Verifier

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

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

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

The behavior stands out clearly here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So John66 appears on Kendrick’s blog.

John66

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

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

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

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

I am not a vegan activist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards. John66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

Above, I quoted John66 and mentioned twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The verifiable reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Abd banned on RatWiki?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cooping was filed 17:23, 11 March 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

He lists IPs.

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

Recent disruption on proxies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taubes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps now is the time to use a meme.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Taubes wrote about Farquhar:

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

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

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

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

Still on the CSPI post:

Farquhar did give more detail to CSPI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, the CSPI article, about the misleading claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So then, as to an alleged danger:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SETH YODER IS A SELF-IMPORTANT ORIFICE FOR WASTE DISPOSAL

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

 

 

 

David Gerard

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Dysklyver

This study is a subpage of rationalwiki but Dysklyver is not a supporter or knowing enabler of the AP sock masters.

Dysklyver (contributions, logs) is an interesting case, much more interesting than the general RationalWiki sillysplop. From RW User:Dysklyver

  • Fairly new, registered 17 June 2018
  • Rights. Autopatrolled 19 June 2018
  • Sysop 12 July 2018
  • Created troll sock 18 August 2018. Nominated himself for moderator. The acceptance speech is actually pretty funny, as a parody. Or is it simply a description?
  • Ninja and Tech 27 November 2018

Personal information: this was all openly revealed. If Dysklyver wants any of this removed, he may request this. Good-faith requests will not be published without permission (an ordinary comment will ordinarily be published, permission is assumed). Commenters here as a message to the administrator reviewing comments (that’s me at this point!) may request that the comment not be published, and this will normally be respected.

However, trolls will be chopped into kindling and burned for heat, it’s cold!

User:Dysklyver (various revisions) and with a little help from my friends:

    • Wikipedia: User:A_Den_Jentyl_Ettien_Avel_Dysklyver very blocked on wikipedia. Indeed. Global account. Globally locked, “(Long-term abuse)”  The block logs do not justify “LTA.” Alternate account on Wikipedia, Arthur Kerensa. Looking at the history of that talk page, and making no conclusion about the legitimacy of his blocks (he requested them?), they are assholes. This is, unfortunately, was becoming very common by the time I abandoned wikipedia (as is common, abandon the project and they community-ban), and whenever I have occasion to look, it seems to have gotten worse. What was the harm of that notice?
    • https://wiki.org.uk/article/User:Arthur_Kerensa chilling on a wiki site. Link is dead, wiki.org.uk died sometime between September 13 and December 1, 2018. Not in wikiindex. Some pages archived on archive.is. Not that one.
    • On IRC (freenode) as Dysklyver@unaffiliated/dysklyver
    • On wikipediocracy as Dysklyver memberlist (requires registration)
    • In and around various sites like Ubuntu, Reddit, TheStudentRoom, and more
    • Lawyer. [Unlikely from age, but may be law student or paralegal].
    • I live in Cornwall, in the United Kingdom.
    • I am the primary sysadmin (not sysop) of World Wiki. (dead link) (So what happened?)
    • On Reddit as Dysklyver.
    • I have a blog called The Wiki Cabal
    • My email address is dysklyver@linuxmail.org
    • Follow me on  Twitter
    • I am on Discord as Dysk#2545

Why is Dysklyver documented here?

He was noticed and mentioned in connection with Aeschylus, an admitted Oliver D. Smith sock, as described on our page, ODS. Oliver Smith has often put up “retired templates,” and he has claimed elsewhere that he wasn’t going to edit RatWiki any more, but . . . he does and has created as many as hundreds of sock accounts, the same as he has done elsewhere.

Dysklyver, reading Aeschylus’ extremely weak plea for deletion, desysopped and blocked him “for [his] own  good.”

Oliver, instead of admitting that he had presented misleading evidence on pages, pursuing personal vendettas, leading to defamation that was not true, not supported by sources, simply had asked for them to be deleted, and users who had looked at the evidence before (very well designed to be misleading), and with any activity attempting to correct it being blocked on sight, and with prior misleading attempts having succeeded in convincing RatWikians that Oliver’s targets are bullies (for example, non-existent email from me was quoted by a Darryl sock, and impersonation socks threatened to sue RatWiki and various sysops), instead of admitting that the stories about the “Smith brothers” were true, simply showed that he wanted the pages taken down because he was being sued, and the response of RatWikians was totally as I’d expect. To put it RatWiki, technical language, “Fuck No!”

Dysklyver has shown that he is aware of the Smith trolling. How much he knows, I do not know. I have not listed him as an “enabler,” because I only use that category for RatWikians who know about the Smiths and actually support them, or who stand in reckless disregard of what they could know if they look at evidence presented to them.

This is amusing for today:

Mr. Clean created an article on Defamation, 19:45, edit summary “(will expand),” with this text:

Defamation is statements that affect a person’s reputation negatively, which are untrue or misleading.

Defamation laws by country

United States

In the United States website owners cannot be prosecuted for defamation for the actions of users of websites they own.

Dysklyver deleted it at 19:48. That was swift.

This conversation ensued:

Defamation

Why shouldn’t there be an article about this? Mr Clean (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
You can make a draft if you like (eg. Draft:Defamation) but you are not getting away with starting a mainspace page on such a tricky subject with a two sentence stub where one of the sentences is factually wrong. —

What was wrong? Mr Clean (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dysklyver is entirely too serious for a normal RatWiki sysop. Mr. Clean has a Smith-type username, and the interest in defamation also matches Smith. I would not at this point accuse him of being a Smith, the evidence is too thin. Does Dysklyver realize the possibility? After all, if this is Smith, he’s block-evading.

What was wrong? I see several problems.

The first statement is roughly true. Defamation is a little broader than stated, and can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I doubt that Dysklyver was referring to that sentence. Rather,

In the United States website owners cannot be prosecuted for defamation for the actions of users of websites they own.

If we include under prosecution, “civil prosecution” by an injured party, the question is whether or not a website owner can be liable (or criminally responsible, where defamation is a crime, as it is in some places). The user is probably thinking of the Communications Decency Act, which provides qualified immunity to “information service providers.” Whether a “web site owner” can be held liable depends on details. The user’s comment may generally be true, but exceptions may exist, and so the statement, because made as if a blanket immunity, is false.

This, by the way, is a gaping hole in U.S. law, because it allows even blatantly defamatory material to stand even if a court finds the provider of the information (the “user”) to have defamed with it. The situation is very different with copyright violation, where procedures are provided for a formal claim by an alleged copyright owner, and then immunizing action by the provider (generally take-down or an order to take down), and the “offender” may file a counterclaim by providing an address for service of process. With that, the service provider may restore the information until a court orders it taken down. That works, so why not something like that with defamation?

Because laws don’t necessarily make sense, that’s why.

This got more interesting. I speculated that Mr Clean might be Oliver. I still consider it possible, because Oliver lies and he and his brother are perfectly capable of creating impersonation accounts that appear to attack them, in an effort to rally the troops, so to speak. It has often work, and I know for certain that they create impersonation accounts, because I have been impersonated. But wait, couldn’t those be that evil Mikemikev, trying to make them look Bad? In theory, yes, but there is a huge hole in that theory. They have always supported not only blocking those accounts, but also any actual, disclosed socks of mine, lumping them all together. As well, the prolific creation of socks is one of their trademarks, they do it routinely even when there is no necessity, and they have even found that if their target complains, the target is then blamed for fomenting the disruption, just saying anything. After all, if the target kept his mouth shut, they wouldn’t be attacking, right?

However, these trolls have been on the attack continuously for years, if it is not one, then another, and one thing that is happening is that the targets are starting to talk to each other, to share information and maybe, just maybe, legal expenses. So what happened, that encourages this follow-up

Arcticos blocked Mr Clean, with  (Block evasion: abd lomax, check his insane blog – one of his countless concern troll sockpuppets he creates fake drama with)

He was referring to this page, which speculates that Mr Clean might be Oliver, there are signs, and that Arcticos — obviously Oliver — blocked Mr Clean merely because of the mention here — which was mostly about the legal issues — is merely more evidence that Arcticos is Oliver, as if we needed it. This was “creating drama” with no necessity at all. And Oliver has done this many times, in former incarnations. He is a hair-trigger loose cannon. But he is persistent, and with his brother helping out now and then, he often gets his way.

John66 is back, so Darryl is active again, after a month hiatus. Eventually, I have often found, there is another active account, either on RatWiki or elsewhere.

Arcticos is reading this blog and it’s obvious why.

Lomax claims I’m John66, lol

There are many crazy but entertaining ramblings and conspiracy theories on his blog. For some reason he claims I own the sysop John66, someone that blatantly isn’t me I have zero knowledge of their edits.Arcticos (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of this Lomax person before, not sure why he has confused me with someone else. My edits on this website are only on fad diets and cholesterol quackery, I have never written about cold fusion. I noticed Lomax is a cholesterol denialist, perhaps that it why he targeted me. John66 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Let’s start with the lie: I have never claimed that Arcticos owns the John66 account. What I have claimed is that his brother owns it, and that’s been very clear. So how is it that Oliver can read this blog and derive such crazy ideas from it? Well, let’s start that he is actually insane, no joke. But there is no evidence that his brother is so crazy. Did his brother actually read the material? If he did — I would, wouldn’t you, if there was a whole page devoted to me somewhere — he would know why he was covered. If, again, he were sane, he would understand why there was at least an *appearance* of his being Skeptic from Britain and renamed accounts on Wikipedia, and all the other evidence pointed to him being a series of accounts. Few people actually look at the evidence that would show that, it’s too much work. Even when someone else bothers to collect it and make it easily accessible, few will look.

Hence extensive knowledge of the situation is a sign of being one of a fairly small number of people on the planet. It’s like someone being questioned by the police who shows extensive knowledge of the details of a crime. It’s not proof, but often enough to lay charges. So I’m blocked on ED, and who the hell cares? Oliver Smith does, he was begging for that to happen. He was being blocked by many socks, “block-evading,” and when I finally made about two edits, I was blocked by an admin there. For what? He didn’t actually say. it was standard ED fare. Because he can, because fuck off, because unfunny. Whatever. I have not attempted to do anything about it. Oliver has another sock, he pulled out of the drawer.

And then Mr Clean rises from the dead:

Ostwelt_Spangler

Who the hell is OS? Initials, Oliver Smith. Why would Oliver do this? I keep in mind that Oliver’s behavior often makes no sense, to an ordinary mind. (And this is used to great effect.) But Mikemikev is actually a troll, long-term, quite the mirror or foil for Oliver. So could he be OS? As I’m writing this, I consider it possible. His first edit:

Hi Dysklyver. I was Mr. CLean. [[User:Arcticos|Arcticos]] just blocked me indefinitely, and took away my talk page access. Is that normal? Can I not get a chance to respond to accusations? I have no idea why hid did this. I was happy to cooperate with you in making the defamation article. I would have made a draft we could work on together. [[User:Ostwelt Spangler|Ostwelt Spangler]] ([[User talk:Ostwelt Spangler|talk]]) 11:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Only someone familiar with the Smith history would think Mr Clean was a “block evader.” Which is not actually an offense on RatWiki, they have never developed a clear policy, and don’t want one, because the Lulz.

Now, is OS “Mr Clean”? I have some doubts. The blocking of Mr Clean was by a user known, very clearly, to be Oliver Smith (there really is no doubt about this). That user was blocked by Dysklyver “for his own good,” as Aeschylus, but he also encouraged him to sock. Very RatWiki. The assumption would be, though, that he would not repeat the behavior or write things that could harm him legally. Mikemikev could have noticed this, or still consistent with what I’ve seen, really was innocent. Or this was Oliver blocking himself, having decided that the account was compromised by being noticed here.

On the other hand, that has not stopped Arcticos. Like I’ve said, insane. I tend to retreat to known facts, not mind-reading.

12:53 Arcticos blocked Ostwelt Spangler Block evasion: mikemikev trolling

12:54 Dysklyver unblocked. (no real evidence)

So Mr Clean is me, and Ostwelt Spangler is Mikemikev impersonating Mr Clean? Yes, he’s nuts.

My hypothesis. He knows OS is not Mr Clean because he was Mr Clean. So who would it be? Mikemikev, of course, and whenever the thought Mikemikev enters his head, he pushes buttons first and thinks later. When he has realized that it has all become too obvious, he retires and starts up a new sock. He’s been doing it for many years.

Is OS Mike? I don’t know, and I won’t ask him. It’s that simple. What I see here is that there is no open evidence, and Dysklyver can see that. RatWiki practice is normally not to block a user as a sock unless the user is not only actually banned, but there is clear evidence that it is the banned user. But that requirement has been waived for sysops with the last name Smith and David Gerard, who have super powers and never make mistakes. David mostly keeps his dainty fingers out of these messes, but a surprising number of his actions benefit the Smiths and their agenda. What is interesting here is that there is a sysop not swallowing the bullshit. He does seem to assume some things I would disagree with. The general Smith story has been that I write massive attacks on anyone who disagrees with me. It has never been true, mere disagreement is far from enough to create a motivation to spend time documenting this crap. Real-world damage is what can do it.

So then Jean shows up. Jean, 99%, is a Smith brother. So he would be Arcticos (Oliver) or John66 (Darryl).

Arcticos was wrong in blocking Mr Clean as a sock of Abd Lomax, but he was right in blocking that account. Mr Clean/Ostwelt Spangler is a sock-puppet of Michael Coombs (a friend of Lomax), and also a notorious sock-puppeteer. He was recently banned a few days ago on another sock, Radiant Orb. The “Ostwelt Spangler” account, is a reference to Oswald Spengler, one of Mike’s heroes. Spengler’s book “The Decline of the West” is an alt-right favourite. I can’t prove any of these claims right now as so few edits have been done, but I will eventually be proved right. Mike will pretend to be normal for a while like he did on his Radiant Orb account, but sooner or later will reveal himself when he posts crude and obsessive racism. Jean (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Who cares if he is right or not? This is, by the way, doxxing. If anyone does this with a Smith brother, on-wiki or even off, off with their heads! Immediate indef, talk page and email access denied. Period. Shut The Fuck Up! Dysklyver is pushing limits by even mentioning “Smith” (but they have done it themselves many times. To be sure, they often later delete or hide the revisions.) My emphasis:

@Dyskluver Yes, it was a few lines of crap and like you said mostly inaccurate. And “Twist Spanker” is Mikemikev’s new sockpuppet. Once exposed as him, he quickly creates new accounts. Notice also these latest accounts appearing very recent fixate only with my edits – Atlantis and now UKIP… not suspicious (sarcasm).Arcticos (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not in the least surprised given that you focus only on the same topics he does, that you are obsessed with finding his socks rather than waiting for them to say anything much, and that you are almost certainly filed under “sock of the smith bros” in Trolloland. I think you are doing a good job with the British politics articles, but when it comes to the trolls, be aware there is no practical limit to the number of accounts they can create, so there is little point blocking them early. — Dysklyver 14:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And as if there was any doubt, Arcticos confirms that he is Oliver Smith.

@Dyskluver we only focus on the same topics, since I influence Mikemikev. He can’t think for himself and has been robbing my opinions and interests for past 6 years, he’s like a puppy who follows me around. [. . .] Arcticos (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Six years. 2012, when Oliver was Atlantid on Metapedia. There is only one person on the planet who would have written that honestly, and Oliver is often “honest,” i.e., spills the beans about himself. Then he lies to cover it up. Someone doxxes his brother, he attacks them for “attacking his family,” thus confirming that it was his family. The guy really does not know how to shut up.

If Radiant Orb was Mikemikev, he had obtained sysop tools and would “rationally” restrain himself with that account. Unless he has other access, and doesn’t care. It is quite easy to get sysop tools on RatWiki. Basically, write something coherent and don’t challenge any sacred goats. Shut up about the goats, already!

Oliver goes ballistic if anything smells like Mikemikev. Or me. Or Rome Viharo (though Viharo was more of an obsession with Darryl). Or Emil Kirkegaard. Or Michealdsuarez. There are others as well. This sequence is actually common. Oliver is arguing with someone and needs to disclose “the truth” so that the person will agree with him. He is explaining, here, why he and the alleged Mikemikev are interested in the same topics. Which is actually irrelevant, in this case, except that interest in those topics could create suspicion of socking or “alternate accounts.” Standard on wikis, don’t doxx a user as “Real Name So-and-so” unless it is both provable and necessary. It will get you blocked on Wikipedia, quickly, though they do tend to warn first (and rev-del the comment).

Dysklyver doesn’t buy it. He is the first RatWiki sysop I have seen confront Oliver on the obvious. There have been a few trout-slaps here and there, but nobody really seemed to get what was going on.

I know he has seen this page, but I don’t know that he reads it. It’s entirely up to him. When a RatWiki user is impersonated here, and they have not been informed before of such, I’ll notify them. It’s easy enough. And if they delete it and block the IP, I simply won’t notify them again. I have not harassed RatWiki users, all such apparent harassment has been impersonation. And if anyone has questions about that, they can ask. I will not acknowledge any covert socks, but if a sock allegedly was disruptive, I will either show that it was not disruptive, or deny that it was me, if it was not, or admit it and apologize for the error.

To be clear, I am not identifying socks without necessity. The long-term activity of the Smiths has made it necessary for their socks, because part of how the disruption is identified is through long-term patterns. The Smiths have created massive long-term disruption on RationalWiki, about which I would care very, very little, except for the damage done in the real world.

When I was a sysop on RationalWiki, faced with Smith socks and Smith troll socks, I did not identify them by name, nor did I block the “functional accounts,” and only a handful of obvious trolls.

One more event for the day:

12:12, 24 February 2019 User account Twist Spanker (talk | contribs) was created
13:34, 24 February 2019 Talk:United Kingdom Independence Party ‎ (→‎Organisation of article)
13:27, 24 February 2019 United Kingdom Independence Party ‎
14:03, 24 February 2019 Arcticos blocked Twist Spanker  with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (can we please just get rid of mikemikev?)

The edits were mild and not definitive at all as being Mikemikev, if they were, he was not displaying his trademark racism. However, to Oliver, it would look like trolling. Trolling for what? For an over-reaction, of course, that is what real trolls do. If so, Oliver played right into it, being predictably a loose cannon. Recent events have shown clearly, to anyone watching, that Oliver will tag as a sock of an enemy anyone who even looks like they might be poking them.

Will someone have the cojones to dsysop him? He’s done far more, in a short time, than many others who have been desysopped. (Look at my history, for example! What did I do, actually?)

Here is what he will do if it happens. He will disappear and simply create a new account. His current user page says that he created that one article. In fact, he has created hundreds of articles, some reasonably legitimate. He is recognizable if anyone has looked at the sock collection.

But of the articles are attacks on external enemies, and Darryl has done the same, based on outside personal conflicts. Then, if the targets show up, they are harassed. If they are not disruptive, many impersonation socks appear, pretending to be the target and making it look like the target is disruptive.

They have found that it works. It even worked on Wikipedia, which is how I discovered these brothers. I blew it up by realizing what had happened and requesting steward checkuser. Yes. Impersonation socks, also demanding action against the alleged abuser. That is how I became a Smith target, by documenting that sequence. My original interest was how Single Purpose Accounts could trigger enforcement action without anyone actually looking at the SPAs themselves. I was interested in how they had corrupted Wikipedia (and Wikiversity) process, deluding and deceiving users including administrators (and, by the way, those original impersonations have never been identified on Wikipedia, they are still blamed on the target, even though, on meta, this was demolished by stewards.)

If these three accounts are actually Mikemikev, he is doing a service by being a sniper target, exposing the sniper. But I don’t know yet. Sometimes it becomes clear. And, of course, sometimes some people have ways of identifying socks. I know that I have some that I won’t reveal, but I doubt I would block a user based on those traits, because they legitimately raise suspicion but are not necessarily strong evidence.

When multiple weak signs coincide toward the same conclusion, it becomes strong enough to stand on, as long as one attempts to see all the evidence, and not just what points in a single direction.

Update, March 4, 2019

Dysklyver activity of interest here.

Dysklyver has commented here, as can be seen below. He is the only RatWiki sysop to actually contact me, in recent years, other than Oliver Smith. There have been various troll contacts, which could be Darryl. Oliver denied being them (and massive trolling does appear to be Darryl, generally, rather than Oliver. Except on Encyclopedia Dramatica) One of the remarkable traits of common wiki maintenance is administration by force, instead of creating cooperation where possible. It became increasingly common on Wikipedia. Common users are assumed to be either good editors or useless trolls or “POV pushers,” to be blocked. The long term damage to Wikipedia was to neutrality policy. Neutrality is not a thing. There is no “neutrality meter,” it is subjective, and if the group consensus excludes people of a point of view — which Wikipedia, over and over, trended to — it becomes warped. Wiki theory did not account for this. The fundamental error was in assuming that people who push their point of view should be banned, ipso facto.

Rational Wiki has no neutrality policy. It has a site point of view, often aligned with the “SPOV” faction on Wikipedia. However, RatWiki used to encourage and allow dissident points of view, and even gave sysop privileges to people of different stripes. I was a sysop there, from 2012, until I was personally attacked on the wiki by Darryl (as “Marky”), after the user who had run impersonation socks on Wikipedia was discovered as a result of my actions, and I was threatened with what did ensue, massive harassment, and deletion of all my work.  They did not succeed in deleting all my work, because cooperative administration and site backups allowed it to be preserved. Darryl then took this to RatWiki, creating the article on me, and I was quickly “promoted” by David Gerard, who had attempted this before, previously stopped by a moderator.

Once upon a time, the moderator’s action would be normal for RatWiki. I had mostly abandoned RatWiki, just making scattered edits, because I had found it was like trying to communicate with a heap of testosterone-crazed teenage Lilliputians. And RationalWiki was mostly harmless. That all changed. Some people read the articles and believe what they read. The Smith brothers, in particular, are masters of finding “bad-looking quotations” that are presented out of context. They have discovered that most wiki editors rarely actually verify sources, i.e., by reading the whole source (if any of it at all). The Smiths look for “bad” to toss mud. And if I have pointed that out, this proves I am some kind of monster because I “support” [fill in the unsupported claim: fascists, child rape apologists, pseudoscientists, diet woo promoters, etc.]

Dysklyver, almost alone in this, has been attempting to restore the old standards. So far, he has not run into serious conflict with actual old-timers, other than the Smiths. These are some of his edits and actions.

Arcticos (Oliver Smith, I have no doubt, this is not Darryl), added the title of “King of the Trolls” to my article. (It was sourced to a post by a single anonymous user on lenr-forum, long story. This would be a source with no reliability at all. The Smiths have claimed over and over that I have been banned for trolling all over the internet, but, in fact, I have not been banned anywhere for that. It is an empty claim, the reality is quite different. There is really only on significant ban, the WMF Office ban, and that is going into court. It was triggered by complaints and it is clear that the complaints were from the Smith brothers, and from a few others scared up by the Smiths by searching for possible enemies and canvassing for it.

Dysklyver removed that. This has been extremely rare, other RatWiki users rejecting Smith edits. The article has errors that were pointed out much more than a year ago, nobody looked, apparently. Snark takes high priority over accuracy. (It used to be that editors sought to be accurate in facts, and snarky only in interpretation. That largely disappeared, certainly where the Smiths are involved, which is with a lot. (Though not as much as the Smiths claim I report, one of their favorite tactics is straw-manning.)

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax&oldid=2044980

Standard RatWiki discussion by the Smiths. Smith misrepresents a fact, RatWikians do not check it out, do not find out what actually happened, and respond as if the fact were true, because it confirms the impressions the Smiths have created with a year’s drumbeat, impersonations socks, etc. Bongolian, though, does have sense enough to recognize that “King of the Trolls” might be a teeny bit exaggerated. The alleged trolling has almost all been on RatWiki by impersonation socks, commonly blocked by naive RatWiki users as me.

There are a handful of real socks. In the first months of my indef block on RatWiki, I disclosed socks, either with the edits or on this blog. For quite a while, I disclosed any IP edits, and I actually used a proxy service for a month. What I was doing, for the most part was informing RatWiki users that they had been impersonated elsewhere, probably by the Smiths (probably Darryl). Because disclosing the socks generated no value at all, because users never thanked me for disclosing impersonations of them, I stopped doing it, but I also stopped editing RatWiki, almost entirely. Impersonation socks continued.

An account, Street scoop, with only one other edit, added a link to explain material that had been added by Arcticos. The only other edit of Street scoop was similar, adding a link to explain what a Smith brother had claimed, so that anyone could verify it.

This was promptly reverted by Jean, a very inactive account, likely Darryl, with (Undo revision 2043420 by Street scoop (talk) sock of abd lomax). The only basis I can see for the identification is that Street scoop was already tagged by Street guy as Abd, for doing something similar before, and a Smith assumption that anyone actually providing evidence must be Abd, because nobody else would care. This is thoroughly ironic. If Abd were to edit RatWiki using a pseudonym, and reverted an edit as being by “Oliver Smith,” he would be immediately blocked for “doxxing,” but it is routine for Smith socks to dox others, and rare for anyone to object. What became obvious to me as I researched this was that there is behind-the-scenes support for the Smiths. (How is it that obvious trolls were able to coordinate a WMF Office ban?) I have some idea of where it might be coming from, but nothing adequate to create certainty, only hints from various validated Smith comments.

The article was then protected by Arcticos, Excessive vandalism. If that edit were “excessive” vandalism, what would ordinary vandalism look like? Adding correct punctuation? There is nothing about that edit that remotely resembles vandalism, from any point of view, unless the point of view is that any accurate information relating to Abd in some way is against the purposes of the article. The comment added by Arcticos was about an article allegedly created by Abd (and, I did, in fact, create that article, but it wasn’t an article, it was a subpage of the Oliver Smith article, with some special information, which had been common on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Arcticos reports that I was blocked, what he does not report was that he was being blocked as many socks, over and over. I have not appealed that block, though I certainly could, because I really don’t need to edit ED. But the article is of high interest, I would think, to any RatWikian who wants to know what is really going on, and it relates to claims that Oliver D. Smith was making before being blocked “for his own good” by Dysklyver. The link is still there in history.

(Smith is currently being sued, and as part of this, asking for deletions in a way guaranteed to fail, admitted that accounts were his where he had previously ridiculed Abd for expressing such suspicions. In fact, anyone who studies the history of these accounts can become skilled at recognizing them. There are some signs that are easy to spot, but, of course, I’m not going to mention them. Before claiming an account is a Smith brother, I have seen multiple signs, and I always consider that it could be someone else with a similar point of view, but, with experience, the points of view of the Smiths are highly idiocyncratic in themselves. It is not at all that any skeptic is accused of being a Smith, but they create so much confusion that some sites documenting the Smiths do err. Given that I have documented hundreds of accounts, there are probably some errors, but — none of such have ever personally complained. The Smiths, long ago, learned that when an account has been identified, it is easier to just abandon it. On RatWiki, they routinely abandon sysop accounts. There are quite a number still holding privileges, as I recall.)

The Smiths routinely lie to the RatWiki community.

Debunking Spiritualism, for example, was not hacked. He simply lied. His behavior in those few days was completely in line with his agenda, with special craziness at the end, that’s all, but RatWikians do not actually research these things, they just react, knee-jerk, like any stupid non-skeptics.  It worked. His goal was to delete certain admissions, particularly by his brother Oliver, and to attack an enemy (Wyatt) but to make this not so visible, he needed to bury them in a flurry of activity. Many of his actions were reversed, but certainly not all. The Smith brothers have learned how to manipulate the community, they know how people will respond to confusion, and the tactic works. It even works on Wikipedia to a degree.

And then Arcticos corrected the spelling error that Jean had brought back in by reverting.

Dysklyver removed the protection with (the vandals interested in this page are sysops already)

To be true, this statement defines Smith brother accounts as vandals. There was no recent vandalism, but there had been in the past, and it was impersonation accounts by the Smith, who were sysops. (The vandal accounts were not, of course, but it is totally obvious to anyone who studies this who would have the interest and inclination and sometimes there is timing evidence. In this case, Dysklyver unprotects the article. Now what would Abd want? Let me ask him. I got a quick answer: I’d want the article unprotected so anyone (including me) could correct it, or at least assert an edit with sources or evidence. But there is someone who wants it protected, who wrote it (or his brother wrote it with a few additions by him). This is not Mikemikev and it is not Abd. It is Darryl Smith, with a smaller possibility of it being Oliver. It is much more difficult to identify transient impersonation socks. It happened on Wikipedia (because I was able to request and obtain  steward checkuser). This was Darryl then. Oliver disclaimed knowledge, and I found that believable.

So, as completely predictable, two impersonation socks show up to vandalize the article. They are Lomax is back and Coldfusions. Predictably (and within the narrow world of RatWiki normal practice), Bongolian semi-protected.

And then Arcticos full-protected (sysop required). better protection since Lomax is creating fake accounts pretending to be someone else and getting autopatrolled.

But what is he protecting? Content that his brother created originally, and maintained with many accounts, vandalized with other accounts of his, and that has not been edited by Abd or anyone reasonably resembling Abd (in actual edits) since one edit allowed to stand in 2017. The “vandalism” has all been impersonation accounts, designed to look like Abd to someone who doesn’t actually know how he works. “Creating fake accounts?” What is a “fake account”. The fake accounts here would be the Lomax impersonations, probably Arcticos’ brother.

This is how RatWiki has worked for many years. Make some positive edits, you get autopatrol and can edit what is semiprotected. So for the kind of drive-by vandalism done by the impersonation socks, semiprotection is adequate. An autopatrolled account has “paid for” the possible disruption by making some good edits. If one becomes autopatrolled, any sysop can still remove that right. If a troll gets an account, or a banned user, it’s trivial to stop destructive editing. Indeed, if someone becomes a sysop, still, any sysop can remove it and, as well, block the user. This was remarkable, though:

02:44, 4 May 2018 Bongolian (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Abd from (none) to sysoprevoke (presumptive hacking in addition to everything else)

What was the basis for presuming hacking? It would be that Debunking spiritualism (clearly DS, Darryl Smith) went on a sysop action spree, going after pages his brother had edited to reveal that, indeed, he was the brother, and the like, going after at least one Smith enemy (Wyatt), creating a massive log that most RW user will look at and say “maybe tomorrow,” and then he claimed he had been hacked, but any sane hacker would have changed the password, not left it so that he could retire.

Had I hacked the account, how would sysoprevoke have any effect on that? RatWiki pretends that being desysopped and blocked are “promotions,” and they are actually correct (I used to argue that about Wikipedia), but they don’t really believe it, because they use the rights management to punish.

The hacking story was a way to encourage the community to not look at the whole sequence of edits, which were quite in line with a Smith agenda, I covered this in detail, but the only RatWiki editors who read this blog appear to be the Smith brothers. And maybe Dysklyver.

The Smith brothers freely spend sysop accounts for some short-term purpose, knowing that they can get another quickly. I have followed hundreds of these accounts. The longer-term accounts, with more than a handful of edits, often retire, which is, of course, a lie. They have “retired” at least dozens of times. Oliver has gone onto Encyclopedia Dramatica and claimed he wasn’t editing RationalWiki any more — so please delete his article, but he never stops, he just creates new accounts. He also wrote the same to me by email, published here. Now, Oliver is literally insane. Darryl does not appear to be so, just massively vicious and unethical. John66 is his current relatively open account, and this is quite clear. So we see this on Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax:

First something older I never commented on, I think:

Who is this guy?

Noticed this guy mentioned my name on his blog saying I’m someone I’m not. What a nutcase. Octo (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

He is lying and it later became undeniable. Unless [very complicated and highly unlikely explanation]. Octo knows exactly who I am and has had direct email communication with me. The article was, however, created by his brother Darryl. Octo is definitely Oliver, there are huge red flags, long-term traits, that Oliver-watchers recognize and sometimes talk about. More than one is suing him.

@Octo, he was a long-time editor here who did actually make some good edits. He’s a bit nutso about cold fusion, hence the title of his blog. He was permabanned earlier this year for doxing people, something he’s continued to do on his own blog. You can read about some of his antics on his talk page:[1] Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am published under peer review on cold fusion and, having a physics background, developed a reputation with the involved scientists after being banned on Wikipedia on the topic (at that point I had no strong opinion on cold fusion, I was just confronting admin abuse and a article that had become quite imbalanced, with the strongest sources being excluded systematically, and weaker, older sources being kept. Real science changes!) RationalWiki and Wikipedia both remain smugly unaware of the level of serious research that is ongoing. Yearly funding may exceed $50 million in some years. That’s five percent of the hot fusion budget, and cold fusion has actually shown stronger results, but is not understood and controlling what is not understood is difficult. Cold fusion is not known to violate any laws of physics, the idea that it does arose by assuming it was a particular reaction which it probably is not. That reaction is very unlikely, my opinion. An unknown reaction, which this was called from the start, cannot be analyzed theoretically, other than by very general principles, and there are known examples that show that at least one kind of “cold fusion” is possible, so . . . why is what is testable (and this is) called pseudoscience on RatWiki? In fact, the RatWiki article acknowledges there is real science involved, but the Smiths, writing my article, paid no attention to that.

I did not actually doxx until indef blocked. Long story, and if someone wants to know, ask! It was all, as I came later to recognize, a Smith brother setup, they have done it to many people. And if you mention it on RatWiki, you will be quickly blocked. Even if you are a sysop, you will be “promoted.” Bongolian has seen enough, one would think, but maybe he is really a blockhead. His RatWiki editing patterns show that he treats it like a full-time job (He is obviously not a Smith brother, I showed that conclusively.)

As I find below, Dysklyver broke the mold, without actually mentioning Oliver and Darryl Smith.

He seems to be saying there is one person who owns about 1000 accounts here, including mine. I know this not to be true, at least for mine. It also seems unlikely one person owns that many; his blog also presents zero evidence.Octo (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

But I have not said that.; One of the habits of Oliver is straw-manning, claiming that someone has said something that they did not. His peculiar genius is choosing claims that if someone quickly looks for confirmation, they may find it! In fact, however, I have identified, on all wikis, many hundreds of identified accounts, and list them always with contribution links. Some of the lists, especially the older ones, did not discriminate between Oliver and Darryl.

On Wikipedia, they often say, when blocking a sock, “See contributions.” Obviously that takes some knowledge. But a fanatic will say “no evidence,” even when there is plenty. Oliver socks have easily identifiable characteristics, and anyone who actually studies the record can see them. I can see a major one on this page, copied. Oliver tends to edit sporadically, and I am accumulating long-term review of his accounts and edits. For Oliver, then, edit timing is not so important, but he also edits in other places and I am collecting that data. Edit timing is very interesting with Darryl, see below.

There are many transient trolling or impersonation socks, often making only one edit, and often several of these appear at around the same time. There are two examples above. Some of these make no edits at all, the user name is the message. To make a thousand accounts, then, over, say, seven years, which is 2500 day, is one every 2.5 days. To create a trolling or impersonation account takes a few minutes at most. What’s difficult? Further, there are two people involved. Oliver is not the source of most of the accounts, probably, but at one point he did claim responsibility. My conclusion was that his brother was pissed off that he had revealed so much, so he was trying to make amends. He and his brother lie routinely. Nothing from them can be fully trusted, and even when it can be verified, this must be done with caution, checking to see if sources have been cherry-picked, quoted out of context, etc.

He’s made unsupported/unsupportable claims like that before as I recall. It sounds rather paranoid. Bongolian (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds paranoid because, I suspect, Bongolian has never actually checked. What “unsupported claims”? I actually have long been accused of writing too much, and the reason is that I provide evidence. There is actually, for communication efficiency, too much support. I did not come to the conclusion of hundreds of accounts first and then look for evidence. It was the other way around, I started collecting lists of accounts, staring with the massive trove on Wikipedia. Then when I identified an account on RationalWiki by a connection found on Commons, I started looking at the articles edited by this person and what happened when they stopped editing, and patterns appeared. I have still not completed this work, it is massive: these are two editors who have been very active for seven years. My impression at the moment, without checking the databases, is that over 30,000 edits are involved.

Where there are accounts with many edits, edit timing correlations start to shine. I did one study where I compared the edit timings of Bongolian with Darryl Smith socks. It is trivial to see that they are distinct. Bongolian, I concluded, edits from a particular time zone, and with regular habits. The Smiths edit from the U.K., and have irregular habits, there are days where they, especially Darryl, edit into the early hours, and, if one does not look at a sufficiently expanded time scale, it looks like they edit at all times and must be more than one person. However, what can be seen by a closer look is that if they edit late into the night, they may not edit the next day, or not until late.

He looks at article edit histories and for some odd reason thinks only one person can edit an article.Octo (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)\

Of course I don’t think that. With some articles, it is almost entirely one person. With others, only a few edits are Smith socks. And, remember, there are two Smiths. They mostly do not overlap (i.e., edit the same article) but there are exceptions. On Wikipedia, they would be, and often are, whacked quickly. But they have learned how to escape notice for extended periods of time, and it is not uncommon for them to “retire” before being found, and after the checkuser window, it’s impossible to tell. They also use TOR nodes and open proxies to confuse checkuser, but they do make mistakes, and it only takes one to take down a sock.

Bottom line, Octo was lying to the RatWiki community, and why? Here, Aeschylus, very clearly Oliver Smith, the person being sued for defamation, admits to creating articles that were created by Octo.

I had identified Octo as Oliver by tracking prior accounts suspected or known to be Oliver, and Octo had continued their agenda and showed many signs of being the same person. When I would see something that looked like Oliver, I would look at contributions and check for “collisions,” coincident articles. This is not at all an assumption that everyone editing an article is a Smith brother. I’m familiar with RatWiki regulars, and I looked at many less-familiar accounts that might be a Smith brother and concluded that they were probably not. There is more that I am not revealing, but what I’ve described is basic sock hunting. Remember, I was very active on Wikipedia, and was a Wikiversity administrator, and was very globally active, studying global bans (the routine ones issued by stewards, 5000 in a three month study period, almost all of them legitimate, mostly spammers, but a handful that were questionable, maybe five. All of them by one steward with only 70 actions in that period. I had not reported the results, I had made no accusations when a friend of that steward suppressed the entire study for violating privacy. (There were stewards and global sysops interested and supporting the study.) It was all compiled from public logs and did not violate privacy! But stewards have little practical supervision, and if one becomes abusive (and this one had), the stewards still circle the wagons, just like admins on Wikipedia and other wikis.

And hardly anyone cares. Too much trouble. The problem is not abusive administrators and stewards, the problem is the community!

Tracking socks was not my long-term interest, but I had done it on a few occasions. Here, when I was strongly attacked and threatened for some very simple documentation of an LTA (not doxxing), I knew I was onto something. I had never seen anything quite like it before.

And then, on the same page, but more recently:

Lomax claims I’m John66, lol

There are many crazy but entertaining ramblings and conspiracy theories on his blog. For some reason he claims I own the sysop John66, someone that blatantly isn’t me I have zero knowledge of their edits.Arcticos (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of this Lomax person before, not sure why he has confused me with someone else. My edits on this website are only on fad diets and cholesterol quackery, I have never written about cold fusion. I noticed Lomax is a cholesterol denialist, perhaps that it why he targeted me. John66 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This is Oliver (Arcticos) talking to Darryl (John66). He did not ping “John,” But John shows up in less than 20 minutes. Why? Oliver would know that his brother Darryl has the article watchlisted (and I assume that these brothers copy their watchlists to new accounts, when those become active accounts), so he would not need to ping him. Darryl created that article as revenge for documenting his impersonation socks on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and, later, Meta.

This is ironic, actually. Oliver, with one of his hundreds of Encyclopedia Dramatica socks, which I had not been watching, dropped a note on my talk page that he was going to tell the followers of Malcolm Kendrick that I was Skeptic from Britain. Who? I had no idea who this was, so I looked. Oliver later claimed he was just joking, and of course he was. It’s called “trolling,” but it was quite stupid. He knew that SfB was his brother, and admitted it in a conversation with MichaeldSuarez that MDS published.

(He calls me the King of the Trolls, but trolling is most of what he does, and he is actually famous for it, on the internet.)

So I looked at Skeptic from Britain, a Wikipedia account that had then gone through two name changes and retired, claiming he had been outed on the internet. This was another example of where a Smith brother develops a brilliant scheme to attack an enemy. Setting aside Oliver’s trolling on Encyclopedia Dramatica, which nobody was paying attention to but me and MDS, there was only one person being accused, by real name, of being SfB. He was innocent, he had criticized SfB on Wikipedia. So I dove in and cleared his name, and was able to see, quite clearly, who SfB was. It was Darryl, moving just slightly out of prior interests, but not far. Darryl was heading for some sanctions, I suspect, and so went out in a blaze of glory, so to speak, not quite getting to the point of being blocked, and because the field of interest had shifted a bit, nobody recognized an Anglo Pyramidologist sock.

I created a spreadsheet with edit timings the known Darryl accounts and Skeptic from Britain. SfB had been prolific, which makes this kind of study easier. SfB had become most controversial with an AfD on Malcolm Kendrick. There was not enough reliable source on Kendrick for an article, but SfB massively insulted Kendrick in the AfD, calling him a quack, as I recall. Kendrick is a very popular author with his followers (I had never heard of him before). This created a huge flap on blogs and on Twitter, Jimbo Wales got involved, etc., and various obvious Darryl socks had appeared in those discussions.

And then I noticed John66. That account was created in November 2018 and began articles on the same field as SfB was working on, and an article on Kendrick was started. I added those edits into the spreadsheet and they fit like a glove. You can see where the focus of the sock master shifts from one account to another by edit delays. Then John66 went quiet, as SfB and the successor account became very active. And then, after SfB retired, John66 started up with the same interests, same names of articles, etc., very substantial overlap, now on RatWiki. So I simply added John66 to the list of suspected socks. I consider it strong (though evidence for Oliver socks is truly overwelming. For John66, maybe 99%). I have many more socks to add to the database now from various sources. It takes time and I have other stuff to do.

Bottom line: Oliver was lying, I do not and did not claim that he owns John66, and I have never thought that. His brother Darryl owns the account. And Darryl was lying as well. He knows who I am, he wrote that article, and they are putting on this show for the community.

Other accounts appearing:

Mr_Mark suspected Darryl, but looked closer, concluded not.

Muslim_guy blocked by Dysklyver (Ban evasion). Likely Darryl, who has used names like this before. Kirkegaard is not WP “banned.” He is ArbCom blocked, my guess is that someone informed them of the lawsuit and they decided to block until resolved. SOP. Mikemikev would  not have written this or this. Arcticos responded — and remember that Oliver is banned from Wikipedia! But he has friends!

Herman_Rose (deleted edits, at least one archived.) probably Mikemikev, my opinion. Blocked by John66. John66 also full protected Talk:Emil Kirkegaard.  John66’s claims of no knowledge are BS. He is revealing his affiliations. Dysklyver reduced to semiprotection (correctly by standard procedures).

02:09, 26 February 2019 Dysklyver blocked ODS with an expiration time of π×infinity! (autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (LANCB: Abandoned account, user has returned under a different username.) Dysklyver clearly knows what is going on. I have not seen this before from a RatWiki sysop. If they know, they conceal it. ODS is, of course, Oliver D. Smith. He has many other “retired” accounts, as does his brother.

Ostwelt_Spangler

The sequence here is amazing. I may create a page on this one. Oliver jumped the shark over this. Clever, that Mikemikev, if this is Mikemikev. Create a non-disruptive account that actually addresses an issue of importance, and watch Oliver come completely unglued. The block log is astonishing. If I had done anything like what Oliver did in this sequence, I’d have been cooped and toast Toot Sweet! It is hilarious to see a serial defamer, long-term intense harasser of anyone who gets in his way, complain about Mikemikev. I’m not defending MMV. He’s pretty intense. But Oliver is utterly insane and clearly believes he is in charge on RationalWiki. Dysklyver is up to something. This conversation on User talk:Articos, NekoDysk is Dysklyver:

Invitation

Hi, if you aren’t too busy I have some things I would like to discuss which are best discussed in private, regarding your editing here. The IrrationalWiki cabal discord would be a good place, or if you are more stone age you could email me. I would email you, but you don’t seem to have enabled that option. kthx — NekoDysk 01:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve got your email address from Lomax’s blog who creepily lists all your personal information, so I’ll email you. Note that once Lomax gets your personal details he starts creating fake/impersonator accounts, so watch out. Mikemikev does same thing; it’s an old troll tactic.Arcticos (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — NekoDysk 02:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never created a single impersonation account. What Oliver is describing is what his brother does, and maybe Mikemikev does. I am certain about Darryl’s impersonations, which are designed to cause harm to the target, and which often have. (Impersonation socks are designed to create an impression that a person is disruptive. They are especially used against users who have been blocked. An example would be the accounts created above, using my name and the name of my major field. An impersonation sock used my street address, telegraphing that they knew it. (I have never hidden, I have a low-cost nonprofit corporation, and so a public address. I also just filed a lawsuit and one can easily get my address and phone number from it.)

The information about Dysklyver comes from what he published on-wiki. These pages are studies, they collect information. When I posted that information, I informed Dysklyver that it would be removed on request. He has not requested it, and actually gave me more information. Oliver could have obtained the information directly but turns everything into an opportunity to claim Evil Abd.

Dysklyver knows who Arcticos is. I have my suspicions about what he’s about. At this point, I’ll simply say that he is interesting and continue this study.

On February 26, Oliver had gone way overboard, with deleting the page on Defamation that Dysklyver had encouraged and had edited. That could have been an interesting article, the source that Spengler pointed to was quite good.  Oliver was wheel-warring with a series of sysops.

After the conversation above, Arcticos retired and Dysklyver removed sysop.

John66 (Darryl Smith) continues editing.

Desert Heat, see this edit, is definitely Oliver again. Small possibility it is Mikemikev. More likely, Darryl has been stirring the pot on blogs about cholesterol and statin denialism, links to RatWiki articles,  and someone came in from that and used Dinocrisis, not knowing about DinoCrisis (an old and well-known Darryl account). Dinocrisis was blocked and encouraged to register a new account name, and it looks like the choice was Boglin Collector, which is hilarious. I.e., that would definitely be a Smith impersonation, only Oliver, if I have the memes right. Is this Mikemikev? And so what?

Then BoglinCollector (no space) was created for no apparent reason, this appears to be Mikemikev or an impersonator.

Desert Heat also went after Liberosaurus Rex as Mikemikev, and then got whacked by the Edit Filter. CircularReasoning put Oliver’s argument in collapse. Ah, the indignity! Do they know who he is? Surely if they did, they would be quivering in their boots, or socks as the case may be.

No problem, he simply took up as Tremors.

Liberosaurus Rex was blocked, and took up as Defemation Rex. It’s easy to think this is Mikemikev, but I’m suspecting it is someone from the huge HFLC diet community that John66 has been attacking so intensely. Some of them might use the phrase “cultural Marxist.” He is taking on people with resources, this may not turn out well for him. Much more dangerous than what Oliver did. Yes, looking, this is not Mikemikev at all. Those people are not wiki-savvy.

Oranges Oliver. edits re mikemikev, complains about the edit filter. Blocked as troll.

Air_Force_One about mikemikev, this is Oliver. Of course, any of these could be mikemikev attacking himself, but I don’t think so. Oliver really is paranoid, insane.

Mini_boglins classic Oliver name, impersonation or Oliver? If so, poking Dysklyver. Creating many socks was Oliver’s behavior on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Several a day.

Brachiosaurus is obviously Liberosaurus Rex. David Gerard  blocks: (Ban evasion: Mikemikev’s latest weird kick) Maybe, but much more likely a new user refusing to shut up. Gerard has no idea what a hornet’s next Darryl (John66) has stirred up off-wiki.

This is very odd. Bongolian asks Dysklyver what he thinks about Liberosaurus Rex. Dyskyver reveals a great deal. It’s a bit confused, but the Smiths create massive confusion, and Dysklyver’s analysis is better than any I have ever seen from a RatWiki sysop. I only got involved quite recently. Oliver (as Air Force One) says he has never impersonated, and that might be true. I got involved because I came across impersonation socking to defame, confronted it, and then collected information about the issues and was heavily attacked and threatened, and that was all Darryl Smith (now John66, he lies extensively in this conversation). At that point I knew nothing about the “Smith brothers.” For example, I don’t claim he is paid. I claim that he once bragged he was paid, and his brother claimed he was paid, and then his brother claimed he had lied, and that it was all him, and that he had lied to a named person, who would be the contact to an organization that might pay. I report what I witness, which is what I have seen and what I have been told (the latter is attributed, I do not state as fact what I have merely been told). I do not know if what I have been told is the truth, and especially not if it comes from Oliver, who is literally insane.

Dysklyver claims to be aware of “85+ existing accounts.” Setting aside transient trolling and impersonation accounts, I think I could come up with more than that as names. The Smiths have been doing this for years, and anyone who pointed it out was whacked quickly. GethN7, the RatWiki Discord moderator, at one point confronted the Smiths, but eventually gave up, realizing that this was very, very dangerous. Dysklyver may be aware of accounts I have not yet noticed. Darryl, in particular, may partition accounts carefully, and he claimed that he was doing that on Wikipedia. I know more than I’m willing to say at this time. As accounts continue to edit, evidence continues to accumulate and it is actually possible to do much more than guess. Does the RationalMedia Foundation want this mess? David Gerard has clearly been supporting it. What I see is that Dysklyver realizes how difficult the situation is. The whole community has been warped by Smith activity since 2012.

Dysklyver blocked 6 accounts in one session

Continuing:

1972 links to docket for the suit I just filed. Not me! I was not ready to announce it, but obviously someone found it, someone who regularly Googles my name, now, who could that be? Blocked for “legal threat,” by Dysklyver, the weirdest thing I’ve seen him do. I don’t see any threats. RationalWiki is weird. Also 1972 created a page on Abd v. Wikimedia Foundation (deleted), which was just a link to the docket.

What could be the threat? Well, the suit includes Does 1-9, and I suppose someone could think that this was threatening users of RationalWiki. I suppose it could happen, but I doubt that it was 1972’s intention to threaten. I have no idea who that is, other than suspecting a Smith brother, because they are the ones who would be stalking me.

Reviewed to 00:42, 5 March 2019

April 2019

The events of the last two weeks have been amazing. Oliver Smith is banned on RatWiki, and now, in particular, Dysklyver is going back and blocking old accounts with familiar names to any Smith watcher. This is little short of astonishing. Previously, the official RatWiki line was that the RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory was complete bullocks. That came unravelled when Oliver was sued in real life and asked for his articles to be deleted. What he did not do was admit how he had laced them with deceptive “facts.” He did not admit that he had created them to harass, and so the Rats were defiant. They were not to be intimated by legal threats! (But they had not been threatened, that was a Smith story backed up by impersonation socking). Anyway, the blocks:

Why have I bolded DS? Because that was not Oliver, it was Darryl Smith. This account went nuts in early May 2018 with a series of deletions and blocks and wild behavior, and then claimed he had been hacked, and it was then believed that this was by me, and so Bongolian added me to sysoprevoke. But that “hacked” story was all a smokescreen to cover up several blocks and the hiding of various edits where Oliver had revealed that DS was his brother.

Others blocked earlier without being identified as socks of a specific user (and notice that Dysklyver does not specifically say “Oliver” in the block log.)

And Oxyaena blocked as Smith:

A note about impersonation socks.

It is not always possible to distinguish between an impersonation sock and the impersonation target, nor to know with certainty who the impersonator is; however there are patterns that can be recognized.

Any disruptive or trolling account that flagrantly displays identity can be properly suspected of being an impersonation, if an apparent purpose could be to attract action against the possible impersonation target (i.e., against other accounts).

Long-term accounts are rarely impersonators, it is too much work and they are too easily exposed. There are accounts that I know for certain were impersonators, because I was impersonated. That, by itself, does not prove who the impersonator was, but when combined with a long-term agenda of revenge and harassment, beginning before the involvement of any possible “impersonation impersonator,” my own identification becomes clear as to the strong preponderance of evidence, and I have been able to adduce technical evidence on occasion.

 

Oliver desperate

The chickens come home to roost. After writing many times that he was not active on RationalWiki any more, he created yet another account, which is now news on the level of “Pope Catholic!”

I had identified this account as Oliver from pattern and interests. It was obvious, Oliver most commonly uses account names from his interests in classics.

Aeschylus.

Yesterday (2/7/2019), he filed a series of deletion requests. He also listed on his user page, articles he had created (and articles he claimed were created by others). Here I will look at his claims and behavior, and why the deletion requests would predictably fail in most cases. From his user page (before the removal of one page, indicated in red)

Clarification of some articles I created on this wiki:

Articles I didn’t create but I’m wrongly said to have created by OpenPsych and/or Mikemikev:

Below, I went over each of these articles.

On 7 Feb 2018 I submitted most of the above for deletion requests, and to merge them to London Conference on Intelligence or OpenPsych.

He did. But by not disclosing in those requests his identity and his motivations for creating the articles, he practically guaranteed that the request would fail. He and his brother have done this before. They create massive deception, people believe it. Well-known, people do not like to admit that they were fooled. So all the highly negative impressions created by cherry-picked and misleading evidence, stand, unless the one who created them owns up to the deception and apologizes. Then they might look again. It’s work to clean up a mess like the Smiths have created.

To correct some further misinformation spread by OpenPsych about me concerning RationalWiki:

  • User:Skeptical isn’t me. (US spelling; I spell sceptical differently, also this user created articles I know nothing about and has some user-boxes I don’t agree with.)

Oh, that’s funny! Oliver can say he isn’t Skeptical, but the evidence is fairly strong. Not “proof.” The spelling thing, though, is highly misleading. “Skeptical” is indeed U.S. spelling but British skeptics commonly use Skeptic for the affiliation. I’ve been through this before:  See skeptic-in-user-name/

In particular, as we can see in the lists of articles below, Oliver admitted being SkepticDave. Which demonstrates conclusively that his name-spelling argument is just plain deception.

Yet, with a name like that, one might be excused for thinking that it is one who has created hundreds of socks, at least. From contributions, it remains possible. Oliver has lied so many times and in so many ways, his testimony is meaningless. I will be developing deeper data analysis and I may be able to distinguish accounts, but accounts with only a few edits can be difficult. Basically, so what?

Despite pointing out for years neither of these accounts are mine, OpenPsych still falsely claim they are.

Claims of account identity are generally based on suspicion, and suspicion is not false, particularly given how much of what they suspected turns out to be true. One of the harms done by Smith behavior is that innocent users may be suspected, though in this case, if the behavior is similar, the problem is? As to illegal defamation, which is where it could matter, Oliver has done so much, so well proven, unmistakeable, that whether or not an account with a few edits is actually him or not is of little consequence. Overall, his activity inspired imitation, by both possible friends and enemies. He’s responsible for the consequences of what he did, and being “falsely accused” of behavior by another, that he also engaged in is trivial.

I will look at each of these claims.

Nearly all of these accounts were previously suspected, many with high probability. It is possible that one or even more of the “also edited by” accounts  are not Oliver. I.e., Nissan was an SPA and showed some signs of not being Oliver to this observer. However, he was suspected. Oliver has lied over and over and when he reveals truth he often mixes it with deception. The real problem here is RationalWiki, which by site traditions, leans toward snark and defamation of anything they don’t like, and that opens them to abuse by a troll like Oliver Smith, who, with his brother, Darryl L. Smith, have used RatWiki for that purpose, even when they often claim they don’t agree with site politics.

For years, targets would come to RationalWiki, believing that surely the community would fix problems. They were harassed and blocked and impersonated. If they mentioned who was doing this, when it became obvious to them, they were banned for “doxxing,” but they were freely doxxed by the Smiths, with impunity. RationalWiki is an “attractive nuisance.”

Lists of sock accounts in various locations often don’t discriminate between Oliver and Darryl, and there has been some crossover, i.e., Darryl editing articles of interest to Oliver and vice-versa, increasing confusion. If the transient impersonation and trolling socks are included, they have, together, created thousands of accounts. And then they will complain that some accounts have been incorrectly identified. That can happen when you become known for being a mass creator of sock puppets.

Last year, I suggested to Oliver that if he wanted to clean this up — he was complaining about being blamed for his brother’s disruption — come clean. Disclose everything he knows about his own activity and that of his brother. He chose otherwise. He is clearly under pressure now, because some of what he has done is quite clearly legally actionable, but his efforts to delete, now, will fail. Why? Partly because he has not come clean about what he was doing. He gives weak reasons for deleting the articles, compared to “the whole thing was harassment.” And harassment is what he did, over and over, his brother as well.

So let’s see what else he claims:

    • Richard Haier (created by unknown SPA with one edit) I would assign a reasonable probability this is Oliver. The article was a single edit of an SPA, Kfotfo , yes, but it was well-formed, showing high experience with RationalWiki and reflecting Oliver POV. Certainly it is understandable why Oliver would be suspected. The article was edited by Octo (Oliver) a few days after WikiWomble, who could also be suspected of being Oliver (but probably not), and also touched by CBH.
    • Richard Lynn (created by another sysop, Jinx) I have generally concluded that Jinx is not Oliver. He revealed his real name at one point, which doesn’t matter here. He has some similar interests, but is not as toxic. This article was edited by EvilGremlin (Oliver).
    • Intelligence (journal) (created by another sysop, Jinx) the collapse of possible fringe science into pseudoscience is a general RationalWiki trope. Intelligence is an Elsevier journal and mainstream. Not Oliver.
    • Mankind Quarterly (created by another sysop, FuzzyCatPotato). Yes. However, many edits by Gelzer and Octo.
    • Davide Piffer (created by Mikemikev to blame on me, also note extensive Mikemikev impersonations/trolling on talk page) Created by Gelzer, who certainly looks like Oliver, so if this was impersonation, it was skillful. Also edited by Skeptical, ColonelKurtz, and various trolls. Gelzer also  created and was blocked for a series of trolling accounts like I have seen from Darryl. Only these were attacking Mikemikev. They appear to be a response to similar trolling by IP attacking Oliver. Perhaps Oliver has forgotten what happened, or if Gelzer was his brother, he didn’t figure that out. Skeptical was active at the same time. See the deletion log.  Skeptical deleted revisions calling him Oliver and retired. Why? Obvious. Because he was Oliver. Less likely, his brother. I went back and forth on that for a time, but have concluded that Skeptical was indeed Oliver. His interests were Oliver interests, clearly, with a little crossover.
    • Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær (created by Mikemikev to blame on me; Mikemikev was blocked as article creator) Actually, no, not for that reason. The creator was Schizophreniac, who had an edit August 9, 2018, to an article of Oliver interest.  The creation of the page was revision-hidden by Aeschylus, very odd. See Aeschylus logs. Very busy with Oliver Smith agenda. However, Schizophreniac also created an article, which Oliver (Aeschylus) just salted to prevent creation, Oliver Smith. He was blockef for that, not for creating the  Bjerrekær article. The Oliver Smith article does not reveal anything new about Oliver, and seems like what Oliver might write as pseudo-criticism of himself. The creation of an article like that, on some blog or internet figure, is routine for RationalWiki. So why was this so important that David Gerard personally blocked Schizophreniac as a rare action by him? I’ve seen plenty of material apparently written by Mikemikev about Oliver. This did not look like it. What I’ve seen is evidence that Gerard has been protecting Smith, as some Smith socks have been protected on Wikipedia. Attack dogs. This is more or less the Rome Viharo theory. It’s plausible.
  • Robert Plomin (created by unknown troll, whose edits I mostly got reverted) Maybe.  Created by Jean_Lusaz. Lusaz’s edits seem fairly ordinary for RatWiki. His article on Brain size is almost untouched. However Lusaz created Kathryn Paige Harden, rather promptly deleted. It was indeed pretty vicious, like many Smith articles, see the Talk page.  Chicken coop? Yes, here. Immediately reverted, but then acted upon. RatWiki is downright weird. Was Oliver Concerned? Could be. That would explain the comment about getting the Lusaz edits reverted. The content of User:Concerned was “The hereditarianism and related articles are being destroyed by CBH (aka Jean Lusaz).” Both are Ratwiki user names, which would not be doxxing, but it was deleted as such. This edit of Concerned was bragging about a RatWiki article hitting the news, which Oliver has done before, and it was his article on Noah Carl. He similarly promoted the Emil Kirkegaard article to the media.
  • Eric Turkheimer (created by unknown troll and after I complained – the article was rewritten since it read as a parody…) Created by CBH, attacked by Concerned. Certainly could be Oliver. I’d guess not, but I keep looking. Often evidence appears later. I don’t see where Oliver complained. As whom?

Why is Oliver revealing his accounts and requesting article deletions? There is an obvious possible cause: legal heat. Yet without revealing the full story, he will not protect himself, it is going to be difficult even if he does tell the truth. Spend years attacking people, harassing them, defaming them, cleaning it up is not a matter of a few minutes editing.

Update

Oliver Smith wrote a biography on himself, describing himself the way he wants to be described. It was deleted as harassment. Then, as Aeschylus, he salted the page, protecting it as deleted. Of course, any sysop, realizing that Oliver is much more widely known in the internet than most the subjects of the hit pieces he created, could recreate the article and add to it the usual snark.

Aeschylus (Oliver D. Smith) has been desysopped and indef blocked on RationalWiki by Dysklyver.  Whenever anyone touches a Smith account, I suspect it could be a Smith brother, at least I look. (And Smith accounts have blocked Smith accounts.) Smith brother accounts are normally easy to spot. Dysklyver is not a Smith brother; if he is, it would represent an extraordinary efort, very, very unlikely. I have techniques for comparing accounts. Dysklyver is a known Wikipedian, banned and globally locked, which is not a criticism. After all . . . .

Oliver wrote an article about himself. A copy can be found at http://archive.is/HKZyR.

Just to put this somewhere, Dysklyver is openly Arthur Kerensa, see Steward lock requests. His formal Wikipedia ban. He claims to be a lawyer, and what he did with Aeschylus would match that. However, he did not warn Aeschylus that continued socking could be a problem, and the fact was that a sock immediately appeared, Roberts (attacking a user who commented based on information that probably came from this blog, being obviously Oliver).  The block reason:

21:08, 12 February 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) blocked Roberts (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages: Probably Mike)

That’s totally preposterous! Anyone who knows Oliver’s habits and history — and with a little knowledge of Mikemikev — would know this was not Mike, unless he was doing long-term, very sophisticated impersonation, and if so, why would he waste the account just to attack that user? It makes no sense at all, whereas Roberts wrote exactly like Oliver Smith has been writing for years.

Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Dramatica, dealing with another avalanche of vandalism based on a scene that is connected with Oliver Smith, but I never figured out how, the Donny Long mess, has been set to disallow new accounts for some time. But that didn’t stop Oliver.

Bumblebee

How did he do it? Easily. He has sleepers. This one registered 7 January and made several edits the next day, then no more until the 13th February.  The blocking admin, I noticed before, blocks him but leaves his edits in place. So what Oliver did was to ask for pages to be deleted, but while waiting, to add more defamation. Does he actually think this will do him any good? The additions show his intention is still to defame, and he knows the removals won’t happen. The same happened on RationalWiki, with Aeschylus and Roberts.

Old version

subpage of rationalwiki/abd-ul-rahman-lomax/

Work in progress

This is a review of the revenge article written about me on RationalWiki, by a sock of the user known to Wikipedia as Anglo Pyramidologist. I am here commenting on it. At the time that this article was written, I had (from many years earlier) sysop privileges on RationalWiki, which were nearly useless. I had given up on doing any serious work on that wiki, it was so overrun by trolls and contemptuous pretend skeptics. It was a place where some users from Wikipedia would come to freely express how they thought, showing how depraved they actually were, depravity that would get them blocked in most places (and some were administrators, and they would face desysop on Wikipedia if they were so free there). Snark reigns on RationalWiki. It’s a policy, effectively.

The RatWiki article has been extensively revised, almost day-by-day and blow-by-blow (someone is definitely obsessed) and I intend to supplement this coverage.

The material here was copies from the version of 3 December, 2017.

I have edited the links below (to notes) to point to that version, because later revisions make mincement of the links.


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax[1][2] (a.k.a. Daniel Lomax or User:Abd) is a Muslimconspiracy theorist and crank who is a proponent of pseudoscientific cold fusion.

Lomax has a history of being banned on forums and wikis for trolling.

Lying from the start. Yes, Muslim, I hope. Conspiracy theorist is a lie, created by the troll who started this article, and maintained by a series of sock puppets. Identification of sock puppets is not “conspiracy theory,” though it is a theory of sorts. Evidence? Fake skeptics don’t care about evidence! It exists and has been heavily documented by me and by others (some is private information, which may be revealed if necessary). This is being covered on other pages, as well, as, for the WikiMedia Foundation socks, on the meta wiki (because it was cross-wiki socking). Even short of the technical evidence that exists, which is definitive, the duck test is totally clear. Most WMF socks are identified by the duck test.

Crank is opinion. I’m 73, self-expressed and assertive, and that can look like “crank.” Or cranky people, of any age, may consider as a “crank,” someone who is assertive with different opinions than theirs.

 Proponent of pseudoscientific cold fusion is misleading I am a proponent (hopefully, facilitator) of scientific research, published in the mainstream journal system where possible, into what is popularly called “cold fusion,” which was a misleading name from the beginning, for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect (FPHE). It was misleading because there was evidence that the reaction, if real, was not what was ordinarily understood as “fusion,” and there still is no definitive and confirmed explanatory theory, except the simple one I will mention below. Pons and Fleischmann themselves, in their first paper, called it an “unknown nuclear reaction.” “Nuclear” because they were chemists and, to them, this wasn’t chemistry. Others disagreed. More below. While there are “believers” in cold fusion, whose opinions might be called “pseudoscientific,” I am not one. Rather, I have claimed that the preponderance of the evidence is that the FPHE is real, and that it is nuclear in nature, because it has been found and widely confirmed to produce a correlated nuclear product. That is simple science, fully falsifiable (though not easy to test), not “pseudoscience,” except to a pretend skeptic who doesn’t actually understand the words he uses, but knows what is “bad” on RationalWiki.

(Both United States Deparatment of Energy reviews of cold fusion concluded that more research was appropriate. Contrary to popular opinion, they did not reject “cold fusion.” They merely considered that, in 1989, the evidence was inadequate, and in 2004, the panel was divided, but unanimous on calling for more research. So what I am called “pseudoscientific” for allegedly “promoting,” was a unanimous recommendation of a panel of experts.)

As to being banned for trolling, this is a Lie. In fact, the idea that I am extensively banned results from squinting and only looking at a few bans.

I was banned by a cranky moderator on the vortex-l mailing list. It was not for trolling, it was the opposite. It was for responding soberly and carefully to a troll. The ban said DNFTT, for which see Wikipedia.

I am “community-banned” on the English Wikipedia. One might notice that there is no Sock Puppet Investigation case for me there. That’s because, while I did sock for a very short time, in 2011, those socks were not disruptive, except for being block evasion. Except for one, they were self-identified, no need for checkuser. On the other hand, the author of this article, and supporting socks which continue to edit it, has almost 200 identified and blocked socks on Wikipedia, has now a series of globally locked accounts, and most recently has been editing using open proxies, and starting up a new one as soon as globally blocked. And cries about “why isn’t Abd banned?” (This is covered on other pages here.)

I was banned from LENR-forum. That’s not dissimilar to what happened on en.Wikipedia. I confronted abusive administration. Long story. “Trolling” was not the reason. However, before being banned, I was called a troll by … a troll. Of course he will quote that! (That is common with RatWiki hit pieces. Anyone expressing a negative opinion of the target, they are likely to find it and quote it as if a fact.)

 I am not “banned” on RationalWiki. That would take a Cooping, and the last thing AP wants is to call attention to the situation. I could easily sock around this, but instead prefer to document the behavior, here, thoroughly. I don’t need to use that RW account. And if I ever want to edit Wikipedia, I would follow policy to request unblock. There, I have a set of dedicated enemies (at least one of whom is still ranting about me after my being gone for six years, because … I set up an ArbComm case that got him reprimanded. Unforgiveable!  And I set up a case where a good friend of his was desysopped, which is rare for a non-administrator to accomplish)– but I also I have friends with weight. By the Standard Offer, I should qualify. But I don’t want to edit Wikipedia. Why should I?

Counting blocks, and having been very active, I am banned on two forums and two wikis. Is that a notable characteristic? I am not banned or blocked on 483 WMF wikis out of 484 where I have accounts with one or more edits. (There are countless fora besides wikis, where I have participated on occasion and have not been blocked. I am occasionally very active on Quora, with strict administration (and which requires real-name accounts). I’m in good standing and have three million Answer views and 1600 followers. And the troll who created this article is blocked and banned in many, many places, including all the WMF wikis (at least under some accounts). So this is hilarious. 

Contents

Religious views
    Islam
        Numeric miracles in the Quar’an [sic]     Martin Gardner
Pseudoscience
    Cold fusion
    Parapsychology
    Diet_woo
Internet antics
    Catfighting
    RationalWiki conspiracy theory
External links
References

Lack of qualifications[edit]

Lomax claims to have studied undergraduate physics at the California Institute of Technology; he has no degree. He admits he never “graduated from any college or university.”[1][3]

Redundant, eh? However “no degree” is not “lack of qualifications,” it is a lack of certain credentials.  I became engaged in real life, running a community and businesses, having a family, and never went back to ordinary school. “Claims to have studied.” That could be verified, but it is meaningless and useless. I’m not claiming any authority from it, it is dicta, explaining why I could read scientific papers and have a clue, unlike the fake skeptic who wrote the article, who has never shown any serious scientific understanding. He just trolls enemies (which readily includes anyone who interferes with his attacks on others, as I did on Wikiversity), and when he is blocked for it, he simply creates new accounts. The School of Hard Blocks. He’s still not particularly good at it, considering the length of time he’s been doing it. It’s Obvious Obvious, if anyone looks. He also seems not to have learned much about legitimate process, or he is simply lying in his recent edits. He doesn’t learn because he has no consequences from errors, he just grabs a new open proxy.

However, he writes on websites he attended Cal Tech lectures, studying with Richard Feynman (1961-1963), further that he has knowledge of physics.[4][5][6][7]

Right. I sat in the “Feynman lectures,” when they filmed him to make the book. I got decent grades in those two years. I’ve said that I learned how to think from Feynman, that noted safe-cracker, draft-evader (pretending to be insane!) and wise guy who acted like he was smarter than everyone else.

At Cal Tech, at that time, all (or almost all) undergrads learned how to pick locks. That’s a bit of esoterica that anyone who was there, then, could verify.

I have, as one might expect from that experience and continued reading, and, later, occasionally, discussion, with physicists, oral and written, (my Current Science paper was written on invitation by a physics professor), I do have a general knowledge of physics. Any degreed physicist would know more, in general, but not necessarily in special cases where I have specific knowledge that the physicist does not have. I do not call myself a “scientist,” because of the lack of credentials, but I love science and the scientific method, and apply it all through life. But it is not everything, because we need, routinely, to make decisions and don’t have the opportunity for anything like controlled experiment.

He also claims to have taken Linus Pauling‘s freshman chemistry class.[2] Despite, or perhaps because of this, Lomax has previously asserted that formal teachings are unnecessary for him, because he is able to “learn by writing”.[8]

I did, but I only remember what Pauling looked like. After all, this was over fifty years ago. As to learning by writing, what an idiot this author is! To get a PhD, what does one have to do? Read a lot of books? Take tests? No, one must write a thesis and defend it. So I’ve done something like that, informally, and it has been best on fora where there are many truly knowledgeable participants. It is not simply “writing.” It is actually researching a topic, as directly as possible, reading sources, comparing them, and then writing. Not terribly useful on RationalWiki, for sure, except for learning about the depths to which dedicated trolls can sink. And, as well, with some trolls like Anglo Pyramidologist, how to handle this in functional communities, and even in partially-dysfunctional ones, without getting blocked oneself.

Formal teaching can certainly be useful, but is not truly necessary for everyone. The author did not pick up my involvement with the “independent learning” movement, which is, like many of the topics I have engaged in, outside the “mainstream.” I see the results, up close, with my children, who are generally more successful, in ordinary terms, than I. I have six grandchildren and at least one more is coming, and I expect great-grandchildren soon. Crank? Maybe. Winning the game? So far.

Religious views[edit]

Islam[edit]

Lomax converted to Islam in 1970[9][2] and claims to have “become a leader of a spiritual community”[10] as a successor to a popular mystic Sufi named Samuel L. Lewis

He made hay out of the word “spiritual.” It’s been removed, but he claimed this was evidence that I was a “spiritualist.” Different meaning of the word. Very different. He thinks it means the fifth meaning here.  Merriam-Webster falls on its face, though, in its definition of “spirit.” A simple synonym for the meaning I was using would be, indeed, “meaning.” Or “core meaning.” And what is the meaning of “meaning”?  The way I used the word, that is a spiritual question, though answers may or may not be spiritual. Carl Jung, famously in correspondence with Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, said that alcoholism was caused by a lack of “spirit,” or meaning in life. Ah, the world is far larger than AP has dreamed of.

During 1978-1979 Lomax associated with Abdalqadir as-Sufi, Islamic founder of the Murabitun World Movement. He was asked to leave the group, later describing it as a “shady cult”.[11][12][13]

The source doesn’t support that. The “group” did not exist at that time. I have not found a source for the founding of the Murabitun. What actually happened was complex. As part of the sequence, Abd ul-Qadr said, “… then you must leave.” It was quite odd, because the apparent cause was something missing that, in my opinion, was missing from most of his followers, but I spoke about it. I was told, “Don’t worry! Many of the fuqara — followers, loosely — have been asked to leave and a few weeks later, it made no difference. Stick around!” I was horrified, actually, at the idea of ignoring what the Shaykh had said, and I knew a great deal about the history of Islamic tasawwuf (“Sufism”). There was a case of a man who was told by his Shaykh to leave, and he traveled for the rest of his life, staying in a condition of “leaving.” What actually happened in my own life was that entire worlds re-opened up to me, as I was no longer leaning on the hobbit-company of the followers. I did travel. I also contacted the Shaykh later and he gave me his full blessing.

This, quite simply, is not the story that the author of this hit-piece wants to tell. He wants to make it into some kind of humiliation, isn’t being “asked to leave” a sign of something bad? In the ordinary world, perhaps. My life was not quite so ordinary. I’ve been fired from a job and it was the best thing that happened to me. (I’d blown the whistle on my employer committing fraud, and, fired, I was forced to develop and deepen my own design business, which still provides residual income many years later.)

Being banned from Wikipedia was like being released from prison. And on and on.

I did not describe the Murabitun as a “shady cult.” AP is just looking for dirt, not actually reading sources.  

Numeric miracles in the Quar’an[edit]

[sic]

Lomax does not deny the possibility of miracles but has disputed the claims of Rashad Khalifa regarding numeric miracles in the Qur’an.[14][15]

And what is a “miracle”? RationalWiki, in the linked article, gives a definition: miracle is what you call it when something occurs that you can’t explain and you’re too impressed to try and figure out exactly what happened.”

Not too bad, but it suffers from the classic RatWiki mindreading. “Too impressed” is not exactly it. Rather, with a “miracle” we know what happened, at least outwardly. Hey, I got my iPhone back when it was stolen, and I actually made a profit in the affair. However, I also know exactly what I did to get it back, and to make that profit, but it was indirect. Why did it work, it could have failed in a thousand ways? Miracle. All that means is “I don’t know.” I do know that “miracles” like this are common in my life.

However, existence itself is a miracle. That is what fake skeptics don’t see, they often believe that they understand life and reality, when the people who have studied reality most deeply end up saying, in the end, “We know little.” Normal skepticism is “I don’t know, and I’m not convinced yet.” Pseudoskepticism is “I know, and they are wrong.” And often, “This nonsense is not worth looking at,” but, oddly, they may spend enormous effort promoting that it is not worth looking at. Odd, eh? They are actually a kind of believer.

Pseudoskepticism is skepticism that forgets to be skeptical of self (or of group-think).

Concerning Khalifa, Lomax has written:

“Dr. Khalifa’s claims, at best, fall into the category of pious fraud. … Had God intended the Qur’an to carry a code verifying its perfect preservation, he could have done it much more effectively and simply than the complex, arbitrary, and inconclusive ‘code’ claimed by Dr. Khalifa.[16]

I did write that, as I recall. This was Martin Gardner quoting me. The term “fraud” there does not imply that Khalifa knew what he was promoting was false. I knew him. He believed in his own work. But the effect was pious fraud.

He was also involved in a long internet debate with Edip Yuksel on numeric miracles in the Quar’an. The debate was printed in book format in 1995 and republished in 2012.[17] According to critics, Lomax is notorious for ad hominem.[18]

Martin Gardner[edit]

Lomax’s scepticism about numerical miracles was positively cited in a book by Martin Gardner.[16] Lomax cites Gardner on websites so as to prevent himself from being labelled as a pseudo-scientist for his unorthodox views about cold fusion.[19] However, what this actually shows is stopped clock.

My motive and “Actually” is obvious opinion, mind-reading, not fact.

This has nothing to do with cold fusion. It only shows that I wrote some serious skeptical coverage of an idea that Gardner thought worth looking at. My views on cold fusion are “unorthodox” only among the ignorant. They are based on a careful review of experimental evidence, which is science, not pseudoscience, and what I have concluded is fully testable and falsifiable. There is no contrary work in mainstream journals in recent years, and, in fact, there never was; present understanding explains, rather well, work that was considered “negative” over 25 years ago. But there still is no satisfactory theory of mechanism.

And I don’t really care what people call me. I’m going to die in not very long, I’m very aware of it, and “people” can go take a hike. I’m actually a writer and journalist/blogger (not a “scientist” or “pseudoscientist”), and my dedication is to accurate and deep reporting. My expenses are currently paid for that, by people who want the coverage. If my ability to work were damaged by the lies in this article, I’d sue. So far, I have seen no hint of damage. If that changes, I won’t just be writing about it, I’ll be finding a lawyer, though I also have some experience and success with representing myself in court. It might be fun. At this point, this is not a threat, for the reason I explain: no actual damage. That some twit expresses Bad Opinions about me on a no-account web site, I would not even be bothering to respond, if not for the damage this troll has apparently actually caused for others. 

So I’m countering lies with documented research, not simple ad-hominem arguments, as AP will claim.

Lomax might be rational about one thing, but is irrational or cranky about others.

Only one thing? Isn’t that rather unlikely? Now, exactly where am I “irrational?” There are no examples in the article that don’t depend on knee-jerk, ignorant reactions to the name of a field, often twisted badly as presented.

In the absence of evidence for irrationality on any point, the stopped clock metaphor (which I often use) fails.

Pseudoscience[edit]

So consider the RationalWiki definition.

Pseudoscience describes any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that are the marks of true science.
Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as hypotheses, theories, or laws, providing “evidence” from observation and “expert” testimonies, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments.
Although pseudoscience is designed to appear scientific, it lacks all of the substance of science.

Cold fusion[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Cold fusion

In 2009, Lomax was topic banned from editing the Wikipedia cold fusion article for “disruptive editing”. Two years later he was community banned and received an indefinite block.[20][21]

This is only slightly misleading. The author who wrote this has not been “banned” from Wikipedia, but he has caused a hundred times as much disruption there as I was even accused of, and he is indef blocked as hundreds of accounts. I have two, Abd and the one mentioned below that only edited for a short time, carefully NPOV. (I have a few other disclosed socks, that were special-purpose.) 

I was topic banned by ArbComm in a case where the primary cause for the case I filed was confirmed. They often shoot the messenger. Setting that aside, the ArbComm topic ban expired, but by that time I declared a conflict of interest on cold fusion and no longer edited the article in any way that could be considered disruptive. I was then topic banned on cold fusion by the “community,” a process that avoids the relatively careful deliberation of ArbComm. Actually, rereading it, I have been mistaken. The actual ban was issued as a result  of the community discussion and it was cited, but it was actually issued under General Sactions, which is technically an extension of an ArbComm remedy. However, I asked for specific reasons. They were elusive and vague. I think I understand the real reason. An ArbComm majority wanted to get rid of me even before they decided the case I’d filed against JzG. Because that case provided them no excuse, they were looking for one. I don’t know that the banning admin was at all involved in this –and probably not. I asked him for clarification of exactly what was banned, he did not respond. I’ll tell this story in more detail on another page. Always, before, I had focused on the claim that I had disruptively edited meta, but I was not blocked there, and the request I had filed, considered evidence of my “writing too much,” would not have been successful if I had not explained in detail, and it was successful (and remained so, that blacklisting was never renewed).

There were actually two operative bans, then, one on cold fusion and one that was terminally vague, the ban on commenting on disputes where I was not a primary party. When passed, it had a mentorship provision, and an arbitrator actually volunteered to be my mentor. He was told that he could not do this, but that telling was private, not public. Who is controlling the arbitrators? They make decisions in secret, on a mailing list. It was hacked, so the wanting to ban me predating the excuses became public.

The bans were being interpreted to make them more and more strict, and eventually I bailed. I was blocked for some silly business and decided to test what I had proposed for others, at least to see how it worked. And then, when range blocks and revision deletion were rolled out to prevent non-disruptive edits (as shown by many of them, self-reverted, being reverted back in by another user), I created one sock. And this showed part of what I had suspected — this was before that mailing list was hacked. An arbitrator checkuser blocked this account. Based on what disruption? Basically, the older checkuser guidelines and policies were being ignored, to Stop Abd. And then JzG, who had gotten a black eye in the first Arbitration Case where I was a party, proposed a Community Ban. By Ban Policy, decisions are to be made by “uninvolved editors.” That Policy is routinely ignored. Nobody looks at the histories of participants for signs of involvement. So the faction I had exposed in the next case after the JzG one came out in force. There was no real consensus in that discussion, as can easily be seen. 

As well, a community ban from one sock, and a little IP editing, was quite unusual. But I wasn’t “usual.” The faction I had confronted for abusive administration really wanted me gone. (But JzG continues to complain about me, years later.)

I was not invited to defend myself then, which would be normal procedure. I was not even informed that it was happening. But I never appealed. Remember, I had abandoned Wikipedia, having exhausted reasonable due process. I moved on.

Lomax is the owner of the pseudoscientific “Infusion Institute” which he formed in December, 2013.[22] It is not a recognized scientific institute, he is the only member. In 2015, he wrote a paper arguing for cold fusion that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Current Science.[23][24]

Technically, I am the sole officer at this point. Not exactly the “owner” It would be unlawful for me to embezzle funds for private profit. Is there a basis for considering Infusion Institute, Inc.,  “pseudoscientific” ? What would that be? In any case, III is quite well-enough funded, to cover my expenses, and the bulk of funding has come from sources interested in real science. That paper was a peer-reviewed review, which would theoretically be — by Reliable Source policy — golden for Wikipedia. However, there are many such reviews in mainstream journals, all, so far, almost totally ignored when it comes to the Wikipedia article. The RationalWiki article, in spite of the snark, is slightly better.

Current Science does not publish “pseudoscientific cranks” unless, of course, they write a paper that passes peer review. Papers are not generally reviewed based on ad hominem arguments. The review was by no means some automatic rubber stamp. There were two reviews, the first by the section editors, and one of them, a physics professor, had actually invited me to write the paper. The other didn’t like something I wrote, but I managed to mollify his concerns. Then came the standard anonymous reviewer. He really didn’t like the paper! He had all the standard reasons that physicists have for rejecting cold fusion. So I rewrote the paper to very specifically meet his objections. He then helped me write the conclusion, which is what this troll quotes from:

According to Lomax:

Cold fusion is real, and it is time that serious work is funded to study the conditions of cold fusion and other correlated effects, gathering the evidence needed to understand it.[25]

This is clearly a call for scientific research, not “pseudoscience.” Consider: a favorite organization of “skeptics” is CSI, the Committee for Scientific Inquiry. Just how much “scientific inquire” does CSI do? It was founded as CSICOP, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. If the thinking of this troll is followed, CSICOP was “pseudoscientific.” We will see the claim below that “parapsychology” is considered “pseudoscientific, but the subject of parapsychology is and has always been precisely the subject of CSICOP. More on this below.

At least one news report has incorrectly described Lomax as a “physicist”.[26] Lomax has made a number of far-fetched claims, for example he has stated that with further development “cold fusion could supply clean power for humanity indefinitely.”[27]

I am not responsible for the error of that journalist. I have never claimed to be a physicist. Nice find, though, I had not seen that story. Obviously it stood out from among 34 papers for that person. Scientists in the field have told me that the paper is important; it was mentioned very positively in the keynote address by Michael McKubre, probably the top researcher in the field (retained in 1989 and until very recently to investigate cold fusion, through SRI International, by the electric power industry originally, and then by U.S. government agencies, and some others, at ICCF-20 in Japan in 2016.

That is far from a far-fetched claim. In 1989, when what came to be called “cold fusion” was announced, it is said that half the U.S. discretionary science budget was being spent on attempting to confirm the effect. Why would they do that? Precisely because of the possibility I mention. My statement has been taken out of context, as seems typical for hit pieces written by this troll. Here is a fuller quotation, it’s from my fund-raising page (a successful campaign, by the way, I still have money left after the trip expenses, it will last me into next year, when I have several trips to make, to visit researchers and to go to ICCF-21 in Colorado.) 

Cold fusion is a popular name for a physical effect of unknown mechanism, largely rejected in 1989-1990, because of theoretical objections and replication difficulties, but research has accelerated over the years and much more is now known.

No practical applications have been confirmed, but it appears possible that, with appropriate development, cold fusion could supply clean power for humanity indefinitely.  Supporting the necessary basic research, as recommended by both U.S. Department of Energy reviews of cold fusion (or LENR, Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions), has been a major focus of mine for many years.

A paper of mine was published in Current ScienceReplicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio . The work suggested by that paper is under way in Texas, see announcement . It is fully funded.

The situation with practical applications is a little worse than might be implied from what I wrote then. It is very clear now that the claims of Andrea Rossi were fraudulent, which is a story that I spent much of 2016-2017 reporting on.

Now, why would some very smart venture capitalists spend about $20 million (plus legal expenses when Rossi sued them) to find out, definitively, if Rossi had something real or not? The answer is obvious. If it was real, the technology could be worth a trillion dollars, so a few million, pocket change for them! Those investors routinely toss $25 million into LLCs, a high percentage of which fail, but when they succeed, they can make hundreds of millions in profits, and they have built a $2.5 billion corporation this way.

Parapsychology[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Parapsychology

Lomax is supportive of research in parapsychology but claims he is not a “believer” in the subject.

I do claim that. And I am not “supportive of research in parapsychology,” but rather of academic freedom. I would not donate a nickel to parapsychological research, as such. Well, maybe a nickel! But I have worked intensely for academic  freedom for years, which includes the freedom to investigate and study what I might think is nonsense, or at least fringe. Let’s see what evidence this troll comes up with! The language here is strange. Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal. That’s the same as what genuine skeptics seek and do, on occasion. What is the “paranormal”? I think the Rhine Institute might be some authority on that. My emphasis.

Parapsychology is the scientific study of interactions between living organisms and their external environment that seem to transcend the known physical laws of nature.  Parapsychology is a component of the broader study of consciousness and the mind.  Parapsychologists study 5 broad areas: [and then there is a list of topics, being telepathy, clairvoyance or remote viewing, precognition, psychokinesis, and survival studies — i.e., survival after death.]

Crucial word: Seem.

Parapsychology is not a “belief” in the reality of these things, but the scientific investigation of them.  The general term for these areas is the “paranormal,” which linguistically means “beyond the normal.” Paranormal may simply indicate phenomena that are not understood, or it could indicate the “supernatural.” I acknowledge only one nature, not many, so I generally reject the “supernatural.

Do I “believe in the paranormal”? There are many things I have seen in my life that seem to defy ordinary explanations. There is one parapsychological study I have seen that shows an effect that is casually dismissed as a product of using a pseudorandom code instead of true randomization. (Because the effect went away, apparently, when true randomization was used. That is an explanation that is amazing!!! But all this means is that something might not be understood. “Not understood” does not translate to “proven.” Far from it!

If some people want to use scientific tools to investigate the paranormal, that’s fine with me! And there are people interested in this, willing to fund research. The problem is?

He has argued against skeptics who dismiss parapsychology as pseudoscientific and refers to skeptics of parapsychology as “pseudoskeptics“.[28][29] Lomax argues that:

This is a highly misleading attempt to lead genuine skeptics to think I am accusing them of being pseudoskeptical. And Isn’t that bad and therefore this is a personal attack and an ad hominem argument?

First of all, pseudoskepticism is common. Pseudoskepticism is belief disguised as skepticism. I can be pseudoskeptical like anyone else, on some topic or other. The term “pseudoskepticism” was coined for modern usage by Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of CSICOP, who resigned when he saw CSICOP being overrun by “debunkers,” who are certain of their own world-view. A “debunker” is a pseudoskeptic. Genuine skepticism avoids that kind of confident certainty.

So I am here claimed to be saying the same thing as Truzzi said. I’m honored. The troll’s understanding is warped. Parapsychology is a science. What does it mean to be skeptical of a science? There are people who think that parapsychology has not found proof of the existence of the paranormal phenomena mentioned. However, it’s quite incorrect to claim there is no evidence, which is a common pseudoskeptical claim. Rather, a skeptic is not convinced. Not being convinced is not pseudoskepticism. It’s just one’s condition! As to the paranormal, at least most of it, I am not convinced. However, life just isn’t that simple. I’ll give an example.

I was at the dentist, because a tooth had broken and it was being extracted. The dentist was working at it, and getting frustrated. The tooth didn’t want to come out! So I told him to stop, and then spoke to the tooth. “Thank you for being such a faithful tooth for so many years! It’s time to go, it’s okay to let go.” And then I told the dentist he could start again. He did, and the tooth came out immediately. He was astonished! It’s my body and maybe it listens to me as I try to listen to it, and something often happens when I use language like that. This is not “belief.” I did not “believe” that the tooth would come right out.

That is just a story, not a proof of anything. But it’s true, that is what happened. 

Nobody is wrong because they are pseudoskeptical. However, the social context of discussions can be relevant. When someone clearly demonstrates that they are entrenched in pseudoskepticism, which is correlated with a strong belief in rightness and the wrongness of others, I may make a decision to end discussion (just as a skeptic might decide to end a discussion with a fanatic believer. Key term here: fanatic.

What does it take for this troll, who created this article, to be so motivated as to find so many sources about me? And to create a large pile of sock puppets, and to continue massive disruption, even up to just the other day, on the WMF wikis? Strong motivation! I don’t think he is a skeptic at all, he’s pretending and saying what he thinks his audience will approve, using key words that he imagines will get them excited so that they will defend him in his agenda to attack his enemies.

Now, what did I actually say? Let’s look at it. I’m not always right, for sure, and I don’t even accept “right” and “wrong” as generally useful. Statements are ideas and ideas are tools, not reality. What is the effect? Truth is often, with many ideas, unverifiable, but effects can be studied, both personally and socially.

Parapsychology is, by definition, a science.[30]

This is despite the fact the vast majority of scientists consider it a pseudoscience.[31][32]

Those are not contradictory statements. They are two arguments, and both could be true. The first relies on the definition of parapsychology, which is quite old. The second relies on the knee-jerk opinions of “scientists” even if they know nothing about parapsychology as a science. And then we could argue about the implications of these two arguments. Endlessly. 

That was actually a discussion of that exact claim, and was only one small part of the argument. This was a Talk page, not any authoritative pronouncement. Again, it is taken from context. A fuller quotation:

Above, it was pointed out that you are welcome to contribute. However, it seems that you want to do is to accuse an entire field of study of being a “pseudoscience,” but you could never get this through review in a real journal. It’s all popular fluff (which can fly on Wikipedia, because of how reliable sources are defined.) Parapsychology is, by definition, a science.You have not shown that you have understood this. Parapsychology does not assume what you think. To be sure, some students of parapsychology may hold pseudoscientific ideas. However, what is not science is not parapsychology. And then people, real human beings, make mistakes. All science is subject to this.

The Wikipedia article on parapsychology has been a battleground article. It’s not neutral. Parapsychology though, is not “belief in psychics.” It would include the investigation of paranormal psychic phenomena, and “psychic” basically means “of the mind.” But it is then used by non-scientists, not in a scientific way. Is that “pseudoscientific”? Only if scientific claims are made!

He has worked with psychic Craig Weiler in promoting paranormal studies on Wikiversity.[33]

Weller worked on the parapsychology resource, as can anyone. Noticing the RatWiki article on Craig Weiler, I checked the history. Yes. This was an article edited by AP socks. More grist for the mill.

Was I “promoting paranormal studies”? No. I have long been promoting the creation of resources on Wikiversity, where users may study almost any subject at all. In particular, users who have been blocked on Wikipedia, because they came into conflict with other users, can explore topics safely on Wikiversity. 

I set up the Parapsychology resource with this stub. This was in response to off-wiki email discussions, I saw a need. Resources like this draw disruption and conflict away from Wikipedia, that is one of the functions. Sometimes creating a resource on a controversial topic will create Wikiversity disruption, but there are ways to avoid that. Part of this is that the top-level resource in mainspace must be rigorously neutral, hopefully with high consensus.  Hence what is truly controversial is taken down to subpages where they become attributed opinions and personal studies. There is no particular limit to the number of these, and they need not be neutral, as long as attributed and placed within a neutral structure.

The first user to edit the stub was DeanRadin, who appears to have no other WMF edits. But he is the notable parapsychologist, Dean Radin.

Soon the Nobelist in physics, Brian Josephson showed up.  And then Ben Steigmann, a young man who had been blocked on Wikipedia, enthusiastic to do a study of sources. Craig Weiler made a handful of edits to the resource. The information from the troll is radically imbalanced. Anyone with a Wikipedia account can edit the resource, and IPs can edit it too. And many have. There have been efforts to warp it, but all by SPAs, which tend to go nowhere fast. Where they have made reasonable suggestions, they have been accepted. There is custodial supervision, which has not been a problem. Wikiversity runs on consensus, something that trolls hate.

Diet woo[edit]

Lomax is an advocate of the Atkins Diet, a low-carb fad diet that most of the medical community have rejected as quackery.[34]

An “advocate of the Atkins diet”? I have generally followed the Atkins Nutritional Approach since roughly 2005 or so, as I recall. I looked now at the Wikipedia article. It’s hilarious.

Although the commercial success of Atkins’ diet plan, weightloss books, and lifestyle company, Atkins Nutritionals, led Time to name the doctor one of the ten most influential people in 2002,[1] there is no good evidence that his diet is an effective approach to weight loss.

The sources cited for that final claim do not support the claim, it is synthesis, a common Wikipedia editor fault, where an editor reads what they believe into the source.

The reality is that the Atkinis approach was not particularly new. And when I talked with my doctor about diet, he went into his office and pulled out a book from the 1920s, that recommended a low-carb diet for type 2 diabetes. Nearly every medical professional I talked to said that the “Atkins diet works.” What that Wikipedia statement overlooks is that there is “no good evidence that” any diet “is an effective approach to weight loss.” Key word may be “diet,” which implies restriction and some kind of deprivation.  However, there are principles, and the subject is far more complex than this troll could possibly understand. Gary Taubes recognized the situation and started writing about it. For those that don’t know Taubes’ history, he wrote Bad Science, an extensive debunking of cold fusion. Best book on the history there is. He was a bit narrow-minded; the real evidence for cold fusion being more than pathological science was not covered in his book, was not published in a peer-reviewed journal until around the time the book came out. But he works hard, and he identified the “scientific consensus” on the cause of heart disease and obesity as … Bad Science, and then he wrote several books and articles on the topic. Atkins was a hero. The statement “there is no good evidence” is only arguable by deprecating the evidence that does exist, claiming it isn’t “good.” But what is better evidence? and in the real world, we need to eat most every day. It turns out that there has been very little truly “good” research. Mostly “nutritional science” is a pile of commonly accepted opinions, not actually scientific. Taubes started the Nutritional Science Institute to fund and facilitate good research. That’s what someone interested in real science does. I’ve been in contact with him and he is an inspiration. And his is not a fanatic Atkins fan. He simply knows that for many people, it works. But what are the long-term effects? Nobody really knows for sure; people vary greatly. I’m finding that losing weight now, at 73, is far more difficult than it was fifteen years ago. That seems to be a common experience, it has to do with metabolism, and Atkins was looking at metabolism, as did Taubes, later.

In any case, the RationalWiki article on Atkins does not dismiss it as “woo.” This is simply the troll trolling. What “woo”? A very low carb diet, shifts body metabolism, it’s quite striking to anyone who tries it. One starts burning fat instead of glucose. (The body still can make some glucose even with practically no intake, but burning fat, after a few days, is quite a different experience than burning carbs. In particular, the body has high fat stores, and my experience is that I don’t get hungry, even when I don’t eat. I still have an “appetite,” but it is no longer hunger-driven. So you will see some critics “explaining away” how Atkins works by “appetite suppression.” Is that a problem? And I enjoy food enormously. Just not, usually, high-carb foods. I might eat a baked potato once in a few months.  (Like Atkins.) With lots of butter and sour cream. Yum!!! Eating fat with carbs slows down the digestion — as does fiber. Atkins is not a “high protein diet,” as some think.  It is low-carb, moderate protein, and high fat.

And, yes, Atkins was called a “quack.” But … that has mostly disappeared. Science moves on. The RationalWiki article claims that high fat low carb diets “work,” but are “dangerous.” I have seen no evidence for the danger for people without other severe health problems. The “danger” has to do with ketoacidosis from, not an LCHF diet, but a high protein diet, which the RatWiki article has confused with low carb. I monitor my ketone levels with test strips, sometimes. I have never seen anything more than “benign dietary ketosis.” 

The source for my being an “advocate of the Atkins Diet”? Hah! Wikipedia, a talk page edit from 2005, my third Wikipedia edit, when I had just learned about and started following the Atkins approach. (and lost 30 lbs, easily and quickly). This troll really worked hard to make his case. (at that point, I didn’t know how to sign comments…. then I tried to construct signatures manually, then, forehead slapped, I noticed the signature button….)

That edit was a report of my early experience with Atkins. Is that “promotion”? I can read that today and feel reasonably happy with what I wrote. Apparently, the troll believes that describing one’s own experience is “woo.” Yeah. This is someone who lives a very constricted life.

Internet antics[edit]

Catfighting[edit]

Lomax is a forum troll. He tends to pick fights with users until he gets banned or gets bored (and then rants about why he is leaving forever and ever). Wikipedia, Lenr-Forum and Vortex-L banned him after he insulted other users and fought with administrators.[35]

As I point out above, I have rarely been banned, and never for trolling. I have also rarely declared LANCB. I did,. more or less on RationalWiki, with few edits after that, until the disruption of AP appeared on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and meta, and I tracked some of the accounts back to RationalWiki, and then Marky, there, an obvious AP sock from many signs, including technical evidence, created the article….

Wikipedia, LENR Forum, and Vortex-L did not ban me for the reasons given. The first source he gives is a post of mine covering users banned on LENR Forum. It does not cover the claims. That was written after I was banned, so what is there could not have been the cause of the ban. Then he points to my last post before “leaving.” In that post , I announced that unless the problem of arbitrary deletions of content with no way of recovering it was resolved, I was boycotting the Forum. That was not actually “leaving.” I was then promptly banned, with no explanation. Complaint about moderation practice is common on LENR Forum. However, the particular moderator is knee-jerk reactive. I do not know if it was him who pushed the ban button, but I do have a friend who is an actual administrator there who told me that the staff situation was, I think “hopeless” was the word he used. Long story. I was, at the time, one of the most active users, and users have done far worse than I (that “rant” was not even offensive) and, if they are blocked at all, it is normally only for a short time. “Permabans” are very rare. I think in the review there were two, and they undid the other one. No, the cause of the ban is quite obvious: it was personal.

(The arbitrary deletions stopped. So I would have returned to posting. But … in spite of user requests, the ban was never undone. A good deal of the blog content is commentary on discussions on LF. That works for me. I know that some of the best LF writers read the blog, because they comment there and sometimes refer back to it. For a time, right after the ban, LF would reject all referred content requests from CFC. I simply set the site to not provide referrer information. And LF admin apparently realized that this was dumb, so it was fixed. But that took an admin with domain access, showing that someone on high was supporting the ban. Clumsily. It merely made them look stupid. LF moderation has improved somewhat. But it is still relatively useless for building content. Discussions become monstrous, essentially unreadable, with no way of refactoring or organizing access.)

Wikipedia banned me for a single sock (which violated the cold fusion ban, though not disruptively. The sock identification did not arise from any noticeboard or SPI request. It was by an arbitrator using checkuser, without a request. That’s what I was looking for, among other things, evidence of bias. Later, the ArbComm mailing list was hacked and published in part, on Wikipedia Review, and revealed more. That’s all ancient history, and being banned helps keep me from being tempted to waste time rolling the boulder up the hill. 

The Vortex-l ban was by the single owner of that list, who had been totally absent when there was extensive disruption by a user also banned. Others had insulted this user, not I. I had responded to the user’s claims, examining them in detail. So the reason for the ban was DNFTT. I had actually phoned him to attempt to get his attention to the situation. He shot the messenger. Funny how people do that, sometimes. When he saw the situation, he shut the mailing list down. So I created an alternative list (newvortex) for when the regular list was down. (it had been using a very unreliable host). That list proved very useful for a time. However, with the first LENR Forum ban (before the “permanent one” — which was undone with an apology — I had created the blog, which is far, far more useful.

On October 4, 2017 Abd attacked a skeptical Wikipedia user “JPS” on his website and posted personal information about this user. In December 2, 2017 he was warned about harassing Wikipedia users and he removed his slanderous article.[36] Similarly, he joined the Thunderbolts woo forum to complain that astronomer Joshua P. Schroeder (JPS) is a “pseudoskeptic”.[37]

In the notes, AP refers to an archived copy of the article. I am removing that link here, because if this article is harmful to JPS, and if it is not necessary at the moment, it should be taken down. I can always restore that content if needed. It is not an “attack.” The title of that thread is “Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia.” I did not “complain” about JPS. I simply documented his Wikipedia name changes, and where he had gone with his career, which included changing his name in real life, apparently. JPS has long attempted to cover up his identity, and claims to have been harassed in real life. I have not harassed him and do not support harassment. However, he is continuing to edit Wikipedia in similar ways as before, and I decided to clarify his identity. When AP started pointing to the page (which was private when written, and only made public about a month later; when a post is edited, the date does not change.) What happened on December 2, was that AP started pointing to the posts, on WMF wikis and in the RW article. And he archived the posts. In other words, if this was harmful (which is questionable), AP, the one writing here, made it much more difficult to fix.

“On December 2, 2017, he was warned…” is passive. What was the action, i.e., how was I warned and by whom? What happened on December 2 relating to this? See the AP IP sock activity in the meta study that AP has been attacking (and the RW article was obviously an attempt to retaliate for that study)

117.20.41.10, began attacking Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia. This user revert warred on my meta user Talk page, but  the IP was then globally blocked, at my request, as an open proxy.

Immediately, 117.20.41.9 took up the cudgel, and trolled me, December 2, this would be what he calls a “warning.” Because that post linked to an archive copy of my description of JPS accounts and activity, I requested that it be revision-deleted, but that wasn’t noticed when a steward removed a later post from this IP, as part of globally blocking it. Because I may eventually make sure it gets rev-del’d, I’m copying the content here (with the link removed)

Your abuse and stalking of skeptics

You have been doxing and stalking a well known skeptical Wikipedia editor and old friend of mine on forums [8] [link removed] and on your personal blog. He has now changed his Wikipedia name [9] [link removed] because of your abuse. Don’t worry he knows you have been doing it. Won’t be long until you get in trouble. You seem to spend your entire existence attacking people on the internet just because they are skeptics. This is uncalled for and harassment. There is no need to stalk people and try and get their personal details. It is creepy. Btw your best friend Ben Steigmann is a self-admitted anti-Semite. Do you hold extremist views yourself? 117.20.41.9 (discuss) 04:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have kept the link to the alleged admission. Steigmann has apparently admitted to being anti-Semitic in the past, and while I have not investigated that history, my impression is that he is a target precisely because he changed his position. From AP’s point of view, he would be a traitor. But that is speculation. I have had no interaction with Steigmann that would indicate anti-semitism. And it’s completely irrelevant, but this is simply AP doing what he does most commonly: trolling, accusing, blaming, and asking questions with incorporated assumptions. He substitutes “is” for “was,” and, in fact, this is common in the many articles he has created on RationalWiki. His allegations about my alleged “diet woo” are based on discussion in 2005, but presented in the present tense — and that post itself did not support his claim. To express an opinion, casually, as I first was learning about a topic, isn’t the “promotion” he claims.

Notice: “Forums.” He cites one, though an archive.is copy. “Stalking” has a meaning on WMF wikis, and I have not done that. I actually have not followed JPS editing, just his name changes and real life information, created by him. Nevertheless, I recognize a legitimate concern and so I immediately took action to take down the material, such as I could. I could not, however, take down the archive.org copy immediately, without harm. I requested that the thunderbolts forum delete my two posts there. Emailed JPS, through his new Wikipedia account, helpfully pointed out to me by this troll — I did not know it, because I have not been stalking him — and offered to cooperate in removing all the material. His response was not good, but we are still communicating. He obviously has not taken steps to remove references to this alleged “doxxing” from WMF wikis (and I could also provide him with a list, that is easy for me, but I’m not going to do it unless he asks. Preferably cooperatively instead of with blame. Does he want it fixed or not? Telling me it was unethical to post the material doesn’t encourage me to support it being taken down, but high skill in interpersonal relations is not his strength.

The Archive.is copy is time-stamped 30 Nov 2017 02:36:09 UTC. From RationalWiki contributions, a new account, Astrophysics, first edit was at 30 Nov 2017 02:38 to the article on me, and he linked to the archive.is post at 02:44, 30 November 2017. Conclusion: Astrophysics is the user who archived the Thunderbolts post. I have other technical evidence linking the open proxy IPs to archiving, and technical evidence also leads to other AP socks. From the content and time-coincidence, This is all one user, or, alternative hypothesis, there are multiple users closely coordinating. I find this quite unlikely at this level. The two brothers hypothesis is possible.

This is standard AP behavior, attempting to stir up enmity between users. There are many examples.

Basically, the Thunderbolts post had this on “pseudoskeptic.”

All this information (and more) is available in public documents. Schroeder is one pseudoskepic out of many, why has he aroused such outrage? It’s easy to see in his Wikipedia interactions. He did not just argue for following Wikipedia policy, he argued massively and at length, over many years, against neutrality policy, and he clearly violated policies to oppose other users, especially civility policy. He stirred up conflict, often trolling others into reacting and then being blocked or banned, thus warping the consensus process by which Wikipedia hopes to achieve neutrality, and I know of an example where the damage was truly enormous, with a possible lost opportunity cost from delay in recognizing old errors could be a trillion dollars per year. Or maybe not. Those are questions that are being resolved in time, and how important Wikipedia is in this is questionable.

(JPS was site-banned for quite some time for his policy violations, and how he came to be unbanned is quite interesting for those who want to understand Wikipedia politics. However, the post was not, more than making some claims that could be documented, but weren’t, that are mild compared to what AP has done, over and over.)

Abd’s original article that attacked JPS was entirely changed. In the new post, he now blames another skeptical user for archiving his original blog post, claiming this is ‘harassment’.[38]

Skeptical user of what? In fact, I simply report that there is clear technical evidence pointing to AP socks as having archived the material. It’s remarkable. I made a supposedly improper post. So I removed the allegedly improper material, not because I was warned (that was not a warning, it was blame and attack).

Archiving allegedly doxxing posts so that they cannot easily be deleted is a form of harassment. However, his intention here was not to harass JPS, whom he claims is an “old friend.” (JPS claims to not have any idea who he is. But, essentially, if that’s true, JPS has not been paying attention.)

The intention would be to harass me, and that is obvious from the edits of the IP on WMF wikis and AP socks on RationalWiki. He is attempting to stir up support for an attack on the Anglo Pyramidologist documentation, and he obviously was quite upset that I turned his links to my blog post into exposure of his activity, but he tries to make hay with it. Of course, I have archived the meta documentation. I have mostly avoided linking to it, but it is becoming a far easier way to refer to WMF disruption by these socks, than other alternatives. I would move it here if necessary. AP is attempting to bully his way out of the mess he has created. His reputation is that he never gives up. We can see that with the recent IP edits. When blocked, he simply created a new open proxy, and made no attempt to conceal this. Five open proxy blocks now. He did that with registered accounts, blatantly vandalizing and attacking. I’ve lost count of how many of those.

Now, this is about the CFC copy of the material. Yes, I edited it. It’s a WordPress blog, and when a post is edited, the original post date is kept, which was actually about a month before I made it public. That archiving also created technical evidence that leads, once again, to a single user (as defined on Wikipedia, which can include more than one person sometimes) creating all this mess.

RationalWiki conspiracy theory[edit]

Lomax was perma-banned from RationalWiki for doxxing and trolling.[39] He now uses his personal blog to spread a paranoid conspiracy theory and misinformation that a group of RationalWiki editors who live in the same house (yes, you read that correctly) created and edited his RW article.<https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax&oldid=1899980/#cite_note-40″>[40]

Lying, again. He is talking about this study, covering obvious Anglo Pyramidologist socks on RationalWiki. (It is possible that some identifications there are incorrect; however all of these would appear in a normal Wikipedia sock puppet investigation as suspected. Some are completely blatant.) I have technical evidence in a few cases, however, mostly, that is not being published to avoid informing AP of just how obvious his behavior is, once one knows how and where to look.

The word “house” does not appear on that page, and the page is not doxxing, in spite of claims by AP. It is routine for AP socks to doxx others. A new account will appear on RationalWiki and immediately, an AP sock will announce the real name. Examples abound. Occasionally, a non-AP sysop will block. Usually not. It is accepted behavior. But if someone does less than that — pointing to evidence of sock puppetry, which is not doxxing — and if it is against an AP sock, they are often blocked, and many examples, again, could be shown, not just mine. Some of these have told a story of a family and mentioned a house. I have not. I have, instead, elsewhere, pointed to the fact that Wikipedia checkusers may identify as a single user, more than one person if they are accessing the internet in the same way. And AP socks have claimed to be brothers. But that is all what AP would have in mind. He did not find it on that page.

A more recent version (than when I was banned for “doxxing” here) has this:

There are indications or claims that more than one person is behind the AP socks. It would also be easy to imitate them (though not so easy to get steward/checkuser identification). There is much information — or misinformation — on the internet about the AP socks, and about the supposed “Smith Brothers” behind the family. What is happening on RationalWiki is that what is totally obvious is effectively banned there, but quite irregularly. AP socks are tolerated for an obvious reason: it serves the purposes of those who dominate that wiki, and that is the same reason why behavior by some on Wikipedia is tolerated. so when a target user comes to RationalWiki and points out the obvious obvious — and the socks will create a huge ruckus so that it is truly obvious — that target can then be sanctioned for “outing” or “doxxing,” whereas outing or doxxing from the AP socks is routinely tolerated.

I have not been “permabanned” from RationalWiki. I am indef blocked by one user, on the face, Skeptical, about which see this study. This is blatantly an AP sock, as was Marky, who created the article on me. I also have technical evidence on Marky. I’ll let him worry about what it is. I will provide one hint,. because it may help show others the scope of the AP socking. Marky used IP 86.14.2.77, which geolocates to what others have claimed is his location. He used that IP to edit Wikipedia, with AP obsessions. Also RationalWiki, the same. 

He was blocked on RationalWiki for “legal threats.” That was actually an error, he wasn’t making threats, he was pointing to one of his enemies who has been claimed to be making legal threats. However, the contributions display shows the obsessions. A steward blocked this same IP 02:49, 15 October 2017 for “long term abuse.” The abuse is not obvious from Wikipedia contributions. From the steward’s log, however, the steward was looking at the recent AP sock barrage, blocking this IP immediately after locking a typical AP disruptive sock,  Stop old metally ill internet stalkers in their 70s from internet acess. The steward also blocked, the minute before, Skeleton Bone, obviously another AP sock from the name and from the steward action (lots of AP names are “creepy,” like Goblin Face. Skeleton Bone was never used to edit. 

AP does not spell particularly well. Stewards will not associate user accounts with IP addresses, it’s privacy policy. But often one can discern the intention.

As to “doxxing” RationalWiki has a definition, linked by the author. It is decent. What I have done does not meet the definition, as I have generally pointed only to anonymous accounts (Including “Anglo Pyramidologist,” not real names or phone numbers, addresses, etc. I have recently pointed to involved IP, as is common on Wikipedia SPI investigations. (But I had not done this then, as I recall, And AP has done this many times there). AP has more seriously doxxed himself, with RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory, created by one of the socks. Discussion of this page was then used to attack me for doxxing, and the page was then deleted, by David Gerard, no less, and he removed my sysop tools, which then allowed Skeptical to block me. I will study this elsewhere. It has wide implications. Maybe there is a conspiracy! But that is not what I have been documenting.

That “conspiracy” page was created by MrOrganic. It was taken to AfD by Marky. AP sock opposing AP sock? They do this frequently. The edits of MrOrganic reveal the topic obsessions of AP. Then the AfD was deleted (very unusual) by Skeptical, and his deletion log is full of deletions for “doxxing.” Doxxing of whom? Him, of course. (But he started by deleting pages created by him, as one of the other socks. Then he went on to the real purpose of the account. He didn’t find everything…. And, of course, he couldn’t stop me here, no matter how much he pounded his little fists. 

Notice that Marky, MrOrganic, and Skeptical, like most other AP socks, simply stopped editing. These socks charge in, fired up, with a clear agenda, no fooling about, make many edits, and then … disappear, as more socks appear. This makes identification a little more difficult, but I don’t need conclusive identification to list a sock as suspected. I’m compiling as full a list as possible because then other analytical tools can be brought to bear. Absolutely, Anglo Pyramidologist or whatever we want to call him, wants to stop this documentation.

He is unlikely to succeed. I warned him, as this all started, that I was like the Tar Baby. Attacking me wasn’t good for the health of the attacker. If he had not harmed so many people, over the years, I’d have simply gone on, but a major factor was also the continued attacks and their insane intenstiy. It seemed he had stopped WMF activity, at least as to what was clearly visible. And then he created the RationalWiki article. He’s drawing fire. Why?

He has claimed he is paid. Who would pay him? There are suspects but I don’t know. He has been real-life-named (by many) but I have no personal evidence on that, only general location. Information from his edits is unreliable, he frequently lies. As an example, see this plea from an AP sock, quickly blocked as an LTA. He was lying, and checkusers knew that. The plea was internally contradictory (as is not uncommon.) He just says what he wants people to believe, it isn’t rational. Or see this plea just before it. Lying, lying lying.

(The latter claims that checkusers will identify all the claimed accounts as one, but he claims to have personal knowledge that they are at least four users. Him being one. I.e., he’s admitting disruptive socking. However, I keep in mind that, as AP socks have impersonated others, others can impersonate AP. None of what these attack SPAs say can be trusted. The AP sock who claimed 700 socks on RationalWiki may have been lying. It might only be a few hundred. I don’t know yet and may never know. I’m only identifying the ones that appear reasonably possible (or sometimes very obvious) from the duck test, mostly.)

External links[edit]

The new AP sock tried to remove the blog link. It was restored by FuzzyCatPotato, who might be a bit fuzzy at times but who has at least one redeeming quality: He is not Anglo Pyramidologist! It would be normal to link to an article subject’s blog.

References[edit]

I am not keeping the jumpbacks. Too much work for too little value here.

  1. Biography: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax.
  2. Abd Profile “Born in 1944, Abd ul-Rahman is not my birth name, I accepted Islam in 1970. Not being willing to accept pale substitutes, I learned to read the Qur’an in Arabic by reading the Qur’an in Arabic.”
  3. Cold fusion/Experts/Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  4. Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, Sat with Richard P. Feynman, 1961-63. I know a *little* about Physics..
  5. sat with Richard P. Feynman at Cal Tech 1961-63, in the “Feynman Lectures
  6. As an undergraduate student at the California Institute of Technology, I studied physics with Richard P. Feynman.
  7. [http://lesswrong.com/user/Abd/ I was at Cal Tech for a couple of years, being in Richard P. Feynman’s two years of undergraduate physics classes.
  8. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/3362-have-ih-let-their-e-cat-license-lapse-by-inaction/?postID=26006#post26006 I learn by writing.
  9. Christian-Muslim Exchange: Islamic Encounters — Part 3
  10. I became a leader of a “spiritual community,” and a successor to a well-known teacher, Samuel L. Lewis
  11. Who are the Murabitun?
  12. Warning about a Shady Cult: Murabitun and Ian Dallas.
  13. http://coldfusioncommunity.net/and-abds-favorite-topic/
  14. The Number 19 in the Qur’an. Bahá’í Library Online.
  15. bismillAhi r-raHmAni r-raHiym.
  16. Gardner, Martin. (2000). Did Adam and Eve Have Navels. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 260-261. Online.
  17. Yuksel, Edip. (2012). Running Like Zebras. Braionbow Press. ISBN 978-0982586730.
  18. Personal Attacks from Daniel Lomax.
  19. As to rational skepticism, I was known to Martin Gardner, who quoted a study of mine on the so-called Miracle of the Nineteen in the Qur’an, the work of Rashad Khalifa, whom I knew personally.
  20. Proposed community ban of Abd from English Wikipedia. Wikipedia administrator comment: “Abd was topic banned from cold fusion-related articles by ArbCom for a year as a result of a pattern of disruptive editing… This topic ban is still in effect, and Abd has absolutely no intention of abiding by it. Abd was indefinitely blocked a few months ago and has since made numerous edits to Wikipedia in violation of that block and his topic ban.”
  21. Wikipedia.
  22. What is Infusion Institute?
  23. Lomax, Abd ul-Rahman. (2015). Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio. Current Science 108 (4): 574-577. (Also check Archive if link is offline).
  24. Articles written by Lomax, Abd Ul-Rahman. Current Science.
  25. Replicable cold fusion experiment: heat/helium ratio. Archive.
  26. Cold fusion is real, claim scientists. “We have direct evidence that the effect is real and is nuclear in nature,” US physicist Abdul-Rahman Lomax of the Infusion Institute in Massachusetts says in his report.”
  27. Cold fusion journalism.
  28. Parapsychology/Dispute over Scientific Status/Abd. Wikiversity. (Archive).
  29. Update May 16, 2016. Also check the Archive.
  30. Archive
  31. Friedlander, Michael W. (1998). At the Fringes of Science. Westview Press. p. 119. ISBN 0-8133-2200-6“Parapsychology has failed to gain general scientific acceptance even for its improved methods and claimed successes, and it is still treated with a lopsided ambivalence among the scientific community. Most scientists write it off as pseudoscience unworthy of their time.”
  32. Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3 “Many observers refer to the field as a “pseudoscience”. When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field’s experiments cannot be consistently replicated.”
  33. Parapsychology. Wikiversity.
  34. Talk:Atkins diet. Wikipedia.
  35.  [1], see also his rant before he left.
  36.  Abd removed the original article but check out the archived [link redacted] versions where the article still exists. Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia. [link redacted] Abd ul-Rahman Lomax.
  37. Joshua Schroeder on pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Thunderbolts Forum.
  38. Abd’s new revised post, written on December 3, 2017. The post however on his website is deceptive as he has kept the October 4, 2017 date.
  39. See his block log.
  40. His blog section for RationalWiki

Skeptic from Britain

Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/

Subpages of this page:

Collecting evidence on the “Skeptic from Britain” obvious Darryl L. Smith Wikipedia sock.

They will claim “there is no evidence,” and then they will claim that I will write “endless words.” In fact, what I write becomes long because I show evidence. I do not always provide links, but if anyone has a question about any assertion (anywhere on this blog) ask. If comments are not enabled on a page, link to the page in a comment on any page with comments enabled, which could include all posts (i.e, what can be seen from the main page, http://coldfusioncommunity.net).

If any page is confusing because too long, comment and ask for a summary. I read all comments. The first comment from a user (which may refer to the email address provided by the user, I’m not sure) must be approved, as an anti-spam measure, but subsequent comments, after one is approved, are automatically approved unless I actually ban the user, which I have never done. Trolls are skewered and served for lunch, not banned. Welcome! Come on over for lunch!

Baseless allegations against [XXX, name redacted]

There were accusations that SfB was [XXX], or [XXX]. (This libel was created by highly suspicious anonymous accounts in the middle of widespread outrage over the activities of SfB. This kind of diversionary tactic was used in the first AP incident I investigated. It is used to stir up enmity toward an enemy, in some cases, or in this case, to make their targets (which would be anyone considered “fringe” by them) look foolish.

(If [XXX] wants these mentions removed, he may comment here, giving a real email address (which will not be published) and I will contact him. The purpose here is to protect him from these false claims, not to increase harassment. But it will be his choice, I would anonymize the references where possible. We should discuss it. Note: he did so request, see comments on this page and on the subpage.)

I do not know [XXX] and have had no connection with him [as this was first written].  My purpose is, as it has long been, to expose deception and impersonation and the creation of conflict through lies.

This is general, not about [XXX]: when someone lies about another whose politics may be questionable, it’s still a lie, and we do not transform the world for the better by lying about anything, nor do we create “hope not hate” by hating anyone; in fact, hating racism, while understandable, is also not going to heal the wounds. Hatred itself is the enemy, and not to be hated, but understood . . . and transformed.

The trolling (or perhaps clueless in some cases) blog comments:

(some of these, since I pointed out the problems, have been deleted by the blog owners):

James 

skeptic from Britain has an Instagram [redacted]

his name is [XXX] . he is a vegetarian SJW, but oddly claims to eat red meat twice a week.

This comment is typical for AP socks (could be Darryl or his brother). They will attempt to create an appearance of hypocrisy. The claims are not evidenced, at all. The instagram page shows no evidence supporting the claim. This is all attempting create an attack on [XXX]. This then is picked up by others, some might be innocent, some are obviously Skeptic from Britain or his brother.

Stephen Rhodes 

Not sure whether this helps but over at fatheadthemovie someone has posted;

skeptic from Britain has an Instagram [redacted]

his name is [XXX] . he is a vegetarian SJW, but oddly claims to eat red meat twice a week.

[SJW == Social Justice Warrior]

That was very fast. However, Stephen Rhodes looks legitimate, simply naive, repeating a story without noting the lack of verification. Isn’t social media wonderful?

Alex Davis 
Skeptic from Britain is clearly the [XXX] guy. The age range and diet matches. Now he has been outed he quickly changed his username as a false flag to detract attention and confuse. Note that Skeptic from Britain submitted Fat Head for deletion yesterday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head. He is clearly angry at Tom Naughton for being outed and wants revenge. I doubt he lives in Manchester, looks like another false flag to me. His editing history matches a US timezone.
It is not clear to me where Darryl currently lives, but he did live in Radlett. He would create, however, many diversions. Naughton had not outed him, rather the trolls had “outed” someone certainly innocent.
It can be tricky to infer location from editing pattern. Notice that non-Wikipedians will not know how to confirm the claim about time zone. This is, again, typical. (Claims without easily verifiable evidence. and anonymous, with nobody to contact to check.)
The current Skeptic from Britain account name is Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 (the link is to archived contributions, there are currently 4622 live edits. (That’s a high rate for the time period involved, though not unusual for someone who has become very involved.) (There are more edits on Commons.)
This is a histogram of edit times (GMT), converted to fractions of an hour:
The minimum edit time is from 3:54 AM to 6:30 AM. Peak activity starts increasing at 1 PM, rising steadily to 10:06, and then falling off after midnight. This is quite consistent with a UK location. For the US mainland, that would be, East Coast, 10:54 PM to 1:30 AM. West Coast, 7:54 PM to 10:30 AM. Far from a typical Wikipedia editing pattern. While it remains possible (someone may have odd work hours and habits), it is quite incorrect to say that edit timing indicates U.S. location.
SfB showed up 12 February, 2018, making classic Darryl edits, obviously an experienced user already. This is not [XXX], at all, but an editor showing a very familiar pattern (Wikipedians should check “Goblin Face,” checkuser-identified. I will do a study of the edit timings, it will take some time (the SfB histogram was easy, but there is a lot more that can be done. I have edit timing for at least one known and active Darryl Smith sock in this period.  At this point, it looks like “Alex Davis” was lying. However, he might simply be mistaken and a bit careless. There is an Alex Davis with an interest in low-carb diets, but, as well, the Smith brothers pick real names for impersonations, it’s not uncommon, and there are no other comments from Alex Davis on that blog. Will the real Alex Davis stand up?
Goblin Face had over 7600 edits in 2014. This chart shows his last 5000 edits, times are again GMT, converted to fractions of an hour:
The match is strong. These two people are likely in the same time zone, with matching edits. Goblin Face was in England, matching the timing of Skeptic from Britain . There could be more found, much more, and again it will take time.
Low-Carb Man 

Because Skeptic from Britain got outed as [XXX] he changed his Wikipedia username and claims to be leaving the website because he was doxed, but he has submitted your Fat Head movie on Wikipedia to deletion, so you must have touched a nerve of his!

You should check Malcolm Kendrick’s blog comments various vegans have turned up to defend [XXX]. This was no doubt an attack from vegan SJW’s and they claim this is only round 1. You were right.

If a vegan is attacked, and vegans show up to defend him, would this be surprising? However, at least some of those who showed up are clearly socks, pretending to be vegan in order to stir up animosity. While there are some vegans who are fanatics about meat-eaters, it’s not normal. To SfB, all fringe believers are to be debunked and attacked, and if he can get them fighting with each other, so much the better! He creates false flag accounts, I’ve seen many of them.

Jacob 
[XXX]– vegetarian fanatic who claims to live in Manchester as of 2018, but there is virtually nothing about him on the internet apart from some old photographs on Instagram. Let’s hope he goes public about all this! If he studies biology like he claims, then he is editing at a university… I wonder what the university is he at thinks about this (!) Editing Wikipedia on their servers?

No evidence of any of the claims.  There is another post by “Jacob” on the blog. Different avatar. What I notice is the assumption that [XXX] is Skeptic from Britain, and “claims to live in Manchester.” Where? The account was named for a few days MatthewManchester1994. I found no claim to be “from Manchester,” either from Skeptic from Britain or [XXX]. So Jacob is either a troll who happens to use a name used before (which can be easy to do in blog comments) or is very incautious. The claims being made would be common for Darryl L. Smith, though relatively mild.

 Low-Carb guy
I think [XXX] is about the give up the game. Check the latest edits on his account MatthewManchester1994 . He says he has been outed by the low-carb community so he is closing his Wikipedia account and never returning.

This is a Smith brother. Skeptic from Britain was a highly experienced Wikipedia editor, with almost 5000 edits and obviously not new when that started. He would know that this announcement would create a red flag for anyone who wants to find his identity. When researching accounts, one of the first places to look would be the last edit. Here it is. No, this was a red herring. However, long-term, the SfB account has created a great deal of recent evidence, grist for the mill.

The twins are the most effectively disruptive users I have ever encountered, in over twenty years of on-line activity. Their behavior will perplex even highly-experienced users. However, they have, over time, been identified and outed, which they richly deserve for behavior such as impersonations (clearly proven) and attack libels against many, and creating harassment for innocent persons, such as [XXX], as far as I can see. Zero evidence to back up the claims. Not even reasonable circumstantial evidence. None. Zilch. Why did they pick him? They might live near him, might know him. They are in their late twenties, but still incredibly juvenile. Or they picked him at random as a “vegan.” [I found another reason, but do not wish to disclose it because it would create breadcrumbs to the real name of this person, but he is not vegan. He was for a time. He is not a fanatic.)]

I will be researching this further. Darryl has, here, created a body of evidence larger than I have seen for some time. He may now be very careful about editing Wikipedia for a time, because it is possible that checkuser would nail him. But there is more, much more. It will take time to review the evidence. Until after his twin, Oliver D. Smith, started trolling intensely on Encyclopedia Dramatica at the end of last month, I had stopped watching Smith activities.

When Oliver accused Rome Viharo of being Skeptic from Britain, I didn’t notice. But when he went to my talk page, where I get email notifications, and effectively accused me of the same, I looked. Wow! It was immediately obvious who Skeptic from Britain was. He obviously wanted me to see that (or he is really stupid in addition to being insane). Why?

Well, maybe he’s angry with his brother, maybe his brother has been angry with him. It happens in families. Or maybe there is some other reason, or no reason at all, maybe he was drunk or actually schizophrenic, as he once claimed.

Conclusive evidence

I have conclusive verifiable evidence that Skeptic from Britain is the same user as Debunking spiritualism on Rational Wiki, which would be Darryl L. Smith. ( a few people think that the “brother” story is just another deception. I consider it unlikely, but I could investigate this if anyone thinks it really matters.) I will share the evidence with anyone with a need to know. (Including WMF sysops or checkusers). Contact me by requesting an email through any comment on this blog (the comment need not use your real name, but, obviously, the email must be yours!) The contact will remain confidential.

(Anyone could find this, one merely needs to know where and how to look.)

Comments continued.

Low-Carb man

Abd Lomax is probably behind the “Skeptic from Britain” account himself.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Abd_Ul-Rahman_Lomax

The above website says he is Skeptic from Britain, it also has a photograph of Kendrick.

Another website claims Abd Lomax has a history of impersonating people

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

I would say this is a scam. Why are you targeting LCHF writers Lomax?

This looks like a Smith brother, but … “Low-Carb man” was just blocked by a Wikipedia checkuser as a sock of Amandazz100. See the suspected sock puppet page. This is a huge mess. Checkusers do sometimes make mistakes. Amandazz100 is definitely not a Smith brother. There is a real person involved: Angela A Stanton. If Ms. Stanton sees this, please contact me. (Leave a comment on this page with a request for email, and be sure to include a real email address. The comment itself may be anonymous.)

(The comment below appears to have been taken down. I replied to it, and that comment also does not appear, which is more or less what I would expect.)

 Wikipedia Astronomer 

I am a Wikipedia user that has been following this discussion as it was posted on the ScienceProject. Readers here should be aware that Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a 74 year old was globally banned from Wikipedia for impersonating people and doxxing them. Over 40 people complained to Wikipedia about this person including the known astronomer, my friend Joshua P. Schroeder.

Did Joshua P. Schroeder complain? How does “Wikipedia Astronomer” know what he claims? I was not banned from Wikipedia for impersonation and doxing. I was never accused of impersonation, and there were no serious charges of doxxing except from … Smith socks and a few friends. What I had done (of “documentation”) was actually approved by a WMF steward, etc. So the ban claim is  a straightforward lie, and this person would know it if he actually knows JPS and how WMF wikis work. (I was previously banned, years ago, from “Wikipedia,” the only WMF wiki with such a ban. The “impersonations” were checkuser-confirmed as a single person, and this affair embarrassed some admins who had made incorrect conclusions about identity. Some may have been more upset with me for exposing the impersonations rather than with the impersonator … who is almost certainly already de-facto banned from Wikipedia, and who is globally locked, an effective ban from all WMF wikis. But they simply create more socks, most successfully using mobile IP.

What is the “Science Project”?  There is a Wikiproject Science, but I don’t think he is referring to it. Rather it would be Wikiproject Skepticism. And there were discussions. This user doesn’t want to call it the real name because he knows how that will look in this context. So he twists the name a little. Here are the relevant discussions:

These edits to the Fat Head AfD repeated the accusation against XXX as if fact. Quackwatch was a red herring planted by a troll account, this is not completely clear I have not researched connections with Quackwatch, but I did see that Quackwatch was cited on Wikipedia as if a reliable source, which it certainly is not, and that would be expected from Darryl Smith. This discussion indicates the alignment of Literaturegeek with the XXX story and other deceptive information. LG is a long-term editor. Darryl claimed to have many Wikipedia accounts “in good standing.”  I have not seen enough yet to do more than raise some suspicion on this point. If Darryl has “good hand accounts” he would likely partition the interests, but, then, might slip and dive into a discussion like this. I will be looking at what will be massive evidence, now. If he is not Darryl, I should be able to confirm it and likewise identity if he is.]

LG shows high familiarity with the arguments being presented on the blogs, and repeats them. This is remarkable:

British sceptics spell sceptic with a letter ‘c’ whereas in the USA it is spelt with a K so even his username is a red flag.–Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a bogus argument, but LG obviously is British! I covered this here.

This is still not enough to accuse LG, but LG being British, does he know how “British sceptics” spell the word? (Hint, they use “Skeptic.”) Perhaps he doesn’t and he’s just making an ignorant comment. Or he does, and he is making a red herring argument that he thinks will fly with the audience, which is Smith brother behavior. It seems plausible until one actually checks. Sources were easy to find, and experienced Wikipedia editors become quite good at that. I definitely see enough to look more closely at his history, and if this is an Anglo Pyramidologist sock, it would be the biggest one ever caught (almost 27,000 live edits, started in 2007(!), was largely inactive for some years, but edited as another account starting in 2014, an “interesting year.” Loose lips sink ships. (There are doubtless other users who support the AP agenda from time to time, so the coincidences here are not enough to establish anything more than mild suspicion.)

Wikiproject Skepticism is one method the skeptical faction uses to canvass, it is how editors who identify as “skeptics” will know to show up for an AfD or other discussion that might impact the factional interests of “skeptics.” Another method is the use of the Fringe theories noticeboard, which the pseudoskeptical faction uses like a chat line. I’ve seen it used to create biased participation on another wiki, which would be totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. That faction is emboldened by years of being able to violate policies with relative impunity.

The Kendrick article would be a Biography of a Living Person. It is not a science topic, not really in the scope of the Wikiproject, as stated. But the skeptical faction wants to make sure that everyone knows that so-and-so is a quack, etc. The deletion issue for a BLP would solely be the existence of independent reliable sources, and that can be a bit complex to a noob. It does not mean “true sources.” It’s complicated and arcane. For science articles, there may be a weight on peer-reviewed and academic publications, but for biographies, coverage by a newspaper, for example, is adequate. Most blogs are not adequate, etc., but some might be, if they have serious editorial review.

So they canvas, but if someone not part of the “in crowd” on Wikipedia discusses a deletion, that’s “snails and worms.” To be sure, outsiders coming in will often be clueless about what the issues really are….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd

When a user is office banned, that notice will often be put on the user page.  It says that questions should be referred to “trust and safety.” The only notice to the user is a single email, if the user has email enabled. It gives no reason for the ban, and it states that it is not appealable. There is no warning that a ban is being considered and no opportunity or process for correcting errors. So why was I banned? This user says it. “Over 40 people complained.” That is a larger number than I have heard before. Oliver Smith bragged that he was one, and showed his response from the Foundation. He has long been banned on Wikipedia. I assume that his brother also complained, and he is actually globally banned under many accounts. Did they know all this.

Email access for the user is shut down, because a global lock is simply preventing log-in. But when it was realized that other Wikipedia users could still email the user, they eventually prevented that. In other words, the Office (or locking steward) is also preventing any discussion with the banned user. The community is being censored, not just the user. And hardly anyone notices or cares. This happens in nonprofits, the central authority does not actually trust the membership, because they “know better.” And they might, sometimes, but humans being humans  . . .

Joshua P. Schroeder almost certainly complained. He has often been banned but has nine lives, because the skeptical faction loves him. The page here on his accounts. He came off a self-requested three month block in July 2018. There is story about the history on that page.

JzG would have complained, and the bureaucrat Mu301 (Michael Umbricht) on Wikiversity probably did (he is the one who claimed I was using Wikiversity for a vendetta, though I had moved all activity relating to the sock puppetry of Anglo Pyramidologist off of Wikiversity.) (AP, originally an Oliver account, refers to Oliver and Darryl Smith, though I did not use those names on-wiki, and didn’t publish them until later, after becoming convinced of the identification).

There was a discussion of my Office ban on Wikipediasucks.co.  Two single purpose accounts show up there Catapult and Max. Catapult was banned as a troll. Max was not banned, but only made four posts. Max wrote:

I received an email from the Wikimedia Foundation that they had received “six” complaints of this nature about Abd. Joshua was not the only person to complain. Regards.

The Wikimedia Foundation, by policy, does not discuss global bans. They don’t explain them. We do have a response mail put up by Oliver on RationalWiki. I’ll see if I can find it.

There are more comments from Max there. He is confronted by the obvious variation from policy that I mention above. I had discussed the situation with a former member of the WMF board. I actually thought he was still a member, but he’d left the board not long before. He told me that what I had actually done would not be considered harassment within the meaning of the Terms of Service. He was wrong, except … the complainers probably lied about what I had done. For example, Joshua Schroeder claimed email harassment, which would have been using the WMF interface originally (but not in later emails). In fact, the communication was voluntary and he never requested it stop. But the WMF could see there had been an email, thus they might consider the “harassment” claim plausible. In fact, I published those emails when Schroeder complained about harassment. Did they look at those? They showed I was attempting to cooperate with him, it was a Smith brother (probably Darryl)  who had really made it difficult to delete the information (which was much more harmless than the Smiths make out), by archiving it in case I took it down. His purpose was not to protect Schroeder, but to attack me. And he announced the “outing” and linked to it on Wikipedia, and he also thereby revealed to me JPS’s most recent name, which I had not known. (I was tracking this IP’s posts. These are Anglo Pyramidologist socks. There is a small chance that there was a third user, geographically located close to the Smith brothers, using the same mobile access.)

The discussion on JPS’s talk page:  You can see there how the plan to complain to the WMF was hatched. None of this would protect JPS in any way. I was not using my WMF account to harass JPS at all. The Smith brothers could complain that I was “outing” them, except, at that point, I wasn’t. The alleged publication of family members was transient, immediately taken down so that only the two brothers showed, and nobody would be able to find the house by what was published of the address. And that information is up elsewhere and basically can’t be deleted. I’ve redacted my copies to even remove the town. Still, what was a single incident becomes “doxes addresses and family members.” These people do much, much more than that. As I said above, I discussed this with a WMF board member, and he did not think I had violated policy.

But these people will use any excuse they can find.

Max went on with more details:

The list of people who sent complaints about Abd:

1. Myself (Public IP 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)

No proof of this one, but it is obvious (I have emailed him): 
6. Michael Umbrecht – (Username Mu301 – Bureaucrat on Wikiversity)

Indeed. Now, which one is Darryl? Oliver is not the person who had created all the impersonation socks on Wikiversity and Wikipedia. It is that person whom I first documented. Most of the socks I listed as suspected were not Oliver. Oliver was accidentally named in my original study, because the name was in a URL. That was immediately redacted and actually revision-deleted. Michael Umbricht suddenly appeared after long inactivity, attacked me and “fringe science” on Wikiversity, blocked me for an action that the other active bureaucrat thought was within discretion, threatened the administrator who also had made checkuser requests on meta over the socking, and went on a deletion spree. And then he disappeared, he has not edited since February, 2018.

Wikiversity was the place in the WMF wikis where science either fringe or alleged to be fringe, could be *studied.* Contrary to the claims of the pseudoskeptical faction, Wikiversity does not have “articles” in mainspace. It has educational resources, which can include student projects. I developed traditions on Wikiversity (I maintained the site for quite some time) that a mainspace page must be rigorously neutral (even more so than on Wikipedia, it must be neutral by high consensus), but subpages could be attributed and, again by tradition, “owned.” I demonstrated with high success how what would have been major edit warring on other projects turned into collaboration and cooperation on Wikiversity. And Umbricht unilaterally declared that “fringe science” must be first subject to approval by a Review Board that did not exist. And, based on requests from … guess who? … he deleted two projects, Cold fusion (which I had not started, but which I had expanded for a time, and which was not active at this point, I had effectively abandoned Wikiversity, realizing it was unsafe, which subsequent events proved) and Parapsychology. I started that resource as a place where Parapsychology could be studied. I am not a “believer” in psychic phenomena, but the Parapsychological Assocation is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The definition of parapsychology establishes it as a science, it is the *study* of paranormal phenomena. It is not a “belief” in such phenomena, except to this extent. Here, read the resource, I rescued it when it was deleted.

Cold fusion was possibly more problematic. I simply wrote most of what was in that resource. It’s huge, many pages. Skeptics participated on occasion. There were debates that resulted in at least one scientific paper being written (by a skeptical electrochemist, by the way). If the mainspace page was not neutral, no skeptic had attempted to make it so. I previously showed how major and deep disputes could be resolved, but I actually abandoned that resource, leaving it for others, and had not made more than trivial edits for some years.

This was obviously not an “article.” But Wikiversity was “neutral by inclusion,” not by exclusion, like Wikipedia. (This is much closer to academic neutrality.) That has been demolished by Michael Umbricht, whereas other attempts to attack the inclusive neutrality of Wikiversity had long failed. There was a documentation project in my user space that had been proposed for deletion. Community consensus was to keep it. Umbricht unilaterally deleted it. After he’d done all this damage, he then disappeared again. This would be the most “reputable” administrator to complain, probably. The other would be JzG, who was highly involved in dispute with me on Wikipedia, and who blamed me for the poor condition of the WP cold fusion article, though I had been a very conservative editor on it (and that was before I actually studied the field and published in a scientific journal on it). JzG was still grumbling years later, because I had taken him to the Arbitration Committee and prevailed. That’s wiki-suicide for most non-admins. Long story, again.

The cold fusion resource had this at the top:

Welcome to the Cold Fusion learning project. The Wikipedia article on cold fusion is here (link).

These resources and seminars may present personal opinions of the writer(s). As the resources mature, controversial statements should be clarified and sourced, and any contrary opinions presented. Opinions expressed as original research, and not as a general consensus, should be attributed. Please help make this top-level resource neutral.

It was claimed that the resource was such a mess that it would be too difficult to clean up. That would be a claim that would show no understanding of how consensus would be reached on Wikiversity. If a good-faith editor showed up and blanked everything in the resource that didn’t look neutral, there would have been no edit warring. Rather, “neutrality by inclusion” does not require agreement on an unattributed page, rather, the page will be stripped to what there is agreement on, and it could have been as little as that introduction at the top. And then the resource would have links to subpages. As one option that was tried (and it worked spectacularly), “sections” would be created. These have a named and responsible section leader, who would (by tradition) have the right to supervise content on his or her pages. Here is an example of where that was done with a highly controversial subject: Landmark Education. That is, in fact, the most important work I did on Wikiversity. Until now, not noticed by the Smith brothers. It will be interesting to see if they now go after it.

Continuing the comment by “Wikipedia astronomer”:

Abd Lomax has been running around the internet for a year claiming that a group of “brothers” were responsible for his ban. It’s all nonsense. His account was banned by the WMF Office, not anyone else. The Wikimedia Foundation have globally banned less than 50 people out of millions and millions of users. Yes they ban many but rarely ever globally ban.

This is deliberately deceptive. First of all, the “brothers” claim was not mine, originally. I had only come to the conclusion that it was correct shortly before this time. Yes, the account was “Office-banned,” but these bans are not explained, and they have banned, for example, critics of the Foundation, or a journalist who had no account (Jake Christie). Office bans are relatively new. I was familiar with them before being banned, pointed out the hazard, and saw them as a slippery slope, that would, for the first time, expose the WMF to legal jeopardy. They attempt to run them in a way to avoid that, but … this has never been tested. Perhaps it will be. There would have been other ways to protect the project without those risks. But oligarchs (often considering themselves simply public servants) almost always opt for the most direct power and freedom from oversight.

This means Lomax did something very very wrong.

What did Jake Christie do wrong?

The WMF office is not allowed to give any details but to those who were online the day he was banned, we all know what he did.

And then he straight-out lied. He was “online the day [Abd] was banned.” Who is he? I think it’s obvious. He’s Darryl.

He created fake accounts of people on Wikipedia then “framed” certain users of this on his personal website, including posting personal information about where these people live.

I created no “fake accounts” on Wikipedia, but someone did. What I actually did was to identify the fake accounts and request steward checkuser, which confirmed the suspicion, and who was behind those accounts? It’s again obvious: a long-time attacker of parapsychology and of any user who interferes with his agenda. One of the accounts with substantial edits would be Goblin face, discovered accidentally by Wikipedia checkuser. The “brother” story originated with one of the early Anglo Pyramidologist accounts. Oliver confirmed it in many places, then claimed he’d been lying, then retracted that. However, there are clearly two personalities involved. There are claims that Oliver is schizophrenic, and so there might be a multiple personality. I doubt it.

Any time someone edits by IP, information about where they live can be created, and the Smith brothers often failed to take steps to prevent this (less and less, recently. If I receive a harassing comment here, it’s normally coming from a Tor node.) In theory, WMF checkusers are not supposed to connect IPs with accounts, but it happens all the time. Yes, I published information available on the internet with the family composition, but I also redacted this quickly. It’s still up in other places. Quickly, it was just the names of the two brothers and their ages and the town they live in. Everything else was redacted. I did ask a former WMF board member about this.

There are two aspects to this: one is that Wikipedia criticism sites often out Wikipedia users, it’s almost routine. I have always taken down extremely personal information, if I ever post it. These brothers have done far more, actually, with the families of their targets, the mother of one critic was actually fired from her job based on harassing email, and the mother of another was doxxed, even though he wasn’t living with her, in a clear attempt to harass through family. Simply showing a listing with names isn’t harassment, unless presented in such a way as to invite attacks (which was precisely the case in the second doxxing mentioned.)

As of 22/12/2018 he is still doing this. He has faced several libel suits, he has been forced to remove things from his website, but he still continues to go after these “brothers”. He says he “100%” knows it is them, but when you look at his evidence it is non-existent.

I have never been sued for libel. It has never been threatened. I have never been “forced” to remove things from my web site, except for one copy of copyrighted material, subject of a DMCA claim. That’s routine.

There is a contradiction here: there is “evidence” to look at, but it is “non-existent.” Which is it? Evidence can be misleading, the Smith brothers are experts at finding it, but “non-existent” is the common argument of pseudoskeptics: “There is no evidence for X,” they will say, when It is totally obvious that there is evidence. They commonly confuse “evidence” with “proof,” and then deny evidence that is even strong enough to hold up in court. “100% knows” is a reference to what I just found. Nobody, as far as I know, ever looked that this evidence before. What is the “non-existent” evidence? I haven’t stated the evidence that created certainty for me, so how would he “look at” it?

When users are blocked on Wikipedia for sock puppetry, the common remark is “See contributions for evidence.” Okay, I claim that Skeptic from Britain (and see Commons and Wikidata.) is Debunking spiritualism (Rationalwiki), see contributions for evidence. DS (notice the initials) is not ODS, who was rather openly Oliver D. Smith. ODS and other ODS socks, often self-acknowledged, have outed DLS socks. DS is Darryl Smith, behaviorally (as is SFB). Behavior is called the “duck test” on Wikipedia.

It’s a lot of work to document the duck test. They usually don’t bother on Wikipedia. Any admin who disagrees can unblock, and then it might be discussed. But the “100% certainty” is not the duck test. It does not depend on, say, point-of-view or other content issues. I’m not revealing how the data is studied, not yet, but he might figure it out, and his first reaction is going to be “Oh, shit!” because he cannot go back and hide. And it would be very difficult to hide for the future, without seriously cramping his style.

His account on meta-wiki that shows it is globally locked.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Abd

Which is obvious.

WMFOffice banned and locked his account on every wiki on the internet, this is exremely rare and only happens in serious situations of abuse.

This is far from “every wiki on the internet, and the lock is only of the global account, that’s one account, and we know that the WMF bans even when there is no account to lock, they just declare it, and in the Jake Christie case, J. Alexander then personally attempted to eject Mr. Christie from a WMF-sponsored event held in a public place where Christie lives, based on the declared ban. He invited them to call the police…. they didn’t. And he was not being disruptive there, nor is there any evidence as far as I have seen that he was ever disruptive. He was investigating, as a journalist. That’s it. They do what they can to silence criticism, and the claim that the global locks are only used to prevent policy violations is completely bogus.

This is interesting: Jalexander-WMF is globally locked. What was the serious offense?  This WMF account lock was unnecessary, unless it was abused. The abuse would be prevented by removing the tools that could be abused, which had been done. The global lock, however, not only prevents the user’s access to email through the system, it also prevents anyone from emailing them through the system. The global lock tool has long been known as a primitive hack. It simply disallows log-in, so the user then cannot see, for example, their own watchlist. The global lock tool has been abused on occasion by stewards. In fact, I documented that at one point, simply studying the previous 5000 global locks (a little over three months). The study was neutral and made no accusations. What do you think the stewards did?

If you know how stewards operate, lucky guess. Oversighted, by the other Italian steward, a friend of the only steward who had made possibly abusive locks (as many as 5 out of 5000, most locks were routine, for spammers, and often with no edits, which revealed that stewards look at login.wiki). Not even admins could see that list and study, only stewards. There was no explanation that made any sense. It was simply a list sorting information in the public global lock log. It did not out anyone nor accuse anyone of misbehavior. It simple looked at what stewards were actually doing.

Wiki theory is that the community can watch and act to correct abusive administration. That was an idea that was never given teeth on WMF wikis.

I was told that if I appealed the action, I’d be blocked. I pointed to it on the meta community discussion page. Nobody cared. And that’s how the wikis go south. Nobody cares enough to look at how they are being administered. And if someone pointed out a problem in the steward re-election process, I saw them threatened with blocks. The system is corrupt, and it’s obvious, and this could be expected to happen, given the structures that were set up. The system could be fixed, but only if the community wakes up, and it would much rather sleep, usually. Unless someone attacks their porn.

(That’s a hilarious story, where Jimbo Wales used his Founder tools to start deleting porn from Commons. Using Founder tools to interfere with Wikiversity academic freedom had caused a meta Request for Comment to be opened, but it had little participation and the vote was running something like “Stop Wales”:”Close Wikiversity”, 1:2.

When Wales then used his tools on Commons, to delete porn, the vote reversed dramatically, with high participation, and Wales caved and surrendered the most intrusive tools, and kept only oversight, because the tool is primitive and the abilities to see oversighted edits (he considered essential, and I agree), and to hide edits, could not be separated.)

There is a substantial segment of the WMF community, and even more the administrative community, that hates academic freedom. It’s long-term obvious.

Meanwhile, Office bans are generally implemented with WMFOffice and what is linked there is the global account log, showing almost 3800 actions. Now, many of those actions are on socks. There is one action for Abd. No socks. (But I had a few declared socks, and a few more undeclared that would be very difficult to find now, I never socked abusively.) I see 26 actions with the tag “WMF global ban.” I see 2923 changes with “banned user” in the summary, which would be sock locks. For example, there was a long-term Wikipedia critic, Thekohser, Jimbo had attempted to ban him and failed, and he was eventually office-banned. I know Greg Kohs, and his offense was being a paid editor, as well as pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. While paid editing does violate the TOS, if not disclosed, it certainly did not require an office action, because “paid editing” is a neutrality and content issue, not a safety issue. I see 9 actions for names including “kohs”.  When office-banned, he clearly created some socks, they are obvious from the names. (Socks named like that, if actually the person named, are not truly disruptive, and not a safety issue. Unless they are impersonations.)

It is possible that the global ban was based on his off-wiki activities, but this is remarkable: if someone is actually harassing users off-wiki, will globally banning the person actually protect the alleged victim? No, it would only prevent on-wiki harassment. More likely, it could sufficiently piss off the banned user enough to cause them to increase the harassment.

It is possible that the threat of a global ban could cause a user to refrain from “off-wiki harassment,” but (1) there is no warning and no definition of what is allowed and what is not (2) there is no appeal procedure, global ban decisions are “final,” and email and even legal notices sent registered are ignored. So there is no possibility of a negotiated settlement that could include removal of alleged off-wiki harassment, or correction of it.

This is done, as it is done, because it seems easy, not because it is effective. Greg Kohs easily could continue his work as a paid editor. I have been a paid Wikipedia editor, at $50 per hour, after I was banned there. This did not violate any policy, because I did not edit anything related to what I was paid to do. (or much of anything at all, I documented what I did on Wikiversity, it was deleted by the admin who blocked me there. But here it is.

I created wikitext for sourcing an article for a business, as one example. As another, I advised a blocked notable person how they could be unblocked, and provided wikitext to the person, who put it on their user talk page and was very predictably unblocked.

Greg Kohs, globally banned, has no incentive at all to refrain from actual paid editing, which is more efficient from the customer point of view. He will simply create hidden accounts. With the first issued global ban (decided by the community), I argued that applying a global ban would actually make the wikis less safe from the user, not more safe, because he was only editing one wiki at that point (Wikiversity), doing good work there, and this would provide a steady flow of IP information for checkusers to look at in case he tried to edit other WMF wikis. The practical argument was ignored in favor of punishment, which was the obvious real purpose. This guy had embarrassed some bureaucrats and others.

So, the predictable result: He did create a sock account, and became a Wikiversity administrator (this is easy to do on the wikis if one has a little patience and knows how the wikis operate), and was nominated for bureaucrat, and was about to be approved, when someone, somehow, figured out who he was and outed him. This, by the way, was real-life outing, and he’d been harassed at work by wiki enemies, who were not sanctioned at all for it. For all I know, he might have done it again. Ham-handed administration fails, easily, it can create endless work that creates no improvement of the projects.

Russavia was office-banned, and that was very unpopular on Commons. I don’t know if he is still doing it, but he might as well have been following “a sock a day keeps the blues away.” He continued his very popular work, only now the Office was spending paid time watching for socks. A Wikiversity checkuser took it on as a personal task to enforce the ban, and ran into massive disapproval and the ultimate followup from that was that he lost his tools, and was, in fact, eventually Office-banned himself. (INeverCry).

The WMF is not terribly sophisticated. The original idea (content and user behavior issues left to the community) was far better than what they eventually fell into. Instead of working to support more efficient and effective community consensus process, including procedures for privacy protection, and continuing to leave content and user decisions to the community, they went in the direction of direct control, which, they will find, I predict, opens up many legal cans of worms. Direct control with no appeal is toxic, but because it only affects a few users, there is little protest. After all, “I didn’t like that editor anyway.” And that is how societies devolve into tyrannies. “They came for the Jews and I wasn’t a Jew ….” is famous. 

As Lomax has a history of doxxing people and libel suits, you should probably remove mention of the real life names that he mentions without proof of owning the SKB account.

That’s up to the blog owner. However, I have no history of libel suits. I have never sued for libel or been sued for it. I have called a spade a spade on the blog. The argument would apply even more to mention of XXX, who was completely innocent, there are no credible assertions as to his identity except for obvious trolls (or someone repeating what a troll has written elsewhere, same problem, really.) However, I’m a real person, widely known, and the comments were attributed to me. If the blog owner allows open comment, then I would be responsible, not him. There is a procedure for takedown notices. It does not involve trusting anonymous users.

What the Smith brothers do is to attack others, real persons, generally by real name, while hiding behind their own anonymity. In this case, I have definitive evidence, strong enough to place before a jury if needed, that SFB was Darryl L. Smith, which then completely exonerates XXX. I have an obligation to communicate that knowledge. If I’m wrong, well, correction is always possible in comments here or there, but correction from anonymous users, replete with lies and claims of lying is not adequate. I will look at any evidence presented. What I have seen, instead, is actual and real-life harassment, obvious, and some of it legally actionable.

He has a vendetta to spread misinformation.

No actual misinformation has been pointed to, only conclusions that they claim are unproven. The cries of “lies” started when I first started simply listing AP socks, based on clear evidence and checkuser findings and Wikipedia decisions (which can certainly be in error, but they are still evidence). It was called “lies,” but when I asked for specific corrections, the requests were ignored.

I’m a journalist. My job is collecting and organizing and presenting information. If any of it is misinformation, that’s a career disaster! But everyone makes mistakes, so what a journalist will do is to invite and allow correction (or even alleged correction.) So they imagine that I hate them and that’s why I’m doing this. No, I’m simply telling the truth about what I have seen, and, in addition, what I have concluded. What I have seen is evidence, and my testimony regarding it is also evidence. My conclusions are not evidence, except if I am accepted as an expert by whomever is making decisions.

(Common law principle, and often statutory as well: Testimony is presumed true unless controverted. Testimony in that case is never anonymous, nor could controversion be anonymous. There must be a real person behind it. Anonymous testimony can be presented in court only with the consent of a judge, who will know who is behind it, and, generally, counsel for the parties will know. It is disliked and there would need to be a strong reason. Juries and judges want to see the person when they testify.)

There is not a shred of proof a group of brothers own the SKB account. He will no doubt turn up here and write thousands and thousands of words about it and try and mislead readers with false flags. He has been banned from practically every blog, forum and wiki on the internet in relation to these matters. Don’t fall for it.

They repeat that over and over. I have participated in hundreds of forums and wikis, and have been banned from few, and as to recent bans, mostly connected with the Smith brothers or the faction that one of them works for. Notice that “every” is a very strong claim. The evidence is? I am most active, in recent years, besides on my own blog, on Quora. Not banned there. Over four million page views and 1900 followers. Oliver D. Smith has a Quora account (they require real names and are totally intolerant of incivility). He’s behaved himself there, so far, and he has  9600 page views and 14 followers. I knew that his email address was authentic when he wrote me because he has published that address in a number of places, and the photo on Quora matches others.

I had activity on over a hundred WMF wikis, significant activity on 10. I had, when banned, over 36,000 global edits. I was not shy about getting involved with controversial topics. I confronted abuse, especially administrative abuse, and often successfully. I resolved and prevented disputes from boiling over, at leaswt

Anyone who is a whistle-blower will see blowback, it goes with the territory. I was banned only on one wiki, the English Wikipedia, and that’s a long story by itself. I’m proud of what I accomplished there, but abandoned the project (I was no longer editing at all when actually banned). I was not banned on any other wiki. I was, at the end, blocked only on Wikiversity, by the unilateral action of a single administrator (Umbrecht) and there was no community consensus for ban (and Wikiversity policy required such a consensus even to maintain a block, though what I saw was that, increasingly, the policy was dead and admins could do whatever they pleased. So I had also almost entirely abandoned Wikiversity editing and only became involved to protect a user who had been impersonated and attacked, and to defend the academic freedom of Wikiversity. I knew it was dangerous, and also that the effort could fail, precisely because of what happened. I can provide links as evidence for all the factual assertions here, but this is already getting way too long.

The faction that has supported the Smith brothers (possibly not realizing what they are doing) hates academic freedom, and also neutrality policy. They are occasionally explicit about this. They had long attacked Wikiversity, and, previously, were unsuccessful, often due to my intervention. However, where I really failed was in not inspiring the community to create protective processes and to build in watchdog roles. The software actually allows it, but the user functions are generally not enabled. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

There are something like 800 WMF wikis. I am not banned on those wikis, except for one, enwiki. Rather, my account is globally locked and a ban was declared by the WMF. At one time, local wikis had discretion to ignore global bans, any local bureaucrat could detach an account. That changed, the ability of local admins to bypass a global ban was taken away with the establishment of Single User Log-in, and I pointed that out. Basically, nobody cared. What was a reality, though difficult to maintain, was destroyed with hardly a notice. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If we don’t protect it, it walks away — or is stolen.

There is a Wikipedia list of 100 notable wikis. As wikis define bans, I am banned on only one: the English Wikipedia. I am blocked on two more: Wikiversity and Rationalwiki. That’s it. In addition to those wikis, I have accounts on about 12 of those notable wikis, not blocked. (|This includes a few WMF wikis where there was no block).

Wikiindex lists something over 2,100 wikis. I’m only banned through normal process on one (many years ago) blocked on two more, (Wikiversity and RationalWiki) and then globally locked by the WikiMedia Foundation Office. That’s definitely not the same as being banned on many wikis,which would require, one would think, misbehavior on many wikis. Or at least wiki administration that thinks so.

In addition, I have participated in many fora over the years, going back to the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s,where I was a moderator. I am banned on lenr-forum.com, that’s the only one. This latter is a bit ironic. I am not banned on e-catworld.com, where I am very well known as a critic of the claims of Andrea Rossi, “inventor” of the “e-cat,” allegedly a “cold fusion” device, but am banned on lenr-forum, where I was, at the time of the ban, probably the most popular user. How did that happen? It’s the same old same old, I pointed out that a moderator was deleting posts with no notice or warning and without providing any way to recover the content, and declared that I was not going to post there unless this was addressed, because unexpected deletion is a problem for a serious writer. So I was banned. With no explanation, and protests from the community were ignored. This happens all over. My position is that the site owner has the right to do whatever the F he or she pleases, though there can be some moral issues.

The Smith brothers lie about me as they have lied about many people. One difference is that I use the lies to expose them, to fight lying, not with yelling and blame, but simply with the truth. They clearly hate that.

Their support has been evaporating, that can be seen in the Skeptic from Britain sequence, if one knows where to look, and on RationalWiki, where users have been getting tired of being used as a platform for personal vendettas, weaponizing Google (i.e., what they accuse me of, but what they have been doing for many years, long before I was involved.)

Update

Darryl L. Smith had been, as far as I could see, inactive on RationalWiki since May. (Though his brother was active). In hindsight, I can see that he turned his focus to Wikipedia, as Skeptic from Britain. Now that Skeptic from Britain is out of the picture, I was watching to see signs of him on RationalWiki. Today, I found them (I only check periodically, it is like inspecting a sewer. Tough job, but someone has to do it.)

John66. Registered 19:52, 22 November 2018. Apparently, Skeptic from Britain was preparing to shut down Wikipedia activity. Articles edited or created (N): (updated 11/10/2019)

Warning: the common RationalWiki user is a so-called “rational skeptic,” and may edit with a showing of views similar to Darryl L. Smith. That, in itself, is not evidence of being this highly disruptive troll/sock master. I do not recommend that people not familiar with RationalWiki attempt to attack the articles or users, on-wiki or even off. AP socks use this and will even create sock puppets that will repeat the arguments. If a critic allows their real identity to be revealed, they will up the game with real-world harassment, I have seen all this reviewing history, but particularly in the last year, when I became involved. If anyone wants to consider action, please create an email connection with me. Leaving an anonymous comment here with a real email address, requesting an email, will do that. Trolls will be sprinkled with parmesan cheese and broiled.

I am careful about identifying socks, and maintain a distinction between mere suspicion (usually based on point of view and interest in specific topics) and stronger evidence. When I was merely pointing to obvious suspicion, from WikiMedia Foundation checkuser reports about impersonation socking to defame, I was warned and threatened, which was a clue to me that I was touching a nerve, that this was bigger than some transient tomfoolery. This was amply confirmed!

I have already seen enough to be quite sure that “John66” is “Skeptic from Britain” and that they are both Darryl L. Smith. I will be looking at further evidence that takes some time to examine. I have already used this kind of evidence to clarify the original identification of SfB, and to confirm my opinion that Bongolian (the RW sysop who has no given John66 sysop privileges) is not the same user.

Something like 1% of registered RationalWiki users may be Smith brothers. That’s quite a large number, but it is normally only a very few at a time, but continued over the years. Most of the socks, as with most AP socks on Wikipedia, only show a few edits. Here is an example that turned up from looking at John66, from history for Courtney_Brown:

Brian_Gene_Kelley, only three edits in 2013, two on that article, one on Rome Viharo, a red flag.

I have edit timing studies of other DLS socks in 2013, I will see how this fits. The behavioral pattern is quite common and not usual, ordinary new user behavior: the user appears immediately creating entire articles, on a narrow range of topics. That is very popular on RationalWiki, and someone who does this in line with the site point-of-view will quickly be given sysop privileges, I’ve seen it over and over again for Smith socks. They know how to do it.

These are anonymous trolls who hide their identity in order to attack real people. I did not get involved because I agreed with their targets, but because they used lies, deception, and impersonations to attack others, which harms everyone. For blowing the whistle, I was threatened and attacked, in many ways. It’s just history.

In my training, “If they are not shooting at you, you are not doing anything worth wasting bullets on.”

The focus of Darryl on “diet woo” is recent, but reasonably consistent. After spending the day looking at the data, my confidence has increased.

  • This is not a vegan plot, nor is it funded by big pharma. This is Darryl L. Smith pandering to where his bread is buttered, the “skeptical” movement, debunkers, aligned with the Amazing Randi and friends. A much milder incarnation of this movement is Tim Farley., whose connection with Darryl Smith has been claimed but is not clear, and if there has been a connection, that Farley knows what Darryl does is even more unclear. Tim Farley’s web site is a collection of anecdotes where people believed in or were deluded by or defrauded by this or that “woo,” and died or suffered losses of some kind. No comparison is made with following “conventional wisdom,” or the “standard of practice” which can also be fatal. The skeptical movement, unfortunately, does not actually educate in critical thinking, the real thing, but rather the site is utterly unscientific, even though many of the ideas covered are often thoroughly wiggy. It is obvious that defective ideas and thinking can kill us, including the ideas that if I do whatever a doctor tells me, I’m safe, and if my doctor follows the standard of practice uncritically, he’s a skilled physician and I should trust him. The standard of practice is not necessarily and truly “evidence-based.” There is science behind much of it, but  not all of it, and the exceptions can be killers.
  • The Malcolm Kendrick article was not deleted because of Skeptic from Britain’s arguments. His claims of “quackery” and the like were irrelevant. The issue was the normal one for biographies that are deleted: a lack of reliable secondary sources. This has almost nothing to do with how well known Kendrick is in certain circles. His popularity has not yet resulted in adequate secondary sources about him. It will, I predict, and then the article could be re-created. That process will be faster if it is not recreated out-of-process, and if unskilled attempts are not made.
  • There are certain people allied with the skeptical movement and Wikipedia faction who use impersonation and other highly unethical (and sometimes illegal) tactics to promote the movement. These do not use critical thinking, they use and promote knee-jerk response to dog whistles. “Critical thinking”, properly understood, looks at balance and does not uncritically accept the mainstream, it only uses reactive thinking to identify what is “wrong” with fringe ideas.
  • Skeptic from Britain is the same user as Debunking spiritualism, Goblin Face and many identified socks, and most recently John66. (The objective evidence on the last account is weaker, because there are not yet as many edits overlapping in time, but there are enough to show consistency, and the duck test — which could be documented — is strong. Skeptic from Britain lied about his intentions, and lied in order to use his alleged departure from Wikipedia to attack an innocent user who had criticized him. That is a classic Darryl Smith behavior. Research is continuing on the set of socks, but overlap of DS and SfB is clear. It takes time to do edit correlation studies. I’m learning, so it gets easier.
  • Wikipedia is vulnerable to factional manipulation. This is not a simple problem, given the Wikipedia systems and structures that developed and became highly resistant to reform. The problem is not the policies (which can seem counter-intuitive to those who don’t understand them). The problem is enforcement of the policies, and this problem is as old as Wikipedia. Solutions are possible but the will to implement them has never existed.

One final point.

Historically, Darryl Smith and his twin brother Oliver were confused on Wikipedia, and defacto-banned under the user name Anglo Pyramidologist. The identification of Oliver D. Smith is definitive. The real Oliver Smith has many times admitted his identity. He has a known public email account, and I and others have received email from that account, responded, and he responded back. This rises to the level of proof. However, he also lied in those mails, changing his story radically as conditions changed. On Wikipedia, they did not care which brother was which account, and the accounts were linked because (according to one of them) they were both visiting their parents when editing Wikipedia. That story was consider the usual “evil twin” excuse and was ignored, but behaviorally, there was always the appearance of two users, with distinct interests and habits.

The existence of a twin brother (probably) was established from a public record for the family, showing the two brothers the same age. Oliver D. Smith has shown a strong interest in Atlantis, and wrote a paper on the topic accepted at a peer-reviewed journal. This interest has all contributed to his positive identification. However, positive identification for Darryl L. Smith, the twin, is not so easily available. Most of my opinion on this is from comments made by Oliver, who, when Darryl was outed, defended his “brother” or his “family.” (And in the emails, he, attempting to deflect blame from himself, he claimed that most of the socking had been his brother. From what I’m seeing, that was a gross exaggeration, as to certain kinds of socking.) It is Darryl, with his interest in debunking the paranormal or fringe, who created impersonation accounts and later, when I documented this, organized a quite visible campaign to privately arrange my global ban on Wikipedia.

There is another brother, older. I have seen no trace of this brother. However, in the cloud of confusion that has been created, it is possible that individual accounts might be incorrectly identified with one of the AP brothers. This is implausible with accounts where long-term behavior is visible.

Darryl claimed that he had other accounts in good standing on Wikipedia. That could be true, and it would simply indicate that he learned to use evasive techniques, to avoid checkuser identification, and partitioned his interests to avoid suspicion. I found one account that I suspected might be such a “good hand” account. When I did an edit timing study, my conclusion was, no, this was not Darryl. If anyone suspects other accounts that are or were active on Wikipedia, that have not already been identified, please let me know by establishing email connection. (which can be done by any comment here, and anonymity will be protected; however, don’t lie. All protections disappear for those who lie. Don’t worry, I know the difference between error and lying.)

(If someone names a plausible sock in a comment here, I will also investigate, at least briefly. I will respond as the situation warrants. Too many people have already been wrongly accused, such as the user attacked as being SfB based on the knee-jerk assumption that SfB would be telling the truth! (And then, that this user was allegedly vegan — it was false — led to claims that Malcolm Kendrick had been attacked by fanatic vegans! That’s a common Wikipedia error, when an impersonation sock says, “I’m BannedUser,” they believe him. That’s not an immediate problem because the response is to block that user, but when, then, there is retaliatory action on another wiki, based on this, harm has been done. That is what happened, and that is how I got involved. These tactics are repeated because they work, and so much for “critical thinking.”)

I have also done one major control study, Bongolian. This is an established RW user with advanced privileges . One look at his contribution history shows immediately, this is not Oliver or Darryl!!! (I have never suspected him of being anything more than an “enabler.”) The level of sophistication that would be required to create the appearance of being distinct would be phenomenal! It would be far, far too much work to be practical.

The comparison between Bongolian and Skeptic from Britain shows that these users are independent, with a very high level of certainty, and it anecdotally confirms the methods I am using.

List of comment socks and timeline

(and possible “meat puppets — if one carelessly repeats as if fact what is from a puppet master, one risks being called a “meat puppet,” one of those charming Wikipedian terms.) (MK is Kendrick’s blog, FH, Naughton’s)

    • MK Stephen Rhodes December 4, 2018 at 5:12 pm provided misleading information, not “first post by [SfB]”, but an essay by JzG, a factional admin. There is a post here about the source of that phrase, “Lunatic Charlatans.”
    • MK Stephen Rhodes  December 4, 2018 at 5:17 pm points to User page for SfB, edit of March 7, 2018. SfB added a userbox created by JzG. This was a notice of factional affiliation, nothing more (or less). That is linked from 59 pages. 
    • FH james    (deleted) Fathead blog appearance of false claim of identity for SfB. No evidence was given.
    • FH Wikipedia editor December 14, 2018 at 9:59 pm
    • MK Stephen Rhodes December 15, 2018 at 7:52 pm repeats the false claim from james.
    • MK Alex Davis  December 18, 2018 at 2:52 pm
    • December 14, 2018 MrStrong (Oliver Smith) hints, to Michaeldsuarez, that Skeptic from Britain is his brother (Darryl), then effectively admits it.
    • December 15, 2018, Skeptic from Britain has his name changed to MatthewManchester1994. He had previously claimed to be from Manchester. This was very likely a lie. He also claimed an interest in biology, and one of his former sock names was Skeptical biologist.
    • December 17, 2018 MrStrong claims Rome Viharo is Skeptic from Britain .
    • December 19, 2019 MrStrong claims I (Abd) am Skeptic from Britain (MatthewManchester1994) (and a host of other accounts well-known to be him or his brother.)
    • (Setting aside Michaeldsuarez — to whom Oliver admitted SfB identity — Rome Viharo and I would be the most likely people on the planet to recognize the work of Darryl Smith.)
    • FH Low-Carb Man  December 19, 2018 at 4:57 pm (that name blocked on Wikipedia as sock of Amanda ZZ, all very suspicious. Repeats the story of “XXX” being Skeptic from Britain, ascribing cause to “outing”. In fact, that alleged outing was almost certainly Skeptic from Britain planting a red herring to cause disruption. Darryl does that. Oliver might do it too.
    • December 20, 2018 MrStrong threatens to expose me to the people upset with Skeptic from Britain, on my user talk page, guaranteeing it would get my attention. So I investigated and published this page, December 21, 2018. I did not know about the conversation with Michaeldsuarez until more recently. All is not well between the brothers, if Oliver was not simply lying again. His story about RationalWiki , told to Suarez, checks out, and he predicted the articles appearing there (under John66).
    • December 20, 2018, MatthewManchester1994 puts up “farewell,” claims real-name outing (which would validate it, if it had happened, SfB was obviously an experienced user and would realize that announcing that you have been outed is inviting everyone to look for it and believe it), and then changes his name again.
    • MK Wikipedia Astronomer  repeats standard Smith story about me.

Jimbo Wales commented on Skeptic from Britain in a !vote on a deletion request SfB had submitted. My emphasis:

Strong keep – As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial namechanger and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to ‘barely’ pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer. In the original deletion way back in 2009, the proposer wrote, correctly “This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it’s a too early for an article now.” I would suggest that it is no longer too early. [Addendum: this review is now beyind a paywall. It is from BoxOffice (magazine), a clearly reliable source.]–Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wales probably is not aware that this “POV pusher” has long been blocked, he is a sock of Goblin Face, who is one of the Anglo Pyramidologist brothers, most sock investigations are under the latter name. When he “retired” from Wikipedia, he took up on RationalWiki with the same agenda.

Wales also is unlikely to realize that this activist is affiliated with a faction, and claimed to have been paid to edit Wikipedia by a “major skeptical organization.” If Skeptic from Britain was such a major POV-pusher, why had he escaped notice? In fact, his POV fits in with that of a faction I confronted long ago. They are “debunkers,” and have strong opinions, they have explicitly rejected Neutral Point of View, but advocate what they have called “Scientific Point of View,” but that is an oxymoron.

Trolls

Subpage of RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist

This is a collection of accounts showing a kind of troll behavior characteristic of some AP socks. These accounts appear, often create pages with disruptive names, and are intended to be immediately blocked. Sometimes these accounts are intended to be seen as socks of someone else.

It is not impossible that some of these are themselves impersonations of AP. However, I find that explanation generally implausible. The particular interests and foci are those of AP. If impersonations, they succeed.

I’m starting this page August 20, 2018, showing recent examples. There are a large number of examples. As well, these are only on RationalWiki. I have sometimes documented these accounts. Where they edit covered RW articles, they have been listed there when noticed, or sometimes when impersonation was clear. Accounts are shown articles or edits, and content of articles. Analysis is in unindented italics.

EMIL_OW_KIRKEGAARD (impersonation) created

EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKIEMIL OW KIRKEGAARD (talk contribs) 12:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The lack of a space between the comment and the signature is commonly seen with AP signatures.

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Some of the material copied to RW above was taken from the linked blog. But not all, and this practice of quoting exposés of AP, disruptively, is a known AP tactic. It actually works on RW, on occasion. Since the sock quotes X, RationalWikians may assume that the sock is X, increasing dedication to opposing any genuine X activity, and presenting the apparent target (here, Oliver Smith) as a victim. Generally, these prolific impersonations socks may be, not Oliver himself, but his brother, Darryl.

ElfredaTheCalm blocked 12:24, 4 August 2018 GrammarCommie for “spam” created

[[File:Emilkirkegaard Nazi salute.png]]

This file was uploaded by Dr. Witt, an obvious Oliver Smith sock.

RIGHTPEDIA.ORG EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI

EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI

EMIL KIRKEGAARD IS CLOSING RATIONALWIKI ANTIFA DOWN

 EMIL KIRKEGAARD CLOSING RATIONALWIKI ANTIFA DOWN U GEY

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

David Gerard and Oliver Smith both antifa

Jump to: navigation, search

A sign of careless copying.

(aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia

Oliver has stated that he believes he can get away with defaming and abusing European dissidents, as they will be less likely to contact the authorities. This suggests he is motivated by psychotic behavior disorder rather than political views.

On his autobiography, he falsely claims in the D&D alignment he is “true neutral”. In reality, he is chaotic evil. Chaotic because he’s a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder and he’s a pathological liar — he even constantly lies on the talk pages of his autobiography, such has here he lied and claimed Rightpedia said they were doing to dox all Rationalwiki Sysops and nobody said this. Evil because he cares not for right or wrong, but only power, and chaotic evil because he has no goals other than his emotions. And just look at his photo which he chose to upload for his autobiography; that’s clearly chaotic evil.

Other enemies of Oliver Carolyn Emerick – A European Pagan who teaches ancient folklore. She has never responded to him. She bought one of Evalion’s paintings, the one with the four seasons in Celtic mythology. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax – A based Muslim

This was partly based on the Kirkegaard blog with more AP raving. However, I’m a blogger and here is an opportunity for some eye candy. Sorry about the rest, but I can think of a medicinal use for it. So perhaps I have an opportunity to chat with one of two people: Carolyn Emerick or Oliver Smith.

from

OR

 

Tough call, eh? Politics? Who cares about politics? Presence is everything.

[[File:Kirkegaard.png|800px|thumb|Emil Kirkegaard]]

File uploaded by https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:CheeseburgerFace not an AP sock.

RationalWiki (nicknamed IrrationalWiki) and Wikis on politics tend to have a certain viewpoint, such as Wikipedia is mainstream US liberalism. Conservapedia is mainstream US conservatism. For IrrationalWiki, it is pro-neo-Marxism, pro-Globalism, and the hypocritical position that conspiracy theories are hoaxes. Although the viewpoint in its articles is often too extreme, it is run professionally. They prevent doxxing and have banned members that behave crazy like traditional Communist activists. Crazy viewpoints are fine, but behaving uncivil is not allowed.

For its pro-Neo-Marxist stance, the wiki supports things along the lines of secular humanism, cultural degeneracy, and old-fashioned Economic Communism, race denialism, New Atheism, anti-Christian, anti-Conservative, pro-sodomy, pro-gun restriction and basically that sort of thing. It even claims rape culture in white countries is only done by white people and the masses of rapy immigrants from African, Muslim and other countries that have a real rape culture aren’t the ones doing the raping. It’s the viewpoint that a man looking at pornography is “rape culture” while the common occurrence in Europe these days of a gang of foreign men gang-raping a small child and then the government imprisoning anyone who speaks against it on Facebook or Twitter is not rape culture.

For pro-Globalism, while that tends to conflict with old-fashioned economic Marxism, current Neo-Marxism is a modification that isn’t totally at odds with Globalism. Even people typically on the left oppose globalist things such as genetically modified foods, smart meters, fracking, Monsanto, Aspartame, cancer danger from cell phones and that sort of thing. Irrationalwiki is of the point of view that these conspiracies are pseudoscience and corporations in general can do no wrong.

The delusion that all conspiracy theories are hoaxes really just overlaps with the pro-Globalism viewpoint. The wiki holds that if it’s a conspiracy theory, it’s wrong. This can be conspiracy theories not related to Communism or Globalist corporations such as 9/11 conspiracies, water fluoridation, and DDT banning conspiracies. rightpedia.info/w/RationalWiki

This was material taken from http://en.rightpedia.info/w/RationalWiki

Also August 4, from the block log:

11:35, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . Oliveratlantis
11:33, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . Oliveratlantis

11:41, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+1,414)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual: new section)

Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual

Oliver (aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

A massive wikisperg, Oliver is infamous for going to extremes to remove websites or articles that he believes have offended, disparaged or merely criticized him; this includes accusing his opponents he has met online wikis (e.g. his arch-enemy) of various crimes, setting up attack blogs on them, hounding, stalking and impersonating them using sockpuppets, accusing his opponents of being his own impersonations, and even sending threats with the purpose of trying to coerce them into deleting everything written about him. In numerous cases this has worked. Emil OW Kirkegaard (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

1:39, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . (+185)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎

EXPOSING THIS MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034 Emil OW Kirkegaard (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

11:37, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Talk:Oliveratlantis (Created page with “oliver is a traitor to the European people and should be shot. ~~~~”) [entire content shown in summary]

11:54, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+2,064)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (emil kirkegaard is being stalked by a schizoid antifa: new section)

emil kirkegaard is being stalked by a schizoid antifa

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

11:56, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff ) . . Emil kirkegaard is being stalked by an antifa (Created page) 

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:00, 4 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . OLIVER SCHIZOPHRENIC ANTIFA (Created page) with 

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?
[code block] There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

[code block] Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:14, 4 August 2018 (diff | hist. . (-2,173)‎ . . Michael A. Woodley of Menie ‎[replaced content with:]

THIS SMEAR ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY A MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA

11:31, 4 August 2018 (diff | deletion log | view) . . Oliveratlantis (Created page)

(aka oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia

11:29, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+192)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎

EXPOSING THIS MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA: emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034 Emil Kirkegaard Real (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  • 12:34, 4 August 2018 GrammarCommie  blocked Oliver boglins (contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam) [created 11:22, 4 August 2018]

11:25, 4 August 2018 (diff. . (+665)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Impersonations)

oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Oliver boglins (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

12:09, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Schizophrenic antifa oliver (Created page)

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?page_id=7034

Media criticism •www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus •www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/

Various large UK media has repeated some rather extreme claims about me. In particular, they claim that I’m a Nazi and pedophile apologist. Neither are true, and never were true. The main person behind the claims is a schizophrenic stalker who has a long history of obsessively stalking people.

What? Who?

There are various pictures of him, but they are all about equally unflattering.

To understand the situation, one has to learn about a certain person named Oliver and a website called Rationalwiki (RW). RW is a snarky version of Wikipedia with looser standards of evidence (often none), and a very heavy left-wing slant. The website looks like Wikipedia, so many people think it is Wikipedia, not realizing that there are many Wiki projects on the internet. Much of the content on RW is quite decent, but the site’s leadership gives free reigns to a small group of vicious individuals to basically use the website’s prominent Google position to defame people they dislike. At some point, an individual named Oliver started using this site, and creating pages on persons he dislikes. He is quite explicit about this strategy:

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

12:07, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Talk:EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI (Created page with “EMIL KIRKEGAARD DANISH POLYMATH SMEARED BY MENTALLY ILL ANTIFA AT RATIONALWIKI~~~~”) [all content in summary]

12:10, 4 August 2018 (diff) . . Michael a woodley of menie close down rationalwiki (Created page)

[[Image:Michael Woodley.png|thumb|2500px|U GEY]]

File uploaded by AP sock M87.

Reviewing M87 edits led me to Octo, created  09:25, 14 August 2018. Caught a fish! This is Oliver.

Back to the task at hand, troll accounts:

17:37, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets Hilariously the other socks are Oliver attempting to frame me.”) [text=summary]

17:01, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff) . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets”) [text=summary]

 User:MrSheen (shows deletion log)

Account renamed by LeftyGreenMario

16:00, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff. . (+686)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Lol, how Kirkegaard sees his politics…) [revdel by Bongolian]

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppetsEMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica. EMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

15:59, 8 August 2018 (deleted diff. . (+581)‎ . . User talk:MrSheen ‎[revdel by Bongolian]

Oliver oliveratlantis, Atlantid) (born 1990, claims April 22) is a psychotic, socially inept, misanthropic loner who is openly[1] asexual but if you call him that, he denies it. In his autobiography[1] admits being “pro-LGBTQIA”, which looks like the homosex acronym, but he added an I for incest and an A for animals. How progressive of him! Oliver David Smith is also a pathological liar, Antifa activist, and geekazoid (he blogs about Greek mythology) better known for his anti-pornography views and extensive harassment campaigns against Kiwi Farms and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

 15:58, 8 August 2018 (diff  . . (+161)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (edit summary removed) [by Kazitor]

Edit summary was content:

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppetsEMILKIRKEGAARD (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

15:38, 8 August 2018 (diff. . (+182)‎ . . Talk:Michael Coombs

https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets“)EmilOWKirkegaard1488 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Geolocates to region for AP or Mikemikev.

Authentic Oliver on RWW

I happened to look at RW Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and found this:

RWW
I made an article on him. (font used does not copy to this blog, this was RW user Bigs) 01:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is he will probably now show up there on accounts & complain to wikia. He spends his life attacking people on his blog, but if someone merely spends 5 minutes writing something about him it’s unacceptable…Callimachus (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what you wrote was good. I don’t think I will edit and leave it to others. You mentioned Lomax has 29 articles on RationalWiki; he has 51 on me. It’s done to abuse google traffic to my name, i.e. search my real name so the lies and smears show up on his blog.Callimachus (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind and wrote a little. Abd has been divorced 7 (!) times; not surprising is it. Callimachus (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Callimachus is admitting what was already obvious: He is Oliver D. Smith. However, it’s also misleading. I have a few pages on Oliver specifically, but my original contact was with Darryl L. Smith, his twin brother. Oliver was the original Anglo Pyramidologist, but it has been known — or claimed — since 2011 that accounts belonging to both brothers were investigated on Wikipedia under that name. I simply picked up that name for the “sock family.” I was not claiming, and do not believe, that all these were Oliver, and, very likely, the large majority were not. I have also consistently pointed to the possibility that he has been impersonated. There are certain confirmed cases where the Smiths have impersonated others, verified by checkuser, and there is a substantial series of socks impersonating me on RationalWiki. Could those, in turn, be double impersonations, i.e., someone else imitating Smiths impersonating me? It is not impossible, but it all begins to become a Rube Goldberg fantasy. There are far simpler explanations. Impersonation socking is illegal and there is a probability that this will be tested in court.

As to “lies and smears,” I have many times invited Smith to point out errors. He just keeps repeating “lies and smears.” Errors are not lies. However, simply describing what Smith has done will be considered a “smear” by him, even if done with caution and care. On the other hand, Smith and his brother routinely smear others, taking what others have written out of context and twisting it into real defamation.

Meanwhile, Oliver D. Smith’s activity on RationalWikiWiki is quite interesting. I have not complained to Wikia administration, not yet. That wiki is not nearly as damaging, as defamation, as the RationalWiki articles, because the public and some who should know better may treat RationalWiki as a serious site. Bigs is an “angsty teenager,” according to what he wrote about himself on RWW. He is a more or less typical RationalWikian: he likes the idea of rational skepticism but is far, far from actually practicing it. He believes total BS when it’s fed to him by someone he thinks is “on the right side.” That’s classic believer behavior.

To what is on RWW:

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets

I’ve linked, but what shows now for that page is the deletion log:

00:37, May 26, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (moving to http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Mikemikev_sockpuppets)
00:40, May 25, 2018 Oliver D Smith (wall | contribs) deleted page Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets (recreating to remove too many edits)

Oliver, especially, has often done this: he spills the beans, thinking he is defending himself, and then realizes and attempts to cover it up. “Recreating to remove too many edits” is BS. It is a fact that making many edits when a few would do is a Smith trait. But did he move the page where he claimed? No. He lied.

But the page was archived, so we have the content. Since the core is a list of alleged socks, taken from the Rightpedia list, with his indications of which ones were him, I reproduce it below.

Oliver D. Smith sockpuppets is a conspiracy-theory-esque article about RationalWiki filled with misinformation, written by the troll Mikemikev on the wiki Rightpedia.[1] The article lists 38 RationalWiki accounts and falsely states they are owned by Oliver D. Smith, furthermore that this is only 1% of the total… the absurd allegation is Smith owns 3800 accounts. In reality, Smith owns only a tiny fraction of the accounts; Mikemikev is known to impersonate Smith on sockpuppets and so some, or even many of these listed accounts are Mikemikev himself.
This is classic Oliver argumentation. He takes what someone has written literally and then turns it into what appears to be an absurdity. Writing to me about the accounts I had documented, he claimed that “99.9%” of them were not him, but his brother. Given how many accounts he has admitted, this would require a very large number of accounts be his brother. In a context like that, the numbers are hyperbole, not literal. When I invited him to identify which accounts were his, he declined, claiming it would be too much work. But he did that work on this page, and then deleted it. He is hiding, and in the end, in correspondence with me, claimed he had been lying about the brother since 2011, that “there is no brother,” and my conclusion is that this is simply One More Lie, which should not be surprising with someone who says he’s been lying to everyone for years, including Tim Farley, an apparent ally and possible supporter of his brother.
In May 2018 Smith contacted Mikemikev on Gab requesting him to remove the ridiculous article; Mikemikev said he isn’t interested in fact-checking who owns all these accounts and admitted to mistakes and lying; he also didn’t deny impersonating Smith, but that he will still blame them all on Smith to abuse Google searches of his name.
There are plenty of examples of where Smith has misrepresented what others wrote. From Smiths’ behavior with me, I can easily imagine that Mikemikev, as an example, said something like “There may  be errors in the list, and I don’t really care if it was you or your brother. Right now, you are very visible on Google and your brother is far less visible, so you can go jump in a lake.” All of that would then be likely to be interpreted by Smith as he has. He complained to me that Michaeldsuarez also didn’t care if it was him or his brother, which I explained to him as “collective responsibility,” which arises when people act in conspiracy and mutually support each other.
I do not agree with many of the identifications on Rightpedia as being Oliver himself. Many are his brother. I do rather doubt that Mikemikev would support the listing there of his own impersonations, if such exist. However, Darryl, Oliver’s brother has listed accounts on RationalWiki as being my socks, when none of the ones listed were me (other than “Abd”), and they were almost certainly created by Darryl (who was Debunking spiritualism and who knew my actual history and behavior and would in addition know that I would not behave as those socks behaved.) Oliver and Darryl are both trolls, who assign no value to honesty and integrity. Their goal is to attack and anger and harm anyone seen as an enemy, which is quite what they think about others, it is not at all surprising.

Account list

† = Smith. ₪ = Not Smith.
Notice how no evidence is presented Smith owns any of these accounts, but in numerous cases it is easy to prove accounts aren’t his, for example Georgie Enkoom is a practising Muslim from Canada and obviously isn’t Smith.[2]
On Wikipedia, they will say, blocking a suspected sock, “see contributions for evidence.”
Georgie Enkoom is, my view, an error, but this account did engage with certain articles, so the error is understandable. As well, Darryl often supports his brother’s positions, and so can look casually like an Oliver sock. On Wikipedia, they decided not to bother with the distinction, both are blocked and they don’t really care which is which. All of the acknowledged Oliver socks above had been identified by me. I generally review the entire edit history of an account, Smith socks show certain very familiar characteristics, and accounts that merely overlap in some way, on one or a few occasions, look quite different.
I will review all this when I have more time. An interesting listing is “–san” (Misnamed above, but the contributions link is accurate.)  –san created an alternate account, “Mike V.” It is easy to see how Mikemikev might think this is Oliver.  I had already seen and suspected Mike V, and on review, concluded that if this was a Smith sock, it was a “good hand” account, with most activity not being “Oliver Obvious.” RationalWiki users are in general snarky and provocative.
So I would not claim this was Oliver. There are other accounts with very few edits; they are disruptive, generally. When I have doubt about an account, I either don’t name it, or put a question mark after it. As well, Oliver has always been welcome to correct errors. I may or may not accept his claims, and Oliver has claimed, remarkably, to have been lying to everyone since 2011, but, regardless, if he denies something I’ve reported, his denial would be reported. This is standard journalism.
Putting this list together with Oliver’s prior claims to me, I can then review identifications and start to specify “Oliver” and “Darryl” and “Possible” more clearly. I have been deprecating Darryl L. Smith for search engines, but that reserve will pass. Darryl was actually, for me and my long-term interests, far more disruptive than Oliver. For others, particular Oliver targets, the reverse is true.
Mikemikev’s has a history of creating accounts impersonating ANTIFAs, or so-called SJWs; the accounts with ANTIFA/anti-fascist/Hope Not Hate in their usernames above are easy to identify as his for his sockpuppet history,[3] while others appear to be impersonating Smith more directly.
I will review those accounts with that possibility in mind, but I already know that in some cases, Mikemikev has been impersonated by Smith socks, and the Smiths have lied about Mikemikev’s public statements. He did not “admit” as they have claimed, that all the Wikipedia socks were him, he merely referred to the Sock Puppet Investigation page there as being “my SPI page” i.e., about him. And some of those socks were indeed him, but Smith claims that all were, when it’s actually preposterous.
With very few exceptions, Smith’s real accounts (†) usually have names related to classics (Aeschylus, Callimachus, Nemean) or video games he plays (Agent 47, i.e. Hitman), but at least one account (not listed above) is an impersonation based on this.[4]
There’s unfortunately no check-user tool on RationalWiki, like on Wikipedia; this means the only way to identify someone’s account is by behaviour (e.g. editing habits[5]) and not by technical evidence such as IP checks.
Right. However, impersonators imitate behaviors. Common for the socks impersonating me on RW: they take something I have written and copy it, then spam it all over the place, and add threats to it and attacks on individual users, accusing them, for example, of being Smith socks, when, in fact, if those users are mentioned on my blog, it would be incidental or as “supporters and enablers,” which explicitly denies that they are suspected socks.
One of the suspected Smith socks actually wrote, on his user page, that it was great that RW had no checkuser tool, because he had created 700 accounts and was basically running the place. Was that an exaggeration? Maybe. Maybe if transient attack socks and short-history impersonation socks are included, it was a rough estimate.
The term for a behavioral test is the “duck test,” and Smith socks actually accused a Wikiversity sysop of being my sock because he also used the term “duck test.” These guys are either idiots or insane or vicious — or all three — they know how to create disruption and confusion, because they often succeed in it.

[redacted]ns

Smith once atypically created a throwaway account with a name unlike all his others; he edited on this account for only a single day in February 2016. Rightpedia and Abd‘s blog claim this account name [redacted]ns was an impersonation of an individual named [redacted]nn, however it clearly wasn’t as the names are visibly different, Smith never claimed to be anyone else and even had no prior communication with the person he was supposed to have impersonated; Rightpedia/Abd are either lying or have a reading comprehension problem.
Smith made that argument to me. The names are visibly different, that’s true (though a casual reader might overlook the difference) but that does not show that the intention here was not impersonation or trolling. Further, not addressed is why Oliver keeps “retiring” but then creating new accounts. The practice is attempting to conceal long-term behavior. This would be blocked on Wikipedia, when it can be shown (i.e., within the checkuser window, assuming that open proxies or TOR nodes are not being used, and even then sometimes Wikipedia will conclude account identity, and the default there is that this is not legitimate, if the topic areas overlap.
When Oliver’s BS is not accepted, and the rejection is reported, Oliver then claims “lying” or “reading comprehension problem.” In fact, I have clearly acknowledged the argument, and rejected it. The effect of what he did was impersonation, and others have pointed to that account as connected with [redacted]nn, the real person. Darryl and Oliver believed that this person was a supporter of the extreme right. In fact, for a time, he was, but later admitted that he had been, let’s call it, “temporarily insane.” At that point, when he created the account, Oliver would have known him as right-wing and thus as a perfect name to use for trolling the right wing, and creating possible hostilities within it.
Other than this, I do not know any examples of “Oliver Smith” claiming to be someone else. (A claim with a small twist that then makes it plausibly deniable is still intended to deceive or troll). There are examples of blatant impersonations, but these may have been from Darryl, the brother, and I do know that Darryl claimed to be [redacted], and this is not deniable.
As well, an account recently appeared on Wikipedia claiming to be Emil Kirkegaard and another on RationalWiki with the same name. This was blatant impersonation in both places. Was it Mikemikev? I find it unlikely. The behavior is long-term Smith: wave a red flag saying “I am so-and-so,” be directly and obviously disruptive, and watch the fireworks as users assume the disclosure is honest.
On Wikipedia, the primary goal of sock puppet identification is deciding to block or not, and they would block an account either way if it claims to be a block evader, someone considered banned. So they often won’t bother with checkuser, and many of these get tagged with the wrong sock master, and that isn’t cleaned up even when later evidence appears that is far more clear.
The Smiths take full advantage of that sloppiness, and then claim that those socks were the target, proving how disruptive the person is, to sock so much. But there is no doubt that the Smiths have created at the very least hundreds of socks. The Encyclopedia Dramatica socks of Oliver have sometimes been several per day. Attack socks often appear as many, in rapid succession. They did on Wikiversity and the WMF meta wiki, they were attempting to intimidate WMF users, and these were all tagged by stewards as the same user (and then, through two accidentally caught Oliver accounts, were traced by me (and another) to RationalWiki and his account there, Welliver. Notice that the list of socks, alphabetical, does not get to Welliver.

Notes & References

  1.  http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_D._Smith_sockpuppets
  2.  See user page.
  3.  List of Mikemikev (banned) socks
  4.  Raider Fan, see also the information about the impersonation on Wrongpedia.
  5.  However this is clearly a problem when someone is impersonated!

Providing links to current version of originals, as distinct from archive.is pages:

  1. http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Georgie_Enkoom (this is only evidence of what the user claims about [him]self, but I agree that Enkoom is unlikely to be a Smith sock.)
  3. The link is to a single Krom (Oliver) claim (i.e., Oliver). A link to an archive of the whole list, which I will show below) This list was removed as disruptive by an RW sysop. This was common for Oliver: he would start to experience blowback for his obessions from other users, and he would then retire the account and start a new one, to create confusion. (That is not considered a violation on RW, unless the account is a mob target). Note 3 does not support the claim in the text, at least not without extensive further research.
  4. This amounts to an admission that Oliver is active on Wrongpedia, a blatant attack site, in this case attacking Wyatt. The RW account is “RaiderFan,” not “Raider Fan.” Smith socks have been very active on RW attacking Merkel (“Wyatt”). The current active Oliver account on RW being Callimachus (acknowledged), who was blocked for harassing Merkel, while Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith) unblocked him and blocked Merkel, in a period when, they claim, the DS account was hacked, and Oliver claimed it was me. And that DS account attempted to hide many open admissions of identity, and also blocked old alleged impersonation accounts. It’s completely bonkers. More on RaiderFan below.
  5. Yes. RationalWiki has some level of pretense to be a serious site, but, in fact, the community is focused on “lulz,” they call it “snark,” or SPOV, a play on the usage of that term on Wikipedia, where it means an oxymoron, “Scientific Point of View” but on RW the S stands for “Snarky.” They really don’t care about any RW target, and targets are routinely blocked when they object, in spite of RW inviting criticism. Blatant attack socks are common blocked and blamed on a target, when the behavior is not target behavior, but Smith behavior. Or a very sophisticated and long-term dedicated impersonator. I know the world of major Smith “enemies,” and none are reasonable suspects for that level of impersonation. Occasional impersonation is not impossible. And then Smith will point to it, if he can show it, and claim that’s the whole show.

Oliver’s list of Mikemikev socks from 2015

See above. This begins with a list of IPs, all claimed to be Korean. At that point, Mikemikev was living in Korea, and I had already, studying possible sock puppetry in RW articles, noticed the Korean IPs and considered them very likely Mikemikev. It is possible, however, using open proxies, to select a Korean open proxy, so this is not absolute proof. However, it’s likely, and the abundance of these actually shows Mikemikev not routinely using open proxies, but rather, readily available local IP. The list is long. This is not account socking, and would not be impersonation without clearer evidence. I’m not looking at them. These are the accounts alleged, in addition to Mikemikev:

Mikemikev1
Kevin
FrankDickman
Sam Rainbow
Philphilpot
Social Justice Warrior
Social Justice Internet Scientist
Michael C

There’s plenty more that can be added to the list. He easily has 20+ more accounts. Krom (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That’s a short list to cover years of activity. When users are blocked on RatWiki, they are sometimes told it’s not a big deal, and that one can always create a sock. From the extensive IP editing, as well, it looks like Mikemikev didn’t bother to do this very much. Remember, the supposed point of this is to show impersonation socking, and impersonation implies someone impersonated, who should be reasonably obvious from the name or from behavior. What do we see here?

Mikemikev1 is plainly claiming to be Mikemikev. Oliver is claiming this also. The account has two edits, this is basically irrelevant. The account was blocked, however, a year after the last edit, 14 November 2014. Weird. Not impersonation.

Kevin edited with apparent Mikemikev POV. See this version. Not impersonation.

FrankDickman Possible Mikemikev POV. No evidence of impersonation, certainly not of Oliver. This account resembles the next, and if not Mikemikev, could be the same user. Contrary to Oliver opinion, Mikemikev is not the only “race realist” active on the internet.

Sam Rainbow All contributions hidden. Disruptive user, revert warring. Not blocked! Contributions were hidden 2 May 2018 by Debunking spiritualism (Darryl Smith)  (in his deletion rampage,the whole page was deleted). Possible impersonation of Mikemikev ? but this was Mikemikev POV. Not impersonation of someone else.

PhilPhilpot (mispelled above, but link correct) Single edit No evidence this is Mikemikev other than POV, which for one edit, is generally inadequate. That edit linked to this display. Mikemikev (apparently) linked to the same display previously. This is about human biodiversity, and the apparent “race realists” participating on that RW discussion were making cogent arguments, faced with ad hominem arguments coming back, for the most part. (If we consider, on the matter of intelligence, hereditarianism and enviromentalism as extremes, I’m well toward the environmentalist side, but it is also obvious that there are genetic variations and it is possible that these could be associated with population genetics, sometimes called “race.” In any case, not impersonation.

Social_Justice_Warrior claims or pretends to be a Social Justice Warrior, but also attacks the term. It is true that the extreme right wing uses SJW as an epithet. I see nothing, however, to confirm that this account is Mikemikev. The five edits before being blocked amounted to a very small amount of text. (The user then reverted a removal of that text, and made a trolling comment on the talk page of that article), and was short-blocked. Then one edit to his own User talk page. That discussion ends with

Social Justice Warrior is Mikemikev, he has no life. He’s been creating these socks impersonating for years and is the clown.Arcticos (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior was then blocked as Mikemikev, not just once, but three times, and with no additional evidence. This is very much RW commonplace. Who was Arcticos? The user has only nine edits, in two sessions, 13 July 2015 (the above was his first edit — so why was he trusted?) and then 1-2 November 2016. From my list of RationalWiki AP socks already published, I had written “extremely likely.” With more careful review of the edits, many evidences, I am now completely convinced, Articos was Oliver, not his brother Darryl, and repeating the story of Mikemikev “impersonating,” so far not actually confirmed (even if SJW was a Mikemikev sock, this was ordinary trolling, not impersonation. But SJW doesn’t smell like Mikemikev. Not an impersonation (impersonation refers to actually creating the impression of being another specific person, not pretending a point of view, though that can also be offensive sometimes. Smith has been claiming that Mikemikev impersonated him, not some random SJW.

Social_Justice_Internet_Scientist  block log. How is it that a user with 7 edits, all within little more than an hour, 15 May 2015, is blocked three times, the last by Darryl Smith, on his rampage May 3, 2018? The first block was by WatcherIntheDark, 15 May 015. SJIS was unblocked by a regular as the  block was obviously excessive. Three months later, Krom accused SJIS of being Mikemikev and blocked. (See the next edit after SJIS’s first edit). Reviewing all the edits, I see no sign that SJIS was Mikemikev and quite a bit to contrary.  While WatcherIntheDark has some interest overlap, the user is very unlikely to be an AP sock. Not an impersonation.

Michael_C is a real-name account (i.e., with real name last initial. 2 edits, 6 September 2015. Plausible as Mikemikev. Not an impersonation.

I see several possible Mikemikev accounts, but most, probably not. Perhaps Mikemikev will have something to say about this. In any case, Oliver’s claims are not substantiated by what he cited, and, in fact, this shows Smith brother reactivity and obsession with Mikemikev.

Other Oliver D. Smith RWW articles

I will review these on separate pages.

Mikemikev_sockpuppets impressive list, but I see some accounts included that were likely Darryl Smith. Maybe many.

Oliver_D._Smith lies straightaway about no longer being active on RW. Uh, Callimachus? To be sure, Callimachus “retired” after his comments on the talk page of my article. So 4 days, no edits on RW, AFAIK, but furious activity on RWW.

Rome_Viharo Rome actually tangled with Darryl first

Abd Obviously Oliver’s first priority. (started by Bigs) (as of latest Oliver edit).

Mikemikev  of course.

http://therationalarchives.wikia.com/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard

The common thread: Smith writes about those who were attacked by him or his brother and who fought back by telling the truth about what had happened. That doesn’t mean that they never made mistakes, they did. But the story of the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” so intensely ridiculed on RationalWiki, was fundamentally true, there is no longer any reasonable doubt, no matter how furiously Oliver and Darryl have been trying to cover it up.

Update

Oliver supposedly retired from RWW June 17, though he left an out.

No longer active on this wiki unless I have to block Mikemikev‘s sockpuppets.

JD Bigs announced this on The End of an era.

However, Oliver came back. His contributions. His logs (Obsessed user!)

Example of editing after “retiring”: Mikemikev sockpuppets. Almost all socks claimed to be Mikemikev are either Oliver,  or, more likely, his brother. (Rightpedia editors commonly think that there is no brother, or that the brother is completely inactive. I don’t think so. There are two personalities and sets of behaviors. As well, the brothers no longer live together, apparently, and thus they have been able to create support from independent IP, which made a difference in dealing with WMF stewards (who are not at all accustomed to this kind of coordinated socking).

The massive impersonation I found on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and the meta wiki were not Oliver D. Smith (“Anglo Pyramidologist) but were the brother, Darryl L. Smith, and Oliver claimed that most socks were his brother in email to me (which has been published here).

Smith has lied about this, for sure, because he has made sourced claims that, when the source is examined, are not supported, such as claiming that Mikemikev admitted all the Wikipedia socks. That was actually preposterous. All he did was to call the Wikipedia Sock Puppet case as “his case.” Which it was, i.e., he was Mikemikev and he did, long ago, sock. He may also have socked more recently, that’s unclear. But that case is a confused mess, if one reads it. The Wikipedians have made gross errors, on occasion, it’s been shown conclusively, and they don’t correct them. Why should they care if some blocked user was impersonated?

(Because those cases get used as evidence elsewhere, that’s why! It also can make a difference if the user requests to be unblocked or unbanned.)

Or these edits to the article created on RWW about my RationalWiki account. Again, Smith would know that I did not create those RationalWiki sock accounts, and I did not “harass RationalWiki sysops.” I did document, originally, Anglo Pyramidologist, and the related accounts of his brother, and eventually, as attacks on me for exposing the impersonation socking escalated, I listed RationalWiki accounts of these two people, and they have often been sysops there (as was I when this started). These two trolls have been impersonating socking for many years, they are famous for it. The only accusations against me in this regard came from them.

I have described how RationalWiki sysops have enabled and encouraged Smith socking and disruption, but I have not doxxed them, for example, as I have been doxxed. The Smith brothers are real persons who have been libeling real people, and they are being held accountable, legally.

(Because they have been outed by others, years ago, as to real identity, and when I was still investigating the case, I did put up information from a directory giving names and addresses. However, I took that down except for general location, useful for administrators to compare with their own server logs. These guys are radically toxic, this is not mere skepticism or anti-pseudoscience, and they real-life harass, my family has been contacted by them.)

In this thread, Oliver D. Smith implies that a member of the RationalMedia Foundation board is stalking him, and then doxxes IP editors as being Mikemikev. The fact is that Oliver or his brother (more likely the brother) could be using the same service provider as Mikemikev, they live in the same general area.

The Wikipedia sock puppet investigation for Mikemikev is heavily contaminated with old socking that was not actually confirmed as Mikemikev, and there was definitely some impersonation there. This is a known Smith brother tactic, it is how I first encountered them. They find a target who is blocked and create impersonation socks, and then troll for response, then they use the response to prove that the user is highly disruptive. Checkusers on Wikipedia are not dedicated to discovering the truth about this: such impersonation socks are to be blocked no matter if they are impersonations or not!

RationalWiki is even more naive. Many impersonation socks there will quote material from their target, making it look to the naive like editing by the user impersonated. I created, several times, a disclosed sock. They then created a mass of accounts with similar names, and repeated what I’d written in many places, as if I were daring them to block me. Anyone who examined the behavior with care would have seen this. But . . . RationalWiki users rarely take such care. It’s too much work.

However, looking at the accounts he lists:

Could be Mikemikev. It is what Mikemikev might say, and it is pointing to reality, in fact. Mikemikev was being attacked, and so if this was him, he responded. One edit, blocked immediately by JD Bigs for “harassment.”  Essentially, Mikemikev and others were being libelled, and he responded, so that’s harassment. Very much like what happens on RationalWiki itself.

This account directly denies being mikemikev, and the only evidence that it is would be the very general, large internet service provider, that may or may not be actual Mikemikev IP. I do not make claims like that when I investigate accounts. I might say “possible.” (This is not “abusing multiple accounts.” It may be “block evasion,” but the Smith brothers do this routinely when blocked. They just start new accounts, and nobody on RationalWiki really cares about that. They tolerate it, and joke about it. If someone is libelled on the site, and defends themselves, and mention the very obvious use of sock puppets to create the libels, they block the user for “doxxing,” even when there is no real-name revelation, and then continue to block any and all attempts to clear the record.

While Mikemikev cannot be ruled out, this is looking less and less likely to be Mikemikev and more to be another RW user, familiar with the site and the history, saying what more and more RationalWiki users are starting to realize: RW and then RWW have been used as attack platforms, to go after anyone who has confronted the Smith brothers.

Right. What the IP wrote was simply true. So when the RMF board member pointed to what ODS was doing, that’s why ODS found him suspicious.

Obviously not Oliver. (Except that sometimes there are pretend impersonations, accounts pretending to attack Oliver and his brother, but I doubt that in this case.) Participated on the Emil Kirkegaard article and talk page. There were also impersonation socks of Kirkegaard. This account was blocked by CozmicDebris, who often supports Oliver/Darryl agenda. However, I’d have blocked the account also.

Account had no contributions. Obvious trolling. As is common, Oliver is obsessed by accounts with very minor contributions and disruption, compared to his own. This is funny. Yes, there were Kirkegaard impersonations, including the account Emil Kirkegaard, who wrote what naive RWikians would think was a Kirkegaard message, but wasn’t. The reference by MrSheen, who is rather obviously Oliver D. Smith, to Wikipedia is to an account blamed by Smith on Mikemikev, but very unlikely to be him; rather, these kinds of impersonations have been common, they popped up in massive quantities when I first confronted the Smith impersonation socking. They have been doing this for years, and it’s no wonder that people become confused. On Wikipedia, they didn’t believe the “two brothers” story because it’s a common excuse. But it was apparently true, and the most disruptive brother, by far, was Darryl. Oliver is merely crazy.

MrSheen is the only Smith sock I have seen editing RationalWiki after Callimachus, setting aside the impersonation socks, more likely to be Darryl. But Emil Kirkegaard would be a special target for Oliver, so it cannot be ruled out. (Oliver eventually admitted many socks, but blamed “most” on  his brother. — as I recall, he wrote “99.9%”)

The brother (as “Debunking spiritualism” — who had actually been outed by Oliver) stopped editing as a “good hand” account on RationalWiki and went on a deletion spree — clearly pursuing Smith agenda to cover up accusations and admissions — and then claimed the account had been hacked, and his brother (Oliver) then blamed it on me. Fun, aren’t they? (I have never hacked anyone’s account and was widely trusted on WMF wikis, making the recent global ban very, very strange, but I will address that through the courts. The Smiths file private complaints and recruit others to complain, and they lie, and some administrators fall for it.)

I’m not the only one to notice MrSheen. IPs edited the MrSheen user page today with a link to the Rightpedia page on Oliver Smith sockpuppets.

17:37, 8 August 2018 . . User:MrSheen (Created page with “https://en.rightpedia.info/w/Oliver_David_Smith_sockpuppets Hilariously the other socks are Oliver attempting to frame me.”)

He’s referring to the other edits on Talk:Emil Kirkegaard, I think.

Generally, once an account is confronted like this, it disappears.

 

 

 

And his brother, Darryl L. Smith

May 2-3, 2018, Darryl L. Smith, as Debunking spiritualism, thoroughly outed himself before retiring. He still does not reveal to the RationalWiki community, with this, what it would take to get his libels deleted, but the Smiths still have not figured out that the prime way to recover, from indiscretions that come to light, is full disclosure, not half-measures. He may still be active on Wikipedia, as he claimed, and may still be able to collect financial support for it, so … he’s attempting to limit damage. While guaranteeing that he will fail.

He retired, creating a new account to claim Debunking spiritualism had been hacked. He had unblocked an account of his brother (, wheel-warring with Spriggina, and taking other actions that would clearly be Smith agenda, mostly in an attempt to scrub references to the Smith brothers (mostly Oliver, including places where Oliver accounts admitted who he was) not some new strange initiative. But the RWikians are about as gullible a group as I have ever encountered, most of them are far from “rational.”

His deletion actions merged with contributions and the block log:

This speaks volumes. That page was started as a redirect by Dave1234, which was Darryl L. Smith. Oliver Smith was not lying when he denied being Dave1234. The article itself was started by Debunker, also Darryl.

For Darryl to link to the WWHP page was completely remarkable. However, he has enough experience with RationalWiki (and he tried also to fix the article on me), to know that the deceptive impressions that he spent years to create would not vanish just because he, on the face someone different, says that it was wrong. He engaged whole generations of RationalWiki editors in his crusade as retaliation for Rome Viharo documenting the “wikipedia problem,” which intimately involved him, certainly as Goblin Face and likely other accounts.

Notice that DS claims “author request.” That’s because he was the author!

(We can think that an impersonator wanted to establish this. For what audience? I know of no person who has investigated the AP/Krom/Atlantid/Gobling Face sock family who still thinks that it was one person (i.e. Oliver Smith). That opinion has been expressed in the past, but this was before there was serious investigation, using better evidence. In addition, I have the equivalent of checkuser evidence and I’m suspecting I’m going to see some interesting facts when I look — it takes time, I have no automated tool like Media Wiki checkuser, on the blog. In the past, commentary focused on Oliver Smith, because he has been public about his identity. I began, some time ago, to document Darryl L. Smith. There were reactions). They did not begin on May 3!)

So, naturally, his deletion was reversed, by Cozmicdebris.

admits it is about doxxing of his family. I.e., the Smith brothers.

and 12 more revision deletions on that page. These were all restored by Grammar Commie. What was he hiding? Until I saw this, I didn’t realize there was an early incarnation of “Racialism.” Some archives I found: Talk page history\

This was the second attempt to hide all that, see below for the first. Both failed.

Archive 1 history (notice edit by Gorgonite, attempting to hide discussion.) Gorgonite was blanking an edit by Windir, replying to IP (Mikemikev? Maybe). Archive1 was deleted by FuzzyCatPotato, with the summary “13:42, 25 October 2016 FuzzyCatPotato (talk | contribs deleted page Talk:Racial realism/Archive1 (content was: “{{talk archive}} == Stupidly One-sided == So stupidly one-sided. This page is a complete joke. Clearly written by a “race denying” crackpot.<sup>— Unsigned, by: 202.171.168.146 / User talk:202.171.168.1…”)

Did FCP know what he was doing? The only edit of that IP was to create the Talk page back in 2012. FCP was indeed scrubbing history. Gorgonite was an obvious Oliver sock. (These users only effectively hide from others who are paying little attention, a common problem on wikis.) RationalWiki does not, per se, sanction sock puppetry, unless the user is unpopular.

The edit that Gorgonite blanked was by Windir (contributions). Naturally, I look for hidden  contributions.

Nice. To Talk:Race as an additional comment after his comment of 18:12, 8 October 2014

Btw, this is the level of Mikemikev’s intelligence:>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_didn%27t_want_to_wear_purple_pants

User:Excuse Me I’m ON LSD

I don’t want to wear purple pants and “i’m on LSD” are listed among two of Mikemikev’s socks.

Maybe it was the LSD he takes that turned him into such a mental-case. Windir (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Classic trolling. The entire RW site is like this. Articles troll for outrage, and if the target shows up, he is harassed, sometimes impersonated, and commonly blocked.

The Talk archives for “Race” have been deleted. However, Talk:Race is still up, so I’m creating archives based on the page as archived by the bot or others, including extensively blanked text. The full page history.  These are snapshots of the page just before removals. They are not as convenient as normal Talk page archives, but edits can be found. Some of these already existed. Text in collapse is also shown.

Users and IPs were outed as Mikemikev. Doxxing is Bad when AP socks(Goody Guys!) are doxxed, Good when Bad Guys are doxxed. The difference between Good Guys and Bad Guys is that Bad Guys hide. Oh. Wait! That talk page was deleted. Lots of RationalWiki discussion has been, later, deleted, with no explanation. Who is hiding?

Removed an edit by Torch (Darryl!) about Mikemikev.  Reverted by Spud.

  • 01:33, 3 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Talk:Racial realism: content hidden and edit summary hidden (Inappropriate comment or personal information: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Deletion_of_Talk:racialism_and_Talk:race)

and 16 more. GrammarCommie restored 13. What revisions are still hidden? Three revisions were previously hidden, one by Skeptical (Darryl) 02:27, 31 October 2017.  (which would be three or more years after the edit. Skeptical did the same thing as DS did later, only not so extensively. There are a total of five hidden. discrepancy of one. Nothing particularly striking on the page. Some more AP socks.

removed edits by Jon Donniz, Saxton, and possible Mikemikev IP. The first two are likely AP socks.

why would Darryl block this IP 4 years later? To tag the IP with “Mikemikev” for anyone seeing this later. The IP is Korean, which could indicate mikemikev at that time, but it’s also possible to choose an open proxy there.

Oliver and Darryl have both supported this, eventually. But that article was created by ODS (Oliver) and Oliver there acknowledges that it was as revenge against me. (Darryl, DS, created the article on me.)

The page was created by an AP sock, that’s clear. Which one, I’m not entirely sure. This is a common tactic: ridicule reality, call it a “conspiracy theory.” The creator comments, MrOrganic (possibly Oliver). The article on me was created by Marky (DS). While MrOrganic created that page, it gets blamed on Rome Viharo by Marky, and David Gerard bought that. The fact is that the “Smith brothers” theory is not a “conspiracy theory,” it is that there are two brothers, Oliver and Darryl Smith. The Oliver half of that is far beyond proven. “Darryl” remains somewhat circumstantial. There really is a brother, that’s clear, but Oliver recently claimed it was all him and that he’d been lying for hears about the “brother.”  So lying then or lying now, how much does it matter? This will get sorted legally, I strongly suspect.

Schizophrenic was Oliver. I found the edit and documented it, so Darryl is trying to cover it up.

 

Callimachus is Oliver D. Smith.

Archived 2 May 2018 19:45:01 UT.

Socks found in this review (these could be Oliver or Darryl). A few listed could be impersonations.

September 5, 2013 see archive. Fraudulently signs IP edit “Eveshi.”
May 23, 2014 hidden edit to Talk:Racial realism (remove libellous illegal doxing from the sockpuppet troll mikemikev/MU.) Content blanked: “Jon Donniz/Saxton is the mentally ill troll Atlantid/Pyramidologist/Oliver Smith. He specialises in accusing people of being his socks. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5299104/1/ 123.254.239.5 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC) “(link is live, but archived). This material would have saved a lot of time. There are conclusions in it that I’m not prepared to support, but … Mikemikev did a lot of research, and reported it relatively soberly. Considering how early this was, it was quite good. Of course this was hidden on RationalWiki! (It would routinely be hidden because of the doxxing of Oliver Smith, for sure, but also mentioning Atlantid or Pyramidologist — known and admitted Oliver socks (i.e., Oliver was the original Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist, effectively banned in 2011– has also resulted in blocks and revision hiding.)

 Skeptic Jon 5-7 September, 2013 & 2 April 2014, last edit, hidden, to Talk:Racial realism.: “123.140.240.40 is troll Mikemikev. He’s been on this page for years.” likely Darryl

Hot edits! Hidden revisions.
Eveshi 31 May 2013 – 5 June 2013 Possibly Darryl but is claimed to be Chung. defiantly blocked by Forests. Investigate other sites.
Prince Emmanuel. 12 February 2013 – 3 June 2013 at first exposes Forests as “darryl.” later signs “Max”. Accused of being Forests. Hypocrite claims 13 years old. Max is clearly in direct communication with Forests, see this conversation. notice the dino_crisis email for Forests.
Other site: An account “Forests” refers to eveshi and signs Darryl Forests.

Schizophrenic, Oliver D. Smith

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

A page here covered an admission by RationalWiki user Schizophrenic (contributions) that he was Oliver D. Smith. Schizophrenic edited from 29 January, 2016 to 20 September, 2016, and the admission was on 11 July 2016 (archive of that admission).

The account clearly expressed, in detail, Oliver Smith’s point of view. See this edit, by Schizophrenic, to his User page, August 7, 2016:

One of the few Rationalwiki editors who wants to stop the left-wing political bias on this site.

Oliver’s prior account (acknowledged elsewhere) was Krom, who expressed agreement with RW on pseudoscience and racism) — but not on other “left-wing” issues.

The admission edit had been hidden by Skeptical, clearly an AP sock, 31 October, 2017, as heat rose on the “Smith brothers” — by their own actions.

So I documented that page on the page linked at the beginning of this page. And today, I noticed:

19:54, 2 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs blocked Schizophrenic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Harassment: Impersonation, not real “Oliver” now Abd using the impersonator on his blog: http://archive.is/ydies)

This was nothing short of astonishing. Schizophrenic was clearly Oliver D. Smith, there is no likely impersonators, and this came two years after the edit. Looking at DS contributions, there was a frenzied flurry of attempts to cover up evidence — some of which I had not seen before. Always a bad idea to directly confront “outing,” it can confirm it, Rome Viharo made that mistake on Wikipedia.

After this frenzy, in which Darryl — there is no longer any reasonable doubt about his identity– revealed much and also threatened Grammar Commie with cooping — I’ll get to that! — he retired. On the subpage I look at his contributions and logs. Let’s look at his contributions and logs.

 

Oliver here

The title of this page is the section title created by Schizophrenic, for Talk:Rome Viharo, in response to a comment that was allegedly from Viharo (but that may have been an impersonation, I have not checked with Viharo). The edits creating this section were (much later) hidden, but not the content. (and archived)

Schizophrenic was responding to material copied onto the Talk page by a sysop, taken from the Saloon bar. That material included the real name of Schizophrenic. Before that, an IP edit was redacted, see the archive.

“[REDACTED]” there replaced “Oliver D. Smith”, except that the second reference in the first paragraph referred to “David1234” as the creator of the Rome Viharo article, which he was. That account was an AP sock, all right, but not Oliver; rather it was Darryl. For Darryl’s identity we have only circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of an admitted liar, his brother Oliver. That two brothers were involved, not simply one person, has caused massive confusion, thoroughly exploited by the brothers, for Oliver can then say that someone like Viharo — if that was Viharo — is “lying,” when he is merely mistaken, and the substance of his claims remains cogent. There was definitely harassment.

What Schizophrenic wrote:

Viharo has confused identities of two people, Tim Farley and Oliver Smith (i’m the latter). He thinks Farley is Manul from Wikipedia, when he isn’t. Secondly he thinks i’m Goblin Face/Dan Skeptic from Wikipedia, when i’m not. A lot of this confusion is down to the banned RW user and troll Michaeldsuarez (an ED sysop) posting misinformation about me. I’ve now blocked the libellous ED page he created using my name where he says i’m Goblin Face etc.

Viharo does speculate that Manul (formerly vzaak, who definitely harassed Viharo on Wikipedia, while Farley is alleged to have harassed him elsewhere — I have not verified this) is a sock of Farley. I rather doubt it, but the more reasonable suspicion is that there is off-wiki communication and cooperation between “skeptics.” That’s a long story. Goblin Face was Dan Skeptic, that’s open. However, Goblin Face was eventually checkusered as an AP sock, so if Viharo thinks they are “AP” he would have some substantial basis.

However, Wikipedia gave up attempting to distinguish the brothers, they are both defacto banned as AP. The ascription of this to MDS is classic AP smokescreen. Many, many people have figured this out (and some think that the brother story is fake, and Oliver just asserted that himself, that he had lied for years. Yeah, right. I find it highly implausible that all the activity I have tagged as AP is one person, it creates more mysteries than it resolves. I won’t say “impossible.” But that’s not my operating assumption. Two aspects of one person, possibly “schizophrenic,” or two persons who sometimes access the internet from the same location, makes little difference, in fact, since both are highly disruptive, but it can confuse the hell out of checkusers.

Defamation Complaint to Google https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/12535607

See this page for a longer list of complaints. Smith also harasses by email, may have made harassing phone calls, files complaints with service providers and administrators, and is quite proud of the results — and misrepresents them.

Viharo was also involved in posting slander about me on my ED page, so its rather amusing to see him here moaning about “harassment”. Google has looked, seen the defamation, and taken action by blocking the page.

Google acts under a process that does not determine the fact of defamation. That action only blocks listing search results for users accessing Google from the UK (or maybe the EU).

As for the schizophrenia claim, it traces back to Encylopedia Dramatica (again Michaeldsuarez) which is not a reliable source at all; there’s other nonsense there such as i’m a holocaust denier or muslim extremist. I simply at first went along with it for a joke, hence I’ve used this name. Bizarrely though Viharo thinks its all genuine, and is now posting i’m “mentally ill” on his website, and Suarez who originated all of this misinformation and know he made it up – is now going around trying to portray me as a real schizoid.Schizophrenic (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So Oliver went along with the “joke,” and then attacks others for repeating it. The account Schizophrenic’s contributions show many Oliver Smith interests, and this was long-term, unlikely to be an imposter. In fact, the admission of schizophrenia came from a comment by Atlantid, a well-known sock of Oliver (and he’s admitted that was him), and there have also been other clues, including quite erratic behavior.

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2016/02/what-will-wikipedia-editor-goblin-faceatlantid-do-next/

Pretty much everything on the above link is false, e.g. “After I was banned on Wikipedia, this individual was also ‘David1234’ who created the Rational Wiki article on me” Yet. I never created Rome Viharo’s Rationalwiki entry; “David1234” is not me. He also accuses me of sending him a “threatening email”. I’ve never emailed Rome Viharo. The only source saying I do is Encylopedia Dramatica (tracing back specifically to michaeldsuarez who makes up these lies). Schizophrenic (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

David1234 would be Darryl Smith. Oliver is telling the truth on this point, but not the whole truth, and for others to become confused would be normal. I’ve known MDS for many years, he’s not a liar. Ever. I”ve disagreed with him, but he wasn’t lying.

But ED is a parody site, full of satire, not everything there is to be taken literally. The information that I and others have published, however, does not depend on MDS. The source for email to Rome Viharo would be Rome Viharo, obviously, not someone else.

A copy of the mail.

It appears that Viharo assumed that this mail would be from Oliver (“Atlantid”). I doubt it. Both brothers have been known to threaten retaliation for documentation, though, and Oliver admittedly harassed Joshua Connor Moon, by sending an email to his mother’s employer. The interest here would not be Oliver, but Darryl (“Goblin Face/Dan Skeptic”), but, then, Oliver becomes interested if he is named. I received similar threats from socks that originally were promoting the interests of Darryl L. Smith, but also defending his brother, claiming that “Anglo Pyramidologist” — i.e., Oliver — was not involved.

Retaliation through impersonation is very much a Smith brother activity.

The brothers have created a cloud of confusion and a web of deception. As well, they have been strangely protected by some. Why? I find that a question of substantial interest.

Some people keep and use attack dogs. Others are merely naive.

If not for the admission, which was difficult to find, Schizophrenic would have looked like many AP socks, and was, in fact, suspected from contributions. The strange revision-hiding more than  year later confirms the connection to Skeptical, who could be Oliver or Darryl, and Skeptical was already clearly an AP sock.

It was Skeptical who blocked me on RationalWiki for “doxxing” that was not doxxing, I did not name real names, only suspected accounts of being “AP.” RW users, and especially the Smith brothers, do that with others routinely (and they use real names in accusing suspected socks.)

Total breakdown

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

If Oliver Smith had, as a goal, thoroughly exposing the idiocy of RationalWiki — and to a lesser degree, also the WMF wikis — he couldn’t have done a better job.

From his own emails and comments on RationalWiki:

Oliver Smith claims

  • He made up the brother story years ago to get unblocked on Wikipedia.
  • He fed the story to many, fooling them. It was a joke, and funny as hell.
  • He lied to Tim Farley.
  • His real brother’s name is now being published. [It is!]
  • Yet his real brother isn’t involved at all. [Is he?]
  • Nobody is paid, that was all his deception.
  • He’s the victim of massive harassment.
  • And Lomax is crazy for declaring as possible the story that Oliver made up and repeated for many years.

Let’s take a look!

His emails to me — and my recent replies — are here.

A few days ago, I protected most pages dealing with Anglo Pyramidologist, requiring a password, which, for the time being ,will be revealed to those with a need to know.

Then, April 4, 2018,  I received an email from  Oliver Smith, from the known and verified email address for him, offering a “truce,” he would fix the RationalWiki article on me if I removed mention of him on my blog (and he sent the exact same oemail to Rome Viharo). I responded as can be seen there. I thanked Oliver for certain things and pointed out that improvement he proposed on RationalWiki would not address many of the problems created by the Smith brothers’ history, including perhaps the most serious (a massive sock and then cross-wiki canvassed attack on Wikiversity and Wikiversity users). I suggested simply telling the truth.

April 5, Debunking spiritualism attempted to edit the RW article on me to make it more about substantial subjects, but was — as I’d have predicted — promptly reverted.  He then wrote on the Talk page (archive copy of the page):

Proposed re-write

I re-wrote some sections, but they got reverted. I’ve spoken to Lomax by email, and he says he will no longer disrupt or make more articles on RationalWiki on his blog etc., if we just focus more on his cold fusion and try to more neutrally present his research on this. The problem is his page has been a battleground and much drama over his activities on wikis that are mostly irrelevant to RationalWiki – its main purpose is to document pseudoscience. I just think its sensible if we rewrite his article and the drama will end.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait? Who spoke to me by email? I was communicating with Oliver D. Smith, who was, until recently, ODS on RationalWiki. Many evidences from ODS pointed to his brother, Darryl L. Smith, as “DS.” Second problem, here, I never did disrupt RationalWiki, this was done by a series of impersonation socks. The user with an extensive history of similar impersonation would be DS, and it was almost certainly a sock of DS who wrote the article, and DS had been obsessively editing it. The page had not been a battleground except, briefly, impersonation socks vandalized it, pretending to be me.

While I have never ruled out the possibility of a third party impersonator, the impersonation patterns were those of the sock master I confronted on WMF wikis as “Anglo Pyramidologist,” and, with evidence and claims from Oliver, almost certainly his twin brother, Darryl. (AP, there, is both brothers — or Oliver Smith lied from the beginning, which he has now claimed.) The other possible troll would have had no interest at that time, and there was no cooperation from the Smiths that would have exposed the impersonations. No, Darryl was the impersonator. Or there is another possibility that arises here, and it’s remarkable. The whole thing was a lie and harassment targets were not the only ones impersonated.

This possibility aligns with the opinion of another critic of the Smiths: there is no brother, this is all one person, pretending to be two. To deal with what has been published, this requires one of two possibilities: (1) there is literally no brother, and the public record that purported to show that was fake, created by Oliver as a red herring, or (2) Darryl is silent, uninvolved.

The appearance here, given the emails to me, is that Oliver is Debunking spiritualism, who has carried on conversations with ODS and other Oliver socks, and this was all fake, deception. There is a more likely scenario, I’ll get to that. GrammarCommie, obviously believing in the tissue of lies created by the impersonator and the Smith editing, continues with

RationalWiki is objective not neutral. Furthermore this sounds like extortion to me, i.e. “do what I say or else I’ll harass you.” ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What “sounds like extortion” is a story made up by DS. I have not threatened anyone with harassment. I have pointed out the obvious: what one writes on a wiki is public and open to examination and critique. I would not attempt to coerce anyone, and have not. But someone has done this, through the impersonation socks, pretending to be me. I have circumstantial evidence — not proof — that the harassment socks were “Anglo Pyramidologist.” Yet the RatWikians who show up in this present discussion obviously assume they were me. In fact, they were designed that way. They copied text from me, using names that someone naive might think I would use — I have no history of disruptive account socking — and then tacking in threats and accusations, or simple vandalism.

I actually proposed to re-write some of it. At the very least there’s been lots of mistakes & errors on the article. What I wrote was actually a lot more objective. I would invite Lomax here to correct things he has a problem with, but he’s already published a response on his blog and I went over it. He’s mostly telling the truth about his cold fusion research. It is misrepresented by the original article creator. Of course I’m not defending Lomax’s antics on wikis and other sites (he recently got blocked on the RW reddit section), but I think the article should more accurately present his cold fusion stuff.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I invited @Bongolian and a few others to discuss my edit.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable. “He’s mostly telling the truth about his cold fusion research.” Who was the original article creator? That creator complained about me and I was promoted (sysop tools removed) as a result. Then another obviously related user indef blocked me for “doxxing,” when I had not doxxed, another sock had, I had merely responded. This was all someone with long experience manipulating wiki communities, preying on the naive, ready to make knee-jerk assumptions that involve primitive models of human behavior.

The “response on my blog” that I wrote was months ago and the article changed a lot since then. What I suggested, with a declared sock, was that I be unblocked and I could then make suggestions on the Talk page. What DS proposes here — and that unblock — would be more or less standard for RW, as to how RW presents itself to the world on the Main Page. But the problem is far, far deeper than my article.

DS knows how and why I was blocked on the “RW Reddit section.” He complained to David Gerard, and it was immediately actioned. There, I had responded to a few blatant attack posts, by users who showed up only to make them, referring to RW articles of which they were likely the author. Someone has been abusing RW, for a long time, as a personal attack platform. (Looking at that now, I wondered how DS knows. Reddit does not show who is banned. I logged out, and a comment I made, visible when logged in,  now shows as “Removed.” This is the thread. My response was

RationalWiki is run by people apparently terrified of real discussion, believing in a mission that involves suppressing whatever they think is wrong and anyone not a true believer in their brand of skepticism. They pretened to be about rejecting authoritarianism. They lie.

If it’s a matter of correcting errors on RW, then, yes, this should be done. We should not however be put in a position of tone policing ourselves because of Lomax. I don’t think that Lomax is a trustworthy actor based on his past documented history here and elsewhere, and we should not cater to his whims. There is no possible guarantee that he could make that he will not continue his harassment on or off of RW. Bongolian (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That “documented” history is full of misrepresentations and deceptions, most recently the massive impersonation socking on RW. Generally, aside from his acceptance of a load of deception, I’d agree with his position. However, there need be no binding guarantee, were I proposing some quid pro quo. Suppose, for simplicity, that the article were deleted. (That is not the most inspiring possibility!). And I committed to not writing about RationalWiki. Not that I would, mind you, I’m a journalist, but I do have choices about where to focus. If I violated my commitment, the article could simply be restored. If the agreement were public, there would be some actual misbehavior — a lack of integrity — to point to. It would take a minute to undelete the article.

These guys have little or no business experience or imagination. It’s hard to find good help. But this was all actually irrelevant, since I was not making or offering any guarantee, this was a Smith initiative, and the question arises, “Why now?”

Lomax wants some kind of deal where his lead is edited, and the cyber-harasser and troll is removed and the article accurately reflects his cold fusion research. Lomax had about 30 articles very negative about Rationalwiki users, some of these contained dox. He has now removed some those from public-view and they are password protected, but he is talking about contacting the media privately about his ban from Rationalwiki and Wikipedia. He says that is a possibility, he also says his obsession with all of this has damaged his health, I can believe that. He was writing thousands of words about this every-day, it was not normal.

I personally would have his RW article deleted, I actually voted delete in the deletion discussion. The whole thing has caused too much trouble here and these petty internet feuds with Lomax are messing with peoples lives. It would be better for everyone if this was all to just end. Obviously many people voted to keep his article so it will not be deleted but I don’t know if it is worth inviting him here to comment on what he wants changed on his article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How does he know what I want? Telepathy? He’d be evidence it doesn’t exist. But, yes, a focus on cold fusion would not be a problem, if that’s considered worthy of an article.  The only “dox” was, eventually, long after being “banned” for doxxing, the names of the Smith brothers. RW articles, written by the brothers, routinely dox targets…. Oliver apparently just created an article on Michael Coombs on Wrongpedia that gives the address of Coombs’ mother, with no excuse other than a suggestion she could be harassed because he visits home sometimes.

DS showed up to comment in that deletion discussion months after it closed. It was pointed out how odd it was for him to show up and vote delete for an article that he was obviously obsessively editing. At a certain point I began to emphasize “Darryl L. Smith,” because I was realizing that it was likely that most actual damage, in many areas, was coming from that brother. Maybe he was realizing that he had attempted character assassination on a target who can defend himself. And there is more.

If Lomax permanently removed and deletes all the negative commentary about Rationalwiki on his cold fusion community blog and decides to move on with his life, is it possible his article could be deleted? This might not be policy but is it not possible to arrange some kind of deal like this? Both parties would win at the end of the day and people could move on with their lives. Several users have been doxed by Lomax on his blog so all this is having real life consequences. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rimuru Tempest, @Readymade, @Christopher @David Gerard your thoughts about the above? Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I know RationalWiki reasonably well. This proposal had no chance of success as stated.

First of all, who is feeling “real life consequences?” There would be one class of such: the targets of many articles created by the crazy duo, and fewer by articles created by other RatWikians. Almost all RatWiki users are fully anonymous. Oliver and Darryl Smith are only not anonymous because they were so massively disruptive in so many fora that they attracted a great deal of attention. The first three pinged are anonymous, to my knowledge, and would not care personally about this. David Gerard probably believes he is completely secure. He might be, the legal theory on which I might sue him is thin. But it doesn’t really cost a lot to try. RW is a more inviting target, and RW actually has raised money on the idea that they need it for legal defense. RW, however, is not yet on the hook, there is due process that remains first.

The only two actually feeling consequences — or simply fearing them — would be Oliver and Darryl Smith. But they are not appealing based on the truth. I’m not sure what the point of this exercise was. It seems that DS wants to maintain the myth of “Abd harassing multitudes all over the internet,” while shutting down attention on himself and his brother. They created that myth, creating evidence for it (such as the Reddit ban, simply a decision probably by Gerard — though there is another moderator), just as they created the WMF ban by canvassing for complaints, all visible if anyone looks.

Let me put it this way: Fuck no!!! We will not cave in to every halfassed crank that suddenly decides that they’ve “reformed”. that is the very definition of whitewashing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. But what “halfassed crank” has “suddenly decided” that he has “reformed”? The DS narrative, backed as it is by several months of bombarding RW with impersonation socks, is accepted, whole hog.

I think he has delusions of self-grandeur if he thinks “the media” will be interested in his petty squabbles and persecution complex. Password-protecting his doxing is not a particularly conciliatory action in my view: this is basically an admission that he has been a harasser. I invite other moderators @CheeseburgerFace, @Christopher, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, as well as the semi-active: @David Gerard to comment. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The story as they would imagine it would not be of interest to the media. Did I mention the media? If I file an action, I would probably create a press release, and an organization might be involved. The main show would be an action against the WikiMedia Foundation, with RationalWiki being a minor player.

I never indicated the password protection as “conciliatory.” It was explained here.

Until this point, all my work was public, my research notes were public. “Going dark” means creating access security, as I work with legal issues, counsel, and develop necessary resources, until a final report is created and action taken. It is tempting to explain more thoroughly, but I’m resisting that. They can guess but they won’t know until this hits them.

The ordinary RW users probably have nothing to fear, it’s not worth going after useless basement-dwellers and twits and anti-crank cranks (and a handful of sincere and perhaps genuine skeptics), but RW itself might see some action, that depends on how they respond to challenges. This is a matter for RMF legal, not ordinary users, and they need not consider it.

I don’t think we should whitewash his past. If he shows signs of a changed man for over 5 years, we can add that to the article and perhaps give him a nicer writeup.—♥€h33s3βurg3rF@€3♥ Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think he’s clueless. I have not suggested, nor would I suggest, “whitewashing” my past. I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished, but he and RatWiki in general have no clue what that is. They have believed a story invented by the Smith brothers, and intensely marketed through impersonation socking. Even as it becomes completely obvious that these brothers are liars and highly deceptive. To accept that, they would need to become skeptical of their own ideas and reactions. Which would make them genuine skeptics. Some of them would rather die first.

On second thought, why are we even covering Internet drama? We care about woo. I was under the impression that we don’t cover Internet drama for anyone on this website.—♥€h33s3βurg3rF@€3♥ Spinning-Burger.gif (talk • stalk) 03:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. My answer for him: RW is covering internet drama because it allowed the Twin Queens of Internet Drama to create hundreds of sock puppets on RationalWiki (probably an understatement) to create articles that were intrinsically attack and revenge and fanaticism, it enabled them and protected them against exposure, opped them and encouraged them, because those who are loudest rueing Teh Drama often do the most to create it and enjoy it. DS here was proposing to focus on woo and alleged pseudoscience, which was, indeed, missional. But the Mob loves Drama! And it cares nothing about truth and careful and thorough research, but only wants to react to the latest hue and cry.

It is the opposite of rational thinking, so RW has a foundational contradiction. Snark is an appeal to quick reaction, and snark is policy on RW. It appeals to the immature. It’s fun. RW is not my problem. However, where the site and its defacto policies create an “attractive nuisance,” there can be consequences.

Honestly, after looking into all of this stuff I’m not so sure we can just throw it under the rug. I agree with Cheeseburger on this, let him show he decided to change through his actions and others will begin to see better of him. Let us not forget what we do here at RW.
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.Rimuru TempestRimuru Slime.png 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What I notice is a massive confusion of conflicting ideas. If the article were objective, there would simply be no question. If facts alleged in the article were backed by sources that actually confirm the claim, or that are not simply cherry-picked from a vast corpus of work, if conclusions stated in the article could be challenged and discussed with someone knowledgeable (i.e., the article subject if the subject is willing), the issue of “change” would be irrelevant. The thinking here is high-school, as if I were some juvenile critically concerned about how people see me, and whining “But I’ve changed.” If I did any such whining, please point it out, so I can stomp on it. I change all the time, I hope I will continue to change until I die, but I am responsible for all of it.

All this discussion was based on the thinking of a deranged Smith brother, his imaginary presentation of what I supposedly wrote to him, that I didn’t. The full emails are on that page from the recent correspondence.

focusing on each and every crank rather than the ideas they espouse is such a waste of time and energy. Anyways, if this Lomax fellow is vandalizing the article, just lock it down–“Shut upBrx.”02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s RatWiki. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Especially on RatWiki. “If this Lomax fellow is vandalizing . . . .” Well, is he? Brx is two clicks away from seeing the history, but the RW cry is “Don’t confuse me with facts!” I never vandalized the article. I edited the article once only, in October 2017. The edit stuck. The short period of editing by socks with my name on them were not me. It’s reasonably obvious who they were, because the behavior is quite old, oft-repeated, long before I was ever involved, and only one person would be interested at that point.

I stumbled across his site at one point, didn’t think much of it, I kept scrolling down and I saw my name of his “Enablers and Supporter” claiming he was working on a draft of me. Idk what he is or was going to write (as he seems to have password blocked it) but after reading a few things of his I think now see him in a worse light than I did at first. I don’t know why he put me on one of his pages and made it seem like I told him “The Christian God is the real God and not Allah” but seeing what he said about everyone I wont really believe him unless he actually shows a change and apologized to those who he attacked. I’m not going to hold a grudge with him but he needs to show we can trust him.リムルテンペストRimuru Slime.png 04:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Enablers and Supporters is a page to describe how the AP socks have managed to effectively abuse wikis and sites, and RationalWiki in particular. He doesn’t say what I wrote, it wasn’t anything like what I wrote. He was attacked by impersonation socks and believed they were me. He didn’t ask me. But he did respond to my question about a sock who impersonated him here.

To apologize for an “attack,” I’ll need to have a reference to the attack. Documenting what an account has done is not an attack. If it is, then is Rimuru  acknowledging that RationalWiki articles are “attacks”? Does he and other RatWikians believe that anyone on the internet is fair game for documentation, but RatWikians? “Supporters and Enablers” would actually  be a compliment if what was supported and enabled is laudable!

His report is weird. The main page shows blog posts, but all the AP and related documentation is pages, used for information and studies. There is a sidebar with Pages, which lists all of them. He would see the page hierarchy, which is RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist/Supporters and Enablers, and the subpages with certain people where there are notes. All my page work is “studies.” If he was able to see the S&E page, he’d have seen, in the TOC,

Rimuru Tempest subpage (draft, not yet published)

Some of the above have been added from a narrow suspicion, and S&E may be inadvertent or ignorant or otherwise

Further down the page, there was his name and a link to his RW contributions. That was all. What does this have to do with “Christian God” and “Allah”? In any case, I looked at the draft page and published it so that Rimuru Tempest may comment on it if he chooses. It is just some notes with a little speculation. Nothing to call a lawyer over, in fact, calling that page an “attack” would be just plain crazy. Perhaps I might flesh out the subpage, except I have a hundred things to do more worthwhile at this point.

An apology and even a website wipe won’t be enough to have us remove what he has done with the past. He remains responsible for any harm he has done and he will learn the consequences of being a little less than an unpleasant piece of work. I’m not holding any grudges, but this person will have to do quite a bit to make up for all the the trouble he has caused. –It’s-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is belief not founded in fact. What trouble did I cause and how? I did not create the AP sock farm, I didn’t even hear about it until September, 2017. 200 socks on Wikipedia, and then, I began to discover, many more even there that aren’t documented, they are quietly blocked. At one point an AP sock claimed to be running RatWiki, having created 700 socks. That might not actually be an exaggeration.

What harm have I done? Any specifics? I can say exactly what harm has been done by AP socks, and it will become far more visible over the next few months. The waste of time on RatWiki from the impersonation socks I certainly did not create. But RatWiki is not actually that important to me.

You have two users lying to you, here on this RW Talk page, and it’s easy to see if you look, and you don’t care. You win the prize, you have to live with the mess.

Any actual inaccuracies should obviously be removed, but don’t cave in to his threats and don’t remove information about what he’s done in the past just because he claims to have changed. Christopher (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, all this discussion was founded on claims from DS. Nobody seems to suspect the accuracy of his report. This was all radically confused. I have not claimed to have “changed.” I shifted tactics, that’s all.

Since this affair began, AP socks called the studies I was doing — merely listing accounts on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta (mostly checkuser-identified) — “Lies,” but never pointed to any specifics. If I have erred, I always appreciate correction, and I don’t hide my past. I learn from it.

I have made no threats. There were threats made by impersonation socks. By “cave in,” Christopher would be referring to threats of harm if one doesn’t do what is demanded, i.e., coercion. I hate coercion. What was demanded by me? (There were demands by impersonation socks.)

I would appreciate making the changes Debunking spiritualism made to the article. I’m someone Lomax smeared and doxed on his blog. He’s since removed nearly everything and is happy to stop this feud if we make amendments. There are clearly inaccuracies, just like Lomax writing lies and hearsay about people on his blog, so it would help to correct/remove the misrepresentations, errors, poorly sourced content and mistakes from Lomax’s article. Agent47 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Agent47 is obviously Oliver D. Smith. Early on, the AP message was that documentation of AP socking was a “vendetta” or “feud.” It was Oliver who actually emailed me, not DS … if they are different. I did hide material, and I didn’t reject Oliver’s offer, but thought that he would not be able to deliver unless he revealed the truth about the history. His comments here show that he was keeping up the story that I was lying, even while pretending to advocate some reasonable action to do what he imagined would “settle the feud.” I have some sympathy, because the truly vicious behavior was probably not him, probably his brother … but he’s completely insane, this comes out. He demonstrates that no matter how we slices it, he lied or he is lying. Why? That’s what gets interesting.

Perhaps @Debunking spiritualism could write a short synopsis here of each correction along with a supporting reference for each correction, then we can move forward. Bongolian (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sensible. There is actually a better way, I saw used on Wikipedia. A rewrite in user space, to be then compared with the standing article. May the better article win! and then the better might still have some content merged from the old. But it might all be a waste if I demand take-down from the RMF, which is under consideration. If the article were actually improved with a plan for keeping it that way, I might not demand take-down. Criticism of cold fusion research is normal, expected, and actually appreciated. However, I just looked at the article. It is heavily designed to defame, full of appeals to knee-jerk assumptions, single incidents conflated to an alleged long-term pattern, and other niceties that afflict far too many RW articles.

RW is full of articles created by this team. One of them has claimed the other is paid (“to the best of his knowledge”) by a major skeptical organization. It’s plausible, and the other has hinted at the same, and then this all starts to get very ugly.

And then this, together with the actual emails, takes the cake:

Lomax email

The above attempted re-writes or deletions requests is because of Lomax blackmailing, coercing and harassing RW users – so like myself we want the option of being left alone by this nutcase. Below is a harassing email I’ve just received. Lomax believes I have a brother involved in this website, I don’t. That’s the “smith brother conspiracy theory” he’s obsessed with. Aside from this misinformation and conspiracy theory, he claims to be taking legal action. But note how rude and aggressive this old prick is:

If I don’t want RW to have an article on me, my recourse is with the RMF. I did email them, they ignored it (not surprising). Next step is a certified letter, a formal demand.

You and your brother have lied so extensively about me and what I was doing, and created such a widespread mess, that the only way to undo it is probably to come completely clean, and openly acknowledge what you know, in a way that is verifiably you. Otherwise it would be considered impersonation. That is the mess you and your brother have created.

You complained to the WMF. What did you complain about? That is not going to be a privileged communication, it’s vulnerable to subpoena.

I don’t think you realize how difficult it could be to undo the damage you and your brother have done. Having a sysop account is largely meaningless on RW. Any user, generally, can rewrite an article. I could rewrite may article. But would it stick? The two of you have created a myth that the RW community believes, demonstrating how naive and gullible they are.

All those vandalizing socks on RationalWiki, copying my text, twisting it, and vandalizing with it, who were they?

David Gerard only acts when he has cover. He is, after all, real-name and vulnerable to defamation suits.

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

I basically retract my claims above. There are no inaccuracies on the article, its just that Lomax has threatened us and doxed our family members etc, that people want a way out of this dispute and some of us were prepared to give in to his demands and whitewash the article. I’ve changed my mind and won’t be further doing this. I don’t see this guy stopping his harassment, he’ll probably end up getting a restraining order against him, or sectioned under a mental health act. Agent47 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

What claims is he retracting? His lies and misrepresentations? Who is “us”? The documentation has all been about Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith, twin brothers, long ago (2011) tagged and blocked on Wikipedia as “Anglo Pyramidologist.” Oliver was much better known outside of Wikipedia, and many of those confronting this monster sock drawer have focused on him. Even where Darryl was mentioned, it was almost as a footnote. What shifted with my involvement was shining the disinfectant light on Darryl.

Because of this claim above, I have published the entire email set. What I wrote was not sent to Oliver D. Smith to harass him, at all. It was a response to his mail.

It was assertive, not aggressive. It did not threaten. Oliver Smith published, on RationalWiki, the WMF response to his complaint, so I know he complained. From what he has written about me and others, and from what I know I was actually doing, I can reasonably suspect that he misrepresented the truth (and he has done this with many others, getting web sites taken down, he got the mother of an enemy fired with a harassing email to her employer, and the only thing keeping him out of a U.K. prison is police inertia, which then takes coordinated action to move. Tim Farley, years ago, showed how it was done. And, by the way, I do not consider Tim Farley an enemy, and attacks on Tim Farley on RW were by impersonation socks. The Smith brothers attempt to stir up enmity, to get supposed enemies of their targets angry and to arouse them to attack their target. It’s really an amazing strategy, particularly considering how well it worked in various venues.

So I’m warning him that more lying isn’t going to help. His response: more lies — or, amazingly, his claim that he was lying previously, as if somehow that’s going to prove that those exposing him are wrong. Look how he fooled them with his lies! The stupids!

Will RationalWikians see this and realize how they have been taken for fools? I’m not betting either way. But there is more. He didn’t quote, of course, his own claims, though he refers to them with his “smith brothers conspiracy theory” rant. I will not be so shy. Quoting from his last email to me.

Ask Rome Viharo to see the last email I sent him. There is no brother. I’ve just had fun misleading people, like yourself stalking me as have other RW sysops who have tried to protect their identities. It’s a problem though that you would target and dox an innocent family member of mine, based on this. Ask Viharo to see the full email, or I can post it here later. The ” smith brother” conspiracy theory is a joke.

No, if he is not lying, he created the theory as a joke, and now is disliking the consequences. But does he claim up by telling the truth, the whole truth? No. And what he says is internally contradictory and requires a long-term conspiracy, and, in particular, a compliant brother who doesn’t blow the whistle on this. There are only two “family members” involved in what has been published by me (and by Rome Viharo): Oliver and Darryl. If there is no brother, who, then, is the “innocent family member”?

He has extensively attacked Mikemikev for publishing a page, apparently from a public record, showing the names of inhabitants for a certain house in the U.K., as doxxing his family, giving the “address,” which is a road, with no street number (apparently a rural road, so mail would go to the name on that road). As it was, technically.

Doxxing at that level, per se, is not necessarily illegal, but if it can be considered harassment, it can be subject to prosecution. Briefly, I had the text from that public record on the Identity page here. I redacted that immediately, but the Smith brothers continued to insist that I was doxxing the family. Here, Oliver Smith is claiming that he was lying back in 2011, and then further in his edits to RW referring to DS as his brother, and in prior emails to me (where he blamed “most of the socks” on his brother.” (Those are published on that same page.)

Just a little joke! Heh! Whatsa matta? Can’t take a joke?

Debunking spiritualism is, on the face, an anti-parapsychology fanatic (not actually a skeptic, “fanatic skeptic” is actually an oxymoron), easily identified by his editing patterns and interests, as what I, for a time, called AP/D, probably also Goblin Face on Wikipedia, and others. But this is all called into question by Oliver’s new claims. I do not assume that someone is lying, in any particular instance, because even liars tell the truth on occasion.

I’m not really interested in you complaining about lies, since all you’ve done is lie about me. You’re currently writing all sorts of nonsense and smears about me on Wikipedia sucks on the bizarre mikemikev section on your blog. I’ve never in my life been to Birkbeck college, I never studied at London University and never have been a “white nationalist”. Also, I don’t live close to Birkbeck. None of the accounts you claim are me are mine, but mikemikev.

I wasn’t “complaining about lies.” I was telling him that his lies have consequences. Oliver is either simply lying, or incapable of understanding the difference between a statement of suspicion and allegation. I never claimed he had been to Birkbeck college. It was simply a suspicion, and it would only take one trip, a little outing, on one day, to then create an impression that anyone editing from Birkbeck on certain topics was Mikemikev. Read the SPI reports!

“White nationalist,” a term which Oliver tosses around casually about others, is not a fact but an interpretation, a judgment, and Oliver was a supporter of the BNP, it’s easy to see his Metapedia comments. He claims that those were impersonations of him. Fine. Did he let those impersonations stand, or did he document and disclaim them? Those are matters of fact or evidence.

He is calling “lies” what arises from his own interpretations. The “mikemikev” section is a subpage of a review of a blog post on Hatewatch, where the RW article on Mikemikev was used as a source to make claims about problems with Wikipedia socking.  So I looked at the Mikemikev Wikipedia Sock puppet investigations page and reviewed it. It’s quite long, and my impression is — unverified — that Mikemikev did sock extensively on Wikipedia, originally, but that, later, impersonation socks appeared, and that is a known AP pattern, to take a blocked target and impersonate them, to ramp up enmity toward the target, and that is exactly what has been done with me on RationalWiki: many disruptive socks, using my names or ready associations.

Someone is impersonating me. Who? Default hypothesis: the same person as the one who impersonated a user on Wikipedia in order to arouse attack on his work on Wikiversity. I had assumed the brother Darryl, the one with a long-term declared interest in “spiritualism,” etc., whereas Oliver had settled on other topic areas, such as racism and fascism. Now Oliver is claiming that it’s all him. There is an obvious suspicion to report.

Also the impersonation claims are bizarre, considering Mikemikev has impersonated me all over the internet including at Metapedia. I closed my account, it was then reopened to impersonate me with a false accusation of having schizophrenia. This is proven if you bothered to actually view the logs.

I’m not sure how one “closes an account” on a wiki. I think Oliver claimed to have spiked the password, and if you do this with email turned off, access is lost. Very much, this is not recommended! Anyone with a sufficiently high privilege level can “fix” the problem. Oliver has just set up an extensive task which would take hours. I did review his Metapedia contributions, and some, at least, of the logs. On the face, he would be claiming that there is evidence for what he is now claiming. It should, then, take a few minutes at most for him to point to the logs that I could allegedly examine. I’m not going to go digging through ancient refuse for something that actually matters very little. His Metapedia history is merely ironic, at most. I pointed out that he disclaimed it.

The claim of schizophrenia appears in a number of places. Given what I have seen of his behavior, by email, it’s plausible. Certainly something is radically off in what he is displaying, in the emails and on RationalWiki and elsewhere.

“Proven” is language used by believers, not by genuine skeptics, outside of narrow circumstances. There is a lost performative. Something is “proven” by a claimant to the satisfaction of a judge, an observer. It does not exist in the evidence itself. Evidence is used in a proof. Language around this can be sloppy, though. In this case, the claim and the proof exist only in Oliver’s mind. He could change that, with clear communication, but he doesn’t do “clear communication.” He just makes wild claims, asserted as fact, even when the evidence which he sometimes cites is more contradictory than confirming, when read carefully.

He depends on wiki users not caring to undertake that careful examination, but, too often, reasoning from conclusions, i.e., the conclusions stated match their own assumptions or prejudices, so they accept the claims.

I also find it mind boggling that you dispute Mikemikev is an online nazi.

I haven’t. Smith’s inability to interpret sane text is remarkably poor. He is probably referring to my comment a few days earlier, referring to what he had written that Mikemikev had written to him.

Mikemikev is cute, eh? I have little problem with his being called a racist, he may qualify, but … I just found a bio of him and I will be reviewing it. I have had no communication with Mikemikev. However, your brother is lying about him admitting to all those socks. That was obviously not what he meant.

The Wrongpedia attack on Mikemikev and his mother is beyond the pale. So you are continuing your rampage. Or is someone deviously impersonating you on RatWiki?

Where does this “dispute” the claim? Smith apparently sees everything as a dispute or argument or feud. and lack of agreement — or in this case, weak agreement — is seen as crazy opposition, as if it is necessary for me to believe what he believes or I am the enemy. Whoever has been behind all the AP mess for many years does apparently think like that. They are intellectual fascists, who is not loyal to the Cause is an enemy.

your emails are being ignored by the RationalWiki foundation, I was told this.

Far out. Told by whom? In this affair, what has appeared is something long obvious to many, but denied by some. There is a cabal. In my attempt to raise the attention of the Arbitration Committe to the issue of de-facto coordinated editing by a faction — which was actually obvious from the evidence I presented — the Committee reprimanded me by claiming I had not presented evidence of policy violations. But the problem was that this did not violate policy, unless there was off-wiki coordination. It happens through watchlist patterns. However, what has become much more visible since is that there is off-wiki coordination, so policy is being violated. And that is tolerated, and why? I find that an interesting question.

(My solution to the “cabal” problem  would be not to ban cabals, but to actually encourage and identify them and to then regulate activity. It is a soluble problem, but not if the very existence of the problem is denied. Wikipedia got stuck in the idea that it could and should ban “POV-pushing,” which is what cabals do. That then made the attainment of genuine consensus probably impossible. To find consensus — which is powerful and self-maintaining — requires all parties to be at the table. This is all basic organizational understanding that was unclear to a naive Wikipedia community, mostly composed, early on, of computer techies. Not academics.)

So Oliver suggested that I contact Rome Viharo. He provided me with his correspondence with Oliver, so I added it to the Oliver D. Smith email archive here. The story is mind-Boglin.

The emails of

To repeat what I wrote above: Oliver Smith claims

  • He made up the brother story years ago to get unblocked on Wikipedia.
  • He fed the story to many, fooling them. It was a joke, and funny as hell.
  • He lied to Tim Farley.
  • His real brother’s name is now being published.
  • Yet his real brother isn’t involved at all.
  • Nobody is paid, that was all his deception.
  • He’s the victim of massive harassment.
  • And Lomax is crazy for declaring as possible the story that Oliver made up and repeated for many years.

Sometimes the truth, when it is incomplete, can appear implausible. However, Occam’s razor, here, indicates that he is now lying through his teeth, but why?

It’s obvious: His brother is pissed, Oliver shot off his mouth far too much, and his actual family is putting pressure on him, because it is indeed a possibility that the brother could be harmed.

Someone did the impersonation socking on Wikipedia, which was illegal, and Darryl might be in hot water over that, or might fear it. So Oliver, who was not being paid to engage in all this crap, and could more readily walk away, decides to take the rap, but without admitting what was illegal (the impersonation socking, for starters). Nice. Will he perjure himself if deposed? Inquiring minds want to know.

If the brother is actually “innocent,” my advice for him would be the same as I gave Oliver months ago when he was claiming his brother had been the sock master: tell the truth, the whole truth, reveal what you know, or stand as equally responsible. At that point he denied knowing what his brother was up to, even though any warm body could see it from miles away, if it simply looked.

Defamation may be remediated by full disclosure, sometimes. Legally, it’s their best shot.

 

 

Bongolian

subpage of rationalwiki/anglo-pyramidologist/supporters-and-enablers/

(prior SE activity to be added)

Edit filter 52, “abd filter” was last edited 05:55, 27 March 2018 by Bongolian. There have been no filter hits since then.

Summary: filter warned for one self-reverted edit by me, one which was self-reverted. It also blocked edits by seven users who were not me.  This is a useless filter, causing damage, it may have driven one or more users away, and all edit filters consume server resources, because every edit must be compared with every filter (some conditions would be quick, but complex content filters will take much more time.)

This filter has had zero effect on my editing of RationalWiki, and has also not caught the impersonation socks. None.  See Commentary below.

The activity

This filter caught edits by:

WhiteWolf (talk | contribs) 03:19, 27 March 2018 (also hit the spam filter, went to Technical support as suggested, then hit the abd filter). He complained to Kazitor, who made him autoconfirmed, indicating that the filter only hits IP or new editors (which I considered likely). Kazitor said he’d look into improving the filters. He hasn’t, yet. The edit that triggered the spam filter, probably.

188.166.58.179 was me. 17:58, 24 March 2018, immediately self-reverted. The edit was allowed but a warning was issued on the filter log. The IP was blocked by Rimuru Tempest at 18:23. Most likely from Recent Changes or watching that talk page. The function of filter warning is to trigger immediate review. That, then, takes continual monitoring. Wikipedia admins have access to an active echo of the filter log. It’s unreliable because there is no concept of “duty admin.” This is also why the review of Recent Changes is unreliable, because there is no monitoring of RC reviewers, no sign-off on time sections of the log, instead, users line up to play Wac-a-Mole, individually, sometimes dozens or more of them at once, sometimes nobody.

SMB99thx 11:38, 24 March 2018 There is a possibility this user was driven away by the filter. Last edit was 23 March.

Akiyama Yuu 07:14, 24 March 2018 hit the filter three times, including an attempted question on Technical support. Unclear cause.

Neverused 02:55, 24 March 2018 a long-time returning user. Knows the names of old regulars. Original account, Neveruse. User rights log is fascinating to one who knows older RW politics. His last discussion with David Gerard. No clue as to what Neverused, trying to edit the Saloon bar, was trying to do. Failing to edit the Saloon bar, he created his user page and responded to comments on talk. No more edits. The edit filter was not exactly welcoming! I’d imagine he’d think, so the assholes took over!

210.185.116.67 12:33, 23 March 2018 attempting to edit Augustus Caesar. WTF? No clue. the user made no edits that were allowed. The edit filter would ask for examination of the edits,  but the filter is Sekrit, so even sysops cannot read it or the log of what it caught. Nobody with the appropriate permission level was watching, apparently, because the user was neither blocked nor told how to avoid a problem. They simply went away.

SirMaxKing 07:49, 23 March 2018 attempting to edit Technical support. probably about the previous rejected IP edits.

90.205.124.176 07:42, 23 March 2018 attempted to edit Saloon Bar and Technical support.

Commentary

In 2011, I gave up on Wikipedia, and decided to use the opportunity to test a procedure I had proposed for others, as to how banned users could make positive or at least harmless contributions without complicating block/ban enforcement. This procedure had been approved by an arbitrator before it was tried. It actually worked, but … eventually, administrators decided to ignore it and to treat the self-identified and self-reverted edits involved as disruptive. I documented the process on a Wikiversity user page, now visible as

One of the first actions taken on Wikipedia was to attempt to prevent me from mentioning my name in edit summaries, creating ever more complex filters. But why? Mentioning my name was intended to make ban enforcement easier. You don’t find an SPI case on me because I only — later — created one account to then further test how block evasion was being handled. I was not yet banned, that came later, the single account being an excuse.(Many accounts who have created many socks, defying blocks and bans, have not been “community banned,” so my community ban stands out as very unusual, and the discussion showed that.)

The edit filters created substantial collateral damage. So then the diligent enforcer started to hide the revisions. That got his wrist slapped, because this was over-use of revision deletion, intended to hide actually harmful material. Then they rolled out ever-broader range blocks (which also cause collateral damage), all to handle edits that were, practically by definition, harmless (and a number of them were reverted back in by regular users.) This was a demonstration of Wiki disease, where the original purposes and goals of the project are lost in administrative Obey Ma Authorite.

The use of the edit filters on RationalWiki has gone beyond mission, to an attempt to control content, all without discussion. The spam filter blocks much that prevents open discussion of obvious situations, yet it’s easy to get around.

RationalWiki has incompetent administration. It’s not surprising, considering how little experience is needed. RW has been treating me as if a noobie fanatic, but, in fact, my internet forum experience goes back to the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s, and I’ve managed many fora, including being a WMF sysop for a time on Wikiversity. I’ve dealt with disruption, then, if we include that test period in 2011, from both sides.

Anyone who cares to look could readily tell the difference between the many impersonation socks and the few genuine edits of mine on RationalWiki. Consider this a test of rational thinking, and … the RW community, almost entirely, falls flat on its face, faced with real tests.

Bongolian edit timing

It has been claimed on RationalWiki that I was accusing many RW users of being AP socks. No, the AP socks are possibly as many as 1% of RW users. That’s still a lot, but one of the socks explicitly claimed that number. “Just joking,” he later said, but it is possible. Most of the socks make a few edits and disappear. Given that, and given that the point of view of AP socks commonly aligns with RW standard, it can be very difficult to identify these accounts. I just found one that had entirely escaped notice. The account made only three or four edits, but the pattern was unmistakable. This behavior has been routine for years, it has been seen with hundreds of identified accounts.

Because of the flap generated by Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia, I started studying the edit timings of SfB and Debunking spiritualism on RationalWiki. The match was good, though the overlap was not massive. I needed to see how a correlation between two independent users would appear. I have advanced techniques under study, where all this would be quantified, which are not being revealed, just the most obvious and easily seen without more sophisticated math.

So I did the same study using the edits of Bongolian, whom I never suspected of being an AP sock. It’s quite remarkable. This is what I saw, and after looking at the edit timings of a number of accounts, it poked me in the eye. The horizontal scale is dates, from December 31, 2017 to December 28, 2018. The vertical scale is the time of day (GMT, in fractions of an hour). The blue dots are Bongolian edits, the red open circles are Skeptic from Britain.

Let’s just say it’s obvious: Bongolian is not Skeptic from Britain. Bongolian’s editing habits are quite regular. However, it does not appear that he has a job, or, if he does, he may edit while working. For November 1 to about March 1, he starts editing at about 18:00 (GMT) and stops editing at about 09:00 (GMT). The rest of the year, those times shifted to an hour earlier. This reflects Daylight Saving Time.

The editing transitions in 2018 were on March 11 and November 8. The Daylight Time transitions were on March 11 and November 4 in the U.S. and March 26 and October 28. So between the US and England, Bongolian almost certainly lives in the US, and didn’t reset his clocks until four days after the transition. That happens, especially if one “works” at home and has no appointments for a few days.

As another English-speaking country, Australia does not match the Daylight Time transitions seen.

If Bongolian lives in the PST/PDT time zone, this would have him starting to edit, local time, at 10 AM, and stopping by 1 AM. There is a general reduction from about 2 PM to about 7 PM, and a narrower reduction from about 10 PM to 11 PM. Favorite TV program? People’s dietary habits vary greatly, and the regular diet of heavy RatWikians could be potato chips. But he might have breakfast before he starts editing, and then lunch/dinner is scattered and less regular. Bongolian seems normal to me for a heavy wiki user and active sysop, living in, say, California. Arizona is out because they don’t have Daylight Time. Could be Oregon, Washington, Nevada, parts of Idaho, or parts of BC, Canada.

The location of the Smith brothers is well known, confirmed by IP edits, etc, they live in England. I have a large amount of data from Darryl socks. Skeptic from Britain was literally all over the map, or clock, to be more accurate. He is not living a regular life.

Comparing Bongolian (blue) to SfB (red), there is no correlation of edit times visible. This is what independent editors look like.

impersonation books

These books, on lulu.com, impersonate favorite-target authors and attack other favorite targets of the Smiths.

The first to be seen by me was Abd Ul Rahman Lomax Internet Troll, archived  19 Mar 2018 23:22:40 UTC. The promotional image was a photoshop of an obese man, almost naked, with my face pasted on. Content was the RationalWiki article on me. The author was an impersonation of a long-term target of Darryl L. Smith, but also occasionally attacked by Oliver D. Smith.

Tim Farley and Wikipedia War (first archived ) author impersonates Rome Viharo, with a photoshop of a naked obese man given the face of Tim Farley (well-known skeptic), suspected by Rome Viharo of involvement with paid editing on Wikipedia. (I have not seen anything more than weak circumstantial evidence of this, and Tim Farley is not a target for my investigations.) Content is the RationalWiki article on Rome Viharo. Obviously Rome Viharo would not write and post this. A fake reviewer shows up to blame the book on me, pretending to be “Bill Connors,” a RationalWiki syop [sic] .

Rome Viharo Pseudoscience Crank author impersonates Craig Weiler as author, with a photoshop of Rome Viharo into cartoon of Donald Trump. Content is RationalWiki article on Rome Viharo. (Craig Weiler is a long-time target of Darryl L. Smith.) Same fake sysop showed up.

On RationalWiki yesterday, a troll appeared, Stop this now. The edits:

A page was also created by this user, Http://www.lulu.com/shop/craig-weiler/rome-viharo-pseudoscience-crank/ebook/product-23567980.html (Bongolian deleted)

The sock master has been focusing on Readymade, GrammarCommie, Cosmikdebris, and RoninMachbeth, see impersonations commenting on the Supporters and Enablers page and Comments (where most comments were moved). He is harassing those users in the apparent belief that they will then think it is me. And trying to harass me because he may think I will be angry with them. He’d have to be really stupid or insane. Probably the latter, there is plenty of evidence for this.

Stop this now accused Readymade, GrammarCommieCosmikdebris, and RoninMacbeth of creating the books, which is contradictory and preposterous to boot. On the Saloon bar, Stop this now pointed to the Craig Weiler impersonation and that “Rome Viharo and abd are being targeted by Rationalwiki users.”

That is the Darryl Smith talking point, the standard straw man argument. A number of RationalWiki users have been, at times, complicit (“Supporters and Enablers“) but only two users are suspected of “targeting” people, and that would be Oliver D. Smith (most recent identified sock, ODS) and his twin brother (this is openly confirmed by Oliver), Darryl L. Smith, current account: Debunking spiritualism. While there is still Oliver Smith involvement (the photoshopping of me in the first book was taken from a comment he posted on forum.encyclopediadramatica.rs, archived within a minute and posted by ODS on RatWiki within a couple of minutes), the massive, over-the-top socking, including impersonation socking, has been a long-term Darryl Smith device.

This has become completely and totally obvious. I do reserve as an alternate hypothesis that someone else is attempting to defame the Smiths and RationalWiki here. There have been sock allegations here that it was mikemikev. However, those same allegations were made before, by a checkusered sock that was certainly Darryl. Implausible.

If some RationalWiki users want to keep their heads in the sand, I’d suggest shutting up about this. They’ll get sand in your mouth.

Pseudoskeptics are classically lazy. They want to make snarky conclusions about anomalies, unusual phenomena, without actually doing the work. In this case, I have heavily documented what eventually led me to my conclusions about Oliver D. and Darryl L. Smith. It’s verifiable, and if any part of it is not, I’m available for questions. Many genuine skeptics have complained about the infection of the skeptical movement by “debunkers,” who are more interested in ad hominem arguments than science.

I never before encountered aggressive and abusive socking like this. But then again, I didn’t know about Dennis Markuze which was linked by a sock impersonating him here. (Totally preposterous, like all these impersonations. But preposterous socking worked on Wikipedia to get the targets attacked.) There is a page by Tim Farley that tells the story of how he was busted. Lots of complaints finally got the police to act. The Smith brothers have been depending on police inaction.

That page by Farley was fascinating. He did what I’m now doing, documented the activity … and then filed complaints and worked with others filing complaints. The only difference: Markuze was a religious fanatic, and the Smiths became fanatic “skeptics” and “anti-fascists.” The behavior is essentially hatred, acted out.

Finding more books:

Eleonóra Dubiczki Rightpedia author impersonates Junius Thaddeus, harassment target of Oliver D. Smith. First archived 17 Mar 2018 19:17:24 UTC

Mikemikev Rightpedia Neo Nazi author impersonates Junius Thaddeus, harassment target of Oliver D. Smith. First archived 

I may write an actual book on this affair…. Why not?

Meanwhile, there is a list of favorite targets. Taking a look:

 

libel study

If you see this on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL for updates and possible corrections. These are research notes, as are many pages on this blog.

I have been libelled by the WikiMedia Foundation, by the issuance of a global ban with no foundation in fact, apparently based on private complaints considered valid without any opportunity to respond. The WMF appears to think that issuing a global ban with no explanation protects them from liability for libel. However, they have claimed that global bans are issued only rarely, for exceptional cases, to protect the community. The fact of the ban is being used as an element in a series of defamations, by a person known to be one of the complainers. I believe that I have sufficient cause, based on this, for action to require the WMF to lift the ban or to provide evidence, and specifically the complaint mails or other evidence and arguments considered by them. I need not prove libel to file an action, as long as the legal theory on which the filing is based is possibly valid. Here, I’m looking at information sites and cases that might relate to this issue.

As to the WMF, the primary claim would be for libel, from the global ban issuance. For a libel claim, the restrictions of the TOS on the liability, and court jurisdiction for action against the WMF may not apply.

As to the RationalWiki Foundation, a different legal theory might apply, it’s more difficult. My sense from what I have seen is that the RWF will take down defamatory material on demand, unless they see it as mission-critical. I did already email them, they ignored it. (and there is a claim from Oliver D. Smith that he was told this was deliberate. So the next step would be a certified demand letter to the registered agent.)

In all cases, as I understand the matter, communications from users of these web sites are not privileged and would be subject to discovery, and users are not protected from defamation for actions they take, the protections of Section 230 are for removal of material, not for provision of it.

Libel_case_against_Wikimedia_Foundation_dismissed

As a minor point, the Wikinews article has, at the very end:

The Register has a long history of denigrating Wikimedia projects.

That is an obvious neutrality violation. The preceding text fails to distinguish between reporting and editorializing. The Register source was an editorial by Cade Metz, not “the Register.” This what you get when amateurs are given collective control. They play at journalism. In any case, the Register article is excellent.

Memorandum of law in support of motion to dismiss

47 U.S. Code § 230 – Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

isp-liability-for-internet-defamation looks good. (those who post defamation may be held liable. The liability of the ISP may vary with context and conditions. It’s looking to me like it might take a court order to force this, if the ISP is merely inactive. But if it takes a positive step that has the effect of defamation, it could become liable.

the-decline-and-fall-of-section-230/ is a gold mine to be carefully studied.

At this point, this is the bottom line. There is sufficient case law that it may be possible for an action for libel to survive a motion to dismiss, and a motion to dismiss will still require expenditure by the defendant. That would not allow the filing of a frivolous suit without associated hazards. If the cause of action is reasonably plausible, it need not be bulletproof to be effective for remediation purposes.

Further, the law does not protect the individuals who defamed, nor is the WMF or the RWF likely to defend them. The impersonation socking I have been describing has known individuals as perpetrators, very likely, and I do have evidence that can be used, and more evidence can be obtained lawfully. I will continue to study the case law and analysis.

(The issues with involved individuals, the WMF, and the RMF, are distinct and different.)

https://law.stackexchange.com/a/6822 confirms user liability, and site owner is protected if they take the libel down. That’s my understanding of Section 230. They cannot maintain the defense of “the community did it” in the face of a specific claim of defamation, unless they take it down. By taking an action on their own judgment, they become liable for defamation, if the action defames. I expect the WMF will argue that the action was needed for user protection, but that argument, given the facts, is false, and, more directly, the defamation involved in a global ban is unnecessary for protection. If they formally notified the user that they are prohibited from editing, and the user violates that, this would be a TOS violation, and it would then allow the use of the global lock tool and public announcement. The banned user would still have a right to see defamatory claims (the evidence considered), for possible action against those who  may have defamed.

At this point, I don’t know if this has been tested anywhere. Untested legal theories, if plausible, can make for actions that will survive summary judgment.

http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/internet-defamation.htm focuses on UK law (some actions related to the issues may be filed in U.K. courts). They suggest a first response is a “lawyer letter.” Legally, a demand letter does not require a lawyer, in my opinion, but such a letter is more likely to be taken seriously. My interest will be that such letters be legally sufficient to put a site operator — or an individual — on notice that their behavior is defamatory, so that they may take remedial action, and if such action is reasonably prompt, it may allow, then, the “service provider” protection to be effective.

https://seqlegal.com/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-libel again focuses on the UK.

This is handy.

Wikimedia Foundation
c/o CT Corporation System
818 West Seventh Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
legal@wikimedia.org

and then

Business ID#: 4330247 Status: Active
Entity Name: THE RATIONALWIKI FOUNDATION, INC. Standing: Good Standing
Entity Type: Domestic Nonprofit Corporation Domestic State: New Mexico
Statute Law Code: 53-8-1 to 53-8-99
Mailing Address:
122 GIRARD SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
Principal Place of Business in New Mexico:
122 GIRARD SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106

Character Of Affairs: Operating sites RationalWiki.org and EvolutionWiki.org and related.

Director Information

  • David Gerard: 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
  • Aidan Bissell-Siders, 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
  • Eric Doe 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
  • Simon Peter Hughes 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106

Officer Information

  • Chief Operating Officer:Trent Toulouse 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106
  • Chief Executive Officer:Huw Powell 122 Girard Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM 87106

08/04/2010 Certificate Of Incorporation THE RATIONALWIKI FOUNDATION, INC. 3 PAGES PERPETUAL 08/05/2010 893489

The RationalWiki article on the Foundation lists current directors as:

Below is mostly dicta.

There is a discrepancy. Huw Powell (RW User:Human) is not listed by New Mexico as a Director, but as the CEO. Openly real name. Human’s  edits to the John Fuerst article seemed designed to improve it (toward objectivity). As a board member, does Powell know about the deliberate lack of response to a complaint email, as claimed by Oliver Smith? Maybe I’ll ask him. Not the most urgent task on my list. Human has almost entirely stopped editing RW for the last six months.

David Gerard is, of course, David Gerard. Interesting that someone who has supported the libellers — generally indirectly and possibly maintaining plausible deniability , but quickly actioning requests — is on the Board. The claim of the RMF is that it does not make content decisions, but if Board members are active members with high privilege, and use that privilege, this is disingenuous. The RMF does, in fact, make content decisions, I’ve seen at least one page deletion made as official, with warnings to users not to restore the page. My guess: someone didn’t just send a complaining email, they took more substantial action. The WikiMedia Foundation not uncommonly does that with some kinds of complaints. The protections of Section 230 do not extend to the maintenance of alleged defamatory material or other illegal material after notice provided.

Simon Peter Hughes is openly Spud. As they say on RW, seems sane.

Aidan Bissel-Siders is probably this nice kid, who wrote this RW-interest paper, serious work addressing (actually taking the piss out of) a stupid claim. Fun. I’ve done a fair amount of that kind of writing, though not normally so sarcastic. However, that kind of sarcasm is so common on RW that I don’t yet see a clue as to which user Bissel-Siders might be. So far, the candidates are FuzzyCatPotato and Reverend Black Percy.

Eric Doe I could find nothing on with a quick search. However, Rev. Black Percy has not edited for over six months, but I’d expect Bissel-Siders to remain active (given his research paper and age). I vote for the latter as being FuzzyCatPotato.

From prior history, I expect I may see complaints on RationalWiki that I am “attacking” RW users here. Yet what I am actually doing is showing who is responsible for RationalWiki, the real people involved. Board members are presumably covered by errors and omissions insurance. This actually makes them attractive targets. However, the only board member where some liability might be imputed, so far, is David Gerard. (Basically, his action to support defamation would be asserted. It is not necessary to have proof to assert a claim; proof may not exist until discovery.

My guess is that the RMF will settle relatively easily, if pushed. With the WMF, I’ll be challenging a process they have used for a few years. I have no crystal ball.

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/civil-litigation/demand-letter-defamation-case.html
https://jux.law/cease-desist-defamation-of-character-template-example-sample-form/

Pro Se filing in US District Court

Protected: Christopher

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

IP study

If you see this page on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL, the page may have been updated, which could include corrections or retractions.

Subpage: list of RW IP edits (mine and impersonations/imitations)

Pages linked here might be deleted or hidden, so if a link does not load, check archive.is for possible archives for the URL given here.

I have been writing about impersonation socks, and I decided to look at recent IP edits to RW, using Recent Changes and looking for any red flags, as well as my own edits. Here is what I found.

  • 69.181.4.251  was certainly not me. I notice that the edit to User talk:Debunking spiritualism was deleted by GrammarCommie. GrammerCommie also blocked the IP with “piss off, Lomax.” Why? The plot thickens.

A conversation on User_talk:69.181.4.251 was read because it was edited by Debunking spiritualism, which is obviously Darryl L. Smith. He did something nice, asking for and implementing the deletion of an attack article (which he or his brother created). DS, however, assumes that the IP editing the talk page was the article target, which I’m not planning on mentioning here, but anyone can find it. And I do think he is correct, but he also took previous actions inconsistent with that.

These would be the edits to the talk page in question, March 9, 10, and 17. Those were reverted by DS, though they seem harmless. This could have been the article target attempting to explain the record. There had been sock editing before, March 6, which had been reverted. The two socks were 20,000 and Litoes. Those are not me, but they vandalized the page with material copied from me.

DS then protected the page with “abd lomax sockpuppeting,” in spite of substantial evidence presented of extensive impersonation — which has been removed whenever I pointed to it (in edits that I will be acknowledging there). And here we have more evidence of impersonation taking place. RationalWiki invites discussion from those who disagree. They lie. They block users with disagreements or complaints, with the slightest excuse, when

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ben-steigmann/abd-ul-rahman-lomax-internet-troll/ebook/product-23565204.html I will be taking legal action. RW users have created this. 162.221.202.134 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The page on lulu.com, is an alleged book.  This was a copy of what Oliver D. Smith created on an Encyclopedia Dramatic Forum, then archived on archive.is within a minute, then linked from Rational Wiki, on his talk page, within a few minutes. The latter was revision-deleted by his twin, Darryl. Darryl surely, then, knows what Oliver is doing.

See also edits and page creations relating to the lulu book by impersonation socks: GrammarCommie, intrepid sysop, handles them

I had considered it likely that Darryl was the impersonator I had exposed on Wikipedia, but Oliver had impersonated this person on RationalWiki, starting the articles on Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst. So …. maybe that actually was Oliver. Oliver has claimed that Darryl was the one creating massive numbers of socks. But … these trolls routinely lie. The IP evidence from Wikipedia checkuser could be misleading. Etc. Of this I’m sure: the ED Forum page was created by ODS, which does not demonstrate that the Lulu “book” was created by him. Impersonation of the alleged author of the book was apparently by Darryl.

Oliver had, for the first time, openly acknowledged some of his RW accounts, and started editing as ODS, his real initials, at the same time as Darryl was editing as Debunking spiritualism, and confirmed that Darryl was his brother. Darryl is still trying to cover it all up, by creating a huge smokescreen that will confuse RW users, too many of whom dislike actually studying WIGO. They prefer snarky reactions, not realizing what fools the Smiths are making out of them and the wiki.

As to Darryl, he clearly realizes or thinks that the IP is Steigmann, so … why did he protect that page because of “abd lomax sockpuppeting.” He obviously knows that I am being impersonated, and he is still trying to convince others that the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is just a paranoid fantasy, though the horse ran out of that barn long ago. There really are two brothers, who really have created an enormous number of socks, some of which impersonate others in order to defame them.

Now, back to the IP study.

  • 17:38, 10 March 2018 User account Anonymous4thelolz (talk | contribs | block) was created
  • A4TL created a user page with wikicode, which fooled many user because it displays the name of the user who is reading it. The user also claimed to be a sock of Rimuru Tempest.
  • The discussion is priceless. Christopher points out what is happening, but ODS doesn’t get it. He is absolutely fixated on “Lomax” with zero evidence. DS actually blocked A4TL, saying “look at his user page,” meaning that anyone who mentions Debunking spiritualism must be Lomax. Neat!
  • Truly amazing, A4TL ends up blaming me for the hysterical reaction by DS and ODS, and the socking. This affair ends up testing the intelligence of the RW tribe, and they are failing badly.
  • 17:32 17 March 2018 108.62.202.211 was not me, it’s an impersonation, repeating the claim of impersonation with twists, as usual. It wrote: “Readymade, debunking spiritualism and Christopher have impersonated me to blacklist my name on this website.” I do not believe and have never claimed that Readymade and Christopher have impersonated me. The impersonator could be DS, but it could also be ODS. This is all straw man attack.

Notice this lovely sequence. This was me.

This was, literally, not me, i.e., User:Notme. Why would I create an account to simply revert?  https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChristopher&type=revision&diff=1937228&oldid=1937183 and this edit takes the case, written as a response to Christopher:

Actually, that whole section is worth looking at:

An explanation

Sorry about all that, I’ll explain what happened.

There is a banned troll who has been harrassing and doxing people here, including Debunking Spiritualism. He spammed a link to his website which revealed personal info about one of our users here just before (I think) you posted about pi in the Bible. Debunking Spiritualism (who was probably still looking out for this troll as he’d just dealt with him) saw your post in special:recentchanges and clicked on your username. He saw “Hello Debunking Spiritualism” on a new user’s page just after a troll obsesssed with him had been active, he then started all of that discussion above. Christopher(talk) 17:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

They are impersonations from maybe yourself, readymade and debunking spiritualism. I will do a new article about this. Notme (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher seems to be incapable of understanding alternate hypotheses. I have never claimed, nor do I believe, that any of the impersonations are from Christopher or Readymade. These are claims being made by an anonymous troll. They might be from DS, but I am now leaning more toward ODS, it is much less likely that it was another troll besides one of the brothers. The active troll that Christopher was talking about was “New article,” I think. See also Christopher’s logs, his activity dealing with the troll.

This trolling has developed a clear pattern. I created a page studying Readymade’s activity with respect to me, as the first in a possible series of pages on RationalWiki “Supporters and Enablers..” Soon after that page was opened for public view, many copies of what I had written appeared, as can be seen with the links above. This same behavior had happened before, when I wrote the page supra,

Most of the “personal info” would be about Readymade, who was a very well-known RW user, and who did not attempt to conceal it. Readymade lied, and I documented that, but Readymade is, I’ll repeat, not suspected of impersonations, just of terminal carelessness and of providing support to trolls. None of the information in what I wrote rises to the level of “personal information” that would be called doxxing. For comparison, look at my RationalWiki article, giving a birth name which is difficult to find. That article was written and developed by a series of accounts documented here. This was clearly the original “Anglo Pyramidologist” sock master, whom I had exposed on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. Originally, I did not know about the “Smith brothers,” only that the original Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist, with two hundred identified and blocked socks, was actually two brothers, as they claimed. (I.e., AP was Oliver D. Smith, and the brother, later known to be Darryl L. Smith, was creating many accounts.) Both were long-term disruptive. I requested checkuser and Wikipedia socks impersonating Ben Steigmann were shown to be not him, but single sock master both disrupting Wikipedia with impersonations, allegedly promoting Ben Steigmann’s work, and requesting checkuser and then requesting deletion of the work and blocking of Steigmann on Wikiversity. It worked. The work was deleted and Steigmann was blocked.

Evidence led back to RationaWiki and the long-term socking there. Oliver Smith later admitted he had created articles on John Fuerst and Emil O.W. Kirkegaard; looking at those articles showed that they were created by an account, Ben Steigmans. In an email to me, Oliver claimed that this wasn’t impersonation because the name was spelled differently and because it (allegedly) was not Steigmann’s real name.

When I started to look for socks on RationalWiki, and I was just identifying suspected accounts, this was called “doxxing,” though in the only cases where a neutral observer examined what I wrote, they said it wasn’t doxxing. This is all available for review by anyone who cares.

For a long time, Oliver and Darryl  Smith have used RationalWiki as a platform to defame their targets. This has been combined with a campaign to defame anyone who criticized them. The mother of a critic lost her job from complaints from Oliver Smith (and others working with him at the time). Many accounts on social media sites have been terminated because of a combination of impersonation socking and private complaints. I was globally banned by the WikiMedia Foundation Office, apparently because of private complaints. I was never informed of the charges against me, and the WMF claims that there is no appeal. We will see.

(I was in communication with WMF functionaries and had been told that there was no danger that I would be banned, given the facts. But the complaint letters probably lied, and when a number of people agree with lies, administrators, failing to see the connections, may decide to believe the lies.)

The RW article on me describes me as a harasser, but incidents in the past that might be described as harassment were very few. Basically, any request for checkuser could be considered harassment, as an example. I have absolutely no history of massive and disruptive socking. Recent edits on RationalWiki by me are the first time I have edited personally. (I socked for a very brief period in 2011 to demonstrate a process that had worked for other users, it was a method for a banned user to make positive contributions without complicating ban enforcement, it actually represented cooperation with the ban.)

Impersonation socking to defame is a long-term practice of the AP socks, it appears that both Oliver and Darryl have done it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.154.250.43 16 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.138.11.97 16 March 2018 01:21 – 1:49 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.90.61.151 14:38, 14 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.125.169.93 18:16, 14 March 2018 was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.88.110 01:54, 13 March 2018 (and 1:56) was me.

March 4 – March 12, I made some edits to User talk:CheeseburgerFace.. (i.e., not even sysops may see them.) There was unnecessary revert warring from AP socks, as I recall, This was simply a request to look at the impersonation socking; CF did not respond for some days. His response, when he showed up, was to hide the whole thing. See the page logs

and CF suppressed the whole sequence, hiding 22 revisions.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.87.0 was me. This was a “message to all sincere users.” At that point, I did not know how many there were. I still think there are some, but almost nobody has come forth to actually engage on issues of substance around how RW is being abused. Maybe it’s not being abused. Maybe defamation is the actual purpose, and those parts of the community that didn’t want to participate in that have left.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/138.197.153.27 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A69.181.4.251 was not me, though blocked by GrammarCommie as me. This was probably the real [redacted].

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.60.243 22:56, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/167.99.92.37 18:01, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.54.105 19:11, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/167.160.119.74 15:41, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.89.164.103 15:28, 11 March 2018 (and 15:29) was me. [suppressed edits by CF as above]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/169.57.123.212 15:05, 11 March 2018  was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/139.59.57.188 23:49, 9 March 2018 ( – 00:08, 10 March 2018) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.89.200.184  22:22, 9 March 2018 (- 23:21} was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/138.197.166.176 18:57, 9 March 2018 (-18.59) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.219.141.191 18:41, 9 March 2018  was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.94.188 03:27, 6 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.86.21 22:08, 5 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.29.249 02:21, 6 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.157.244.220  21:44, 5 March 2018  was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.86.138 21:14, 5 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.63.246 19:05, 5 March 2018 (-19:20) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.238.216.26 12:17, 5 March 2018 was not me, nor was it a “friend.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.235.48.138 was likely an AP troll.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/37.220.14.210 02:56, 5 March 2018

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.209.51.209 10:40, 4 March 2018 was not me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.94.189 02:50, 4 March 2018 (-03:15) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.166.116.85 02:35, 4 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.196.79 03:25, 1 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.115.112.225 02:57, 1 March 2018 (-03.06) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/159.65.49.210 19:20, 26 February 2018 (-19:36) was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.201.137.39 00:08, 26 February 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.218.205.166 23:55, 25 February 2018 was me.

I looked back to 00:44 18 February, 2018. I found no more IP edits that were mine. During this period there were many, many impersonation socks pretending to be me, and a few IPs the same. Most edits relating to the “Smith brothers” or “cold fusion community” issues were not me, by far. I created no pages in this period. The creation of abusive pages was an AP traint.

It is possible I have missed edits, though certainly not many. I did not  keep records. It is more possible that I have missed impersonations, particularly later on, when the impersonation socks were editing many user pages for users I had no particular connection with. Some of these may show up later, and suggestions and corrections and questions are always welcome.

01:53, 22 March 2018 Rimuru Tempest (talk | contribs | block) blocked 173.234.41.130 (talk) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment) was not me.