Supporters and enablers

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

The list

Some of the above have been added from a narrow suspicion, and S&E may be inadvertent or ignorant or otherwise. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list of users

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

David Gerard Long-term involvement as mentioned above.

Bongolian to be documented.

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

Cosmikdebris many actions.

GrammarCommie see many edits suppressing communication, such as blanking of the edit to User talk:ReadyMade — and many more. Trolls when he blocks or deletes.  Suspected, on evidence, of being  terminally incompetent … or radically immature, lacking sysop skills. Not uncommon for RW sysops. See the comments on his user talk page. This is the kind of person who, when you say, “Have a nice day,” reply “Fuck off! You can’t make me, asshole!”

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

There was also a new development with Readymade, who is showing some sanity. I’ll expand on this later.

Christopher to be documented. Collection of notes on Christopher.

Leuders to be documented.

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

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

Rimuru Tempest

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 thoughts on “Supporters and enablers”

  1. The three commens below were all posted using a Tor node. That these would come from distinct users, within minutes of each other, is implausible. There are three reasonable possibilities, in order of decreasing probability, based on, now, over six months of experience studying the activities of what turned out to be the Smith brothers:
    1. These are being posted by Darryl L. Smith, who is recently active on RationalWiki as Debunking spiritualism (DS).
    2. These are from Oliver D. Smith, twin brother of DS, who just “retired” as ODS on RationalWiki, as did many of his prior socks. ODS, however, claimed the massive socking was from his brother.
    3. These are being created by another impersonator, in order to increase retailiation against the Smiths.
    (4: The Smiths claim, and their supporters and enablers sometimes claim, that the impersonator is me. Of course, I affirm that it isn’t. Rational skeptics, if they care (most of those who pretend sekpticism don’t care and don’t want to know), might ask if I have any history of impersonation or extensive covert socking, which are well-known for the Smiths (as Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia, and then as Sci-fi on Wikiversity, as shown by the meta checkuser investigations, which showed a veritable avalanche of socks.)

    I am notifying those impersonated. It’s tricky on RationalWiki, because the supporters and enablers promptly delete notices. Nevertheless, some of those impersonated have confirmed that they were not the one commenting, so I will continue until I have that for all of them. If that creates traffic for RW sysops, too bad; they could easily act to make all that mess unnecessary, but they don’t. Because?

  2. [IP:]
    HELLO THIS IS David Mabus, I have mental illness. I was impersonating people. I will stop now. Abd Lomax will be getting sued though for doxxing Tim Farley, David Gerard and Oliver Smith!!!!!!

    Rationalwiki have an article about me!!!! David Gerard that atheistic man, how dare he!!!!!

  3. [IP:]
    This is David Gerard. I will close your blog down Abd Lomax for harassment and I will spank you!!!!!!!

    David Gerard (Rationalwiki syop)

  4. Many comments
    from impersonation socks or other possible trolls moved to anglo-pyramidologist/comments/

    [Note added 3.27/2018: I am not approving certain comments, inpersonations, that I would have moved to the comment page. It is time for the complex mess to become more visible. Real-world damage has been done, including defamation of me, Infusion Institute, cold fusion as scientific inquiry, and many others sharing only the distinction of being targets of a certain pair of internet trolls. This is not about some “war with skeptics.” It is about hatred and lies and massive impersonations in many fora.]

  5. Abd – there would seem to be a bit of cognitive dissonance when it comes to impersonating a nom de plume. Where there’s anonymity, and people can call themselves anything they want, then it becomes impossible to check who is writing except by inference from the IP address, which can also be spoofed. On the other hand, people impersonating your (real) name should be illegal.

    Still, as they say, the flak gets more concentrated the closer you get to the target.

    1. Two issues are conflated here. Identifying an anonymous account, where the person wishes to remain anonymous, can be difficult. However, people do become expert at it, and there are tools. Yes, IP evidence can be spoofed, but trolls often don’t bother. Or they do. In some cases, IP can be traced back to the source computer and sometimes the user. Others, not.

      However, verifying that a comment or other communication is actually from the person who claims in it to own an account elsewhere, can be easy, because, as we see here, Readymade, Leuders, and GrammarCommie responded to queries, logged in there.

      Yes, as to flak. I knew I was onto something when I first started documenting some Single Purpose Accounts that caused disruption on Wikiversity, after having impersonated a Wikiversity user on Wikipedia, causing “retaliation” on Wikiversity for what he had not actually done, and massive attack socks appeared, like I had never seen before.

      Really? They were trying to make me stop by threatening endless disruption. That actually motivated me. They claimed I was lying when I simply reported verifiable evidence without conclusions. What kind of person does that?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress Anti Spam by WP-SpamShield