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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Protected: Bongolian

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

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:

 

Wikilegal 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:

Protected: IP study

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Readymade

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: ODS

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Reviews

 

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

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

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

http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5597/4652

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/rationalwiki_emamerican_thinkerem_is_a_wingnut_publication.html
  • https://www.cato.org/blog/ten-things-every-economist-should-know-about-gold-standard
  • Einspruch, Franklin (September 6, 2016). “Cultural Marxists Are Actually Pomofascists”The Federalist. Retrieved August 14, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • http://blastmagazine.com/2007/09/03/thoughts-on-a-conservapedia/
  • http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19/2 (page 2 is important. I couldn’t find this at first.)

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

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/the-rationalwiki-foundation/albuquerque-new-mexico-87106/the-rationalwiki-foundation-rationalwiki-rational-wiki-rw-rationalwikiorg-rationalwi-1143383

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from other sources:

This refers to the RW article, Michael Prescott

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

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

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

to be continued ….

Protected: User:EmilOWK

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Anglo Pyramidologist

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

When this study began, I was aware of claims that behind the Anglo Pyramidologist socks was Oliver D. Smith, and some sources included his twin brother Darryl Smith. I did not mention those claims because I had not verified them. Eventually, I found enough evidence to assert it. It is not necessary to have absolute proof to state a position or assert a claim

One of the factors that weighed in favor of asserting it was that there was no contrary evidence. That is, there was no sign of the real Oliver D. Smith appearing and denying the claims. As well, some of the people making the claim were reasonably reliable. (Some were not, or at least did not appear so..)

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

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

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

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

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

[Note added May 3, 2018: Oliver claimed, in April, that the “brother” story was a lie, beginning with the AngloPyramidologist Sock puppet investigation on Wikipedia. I conclude that this is just one more lie. There is a brother, that’s apparently public record, Oliver previously indicated the brother was being paid by an organization, and in his “confession,” he claimed that he had lied to Tim Farley, who is connected with two major skeptic organizations, which is pointed out for that fact, to connect the dots, not to accuse Farley of anything.

Recently, a new AP sock has been repeating the claims that the “RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is a paranoid fantasy. Nobody on RationalWiki seems to be checking these claims. In general RationalWiki users have supported AP socks — though sometimes they revert and block them, especially but not exclusively impersonation socks. It still remains the case that the article on Oliver D. Smith has been salted on RationalWiki — without any article having been attempted. He is being protected. Protection also has been seen on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta.wikimedia.org.

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

JorisEnter protected “Oliver D. Smith” 3 November 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developments

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

A day in the life of a troll

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

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

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

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

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

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

16:25 21 January 2018  I replied to Tron.

17:15, 21 January 2018 Nick_Lowles_Fan , an account I had not noticed, added a pile of lies to an already ridiculous article. As can easily be seen from the linked contributions, this is an AP sock, specifically Oliver Smith. He wrote:

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

  • One of the AP traits has been that he sometimes loses it, starts raving, and doing so, essentially admits what is being claimed. The comment is dense with misrepresentations. Nothing remotely like the doxxing of “underage children” has been done. One home address (not a specific house, a rural road without number, probably a mailing address, using the family name) was given, on the Identity subpage, , and I redacted that information entirely at 21 Jan @ 17:14, probably before I saw the edit above.  I restored the information 30 Jan @ 20:17. The next day I redacted the names of the mother, father, and older brother. 9 Feb,  I redacted the name of the road as well, leaving only the town and postal code.
  • I’m not focused on “debate.” Rather, I present evidence and discuss. I sometimes report on events on fora. No examples have been shown of “defaming,” but the RW article has often called simple and straight reporting of events, for study, such as a list of contributions to an article, intended for an eventual study of an editor’s positions, an “attack.” The article is full of these imputations. They might as well be called lies.
  • On most wikis, such as RationalWiki or WMF wikis, an admin cannot ban, they can only block. One RW admin blocked me, and it was an AP sock, and I’ve documented him (Skeptical, and he was obviously AP, and disappeared when someone outed him — not me). The problem with that is?
  • There is only one “family” that has been mentioned; last year the family was described by the socks themselves on Wikipedia. The “family” has not been “targeted.” Rather, the identity of Anglo Pyramidologist, very long-term internet abuser and sock master, two brothers, needed confirmation, and part of that confirmation involved knowing his original residence address, thus correlating tightly with extensive IP information. No underage children have been mentioned, let alone targeted. The page in question is archived here. As anyone can see, the youngest person mentioned was 27 years old (and could now be older). So this was the usual usual, an AP sock lying his pants off.
  • So how do I know that this user is an AP sock? The style of writing and the subject telegraphs it, but I then looked at his contributions. I would have tagged this as an AP sock without his commenting on the attack article on me, from the subjects alone. That’s how they do it on Wikipedia. The duck test.
  • Most remarkable, Nick is admitting that the page documented the “home addresses of RationalWiki sysops.” Indeed. Oliver Smith and Darryl Smith are Rational Wiki sysops, under many account names, and Nick would know, because he is one of those two persons.  But it is only one address, and that is, again, another troll tactic: take a single example and make many out of it. Any other persons whose home addresses have been given?

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

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

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

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

[note: Later, Oliver became extremely hostile, and has claimed that I harassed him by email (though he emailed me!), so I have published the emails..]

[I later found that an Oliver sock had disclosed his real name on RationalWiki, and it was hidden by Skeptical much later.  Was he Skeptical, clearly AP, or was it his brother? In a number of places, recently, Oliver, clearly him (such as the account ODS), identified Debunking spiritualism (DS) as his brother, but more recently, again, he claimed that all the “brother” talk was lies and deception, “there is no brother.” But there obviously is a brother and the “all lies” story is implausible, given the massive evidence. So remarkable is that post that I’m creating a subpage, “Oliver here.”]

I don’t rush into something like this. It was one step at a time. There are many more steps to take. Wait until this is cited on Quora, where I have over 1600 followers and 3.3 million page views! (But I don’t yet see relevance there…. unless someone asks me a question… )

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

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

Protected: Dr. Witt

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: