List of lies and smears

This is from a Reddit comment on the WikiInAction subreddit, topic
Globally banned Wikipedia user Arthur Kerensa Dysklyver
posted by [deleted]
Abdlomaxisaliar 2 days ago as of 8:44 UT 4/18/2019

You keep complaining about being attacked but spend your life doing it to others, including Smith:

I am using this as an opportunity to go over the tactics used by Darryl L. Smith. There are two Smiths, and they use confusion over that to generate smoke to cover up what they do. In the articles they write, they will take a single example, sometimes from the distant past, and conflate it into a pattern of behavior. I first saw this rhetorical tactic on Wikipedia. A single instance of possible error in copyright was conflated, in accusations to “places copyright violations in articles.” Later examination found no evidence of that, and the original copyvio was material she found in a sandbox and asked an admin about. In other words, totally innocent, but smeared, and it worked. As part of my effort to clean that up, I had my first real block on Wikipedia. All later considered a mistake. But, of course, an entry in the block log! Which later, could be used as proof of “attacks administrators,” etc.

I don’t “complain” about being attacked. That’s how trolls think, and “complainer” is in juvenile culture a moral failure. Complainers don’t simply describe what happened, but “whine” about it. (And, in fact, there are whiners, who disempower themselves. Describing what happens, however, is a path to power, even from major traumatic events.)

Abd’s list of lies and smears

This is not Abd’s list, it is Abdlomaxisaliar‘s list. Let’s see what is alleged.

False claim Smith is somehow an antinatalist, basing his source on a tongue-in-cheek comment.

False according to an anonymous troll. What I wrote was sourced, and this troll acknowledges that. “Basing his source” is redundant. The claim was a comment by Oliver Smith that he was an anti-natalist, in a context where (1) it was definitely him, there is no question, (2) he was denying that he had children — because some troll had commented that I was “attacking someone with children,” — and added he was an antinatalist and found my having seven children “disgusting.” Now if that is not evidence that Oliver is an antinatalist, what would be? I actually can’t think of stronger evidence. But there is more of it, I found two places where biographies written by Smith made the claim. One was a deleted bio on RationalWiki that Oliver later claimed was written by Mikemikev, though that is very unlikely from internal evidence that the other edits of the author, all of which I have covered. The other was an autobography written on the Wiki RationalWikiarchives, also called RationalWikiWiki, by Smith. A Smith troll sock claimed that I had probably written that. But I found that the biol had been archived 11 times over a month. If it had been written by an impersonator, the Rats would have immediately whacked it. Only the last version might be suspected in that way, and I suspect that Oliver’s brother probably deleted it, because it named him, whereas the earlier versions did not. Oliver is schizophrenic and unstable and does all kinds of things that make no sense. It clearly claims that he is antinatalist. And those biographies reflect Oliver’s expressed positions on many topices over the years. They are not what enemies of Smith would write, they are full of relatively sophisticated self-rationalization or explanation.

And this doesn’t matter; Smith brothers are looking for any accusation they can make and if they think they can make something look like a lie, they will assert it as proof. With anonymous accounts, as on Reddit, they don’t care if it is blatantly preposterous. Some of it may stick, they have figured that out. And then they will accuse another enemy, or the same, of being behind those trollsocks, and, again, they have found that some will believe this.

Not a lie and not actually a smear.

False and potentially libellous claim that Smith is or was a fascist. No evidence provided. After Smith pointed out Abd was lying, Abd completely changed the definition of fascist he was using to his own obscure definition.

“No evidence provided” is ignorant or a lie, and because this troll has obviously read much, probably a lie. Oliver seemed to believe that a way to convince someone that they had erred was to accuse them of “lying,” and this little piece admits that. In response to Oliver’s claims, I did a study of Oliver’s Atlantid activity. Most of it has been deleted, apparently, but enough remains to see certain things.


Oliver worked on Metapedia for a year, mostly as a sysop. From Wikipedia, the lead:

Metapedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia which contains authoritarian far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and neo-Nazi points of view.

That, by the way, would not prove “fascist,” in itself. But one might understand such an idea. However, from a number of contexts (many having nothing to do with the Smiths, I have started to use a generic definition of fascism that does not confine itself to “right-wing fascism,” rather it refers to collectivist authoritarianism, which exists in tension with freedom and diversity. This is a far more useful definition, but, then, all of us can fall into fascism of this kind. And that is precisely why it is more useful. I derived the definition I’m using from reading Mussolini, who coined the word and defined it in a widely-reproduced article, which in various versions assigned it as right-wing, left-wing, or left that out. The RationalWiki article on Fascism does approach this issue, but then falls entirely into leftist apologia and confusion. second meaning:

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

RationalWiki is, overall, fascist in the sense I have been using the term. And, remember, “fascist” does not mean “wrong.” Those who react, knee-jerk, to a natural polarity will delude themselves and project error onto others who merely describe reality. Examples abound.

Bottom line, Oliver was working for the improvement of an extreme right-wing, antisemitic, neo-Nazi wiki, and was, as a sysop, authoritarian, blocking contrary opinion that he thought supported anti-racism. That’s shown in the edit histories.

Not a lie and not actually a smear — and not obscure.

False and potentially libellous claim that Smith is or was an anti-Semite.

I covered this in the Atlantid study. I am not a mind-reader, but Oliver followed Metapedia practice in specially identifying Jewish scientists, as an example, with a Star of David symbol, clearly serving the project’s anti-semitism. That’s enough to legitimate the claim of antisemitism. Oliver remained and remains free to deny it, but it is not likely to be meaningful unless he clearly repudiates what he did. I have never claimed anti-semitism as his current state, I have seen no recent evidence. Smith’s article go back many years, scraping up anything they can find that looks bad, and then assert the implications of that as the present and ongoing state of their target. Examples abound. Turnabout is fair play, but I have never gone that far.

Defamation Smith suffers from schizophrenia, basing his source on Mikemikev’s impersonations and trolling of Smith.

That is a gross error and deception, i.e., the schizophrenia claim is not based on Mikemikev’s claims. Rather, this edit, Oliver’s last on Metapedia.

Yes Mike I also suffer from schizophrenia. I am now bettering my health,renouncing my former views and association with Metapedia, this is my final message here. I’ve blocked my own account and changed the pass,so i won’t be able to log back in. Atlantid 03:08, 6 December 2013 (CET)

There is more, but that’s really enough. I am not reactive to “schizophrenia,” I know a lot about it. I had a paranoid schizophrenic mother. It’s just a condition and it is possible to be high-functioning with it, but it is probably necessary to hew to total honesty, and for Oliver to be involved in what he gets involved in is probably very poor for his health.

Not a lie and not a smear.

Lying about Smith’s edits about race on Metapedia. Smith clearly criticised hereditarianism, but Abd lies on his blog and claims Smith supported hereditarianism – a demonstrably false and ridiculous claim.

This can get really complex. Oliver is obsessed about this particular issue. I went over this on the Atlantid page. Does it matter what Smith supported then? “Hereditarian” is not understood by most people, but the current politically correct view is “environmentalism,” this is about intelligence, and the usual fracas is over intelligence test results. It’s a colossal mess, and when I look at the science and the debates, my reaction is more or less “a pox on both your houses,” because extreme views get enshrined and linked with each other, retarding synthesis, which is where we can approach reality. In any case, this is from the Atlantid study page:

first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for “(Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions).” The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation. This was January, 2013. If he revised his views later, did he go back and unblock Rose and apologize? He had admin until November 27, 2013. 

This discussion went on. Again, since Oliver may have changed his views (he claims that). That he criticized hereditarianism (perhaps he did) would not negate that he “supported” it somewhere else. The Smith writing this has a cartoon view of people, possibly including himself.

And so what? Who cares if Oliver supported hereditarianism years ago? It does become relevant if he viciously attacks others for hereditarian views. “Hereditarian” is very weak as a smear, unless it asserts present position in certain contexts.” It is obvious that there is a degree to which intelligence is hereditary, and a degree to which it is affected by environmental conditions, so these  “isms” represent extremes, both errors if the opposite is denied.

Not a lie and not a smear.

Lying about Smith being an asexual. No evidence presented, just trolling on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Well, no. What was placed on ED came from RatWiki, and can be seen by any sysop. Calling this “no evidence” is a lie. I did not call him “asexual,” as I recall, though he called himself that, made a point of it. He called himself “antinatalist” in his email to me, that’s evidence, and Oliver wrote a bio of himself, as “Oliver D Smith”, who was active on the Wikia with that name, well-known to RatWikians (“Rats”). When I pointed to that on Reddit, a Smith troll claimed that I had made that page up, but that Wikia was closely monitored by Rats and Oliver, and the copy was archived 11 times over a month. This was authentic, period. But the Smiths lie to cover up their lies, and lie again to accuse others of impersonating them and whatever they think of, without any shame.

Quite the same as the RatWiki bio, the RWW bio directly claims “antinatalist” and “asexual.”

Smith identifies as Grey-A, somewhere between asexual and heterosexual. He has never been in a relationship and is sexually abstinent. He is pro-LGBTQIA rights, but doesn’t like the modern subcultures of these groups. Smith is an antinatalist and is voluntary childfree; he began writing a book on antinatalism a few years back and his antinatalist views are best summarised by David Benatar, “The Misanthropic Argument for Antinatalism”. His politics are based on any measure to stop/reverse population growth and are neither strictly left nor right wing.

Who cares about this unfortunate’s sexuality? It has nothing to do with the problem, massive defamation. Oliver has created deceptive articles on RatWiki and has then convinced major media to reprint the libels, probably because of his skillful use of shallow impressions, i.e,. if a source appears to support a claim if one squints, it can work with a shallow, deadline-pressed journalist. He’s being sued for this (not by me).

Not a lie and not a smear.

False claim Smith is John66 on RationalWiki. No evidence presented, a baseless allegation.

Different Smith. This would be Darryl L. Smith. A pile of evidence has been presented, starting with what is called the “duck test” on Wikipedia. Focus, interests. Debunking spiritualism was Darryl Smith, at the same time as ODS was Oliver. (DS is merely a hint!). As DS shut down activity on RatWiki, Skeptic from Britain fired up on Wikipedia, with a new interest: “food woo” and related medical topics. As that was heating up, an account was started with a few edits on RatWiki, John66. SfB was very active, providing massive edits for studying edit timing. The edits dovetail with Debunking spiritualism on one end and John66 on the other.

But the strongest evidence is the duck test. To call the allegation “baseless” is a lie. Could I be wrong? Sure, but if John66 is not abusive, why would this be a “smear”? It would merely be a suspected sock puppet, basis obvious for anyone who looks. (They claim that the new interests prove that the account is different. No, it shows a new interest, that was connected in places with the old ones.)

Not a lie and not a smear.

False claim on Abd’s blog Smith is an Antifa or supports Antifa. This lie was copied from Mikemikev without fact-checking. Smith has never supported Antifa and has criticised that organisation as terrorist.

I don’t have the idea that Oliver Smith is “an antifa,” which has come to mean a specific group. However, he has fed antifa propaganda, and his work mostly has focused on attacking alleged racists and neo-Nazis. So he might be considered antifa in that way. Where was this alleged “false claim”?

There are lists of suspected sock puppets on this blog. A suspected sock is not an accusation that one is what the name implies. However, I have not listed any suspicion or conclusion based on Mikemikev. That’s been a common accusation, and I can testify that it is false. I have seen information from Mikemikev that I have checked and investigated. If it holds up, I have then reported it on my own authority and standing on my own reputation and responsibility. And if any of these are incorrect, and especially if they cause harm to anyone, they are easy to correct. But the Smiths don’t correct these things, rather they cry “Lies!” and are not specific. Trolls!

However, I was not satisfied, so I searched for “antifa” on my blog. I found only that I had mentioned an account in connection with Emil Kirkegaard. This account, Antifa Ireland, repeated the standard Oliver propaganda about Kirkegaard. (“child rape apologist,” which was a lie. And why that was kept in the article says volumes about wiki unreliability.

There was only one edit. The context was one where impersonation socking (impersonating Kirkegaard) was appearing. At that point the Rats had no clue who Welliver was, and his anti-Kirkegaard arguments were being rejected, so the sock appears to reject the community position. There is not enough evidence to know for sure who Antifa Ireland was, but I’d bet on a Smith brother, it could be either one.

Stating a suspicion based on evidence like that is routine, and not defamation. It’s allowed on Wikipedia, not considered uncivil, or example, and if wrong, so what?

Countless false identifications of Smith’s accounts on RationalWiki, Wikipedia and other websites.

This troll is promoting confusion. There are two Smiths, with distinct interests and behaviors. Let’s start with Wikipedia. I did not name “Smith” for a long time, but it was well-known. I started with a set of socks that had impersonated a user, someone interested in parapsychology. As a result of the impersonations on Wikipedia, he was followed to Wikiversity and attacked. He was blocked and his work was deleted. The work was harmless, a study of sources, which Wikiversity was for. Eventually, I became aware of this and looked. At first I chided him for socking on Wikipedia. He said, “Yes, I was X and Y, but not those disruptive accounts.” And I looked and there were clear differences. X and Y were socking, all right, but not disruptively. The others were trolling, blatantly and seeking to be blocked and waving a big flag with the name of this user.

So basic lesson for anyone concerned with socking on wikis and elsewhere. Real socks generally hide their identity. Ones that do not are unusual, and might need to be treated differently. If they are disruptive, block them, of course. But if they wave the X flag, do not assume they are X. They may be an enemy of X. And if an SPA files checkuser on these “X” trolls, be sure to include that SPA in the checkuser investigation. If that had been done on Wikipedia, a lot of trouble would have been avoided.

In any case, when I saw this, I went to meta and requested checkuser, since this had gone cross-wiki. And bingo! complainants on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and the troll socks, all the same user. So I started to write an essay on SPA trolls, and listed these socks. And piles of troll socks appeared. They say that you know you are over the target when the flak gets heavy. I kept reporting the socks to stewards. And then I was accused of being on a vendetta  against “skeptics,” with private complaints being obvious, and all that led to a global ban. Someone was protecting these attack dogs, I suspect, or they had merely fooled many, including the WikiMedia Foundation.

One of the socks identified had edited Commons and a RatWiki user had used the image immediately. That was my first connection between this mess and RatWiki. Someone who knew Oliver Smith very well dropped me a note on my Talk page by IP that he was sending me email, and my Talk page was promptly attacked. Someone was watching everything closely and reacting very strongly. I did not announce “Smith” until much later, and “Oliver D. Smith” has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. But that was not the one who had impersonated originally. Very different interests were involved (though there were connections, Oliver Smith had used the name of that original target to start an article on RatWiki — later admitted, and claimed “not impersonation because spelled differently.” It was trolling. The person was allegedly a racist. (In fact, he had been racist and had renounced that.)

Many, many Oliver Smith accounts eventually acknowledged identity. Darryl L. Smith, on the other hand, has never, to my knowledge, admitted his accounts, even though some are quite obvious and widely known. So the furious attack on my work is likely coming from him, and I see little sign of Oliver involvement. Oliver is still trying to edit RatWiki and most recently is being blocked as “Smith.” That is a huge shift.

In any identification of hundreds of socks, as exists on this blog, there are likely some errors. Correction (or contrary claims) have always been welcome, but are almost never presented. Instead, they cry “Lies,” and have been making that claim since I first started collecting evidence. Pages that were pure evidence without conclusions were called “Lies.”

That’s a clue.

Not lies and not smears.

And the list goes on…

If anyone wants clarification, ask in comments on this page. All comments must be approved, so I see all of them. If a comment asks for it, it can be deleted. However, trolls will be roasted and served for lunch, they make excellent low-carb snacks. Don’t worry, honest disagreement and criticism is not trolling. Accusations by real people, responsible for what they write, is also unlikely to be trolling. Skeptics are welcome here, always have been. Skepticism is, in fact, essential to science. Pseudoskepticism is poisonous, but some degree of it is very common. As are racism and fascism. To move beyond these things, we need clear communication, not condemnation and hatred.