Anglo Pyramidologist

Someone not familiar with how the Anglo Pyramidologist socks have operated may not understand this page. My history with this may help. I became aware of a Wikiversity resource created by Ben Steigmann having been deleted, and investigated. What I found and ultimately demonstrated, through steward checkuser findings, was that an admitted sock puppet created an array of socks impersonating Steigmann on Wikipedia in order to arouse an angry response. It worked. When I began to examine the history of this, I was massively attacked by sock puppets, first on Wikiversity, then on the meta wiki. All this has been documented on meta. One of the socks claimed to have four active Wikipedia accounts, and many others with low activity. Defeated at meta, with attempts to get the study deleted (which would accomplish nothing, it’s archived), being ignored by stewards, continued retribution was promised. And so, after some delay, an article on me was published on RationalWiki by a brand-new account, which, it turns out, is SOP for these socks. This article must have taken many hours of research, this new account was highly motivated.

“Outing” and doxxing by these socks is often tolerated on RationalWiki, but the socks are largely disposable. When blatant and disruptive sock puppetry is tolerated, as it is on RationalWiki, communities fall apart and private agendas dominate. This is a statement by one of the socks on RationalWiki:

I’ve pretty much been running this website since 2012 by content/article creations; around 700 socks to date. God bless RationalWiki! I love the fact this wiki has no check-user. lol.

This page is apparently considered worthy of an indefinite block on RationalWiki, by the only sysop there whom I had mentioned so far, AFAIK, Skeptical. He had previously deleted the on-RW version of this page. (And also the AfD for that page), and his contribution history is full of AP obsessions, with little else. His obsession with my writing here has now converted me from some suspicion that he is likely a sock from the “Anglo Pyramidologist family” to this being a high probability– as previous attacks by probable socks of the family, see the meta pages referenced below, had convinced me that I was on the right track and increased my suspicion of some of those that they insanely “defended” (i.e., that were not actually being attacked.)

(Anglo Pyramidologist also attempts to create enmity between users, so, for example, if I mentioned a user offhand, not “attacking” that user, AP then treats it as an attack, perhaps hoping that the user will see it and not realize that it’s not an attack, and then join in attacking me. The only possible appearance of AP in comments on this blog was an impersonation of a user known to have disagreements with me. Classic AP arguments were used.)

Special studies: Skeptical

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

Now, back to our regular programming:

Anglo Pyramidologist is an account that was blocked on Wikipedia in 2011, but that is considered to have been operating a large number of sock puppets. It is possible that this is more than one actual user, perhaps using the same internet access; possibly members of the same family (and this is claimed on various web sites), but certain areas of interest and behavioral characteristics can be seen through the possible noise. This study of RationalWiki user patterns is informed by prior studies of Wikipedia and WMF sock behavior, which are still live on the meta wiki, but which can also be seen at User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist and User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist/User data ( copies)

There were extensive attempts to harass me on Wikiversity and on the meta wiki, and when those were interdicted by stewards, an article was created on me on RationalWiki, where I had sysop privileges (since 2012, but mostly inactive). There was, again, massive harassment there. As part of my prior research, I had seen how AP uses socks, including impersonations, to attack perceived enemies and to create disruption that can then serve as a cover for hidden agendas. I started to list the accounts on RationalWiki and this was promptly deleted and I was blocked. That is all of ultimate interest. I’m starting here to recreate and expand the list of accounts to support further study.

This sock family has done extensive damage to Wikipedia and to other sites and users. These accounts are identified by characteristics seen in the past. Because “innocent bystanders” may show some of these characteristics, the listing here is merely an indication of suspicion, in most cases, not a claim of definitive identification. In some cases the evidence is very strong, however.

There are many indications in the history that there is more than one person behind “Anglo Pyramidologist.” This Wikipedia Checkuser request from July 2016 is remarkable. There are earlier claims of two brothers and a sister.

These are being sorted by the RationalWiki pages on which activity was seen as this list is compiled (which will not be complete). What is given is the contributions display for the user, which is also being archived as found for some users. Notes may be added. Most listing are based on multiple signs, which still may not be conclusive. If a listing has a question mark, this is a shallow appearance, to be reviewed later. [see edit adding image uploaded to Commons by AP sock]

From blocks of Skeptical:

from Wikiversity, RW accounts listed by AP sock, here and here., leading to articles of interest and editors. ‎ (archive)

I notice that Heyguy, who was being harassed by the SPA edit (first account above), giving two real names (Rome Viharo and Ben Steigmann) is blocked, but Rome Viharo Krom heyguy is not blocked. Heyguy was accused of revealing personal information, and this was hidden by RoninMacbeth,  whereas sections on Talk:Heyguy remain as attempted doxxing of Heyguy.

Cheeseburger Face intervened, semiprotecting the Talk page for a short time, which stopped the IP edits. However, CF appears to consider Heyguy to be the Badguy. He blocked him. and revision-deleted his comments. But he left, with dismissive comments, attempted doxxing on the Talk page he protected.

Apparently it is acceptable to real-name doxx alleged socks of “cranks and crackpots,” but not “RationalWiki users,” and cranks and crackpots don’t count as RationalWiki users, who are all sober skeptics and promoters of critical thinking. Unless.

This is general RationalWiki insanity, not merely the Smith brothers, the more-or-less ordinary RW community enables these highly disruptive socks. RoninMacbeth attempted some amelioration, and blocked the sock who reverted her, but must have seen the rest that came down, including Cheeseburger Face’s collapse of her comment as “Drama.” and did nothing. This edit by a clear Smith sock (archive) stands on User:Heyguy.

MrOrganic created the RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory article, which was deleted as harassment, allegedly as Rome Viharo content. But MrOrganic has not been blocked; rather his targets have been blocked. At some point, this all becomes Obvious Obvious. What MrOrganic wrote:

Calm down, take a chill-pill

What appears to be the problem? This is a website that covers pseudo-science; Mr. Laird is a pseudo-scientist who believes in some crazy things. Why is it a problem if someone adds an entry on him here? You can avoid an entry on this website by being rational; if you believe in irrational things you might get an entry written here. So calm down sir.MrOrganic (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This is what the Smith brothers do: they attack others, on various fora. If anyone exposes them or frustrates their agenda, they attack that person, if they think they have found a vulnerability. They create impersonation socks and attack socks, many of them. They attempt to coerce and intimidate (they threatened Wikiversity with an avalance of socks). And they create revenge articles on RationalWiki, commonly exaggerating the beliefs or alleged beliefs of their targets.

Everyone on the planet “believes in irrational things,” at least occasionally. If that were the goal of RationalWiki, there would be endless content. Notice: the standard for article creation is really if someone challenges the agenda of MrOrganic, who is one of the Smith brothers, I have no doubt. The article on me was created by Marky, and followed threats to attack my work (on meta, the WMF coordinating wiki).

What is odd about this comment is that it appears to assume that there is not already an article on Heyguy. I.e., that Heyguy is not actually Rome Viharo. (I don’t know and I have not asked, and it doesn’t matter.)

The RationalWiki community tolerates this. They treat any outraged response — or response they imagine is outraged — as “drama,” but the drama is largely created by these attack dogs. RW sysops block the targets, not the dogs. (Some of the attack accounts are blocked, but these users do not care; one of them expressed how much he loved that RW had no Checkuser. They use open proxies or other anonymous access facilities (i.e., they do what they accuse others of, but they do it prolifically. This sock master is obsessed, insane … and useful to others with a more coherent agenda. Conspiracy theory? Sometimes there are defacto conspiracies with no organization, and there are also organizations involved, such as Guerilla Skeptics or the James Randi Educational Foundation. )

James Randi is an obvious crank. (Being a crank does not mean that one’s position on some issue is wrong, crank is about obsession and narrow thinking.) Smith is an obvious crank. If internet notoriety is enough to create sufficient notability for an article, there should be one. But, of course, this would be “doxxing.” Wait? Doxxing of whom? Articles are created about real people, not usually accounts. Then if the real person is identified as having accounts, those are sometimes allowed to be mentioned. Certainly this has been allowed for Rome Viharo!

As I find them:

This study has only begun.

There is a vast amount of material to cover. I started with only what I directly experienced as harassment by sock. (Still this is not complete on that, pages have been deleted and can no longer be seen by the public.) I also have information about the real-life identity of the user or users behind this sock family, but have chosen not to reveal it, at least not yet. It’s not actually important, so far.

These users freely doxx others when it suits them, but if someone even hints at the “sock collection” they scream “doxxing.” It’s part of the pattern. They create sock accounts with the real-life names of other users, attempting to stir up action against those people, and they have often succeeded. One of the socks, in a message to me on the WMF meta wiki, claimed to have four active Wikipedia accounts, with many others for occasional use. It’s believable.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield