Update April 23, 2019
This page was old, there has been recent Reddit activity. See the subpages
- reddit/trollsocks/ (not yet public)
I noticed my name on that page (through following up on a google search), and so I commented on two such posts. I will document those below, but first, Debunking spiritualism, the currently active Darryl L. Smith sock on RationalWiki, complained about the posts on David Gerard’s user talk page (archive copy).
Abd Lomax socking on Rationalwiki Reddit
Abd Lomax has turned up on the Rationalwiki Reddit complaining about his RW article on a new account. As he has been doxing Rationalwiki users on his blog and he is banned from here for socking on countless IPs and countless accounts can you ban him from commenting on the Rationalwiki Reddit? Regards. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, only two users have been “doxxed,” in the sense of revealing the real-life names behind RW accounts, they are the users originally called “Anglo Pyramidologist” on Wikipedia. They have created many attack articles on RationalWiki. The have created enormous numbers of accounts on RW, including impersonation accounts used to defame the target, and many on other wikis and web sites. I was blocked on RW for naming the RW AP accounts, not for doxxing them. The Reddit account is real-name, and wasn’t new. These are the contributions so far, (archive link).
David Gerard is a moderator of that subreddit (as is Fuzzy Cat Potato). DS would go to Gerard because he was been quick in the past to respond to AP complaints about me. Looking around, I now see that I have been banned from the subreddit. This is the ban message:
r/rationalwikiYou’ve been banned from participating in r/rationalwiki
[–]subreddit message via /r/rationalwiki[M] sent 1 day ago
You have been banned from participating in r/rationalwiki. You can still view and subscribe to r/rationalwiki, but you won’t be able to post or comment.
If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/rationalwiki by replying to this message.
Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.
Now watch for impersonation accounts to appear so that they can complain to Reddit staff that I’m socking. They have managed to accomplish such many times with such behavior. No, I’m not going to sock there, and any accounts appearing pretending to be me won’t be.
Rather, I will do two things, the first for sure: I will document posts there and analyze them, and I may start a RationalWiki criticism subreddit. The fast response action, probably by Gerard yesterday, corroborates what Rome Viharo had suspected, AP collusion with David Gerard. RationalWiki pretends that the subjects of articles may defend themselves, but the reality is that they are blocked if they do. And this is a great example.
submitted on 07 Oct 2017 by https://www.reddit.com/user/skepticguy44 [account created to make this post]
This is classic AP behavior, making it difficult to track activity. However, the user names often fit common patterns.
Abdlomax 1 point 1 day ago
The headline (and the article linked) lie. I am a journalist and supporter of genuine scientific research, including into cold fusion, which is currently under way, massively funded, at Texas Tech. That is, what I promote is real science, and the Texas Tech work is being done by well-known scientists of high reputation.
I wrote an article published in 2015 under peer review, in a mainstream multidisciplinary journal, that pointed to prior confirmed research and in it I recommended work exactly like what is being done in Texas (replication of prior work with increased precision), and as, in fact, such was recommended by both U.S. Department of Energy reviews (1989 and 2004), to be published in the journal system.
I do claim in the article that the “Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect” is, by the preponderance of evidence, real, as shown by confirmed correlated helium production. It is not known if the reaction happens by a “fusion” mechanism, but this depends on definitions. Because the fuel is apparently deuterium and the product is apparently helium, and the heat released has been measured to be as predicted by such a conversion, if somehow it happens without energetic radiation, we can then call it “fusion.” i.e., “cold fusion.”
The claim here is that my telling the truth (reporting evidence) about cold fusion and the state of research into it is “pseudoscience promotion.” But the evidence is verifiable and the hypothesis (the heat is from some kind of fusion) is verifiable, so this is obviously not pseudoscience, but the oh-so-confident rejection is not even pseudoscientific, but we would normally call this “pseudoskepticism.”
If someone wants to question the evidence, that’s possible and even necessary, but debunkers famously rely on ad hominem arguments, such as this. Especially on RationalWiki.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 point 1 day ago* [registered to make this comment]
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation for doxing, harassing and impersonating other users.
The link shows that I was “gobally banned,” which is under discussion on Wikipedia Sucks. AP shows up and then I found the discussion. One AP sock was banned and another claimed he wasn’t coming back. (AP is two people, not one, which can lead to much confusion.)
This was classic AP: pure ad hominem argument unrelated to factual assertions or claims. It is deceptive, because the framing makes it appear that the WMF concluded I was “doxing, harassing and impersonating other users.” The reality is that the WMF did not explain the ban, to anyone — including me. All we know for sure is that one person complained, and he lied but the WMF might not have been able to discern the reality. After all, I wasn’t asked for evidence, nor was I warned about any behavior. It appears that it was off-wiki behavior that was the alleged basis, and that is not a TOS violation. Hence my consideration of legal action, because the fact of the ban is being used for defamation, as here.
Impersonation was what AP socks did, which I had exposed through checkuser requests. I was not accused of impersonation as far as I know by any responsible WMF user. Impersonation to defame is illegal.
submitted on 05 Jan 2018 by JohnMaximusthesecond. [This account had two posts, AFAIK. The account was suspended. Who is promoting specific RW articles? Certainly the author!]
Abdlomax 0 points 1 day ago
This links to a highly deceptive RationalWiki article created as a hit piece on me, as a retaliation for documenting “Anglo Pyramidologist” impersonation socking on Wikipedia. I was indeed blocked (not “perm banned,” there was no community discussion) on Wikiversity, as a result of private complaints from the same sock master and supporters. It even went further, much further. The sock masters are widely known, have acknowledged identity, but mention them on RationalWiki to get a quick block. On request, I will point to evidence.
[deleted] 1 point 1 day ago
You’re banned from RationalWiki, and come here trolling, reviving a 2-month dead thread. Get a life old man. And you never “documented” anything, just wrote lies and misinformation and are still doing this on your blog.
This is a common claim, being repeated over and over since I began documenting AP socking, almost entirely lists of checkuser results. Simple pages of evidence were called “lies” by socks that were then checkusered and globally locked. Above, I stated that evidence would be provided on request, and I have invited comments and correction from the beginning. It never shows up with specifics that make any sense.
So responding to a thread that is an obvious attack on me, by name (real name) is “trolling”? Yes. To AP, all perceived enemies should lie down and play dead or they are trolling for further attack.
TheResidentSkeptic 1 point 1 day ago [registered 1 April to make 3 comments on my comments.] “I was indeed blocked (not “perm banned,” there was no community discussion) on Wikiversity”
You lie a lot Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. On Wikiversity you are perm banned.
There is a template on your account that says BANNED.
How to lie with the truth. It’s all about context. First of all, there was no community discussion, necessary for a Wikiversity ban. The only discussion of my block was a comment by an administrator that he was planning on unblocking unless he saw reason to not do so, because the block reasons made no sense. What is obvious: this was all based on intense private complaints, and there was a campaign to arrange this, on Wikipedia. There is effectively an off-wiki Star Chamber, and global bans have been a visible aspect of that (i.e., these bans are typically without warning or explanation.)
I am not “perm banned on Wikiversity,” but rather globally locked by the WMF Office. That was not a Wikiversity action or decision.
What is, at most, a difference of interpretation is converted by AP socks to lying, and they have been doing this for years, with many.
TheResidentSkeptic 2 points 1 day ago
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax your RW article is 100% factual:
Much of it is not fact but interpretation and opinion, but the distinction is lost on the Smith brothers. [link to article is redundant to the title link, so I’m removing it.]
It merely logs your internet bans and disruption. You have been banned all over the web.
“All”? If you want to see wide bans, Google “Anglo Pyramidogist Atlantid” and then follow it up. There is no single compilation. “AP” is the Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigation for the Smith brothers, Oliver D. and Darryl L. They have been banned under many, many account names, I have documented maybe approaching 300, but there are many more.
Its also funny when you talk about ‘socking’ because you have socked on hundreds of proxy IPs. Almost every Rationalwiki Syop has blocked you the last few months when you turn up spamming nonsense.
When Skeptical (an obvious AP sock) blocked me on RW, I did not sock. However, impersonation socks appeared, so I created a single sock and authenticated it. That was blocked immediately and so were several other disclosed accounts. So I started making what I considered critical comments, such as disclosing to RW users that they were being impersonated on my blog, using IP. It has not been “hundreds of proxy IPs.” I have been documenting them all, but the disruptive socks on RW are not me, and the commenter here knows that, because he is certainly Oliver or Darryl Smith, probably Darryl. The pattern of impersonation socking follows long-term AP behaviors shown elsewhere, and it was my exposure of this kind of activity on Wikipedia that turned me into an AP target.
Some RW sysops have blocked me with summaries that lie, or they have blocked trolls claiming it was me. This proves nothing, because RW effectively bans article targets.
Few people actually study what happens. They just react and make snarky comments, based on imaginations.
You were globally banned from the Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Abd
Above, I wrote that after the blocks on Wikiversity, more happened. That was a reference to the global ban. Notice that “TheResidentSkeptic” — his socks have effectively claimed to own RationalWiki — is aware that it is a global ban, not a Wikiversity ban.
Less than 30 people in the world have been globally banned. Yet YOU are one of them. You need some serious self-reflection about your dark internet activities. Stop pretending to be a victim when you spend your time harassing people all day on the internet.
Indeed. However, the WMF does not explain the bans to anyone. Not even the Board knows. The WMF took a turn a few years ago from the idea that all such decisions were made by the community, to taking an active role, and it has caused a great deal of disruption, and opens up the WMF to legal action, whereas before they were protected. We’ll see where this goes.
The WMF has, of late, globally banned critics, including a person who did not even have an account! On Wikipedia Sucks, my ban was cited as an example of a well-known WMF critic being banned. There are several others. Oliver D. Smith showed up there (As “Catapult”), and Darryl as well (as “Max”) Oliver was unceremoniously booted out for harassment and trolling (particularly through private messages).
I also received a private message on Reddit, from “[deleted]”, admitting to being Darryl. The message:
thanks for the laugh
from [deleted] sent 1 day ago
I really find the fictional bio you’re writing about me on your blog amusing. I now travelled to Birkbeck College? Somewhere I’ve never set foot in. Ok old man. Keep lying and lying.
All those accounts are Mikemikev.
Is this AP? How would I know? The major clue: he has actually read the study I started on Darryl L. Smith. Few on the planet are aware of that. Is Mikemikev following all my contributions? I will look and see what I can find. Pending, I will assume this is Darryl.
It is not a “bio.” I don’t know enough about Darryl L. Smith to write a bio, other than identifying accounts, and it is tricky to distinguish between Oliver and Darryl. Or, for that matter, possible impersonators, but there are realities that shine through the fog, and I’ve been finding them and reporting them, and, of course, he cries “lies,” but what I generally report is evidence found, with far less emphasis on conclusions (which is the opposite of what the Smith brothers do on RationalWiki.)
It is like, however, he can’t read. “Birkbeck” does not appear on that page. Rather, it appears on a subpage of a responses I am preparing to an SPLC blog post, which included some defective claims taken from RationalWiki. The page mentioning Birkbeck is anglo-pyramidologist/hatewatch/mikemikev-spi-archive/ and this is what it said:
geolocation to Birkbeck College could also indicate a Smith brother, it’s close to where they live. This account was an obvious troll looking to be blocked. Nothing here clearly points to mikemikev.
This was an obvious speculation, not reported as a fact (except for proximity, and it would only take one trip to create a sock identification. This would not be Darryl, but Oliver, and I’m not going further into details now.
Now Darryl cites an edit to the the RW article, which is citing the SPLC, which was citing RatWiki. RationalWiki has accomplished this, and then AP socks — it is usually them — create circular references that don’t look like that, and that increase the appearance of RW reliability. But it was obviously information coming from RW. The edit was by MrsBlintz, who is the currently active RW sock for Oliver D. Smith, I strongly suspect.
“All these accounts.” What accounts? There are obvious impersonations involved, at least a few. I cover the possibility on the page, but a summary is that Wikipedia SPI cases are not dedicated to clear identification of a sock as being of a particular real-name person, nor to definitive long-term account identification. Checkuser data is only kept for a few months, so longer-term socks are identified by the duck test, and the Smiths discovered a flaw in the system and exploited it fully. If a disruptive sock appears and claims to be Blocked User X, they will block the sock and tag it as X, and only if checkuser identifies the sock as someone else than X, would they do something different, and this whole AP affair, for me, started with what was proven by steward checkuser to be impersonation socking, but Wikipedia never corrected their incorrect sock identification. They really don’t care about the identification, they care about block or don’t block. Impersonation sock, block, real blocked user, block. So the SPI case is not necessarily reliable, I’d want to do much more study to come to more conclusions, and it’s not my primary interest. I just did it here to look at the claims, particularly since they were linked to Mikemikev by Bill Collins, an obvious AP sock from many evidences.
Debunking spiritualism, on RW, refers to the same claim Bill Colliins made on the SPLC page, that Mikemikev admitted all the socks were his. But, in fact, Mikemikev did not such thing. AP socks know only one way to read: to confirm whatever opinion they want to find proof for. So much for rational skepticism.