subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/skeptic-from-britain/
Originally Written 20 February, 2019:
Elsewhere I show strong evidence that John66/Skeptic from Britain is Darryl L. Smith, and that when Smith was deciding to abandon Wikipedia, to use it for his typical purposes (to attack and harass someone who had criticized him), he started up a new sock on RationalWiki, John66. When he abandoned Skeptic from Britain and the renamed accounts, he turned to a flurry of activity on RationalWiki. It has now been a month and no more Darryl L. Smith socks appear to be active [when this was first written]. (There are, however, obvious Oliver Smith accounts, and quite a few with very low edit count that might possibly be either brother, less likely some other troll.)
So this page will look first at what’s on the John66 user page.
Information about me:
Name = John Slinger aka John66
Birth date = June 20, 1966
Birth place = La Seyne-sur-Mer, France
Current location = Great Britain
Occupation = Part-time chef at a hotel
Dislikes = Fad diets, LCHF quackery, pseudoscience
Likes = Paris Sewer Museum (I used to work there), snowboarding!
Email address = Ask me if needed
2019 is looking very promising!
He’s lying. John66 dove immediately into creating an article, first edit, this is a very experienced RationalWiki user. He also does not have email enabled (which is still anonymous, merely allowing someone to “ask him” something by email.) There is a British John Slinger, who clearly has nothing to do with John66. This is Darryl, who was born in 1990. So then he cites three studies, which demonstrate that he knows very little about l0w-carb diets, remarkable for someone who supposedly has a strong focus (“dislike”) for “low carb quackery” and “pseudoscience.” There is something worse than pseudoscience: raw, unadulterated lying and misrepresentation of sources, using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem and straw man arguments, guilt by association, the whole nine yards. Alleged pseudoscience is a long-term obsession of Darryl L. Smith. Let’s look at those studies, which he apparently thinks important.
* Blow to low carb diet as landmark study finds high fibre cuts heart disease risk
This is a Guardian article. The actual study is
Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
The headline appears to be misleading. The study is about the benefits of fiber. Benefits as to what? As to risk factors, which are themselves highly controversial. But the main fact to see here is that the scientific advocates of low-carb diets would also generally expect that fiber is beneficial, and it is not counted when counting carbohydrates. If one is going to eat carbohydrates, the standard low-carb advice is, eat carbs that contain plenty of fiber, and also with fat, both of which slow down the digestion of fiber and tend to avoid the high-carb insulin spike, with all the consequences of that. Placing this in opposition to “low carb diets” was sensationalist journalism, not the science involved.
The study looked at the effect of fiber consumption, and I would certainly expect results like they showed. Fiber, generally, is good for you. Rapid-digestion carbs are not good, except in small quantities. (Atkins would eat a baked potato on occasion, with plenty of butter and I would add sour cream.) Just not all the time!)
For an example of low-carb (which is a general class of diets, and usually is also high-fat, hence “LCHF”), I pulled an Atkins Chocolate Peanut Butter Bar out of my cupboard. From the nutrition label, some of the quantities, with recommended daily values (which are set by the government)
Total Fat 14 g. 22%
* Saturated Fat 8 g. 40%
Total Carb 23 g. 8%
* Dietary Fiber 12 g. 48%
* Sugars 2 g.
*Glycerin 8 g.
Protein 16 g. 20%
The Atkins label emphasizes that glycerin and fiber, classified as carbs, should be subtracted from total carbs to give “Atkins net carbs” of 3 g. A strict Atkins induction diet, to kick-start ketosis and to lose weight relatively rapidly, is 20 g. of carbs per day. That is always “net carbs.”
I have never encountered a low-carb diet advocate who recommended avoiding fiber. All that I know of would expect that high-fiber carbs would be healthier than low-fiber. So the story is ridiculous, straw-man. And as I have been researching the various claims of John66 in the articles he has created, they are full of references like that, that draw crazy conclusions from the actual study results.
* Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
This is the study covered in the Guardian article. Low-carbers talk about “glycemic index,” which is a measure of carb quality, basically it is based on how rapidly glucose levels rise in the blood after consuming carbohydrates. Both fiber and fat slow down carb digestion, with many beneficial effects. Fiber also has other benefits, and “paleo” foods would tend to be higher in fiber, as compared with highly-processed foods.
* High intake of dietary fiber and whole grains associated with reduced risk of non-communicable diseases
The summary: Observational studies and clinical trials conducted over nearly 40 years reveal the health benefits of eating at least 25g to 29g or more of dietary fiber a day, according to a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Some high-fiber foods are also high-carb, and that can be a problem. As I point out above, low-carb diet theory and practice would encourage high fiber consumption while cutting consumption of refined carbs and especially sugar and corn syrup. If grains are to be eaten on such diets, quantities should be controlled. The results of these studies are not controversial. Here is Atkins advice on fiber.
He did not start but extensively edited
- Low-carb_diet extensive edits pushing the article toward “fad diet” territory. Many edits are a common Smith trait. I like it, it makes it easier to detect socks.
- Julian_Whitaker obvious POV pushing. Not saying he’s wrong! Eventually, I will look at the known facts. However, anyone who challenges the status quo will be criticized and attacked heavily. Rats, and especially the Smiths, then quote the attacks as if authoritative. The could indicate a “quack,” but they could also indicate someone brave enough to stand up to the Mob. (Which, by the way, is not “conspiracy theory.” There is no Mob conspiracy, it happens through normal social forces. At some levels, Big Pharma is rather openly involved, as any objective analysis of the field can show. Journals are tightening up on full disclosure of funding, but if someone works for a nonprofit that is funded by Big Pharma, are they required to disclose that? There are many forces operating, as Taubes analyzes. And, of course, Darryl is going after Taubes.
He also edited other articles showing Darryl interests.
In addition he has many logged actions (block, delete, protect) that show Smith interests, in particular an obsession with mikemikev.
Oliver Smith (his twin brother) responded, on the talk page of the RatWiki article on me, lying about what is here, and, of course, not disclosing what I actually wrote, that John66 is his brother Darryl, not him.
(It has been the Smith theme for a year and a half that I subscribed to a “Smith brothers conspiracy theory,” which is a drastic misrepresentation of the reality, as usual for the Smiths.
There are two brothers, long identified and known as such, from their own claims. Darryl in one post some years ago, claimed that he was being paid for his work by a major skeptic organization, and it is plausible. Oliver claimed the same, about his brother, and then when he realized he had revealed too much about his brother, retracted the whole story, claiming that he had been lying about the brother since the original Wikipedia sock puppet investigations, and he claimed that he had lied to Tim Farley, who could well be a contact for the James Randi Educational Foundation or other skeptic organizations. I find myself unable to imagine why he’d mention Farley unless Farley were really involved with Darryl. Obviously, the ravings of a schizophrenic are not proof, but reasonable cause for suspicion.
Oliver’s emails He lies left and right and he is actually insane (i.e., it is possible that he believes what he is saying in some way. But he libels others (and he does it in the emails, known, beyond doubt, to be him.) But the subject here is John 66, Darryl Smith.
Lomax claims I’m John66, lol
There are many crazy but entertaining ramblings and conspiracy theories on his blog. For some reason he claims I own the sysop John66, someone that blatantly isn’t me I have zero knowledge of their edits.Arcticos (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Claiming that someone is a sock is not a “conspiracy theory.” It might be paranoid, it might be unjustified, — or it might be true — but Oliver is always looking for the twist, the yellow snow.
Because there are two brothers, and because others have become involved in one way or other, and because there is known off-wiki coordination with others, just admitted, by the way, by a sock who commented here, joint brother activity, including impersonation socking, is part of how the brothers have long operated. There is then some like of what legally could be called a “conspiracy.” RationalWiki has an article, Conspiracy theory.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the above quote is Arcticos admitting he is Oliver (else his comment would be meaningless). I suppose that the quoted statement could be interpreted with him being Darryl, but the Arcticos patterns are all Oliver, whereas John66 fits Darryl, like a glove, in the sequence of Darryl accounts.
What is ironic here is that I discovered that Skeptic from Britain (Wikipedia account) was Darryl because Oliver was trolling me on Encyclopedia Dramatica. He had previously admitted that he knew that Darryl was Skeptic from Britain, that’s covered elsewhere. Oliver threatened to tell the fans of Michael Kendrick that I was SfB. So I investigated, and realized from the patterns that SfB was Darryl (this was before I had seen Olivers admission of it).
However, SfB had tossed a huge red herring out, claiming he had been outed on the internet, so he was retiring. There had been one “outing claim,” repeated by various troll socks, the kind that appear plentifully when the Smiths are involved. It was a false lead, pointing to someone who had actually argued with SfB on Wikipedia, totally innocent. So this was a form of impersonation. Other than the Oliver mention, hardly proof, nobody had claimed that Skeptic from Britain was Darryl.
And that’s what the Smith brothers do, incite mobs (and it was working!). So I dove in and corrected all that, the innocent target thanked me, etc.
Meanwhile, when he retired from Wikipedia, Darryl wasted little time getting busy on RatWiki, documenting exactly the same field he had been working on, on Wikipedia, including an article on Kendrick, cholesterol skepticism, statin skepticism, non-mainstream diets, etc. He follows the same pattern as the faction that might be supporting him follows on Wikipedia: collect all the negative opinions about a subject and included them. Do not include positive opinions.
Whenever anyone challenges mainstream ideas, especially mistakes made, there will be strong criticism. So the “rational skeptic” pattern is essentially denialism itself, a pattern of active denial (not merely skepticism) that there are any problems with mainstream views, standards of practice, or, say, drug company supported research, heavily hyped.
So Darryl responded:
I have never heard of this Lomax person before, not sure why he has confused me with someone else. My edits on this website are only on fad diets and cholesterol quackery, I have never written about cold fusion. I noticed Lomax is a cholesterol denialist, perhaps that it why he targeted me. John66 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
How did he notice that I am a “cholesterol denialist” if he never heard of me? I am quite skeptical of the “cholesterol theory,” along with many others, but I am not a health writer, nor have I written extensively on the issue. I support research, along with Gary Taubes, not some specific theory, though plausible hypotheses are expressed. My generation has gone through massive Bad Science on nutrition and health and cholesterol, recommendations that were allegedly based on scientific consensus, without there being a true scientific consensus, but only political decisions that “we can’t wait for proof.”
If anyone is interested in genuine scientific skepticism, read Taubes. He is a science journalist, with a degree in physics, and he wrote Bad Science about cold fusion. In my book, he was right to be skeptical about cold fusion (anyone who knows physics would be), but incorrect in his conclusion that the discovery was fully based on artifact, and that is now the common position in the journals. But who reads the journals? Certainly not the Smith brothers. And Gary Taubes moved on, he has not thought about cold fusion for years. His work on fat in the diet, the cholesterol theory, is seminal, and is stimulating a revolution, but old habits and ideas die hard. Once Bad Science becomes official dogma, anyone challenging it will be massively attacked.
And, of course, John66 is attacking Taubes. Darryl (from early fringe leanings) became a believer in the mainstream (if he is not simply cynical), and not the most recent mainstream (which is quite aware of controversy), his thinking is based on accumulated impressions and junk journalism. The topics he is writing about are highly controversial in the journals, but he picks critical reactions and often misrepresents them.
I have a critical personal interest in the topic, and so should nearly everyone, because the large majority of people are affected by the “standards of practice” and “guidelines” that were developed from bad science, and evidence of massive harm from this has been piling up, with government agencies and what might be called the non-profit health industry, heavily dependent on donations from big pharma, refusing to acknowledge that they made some major mistakes over forty years ago.
(What? Non-profits corrupt? Well, maybe. Or maybe people work where they are funded, and don’t get funded to study something that might contradict the interests of those who fund. In fact, Taubes has done the opposite, I’ll get to that. He funded someone skeptical of his “insulin obesity theory,” to study it. Atkins also did something like that, showing that both of them are actually interested in reality, more than “proving they are right.” That’s real science!”
Back then, I followed the ubiquitous advice, and removed fat from my diet. The net result, it turns out, was quite predictable (from what many knew back then, but they were silenced, and Taubes tells this story as a journalist), I gained forty pounds over about 25 years. I may also have developed a cardiac blockage and prostate cancer in that time. (The cardiac blockage makes sense, cancer is more speculative, but possible. I treated my cancer with nothing other than a very-low-carb diet (and careful watchful waiting, instead of recommended surgery). The cancer did not grow, and keeping insulin levels down could support suppression of the rapid cell division that facilitates development of aggressive growth. If carbohydrates are associated with cancer, it would not be that they cause cancer (and naive concepts of causation are rampant in this field) but rather that their presence in the diet in insulin-raising quantities facilitates mutations.)
I never claimed that Darryl wrote about cold fusion, except he did, to support the deletion of the Wikiversity project on the subject, and in the article on me on RatWiki. But all he said in the latter was, in a paragraph dense with deceptive defamations, that I am “best known as proponent of pseudoscientific cold fusion.”
But the RationalWiki article on cold fusion did not consider it “pseudoscientific.”
Though the term was first coined in 1956 to refer to muon-catalyzed fusion, it was popularised with the work of Stanley Pons (1943–) and Martin Fleischmann (1927–2012), which gained tremendous publicity but was irreproducible.
“Irreproducible” is actually a common belief, not a fact. Many millions of dollars were spent to confirm the Pons and Fleischmann findings, and they were, in fact, confirmed. What they actually claimed was an “unknown nuclear reaction” and the original “nuclear” evidence was circumstantial, and the experiment, far from being “fusion in a jam jar with a battery and two electrodes” was quite difficult, requiring expertise in electrochemistry, and even experts had trouble, so in spite of massive effort — it has been said that for a short time, half the discretionary research budget of the U.S. was being spent attempting to confirm the reports, millions of dollars per month, in 1989. A report by the U.S. Department of Energy was rushed, and there is speculation — and some information — about the politics involved. Very obvious, though, would be the threat to the billion-dollar-per-year hot fusion research budget.
That report was issued in 1989 and did not include the confirmations that started to appear.
It was then taken up with enthusiasm by cranks, thinking they could be the ones to bring cheap energy to the world.
I’m amused when the pseudoskeptical RatWikians believe they can mind-read cranks. They are cranks, out to save the world from Bad Thinking. Which means anyone with opinions they consider Wrong, based on their Superior Knowledge, obtained by reading popular reports (including the popular “skeptical” press, debunkers), and John66 is merely openly active in this, about nutrition and health, active enough that Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, called him (as Skeptic from Britain) a “POV pusher.”
Enthusiasm for cold fusion was premature. It is still not known how to make a reliable device that will produce consistent results, and that is after the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, with a lot of bright people working on the problem. It is not easy. But we do know that the effect found is real, it is not artifact, and we know by using the methods of science, not basement-dwelling Rats quoting whatever negative they can find.
The most outrageous claims include blatant fraud such as the Energy Catalyzer.
It was blatant fraud. Most of the scientists in the field ignored it. But there were some who became involved. It got messy. The inventor of the E-Cat, Andrea Rossi, sued his investor, Industrial Heat, for $89 million and triple damages for fraud. I was funded by the public to attend the trial, and I had previously collected all the case documents (they are here on this blog). Industrial Heat invested about $25 million in Rossi technology, and Rossi believed he would get another $89 million if he demonstrated a year’s performance of a 1 MW reactor assembly. When Industrial Heat, having concluded that the Rossi technology was junk, invested another $50 million that they received in other efforts, including theoreticians and experimentalists, Rossi threw a fit, stopped cooperating with them, and then sued them.
People say, “If he is a fraud, he’d have to be crazy to sue his investor.” And I say, “Yes, he would, wouldn’t he?” But he probably believed that IH would settle. That’s a long story by itself, of course. Pseudoskeptics have a very primitive view of how society functions and what is possible and not possible. Industrial Heat can easily be said to have “wasted” their $25 million, but, in fact, because they had made that bold move, deciding that they needed to find out if Rossi had something real, they then were given another $50 million, not to go to Rossi, but to be invested in LENR research (with a commitment for $150 million more).
Cranks also believe there is a massive conspiracy to suppress information about cold fusion.
There are indeed some such “cranks,” but I don’t believe that. I believe that normal human stupidity and inertia, the tendency to believe that what might have been reasonable thirty years ago is still reasonable, is responsible for some level of suppression of cold fusion research. Other than that, I see no anti-cold fusion conspiracy, just widespread beliefs like what was repeated above, that nobody could replicate it. The finding has been confirmed hundreds of times, and no, it is not confirmation bias, though that is a problem in the field. There are clear, unmistakeable correlations, blinded.
As to cranks, there are Wikipedians who have suppressed information from sources that, by policy, should be golden, such as JzG and the troll once known as Science Apologist, and they also acted to suppress study of cold fusion on Wikiversity. These are highly disruptive users, and motivated by something other than “building an encyclopedia” that is neutral. Like RatWiki in general, they reject neutrality, pretending to support the SPOV (Scientific Point of View), which is an oxymoron.
There are credible scientists working on fusion at less than millions of degrees, but they tend to avoid the term “cold fusion”.
Possibly the most common term is LENR, or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. They are called low energy because they do not require high initiation energy, as with ordinary “hot fusion.” They were called “cold fusion” by the press, but, while there are theories, it is not known what the actual reaction mechanism is. There is substantial evidence, however, that in the original FP Heat Effect, the heat was generated from the conversion of deuterium to helium, because of how the heat released matches measurements of helium production.
Darryl was not lying, to my knowledge, when he said he had “never written about cold fusion.” Other than as off-hand mention, that is. But he is lying when he claimed not to know who I am, he wrote the article! — and because of that, and I assume that, creating all those socks, he copies his watchlists, that is how he promptly saw the Oliver Smith comment on the Talk page for my article, unless Oliver told him directly.
Ongoing John66 activity
Reviewing, John66 is Darryl L. Smith, the continuation of Debunking spiritualism, having branched into “diet woo,” using Skeptic from Britain on Wikipedia, and then, preparing to bail from Wikipedia, having created the John66 account to pursue the same topics. Ongoing activity has revealed more connections. In the latest flap, an account appeared, Dinocrisis editing John66’s article, in line with what I would expect from someone naive about RationalWiki, and with an interest in “paleo diet,” or “carnivore diet.” This account was promptly blocked as an “impersonation account.” Why? The account makes no pretense of being the original DinoCrisis. DinoCrisis is a well-known early sock of Darryl L. Smith. Dinocrisis was blocked as a result of this comment by Desert Heat, very likely a Smith sock.
John66 why are you wasting your time talking to Michael Coombs? He is cooped and banned here, even on another sock earlier today. His new account “dinocrisis” is just an impersonation of an old account DinoCrisis, a user he has a grudge against. Desert Heat (talk)\
Anyone familiar with the Smith brothers’ history would know that DinoCrisis was Darryl. So who is Desert Heat? This is definitely a Smith brother, but which one? From signals, it’s likely Darryl, i.e., Desert Heat was talking with himself. Less likely, Oliver. Desert Heat, the next day, went after the open replacement account for Dinocrisis, Liberosaurus Rex.
This is too common on wikis: an account appears with no other purpose than to attack another account, and the wiki regulars are led by the nose, showing no sign of recognizing that this is obviously and blatantly a disruptive SPA, a sock. As to the long-term conflict between Mikemikev and the Smiths (mostly Oliver), the more disruptive side, long term, is Oliver (which is no praise of Mikemikev! They were both administrators on Metapedia, an arguably racist encyclopedia). Many Smith accounts have been blocked on RatWiki, but who cares? I have only “defended” Mikemikev against false accusations by the Smiths. (Which include Smith impersonation socks on Wikipedia, and a recent SPA creation of a Long Term Abuse report on Wikipedia, and nobody has yet noticed the obvious: that was created by Oliver Smith, banned. Wikipedia can be quite dim.)
The block log for Liberosaurus Rex shows that John66 blocked him as being Mikemikev. John66 would be particularly sensitive to “DinoCrisis,” because that was him.
But Darryl is recently attacking the ideas of a very large community, the low-carb high-fat diet community, millions of people, and the related cholesterol skeptic and statin skeptic communities. Reviewing the edits of Dinocrisis and LR, I see signals that this is someone from those communities.
Dysklyver [Neodysk, below] has already expressed some level of despair about the huge Smith family of sock puppets, and he ends up blocking LR, with this message, more like a Wikipedian than a Rat:
But anyway. Hi Mikey “I can see how you would be useful if they needed someone to write sickeningly dishonest personal smear pieces to destroy the reputations of people who disagree with the regulars here. You people are lower than dog vomit.” Thanks for confirming it is 100% you! Tremors (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes there are hundreds of thousands of people on that network in that area, using that exact IP range. Yes they are all technically indistinguishable. Yes, CU/IP evidence is form of pseudoscience. However, it doesn’t really matter since you don’t appear to be very well suited to this website anyway, and your attitude is not conducive to the desired environment. Consider your implicit appeal to be unblocked rejected. I am not looking for a reply so will disable talk page access now. Have fun. — NekoDysk 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
But what about the attitude of Tremors and all the other socks stirring up Mikemikev hysteria? Is Wang a sock? He actually looks like Mikemikev to me, at least the message is mikemikev. What about Boglin Collector? (I had noticed this account on registration. Oliver Smith allegedly collects Boglins. So this could be an impersonation account, but Darryl creates many of these, sometimes avalanches of them, it was this habit that introduced him to me. On the other hand, this account could be Mikemikev.) The argument about K. Peters indicates to me that he is probably not Peters. I had noticed the Roehampton University mention, that was Oliver’s school.
So this resembles trolling, but only trolling likely to be meaningful to the Smiths, who, in turn, create massive confusion with false flag socks, etc.
What about Paycheck? Somebody is going after alleged Mikemikev socks with a vengeance, creating many socks to do it. This is standard Smith behavior! And John66 is right in the thick of it. Darryl Smith!
Paycheck confirms what I had suspected, and, in fact, wrote about here, earlier, not having seen this:
The same person was blocked today as User:K._Peters_BSc(Hons) KPeter Bsc (Hons).
There’s a word filter now on naming this person, but everyone knows who he is.
I emailed David Gerard today providing proof this same person was Peters.Paycheck (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Paycheck is obviously Oliver Smith, and David Gerard hastens to do whatever he wants. See David Gerard. This sequence sealed it for me, I had suspected Gerard, had seen his name showing up many times, in connection with Smith socks, but never before looked at the overall pattern.
Paycheck refers to Wikipedia, and shows intense knowledge of Mikemikev alleged socks. I have no doubt about the identity of Paycheck. and then he confirmed it:
Mike never stopped, he’s created at least three more sockpuppets: Wang Boglin Collector & K. Peters BSc(Hons). Peters was blocked today as an impersonation after I emailed David Gerard — Mike is impersonating my family members, not only on this wiki, but other websites. The reference to the universities on Peters user page are universities I’ve attended and Peter(s) is an individual related to me he’s impersonating across the internet, including using his photo on the Encylopedia Dramatica forum. Boglin is a reference to toys I collected as a child and Mike mocked me for collecting on ED; I now see that account is blocked, but Wang isn’t. I provided proof Mike is Wang on his user talk.Paycheck (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
“Impersonating my family members” would refer to Dinocrisis (i.e, hinting at Darryl) and Boglin Collector (hinting at Oliver). Given that Boglin Collector attacked Wang, this is all suspicious. However, I agree that BC could be Mikemikev, from the sarcastic comment about Oliver’s university. If Peters is Mikemikev, he is trolling Oliver, and doing a great job of it. Oliver goes ballistic. That’s the goal of a troll. And Oliver reveals one more time that these attacks are on his “family.” I.e., him and his brother, and he has often written “my brother.” Yet they claim that mention of the Smith brothers is a “conspiracy theory.”
No, it’s a very old story started by the Smiths themselves. In email known to me to be from Smith, he claimed, at one point, that he had invented the story, but he was, it is nearly certain, lying. Now, is this Mikemikev pretending to be Oliver (because Paycheck is obviously Oliver)? Perhaps someone things so, because Paycheck was blocked for “ban evasion.” I think Mikemikev is banned, but Oliver has merely been blocked many times and comes back with new socks, prolifically. Does the blocking sysop know what he did? I’ve seen a lot of Mikemikev edits, I don’t think Paycheck was him.
Is it possible that K. Peters is Wang? It is not impossible. Wang uses a Chinese term for SJW, and K. Peters looks to me like a “diet community user” who blames liberals and SJWs for the attack on low-carb/carnivore/paleo diets on Wikipedia and RationalWiki and elsewhere. I’ve been following them, and they don’t understand the “rational skeptic” community, which is not actually SJW, it is only allied in some ways. And the Smiths use RatWiki as their personal army, to troll his targets. Darryl has made a target of a community with millions of people.
The terms that Smith thinks must mean the user is Mikemikev could be any of many others (and the usages don’t seem quite the same to me).
If Mikemikev is involved with this, he would be tossing gasoline on the burning Smith, perhaps with Boglin Collector. What is happening with all this is that Smith is becoming more and more obvious, more and more exposed. And Oliver spills beans profusely. So it is useful. Oliver commonly reveals secrets that a sane conspirator would not. Would Gerard want the world to know that he jumps when Oliver says “Jump”?
(Mikemikev IP could also possibly be Smith IP, they are in the same region.)
John66 demonstrates clearly his identity as Darryl L. Smith. Were he whom he pretends to be, he’d not be so interested in Mikemikev socks. All this gives me more data to toss into the analysis.
Darryl is treading on more dangerous ground than Oliver was, before him, that got Oliver sued. John66 blocked K. Peters for “making legal threats,” but as pointed out, it was not actually a threat. Then David Gerard blocked K. Peters, calling him mikemikev, a well-known racist. Gerard is real-name and lives in the U.K., and so is easily vulnerable to action from U.K. targets. If K. Peters is not mikemikev, that would be actionable defamation. However, I don’t know the fact. K. Peters could be a pseudonym and could actually be mikemikev, but why does Gerard take the chance? What is his critical interest here?
This is truly funny: John66 suggests shutting down new account creation (permalink) so that he can work on articles in peace. He is kicking hornet’s nests, with his “work,” people with resources, not the usual dodgy fringe. Attack socks have been showing up for a long time serving his agenda. Dysklyver says it, he would block “everyone involved,” and he knows the Smiths are involved, but will this happen? John66 is lying, routinely, but does anyone on RatWiki care?
(Had I behaved with sysop tools as John66 has been behaving, I’d have been “promoted” long ago. (When I was desysopped, by David Gerard, I had done almost nothing, the whole mess was set up by the Smiths. This is obvious: there have been special accommodations made for the Smiths, support from people like Gerard. There are obvious socks on Wikipedia that are not being touched, perhaps because most who might notice them have been banned. How did these dysfunctional twins pull that off?
Attack dogs are useful to some, they allow enemies to be targeted with less risk to self. The faction they work with has long openly expressed contempt for the concept of neutrality. They are actually enemies of science, which requires rejection of dogmatic authority. Even thought they are supposedly “liberal,” they are intellectual fascists, attack dogs supporting the authority of those they agree with, not following the courtesies and traditions of academia and science, for which they have no patience.
Oliver is now widely recognized on RatWiki. The identity of Paycheck has been discussed. Rats seem to have no problem naming Mikemikev, outing various alleged socks as him (rightly or wrongly), but avoid mentioning Oliver D. Smith, because for years, anyone who has, has been promptly blocked. With a major exception, a story for another day. From the talk page of that admin, who has changed his name twice in as many days.
So… who was he?
Paycheck, I mean. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The guy who follows mikey around and points out his socks is also an sock-abusing, obsessive race troll, with slightly different racist views that make him hate mikeymike. He’s better at staying deep-cover longer, though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:40, 6 March 2019
(UTC)Ah, good to know. Thanks! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Not very deep. What is ignored here is John66’s activity that is the same, not because he is Oliver, but because he is Oliver’s twin brother, Darryl. It was Mikemikev who put up the information that, when I verified it, showed me that Darryl was Oliver’s twin, the other half of Wikipedia’s Anglo Pyramidologist.
John66 is routinely violating RatWiki practice, but he has gotten away with that many times. To them, it looks like he is a “valuable content creator.” That he lies doesn’t matter to them. Doesn’t everyone lie?
Plans for article development
John66 has plans. His first draft of the list had some comments, he removed them. Copying into WordPress does not show the redlinks (links to pages that don’t exist yet) so I’ve colored them. I am also adding notes. “SfB” indicates Skeptic from Britain touched that topic on Wikipedia. “WP indicates a Wikipedia article link. “AfD” is a WP deletion discussion. That list:
I use RationalWiki for a scientific research project of mine – to debunk and document the rise of cholesterol denialism, a very dangerous belief system not supported by science. It is not as big as vaccine denialism but is on the rise thanks to pseudoscientific books written by snake oil peddlers and quacks, unreliable reporting from newspapers and LCHF mob groups on social media (especially Twitter).
List of cholesterol denialists:
In five or ten years somebody will probably write a book about modern cholesterol denialism from a skeptical viewpoint. I hope these articles help with any research.
I aim to have all articles completed by the end of 2020 Note – It is not possible to cover every cholesterol denialist! I will only cover the main players.
- Jump up↑ A Skeptical Look at Dwight Lundell, M.D.
- Jump up↑ Maybe myself
- Jump up↑ As a chef in real life, I will not always be active on here, there may be months of inactivity. I may invite friends to help out on other accounts.
He is not whom he has claimed to be. Yes, the notes are defective. He replaced the last sentence with: “Leave me a message on my talk-page if you are interested in helping creating articles for any on the list.”
With his next edits, he removed the scare-quoted “Dr.” and added more names:
He is going after real doctors, credentialed scientists, who publish in peer-reviewed journals, as well as diet book authors and others. Anyone, no matter whether it is science-based or not, who is skeptical of (“denies”)mainstream views becomes his target. People in those communities suspect Skeptic from Britain (John66) of being a shill for big pharma. I rather doubt it. Funding him could be very, very risky, with much less payoff than supporting favorable articles in journals and then in the popular press. Is that happening? I don’t know. Some journalists are simply desperate for a cheap story.
When Gary Taubes takes an assignment, he sometimes spends years on it. His books become tomes, heavily referenced, highly useful for anyone who actually wants to research the history, in particular. Because Taubes is so obviously a genuine skeptic (not a simple “believer” in his own ideas), I will look at that article in detail, with John66/Taubes.
Blocks his brother
John66 has become active with Smith topics. His brother, Oliver, has been blocked on a few accounts, or retired when clearly exposed. So Darryl takes up the slack. He is now a one-man crusade against Mikemikev, often by name.
On the Hereditarianism article, there have been trolls, but there have also what appear to be good-faith users, attempting to point out that the article has an obvious error in it. If new, all blocked as Mikemikev. This is Smith paranoia, because hereditatianism is a discredited view, not intrinsically racist, not even about race, but about the heritability, generally of intelligence. Complicating this are huge political issues. Racists use hereditarianism to justify their political positions. Racialists are not intrinsically racist, see the current Wikipedia article. But the language becomes confused by politics.
John66’s recent block log shows a high concentration of actions related to the Smith brothers (and Mikemikev, their long-term nemesis). This belies John66’s claim to being a new user interested in pseudoscience. He is, of course, a Smith brother, pursuing long-term Smith goals, which include defamation and harassment of enemies.
ODS_and_DDS is an obvious troll, likely Mikemikev, all right. It looks like Mikemikev, though he knows about the brothers, is not careful about discriminating between them, because John66 is not Oliver as this troll claimed. This block would be normal, since the account directly trolled John66. However, that would be a consequence of many actions taken against Mikemikev socks and others, and since the one, until very recently, exposing these socks has been Oliver (now blocked), Mike would assume that this was also Oliver. I think Mikemikev is not reading this blog.
However, this is hilarious, he blocked Radicaljacky for “ban evasion.” The Smith brothers are not careful about the difference between a block and a ban. This edit could be “block evasion,” since some of Oliver’s accounts have been blocked. The single edit of this account is remarkable, though. This was to Talk:Hereditarianism (and John66 has semiprotected that page to prevent more new-account edits) There was another trolling account that edited, to be sure. However, these edits were not “vandalism.” On RatWiki, expressing a point of view that merely looks different from that of the Mob is “trolling” — which is possible — or vandalism. Radicaljacky, though, appears to have editing sincerely. The edit:
Confusion about article and people adding dubious content, and now trolling
Hi, I’m the article creator, so I wish to clarify:
The article creator was Freddo, which I conclude was Oliver Smith. His last edit effectively admits it. His use of Rationalwikiwiki for defamation may have led to the deletion of that wiki. This doesn’t fit anyone else. Oliver is knowledgeable about the issue.
The idea IQ (as a measure of intelligence) is invalid – is a fringe view held by few psychologists; experts agree IQ tests have statistical reliability, make predictions and do reliably measure important elements of intelligence (see Turkheimer, E. 1990. “Consensus and Controversy About IQ”. Contemporary Psychology. Vol. 35. No. 5: 428-430).
With caution, this is true. The other side, the “fringe view” also has validity, because there are many kinds of intelligence. IQ (which means scores on certain standardized tests, and the tests may be culturally biased). Nevertheless, IQ scores are “a measure,” merely not a definitive or final one, and “native intelligence,” I think it is called “g,” is very difficult to measure without introducing bias.
The Turkheimer article was also created by Oliver, as CBH. What I can see there, on the part of Oliver, is the creation of conflict. Jsolinsky, who became involved, and there was a coop case opened, in his last edit, sums up an (apparent) academic’s view of RatWiki. Probably Solinsky.
Within-group heritability of IQ is widely recognised to be about 60% but with estimates ranging between 30% and 80%. There is a consensus “experts believe within-group differences in IQ to be at least partially inherited” (Snyderman & Rothman, 1987).
Rather obvious. This would be Oliver’s position, if I am correct. Oliver knows I have his email address, and he can correct me using it. I would not want to attribute to him what is not his actual view. (Because Oliver has a history of lying I will also not take his claims as authoritative, but at least he has full right to object, and anything on this from him will be reported.)
Butcher et al. (2008) first discovered six genetic markers (SNPs) associated with cognitive ability, although of these “inﬂuence of only one gene has been consistently replicated in subsequent studies” (Nisbett et al. 2012). In 2017, a study identified 52 genes linked to intelligence and in 2018 another study managed to find “538 genes that play a role in intellectual ability, along with 187 regions in the human genome that are linked to cognitive skills”.
At some point a troll vandalised my article to say “There are no genes that affect human intelligence” which is demonstrably false.
Right, and it is also unsourced. Yet RW sysops have edit warred to keep that text in place, and have blocked people merely for pointing out the problem. This would be exactly what the trolls would want, the goal being to make RW look as bad as possible. It is relatively easy to make an account and get sysop, and one never gets desysopped for promoting the Mob point of view, even if it is preposterous. So a real troll might do it and the use the account only for promoting “Mob stupidity.” I have no doubt that this would work, but it might not be necessary, because Mobs are famously not very smart.
Was this introduced by a “troll”? CBH made that edit. This user had discussed the changes on Talk. Concerned had objected. (Oliver!) The edits were reverted by Bongolian, then restored. Concerned accused CBH of being a sock of Jean Lusaz as a “parody” account. Standard Smith behavior. Was Lusaz a troll, parodying SJW views? Maybe, it’s possible. If so, it worked, because the Mob is supporting the nonsense inserted.
Even if scientists hadn’t discovered genes linked to intelligence, this doesn’t mean they don’t exist. For example within-group heritability of height is very high (90%) but so far only a small amount of genes involved in human stature variability have been identified.
Oliver actually knows something about the topic. These arguments are actually rather obvious. The difference between hereditarianism and enviromentalism, on intelligence, is over degree and significance but it gets mixed up with politics and policy implications, and if one view is used by racists, anti-racists believe that they must attack that view. This is part of the general problem of irrationality that is endemic in our society, and RatWiki and the Rats are no exception. There has been a similar problem on Wikipedia: if a subject matter expert shows up, and attempts to fix errors in an article, they are likely to be attacked by editors who do not understand the sources. This is common with SPOV fanatics, whereas real science and real skepticism do not, in the long run, follow authority, whereas we can see with the SPOV faction, that the alleged mainstream opinion dominates.
Wikpedia theory was that fringe views would be covered on the project, according to their notability, i.e., their coverage in reliable source. But the SPOV faction, I have seen it again and again, excludes reliable sources that appear to support fringe views, arguing undue weight. That is all subjective and actually contrary to policy, but if there is an organized or coherent faction (created by watchlist coherency), it can prevail on Wikipedia. WP has appeal processes, but RatWiki has shortcuts and even less reliabity. As can be seen, again and again, users are blocked because of their alleged point of view.
Emil Kirkegaard has been trolling the main article and created a fake account to parody an SJW, adding the false claims, and has since been posting about this article, linking to the dubious content – to mock it on his Twitter profile. This also attracted Vekimekim (spell backwards because of word filter) to sock here on a bunch of fake accounts above, also parodying an SJW.
It’s not impossible, though I rather doubt that Emil Kirkegaard is the source. The one who might create trolling accounts could be Mikemikev. Clever, if so.
I totally get there are some people who reject IQ measures intelligence and so they reject IQ testing, but those people are a minority and I always thought RationalWiki should defend the scientific consensus rather than fringe views.
“Scientific consensus” is rather poorly defined. “Consensus” should mean wide agreement, not a mere majority position, and whenever minority views are heavily suppressed, consensus becomes meaningless.
The fact I argue within-group heritability is 60% does not of course mean I think that between-group heritability is 60%; on the contrary, what I explained in the article is that “A group of very short people may have heritability’s for height well above 0.9, but still owe their relative stature entirely to poor nutrition. Within and between group variation are entirely different phenomena” to quote Gould (1980). I emphasise this throughout the article.
Yes. He did.
The point in me creating this article was to debunk between-group heritability not within-group heritability.
It’s entirely reasonable and a mainstream respectable position to argue within-group heritability of IQ is 60%, but between-group heritability, 0-1%. That’s the position of Eric Turkheimer.Radicaljacky (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, multiple signs, this is Oliver Smith, who did create the article. His reward, a prompt block by his brother. And if Mikemikev is involved, he is fully demonstrating what he would like to show, these “SJWs” who don’t know their hind ends from a hole in the ground. There are some users who seem to be aware, for example Ariel31459. There have always been some sane Rats. They are often overwhelmed.
This discussion appeared:
I’m just curious about a block
You blocked a user named Samantha Priss. I am wondering, is it a sock of a known troll?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
15:57, 10 March 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs | block) blocked Samantha Priss (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages) (unblock | change block)
15:56, 10 March 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs | block) blocked Samanthaprissmikemikev (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Undesirable username) (unblock | change block)
Probably Mikemikev. — NekoDysk 02:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Possible for Samamtha Priss. Quite unlikely for the account with mikemikev in the name. Socks that telegraph identity are quite unusual, except for a few recently-blocked users who want to get in a last word, knowing they will be blocked. Rather, in order to amplify the impression that XXX is disruptive, a Smith brother (probably Darryl, I have seen this behavior from Darryl without doubt, will create many socks with names pointing to the blocked or banned user. Many Rats fall for it.
John66 and Bongolian are the same person
They are both the same person, they should be banned. OAPP (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I know both of them – as two separate different people. Get a life. — NekoDysk 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Bongolian and James66 are clearly different users. NekoDysk (Dyskliver) is correct. I never have suspected Bongolian of being a sock of anyone, which makes me suspect that OAPP is an ignorant troll. It could be Mikemikev, possibly, but there are many other Smith enemies that might make the same mistake. The Smiths deliberately create massive confusion, and they have years of practice at it. Quite a few of the enemies they have made believe that the twin story is a red herring, it’s Oliver all the way down. I consider that very unlikely, there are very clear behavioral differences. There is more work I could do on this question but it does resemble “work.”
Why are you defending Smith
He’s abusing multiple accounts. He’s been [socking?] on almost every wiki he’s ever logged onto! — Unsigned, by: Bright eyes / talk / contribs
Never coop banned, so it’s technically allowed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — NekoDysk 12:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Dyskyver knows, at least to a degree, who Smith is (at least Oliver). Here, he essentially admits that. The “never coop banned” would require a cooping that lists the accounts, and when I attempted that, not using “Smith,” and when I commented on an article a Smith brother created on themselves (likely that, anyway), I was desysopped and blocked with no cooping, and then considered “banned.”
Others who documented the Smiths elsewhere were desysopped and blocked for it on RatWiki, yet their targets are routinely outed by real names. This has been going on for years, and, indeed, the Smiths, considering the level of disruption they have caused, have been very strangely protected.
Were I still a sysop on RatWiki, I would also have blocked these accounts. Dysklyver has expressed what may be despair about dealing with the Smith accounts, there are really a huge number of them. And then:
17:39, 11 March 2019 Cosmikdebris (talk | contribs | block) blocked They are him (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (unblock | change block)
17:39, 11 March 2019 Cosmikdebris (talk | contribs) deleted page Bongolian is John66
This would be a Darryl account, since they first started their attack on me on RatWiki, they have created many impersonation accounts. (and before then as well). If Mikemikev wanted to point to my blog, he would use an archive.is link (because the blog is blacklisted on RatWiki. This is double impersonation trolling. That is, John66 (almost certainly) is attacking himself with Bongolian, to discredit claims that John66 is a Smith. There is nothing on this blog like what They are him claimed. There is a page on Bongolian, it makes no such claim. Bongolian appears to have believed the Smith propaganda, from many comments and actions, but I did a study of his edit timings, compared to Darryl Smith accounts (not because I suspected him, it was actually as a control), and the possibility of him being a Smith is somewhere between ridiculously remote and impossible. I could tell where he lives from his edit timings, and he has been a voluminous editor.
Looking at the edit filter log, I find many more charming accounts:
Abd_Lomax_in_a_g_string (no edits) classic Smith. Mikemikev? Unlikely, but not impossible. Attempted to edit The Bell curve. There are many socks appearing that do look like Mikemikev, but many that don’t. What is roundly ignored on RatWiki is evidence of impersonation socking, where a troll creates accounts that will look like User X, if one looks superficially. One of the tricks they used with me was to take something I wrote on the blog and spam it on many pages, adding, say, legal threats, etc.
David Gerard getting sued (no edits, blocked 12:01, 11 March 2019) again, classic Smith socking. I have actually filed a suit, but it does not name Gerard, because I have no information adequate to allege a tort. In fact, at this point, it doesn’t name anyone other than the WikiMedia Foundation, for its own public action, but it does include John Doe 1-9, and whether or not names are added will depend on what appears in discovery. If Gerard complained about me to the WMF, there might be a cause of action there, but I doubt that he did.
John66 is Oliver or Dayrell Smith 12:28, 11 March 2019 failed account creation, too many characters. failed
John66isOliverorDayrellSmith 12:29, 11 March 2019. Failed as above.
(“Dayrell”? It’s Darryl.)
There is no doubt that these are trolling accounts. One can find many such in RatWiki history, and the common factor appears to be Smith involvement, either Darryl or Oliver, but especially Darryl. Oliver claimed that “99%” of the accounts I had named were his brother. However, that’s preposterous, at best an exaggeration. (I keep finding more Oliver accounts.) Darryl tends to stick with one account for most edits for a period of time, setting aside trolling socks. I have clear evidence that Darryl does create impersonation socks to pursue his goals, which are to attack, discredit, defame any and all enemies or other targets of convenience.
John66 is rather hopelessly outed. His brother conveniently outed him as Skeptic from Britain, in December, and then the same pattern of editing and interests continued on RatWiki, and his obsession with Mikemikev shows relationship with his brother. How does John66 know so much about Kiwi farms? Why is he scouring recent changes for Mikemikev edits if his interest is “to debunk and document the rise of cholesterol denialism, a very dangerous belief system not supported by science”?
Why does he even care about recent changes? Yes, he is now under attack, which could explain it. However, he was not being harassed on RatWiki until March 1, when he started blocking accounts based on “Mikemikev,” and edits to articles completely unrelated to his declared interests. But if he has maintained old watchlists, all those articles would be on them. If he is being harassed by Mikemikev, he very clearly invited it. He tried to shut this down. That was shot down. Shutting down new user registration is a variation of “Trolls win.”
RatWiki allows and even encourages disguising identity with new accounts, unless a person has a point of view that the Mob attacks. RatWiki is not dedicated to what it claims on the main page, but on promoting a rather idiosyncratic point of view, a minority position overall, “believers” in “science,” meaning whatever science they agree with, heavily weighted toward the authority of the “mainstream.” This is Scientism, Cargo Cult Science. Not real science. When it suits them, the Smith brothers attack real science, generally when it is challenging long-standing opinions, i.e., “authority,” so this is not “challenging authoritarianism,” it is authoritarianism. But by supporting common opinion, the Smiths can gather the support of ordinary opinionators, which is often a majority on wikis!
Update July 11, 2019
John66 definitely slowed his activity. It has been almost a month since he last edited. His last article creation was Dietary cholesterol myth.
Darryl does not write to support sound health information, or to promote science, but to attack and ridicule some group that has offended him in some way, especially if he can call them “conspiracy theorists.” In this case, when he was active as Skeptic from Britain, a user criticized him, and when he “retired,” he claimed it was because he had been outed. What had happened is that trollsocks appeared on various blogs to accuse SfB of being [redacted], a “vegan activist,” naming that user. Classic Smith maneuver: get his enemies fighting with each other. The lead from this article:
The dietary cholesterol myth refers to the myth that dietary cholesterol increases the total blood cholesterol level and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. The myth is promoted by vegans.
Then, in the article:
Vegans are the main proponents of the dietary cholesterol myth. For example, claims that “blood cholesterol levels are clearly increased by eating dietary cholesterol. In other words, putting cholesterol in our mouth means putting cholesterol in our blood.”
Conspiracy theorist Mic the Vegan claims that the food industry utilize “tricks” to manipulate science into concluding dietary cholesterol doesn’t raise total blood cholesterol.
This, again, is classic. Two examples of what is allegedly some notable “myth” become evidence that the group to which they belong are the “main promoters” of it. Darryl shows no clue as to where the idea arose. You’d think he’d notice it from his sources.
One of his sources has some remarkable admissions. From health.harvard.edu: (my emphasis)
Warnings against eating foods high in cholesterol, like eggs or shrimp, have been a mainstay of dietary recommendations for decades. That could change if the scientific advisory panel for the 2015 iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has its say.
A summary of the committee’s December 2014 meeting says “Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” Translation: You don’t need to worry about cholesterol in your food.
Why not? There’s a growing consensus among nutrition scientists that cholesterol in food has little effect on the amount of cholesterol in the bloodstream. And that’s the cholesterol that matters.
Nutrition experts like Dr. Walter C. Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, called the plan a reasonable move. Dr. Steven Nissen, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, told USA Today “It’s the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong.”
Who is “we”? Vegans? Hardly. That is referring to the “mainstream,” i.e, dominant opinion in various organizations that advise government and the public. Those guidelines were never actually “science-based,” as often claimed. They were knee-jerk conclusions from flawed or inconclusive epidemiological studies, and the implications about eggs were about the same as from that alleged vegan. I.e, you are what you eat, you put it in your mouth, it ends up in your blood.
And, no, it doesn’t. Some of the standard advice about saturated fats is no more science-based than that, the evidence linking saturated fats to heart disease is weak (and attacking skepticism over this as “denialism” is another Smith trope.)
In any case, Kendrick just dropped a bomb, quite aware of possible flak. He just questioned a sacred cow, vaccination. See Scientific orthodoxy is an oxymoron
Meanwhile, I notice also that there had been some standard Smith trollsocking on RatWiki, back in March, I had not noticed.
- Verifier was me, this may have been the last time I edited RatWiki. The purpose was clear, and, notice, nothing was mixed with it. The account was promptly blocked by John66 as an Abd sock. Why? Well, he was probably the impersonator on that blog. It is his M.O. And then he needed to create some smokescreen, hence the blizzard of socks that followed.
- Verifiers was obviously not me. Now, see how well Darryl’s method works. John66 blocked, but RWRW opened up talk page access. Wrong account to do that for. Verifier came first, which was obvious, so Verifiers was an impersonation. Darryl has pulled of this trick many times. He kept doing it because it really works. Wikis are not normally reservoirs of deep and careful consideration, even if some users are perceptive.
- Randoms Lies. There may be more evidence that can be developed, but this is losing importance.
- A_random_guy lies. Classic impersonation trick: quotes me, but adds a twist.
- Journalist quotes me. Offensive summary.
- Pseudoscience_is_for_losers was renamed from Associate of Rome Viharo, and this account explicitly impersonated me. — saying preposterous things I would never, ever say, but associated with things I actually did, such as asking about impersonation accounts elsewhere. This is an old pattern, it’s where I came into this theater and impersonation socks were playing on Wikipedia and then on Wikiversity and Meta. The original target was clearly a target of Darryl Smith, a.k.a. Goblin Face on Wikipedia and many other accounts. And that flood of trollsocks was checkuser identified as coming from the same source.
- [Name redacted] The name of this account is the initials used by the user SkepticfromBritain attempted to frame for his Wikipedia escapades ending in December, 2018. This is also an impersonation, that person would never use his name on RatWiki and requested privacy. At this point, I have the account name in the link, but it is not displayed in text. This should be fixed on RatWiki, it is one of the many messes the Smiths have created.
- 18.104.22.168 was me. Same as verifier, simple question, no complications, except this time referred to impersonations.
- Cold_Fusion_Person Blocked by John66, of course, with comments about me. I would never name an account like that. This is Smith name generation garbage. Bongolian seems to have believed this was me.