficult at best? But this affair demonstrates the power of the AP socks, there. For that it is useful.

The way to tell is this user always has a feud with Mikemikev. It’s a personal feud going back nearly 10 years. He also has a feud with Rome Viharo. This is how he works, he has tons of accounts here and a large number of sysop accounts.

Obsession with Mikemikev is indeed one of the identifying characteristics. Likewise Rome Viharo, who was a target of socks on Wikipedia, and who has long pointed to the “AP” problem. How many sysop accounts doees AP have? Certainly more than one remains. Some became inactive as sysops, and one of these was desyopped, but the norm is that the accounts retain the privilege. I have not carefully examined all suspected AP socks for sysop privileges, but some received them remarkably rapidly. There is very likely off-wiki communication and support. Other accounts with better and less clearly biased contributions languish, sometimes, with no recognition. That kind of systemic bias can be tricky to document and show. But it can be done. It’s only work.

However, anyone who does the work will be presumed biased, operating out of emotional reaction, because this is how most people think. I first saw this behavior more than thirty years ago, with the on-line forum, the W.ElL,L. Even though, for the first time in a significant social setting, the entire history of interactions was visble, when conflict arose, users would not look back, but depended on emotional reaction to the new content. They might often be correct (emotional reactions exist from causes), but this is hardly “rational.” It’s the primitive brain being allowed to dominate and suppress more sophisticated responses — such as the entire process of science and genuine skepticism. Merkel want on:

Well this time he’s on an account Special:Contributions/Dr._Witt Dr._Witt which has really obvious has he created two accounts on his personal enemies Michael Coombs and Eleonóra Dubiczki while also editing the Rome Viharo article and has all but admitted who he is.

Again, broken link for the alleged sock. This guy is allegedly a sysop on Rightpedia. Goes to show, it’s hard to find good help. (Especially for a site like Rightpedia. This may be mentioned later.)

Dr. Witt Dr Witt is mentioned in the RW study, I had come to the same conclusion.

Where Dr. Witt “all but admitted who he is” is not linked. Who will bother to look? With no link and no exact quotation, and 218 edits at this point, even I may not look. This user may be writing off the top of his head. When I research a topic in order to present possibly complex evidence to an audience not necessarily highly motivated to do their own research, I will sometimes state something from personal knowledge, but far more often, I look for a link to evidence. Anyone accustomed to genuine encyclopedic writing will have this as a habit. So I cite the evidence, which can be done as an in-line link for anyone interested. People may still ignore it, if they don’t like it. But … if one makes lousy arguments for the truth, it can cause real damage!

I have seen many places where AP socks effectively admit who they are. Those admisssions are buried in an avalanche, and besides, any one of them might have been impersonation. How do distinguish these? It takes experience with the overall contributions, and almost nobody obtains that experience, they just react to what is in front of them.

Michael Coombs is indeed an AP diagnostic obsession, already observed.

I may mention an account from such an evidence, but the account will need, to be included in my study, more evidence than that. There are a series of symptoms, and I’m not yet revealing all of them, because some he apparently does not recognize, and once he recognizes them, he may then take compensating action to avoid identification. In some cases, he doesn’t care, obviously, blatantly socking and brushing off the blocks and global locks, but in others, he has some investment. What he has found on RationalWiki is that he can be completely blatant, and then the natural human  reaction to it is used to pick off enemies. RationalWiki is effectively highly censored, while pretending the opposite. Sock are allowed, unless the sock is block-evading. But many RW socks have been blocked, so they are all block evading. Someone else socks, they are quickly outed and whacked, often by an RW sock. There is a pattern, and it is through pattern that we obtain deeper understanding of reality. The study of pattern requires far more work than simple reaction. Few will invest the time (which is a rational choice, often).

Eleonóra Dubiczki I had not seen yet. What many of the obsessions apparently come from is those who have frustrated AP’s agenda in some way. I’m an example, and he vowed revenge, and when massive attack socking failed (as it would on WMF wikis, usually), he created the article on me on RW. So I got far more interested in RationalWiki socking and the studies got deeper. He lied about the history, in many places. It simply did not happen as he has claimed, and that can all be shown, but who wants to see the evidence? Rather, the story of personal grievance combined with allegations (false) of belief in pseudosience is an easier story to “understand,” for some. But that is not the point here.

That article would be significant to Merkel. However, this is unlikely to arouse sympathy. As to AP patterns, creation of that article alone, by Dr. Witt, would not be particular suspicious, though with a quick glance I see some signs. The pattern of articles and edits would. That is, Michael Coombs together with an attack on Dubiczki increases suspicion. Registration of an account and an immediate dive into specific topics increases suspicion. The edit to Ben Steigmann is a strong red flag when combined with the rest. Almost nobody knows or cares who Ben Steigmann is, but AP, long-term, has cared very much, and has vowed to track and expose Steigmann everywhere, and created many impersonation socks to attack Steigmann (confirmed by WMF steward checkuser at my request, and documentation of this is what really pissed AP off.) (Steigmann is not a “parapsychologist,” he is a young amateur student of parapsychology and has never claimed to be a parapsychologist. He studies evidence. Parapsychologists test the paranormal and gather and report their own findings.)

Merkel went on:

There’s another user, Special:Contributions/Anti-Fascist_for_life Anti-Fascist_for_life who acts the same and while the user has talked between Dr. Witt, this Atlantid person often talks to himself with accounts.

Yes, definitely an AP sock, totally obvious. Merkel has been somewhat confused by the vast smokescreen AP socks have created. AP is probably two people, sometimes located at the same house (their parent’s) house or meeting at the same location, and sometimes in distinct locations. They sometimes have apparently squabbled or quarreled, but usually they support each other. I.e., like real-life brothers might!

There is also some evidence of off-wiki cooperation that might sometimes bring in meat puppetry.  This would fade into the other confusion: some other people might be interested in the same topics. I suspect that some of the Wikipedia AP identifications may represent this, but the overall pattern, the vast majority of socks — are socks. There are socks clearly identified by both the duck test and checkuser, which starts to approach “proof.”

I have what amounts to checkuser evidence from some of the socks. They don’t know — or don’t care — but when they claim I have no technical evidence, as they often have, using the same phrase “technical evidence,” they are mistaken. I do. I just don’t normally reveal it. Not yet. Not until I’m ready to issue a final report. Then it all comes out.

Well I’d think the fact that someone has a huge sock farm with tons of accounts, many being admins would be disturbing to people here enough, but well there’s more.

He would think that, showing how little experience he has with RationalWiki. First of all, AP has successfully created the impression that anyone claiming a “sock farm” is a crazy conspiracy theorist (which is a misrepresentation of what a conspiracy theory is. I am coming to something approaching some kind of conspiracy, but the sock farm is only a small piece of evidence in that possibility. AP socks have claimed the support of Wikipedia administrators for what they do, and there is recent on-wiki “canvassing,” (which would be open conspiracy, but other aspects would take place off-wiki, and the socks themselves claim to know each other, and defend each other, i.e., they are connected in real life. That could be a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not necessarily bad, but if there is support for attack socks, which lie and impersonate and libel, is that good or bad? Many RationalWiki users, for years, enjoy the lulz (and then complain about others who also enjoy the lulz, attacking AP or Atlantid or “Oliver and Darryl Smith.”)

However, the first accusation of “conspiracy” was by an AP sock ridiculing the alleged conspiracy theory of others, and in particular me, at a point where I was only claiming obvious socking. It was claimed I got this from Rome Viharo, an AP obsession. No, I discovered the vicious attack impersonation socking first, and only became aware of Rome Viharo documentation later. I had seen the attacks on Tumbleman on Wikipedia (and the mistakes Tumbleman had made …. these people have been running this game for years, and newcomers who are naive about how Wikipedia actually works are easily trolled and picked off by them.)

Firstly, Atlantid made the articles using the real names of his victims: Michael Coombs and Eleonóra Dubiczki. According to RationalWiki’s own policies RationalWiki:Blocking policy, these are not allowed:

  • Doxing: Adding personal information about others into a page. This also includes soliciting for such information off of RationalWiki.
  • Harassment: Adding purely offensive material, solely for the purpose of causing emotional harm, into a page.

Even with links, this is not likely to be effective, but without links, it’s impossible. Yes, AP socks routinely doxx users, in many ways. A new user appears and AP will immediately say who it is. This actually was one of the early signs, it’s a standard AP behavior. Even without a real name, it is doxxing (and on Wikipedia can result in an immediate block, if not a necessary part of a sock investigation). However, to make this claim and have it do more than create reaction, requires documentation and evidence, not mere claim.

For doxing, Mikemikev doesn’t keep his personal name that secret but he goes by Mikemikev not his real name. He also is just a random internet troll. Compare his huge article with an article linked from his, Garron Helm. Garron has actually been in newspapers and his article is small. Mike has never been in one newspaper and has no notability and his article is huge. Mike is just a random internet troll, not Lauren Southern, Sargon of Akkad, Brittany Pettibone, or Wife with a Purpose. And for the Wife with a Purpose, that article avoids having her real name in the title even though she’s been in newspapers.

It is doxxing all right. Violators of no-doxxing rules often claim that the person has revealed their real name voluntarily, and this is well-known as not an excuse for the privacy violation. However it might make doxxing legal, i.e., revealing the real name behind an account is a form of journalism, protected speech, if true. Suing someone for revealing your real name would be frivolous. Even if you want the information hidden. But AP screams if anyone says “Smith.” And uses tools to delete it, often.

And the Eleonóra Dubiczki, the woman does not use her real name or anything similar at all. This was stalked up by one person and is secret and doxxing. The article has her real name in the title. Eleo has no newspaper articles and is barely known by anyone. She’s just some anonymous person on the internet and should stay that way.

The argument is cogent, but it is being made to an audience which is largely AP socks (or RW users who are tired of hearing about it and just wish all the drama would disappear). We will see.

Both articles have the real names of the victims in the titles. These are victims which have no newspaper articles, no fame, and are simply the personal enemy of the Atlantid person (again you can find the full history on Atlantid at his Encyclopedia Dramatica article). Atlantid created their articles simply to harass his enemies. These two people have never appeared on any podcasts either. They are very small-time people and simply Atlantid’s enemies. Part of the harassment is so the articles will come up as a top search for their real name.

He is repeating himself, and knows he is going on too long, but apparently did not preview it carefully and did not boil it down. That’s what losers do, in discussions like this. He is right (on this point, i.e., I’d agree with it — and so might a court if someone actually sues, which is unlikely but possible), but being right isn’t enough.

Also the photos in the Michael Coombs article have no licensing information or source and I’m skeptical the copyright policy allows this.

That is called “concern trolling” on RW. The copyright owner may complain, but absent that, RW can host the files under a claim of fair use. If there is a complaint, RW will almost certainly take the image down. Or not, if they are prepared to acknowledge service of the appropriate U.S. District Court.  RW is not Wikimedia Commons, where lack of proper licensing information is grounds for removal. This is a losing argument.

Thanks for reading. Sorry it got long. Merkel (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn’t “get long.” He made it long without making it useful. Let’s see the responses:

I’m not too sure about the Michael Coombs one, but there seems to be little evidence linking Eleonóra Dubiczki to those nick/usernames/aliases. All I can find mentioning them as founders are various fora. —Kazitor, pending 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Kazitor is ignoring the primary issue and focusing on a detail, whether it is right or wrong. He is essentially confirming the concern about Dubiczki. He is not an AP sock, he shows no sign of it, but AP often diverts users into irrelevant arguments. The point was a pattern of creating attack articles. In this case, Merkel has an undisclosed axe to grind, probably, but regular RW users will often fix and remove unsourced claims. It’s not reliable.

The discussion of the Dubicki article belonged on the Talk page for that article, not in the Chicken Coop. An overall negative behavioral issue would belong on the Coop if other efforts to resolve issues have failed. Going to the Coop with a Dramatic Story (Millions of socks!!!) was doomed from the start. If you get any attention at all, it’s likely to turn out negatively

Its nonsense from a troll. Merkel is a neo-Nazi who administrates Rightpedia named “A Wyatt Man”; Eleonóra Dubiczki is the creator of Rightpedia an anti-Semitic alt-right wiki that argues for Holocaust denial, flat earth, Moon landing hoax and other crankery, who formerly ran Metapedia as “Hu1”. She created an account using her first name on Metapedia; there are also blog links that connect her online pseudonym(s) to her real surname, that I can provide. Mikemikev revealed his real name on Wikipedia, Metapedia and other wikis; so its public knowledge. Furthermore, a mere Google-search of “Mikemikev” and you get his real name on dozens of websites, including Kiwi Farms; he even confirmed his real identity here as Michael Coombs, although he’s permabanned. The RationalWiki user “Anti-fascist for life” isn’t me, nor are 5/6 of the other accounts Merkel listed, that are years old and look inactive anyway. Also, I’m not bothered by what idiots write about me on Enyclopedia Dramatica – satire, rumours and misinformation that no-one takes serious; if I’m not mistaken David Gerrard and several other RationalWiki sysops have silly articles there written about them as well. The real issue here is Mikemikev is worried about getting imprisoned for hate-speech since his RW article now documents all his extreme racist internet postings such as him wanting to shoot and kill black people, Jews etc, so he wants his article deleted and is now sending his neo-Nazi buddies here, since he is banned.Dr. Witt (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This response alone would convince me that Dr. Witt is AP. AP socks routinely lie, but sometimes they tell the truth. Is he “Anti-fascist for life.” I don’t know, but it is entirely that one is one brother and the other is the other. Antifascist for life I had previously identified as a clear RW sock (and, yes, I have technical evidence, these guys don’t realize how much is visible if one looks with care and diligence.)

“Doxxing” is normally based on “public knowledge,” and AP socks have often accused others of doxxing for revealing what was found in public records. As evidence for the Dubiczki account claim, Dr. Witt had cited Encyclopedia Dramatica, but now he deprecates it as to what is claimed about him. AP obviously wants to have it both ways,  to prohibit others from doing what he does routinely. That all becomes obvious if one actually studies the accounts and the histories. If not, one will simply react based on whichever story is more knee-jerk appealing.

Did mikemikev “send his Neo-Nazi buddies”? Maybe. I don’t actually know mikemikev, I have had no direct communication with him. I have no idea if he is a vicious racist neo-Nazi or otherwise. I do know that he has very likely been impersonated, at least on occasion, and impersonation socks can then create public records that say what they want to say. Normal wikis will use checkuser and other evidence to detect this, as actually happened (eventually) with AP socks impersonating Ben Steigmann (though Wikipedia still has not woken up to it, nor have I made serious attempts to inform Wikipedia admins. Only one, who has largely disappeared and did not respond.)

RW is not a normal wiki.

There then ensued a conversation between likely AP socks, DangerZone and Dr. Witt. Classic. They ridicule the sock allegations. In the few places where these conversations have taken place with checkuser available, they have either

  • lied about being independent, or
  • were sharing internet access or even the same computer in such a way for checkuser to tag them as “related.”

It is entirely possible that there are two users. Less likely that there are three, as implied by DangerZone:

It is not doxing because it is public knowledge. Real life doxing is posting peoples addresses or contact information, nobody has done that. I also just discovered that “Dubiczki” is not her real second name, only a fake one she uses online. I won’t link to her real second name but it is obtainable online if one looks deep enough. So in conclusion there is no doxing here. Dubiczki is a fake second name she uses. Merkel is clearly a hoaxer trying to stir trouble about other users. I take this seriously because he has been posting false information about a friend of mine, a user here anti-fascist for life. DangerZone DangerZone (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

AP socks have commonly claimed doxxing merely because accounts were shown as suspected socks. Then, when AP doxxes accounts — and here claimed a real name even though he later claims it’s not a real name — he more narrowly defines doxxing. The AP theme is that anyone he does not like is wrong. The argument that information that is somewhere, somehow “public knowledge” is not doxxing, is highly misleading. Actual doxxing may be proper under some circumstances. (The WMF issue is “privacy violation.” If the information revealed can readily lead to real-name information, it can be a privacy violation, but violation of what? Privacy violations can be necessary because privacy can effectively be waived by disruption.

The claim that a suspected sock is not so because “he is a friend of mine,” is a common AP argument. In some of these cases, the sock was checkuser-tagged. I.e., “friend” was actually “close friend” or likely, a brother. There are a number of main topics of interest for AP socks, and they can be roughly categorized into two interest areas, with some overlap. The two areas correspond, again roughly, to claims AP socks have made about themselves and “their brother.” Hence a common generic name for the “organizing principle” is “Smith brothers.”

I have some level of suspicion that the entire “brother story” was, from the beginning in 2011, a smokescreen, that there is only one (which some on Wikipedia also suspected). If I had to choose which story to work on, it would probably be “two brothers.” So when one claims that the other is not him, it might even be true, but it is irrelevant if both are pursuing the same agenda, as if completely independent.

I have noticed that when one AP sock refers to another, or to Angle Pyramidologist, the name is often mispelled, which then can frustrate internet searches. Here, DangerZone (contributions) refers to “anti-fascist for life”.

Anti-Fascist for life is the user name. Capitalization matters. The user is a sysop and the rights log shows very rapid assignment, an apparent AP pattern on RW. (As usually those assigning the right are not suspected AP socks, the significance of this is not clear yet, other than AP socks fitting into a pattern of desired or supported behavior.

The Cooping was closed at the request of RoninMacbeth, who is not at all suspected of being an AP sock.

Fairly obvious troll post, I say archive and move on. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Comrade GC (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a standard RW response. However, calling “Merkel” a “troll” may be quite inaccurate. I suspect he was sincere, given whom he is accused of being. His response is not trolling, it is emotional reactivity:

I requested to protect people from harassment, personal information put out, and stuff that would cause problems for them in real life. Saying this is trolling shows how sick some of you are. You are really sick people. Let’s say you get doxxed and harassed online and you ask it to stop and the response from your cyberbullies is to call you a troll. Merkel (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is what happens: Someone is attacked on RW, with doxxing or libel, and they create an account (or already have one) and they protest, and point to the obvious socking. They are then doxxed and blocked. Merkel was blocked by Anti-Fascist for Life. RW cares nothing about conflict-of-interest blocks. It’s all part of the Drama that they love and hate, far too many of them.

The Cooping was quite premature, and not carefully prepared, if it was to have any chance of success. I have seen far stronger Coopings dismissed out of hand. In fact, I had almost entirely stopped making any contributions to RationalWiki because gross abuse was tolerated. (And effectively encouraged.) At the time, I did not suspect any conspiracy, as such. That view is beginning to shift. There is some kind of organized effort, which also provides an explanation that will allow some of the AP socks to be, instead, meat puppets, fed bullshit privately (mailing list?) which they then post “independently.” All in a good cause, of course.

The discussion on User talk:Merkel is typical for AP socks, i.e., Krom, Dr. Witt, Anti-Fascist for life, and DangerZone. Non-socks (almost certainly): Comrade GC and Cosmikdebris.

This from Dr. Witt is pure trolling, designed to provoke Merkel (or Mikemikev) into more outraged response, so he can again be blocked.

@ Merkel
Mikemikev posted threats or was trying to intimidate me by saying he will show up on my door. The guy is about 10 stone and almost anorexic; he would crap himself meeting me in person. You forget we have what he looks like on video; put in around2: 10 and he was named the “bean-pole Nazi” on Kiwi FARMS. Even the Nazis from the The Right Stuff were mocking his laughable physique. When am I to expect this lanky ugly weirdo on my door-step?Dr. Witt (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

He might not show up alone…. Insult enough crazy people for being weaklings, they might show up with a gun.

This is classic trolling, insulting the target to provoke a response. Totally irrelevant to RationalWiki. Dr. Witt is also a sysop, quickly assigned. The Smith brothers, allegedly twins, are young (like Mikemikev and many other targets). This is all testosterone-crazed delayed-development behavior.

(I personally would not show up at his door, that would be stupid. Rather, a constable or process server (I don’t know how it works in England) would show up, if I decided to do anything. Mere insult is not generally enough for legal action, it depends on context. What I do know is that some targets have experience real-life damage because of AP activity, and they would have a cause of action. Whether they take advantage of this legally depends on many factors, but I think it may be coming.)

Step on enough toes and eventually one of these toes will be attached to a fist with weight behind it.

Hey, some woo: Karma!!!

Block log

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

Review of Wikiversity Block log for Abd

This page is cited on the RationalWiki article on “Abd ul-Rahman Lomax,” with:

Abd wrote thousands of words on his blog about the incident, claiming he has been incorrectly blocked.[51] Do You Believe That?

As is common for RatWiki attack articles, allegations are made that may appear to be based on the source, but the source actually shows something else. “The incident” would be the 11th block, that was based on the block log. I have not written — on this page — “thousands of words about the incident,” nor is this page  “claiming that he was incorrectly blocked.” The page is a study of my block log, all blocks, and is almost entirely a collection of evidence rather than conclusions, but the summary at the top does give some conclusions. The type of RationalWiki user who writes these articles commonly confuses evidence with conclusions, and attaches to conclusions without understanding evidence. Those are really “believers,” simply believing in their own warped view of life rather than something that might provide inspiration or guidance.

A block is a happening, one was blocked or not. There are 11 blocks in the record. “Correct” or “Incorrect” are conclusions, not facts, unless we restore the lost performative. “Correct” according to whom? Two of the blocks were correct according to me. Three were incorrect according to a Wikiversity custodian, who reversed them on that basis. Other blocks — according to me, and anyone can verify — did not follow blocking policy or were based on a misunderstanding. So, on to the evidence and my prior summary: Continue reading “Block log”


Global account contributions for Abd shows at this moment:

  • Username: Abd
  • Registered: 12:48, 3 September 2008 (9 years ago)
  • Total edit count: 36,308
  • Number of attached accounts: 485

The registration date is misleading, it does not show original registration but the date when accounts were attached globally. The Wikipedia registration date is lost (in some software revision, the old user creation logs were apparently removed), but my first edit was  7 February 2005. At that point, though I had wiki experience (with other wiki software) I had no clue about how to attach a signature….

Significant wiki contributions:

  • Wikiversity: 16,667 currently indef blocked, see my talk page
  • Wikipedia: 14,259 community banned in 2012, see the discussion
  • Wikiquote: 386
  • Wikibooks: 316 editor
  • Commons: 1,131
  • fr.Wikiversity 97
  • meta 2,448 autopatrolled

On the English Wikiversity, I was a probationary administrator (“custodian”) three times:

Logged actions using admin tools:

My block log Ii.e., the list of blocks and unblocks of Abd) is the topic of a subpage.



I described Wikiversity a bit in a blog post, An Avalanche of sock puppets, which is what had happened there. Until now, Wikiversity has been a safe place to study and explore and discuss topics, within the goals of the two major goals of Wikiversity: the creation of educational materials — as distinct from books (Wikibooks is for that) — and encyclopedic articles (that’s Wikipedia).

Wikiversity has a neutrality policy, and mainspace resources should be neutral, and the expression of opinion should be attributed, not presented as fact. That has been, at least, my position, which, handled in certain ways, avoided revert warring over “point of view.” Points of view and advocacy of them are allowed on Wikiversity, but not in any possibly misleading way. That is, fringe views may not be presented as if mainstream.

In that blog post, I give Parapsychology as an example. That resource, which grew with the contributions of a number of users, was attacked many times. And the recent development is that a bureaucrat decided that resources that attract attack and disruption should not be allowed. This might be appropriate for primary or secondary education, but not for the university level, where controversial topics may be studied and academics will be defended (usually, at least) against attack.

There was dispute over this on Wikiversity, mostly over “wiki studies,” which was actually part of the original mission, but “study” and “attack on users” often got mixed up. Historically, study was allowed if it did not defame specific users and not if it did. Mixed up with this becomes the study of Wikiversity itself.

It was well-established on Wikipedia that administrators should have a “thick skin,” and that critique of administrators was allowed … by guidelines, that is. In practice, criticizing an administrator can be wiki-suicide, even if the criticism was fully validated (i.e., by the Arbitration Committee). The committee, composed entirely of administrators, clearly is biased against non-administrators and it tends to shoot the messenger even when it accepts the message.

On Wikiversity, however, it was understood that administrators should not use the special tools in any dispute where they are involved. Neverthless, when they did, and commonly, nothing happened. That comes up when I document my block log. I was not the only user to run into this. The arguable founder of Wikiversity, JWSchmidt, was told that he could go fuck himself, by a bureaucrat, and then was blocked by that ‘crat. Was this a proper block? Not by tradition, but … wikis often ignore tradition, policy and guidelines when there is no administrator willing to enforce them, and arguments about recusal failure are often considered “wikilawyering,” with no realization of the damage done by the mere appearance of bias. Instead, the focus will be on who was “right,” and recusal failure will be excused.

I wrote a proposed recusal policy which dealt with the issues and which allowed recusal failure in an emergency (i.e., in a situation reasonably considered urgent by the administrator, it was not necessary to specify in advance what exactly consistituted an emergency, and the admin could even be “wrong” about that, it would not matter, if they then did what the proposed policy suggested, which was actually common practice on Wikipedia: if taking an action that might be controversial, immediately request review. If an admin did that, even if he or she was “wrong,” the action could still be legitimate. Without that review, involved use of tools could be a serious offense against the community, creating an appearance of bias, rather than the generation of consensus.

In general, my experience, administrators oppose the development of policy that might restrain them. They tend to be the most active members of the community, and so they will see and participate more intensely in central process, which most users ignore.

This was my thinking years ago, when I started to participate in Wikiversity (and the principle of participation bias or the cause of the Iron Law of Oligarchy operates in this way. It is not possible to avoid the Iron Law, but it is possible to turn it to the benefit of an organization and there is one, highly successful, that did just that.I had written extensively about this before I ever became involved in WMF wikis.)

That thinking could be predicted to bring me into conflict with some administrators (not with all), and historically, some supported what I was doing). This will come up when I annotate my block log.

Abd on Wikiversity.





In the original Anglo Pyramidologist study, there was this, one name is now bolded as is the disclaimer at the top:

The older Wikiversity SPA accounts possibly involved (listing here is not necessarily a claim of disruptive behavior):

MrRowser, his Wikiversity contributions, edited on 8 March and 14 March 2015.  His edits did not display extreme skepticism or incivility. There were a few hints that raised my eyebrows, but … the behavior was not disruptive. (Some others listed were actually disruptive.)

Then, after no apparent WMF editing with this account, for over two years, he showed up on the meta wiki, to address the Anglo Pyramidologist undeletion request.

Delete I just received an email from another user that I was included in Abd’s study so I will respond here. Abd has now ported this study to his personal website Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist. I did a handful of edits in regard to the Wikiversity article on parapsychology back in 2015. I am a skeptic who has published a handful of papers debunking psychics. I am not a fan of the parapsychology article on Wikiversity, it was written Abd’s friend Ben Steigmann a banned Wikipedia user and neo-Nazi. I am not a troll or a sock, vandal that Abd claims. I have never heard of AngloPyramidologist (what a stupid username!) so I would appreciate if Abd would please remove my username from your “study” which is now on your website and contains false information. This is defamation and I will email the Wikimedia project about this. You are not a steward here so I am not sure why you are hosting these personal investigations!? My username is now blacklisted on your personal website. Please remove. MrRowser (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The study was open here for a short time, accidentally. That link is broken now, because the open page was caused by a WordPress duplicate page. Remove the 2 from the end and it would work now. When I saw this comment I immediately took it private. The arguments given are, however, vintage Anglo Pyramidologist. MrRowser was mentioned as shown above. Steigmann did not write the Wikiversity Parapsychology resource, though he contributed to it and was the author of a few subpages. Called Steigmann my “friend” has been common for AP, and so is pointing to his Wikipedia block (he is not banned there), but has been indef blocked. There is a difference. Calling him a neo-Nazi may or may not be correct, but is likely related to old positions, he has moved on. There are indications that the long-term conflict between Steigmann and AP were related to problems on other web sites. AP is possibly a fascist but certainly has a high interest in political organizations that have been called fascist. He was not called a “troll or sock,” then. He is now. He has not pointed to any false information. (Stating that he was possibly involved wasn’t a claim of being a troll or sock. There is evidence of some level of off-wiki coordination — notice the claimed email — but I have not emphasized this yet. He was making a legal threat (“defamation.”) “You are not a steward here” was commonly repeated by AP. His username was not “blacklisted” anywhere.

That density of false or misleading information is an AP characteristic. I suspect that he forgot that in 20165 he was running a good hand account. But AP does not care if he is identified and blocked. After all, he has created hundreds of accounts. An SPA is a throwaway, the only benefit gained is autoconfirmation, and it is easy to get that for a new account.

I considered filing a checkuser request, but … at this point MrRowser is not causing particular harm and I want to be quite careful about filing any more such. There are hostile watchers. So there would need to be benefit. I already know, from the evidence here, that MrRowser is an AP account and I don’t need checkuser for that. If he wants to prove that he is not AP, he could do so. I doubt he will try, but commentary is open here. I’ll see it.


I noticed you deleted his study which is a good thing! He has incorrectly put me on his study. See my edit here. Abd has now ported his study to his personal website [8]. How do I go about getting this removed? I am not the person he claims I am. According to another IP who has complained Abd is also attacking Wikipedia users on his website [9]. Is this behaviour to be tolerated?! MrRowser (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Stirring up shit with stewards is another AP trait. AP has freely linked to my pages that are allegedly attacks, which is the direct opposite of how to handle them. AP has even archived pages allegedly containing privacy violations, so that I could not even hide them, and then linked to the archive. The page he points to is primarily a list of the edits of Joshua P. Schroeder. It consists of a list of his accounts and then a list of his edits to the Cold fusion article on Wikipedia. That’s an “attack”? However, JPS strongly dislikes exposure of his activities, and has been allied with AP socks in the past.

My blog pages do not violate any WMF policy. He was wasting Vittuzu’s time.  The full discussion in which I suggested that Vituzzu checkuser MrRowser, and MrRowser replied, digging the hole deeper:

Abd you included my username in your LTA study and you have been writing about me on your website.

He is not careful. He slips. At that point “MrRowser” had not been mentioned on this site. The other IPs recently commenting also made the same claim, that I was writing about them. But the study is only about AP socks, including recent socks locked and blocked for disruption. Is he one of them? There were a very few users mentioned in the study that were reasonably suspected as being involved in some way, withotu definitive identification, which could include meat puppetry — and MrRowser is effectively admitting meat puppetry here. He wanted the study deleted because, in fact, it is about him. He went on:

I have been emailed what you have been doing, you have now deleted the evidence on your website which is very dishonest because you are now running scared.

That damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t-argument has been used often by AP. “Evidence”? He complained about being “included” in a study that was accidentally published, and so I deleted it, and he claims that this means I am “running scared.” Identified AP socks have claimed that. At that point, by the way, I had not seen the extended evidence that he thoughtfully provided that, in fact, he’s AP (or one of the family).

You wrote to another IP on the undeletion request that your study only included “blocked” users, but that is a lie because it included many unblocked IPS!

Two things happened recently. AP stopped using logged-in accounts and started using open proxies. Those were blocked. Then he started using a mobile phone provider (O2). Stewards will be reluctant to block those, because they are constantly reassigned. I took a look at the range involved, and there are many edits probably not AP. However, geolocation is very close to that of known AP IP. Without looking at the post … he provided no link — I don’t know if the claim was true at the time. AP often distorts what has been written in a way that makes it untrue. It can be a small shift, a single word omitted, for example, and if someone looks at the evidence, they might fall for it!

You have included innocent people in your study such as myself and other IPs who are not socks.

An IP is not a person. An IP which continues the exact arguments of a blocked IP/user will often be tagged as a sock. Vituzzu could have confirmed or disconfirmed this, though AP is getting more sophisticated and knows how to defeat checkuser. The narrow focus and arguments, though, completely betray that MrRowser is AP.

I just told you it is defamation and within 20 minutes of my reply you deleted it from your website.

I did that immediately, giving him the benefit of the doubt. I did that from his first edit, and thanked him for calling attention to it. As have other AP socks, he is making an attempt to comply with a request, at least temporarily, into a claim of misbehavior, “dishonesty.” I explained the page and the removal in my response to him in the request for undeletion he linked to.

I was not agreeing that it was defamation. The comment can be seen above. It was not defamation at all.

You have been accusing innocent people of being Anglopyramidologist, a user you have a vendetta against for allegedly creating your Rationalwiki article.

AP makes up arguments that he thinks will fly with his audience. First of all, he is not “innocent,” but he wasn’t accused. By the way, AP socks, mentioning AP usually mispell it, perhaps so that Google searches will fail. Just one more small sign. Secondly, I did not have a vendetta against AP, but AP attacked a user, using impersonation socks to make him seem far more disruptive than any actuality (the reality was very minor, a small amount of socking, not disruptive in itself, except for being block evasion. AP has done a hundred times that, and disruptively, attacking.) So I investigated, realized what a huge sock family there was, and started to document it. AP went bananas, creating more and more socks. That made me think I was onto something! The RationalWiki article, which he is pleased to link to, did not exist at that point. AP vowed he would get even and he has now succeeded in obtaining a deletion decision on Wikiversity — which is trashing Wikiversity traditions — but I had already decided to not invest more work in Wikiversity itself, and the recent sequence shows that the decision was sane.

No, the vendetta is his, and that will be documented more thoroughly. He announced it plentifully, as a threat! However, I don’t intend to stop documenting what he is done and it will now be on this blog, cooperating with others who have done the same for some time. I can now reveal some of what was kept private because I was still working with WMF policies and traditions. I have much more freedom here.

As the IP pointed out in the un-deletion request, you originally wrote here [10], Friends and Enemies.

And what does that mean? It’s still up, that page. The link is to a diff where I was changing the section name from Friends and Enemies to a clearer expression of the intention, . “Other persons named by AP”

You appear to being using this website to attack users you have personal issues against, your “enemies”.

No, AP names others in many of his account names, and they mostly are his enemies. It’s a behavioral characteristic, that is obvious, if one looks at the list of account names. Apparently this argument fooled a Wikiversity administrator who referred to it.

I also do not understand your other LTA study [11], it lists socks of AngloPyramidologist which are found here [12] active from 2011-2015 on Wikipedia but then you added about 50 other accounts unrelated to AngloPyramidologist that were active on Wikiversity in 2017.

Actually active on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta. He understands. He’s lying.

Your study is not supported by solid check-user evidence and you appear to be making false connections.

Appear to whom? AP made a few mistakes that connected the older and newer accounts. This argument is a particular obsession of AP. “You have no technical evidence” he has said many times. First of all, the duck test evidence is even stronger than checkuser technical evidence. They are, however, supportive of each other. I have private evidence, and he had edited IP on RationalWiki there in a way that connected him with a newly blocked sock in the Michaelskater series. That was promptly revision deleted, but I was a sysop at the time and could read such edits. The IP had edited a Wikipedia article, carrying on the work of HealthyGirl, who had been blocked as an AP sock.

Most of the former meta LTA study is from checkuser evidence, though. What MrRowser is arguing is that there is no proof that there are not two separate families of socks. Who is the judge?

For my own life and what I write, I am. I am responsible.

You are not a steward so you should not be conducting these investigations. AngloPryamidologist was a sockpuppeteer but I do not see evidence he was any of those accounts in 2017.

So? There are many incorrect sock identifications on Wikipedia. (and AP created some of them!) Why is he obsessed with this one? It’s obvious. And “you are not a steward” is a common AP argument. True, but without consequences. Stewards don’t do investigations that lead to checkuser requests. The community does, those who decide to do it.

I just read over what the various IPS have written about all this.

I will be putting all that together to make it easy to review.

Admins have complained about your behaviour [13], you have also accused innocent IPs of being AngloPyramidologist which they have denied [14][15].

They are not innocent. The most recent O2 IPs geolocate to AP’s home location, which, of course, I could not reveal on meta. They were continuing the same arguments as the blocked open proxies he had been using just before that, and those open proxies connect with technical evidence to much AP activity. What they were doing was exactly what AP socks had promised they would do, in an apparent attempt to intimidate me.

You have sent another Wikipedia user harassing emails [16]

He claimed that, yes. Did I actually send harassing emails? I will show the emails to a qualified functionary with a need to know, but I sent one email to Joshua P. Schroeder through the WMF interface, to his current user name, which the IPs had pointed me to.

The way that works is that it is forwarded by the WMF to the addressee, who may ignore it or respond. The original mail was an offer to cooperate in getting certain material taken down from another web site and then saved on and by AP. And, yes I have proof of that. JPS responded, which he would not do for a harassing mail (he has claimed to be harassed for years, and it certainly wasn’t me!) We went back and forth and he never requested I stop mailing him, though he did not reply to my last mail, I think. This is not “harassing emails.” However, as a result of that false claim, which was libelous and may have influenced the thinking of others, I have returned all the material that I had hidden.

AP thinks it is perfectly okay to out and defame users on RationalWiki — and he did create that article on me, that is quite clear, but if someone documents what he does, he’s oh, so offended. He is a liar and a hypocrite and probably fucks sheep without their consent.

Ahem. I’m human and I can actually get angry. Reading MrRowser lying, over and over, I am reminded this is not about some attack on “skeptics,” or, from the other side, simply exposing pseudoscience and “woo.” Genuine skepticism — ancient and honorable — does not need to lie, ever. There is a far darker agenda involved here. It’s been exposed on many sites, and I’ll be collecting that muck as well. This is about violations of basic human decency.

 and you defame him on your website [17][18] on several articles

Where is the defamation there? 17 is a link to a page on JPS edits to Cold fusion. It is, at this point, almost entirely a list of edits without comment. If anything there is defamation, I appreciate knowing. (But I will probably begin to analyze the edits, so it could be come more, ah, controversial.

18 is a link to a list of his accounts and, now, what had been removed, his current real name and current position as an astronomer. Information like this is routinely posted on RationalWiki, without the consent of the targets, largely by AP (many articles have been documented in the RationalWiki page). That is certainly not defamation, or is it, Mr. Smith?

According to another admin you spoke to there have been numerous complaints about your behaviour. The same admin on that talk-page says the Wikimedia foundation have received “numerous legitimate complaints about your activity over a long period of time.”

I’m easily accessible and I have received no indication of Foundation interest and I’m told by someone who should know that the Foundation is very unlikely to be interested. People have complained about me for years. Why? Well, I confronted administrative abuse on Wikipedia, successfully (one admin reprimanded that then one who came after me, possibly in retribution, desysopped), and people who do that had better be prepared to face complaints.

In my training — yes, I’m trained — we were told, “If you are not being shot at, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.” A bit of an unusual perspective, eh?

My own version, before the training, related to Wikipedia Rule Number One: (If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore the rule.) If you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. It follows from the Rule and from human nature.

As this IP wrote [19], you are using these “LTA” studies to “defame” innocent people. You then link to it on your personal website.

He does not name one innocent person defamed! Over 200 socks are listed, plus a few IP addresses globally locked and then a few checkuser-declined (for technical reasons). (And the LTA studies are completely independent from the material about JPS or others sometimes described on these pages, except that AP is now attempting to create allies by claiming a common “enemy.” That is another AP trait.

To defame a person I must name them or show their identity. Mobile phone IP addresses, which this user was so concerned to defend, are not identified people, as such, and cannot be defamed. However, we can share that information because it may be useful to an administrator somewhere, and there are also legal actions being contemplated by some. AP has allegedly real-life harassed people, with phone calls and threats, and his internet activities have caused damage to business interests. Sooner or later someone with resources that can be dedicated to that will say “enough!”

I have not been harmed, or I’d be talking to an attorney myself. But I will cooperate with anyone needing assistance. AP is defaming people under real names (such as me! but many others)

You also have an obsession with claiming different people are “AP” a target of yours, as another IP pointed out this is extreme paranoia.

Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.

However, I present evidence, not just wild accusations. I was originally completely ignorant of AP, I knew a little about one sock, Goblin Face, but no idea that this was a sock of a large family of socks. Just seemed like a highly opinionated user, and ready to make accusations of others. It was Wikipedia business which hasn’t been my business, as such, for about six years. Except I am interested and involved with cold fusion, and the state of the article there is atrocious, so I have researched sources that others might use if they choose.

I can assure you none of us are that stupid user from years ago!!

This is absolutely amazing. He is describing himself as “one of us,” which must be one of a number of people named in the study, which describes, for the largest part, blocked and socked users, who have lied and been uncovered and blocked and locked. He could mean the recent IPs, which geolocate the same as AP. It’s like he believes readers won’t put that together. And he might be right. Wikis seem to generate clueless users, or burn them out and make them so.

I do not know what the official rule on off-site harassment is, but as you have been harassing different Wikipedia users on your website I will email the Wikimedia Foundation and see what they say about this. You obviously need to be blocked because you have no intention of stopping. MrRowser (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

He will be wasting their time. I doubt he will actually email, because it would reveal more about his real identity, and the WMF will ignore anonymous complaints, I’m fairly sure. I cannot be stopped by the WMF, even if they wanted to, and they don’t. That is, my account could be locked, that they can do. But that would not stop me at all, it would merely give me higher motivation, which all of AP’s fuss has done.

He seems to have believed his own propaganda, that I was using Wikiversity to “push” pseudoscience. I actually stopped most work on Wikiversity years ago because I concluded it wasn’t safe, it was vulnerable to attack from Wikipedians, in this case led by a troll, obviously socking. And that reveals a great deal about Wikipedia and about wikis in general. I just found out out obtuse some administrators can be.

So the guy walks across the street to a police officer to report a mugging taking place, and the officer arrests him for jaywalking. However, when life gives me lemons, I don’t just make lemonade, I make lemon chiffon pie or lemon chicken. Yippee!

I warned AP that I was the Tar Baby and that attacking me was a Bad Idea. His response was to complain about 73-year old cranks who should not be allowed access to the internet. Ah, no respect for elders! His choice, though.

MrRowser now does actually join the list. Previously, there was only a mild suspicion and his edits looked much like common skeptical edits, reasonably ordinary.

MrRowser is not merely suggesting that he was improperly “blacklisted” — the study was not a blacklist at all, and had no such effect — he was attacking the list and supporting and using the block on RationalWiki, which he linked to (such external links will normally be considered harassment), which block was by … an AP sock; one such sock claimed, on RW to be “running the place” and to have about 700 socks. Joke? Maybe. Like editors affiliated with what was called in reliable source a “cabal” had, almost always, a “Cabal Approved” template on their user pages.


And now another clue. An AP sock just posted notes on my Wikiversity talk page:

he also attacks Wikiversity and Wikipedia admins on his website.

I have made references to a Wikipedia administrator,JzG; and I have not reviewed them for consideration as “attacks.” However, Wikiversity administrators? Where? The only Wikiversity users I have discussed here have been AP socks (on the AP study page) and … this page, just created, on MrRowser. Or is he simply lying? In any case, I am putting together a study of recent events on Wikiversity, and connecting them with a long-term trend, where Wikiversity was slowly going down the tubes. I have never told the story in one place. It will name names, which would have been avoided, generally, before now. I’m going to add the IP information to the AP study and tell why I conclude the IPs are Anglo Pyramidologist.