Oliver desperate

The chickens come home to roost. After writing many times that he was not active on RationalWiki any more, he created yet another account, which is now news on the level of “Pope Catholic!”

I had identified this account as Oliver from pattern and interests. It was obvious, Oliver most commonly uses account names from his interests in classics.


Yesterday (2/7/2019), he filed a series of deletion requests. He also listed on his user page, articles he had created (and articles he claimed were created by others). Here I will look at his claims and behavior, and why the deletion requests would predictably fail in most cases. From his user page (before the removal of one page, indicated in red)

Clarification of some articles I created on this wiki:

Articles I didn’t create but I’m wrongly said to have created by OpenPsych and/or Mikemikev:

Below, I went over each of these articles.

On 7 Feb 2018 I submitted most of the above for deletion requests, and to merge them to London Conference on Intelligence or OpenPsych.

He did. But by not disclosing in those requests his identity and his motivations for creating the articles, he practically guaranteed that the request would fail. He and his brother have done this before. They create massive deception, people believe it. Well-known, people do not like to admit that they were fooled. So all the highly negative impressions created by cherry-picked and misleading evidence, stand, unless the one who created them owns up to the deception and apologizes. Then they might look again. It’s work to clean up a mess like the Smiths have created.

To correct some further misinformation spread by OpenPsych about me concerning RationalWiki:

  • User:Skeptical isn’t me. (US spelling; I spell sceptical differently, also this user created articles I know nothing about and has some user-boxes I don’t agree with.)

Oh, that’s funny! Oliver can say he isn’t Skeptical, but the evidence is fairly strong. Not “proof.” The spelling thing, though, is highly misleading. “Skeptical” is indeed U.S. spelling but British skeptics commonly use Skeptic for the affiliation. I’ve been through this before:  See skeptic-in-user-name/

In particular, as we can see in the lists of articles below, Oliver admitted being SkepticDave. Which demonstrates conclusively that his name-spelling argument is just plain deception.

Yet, with a name like that, one might be excused for thinking that it is one who has created hundreds of socks, at least. From contributions, it remains possible. Oliver has lied so many times and in so many ways, his testimony is meaningless. I will be developing deeper data analysis and I may be able to distinguish accounts, but accounts with only a few edits can be difficult. Basically, so what?

Despite pointing out for years neither of these accounts are mine, OpenPsych still falsely claim they are.

Claims of account identity are generally based on suspicion, and suspicion is not false, particularly given how much of what they suspected turns out to be true. One of the harms done by Smith behavior is that innocent users may be suspected, though in this case, if the behavior is similar, the problem is? As to illegal defamation, which is where it could matter, Oliver has done so much, so well proven, unmistakeable, that whether or not an account with a few edits is actually him or not is of little consequence. Overall, his activity inspired imitation, by both possible friends and enemies. He’s responsible for the consequences of what he did, and being “falsely accused” of behavior by another, that he also engaged in is trivial.

I will look at each of these claims.

Nearly all of these accounts were previously suspected, many with high probability. It is possible that one or even more of the “also edited by” accounts  are not Oliver. I.e., Nissan was an SPA and showed some signs of not being Oliver to this observer. However, he was suspected. Oliver has lied over and over and when he reveals truth he often mixes it with deception. The real problem here is RationalWiki, which by site traditions, leans toward snark and defamation of anything they don’t like, and that opens them to abuse by a troll like Oliver Smith, who, with his brother, Darryl L. Smith, have used RatWiki for that purpose, even when they often claim they don’t agree with site politics.

For years, targets would come to RationalWiki, believing that surely the community would fix problems. They were harassed and blocked and impersonated. If they mentioned who was doing this, when it became obvious to them, they were banned for “doxxing,” but they were freely doxxed by the Smiths, with impunity. RationalWiki is an “attractive nuisance.”

Lists of sock accounts in various locations often don’t discriminate between Oliver and Darryl, and there has been some crossover, i.e., Darryl editing articles of interest to Oliver and vice-versa, increasing confusion. If the transient impersonation and trolling socks are included, they have, together, created thousands of accounts. And then they will complain that some accounts have been incorrectly identified. That can happen when you become known for being a mass creator of sock puppets.

Last year, I suggested to Oliver that if he wanted to clean this up — he was complaining about being blamed for his brother’s disruption — come clean. Disclose everything he knows about his own activity and that of his brother. He chose otherwise. He is clearly under pressure now, because some of what he has done is quite clearly legally actionable, but his efforts to delete, now, will fail. Why? Partly because he has not come clean about what he was doing. He gives weak reasons for deleting the articles, compared to “the whole thing was harassment.” And harassment is what he did, over and over, his brother as well.

So let’s see what else he claims:

    • Richard Haier (created by unknown SPA with one edit) I would assign a reasonable probability this is Oliver. The article was a single edit of an SPA, Kfotfo , yes, but it was well-formed, showing high experience with RationalWiki and reflecting Oliver POV. Certainly it is understandable why Oliver would be suspected. The article was edited by Octo (Oliver) a few days after WikiWomble, who could also be suspected of being Oliver (but probably not), and also touched by CBH.
    • Richard Lynn (created by another sysop, Jinx) I have generally concluded that Jinx is not Oliver. He revealed his real name at one point, which doesn’t matter here. He has some similar interests, but is not as toxic. This article was edited by EvilGremlin (Oliver).
    • Intelligence (journal) (created by another sysop, Jinx) the collapse of possible fringe science into pseudoscience is a general RationalWiki trope. Intelligence is an Elsevier journal and mainstream. Not Oliver.
    • Mankind Quarterly (created by another sysop, FuzzyCatPotato). Yes. However, many edits by Gelzer and Octo.
    • Davide Piffer (created by Mikemikev to blame on me, also note extensive Mikemikev impersonations/trolling on talk page) Created by Gelzer, who certainly looks like Oliver, so if this was impersonation, it was skillful. Also edited by Skeptical, ColonelKurtz, and various trolls. Gelzer also  created and was blocked for a series of trolling accounts like I have seen from Darryl. Only these were attacking Mikemikev. They appear to be a response to similar trolling by IP attacking Oliver. Perhaps Oliver has forgotten what happened, or if Gelzer was his brother, he didn’t figure that out. Skeptical was active at the same time. See the deletion log.  Skeptical deleted revisions calling him Oliver and retired. Why? Obvious. Because he was Oliver. Less likely, his brother. I went back and forth on that for a time, but have concluded that Skeptical was indeed Oliver. His interests were Oliver interests, clearly, with a little crossover.
    • Julius Daugbjerg Bjerrekær (created by Mikemikev to blame on me; Mikemikev was blocked as article creator) Actually, no, not for that reason. The creator was Schizophreniac, who had an edit August 9, 2018, to an article of Oliver interest.  The creation of the page was revision-hidden by Aeschylus, very odd. See Aeschylus logs. Very busy with Oliver Smith agenda. However, Schizophreniac also created an article, which Oliver (Aeschylus) just salted to prevent creation, Oliver Smith. He was blockef for that, not for creating the  Bjerrekær article. The Oliver Smith article does not reveal anything new about Oliver, and seems like what Oliver might write as pseudo-criticism of himself. The creation of an article like that, on some blog or internet figure, is routine for RationalWiki. So why was this so important that David Gerard personally blocked Schizophreniac as a rare action by him? I’ve seen plenty of material apparently written by Mikemikev about Oliver. This did not look like it. What I’ve seen is evidence that Gerard has been protecting Smith, as some Smith socks have been protected on Wikipedia. Attack dogs. This is more or less the Rome Viharo theory. It’s plausible.
  • Robert Plomin (created by unknown troll, whose edits I mostly got reverted) Maybe.  Created by Jean_Lusaz. Lusaz’s edits seem fairly ordinary for RatWiki. His article on Brain size is almost untouched. However Lusaz created Kathryn Paige Harden, rather promptly deleted. It was indeed pretty vicious, like many Smith articles, see the Talk page.  Chicken coop? Yes, here. Immediately reverted, but then acted upon. RatWiki is downright weird. Was Oliver Concerned? Could be. That would explain the comment about getting the Lusaz edits reverted. The content of User:Concerned was “The hereditarianism and related articles are being destroyed by CBH (aka Jean Lusaz).” Both are Ratwiki user names, which would not be doxxing, but it was deleted as such. This edit of Concerned was bragging about a RatWiki article hitting the news, which Oliver has done before, and it was his article on Noah Carl. He similarly promoted the Emil Kirkegaard article to the media.
  • Eric Turkheimer (created by unknown troll and after I complained – the article was rewritten since it read as a parody…) Created by CBH, attacked by Concerned. Certainly could be Oliver. I’d guess not, but I keep looking. Often evidence appears later. I don’t see where Oliver complained. As whom?

Why is Oliver revealing his accounts and requesting article deletions? There is an obvious possible cause: legal heat. Yet without revealing the full story, he will not protect himself, it is going to be difficult even if he does tell the truth. Spend years attacking people, harassing them, defaming them, cleaning it up is not a matter of a few minutes editing.


Oliver Smith wrote a biography on himself, describing himself the way he wants to be described. It was deleted as harassment. Then, as Aeschylus, he salted the page, protecting it as deleted. Of course, any sysop, realizing that Oliver is much more widely known in the internet than most the subjects of the hit pieces he created, could recreate the article and add to it the usual snark.

Aeschylus (Oliver D. Smith) has been desysopped and indef blocked on RationalWiki by Dysklyver.  Whenever anyone touches a Smith account, I suspect it could be a Smith brother, at least I look. (And Smith accounts have blocked Smith accounts.) Smith brother accounts are normally easy to spot. Dysklyver is not a Smith brother; if he is, it would represent an extraordinary efort, very, very unlikely. I have techniques for comparing accounts. Dysklyver is a known Wikipedian, banned and globally locked, which is not a criticism. After all . . . .

Oliver wrote an article about himself. A copy can be found at http://archive.is/HKZyR.

Just to put this somewhere, Dysklyver is openly Arthur Kerensa, see Steward lock requests. His formal Wikipedia ban. He claims to be a lawyer, and what he did with Aeschylus would match that. However, he did not warn Aeschylus that continued socking could be a problem, and the fact was that a sock immediately appeared, Roberts (attacking a user who commented based on information that probably came from this blog, being obviously Oliver).  The block reason:

21:08, 12 February 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) blocked Roberts (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages: Probably Mike)

That’s totally preposterous! Anyone who knows Oliver’s habits and history — and with a little knowledge of Mikemikev — would know this was not Mike, unless he was doing long-term, very sophisticated impersonation, and if so, why would he waste the account just to attack that user? It makes no sense at all, whereas Roberts wrote exactly like Oliver Smith has been writing for years.

Meanwhile, Encyclopedia Dramatica, dealing with another avalanche of vandalism based on a scene that is connected with Oliver Smith, but I never figured out how, the Donny Long mess, has been set to disallow new accounts for some time. But that didn’t stop Oliver.


How did he do it? Easily. He has sleepers. This one registered 7 January and made several edits the next day, then no more until the 13th February.  The blocking admin, I noticed before, blocks him but leaves his edits in place. So what Oliver did was to ask for pages to be deleted, but while waiting, to add more defamation. Does he actually think this will do him any good? The additions show his intention is still to defame, and he knows the removals won’t happen. The same happened on RationalWiki, with Aeschylus and Roberts.


Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/oliver-d-smith-evidence/

(Oliver responded in detail to this page, reported and studied below.)

On Encyclopedia Dramatica recently, Oliver Smith has been complaining about being called a former fascist or racist. He has acknowledged that he was Atlantid on Metapedia. What does the record show? It is long, over 2000 edits (and at one point he claimed he had 10,000 edits. That might be true, because many pages may have been deleted). But I will see what I can find.

10:45, 30 November 2018 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) secretly changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Douglas Weller: content hidden, edit summary hidden, username hidden and applied restrictions to sysops (To prevent access)

Confirming this, there is a suppressed contribution for Boglin, suppressed at that time. So the record shows for any sysop at RW that this was Boglin, who is obviously Oliver.

Thanks for the tip! Someone is protecting Oliver, and recently. Dysklyver was made a tech three days before.  This is the Talk page, archived. On that Talk page, at least two Smith brother accounts show up, DinoCrisis (Darryl) and Boglin  (Really Obvious Oliver). The Talk page was deleted by David Gerard, 12 July 2017. Why the suppression in 2018? All it would show would be Oliver’s opinions apparent race-realist opinions about Weller. While there is a difference between that and racism, Oliver generally claims it’s meaningless.

From Douglas Weller himself on Wikipedia. Clearly identifies the troll as Bookworm44, i.e,. Anglo Pyramidologist. That actually looks more like Darryl. I’ll keep that in mind. It’s a set of accounts I had not linked before. Back to Metapedia.

  • Norse_mythology
  • Huns
  • Anglo-Saxons
  • Celts
  • Picts this might be a racialist addition, removed later. Used white as an description of a people.
  • Alexander_the_Great about hair color
  • Germanic_peoples 1/2013, added section on Racial type,  replaced 10/2013 with “Physical appearance.
  • Race_realism  by 4/2013, removed more blatant previous racism, added much racialism, treats “race denialism” as the view “today” of “race realists,” ‘those apolitical scientists and laymen not influenced by political correctness,” and refers to the denialist arguments as “pseudo-anthropological,” and he claims that “Race realism is apolitical and objective, and should not be confused with race-based political movements or racial supremacist ideologies.” Removed the blatant racialism 11/2013.
  • Scythians used”Race” and left it in October, 2013.
  • Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:

Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].

Conclusion so far: By August 30, 2012, Oliver was certainly “racialist,” but that can be an excuse for racism. From the above, it becomes obvious why it would be claimed that Oliver was racist. The issue with Douglas Weller (articles on Weller appeared on Metapedia, RationalWiki, and Encyclopedia Dramatica), shows how he took his attack on a user cross-wiki, how he induced local admins to enforce his personal vendetta, all of which he repeated later. Later, he added more material justifying racialism, November, 2013, the same kind of arguments he later attacked when they were associated with Emil Kirkegaard and others.

(It is not my purpose here to take a position on racialism, though over fifteen years ago I argued on-line that race was not a biological reality. At the time, a common response was “What? Are you blind?” I have an Asian daughter (probably Han Chinese) and an African daughter (Ethiopian, Kambata tribal region) and have seen subtle racism popping up in surprising places, as well as more “normal” ones. I’m not surprised to see a Nazi skinhead with racist ideas, but how about the director of a preschool, academically run by a university, who would be horrified to realize that she was racist, so she didn’t. But she was, it was completely obvious. We took our daughter to a different school where there were no problems.)

  • Roger_Pearson (April 2013) Oliver explores and expresses Pearson’s ideas and seems sympathetic to him in comparison to attacks on his work.  “Roger Pearson (b. 1927) is a British anthropologist, traditional hereditarian, eugenicist and race realist.” Later, in going after Kirkegaard and the London Conference on Intelligence, those terms become derisive and pejorative epithets.
  • Carleton_Coon by October, 2013, Oliver removed the more extreme racist commentary, replacing it with race realism and objection to “political correctness.”
  • Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”

This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.

  • British_National_Party  removed references, 24 August 2013, to racist nationalism (party organized an anti-Muslim, “rights for whites” march).
  • National_Front “white nationalism.”
  • The_Apricity Oliver’s scandal-seeking opinions show. He removed some.
  • Patria “ethnonationalist” splinter from BNP
  • African_Americans  Racist, 17 February 2013.
  • India
  • Boasian_anthropology quoting racist Oliver
    • The Boasians taught race egalitarianism, and although they didn’t outright deny the existence of races, they downplayed their biological basis (although Montagu later went on to deny them). According to Boas, environment is the deciding factor in understanding racial and cultural difference. In Boasian pseudo-anthropology, unlike real (or traditional) anthropology, racial research is essentially irrelevant because racial differences are considered to be trivial. Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. This inter-ethic in intra-ethnic conflict was commonly ascribed to European colonial oppression and interference. Lax sexual mores and loose pair bonding and are of significant importance in Boasian theories; European societies have traditionally been in strict opposition to such practices. Boasian pseudo-anthropology also comes to the conclusion that Western peoples must learn and adapt to these non-European values and structures.
    • (Struck above because Oliver had not written that, but merely used it from the prior version. He did add a section emphasizing Jewish involvement in Boasian anthropology, using the Star of David template with each alleged Jew mentioned.)
  • Donald_A._Swan “racialist anthropologist.” Some would simply say “fascist Nazi.” Wikipedia. And, of course, if he were not a racialist, he’d be called a “pseudo-anthropologist.” I will move to looking at early Oliver editing on RationalWiki.
  • The_Mankind_Quarterly defends the journal, 12 March, 2013. This is ironic because when, five years later, when “published in Mankind Quarterly” was being used as a code phrase for “racist fascist eugenicist,” by Oliver, I wrote that the journal was a peer-reviewed academic journal, as did Oliver, and which it is and was, which is quite distinct from a possible bias that may or may not reflect all papers. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.
  • Robert_E._Kuttner
  • Gypsies Oliver reverted an anti-racist comment, blocks the user with no discussion. The block reason:  (Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions)

Oliver was not only racialist, he was racist, and he was not only hereditarian, he was ignorant about intelligence. “IQ”is a score on a standardized test. Besides the possible effect of culture on test design and performance, it is obvious that if one is subjected to a toxic environment as a child, it could affect cognitive and learning ability. This is is not “liberal nonsense,” and pointing this out is not a product of political correctness, it’s simple common sense.

That was fascist administration.

  • Wesley_Critz_George whitewashes the Wikipedia article. Racist.
  • John_Baker Racialist at best, September 2013.  The Wikipedia article.
  • Ruth_Benedict very important to point out that she was a ” lesbian Jewish Boasian cultural anthropologist.” He forgot to write “pseudo.”. That was fixed in 2017. Metapedia is so charming.  Wikipedia
  • RationalWiki 2 February 2013. Attacks the RW point of view. Easy enough, but he uses RW type reasoning and argument, makes the standard pseudoscientific “unnatural” argument against homosexuality. Last edit of Boglin on RW was racist, (Torch would be Darryl).
  • Conservapedia Oliver inserted this, 2 February 2013:
    • Strangely despite claiming to oppose macro-evolution, Conservapedia embraces it to explain the physical variation in humans. Since they maintain everyone today descends from Noah’s children from the ark, roughly 4,000 years ago, Conservapedia maintains there were massive mutations in a short space of time to account for such physical diversity we observe today from Noah’s family. For example, they maintain Capoid, Negroid and Mongoloid phenotypes all suddenly morphed from Noah’s son’s in a few hundred years. In reality, Genesis does not explain the origin of these other races, since the authors had no contact with them. Thus, having analysed the Table of Nations, Professor William F. Albright came to the conclusion: “All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called White or Caucasian race”.
  • British_Israelism
  • Race_and_penis_size Yes, Oliver actually created this article. Nothing terribly objectionable in it, but it seems that it was not appreciated, it has been redirected to a single sentence in another article.
  • Ireneusz_Michalski anthropologist who used racial types.
  • Andrzej_Wiercinski “typologist” who “published racial typological and anthropometric papers through to the late 1980’s.”
  • Forumbiodiversity
  • Charles_Galton_Darwin stub left out the juicy bits. EUGENICS! ZOMG!
  • Carleton_Putnam “race realist” Never mind the blatant racism. Wikipedia.
  • Charles_B._Davenport, “race realist” stub.  see Wikipedia.
  • Metapedia:Featured_article_nominations gives Oliver’s views on race denialism as of March 2013.
  • Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party — Oliver was definitely not antifascist. If it might reduce the BNP vote, this is a serious problem. No giggling allowed, or aloud, whatever.
  • Nordicism reveals obsession as of 28 April with on-line forums. Later, by 20 October 2013, removed.
  • Mediterraneanism Oliver was obsessed with Anthroscape. See the RationalWiki sock drawer. Talk page deleted 31 October 2017, by Skeptical (Oliver), reason given (removing a whole page of doxing (enclopedia dramatica links etc) Talk was archived 26 Jun 2016, nothing was lost.  CharlieBass would be Oliver. Dust77 was Oliver, who placed the ED link to attack Mikemikev. In 2015, as Dust77, Oliver explained his change in beliefs, having been a Metapedia sysop. It all matches. Schizophrenic also commented. It was Oliver, all the way down. The Talk page was archived, nothing was lost.

I looked at every Metapedia page that was edited before the middle of April, 2013, and I’m now skimming. If I miss something important, Oliver can tell me! (or anyone can)! (Many talk pages seem to have been deleted by Der Metapedia Fuehrer, so some might be archived, they can be more difficult to find.)

  • Australoids pseudoscience abounds in Oliver’s work in July, 2013. 12 November, 2013, Oliver removed some material (not particularly controversial), two weeks later, Mikemikev restored all of it.
  • Ashley_Montagu this is one of the most outrageous examples of the yellow journalistic style that Oliver developed further on Rationalwiki. He was writing exactly what racists would want to see. See the Wikipedia article.

Around 9 September, Oliver begins removing material, it stands out in his Contributions, from the red text showing removed content. This would be expected to attract the attention of other administrators. So I looked at User talk:Atlantid. He deleted his user talk page. (On RationalWiki, they would generally restore the page and desysop the user. There are good reasons for those traditions.)

There is a note added to the user page later that refers to a LANCB message on the Community Portal, which has been deleted. Incompetent wiki administration does not trust the public. . . .

In any case, it is on archive.org.

Dear Metapedia

I’ve renounced most my former views, and no longer support the aims of the Metapedia project. For this reason I request my account to be permanently blocked. Since I extensively read and process information quickly, my position on race has changed. However, it was constantly being re-defined or shifting over the last year or more. There are legitimate (scientific) arguments against biological races. The online “race realist” faction do not adress these and just employ the political correctness card, or “you’re a Jew” instead of adressing any of the arguments, this is demonstrated here: [8] and on many other pages. These same online “race realists” also use outdated sources, holding typological or essentialist views, which have been discredited. I know all these well, since I uploaded most of the sources, e.g. Typology and was once a proponent of them. In fact most online content of this nature is mine, or links back to me [even the material on Anthrocape where ironically I am attacked]. All of the following individual entries I added: Anthropologists (race). Note that the literature in their bibliographies (as listed on each entry) I have read, have (formerly) owned, or have been uploading a while back. Increasingly however i’ve read the “other side” of the debate (Livingstone, 1962; Brace, 2005; Glasgow, 2009 etc), and have managed to see how pseudo-scientific must stuff written about race by men like Coon, John Baker or Rushton and the valid arguments against it [race] not existing biologically etc. This has nothing to do with political correctness. I don’t believe I can be tagged in though with race skeptics, since there may be a viable third position: races exist, but not how we percieve them (therefore “whites” etc don’t exist, again I have literature on this stance). I started developing this as my most recent posts show (Andreasen etc) and I wrote an entire book on the ecological race concept which does not mirror folk races/taxonomies. These concepts however also have flaws. Race however is no longer a topic I wish to waste time with, and racism is something I have come to completely reject e.g. race and IQ, or the idea of racial superiority [its all junk science]. Fixation with race has also deteriorated my mental health, since I suffer from various disorders, and it is something I am no longer wasting time with. With that said, my account can now be blocked. Whether you want to remove my edits is up to you, I had around 10,000. Most are still useful edits, where I have uploaded bibliographies. Atlantid 17:53, 4 December 2013 (CET)

Nonsense still

I left this site, however strangely I see today my account is unblocked. I requested it to be perm blocked as I no longer support the aims or views of Metapedia as above clarified. I also see Mikemikev and Thjassisdottir (“Faintsmile1992”) are still posting libel or emailing about me from Anthroscape or elsewhere, even going as far as having created a thread about me and posting on it for several days. The claim I have involvement in the Mikemikev entries or discussion at rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica are lies, I do not. I’m not on any sites and have no interest in either of those individuals. Its seriously pathetic that there are certain people still stirring hostilities up. Anyone posing as me on such websites, are not. The last thing I would do is waste more time with this. Atlantid 21:49, 5 December 2013 (CET)

He was lying about not being involved on other sites. Maybe he had that idea that day or even that week, but long-term, he’s been very, very involved, especially on RatWiki and Dramatica.

There are references to a conflict between Oliver and Mikemikev. I have yet to see much directly on that, but this is on User talk:Mikemikev.


I’m not on rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica and have no interest in you or Faintsmile1992, therefore I don’t know why you are creating threads about me on other sites. If someone is pretending to be me, then ignore them. Our debate on population genetics was settled, and I’ve left Metapedia having renounced my views (I requested for my ban, but oddly I was unblocked, but you or another can perm block me now). I don’t want to waste any more time with this. The faheem account was hacked at Egyptsearch. I’ve left this site and all others, but there seem to be a whole crowd of people elsewhere now reporting our behavior and stirring things up. I have no intention or involvement in this and am trying to move on. Atlantid 01:29, 6 December 2013 (CET)

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)
Oops I forgot I lost my admin rights, I cannot block myself. You can block me though asap. I’ve changed my pass though and cannot log back on.

I have seen claims that the schizophrenia story was from an impersonation. I don’t think so. What actually happened on Metapedia? It looks like the pages where Stuff might have Happened have been deleted. But the basic story, the reason for my doing this research in the first place, has been satisfied. I will now use this page for reference.


Got him.

We now know how to reduce Oliver Smith to a gibbering pile. Do unto him what he does routinely to others, interpret what he wrote 6 years ago, in a way that he detests. In fact, I did less, above, than what he has routinely done with Emil Kirkegaard or myself, for that matter.

In any case, I afford anyone described here a right of reply, and since this is a page, nobody needs to read this unless they choose to (which was also true of the entire page above), I will copy his entire response below. Take it away, Oliver:

From Encyclopedia Dramatica. Warning: much of that site is NSFW, and it is a parody site, run by lulzheads, like RationalWiki, only with less pretense at being “rational.” Much less.


(He was pissed! Wanna see fireworks? Poke a pompous fascist. Warning: collateral damage is possible.)

Questions are to be answered: No, I won’t ever stop, beyond death, by the sword or otherwise. Just the way things are, until the lies stop and the planet is safe, the universe is safe. That’s a vow taken long, long ago.

His last edit was responding to Yellowbird warning me to stop. Stop exactly what was unclear, but I have decades of on-line experience. When an admin says “STOP,” with a big red sign, stop everything and proceed with caution. I had just called the admin, Yellowbird, a “wikidimwit,” in keeping with ED traditions.  I now apologize for that, he actually responded just about perfectly. He warned me, strongly, and then included Oliver in it, and Oliver responded in a way that I have seen trolls respond in the past. They don’t care about being blocked, they expect it, and if they can get their target blocked, they have accomplished their goal and can then use that fact against the target elsewhere. It’s an old play from the playbook, and some admins fall for it. Especially if they were inclined to block the target already.

(i am playing a very different game. For one thing, except for very unusual conditions, I don’t sock. If a site doesn’t want me posting or editing, to the extent of blocking me, I stop, with little fuss. Warning is generally enough. If I do “block-evade,” normally I disclose who I am except under even rarer conditions. I’m responsible for what I do, whether it has my name on it or not. So is Oliver, but he pretends otherwise.)

This means you too, diebythesword. Yellowbird (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

– Hi, I would appreciate if you could just indef-ban Abd Lomax’s account and also ban my latest now. He’s only using ED to spread lies about me.Diebythesword

Oliver is asking to be “banned.” He’s highly experienced, knows the difference between a block and a ban. In any case, he previously responded in detail to the documentation above, which is useful. (Yellowbird blanked it, blocking him with “23:43, 29 January 2019 Yellowbird blocked Diebythesword with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Butthurt revisionism)”

I’m not planning on testing Yellowbird without getting permission first, and even that I won’t do without a hefty pause.

Using ED to “spread lies,” is what Oliver has been doing for years, on many pages, about many people, whoever become his targets. The talk page for the article he created there on me is full of them, willful, deliberate lies, obvious, easy to see. (And then he excuses blatant as for the lulz, but doesn’t do that in situ, but elsewhere when he is confronted. He does not clean up the messes he makes.) So here is his response.

Lomax is lying about my Metapedia edits, what a surprise

Too bad for Lolcow-Lomax-Liar, there are archives of my old papers on race, roughly from the period I was still editing Metapedia. They easily disprove his trolling, lies and distortions about my Metapedia edits, that seems to consist of cherrypicking comments, taking them wildly out of context, while also erroneously claiming I wrote some things I never did to smear me as a “fascist” or “Nazi” (insane):

I will be looking for any misquotations, and I was aware that what he wrote in articles might be quotations from others instead of his own opinions, so I was careful about that. Further, I was not attempting to prove that he was racist or fascist, my goal was to discover (and I did actually look for contrary evidence and reported evidence for his change of mind — which is what he explicitly claimed on Metapedia when he retired — but rather how those edits would “appear.” I am not exactly a mind-reader but he remains responsible for not only what he intended, but how it appeared. A person who has private definitions may claim he was not lying, but remains responsible for any intention to deceive, or even careless appearance uncorrected. “I did not have sex with that woman” was said under oath = hot water, even for a President. Even if he had a special definition of sex (which I know, having heard thousands of sex addicts talk about themselves). They were indeed “cherry-picked,” i.e., remarkable  statements, out of thousands of edits standing. Nevertheless, they show some consistencies. I will especially be looking for examples of errors, which will promptly be corrected, unconditionally.

And he’s insane. That’s not a “fact,” it’s a judgment. Nobody else cares what he thought or believed six years ago, except that when people have pointed to his former affiliations, he has called them “liars.” He has also claimed, generally without evidence, that he was impersonated. Notice that, so far, he has not claimed that any of what I cited was impersonation. It’s extremely unlikely that it was, and he has had years to point out any standing impersonations.

There may have been (I think I have seen) comments that were even more outrageous than anything I found. Perhaps those were impersonations, but they have apparently been deleted, unless someone can point to them. The fascist admin of Metapedia has deleted many Talk pages, which is where they would probably have been.

For background, the entire site was racist and fascist, and so Oliver was helping to build a racist, fascist project. That, all by itself, would be enough. Creating good articles on non-racists, non-fascist subjects is still serving the Beast. Years ago, when I was eligible for the draft, I declared I was a conscientious objector, and, no I would not serve the military in a noncombatant role, because of a similar argument. I also was not going to flee to Canada. Instead, if required, I would serve time in federal prison. Didn’t happen. But I was willing to go.

  • Race – I wrote 5 papers on race, 1 paper on race and cryptozoology and 1 paper on race and intelligence, uploading them on my Academia profile from 2010-2013 when I was at university and I liked to research controversial things, but over the years some were temporarily removed or revised and none now exist because I lost interest in race and deleted them.

He “lost interest in race” but handles that by trying to erase his past, instead of acknowledging it and explaining his errors. Further, he began attacking people, strongly, exaggerating their positions and cherry-picking whatever can make his targets look bad. So, for example, Emil Kirkegaard posted a photo of himself giving a fascist salute, as an obvious joke. Bad taste, for sure, politically incorrect. But he was also Oliver’s age, early twenties, young and foolish. And that kind of joke is still quite common. So if I point this out, am I, as Oliver has claimed, “defending a fascist?” No, for two reasons: first, it has not been established that Kirkegaard is a fascist, and, second, if he were, it is a political position and is not illegal, and the immorality of it would be highly situational.

Oliver made many statements easily interpreted as fascist or racist (especially the latter), which, to me, simply shows that he was a young, ignorant male, pseudo-intellectual, and pseudo-liberal in the sense of disregarding social norms (perhaps called “politically correct.”). Common in adolescence and “callow youth,” it is even to be respected to a degree, adolescent rebellion probably being instinctive and necessary for species survival under changing conditions. Getting stuck there, however, is a developmental disorder.

Anyway, in 2010, I published “Palaeo-Races: Leiotrichi and Ulotrichi” and “Yeti and the Mongoloid”, in 2012 I published “Race: an Alternative to Hereditarianism”, in 2013 I published “Climatic Race Concept”, “Races, Clines or Populations”, “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race” and “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians”. Archived screenshots of some of these papers still exist, proving I wrote them:

This is possibly irrelevant. The topic of this blog page was his views as expressed on Metapedia.

  •  http://archive.li/gvSQN Full paper: “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race”, screenshot dated September 2013 (the paper was written & uploaded in April and was more than 10,000 words and took a while to put together since it references over a hundred sources)

So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why? At one point I called Oliver a “wanna-be academic” or something like that. He denied any academic intention. However, he or his brother have ridiculed me for noting that I learn by writing. He would learn by writing, and the fastest way to learn is to be wrong and correct it. Instead, Oliver attempts to hide that he was ever “wrong.” And if someone points it out, he cries “lies.” Who hides? Truth-tellers or liars?

In any case, that paper has, as its concluding words:

[. . .] although it is widely agreed ecotypic classification below the species level has a biological basis, some biologists assert ecotypes are not races. This largely seems to be rooted in political correctness than anything else. The typological concept should not also be abandoned given the fact if the traits it elects are non-arbitrary and are ecological – it can be used to distinguish races as adaptive phenotypic complexes though polydimensional clustering. It is therefore incorrect to conclude like Lewontin (1972) that while races have no “taxonomic significance” races do not biologically exist. This is a nonsequitur. While races in modern humans are not taxons, they can have a biological basis.

This is racialist, concluding that a contrary definition is “incorrect.” “Political correctness” refers to how words are interpreted by the polis, the people. Yes, Oliver was considering the arguments. If he wants to clean up the mess, I will be showing here how to comment on anything available on the web, using hypothes.is, which was designed for that. At the very least, if there is too much mess to clean up, he could formally disavow the paper, instead of trying to hide it, as he did through deletion. (There are situations where deletion is appropriate, but that’s complicated. On wikis, where a discussion has received response, it is generally considered inappropriate to delete it, rather strikeout and emendation will be used.) That would be much closer to academic practice. Crying “lies” is not part of clean-up, it’s part of the mess.

The page was already archived a year ago. I just archived the comment. Oliver praised the article, with the title “Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation,” but this was 2014, when he had already changed his views. Dates matter. Because I have lost the numbering, due to WordPress idiosyncracies, #3 and #4 were the next two papers, which apparently Oliver has no copies of.

  1. https://www.academia.edu/6045331/Climatic_Race_Concept (written & uploaded in September 2013) but no screenshot
  2. https://www.academia.edu/5920220/Races_Clines_or_Populations (written & uploaded in October 2013) but no screenshot

The title of the first “Climatic Race Concept” appears to be his invention. It sounds like a pseudoscientific attempt to preserve the legitimacy of “race,” it sounds like population genetics through adaptation to local climate. Nice try, though. Variation on “the Nordic races are smarter because they had to deal with the cold?” If that’s not fair to his actual ideas, “unfair” is a natural consequence of deleting work once published, i.e., the next two.

  1. http://archive.li/oyKBh Abstract: “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians” (dated upload to ResearchGate October 2013, unsure when I had actually written it, probably June or August)
  2. . Screenshots of my pre-2013 papers, including paper on intelligence likely exist but I cannot find them right now, although they’re referenced in old comments.

The “Racial Affinities” paper obviously uses race as a concept. How does he do this? From the Abstract:

One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining “race”.


Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.

Tipoff: this is the opinion of a naive student, writing about “truth,” which is not a scientific concept. “Actual fact” here is used to mean “my opinion.” He is correct in one way: “race” obviously exists, but as what? As a “biological reality”? I will express my own opinion: as an “actual fact,” “race” is reactive, a judgement or assessment. It can be made objective, but Oliver is aware of at least some of the problems with that.

While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).

To state this sympathetically, “race” can be used in a way to make it useful, but this process will disconnect it from “folk concepts.” This is therefore dangerous, because the “folk,” the people, the polis, will read the word as what they imagine it to mean, instead of how some academic or wanna-be academic defines it. Given that there are other words to use for the more objective ideas, why would he use “race” at all?

Like most species, there are ecotypes in humans – defined as groups or populations showing region-specific adaptations which vary as a result of climatic selection (solar radiation, humidity, temperature). Since adaptive traits are selected for in certain environments, eco-clines are not randomly distributed; instead they are circumscribed reflecting climatic zones (Krantz, 1980, p. 27: “…there are steep places on the climatic clines and one can draw lines along them dividing mankind into climatic races”).

Why not “dividing mankind into population groups sharing some average genetic characteristics based on long adaptation to local conditions?” Why use the word “race” at all? I’ll suggest how it appears to me:

Oliver believed, still, in something called “race” and was looking for a rationalization. He was, at best, a racialist. Did this translate to actual racism? I used to define “racism” as the belief that race was real, and the unreality of race used to be a fairly unpopular idea in many circles (which were not academic). “What, are you blind?” However, more popularly, “racism” is racialism combined with concepts of superiority or crucial or critical differences indicating a need for separation and the maintenance of power over the “other.” At least in “one’s own region.”

And then we get into IQ studies, which push every political correctness button there is. And that’s a separate topic, though with minor relevance here.

  • In #1 that can still be read: I listed seven definitions or concepts of race to see if they’re applicable to living humans – I concluded taxonomic and ancestry based definitions have been falsified, but that races exist in terms of phenotypic adaptation to climate. The conclusion of my paper: “Races may or might not exist in Homo sapiens depending on the race concept.

Something exists.  Patterns exist. Where do they exist? Generally, a pattern like “race” exists in the mind, not in biology. He is still believing that it is legitimate to call this something that exists “race,” and does not seem to be aware of the difference between interpretation or mythos and “truth.” Yes, whether X exists or not depends on the concept of X. However, in science, concepts are not truth, but are models, organizing tools, and they are useful or not. The issue of usefulness largely revolves around predictive power. However, language, words, have effects entirely aside from the possible intended meanings of authors, and that’s what editors are for, in real academic publication, to identify usages of language that harm communication. What “race” brings to mind is a set of models that have long outlived their usefulness, except as political wedges.

It is possible to have a discussion about these things with a racialist, if I am correct in calling Kirkegaard one. It has not been possible for a long time with Oliver, because it all becomes quickly personal.

  • The multiple concepts and definitions have made race as a word highly ambiguous. Taxonomic concepts of human races are though obsolete, unless one is discussing the early fossil record, for example Neanderthals (Jurmain et al., 2011).”

Yes, got it. However, this page looked at his views as expressed on Metapedia in 2012-2013, not his private thinking at the time or later. Again, is it necessary or useful to use “race” to distinguish the Neanderthals?

  • To further examine the concept of climatic races, I then tested it on ancient Egyptian skulls (using cranial measurements from various collections); in that paper I note: “One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining ‘race’. Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.

He seems to imagine that this proves something. “In actual fact,” Oliver pronounces on the truth as if he is above the debate, when he was heavily plunged in it. The “truth” is not a definition of a word, and definitions are not “actual fact,” except as being facts about people using words. “Races don’t exist” is obviously false if taken literally, because “races” exist as concepts, and do concepts exist? No, to be meaningful, “races don’t exist” is a denial of the usefulness of the race concept, which includes centuries of baggage.

  • While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological [climatic] races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).” It’s mindboggling how any of this makes me a “fascist” – I was debunking taxonomic and ancestry-based definitions of race, but rather than adopt a liberal race denialist view, came up with an alternative between hereditarianism and race denial. Is Lomax trying to troll me again? Fail.

I did not claim that this made him a fascist, and that term came from elsewhere in his work. I will come back to this, but what I had in mind was his own authoritarian behavior, which has been demonstrated wherever Oliver has obtained power to exercise over others. As well, it would be in his general support for a fascist site, Metapedia, and possibly political parties inclined to fascism as a political idea. By not quoting the exact source statements, Oliver follows his habitual practice of crying “lies” without being specific. I was aware that “fascist” was relatively weak, but it was still stronger than the evidences Oliver has used in attacking others. What most impressed me was how he acted when faced with someone defending Gypsies. Fascist and racist, with no necessity. Arbitrary and brutal.

Moving on to some of Lomax’s blatant distortions, lies and taking things deliberately out of context:

  • Hereditarianism – Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian” despite I’ve never agreed with hereditarianism and have criticized it; read my papers old man… He provides no evidence I was a hereditarian, just takes a couple of comments out of context.

Self-contradictory he is. On the one hand, “no evidence,” and on the other “a couple of comments out of context.” That would be evidence. “No evidence” is a common Oliver comment when evidence is presented. Yes, evidence can be misleading and cherry-picked, but it does not therefore become false or misleading unless the context actually reverses the sense.

I 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. 

Oliver also has “Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian.” The above study was fairly long (though I did not complete going through his editing). I called him a hereditarian once. The term also occurs in his description of Pearson, but I did not use that to term Oliver hereditarian. So, again, this is Oliver, reactive as usual, exaggerating what he hates. He is not accustomed to someone carefully going over what he writes, he imagines that he can say whatever and accomplish his goals. And he has, often, because, in fact, most people do not actually look at evidence, or if they do, they only look superficially and see whatever they want to see in it. Wiki problem, long-standing, one of the reasons wikis go south, they are afflicted with “quick,” right there in the name.

  • Eugenics – Lomax lies and claims I supported “racist eugenics” because I quoted “Dr. F. L. Hoffman” (who?). It’s a single cherrypicked edit, taken out of context. I know nothing about a “Dr. Hoffman” and merely copied a small quote onto the page, I found elsewhere. Needless to say, I don’t agree with the quote and I don’t support eugenics. There are numerous other sources and content I added on the same page I didn’t agree with. Where’s Lomax’s evidence I agreed with this and am a eugenicist? *crickets*

It’s hard to hear even crickets with one’s ears stuffed. The context is shown. This is significant, it shows the concept I was following of responsibility for what one writes. So here it is again (now bolded):

Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”

This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” is very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.

So, first, “edits appear heavily racist” is a report of my personal impression, obviously. That would be a matter of what he chooses to quote. However, he then added material without sourced attribution. He would be, unless he fixes it, responsible for that content. He was putting up what would be popular on Metapedia. I consider him responsible for content that he wrote without attribution, even if he copied it from somewhere else. I did not quote everything, so here is more, from March, 2013:

Palaeo-anthropological findings question the status of Negroids as modern anatomically Humans (Hss) [sic], since their morphological features are very primitive

This introduces a quotation with slightly blunted language. Editors are responsible for that kind of introduction, because it presented the conclusion of what was quoted as if fact.

There is more, much more, actually.

Most Negroid females will go to extremes to artifically [sic] straighten their hair texture while wigs are also very commonly purchased.

This is not the place to debate “race reality,” i.e,. what it means to be identified as a “racial minority” in some places. As I have mentioned, I have a daughter born in Africa, and I’ve seen some of what such people face here. She has very kinky hair. It’s beautiful, but also a boatload of work. Society is changing, but racism is still alive, though on the run. When I was raised, racism was open and unapologetic. However, the article was not about the difficulties of minority groups, but about condemning them as inferior. That comment was a racial stereotype and probably false.

I am claiming that Oliver is responsible for what he wrote. He is even responsible for what he left in place when he heavily worked on a page, but the examples I have given are text he introduced. Nobody held a gun to his head to make him do this. If he were paid as an editor to follow an editorial policy, I would still hold him responsible for what he chose to do for a living, though it might be a little more understandable. If he retracted it and attempted to undo the damage, that would be a mitigating factor. He did not do this.

He still has not done this. Instead, he cries “lies,” when there were no errors, even, not so far, anyway.

He went on.

  • Boasian anthropology – Lomax lies and quotes something on the Boasian anthropology article I never wrote, but says “quoting racist Oliver”. I never wrote this comment he’s quoting that I didn’t even agree with. This can easily be checked by looking at the article edit history and seeing what Lomax has quoted, appeared on the article before I touched it.

I attempted to avoid that by how I linked.  Here is his set of changes. He is correct, he did not originally write the more outrageous comments. But he left them in place in the middle of his work and so it appeared as if his. Had he merely made a few small changes, his responsibility would be less, but he did not. He did add:

Jewish roots

All but one of Boas’ students were Jewish, and recent immigrant arrivals to America. The sole exception was Alfred Kroeber, who unlike the Jewish Boasians, was the sole student of Boas to reject race egalitarianism (Kroeber was apolitical). It is sometimes claimed Ruth Benedict Template:J was also not Jewish, however Modell (1983) on page 166 of her biography on Benedict, cites various evidences that Benedict was of Jewish descent.[2] It was also no secret that Montagu Template:J was Jewish; his real name (which he changed) was Israel Ehrenberg.

Franz Boas Template:J was also himself a Jewish immigrant, born in Germany, but later moved to America.

Template:J was a small yellow Star of David, it was deleted by Metapedia admin in 2015, so Oliver used that flag. The focus on alleged Jewishness or Jewish ancestry is characteristically anti-semitic, and this was in line with what had been in the article before.

I am accepting this as an error and have struck that comment.

  • Richard Lynn – Lomax claims in 2012 on Metapedia I quoted “Richard Lynn with approval” and that I wrote the following comment: “Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and political correctness the reality of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being deracinated. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing One World Government, with the goal of promoting miscegenation.” Both these claims are false; I never cited Lynn with approval, merely posted his definition of race (that I didn’t agree with and I posted multiple race definitions) and I’ve long criticised his hereditarianism theories as can be seen in my papers. I never also wrote the above statement; it was copied or paraphrased as can be seen in the edit history: prior to me editing the page its found under Deconstructionism of race. This comment is obviously nonsense, I just reworded some of it, but made the mistake of not outright removing it.

Oliver admitted an error! Congratulations! Tell me, did it hurt? Did you bleed excessively? Get help if there is concern about consequential damage. Even major foot-in-mouth insertion can be remedied, the sooner the better.

Now, to the substance. This was in the article on Race. Oliver edited that in three sessions. First in August, 2012. In that edit he introduced a quotation from Lynn on the issue of race.  Lynn was not quoted as one opinion among many. It was “quoted with approval,” as I stated. I’ll stand with that. Now, that does not mean or require that he agrees with it, which would be his mental state. Rather, he is editing an article explaining the topic, and he chose that quote to explain it. The quote is about a definition and definitions may or may not reflect general usage. By the time Lynn wrote that, it was passing out of usage. Oliver was deprecating the rejection of “race” in biology, by picking Lynn (who is practically ancient and is holding to older usages). This sticks. Merely “posting Lynn’s definition” does not relieve one of responsibility for it, even if one silently disagrees or writes disagreement elsewhere. This was on Metapedia where the position he was expressing is the house view. He was establishing himself as a “reliable editor” on Metapedia, and I can speculate that this was so he could use it as an attack platform, of which a few examples may still be visible. “Hereditarianism” generally refers to intelligence and is not relevant here.

As to the quotation, there is much more in his editing that is racist or certainly racialist (“race reality”). Quoting from above:

Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:

Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].

He claims that the language was there before, and, indeed, some of it was. He paraphrased (as a restatement, unless we are very careful, the statement becomes our own. At best, he was not careful, but, in fact, it seems he wanted to appear to be “one of the team” at Metapedia. But the most racist comment here is the reference to miscegenation. That word was not there before, Oliver added it with this edit.

This was not merely a matter of accidentally leaving something in. He is denying what he actually did.  This is typical. The edit history was long and complex. He points to it, but not to a specific place. And he was lying, but most people won’t check, and that’s what he has learned from a decade of editing wikis.

Or he is insane, not actually “lying,” but living in delusion about himself and reality. Take your pick. He has acknowledged schizophrenia. I know very much what schizophrenia is like. It is very possible to factor for it and live well, but it requires a willingness to recognize and distinguish carefully between what we actually experience and how we interpret it. As long as we see the world as an enemy, there is very little hope. As long as we believe what we think, there is little hope.

  • Recent African origin of modern humans – Since 2006, I’ve been critical of the ROA/OOA (“Out of Africa”) human origins theory and still am. Unclear why Lomax mentions me editing the OOA article on Metapedia in 2012 as proof I’m a “fascist”, since disagreeing with OOA outside of the West, such as China, is rather common and has nothing to do with fascism, but science, especially fossils that question the politically correct Westernised OOA theory. Clearly disagreeing with OOA (as does the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, e.g. see the Wikipedia article I created on Wu Xinzhi) doesn’t make someone a “fascist”.

Once again, I did not claim editing that article as “proof” he is a “fascist.” In fact, all that I wrote on this was to note that it was his first edit to Metapedia. At that point I listed every article he edited, and only commented on a few. The only way this would relate to “fascist” would be that he was working on a fascist project. Suppose I had gone to Rightpedia and wrote general articles for them. Suppose they simply improved the overall usefulness of that site. Would I then be open to a claim I was a racist antisemite? Of course I would, unless I did this very, very carefully! — and even then it would be highly questionable. Editing Wikipedia is not like that, nor is editing RationalWiki. by the way. I’ve edited Conservapedia, a little. Making a major project of it would be another matter.

Yes, an AP sock started that article, identified as “Goblin Face,” which was Darryl, so not exactly correct. The account has many Oliver flags. But they don’t care on Wikipedia, they are both defacto-banned, to be blocked on sight. Many of the socks escape notice, because they have actually succeeded in getting some of those who would identify them blocked and banned.

  • Talk:Confessions of a Reluctant_Hater – Lomax takes this comment completely out of context and says I “praise[d] an article on book by white nationalist” to presumably try to claim I agree with white nationalism which is false (I clearly rejected and criticized ethnic nationalism on Metapedia as can be seen on my edits on ethnopluralism, see below). In reality, all I did was be kind to a user who created an article on a book, since I was logged on when it appeared and I saw a new article page creation. I’ve never even read the book, barely had read the article, nor “praised” the article content.

I stated the fact. It’s not worth correcting “praised an article” to “praised a user for creating an article.” Oliver might save himself some upset if he doesn’t react to every imagined claim that might be made. Then again, he fully deserves to soak in his own bile for a very long time. Still, I don’t like to see even nasty people suffer.

  • English_Democrats/England_First_Party/British_Freedom_Party/UK_Independence_Party/National Front – Various political party articles I mostly edited in 2012. Despite Lomax cherrypicking my comments, I was critical of all of them, especially EFP, EDs, NF and UKIP and later BNP. As mentioned in another comment above, I became critical of anti-immigration populist parties by 2013, if not earlier. And for the record, I’ve never been a member of any of these parties, nor even voted for them. Some trolls spread misinformation I was a UKIP or BNP member, both these claims are false.

Again, I am not responsible for what “some trolls” might spread, unless I started the rumor. Oliver had claimed that the idea he had been racist or fascist or far-right was a “lie,” so I looked for evidence. He made a lot of edits, thousands of them, so examples would be “cherry-picked” as to their relationship to the alleged lie. Mostly I just listed the political parties, and in one case I pointed out that he white-washed the BNP article.

What I found was sufficient cause for someone to make such claims (very little based on the political party edits). The liar is Oliver. That he may have later become critical (or even that he was critical at the time) would not change this. I was not claiming that Oliver “is” far-right or hereditarian or whatever, including racist. He might be, he might not be. (And an unfortunately consequence of his lying so much is that I won’t believe he has two feet unless I can verify it.) I am only claiming that what he wrote then can be seen in those ways, and reasonably.

  • Ethnopluralism – An article I started and shows I was a critic of ethnic nationalism; Lomax of course doesn’t mention this. I also had my own ethnopluralist think-tank at the time. This was closed in 2013.

Lots of things I don’t mention, it’s meaningless. Links? The article does not show what he claims, nor does it show him as the opposite.

  • Indo-Europeans/Aryans – Articles I edited where I heavily criticised 19th century Germany and Nazi Germany “Aryan” theories, especially about blondism eg. “This study was a blow to theorists such as Poesche, who argued Germans most closely represented the Aryan ideal, under the false assumption the majority of Germans were blonde.” Again, Lomax doesn’t mention this – after all how could I be a “fascist” critical of Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism? Doesn’t fit his fake biography about to smear me as a “fascist”, so he doesn’t mention what I actually wrote on these two articles…

Ask a question, get an answer. One can be fascist and think the Nazis were wrong about this or that. “Fascism” is as fascism does. From Merriam-Webster:

Fascism: often capitalized a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

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

A fascist certainly could be critical of, even hating “Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism. We have seen how Oliver acts when he has power, that’s the best test of a “fascist.”

  • Doug Weller – Lomax mentions some off-topic nonsense about a Wikipedia admin named Doug Weller. Note that I deleted the latter’s Metapedia article. What’s the problem? More of Lomax’s trolling.

This is my blog, and unless the community here sets up another process, I decide what is on-topic or not, and that will probably remain the prerogative of one writing a page. I was researching what happened on Metapedia, and recorded what I found, and the Weller incident is of high interest. Sure, he deleted the Weller article. Who wrote it in the first place? This was Oliver using Metapedia as an attack platform. What did Weller have to do with Metapedia? Here is what. From Metapedia Talk:Roger Pearson. So Oliver blames the Wikipedia article on Pearson on  “Two race denier wikipedia admins, including mega-troll Douglas Weller have uploaded lies about him and his research.” There is no denying that at that point, on the POV spectrum, Oliver was a “race realist.” And the ordinary average Wikipedian he would classify as “race denier.” It is correct that “race realism” is not necessarily racism, and I was careful to distinguish it, but the social reality is that race realism is heavily associated with racism.

Oliver added, “I’m glad Metapedia exists as a truthcentric place to set the record straight. Atlantid 21:02, 4 September 2012.”

The Metapedia article on Pearson, written by Oliver, does not do any such thing. What “lies”? This is Oliver’s academic bent. He called Plato a liar for repeating stories that he had probably heard. Academics will rarely call others liars, nor will encyclopedia editors of real encyclopedias, or Wikipedia editors who are following the basic policies and guidelines. (Many don’t actually follow policy, including some administrators, and that’s Wikipedia’s problem.) If Weller “uploaded” lies, that should be exposed, as far as I’m concerned, not by calling them lies, but by showing truth, i.e., for Wikipedia, better, reliably sourced information, or, for synthesis that does not fairly represent what is in sources (a common problem), calling attention to the sources. And, yes, you can get blocked for doing this. That’s life. Stand for truth and there will be people shooting at you.

Wikipedia had Rule Number One: If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it. I wrote that there was a corollary: if you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. Blocks were not bans, by the way, and if one really was trying to improve the project, under normal conditions, one would not be banned for it. That shifted over time, as what Wales called the “administrative cabal” became more entrenched. But most Wikipedia administrators are sincere and would not lie. Some would, and some were — and are — POV-pushing fanatics.

In any case, this was the Wikipedia article when Oliver wrote his complaint about it. What lies? Crying “lies” is nearly useless. Pointing out errors, misleading statements, correcting them or distinguishing between reality and implications by authors (which may or may not reflect reality), that’s useful. Oliver, here, would be a “Pearson apologist,” apologist being a derisive term often used by him to cast opproprium on someone who points out errors in critiques. It is a weak proof, but given that Oliver does not actually point out the “lies,” the reflection on him is earned.

Maybe he did in the articles on Weller. But I have not yet seen a copy, just the talk page. Oliver deleted his own Talk page, covering up the history. So, hey, I looked at his deletion log. Lots of cover-up deletions, including his Talk page, twice. This answers the question I had above about who wrote the Weller article:

  • 21:47, 13 May 2013 Atlantid (talk | contribs) deleted page Douglas Weller (Author request: content was: “”’Douglas Weller”’ is a wikipedia administrator, from South Normanton, Derbyshire (England) who has a long history of trolling pa…” (and the only contributor was “[[Special:Contributions/Atlan)

So, indeed, he wrote that article, with familiar Oliver Smith rant. There are others:

and this led to something interesting:

23 November 2013, he deleted the prior discussion and replaced the page with a new copy, including this comment. I think there are errors with this article? It was posted by Vir, who was banned. So i’ve cleaned his discussion. The talk page can be used to discuss controversial/disputed studies. Atlantid 15:43, 23 November 2013 (CET)

Deceptive, he was. Archive.org had an older copy. Vir was not the only one to comment, Oliver had commented, so he was covering up his prior blatantly racist comment. (The older comment led me to yet another bio of Oliver Smith. I did not take what I have reported about the Smith brothers from ED or Lolcowiki. I have reported what I personally confirmed. Generally, though, I have confirmed much or even most of what has been put up in other places.

Oliver, I previously reported, has made extensive efforts to get pages about him removed from Google searches, and on RationalWiki and Metapedia, he used administrative tools to cover up his own history, where he could get away with it. If he were merely someone with mistakes in his past, this would not be worthy of any investigation, but he also libelled many and claimed that simple reporting of his history was lies and libel and he has acted to harass many, and actual damage has been done in places (from him and from similar behavior by his brother.)

I’m completing his response:

  • Norse_mythology/Huns/Anglo-Saxons/Celts – No relevance?

My research starts with lists without strong agenda. These were articles he edited, showing interests. This would later be used in comparisions of interests to support sock identification. There is no claim of any reprehensibility because of topics edited. These are only very weakly related to possible racism.

  • Picts – Lomax says “this might be a racialist addition, removed later.” Not sure what he means. Secondly, he says “Used white as an description of a people.” when this simply refers to the UK ethnic census category, which I’ve actually been critical of for a long time. On the UK census it’s not possible for persons to ethnically identify as a Scot, Welsh or English etc, but instead only “White British”.

“This” was in the next words, linked.

The term “white” probably was the basis for an assessment of “might be a racialist addition.” I was inclined to strike that assessment, however, the excuse given is weak. An author is not obligated to use the categories of the UK Census in factual descriptions, and it certainly is “possible” for persons to identify in those ways, just not — if this is true — on the census form. I was always told I was “Scotch-Irish,” not “Welsh” or “white British.” In fact, there was a family story about the “Black Irish,” which I won’t go into here.

  • Several more sections of false or inaccurate claims, I don’t feel like wasting more time rebutting, especially concerning Mikemikev.

It’s really very simple. I quoted Oliver, what is there to rebut? I did not make any assessment of Mikemikev. The fact that Oliver’s last comments were made on Talk:Mikemikev is irrelevant. Mike didn’t force him to say anything. This is Oliver, he’s been doing it over and over, including directly in email with me. He cries “lies.” When asked for specific errors (and a lie would not only be an error, but a deliberate one), he would say that it’s too much work. But he just did a large amount of work, finding very, very little. One real correction, other minor nitpicks.

He makes it difficult by trying to hold back the flood with his finger in a disintegrating dyke.

In conclusion, no evidence was presented for the fascist smear. Lomax also incorrectly labels me a “hereditarian” despite I never was and criticized hereditarianism in my papers.

He is just repeating himself. I called him out on one action which enforced a hereditarian POV (i.e, denied and dismissed environmental influence on intelligence, which is little short of preposterous, but it’s what he did.)

His claim I supported hereditarianism on Metapedia is based on distorting what I wrote or wrongly attributing to me comments I never wrote.

I mentioned hereditarianism twice only, and the first mention did not claim he was supporting it. By the way, this is another play in the trollbook: if there is a single example of something, refer to it as a repeated pattern.

First example I saw on Wikipedia, a troll was after a teenage girl who liked to get DYK mentions. He filed a report on her that had, among other claims, that she “inserts copyright violations.” There was one example only, and it had extenuating circumstances, it was accidental.

My first real block on Wikipedia was related to that incident, in fact, because I defended her. The defense was successful, by the way, and the administrator whom I had supposedly attacked later became my best friend on Wikipedia and said that the whole thing was a mistake. He ran for the Arbitration Committee, telling me that I had inspired him, and won a seat. And then retired because he and his family were threatened in real life, face-to-face, by thugs who knew where they lived. Wikipedia could be, in the darker spaces, very, very ugly.

There was also never any anti-Semitism in my comments. So the “anti-Semite” claim above, is yet another smear.

I see it differently, and if anyone cares, they can read what is above.

The claim I was or am a fascist is not only false, but the opposite of who I am – I’ve campaigned for direct democracy since I was 16.

Direct democracy can be fascist, where the mechanisms are defective, as they commonly are. I used “fascist” in specific reference to Oliver’s behavior as an administrator, which was authoritarian and oppressive. I have seen authoritarian behavior from people dedicated to careers in “democracy.” Oliver assumes the word has a narrow and specific meaning that he can then deny, but he’s not willing to look at what might be real about it.

Basically, Lomax just comes across as an insane SJW who attacks people as fascists or Nazis since they don’t agree with him.

Agree with him about what? And whom have I “attacked” in that way? In this case, Oliver had been called — by many — a racist and fascist party supporter by others and he had claimed that this was lies or based on impersonations. So I looked and found basis for the claims in his Metapedia record. This was not about whether he “is” a fascist or Nazi. It was about that record and what appears in it.

The list of people whom I have “attacked as fascists or Nazis”? Let’s see: I called the administrator of Metapedia who took certain actions “fascist.” It clearly had the dictionary meaning as I gave above, and whether or not he is also fascist in other senses I don’t know, but from Metapedia overall, I would say “probably,” but that is certainly weak as an accusation. It would be rebuttable, for sure.

Wikipedia defines fascism as: “a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society”. He’s not provided a shred of proof I support any of these things, I don’t and never have.Diebythesword (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But that’s simply the Wikipedia definition, and does not confine the word to that meaning. Is Oliver claiming that he never supported the British National Party? He certainly edited the Metapedia article on the BNP massively, and some of it appears to be whitewashing.

Lots of evidence was provided. What is a “shred of proof”? This is reactive rhetoric only.

Corrections remain welcome. Claims of lying are not so welcome, but fact will still be considered.

Oliver responded on Encyclopedia Dramatica, defying  Yellowbird. The admin left the response in place, but blocked Oliver for making it. Here is that self-justifying response, beating a dead horse.

Lomax’s insanity continues…

Lomax responded to my other reply, so I’ll leave this that can be removed since I know he reads here:

He could respond here, but as a confirmed and dedicated troll, he will respond where he is blocked and nobody wants it. And if he stops responding for a few days, he will announce that he is no longer editing that wiki. Then a few days later, a new account continues the same trolling, obviously him, and if someone points to the obvious, he screams “doxxing!!!” and sees if he can get the person blocked. Dedicated troll, and if he and his brother did not do actual damage to the real world, I wouldn’t care.

  • Hereditarian: As explained (and anyone can read my 2013 paper), I never was a hereditarian. Out of 2000 Metapedia edits, Lomax ignores me criticizing hereditarianism, which is how I got to clash with Mikemikev in the first place, and he finds only a single edit in January 2013 to misconstrue i.e. Lomax says “I 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 is a non sequitur. There have been oppressed and discriminated groups throughout history living in squalor, but examples exist of these populations having on average, a high IQ. So the idea Gypsies have low IQ on average because of racism and/or poor living conditions is a liberal fantasy. I’m not sure why Lomax thinks if I point this out I must be a hereditarian i.e. maintain IQ differences between populations are due to genetic factors. I was always critical of the latter and I fully debunked hereditarianism on RationalWiki. My simple explanation for low Gypsy mean IQ is their backward culture, which is environmentalism, but a different explanation than racism or poverty. I don’t believe all world cultures are equal e.g. Australian aboriginal tribes have an undeniably primitive culture. I’m not going to deny this reality to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Liberals of course think all cultures are equal; they’re not, so they avoid discussing culture in the race and IQ debate unless they’re talking about cultural biases on IQ tests, when it suddenly is the white man’s fault… And I consider the liberal view to be as bad as the hereditarian hypothesis; the cultural theory to be common-sense and middle-ground between the two extremes.

One comment referred to “hereditarian,” because it reflected an anti-environmentalist action, not a fixed and exclusively hereditarian view. To justify his hereditarian action, he resorts to cultural racism. I personally consider the hereditarian/environmentalist debate a debate between black and white as to which color best represents reality, but racism is a political position, not a scientific one. “Primitive” is a racist category. So is “fault.” Oliver is taking pseudoscientific positions to justify himself. This I consider fact: he was assisting the development of an openly racist/racialist wiki, Metapedia. His action fit in with that. Does that make him a “hereditarian.” That comment was a single mention and not a categorization of the present reality of Oliver. The action, politically, was hereditarian (or similarly according to culture, which could be seen as environmentalist). Oliver supports whatever local political views will give him power to abuse others, so on RationalWiki he is fiercely anti-racist, but on Metapedia — which he edited at the same time — he was supporting a racist project.

He accuses others of various offensive positions, with, in some cases, far less evidence, yet if someone points out the obvious, he is up in arms because they are “lying.” That others sometimes support him and enable him is even more disgusting than what he does. He’s admittedly schizophrenic, so he at least has an excuse.

  • Fascist: Lomax now claims I’m a fascist not because of my political-ideology (direct-democracy), but my alleged “authoritarian behaviour” on the internet which is a load of BS.

First of all, direct democracy is not in opposition to fascism. It can create mob rule, which can be highly fascist, in all senses. Oliver thinks of political positions as abstractions, divorced from actual personal behavior. Let’s say that I disagree. He is radically intolerant of differing opinions and generally seeks to ban them. On RationalWiki, he and his brother vigorously pursue people he calls “fascist,” and others as well, whoever lands for them as targets. If they try to defend themselves, they are blocked. That’s fascist.

Fascist, fascist, fascist.

  • Racialist: Lomax describes my April 2013 paper as “racialist”. At that time I was indeed arguing for the existence of human races as opposed to a non-racialist who denies their biological reality. I don’t have a problem with this label, but it’s somewhat misleading since in that paper I outline 7 definitions of race and I dispute or rather debunk 5 of them, while being critical of another…

Oliver has gotten himself blocked everywhere, among racists, among trolls (ED is a trollsite), among SJWs (I don’t like that term, but it is often applied to RationalWiki and I think Oliver himself may have used the term), on Wikipedia which pretends to be neutral, on Reddit, but it’s not so easy to document all that because he keeps creating more and more accounts, more and more confusion. He creates new accounts when there is no necessity at all. Usually he abandons them quickly, but sometimes not. He just came back with an obvious RatWiki sock, Aeschylus, after almost a year, going after . . .  guess who! His favorite target, whom he blames for almost everything. That person shows up, probably, in this discussion. This sequence will get some coverage on other pages, it demonstrates exactly how RatWiki went down the RatHole.

Fascist fascist fascist. Did I mention that Oliver is a fascist?

  • So for those 5 (or 6) definitions of race: I’m a race denialist i.e. non-racialist. Depending on what specific race definition someone uses they can be simultaneously a racialist and a non-racialist. This is something Mikemikev fails to understand. He disagreed with my race definition and labelled me a race denialist on Metapedia, when I actually was using a race concept, but not the definition he used that is pseudoscience. And because I disagreed with the more popular definitions of race for an atypical definition (ecotypes), Anthroscapers even called me in November 2013 a “borderline race denier”.

Bottom line, he is insane and every political grouping can see it. He is arguing against Mikemikev everywhere. Mikemikev is irrelevant here.

  • Paper deletions: Lomax asks “So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why?” The simple answer is I lost interest in these topics, as I already said. For the same reason I deleted my papers or essays on UFOs. I wrote about a lot of different things when I was at university; some interests I had ages back, I no longer write or think much about, others I still do. Lomax instead ignores this straightforward explanation of why I deleted these papers, and claims I deleted them to “try to hide” them. No idea what he’s talking about. I’ve never tried to hide anything.

If he weren’t insane, that would be just another lie. I did not ignore the straightforward explanation, but sane people do not necessarily delete their work, crazy people commonly do, I’ve seen years of work vanish in a flash. Oliver will copy whatever he finds from others to archive.is so that he can they crow about them trying to hide what they have written. But I showed a clear example of his attempt to hide his racist comments on Metapedia, one of his last acts with admin tools there.

  • Disavow the paper”: Lomax oddly wants me to “disavow” the aforementioned paper I wrote. Unclear why.

No, Oliver has little or no idea of what I want. These papers were published (on the internet). *If* the problem was that he wrote in error or expressed some political or academic position that he later wished to disavow, doing exactly that would be academic honesty. But he is not honest, he is a regular, serial, habitual liar.

  • I disagree with very little I wrote in it; I more or less have the same opinions I wrote in this paper nearly 6 years back, only that my semantics for the race definition I defended has changed. I’ve pointed this out elsewhere, such as a post on Sci Forums in 2016; I no longer consider calling ecotypes as races and neither does Jonathan Kaplan (who co-wrote a paper on ecotypes in 2003), although I cannot be bothered to dig that quote up when he changed his view about the semantics (it was in 2011).

Who cares?

  • Lomax is a pseudo-sceptic and is labelling all this “pseudoscience” when he doesn’t even know what it is e.g. this race concept never has involved IQ, only a handful of phenotypic characters (skin colour, hair texture, nose size etc) as I mentioned in my paper quoting Grover Krantz. Since Lomax knows almost nothing about the topic, he should refrain from further commenting.

Knowing nothing about the topic never prevented Oliver from commenting on my work or that of others. I was writing about race easily by fifteen years ago, but I did not study the topic academically. This is not an academic debate, and I can say whatever I please about what Oliver has done. It is fascists who want to suppress dissent. The right of dissent includes a right to be wrong, to make mistakes, and to state opinions, ignorant or otherwise. Again, Oliver is fascist, it’s his style, and it’s very likely what got him banned on Wikipedia originally. He has not changed on that. His specific opinions change, and former friends become enemies, but the center of it all is not only batshit crazy, but certain that he is right, was always right, except for insignificant details. And he claims that others are insane, racist, pedophiles or pedophile apologists (on crazy-silly weak, misleading evidence), etc.

Is Mikemikev racist? Probably, or a troll.

I really don’t know and it’s not my business. I actually have not, however, seen him lie. I don’t believe that people should be banned for being, much less allegedly being racist, that is a flipped fascist position. Democracy is in danger from both the left and the right. Hence I was a member of the ACLU in 1962.

  • Anti-Semitism: There’s no anti-Semitism in my Metapedia edits, if you want anti-Semitism just view Mikemikev’s edit history who vilified and attacked Jews in nearly every edit and was obsessed with trying to disprove the Holocaust; I criticized him for both.

On a blatantly antisemitic web site, labelling scientists as “Jews” was an antisemitic act. Whether Mikemikev was antisemitic or not does not change that. Whether or not he criticized antisemitism, he would be like a German who criticized someone for being antisemitic, and yet turned in his neighbor in for being Jewish and not wearing a required symbol. That template he used, that placed a yellow Star of David after names, was an emblem of antisemitism, and he was serving an antisemitic agenda, obviously and blatantly. Metapedia apparently decided it was way too blatant and deleted it.

  • According to Lomax out of my 2000 edits, the only “anti-Semitism” he could find was me adding a star of David next to someone’s name who actually was a Jewish person… And I don’t even remember doing this and couldn’t care less, if I did do it, the fact I only did it once out of 2000 edits shows its triviality.

First he will claim there is no evidence. Then he will claim that it only happened once. Yet he once claimed he had many more edits than that on Metapedia, my sense is that the large majority have been deleted. That was blatantly anti-semitic and that doesn’t change if it indeed only happened once, it is merely a clear example of the overall activity, which was supporting Metapedia, ignoring that helping develop that project was serving its political agenda. Writing something in a single article, that would be one thing. People with a special interest will sometimes edit a project which has overall goals that they despise, but Oliver was obviously a dedicated Metapedia editor, putting in many hours. How did he even know the star template existed? What led him to even note that those scientists were Jewish unless he thought it was significant?

This is far stronger evidence than what Oliver routinely relies on in his attack articles.

Antisemitic or serving an antisemitic agenda. The former would be more honest!

— If you continue to smear and lie about me being a fascist, hereditarian or anti-Semite, Mr. Lomax, provide some actual evidence for once…

This is a standard trope for fanatics: claim there is no evidence. When evidence is presented, demand “actual evidence.” Evidence is evidence and is distinct from conclusions. “Proof” is rarely available outside of math, where the logical field is very restricted. I did not accuse him of “being” those things, but pointed out that he had taken actions or made statements that can be seen that way.

I never met Oliver in person, so far, and even if I did, I would not know what he is “actually.”

You also spend a lot of time now setting up straw man arguments. You’ve mostly now shifted from the absurd fascist allegation to claiming I wrote some racist comments 6 years ago. I’ve never denied the latter and no one except you seems to care.The Mark of Kri (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So why does Oliver place his response on Encyclopedia Dramatica, in the Talk page for the article he wrote on me? He could actually comment here if he has corrections to make. It’s much more reliable that I will see comments here.

Fascist. Racist. Antisemitic.

Grandstanding for an unknown audience. The EDiots don’t want it. For whom is he writing?

When I say “GTFO”, I mean it. That is all. Yellowbird (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He meant it, but did not actually enforce it by removing the comment. That’s up to him if he wants that page to be insanely long, as it became, out of Oliver’s trolling. Not my problem.

Looks like Mikemikev showed up.

Great thread there. Obviously you (parroting Kaplan) are just offering a strawman race concept of no relevance to what your opponents are saying. I never worked out whether you were being dishonest about that or whether you were really too stupid. It’s really not complex. Maybe you’re just insane. Vikevikeme (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, tough problem. Not actually my problem, either.

Arguments from Oliver

Oliver has challenged some identifications on the Other Wikis page (supra). Before incorporating new accounts on that page, I will explore them here.

First, that page is a list of suspected socks. Some of these are very clear, some less so. I had suggested that KATMAKROFAN might be Oliver. Stating a suspicion is not a lie, unless one has clear knowledge to the contrary, and I didn’t (though, in fact, I had forgotten some of my prior investigation of that user). When Oliver makes a clear claim of error, I check it out. KMF was not Oliver, he was an batshit crazy wikignome, finally community-banned from Wikipedia, and globally locked, in December. He had changed his name shortly after starting Wrongpedia, and then changed his name again while retiring. The functionaries changed it back. This guy is a loser’s loser.

Oliver and Darryl are not the only insane trolls on the internet.

Then, today, I see that Oliver has challenged another listing. I had written:

The confirmation claim is now removed, see below. It is still likely that Anti fascist was Oliver, this user had access to the CloudFare correspondence about Rightpedia.

Oliver keeps making new socks on Encyclopedia Dramatica, even though he has unblocked accounts with many contributions, MrStrong and then BumChum. Except that maybe these new accounts are not Oliver, maybe they are Darryl. It is possible. This new account is mostly defending John66, which is Darryl.


(posting on User talk:BumChum, a Smith account, who claims to be Oliver Smith, and who is not blocked.)

I don’t own the “anti fascist” account like most the others you listed; “anti fascist” is blatantly a Mikemikev sock. All the “anti racist” or “anti fascist” accounts are Mikemikev who has a history of pretending to be these things before I met him and he’s created plenty of accounts attacking himself and Rightpedia, while pretending to be from Hope not Hate or Antifa. He’s trolled me for past 5 years and created a fake biography of me using these fake accounts that I’m a some sort of Antifa/communist. You now just uncritically repeat these lies about me on your blog without fact-checking anything. The fake biography Mikemikev created about me was that I’m a former Nazi or fascist turned Antifa. Neither of these absurd claims are true, yet you repeat this nonsense about me on your blog.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re also posting yet more misinformation. I never have had any association or communication with “KATMAKROFAN” and I’m not even interested in who that is. All I know is it isn’t me, which is easy to prove. You claim to correct errors on your blog – yet you never apologise for all the misinformation and lies you post and when you do revise or edit something, you still attack me as with your bizarre response I keep “company” with “KATMAKROFAN”. You clearly have some form of personality disorder.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Where are you getting the misinformation you have “confirmation” I’m “anti fascist”. You’re lying again. On Meta-Wiki all I said is I would remove JuniusThaddeus’ name that was mentioned on Wrongpedia – that’s virtually all I did:

The name is a joke in reference to a (deleted) Encylopedia Dramatica article JuniusThaddeus made. The other accounts on Wrongpedia are KATMAKROFAN and a bunch of Mikemikev’s troll socks pretending to be an anti-racist. None of these are obviously mine. Most of the wiki was also blanked by a user named “Joshy”, also not me.Tobias Raper (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The confirmation was was shown as a link to meta, where Oliver posted as Largewarhammer. AP socks are generally blocked on sight, but they often escape notice. In that conversation, Oliver lied about the history, specifically emails. I published those emails, and they contradict Oliver’s claims. When Oliver is exposed, he ignores it and then later repeats the same lies. He’s gotten away with it for years. In any case, it was Oliver who had emailed me, this is crystal clear, and this provides him with an open channel, confirmed to be him, if he wants to make a statement that is definitively from him.
Tobias Raper also claims to be Oliver, so Oliver is running a conversation on the user talk page of one of his socks, or the other sock was lying and is actually Mikemikev. This, in fact, is Oliver’s standard excuse for outrageous sock behavior. It’s supposedly all Mikemikev, or sometimes he has claimed it was his brother, but when I asked him to clarify which accounts were him, and which were others, specifically, he said it was too much work, and then he wrote that it had all been lies, about the brother, and then he cast doubt on that statement. His goal is to create confusion. And then when people don’t get it right (or when they do! It doesn’t really matter!) he attacks them for “lying.”

So this is what Oliver, LWH, wrote, on meta:


I already left that wiki. so you just pointlessly revived things. you posted on 12 april. My last comment was a week before on the 5th.

The main page was created March 29 by KATMAKROFAN. The first edit to that page by anyone else was by EvilDead, who also created the article on Michael Coombs. EvilDead’s last edit was April 4. There was another account with a classic Oliver name: Pindar, who had commented on the 5th. Pindar also blanked the article on Mikemikev’s mother.

No one else is active there and it doesn’t even show up on search-engines. as i said on my talk page I don’t know what you’re doing.

And if you’re all of a sudden against doxing families, when not target rightpedia? It’s mikemikev creating hitpiece articles that include doxes of people’s families.

As for legal action, you’re mistaken. I will be drafting a letter since I have his parents address, either that or I’ll visit his parents. But before doing that I’ve focused on the rationalwiki and other sites to document and build a profile. He going to loose especially when I alert authorities about all the holocaust denial, hardcore racism and his online behaviours combined with the defamation he posts online. Massive log here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Racism_and_anti-Semitism Largewarhammer (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


I’ve now removed mention of your name etc on wrongpedia.Largewarhammer (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So I looked at the actions. Anti fascist was active on the 14th, but previously I did not notice the times. In fact, the removal of Michaeldsuarez’s name was done at 3:46 by another account with a Smith-type name, for throwaway accounts, account names with some weird message in them, Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend. What he did, the only contribution, was to remove edits by Pindar attacking Michaeldsuarez, the day before. So this did not confirm that Anti fascist was Oliver, so I will correct that.

However, the story that Anti fascist was Mikemikev is extremely unlikely to be fact. Anti fascist uploaded a screenshot of the response to the complaint filed against Rightpedia with the domain host. It remains likely that Anti fascist was Oliver, but it is always possible it was his brother or some other troll.

An account appeared today, “Anti rightpedia”, and claimed that Wrongpedia had served its purpose and was closed. The user name “Anti rightpedia” had already been used. By the way, I archived the entire Wrongpedia project. It had a robots.txt setting that prevented archive.is from working, but a complete site archive is more useful (because all the internal links, including logs, will work). That is why it doesn’t show up in internet search engines. Haters hate and hiders hide.

Another new ED account showed up, FarLeftie. If this is Mikemikev, as claimed by a Smith sock, it is one of the most sophisticated impersonations I have ever seen. The account cooked for a year. I hadn’t noticed it because I had not looked at the Rightpedia article edits yet. This was the only Smith sock I would have found there. FarLeftie made a series of typical Smith edits to Rightpedia, 11 months ago. If this was Mike, way too much work for way too little effect.

Tobias Raper continued to rave on ED. Looks to me like the admins are taking a holiday.  I take claims of “lies” here as being claims of error, because sometimes there is an error, and, for many years, I have known that paying attention to “enemies” can be highly useful, because they are more likely than friends to notice errors. Indeed, they will be fervently dedicated to that. BumChum is an admitted Oliver sock — so why is he posting on his own talk page as another user? — because that’s what Oliver does — ranted on and on about me, and about what is on the page supra. This all obviously pressed some buttons, because a new account showed up on Wrongpedia today, claiming it was “closed,” “Anti rightpedia.”

I don’t own the “anti fascist” account like most the others you listed; “anti fascist” is blatantly a Mikemikev sock. All the “anti racist” or “anti fascist” accounts are Mikemikev who has a history of pretending to be these things before I met him and he’s created plenty of accounts attacking himself and Rightpedia, while pretending to be from Hope not Hate or Antifa. He’s trolled me for past 5 years and created a fake biography of me using these fake accounts that I’m a some sort of Antifa/communist. You now just uncritically repeat these lies about me on your blog without fact-checking anything. The fake biography Mikemikev created about me was that I’m a former Nazi or fascist turned Antifa. Neither of these absurd claims are true, yet you repeat this nonsense about me on your blog.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is typical for Oliver. He relies on confusion. I keep in mind the possibility that an account is Mikemikev, or some other impersonator, and I’ve seen a few that might be him, but not accounts like, say, FarLeftie on ED, who made a series of edits a year ago that Oliver later built on, on ED, and who appears to be doing Smith brother work, with substantial effort. Or Anti fascist on Wrongpedia, who appears to have been one to complain to Rightpedia’s domain host. This is very, very unlikely to be Mikemikev. Nothing is impossible, but how often would a troll go to so much work?

First of all, I have taken nothing from Mikemikev’s biography. There are two claims here:

  1. Former Nazi or fascist. What is clear is that Oliver had right-wing opinions, years ago. One of the  red flags for Oliver accounts, years ago, was an interest in the British National Party. Metapedia is currently down, which is where these opinions were voiced, most strongly, and I’m not looking for archived copies, too much work for too little benefit. So the first part is not false, though it could be exaggerated. If I have claimed this about Oliver, where? What was false? Again, this is typical for Oliver and Darryl. They claim lies, but don’t point to a specific statement that could be corrected. Often I have no idea what they are talking about. So I search, and sometimes I find something. When it is an error, or an interpretation presented as if it were fact (beyond normal journalistic license), I correct it, and I always offer the opportunity of reply in situ, which is rarely done. (Compare their behavior on RationalWiki. A target of their articles replying and attempting to correct articles is normally blocked in short order.)
  2. That he “turned antifa.” Again, Oliver clearly is attacking the extreme right wing, particularly Rightpedia, but also such targets as Emil Kirkegaard, claimed to be fascist and racist, or the London Conference on Intelligence and John Fuerst. Oliver has bragged about creating those last three articles. So this is also not false. So what is he actually denying here? The Rightpedia article was created by Michaeldsuarez, but was immediately taken up by Krom, which was Oliver and there are many other Oliver socks in the history of that article (plus a little Darryl).

There are lists of suspected socks on various pages on this blog. It is always possible, and I frequently state this, that a suspicion is only that, based on an appearance. An impersonator, unless it’s quite obviously impersonation, would appear in such lists, but impersonation accounts normally do not continue long, especially when the real person is around, and Oliver and Darryl have always been around RationalWiki and perfectly capable of immediately confronting an impersonator. As an example, consider user Schizophrenic on RatWiki. This user was active from January to September 2016. His edits show extensive Oliver interest. The last edit of the user was 20 September, 2016. 2 October 2016, there was an edit of his user page by IP. It has been suppressed, but the IP is given in the revert.  All the edits of that IP have been deleted, However, any RW sysop can see five pages edited:

And the content of the edits was https://kiwifarms.net/threads/oliver-d-smith-atlantid-tibetanfoothills-markofkri-many-more.17515/

that page can be found on the internet archive, and there are versions on archive.is. Documenting the Smith brothers can be hazardous, see “This is the end,” a message from Joshua Connor Moon. Talk about families being harassed, his mother was fired as a result of harassment, and Oliver, while denying that he “got her fired,” admitted sending the email that resulted in it. These guys are toxic, much more than a little trolling of “lolcows” on web sites.

Bottom line, Schizophrenic was Oliver. So then, sixteen months later:

19:54, 2 May 2018 Debunking spiritualism (talk | contribs) blocked Schizophrenic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Harassment: Impersonation, not real “Oliver” now Abd using the impersonator on his blog: http://archive.is/ydies)

The archived page refers to an entire category, which is his habit. He is referring to this page, here. Which has plenty of evidence. And then Oliver/Darryl, several days later, claimed I had hacked the Debunking spiritualism account. No, these trolls create disruption and then claim they were impersonated, that’s clear. That does not prove that any specific account is not an impersonation, but impersonation is being claimed where it is radically unlikely.

So this Smith brother went on (I am not entirely clear at this point which brother this is; it is likely that Tobias Rieper and FarLeftie are, together, the brothers, but when one is looking at two smokescreens, how much can be clear?

You’re also posting yet more misinformation. I never have had any association or communication with “KATMAKROFAN” and I’m not even interested in who that is. All I know is it isn’t me, which is easy to prove. You claim to correct errors on your blog – yet you never apologise for all the misinformation and lies you post and when you do revise or edit something, you still attack me as with your bizarre response I keep “company” with “KATMAKROFAN”. You clearly have some form of personality disorder.Tobias Rieper (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Which brother is this? The page supra lists many accounts. It’s very likely that Oliver was not only Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend

Johnny Utah was the first user to edit Wrongpedia after KMF, very possibly Oliver.  Then EvilGremlin, likely Oliver, but it is not impossible that it was Darryl, and the name would be a Darryl-type name.  The site has a robots.txt file that prevents search engines from indexing it. I could fix that, but maybe it’s better left as it is. In any case, it’s likely that Oliver did participate in creating Wrongpedia, and that suffices for “keeping company” with KMF. Next case? “Raper kept right on:


Where are you getting the misinformation you have “confirmation” I’m “anti fascist”. You’re lying again. On Meta-Wiki all I said is I would remove JuniusThaddeus’ name that was mentioned on Wrongpedia – that’s virtually all I did: http://wrongpedia.referata.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Leslie_Higgins_crusader88_is_a_legend

The name is a joke in reference to a (deleted) Encylopedia Dramatica article JuniusThaddeus made. The other accounts on Wrongpedia are KATMAKROFAN and a bunch of Mikemikev’s troll socks pretending to be an anti-racist. None of these are obviously mine. Most of the wiki was also blanked by a user named “Joshy”, also not me.Tobias Raper (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice how the claim is that none are “obvious,” not that none are his. Ah, is it “Tobias Raper” or “Tobias Rieper”? I see the troll ‘crat has been active again.

I see no evidence so far of Mikemikev activity on Wrongpedia. As to Anti fascist, from contributions this is extremely unlikely to be Mikemikev. For whom is this Smith grandstanding? The same for Anti-racist_guy and Anti_Rightpedia

All those accounts do what would be expected from Oliver — or maybe his brother — and nothing else. Could this be another RatWiki user? It’s not impossible. A link to Wrongpedia was placed in the RW Rightpedia article by an IP, March 29, 2018, geolocating to British Columbia.  At this point, only KATMAKROFAN had edited Wrongpedia. This IP, then, is likely  KMF.  The IP had many edits to RatWiki, and actually added Wrongpedia to the RatWiki article on Wikis, the same day, when only KMF had edited it., and gives that user name (It is still listed.)

ED accounts

Most what you list aren’t mine, but briefly to correct two of the most sloppy mistakes:

“ShadowofRome – Oliver trolling Rome Viharo”
The name ShadowofRome is a PS2 game. Viharo mistakenly thought the name was a reference to him and I was “trolling” him, you seem to be repeating this error.

So, the account successfully trolled Viharo, but because the name is of a video game, it therefore was not trolling? The logic is brilliant. Let me look at the account again. With its first edit,  this account acknowledged being Oliver Smith.  I see no error here, and only someone batshit crazy would think so. Ah, yes. Batshit crazy. Oliver makes up the craziest excuses.

“Dan_Skeptic Darryl trolling Rome Viharo”
As far as I’m aware, my brother has never posted on ED. This account certainly isn’t him, but an impersonator. You use this fake account on another blog article “Darryl authentic on himself” when this account isn’t genuine. Probably owned by Mikemikev who has impersonated my brother on other forums. Tobias Raper (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Misinformation on several levels. First of all, there is at least one ED account where Darryl explicitly posted as himself. There are others that are possible.  Secondly, being familiar with Darryl’s arguments, in many places, this is Darryl and Mikemikev would not likely argue in the same way. In many places, Oliver has claimed that he doesn’t know what his brother is doing, but somehow he comes up with a claim that this was not his brother, and he claims impersonation. If this is impersonation, it doesn’t resemble any I have seen. It is far more sophisticated than what I’ve seen. Sophisticated impersonation is a lot of work, to pull it off this well. This was Darryl, using his Wikipedia user name (disclosed sock, later, Goblin Face), which he knew would push Rome Viharo’s buttons.; Tobias Raper might not be lying, but, if not, he is just plain insane.

This is the page he refers to: anglo-pyramidologist/darryl-l-smith/authentic-darryl-smith-on-himself/

I did not use that ED Dan Skeptic account as evidence on that page. Rather, it was an edit by Iambic, preserved on archive.is. Iambic is not listed on the page supra, because the account has no undeleted edits. Perseus also claimed to be Debunking spiritualism, i.e., Darryl.

There was another account “Skeptic,” on ED. It claimed to be Darryl (and Iambic — Oliver — was responding to the conversation). A Smith brother is now claiming that this was an impersonation. In this case, Oliver did claim that at the time. He was lying.

Nothing here worth changing. But I will reproduce the entire comment from “Skeptic,” because I’ve learned quite a bit about Darryl, having read his comments over at least six years. This is Darryl, all right (I’ve seen many other disclosures of his personal history, written in different places. It all matches). In 2016, nobody knew that much about him, to be able to write this so clearly. This was on ED Talk:Oliver D. Smith that was deleted when the article was deleted for a time, and never restored.

Request to delete this page please read

What Oliver has said about the brothers is true. I have not appeared anywhere in relation to this anywhere until now so I will only type one message here, please read this.
I understand that Oliver for the last 3 years has had a personal internet battle with a guy called mikemikev. JuniusThaddeus seems to have got involved in this as well and it has been going on for years now.
Pretty much all the accounts listed by JuniusThaddeus are accurate. I am not denying they belong to us, I only own the skeptic accounts on wikipedia and rationalwiki, it’s pretty easy to see which ones are mine, the ones debunking spiritualism, fraudulent mediums, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quacks etc. The reason Oliver denied owning the skeptic accounts is because they belong to me. He doesn’t want the skeptic accounts under his name for some reason. He does not identify as a skeptic.
A long time ago when I was in my teens I was a believer in paranormal phenomena, even endorsing various silly things like ancient aliens on wikipedia. Over the years I started to realise it was all nonsense after I went to university, based on wishful thinking or the result of fraud or self-deception and I became a skeptic. I debunked a lot of people and things on both rationalwiki and wikipedia. I regret creating the rationalwiki pages I have to to dislike rationalwiki it is not an academic website or as professional as Wikipedia. But I disagree that they are ‘hit’ pages.
All the criticisms I made of creationists, parapsychologists or of fraudulent spiritualist mediums, ancient astronaut proponents etc were sourced to scientific or skeptic publications.
I honestly cannot workout the obsession with my skeptic edits on wikipedia or rationalwiki. What business is it of anyone here? I don’t get it. Millions of people edit Wikipedia. I am essentially a nobody. Nothing I have done on the internet is illegal. I may have upset people by debunking their nonsensical beliefs on wiki websites but there is no crime in this. The majority of the stuff I add is sourced, it is not my own opinion.
Oliver holds a minority of fringe academic views and he has got me banned on wikipedia numerous times for causing trouble on there. They then checkuser our location and my accounts come up. There is not much I can do about that. I am not very much active on the website anymore, I ran out of things to debunk.
Dan Skeptic, DinoCris were me. As were the other skeptic accounts on Wikipedia. Oliver does not know anything about parapsychology, his interest has always been history, mythology etc.
The only controversial thing I have ever done is create a rationalwiki article on Rome Viharo. He is a troll I came across under my account Dan Skeptic on wikipedia. Since then Rome Viharo has targeted Oliver who has immaturely done things on various websites and forums to retaliate, even on this website. There is not much we can do about this, but 90% of it is all deleted. Oliver no longer is interested in creating blogs or websites about Rome Viharo’s abuse. He wants it all deleted.
JuniusThaddeus says he wants a photograph. I’m sorry I am not doing that. I am in full time employment, I have a job and am in a relationship. I don’t want my personal details up or name slandered and pictures put up about me. I have the right to remain anonymous on the internet.
We are not blaming anyone here at ED for being our accounts, they belong to us. Oliver has made the mistake of blaming JuniusThaddeus for these accounts because he can’t mention my name so just decided to blame him. He doesn’t want the skeptic stuff under his name. There is not much I can do about it.
Oliver in the past has made a lot of mistakes. He regrets joining metapedia. He was associated with the BNP briefly. He used to believe that biological races are real. He no longer holds these positions and since turned the opposite debunking the idea of race.
Oliver does not have schizophrenia, he made that up because he fell out with mikemikev and metapedia so wanted to make them look bad but it back-fired.
As for JuniusThaddeus unfortunately he now has a large grudge against Oliver and stalks him across the internet. For example uploading those recent pictures of Oliver is not very fair. Oliver now wants to move on in his life I have spoken to him about this and he agrees. He is going to cease all internet communications with mikemikev, Rome Viharo and all these other people like Lulzkiller (above) who posts on lolcows.
Regarding certain beliefs, Olvier used to hold various views and changes his position over time, this is perfectly natural. Like myself he is embarrassed about some of his former beliefs. Change happens.
Apparently users here seem to think we have to stay static all our lives. Some of the skeptics I greatly admire started out as believers in things but shifted their position drastically over the years. Like I said this is natural.
Oliver was embarrassed about his posts when he was 14 or 15 years old on the tomb raider forum so it is natural he would deny them. Don’t we all posts stupid things when we are young? I think it is ridiculous that this sort of thing has ended up here at ED. Nobody cares about it and it is not funny.
As for lolcows website that now stalks Oliver it contains deliberate falsehoods to try and annoy him. Oliver is not a peadophile or attracted to children in anyway shape or form. His biggest enemy is peadophiles and the sexually immoral, he even used this website in the past and another to attack a peadohpile and warn people about them. It is slander to call someone a peadophile when they are not one and you have no evidence.
My request here is for this page to be deleted.
1. Nobody is blaming ED for owning our Wikipedia or rationalwiki accounts. We created them. But many of these skeptic accounts belong to me not Oliver. So it is actually false and not factual to say they are his.
2. Oliver’s mental health has deteriorated and he wants to move on with his life. JuniusThaddeus has been angry but seems to have an unhealthy obsession with stalking Oliver. I request for this to stop and everyone just move on with their lives.
3. Oliver at the end of the day is also a nobody, this page exists because of his personal feud with JuniusThaddeus. I think it is silly to have three pages here at ED dedicated to him and unfair, and it is getting freaky the stalking behavior. This is Junius’s personal grudge war. I would appreciate if this page could be deleted. Like I said I have owned up to these accounts which were actually mine not Oliver’s. Nobody is saying they belong to ED.
Oliver wants to move on with his life. I have spoken to him and he will not longer communicate with JuniusThaddeus, Mikemikev, post on forums, blogs, reddit or any of the other immature things he was doing. He wants to move on with his life and he is involved with a job now.
JuniusThaddeus says its odd for family members in their 20s to still be living together. I am pretty sure Junious is older than Oliver yet still living at home with his mum and dad. It really is of no interest to ED who Oliver lives with or what he does with his life. Why don’t you guys just live your life? Oliver like myself is a nobody at the end of the day.
It is coming up to Christmas and I just think it is sad that this stupid online battle is still going on. There is a large world out there with many good things to see or get educated about. We all make mistakes but this whole thing is ridiculous. If the mods here have any sense of knowing what is right you should remove this page. JuniusThaddeus has removed other attack pages he has created on people. The whole point in ED is to be funny. These pages on Oliver are off-mission.
I am not posting here again. You guys all need to move on in your lives. The world is bigger than this. We are all going to die one day, and I think it’s sad websites exist like this. I have made a lot of mistakes myself but you guys should just see sense and move on with your lives. Oliver has promised me from this week he will be doing this, so you will never hear from him again. Regards. Skeptic 04:48, 27 November 2016 (EST)
This was Darryl, I’m convinced.
Meanwhile, more suspected Oliver socks:


Clever, that Mikemikev. He uses his known name to make it appear that Oliver is impersonating him. Look how it worked! Likewise Dubiczki also known as Fiala or Vajna . And if you believe that, register as an editor on RationalWiki, you will fit right in.

BillConservative had this in the article creation:

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center noted that the co-founder of Rightpedia Michael Coombs has created hundreds of sock-puppets to abuse Wikipedia.[10] He later confirmed this on his Gab account.[11]

The RationalWiki article on Rightpedia has this:

In 2018 the SPLC noted that the white nationalist co-founder of Rightpedia has created hundreds of sockpuppets on Wikipedia.[7] Mikemikev confirmed these accounts belonged to him.[8]

This is what the SPLC article stated:

One of the white nationalists who co-founded Rightpedia, a far-right free encyclopedia that split from Metapedia, created more than 140 accounts in the past 10 years.

I reviewed that SPLC article. It used to have comments enabled. It was a mess. “Bill Connors” showed up, an obvious Smith sock, his Disqus contributions archived.

The comment section is accessible through Disqus. In any case, Bill Connors had written:

Mikemikev the Rightpedia cofounder has confirmed the socks talked about in this article belong to him https://gab.ai/Mikemikev/po… and he seems to find the whole situation funny.

This was classic Oliver smokescreen: As I wrote then Mikemikev referred to the reference about “my socks.”

The Wikipedia link is to the SPI casepage on Mikemikev, so this would be, for him, “my socks.” Were he more careful, he might have inserted “alleged.” But he DGAF (that part was reasonable, he likely does find this “funny”). What I notice was that many of those socks were not mikemikev, that is obvious from the individual reports, so he is definitely not “confirming the socks belong to him.” As well, Mikemikev, like many other AP targets, has been impersonated.  Mikemikev gives the “source” as a person he names in the Rightpedia article as Wikipedia user Maunus. Notice the first report, by Maunus. The finding: “Unrelated.” (But Mikemikev’s comment ascribing all this to Maunus was unfair.)

Back to what the article had:

One of the white nationalists who co-founded Rightpedia, a far-right free encyclopedia that split from Metapedia, created more than 140 accounts in the past 10 years.

That sounds like a lot, though it would only be a little more than one sock per month, and these accounts tend to make few edits before being discovered, so this does not actually bear on the problem of factional bias. However, this was an obvious reference to mikemikev. It was not sourced. However, Bill Connors supplied this:

The cofounder of Rightpedia is neo-Nazi Michael Coombs who users the name Mikemikev, he writes hit-piece articles about anti-fascists on Rightpedia. On Wikipedia he has 143 suspected socks https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

I reviewed the issue of Mikemikev socks on Wikipedia, found on this subpage. My conclusions: Mikemikev has nowhere near that number of actual socks on Wikipedia. The actual number is unclear, because Wikipedia sock puppet investigations are erratic and a systematic error can be created by impersonations — or other misidentification, and there have been impersonations. It seems nothing is recent that is reasonably clear as Mikemikev is recent. At least two tagged accounts were far more likely to be Oliver D. Smith (Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia) socks. That is very likely Bill Connors. Haters hate.

Wikipedia does not distinguish between the Smith brothers (Oliver and Darryl). Together, they have many hundreds of identified socks. They are a far larger long-term problem on Wikipedia than the relatively sparse socking of Mikemikev, or other enemies they have attacked.

In any case, the same information was added to RationalWiki by Debunking spiritualism. Leading me to some suspicion that this was Darryl. But there is some level of cross-over.

Mikemikev’s socks

On ED, the latest Oliver sock is EverybodyGolf. A user account appeared, “I am mikemikev.” The user claims, in his single edit, to be mikemikev. So Oliver goes after him — and after me. He put up this:

Clear up your Wikipedia socks with Abd…

Abd Lomax is claiming “you own nowhere near” the 143 (now 145) suspected socks on Wikipedia when we both know 140+ are yours. Rarely a mistake is made.


And then he quotes me (without the link,) that is one of his standard tricks, I’m restoring it):

I reviewed the issue of Mikemikev socks on Wikipedia, found on this subpage. My conclusions: Mikemikev has nowhere near that number of actual socks on Wikipedia. — Abd

Lomax now seems to be claiming I own something like 100 of your sockpuppets which is not only false but defamation since you post racism and anti-Semitism on those accounts and I don’t hold your crazy Nazi beliefs.EverybodyGolf (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The full comment is above. I went on:

The actual number is unclear, because Wikipedia sock puppet investigations are erratic and a systematic error can be created by impersonations — or other misidentification, and there have been impersonations. It seems nothing is recent that is reasonably clear as Mikemikev is recent. At least two tagged accounts were far more likely to be Oliver D. Smith (Anglo Pyramidologist on Wikipedia) socks. That is very likely Bill Connors. Haters hate.

In Oliver’s crazed universe, “at least two” becomes a claim of “something like 100.” In fact, however, there are two separate issues, conflated to one by Oliver. First of all, how many “actual socks”?

The category is for “suspected socks,” not “confirmed socks.” The context was a discussion on Hatewatch, where assumptions would be made about “accounts,” vs. IP addresses. The SSP category currently points to 145 pages. Of those, 102 are IP addresses, not accounts. Only 43 are named accounts.

Then, secondly, how many are actually Mikemikev, and how would we know? What happens with impersonations? Are there impersonation socks tossed in that page?

This category is a bit more definitive: Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mikemikev. It shows 123 pages, of which 52 are IP, 71 are named accounts. In the named accounts I see some apparent impersonations. I have listed these as accounts simply having names to be suspected:

In the suspected category are these accounts:

Where more definitive identifications are found is the SPI archive. This is small compared to the AngloPyramidologist archive (Oliver and Darryl). There are many unsupported reports, and one identification that was retracted.

IonianGreek, suspected of being Mike, red flag Oliver account name. dismissed, but then later checkuser blocked, no tagging. Oliver content so likely Oliver.

In this SPI report, impersonation or other accounts were identified:

KirkegaardEmil was also mentioned. Apparent duck test. Checkuser blocked without identifying master. Not tagged by CU.

(The duck test is highly vulnerable to impersonation from some. Accounts are created on RationalWiki with my name or parts of my address or showing my interests, and they edit by copying something I have written, and then these are blocked and listed as my socks. The Smiths attack enemies by impersonating them and “promoting” their agenda in a radically clumsy way, and some wiki editors jump to conclusions. If a user is blocked on Wikipedia and someone imitates them, they will want to block the new account either way, so they don’t really care if it is accurate. But a pattern of socking like that can enrage some Wikipedians, which is exactly the effect the impersonator wants.)

Reviewing this, I was accurate. There are not “145” socks, as that word is reasonably defined for context. The number of actual socks is a bit unclear, because socks that were suggested to be impersonations were blocked and tagged with the rest. The Emil Kirkegaard socks are almost certainly impersonations, even though the earlier examples were not recognised as impersonations. Quite simply, it’s very unlikely that Mikemikev would appropriate that name, knowing this was someone Oliver attacks.

London Student Journalist is a great example. Oliver interacted with student press in London, feeding them misleading evidence about Emil Kirkegaard. Then, checking the contributions of LSJ, I find that he edited the London Conference on Intelligence. And then I see a familiar name who reverted the contributions of Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard), familiar because I have gone over the SPI case for Anglo Pyramidologist. This was Vihaan Khatri.


Authentic Darryl Smith on himself

A kind reader supplied me with a link to an archive of deleted material on the Smiths. This was from late 2016, long before I had any awareness of the Smith brothers (and only a dim awareness of one of the Wikipedia socks of Darryl L. Smith, Goblin Face).

The material is exactly what I’d expect from Darryl, in an unguarded moment. It confirms my own conclusions from research. I can imagine that someone familiar with this research, by myself and others, could write such a thing, but it would be a piece of work, and why would it be done? (though the only persons likely to have that knowledge could not have done it in 2016). If this was impersonation, as Oliver claims, it is by far the most skillful impersonation I’ve ever encountered. No, I consider this clearly Darryl, the arguments would be his, and the facts rarely known. At that point, there was substantial skepticism that there were actually two brothers. Later, Oliver played on this by claiming that it was all him, but this was blatantly deceptive, probably attempting to protect his brother (and requiring that very much he had written before was lying, not merely false).

The only way that the brothers could have covered up the deception would have been to, using technical terms, “effing shut up and effing stay shut up.” They did not, and defamation and, yes, illegal activity, still continues.

The material: Talk:Oliver D. Smith/Connecting the dots, edit of  18:27, 27 November 2016 (to deleted page, by Iambic,  Oliver D. Smith, replying to Lulzkiller, who rejected the post by Skeptic, Darryl L. Smith). What “Skeptic” had written:

Request to delete this page please read

What Oliver has said about the brothers is true. I have not appeared anywhere in relation to this anywhere until now so I will only type one message here, please read this.
Oliver has written a lot. What Oliver had written was, at least sometimes, true, but misleading. That is, it was not the whole truth. Because of the Wikipedia history, and other events, the brothers had become confused, and it appears that this confusion was encouraged. So, then, Oliver could claim “I was not that account,” and it could be completely true. But if he knows that it was his brother, and he would often know that it was not the whole truth, and Oliver often frames the possibly false statements of others as “lies.” Which would be a lie! He would know that there was some truth to them, and that the writer was merely confused.
Skeptic, by the way, would be a standard Darryl L. Smith sock name. Many of his names have “Skeptic” in them. An impersonator might also use Skeptic, to be sure, but no impersonator exists who could have written, in 2016, what Skeptic here so clearly expresses. I have other “semi-open” writings from Darryl, and the style and sense is identical.
I understand that Oliver for the last 3 years has had a personal internet battle with a guy called mikemikev. JuniusThaddeus seems to have got involved in this as well and it has been going on for years now.
Pretty much all the accounts listed by JuniusThaddeus are accurate.
Nice. Later, Darryl and Oliver dismiss, on RationalWiki, documentation on this, as the “paranoid Smith brothers conspiracy theory.”
I am not denying they belong to us, I only own the skeptic accounts on wikipedia and rationalwiki, it’s pretty easy to see which ones are mine, the ones debunking spiritualism, fraudulent mediums, alternative medicine, pseudoscience, quacks etc.
Notice that, later, he actually created a RatWiki account, “Debunking spiritualism,” that was made sysop. This account was obviously Darryl. It went out in a blaze of attempts to delete embarrassing material, and then retired and then a new account was creating that the account had been hacked. This is extremely unlikely, it is merely that the account revealed too much, including about the “family,” clearly identifying himself as Oliver’s brother — as Oliver had previously referred to him on RatWiki. Darryl decided to bail, and the new account and Oliver blamed it on . . . me, and the RatWikians appear to have believed that.
One thing the Smiths have been very good at is demonstrating how idiotic a wiki community can be.
The reason Oliver denied owning the skeptic accounts is because they belong to me. He doesn’t want the skeptic accounts under his name for some reason. He does not identify as a skeptic.
Right. He uses RatWiki to pursue an antifascist agenda, attacking people who believe as he possibly once believed. He has a number of times stated that he does not agree with the general RatWiki politics. The brothers are similar in that.
A long time ago when I was in my teens I was a believer in paranormal phenomena, even endorsing various silly things like ancient aliens on wikipedia.
Yes, he stated that in a comment on the Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist SPI case. (Below, we see evidence that he was a supporter of Larmarkian evolution.
Over the years I started to realise it was all nonsense after I went to university, based on wishful thinking or the result of fraud or self-deception and I became a skeptic. I debunked a lot of people and things on both rationalwiki and wikipedia.
Unfortunately, “debunking” is generally pseudoskeptical. I see no sign that Darryl L. Smith ever developed enough understanding of science to write from a genuine skeptical perspective, and I’ve seen him reject genuine science because it conflicted with his own ignorant concepts.
I regret creating the rationalwiki pages I have to to dislike rationalwiki it is not an academic website or as professional as Wikipedia. But I disagree that they are ‘hit’ pages.
Partially incoherent, possible typo. Some are hit pages, and were created, at least in some cases, as revenge. My article was clearly so, and Darryl had, through a sock puppet, threatened retaliation for my exposing his impersonations of another user. The argument here is exactly what I’d expect from Darryl.
All the criticisms I made of creationists, parapsychologists or of fraudulent spiritualist mediums, ancient astronaut proponents etc were sourced to scientific or skeptic publications.
At this point, he had not encountered my work, and his attacks on me and some others were not of what he describes above. He admits, below, another “criticism” that doesn’t fall into these categories. Yes, he sources his articles, generally. However, sources have often been cherry-picked, because the RatWiki general agenda is snark, not balance. That is standard pseudoskepticism, and would not have led to my involvement. Rather, it was impersonation-to-defame, and, to a lesser extent, long-term sock puppetry and “attack socks,” SPAs or IPs that only edit to attack.
I honestly cannot workout the obsession with my skeptic edits on wikipedia or rationalwiki. What business is it of anyone here? I don’t get it.
The wikis are public and what happens on them is of public interest. What business is it of Darryl that so-and-so is interested in or a believer in, say, parapsychology? Darryl, creating those articles, he calls them “skeptic edits,” scours the internet for dirt, what is popular on RationalWiki, things that make the target look like a crank, and documents them on RW, attacking the person by their real name, and outing any accounts they attempt to use (or that might appear to be used) to correct articles, as well as outing anyone who attempts to intervene (sometimes correctly, sometimes not). And he wonders why people are interested in clarifying the situation?
Some people documenting the Smiths have been heavily attacked by them, some were more neutral. I did not start out because I was attacked, but because someone else was attacked and the academic freedom of Wikiversity was attacked. And that attack became more intense and was supported by some Wikipedians, who happened to be long-term POV pushers there, one of whom was site banned for a couple of years for it. The other was reprimanded by the Arbitration Committee out of . . . his clearly improper actions, and his refusal to correct them when I suggested it. At that point, the whole faction came after me.
RationalWiki took a general, so-called “rational skeptic” position, before Darryl, but it was not dedicated to exposing every crank or fringe believer. It became so, largely because of Darryl’s work. And there is a pattern: Darryl creates an attack article, the target shows up, and eventually realizes that the creator of the article has been creating many such articles through extensive serial socking, and says so. The target is then banned for “doxxing” — even if this is not actually doxxing, i.e., doesn’t mention the RL names. And such bans are often by a Darryl sock.
(But sometimes they do mention “Smith”, and sometimes, even, Smith socks have themselves pointed to the “Smith brothers theory” to ridicule it. The page was not as pretended in the deletion discussion. It was started by MrOrganic, an obvious Smith sock. Which Smith? I am not sure, not yet, but probably Darryl, in which case Darryl was running multiple socks. The article was then attacked by a series of impersonation socks. At that point, I was a RationalWiki sysop, and this mess was used as an excuse to remove the tools without cooping (the normal process, if anything is normal on RW. Attempts had failed years earlier.)  and then to block me. That deletion discussion was either stupid or collusively deceptive.
As well, many impersonation socks appear as vandals and attacking RationalWiki users, pretending to be the target. Meanwhile, Darryl and Oliver retire their accounts and start new ones to continue the same. )
Millions of people edit Wikipedia. I am essentially a nobody. Nothing I have done on the internet is illegal.
He is now notable, by RatWiki standards, except he is protected there. So he is covered elsewhere, such as on Encyclopedia Dramatica or lolocow or other sites. The claim of “nothing illegal” might possibly have been true in 2016. It became untrue in 2017. Impersonation socking to defame is illegal. It is a form of harassment, and is illegal specifically where the Smith brothers live, assuming that they both still live in the U.K.
I may have upset people by debunking their nonsensical beliefs on wiki websites but there is no crime in this. The majority of the stuff I add is sourced, it is not my own opinion.
Material exists in sources, which is then used to create an image, and that image may go far outside what is actually in the sources. Again, this is quite what I would expect from Darryl. By the way, such an agenda would be a violation, not of law, but of Wikipedia policy, as blatant “POV-pushing.” With biographies of living people, it can be an additional violation. However, there is a whole faction on Wikipedia with that agenda, and it has often gotten away with it. In addition, there is an organization more or less dedicated to this, which may be violating policy against off-wiki coordination, and there is substantial evidence that Darryl has been paid to serve that agenda.  Again, that is not illegal in itself, but if people have been defamed by a Smith brother who was funded, the organization and its organizers could become liable for defamation.
The idea that if a statement is sourced, it is therefore true and proper, is insane. You can find sources for almost any position. Sanity (and encyclopedic wiki neutrality) involves considering the full range of sources and balancing them, and on a wiki, ideally, this is done through consensus. But the faction acts, often, to arrange the ban of anyone with contrary opinions, and has developed skill in accomplishing this. RatWiki is practically a parody of it. The same thing happens on Wikipedia, just a bit less obviously.
Oliver holds a minority of fringe academic views and he has got me banned on wikipedia numerous times for causing trouble on there. They then checkuser our location and my accounts come up. There is not much I can do about that.
That’s deceptive. There is a great deal that he could do and could have done. Darryl could have exposed his brother’s activities instead of waiting until he accidentally got caught. Here, he doesn’t state it, but he is claiming that his brother lied when his brother claimed that most of the accounts were his twin brother.
I have not yet done an overall analysis of accounts. Most RatWiki accounts, though, appear to have been Darryl, my rough impression. Especially when the transient attack and impersonation socks are included. I know that Darryl does engage in this massive socking. As well, if someone was impersonating them in doing this, a proactive response would have been to immediately confront it and disavow — and support the targets against whoever was causing the disruption. I have never seen that happen. No, the attack socks are going after people Darryl or Oliver consider as enemies. Darryl on RatWiki has often blocked them, but …. the timing, when I’ve looked, indicates to me that he also created them. He also, as Debunking spiritualism, attributed many attack socks to me, when he would know that they were not me. He was obsessed with me, based on his edits to my article there. He would know exactly what was me and what was, instead, displaying a very different pattern.
I am not very much active on the website anymore, I ran out of things to debunk.
He may have slowed, I have not yet analyzed this. But he became intensely active there, after he attacked Wikiversity and me.
Dan Skeptic, DinoCris were me.
DinoCrisis. That was obvious. That is, Dan Skeptic was an earlier name of GoblinFace, tagged on Wikipedia as an AP sock from checkuser. DinoCrisis was an early RationalWiki account.
As were the other skeptic accounts on Wikipedia. Oliver does not know anything about parapsychology, his interest has always been history, mythology etc.
Right. This was how I have distinguished the accounts, already.
The only controversial thing I have ever done is create a rationalwiki article on Rome Viharo.
Bingo. The above was written in late 2016. Darryl’s anti-parapsychology obsession led him into attacking the Wikiversity resource on parapsychology, and going after the single major active user there, who occasionally socked on Wikipedia, with massive impersonation socking to induce Wikipedians to attack the Wikiversity user and the educational resource the user was working on (a collection of sources). It worked. Wiki users can be effing naive. If a new account says “I am Banned User, I’m showing what idiots you are on Wikiversity, and you can’t do anything about it!” they believe it. It’s one thing to block the account — that would be obvious — but quite another to go after than person, now under his real name, and attack his work as “cross-wiki disruption.” Which is what happened.
As to the Rome Viharo article creator, This could be Dave1234, who created a redirect there, or Debunker, who actually wrote the first article. Both were very likely Darryl, from other contributions. Millenium Scallion? No. It is not difficult to distinguish the socks from ordinary RatWiki users.
He is a troll I came across under my account Dan Skeptic on wikipedia.
And, of course, when Viharo claimed Smith brother involvement, that was cited as proving he was a troll.
Since then Rome Viharo has targeted Oliver who has immaturely done things on various websites and forums to retaliate, even on this website. There is not much we can do about this, but 90% of it is all deleted.
It is quite unlikely that Oliver created the impersonation socks on Wikipedia, targeting a student of parapsychology and his studies on Wikiversity. Steward checkuser also identified the socks that massively attacked my documentation of those impersonations and the Single-purpose accounts that followed, as being all the same user. It is very unlikely that this was accidental IP coincidence, it was extended, and we know that the Smiths often have used open proxies; by this time, late 2017, that became routine.
Oliver no longer is interested in creating blogs or websites about Rome Viharo’s abuse. He wants it all deleted.
Ah, but was that Oliver? Why would Oliver have been interested in Rome Viharo in 2016? Maybe if Rome was starting to document what had happened to him, and believed that Dan Skeptic was Oliver. At that point, there was no information about “Darryl L. Smith,” if I’m correct.
JuniusThaddeus says he wants a photograph. I’m sorry I am not doing that. I am in full time employment, I have a job and am in a relationship. I don’t want my personal details up or name slandered and pictures put up about me. I have the right to remain anonymous on the internet.
By doxxing others, which the Smiths have done, and by their mutual tolerance and failure to stop it, both become responsible and the right to privacy vanishes when it is abused. Obviously, though, Darryl has no obligation to provide photos, nor to identify which brother is which in old photos. These are twin brothers, but I don’t know if they are identical.
We are not blaming anyone here at ED for being our accounts, they belong to us. Oliver has made the mistake of blaming JuniusThaddeus for these accounts because he can’t mention my name so just decided to blame him. He doesn’t want the skeptic stuff under his name. There is not much I can do about it.
That’ s a disclaimer of responsibility, when there is much that he could do. Oliver, by the way, has taken a similar position that he is not responsible for what his brother does. That is a shallow and self-serving opinion. We are responsible, in reality, for what we allow in those close to us. If we help them cover up, say, illegal activity, we can be committing a crime ourselves in that.
Oliver in the past has made a lot of mistakes. He regrets joining metapedia. He was associated with the BNP briefly. He used to believe that biological races are real. He no longer holds these positions and since turned the opposite debunking the idea of race.
Yes. (and I have seen evidence for all of this.) However, from my point of view, his fundamental position remained the same. He’s a hater, and simply changed targets.
Oliver does not have schizophrenia, he made that up because he fell out with mikemikev and metapedia so wanted to make them look bad but it back-fired.
Notice the theme, this is repeated. It is claimed that “schizophrenia” was a lie., but, then, it is admitted that it was a lie created by a Smith brother to make others look bad. And then that they repeat what the Smith brother wrote, they are called liars, because it is “false.” I see in Oliver definite signs of deranged behavior, but I have also seen this in Darryl. If it is schizophrenia, which it could be, that tends to run in families and if they are identical twins, it could show up in both, and even if they merely shared their mother at the same time. There is other evidence of mental disorder, with different names. In the cloud of confusion created by years of deception, I consider none of this reliable. However, I do conclude that this present comment is from Darryl, it fits far to well to be an impersonation, as Oliver will claim.
As for JuniusThaddeus unfortunately he now has a large grudge against Oliver and stalks him across the internet.
And this is mind-reading.  Junius Thaddeus has suffered real-life harassment from Oliver, apparently. Junius is a person who researches topics that seize his interest. Now, consider my article on RationalWiki. When that article appeared, after what may have been weeks of research, I was amazed at how much had been found, by someone obviously “stalking me across the internet.” “Stalking” is what RatWikians do to write articles on people. Apparently they think that this is okay if the person is a “crank.” But not if they are fine upstanding citizens like … like themselves, of course.
They can doxx others all they want on RationalWiki and it is mostly tolerated or even encouraged there. But if anyone doxxes them, on RationalWiki or elsewhere, they act to ban the person on RatWiki for “doxxing RationalWiki users,” even when they are the only users whose identities are revealed.
For example uploading those recent pictures of Oliver is not very fair. Oliver now wants to move on in his life I have spoken to him about this and he agrees. He is going to cease all internet communications with mikemikev, Rome Viharo and all these other people like Lulzkiller (above) who posts on lolcows.
I have found that promises from the Smith brothers are utterly useless, whether or not they are lies.
Regarding certain beliefs, Olvier used to hold various views and changes his position over time, this is perfectly natural. Like myself he is embarrassed about some of his former beliefs. Change happens.
Yes, it does. But some changes are superficial, like changing from hating, say, other races, to hating racists. It’s still hate, and the approach is still the same: expose and debunk and defame — and lie and hide and sock and impersonate if that helps “the cause.”
Apparently users here seem to think we have to stay static all our lives. Some of the skeptics I greatly admire started out as believers in things but shifted their position drastically over the years. Like I said this is natural.
It is.
Oliver was embarrassed about his posts when he was 14 or 15 years old on the tomb raider forum so it is natural he would deny them. Don’t we all posts stupid things when we are young? I think it is ridiculous that this sort of thing has ended up here at ED. Nobody cares about it and it is not funny.
It is natural to change views, and natural that adolescents will do something embarrassing. And others even older. However, it is not necessarily natural to deny that it ever happened. Basically, Darryl is here making excuses for his brother for lying.
As for lolcows website that now stalks Oliver it contains deliberate falsehoods to try and annoy him.
Yes. That’s lolcow. So? Nobody looks to the lolcow wiki for reliable information. The Smith brothers have done all this in spades and it is done routinely on RationalWiki.
Encyclopedia Dramatica is also for lulz, it is a satire and parody site, with some underlying actual research. Indeed, that’s what is done on RationalWiki, but with a veneer of serious intention enough to fool readers, as it did with media about Emil Kirkegaard in January 2018, with all that being solicited by Oliver contacting media.
I use nothing from those sites without careful independent verification. However, the page being discussed here was a sober account of investigation, essentially the personal testimony of Junius Thaddeus. It is as reliable as he is. Over the years, I have found him trustworthy. I still personally verify everything and don’t use ED as if a “reliable source.”
Oliver is not a peadophile or attracted to children in anyway shape or form. His biggest enemy is peadophiles and the sexually immoral, he even used this website in the past and another to attack a peadohpile and warn people about them. It is slander to call someone a peadophile when they are not one and you have no evidence.
That’s correct, and Oliver has done exactly that. This is not actually arguable.
My request here is for this page to be deleted.
And why? It’s a personal account of a study. It is not actually an attack, just a history, and in this request, Darryl admits it is basically accurate. By the way, Darryl and Oliver also sought to delete my meta LTA study, and forum-shopped until they got the answer they wanted. It was, by that time, completely unnecessary, having long been moved to my blog.
The Smiths attempt to hide, even as their actual activity created a great deal of attention. The intense attacks actually convinced me that there was more to this than appeared at first, i.e., some isolated pseudoskeptical fanatic. I’m still uncovering what actually happened, and how deep this goes and who is involved. It is not just the Smith brothers, who are what I have called “attack dogs.” There are those who use attack dogs.
1. Nobody is blaming ED for owning our Wikipedia or rationalwiki accounts. We created them. But many of these skeptic accounts belong to me not Oliver. So it is actually false and not factual to say they are his.
They are “Smith brothers” accounts. So what would be appropriate is to make that clear. Eventually, that was, indeed, made clear. When Oliver Smith actually wrote me, from an account known to be his by public usage, he made statements that confirm what is written above.
However, when I documented “Anglo Pyramidologist socks,” using the Wikipedia name for the sock puppet investigations, and being quite clear that these were likely two brothers (and maybe more), the studies were still attacked as lies. This, again, is typical for AP socks: instead of correcting errors, they want it all deleted. When I asked Oliver, in those emails, to detail which accounts were his and which were his brother, he declined. Too much trouble, was his excuse. Okay, but in that case he remains responsible, as a collective responsibility.
2. Oliver’s mental health has deteriorated and he wants to move on with his life. JuniusThaddeus has been angry but seems to have an unhealthy obsession with stalking Oliver. I request for this to stop and everyone just move on with their lives.
Again, this is what I expect Darryl to say. The Smiths create massive disruption and then want everyone to just forget about it and move on. And some do. And then they repeat the pattern with others, and the damage grows and gets deeper.
3. Oliver at the end of the day is also a nobody, this page exists because of his personal feud with JuniusThaddeus.
This is obviously not true now, but he could reasonably have alleged that, then. Junius Thaddeus did delete the page, and others restored it. Junius retired from his documentation crusade, and why? It simply became too much for him, and this is quoted in the current Oliver D. Smith article:
“I didn’t realize what I was getting into when I decided to document the activities of a psychopath. It’s just too much.” —JuniusThaddeus who regrets encountering Oliver
I understand. I had no idea what all this would lead to. I was being heavily threatened, but am not easily persuaded by threats. (I’ve been internet-active, in controversial areas, where real people actually get assassinated, and there are real fanatics, and I have received bomb threats.) Threats on the meta wiki were from Darryl, I’m reasonably certain, and Oliver has confirmed that, my opinion. These are serious bullies, who do what they accuse others of, attack by Google.
What’s it like when you have a business meeting, and you are asked about your RationalWiki article? What’s it like when you have a woman friend, and her children confront her about her friend, based on believing what is in the RationalWiki article? What’s it like when one is covered in major media as a “pedophile” or “child rape apologist” when this is based on insane interpretations in the RationalWiki article on you, and has never been your position or activity, and was nothing more than out-of-context interpretations of what you actually wrote? What’s it like when your mother is fired from her job because Oliver Smith wrote her employer? These have all actually happened to Smith targets.
I decided that I could take the heat, and …. I’m not dead yet. I will be, soon enough. It’s a challenge. I need to write legal documents, filings or pleadings, which I haven’t done for years. It’s a pain in the ass. I’ll do it anyway. Back to Darryl:
I think it is silly to have three pages here at ED dedicated to him and unfair, and it is getting freaky the stalking behavior. This is Junius’s personal grudge war. I would appreciate if this page could be deleted. Like I said I have owned up to these accounts which were actually mine not Oliver’s. Nobody is saying they belong to ED.
Oliver wants to move on with his life. I have spoken to him and he will not longer communicate with JuniusThaddeus, Mikemikev, post on forums, blogs, reddit or any of the other immature things he was doing. He wants to move on with his life and he is involved with a job now.
When Oliver wrote to me this year, expressing the same desire, I told him the way forward was clear: disclose everything about all the disruption he has created, just what he knows and actually did, and, as well what he knows about his brother. If his brother were to do that, the entire mess could be cleaned up. As it is, the brothers have created real-world responses. It may be more than they can clean up, but they could take a stand and support the cleanup, fully. They could, for example, apologize to me and to the WikIMedia foundation for any deceptive implications in what they wrote (and they were complainants who, with a few others whom they recruited, created the WMF global ban and, as well, the major damage to Wikiversity academic freedom, with long-term implications). I don’t know how they will compensate Joshua Connor Moon’s mother for her job loss, but, again, becoming willing to be completely truthful would be a start.
JuniusThaddeus says its odd for family members in their 20s to still be living together. I am pretty sure Junious is older than Oliver yet still living at home with his mum and dad. It really is of no interest to ED who Oliver lives with or what he does with his life.
On Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms (lolcow wiki) this can be of high interest! This is basically irrelevant and would not be a reason for deletion on ED.
Why don’t you guys just live your life? Oliver like myself is a nobody at the end of the day.
It is coming up to Christmas and I just think it is sad that this stupid online battle is still going on.
It will soon be coming up on two years later, and the drama continues. If it was so stupid, surely the one arguing that, here, would give it up. The evidence I have indicates that Darryl was being paid. It is currently circumstantial, not direct. This admission was remarkable. It may have been completely sincere, even if misguided. The page and the talk page were moved by Junius Thaddeus to a Smith Brothers article, and then both were deleted on ED. How did the Smith Brothers respond?
To me it looks like they took this as “we won,” and continued playing the same games. After all, if you are winning, why stop? Recently, though, it appears that Google results are freaking them out, and they have been getting desperate. There are other effects working their way through the process. It takes time to consult with attorneys and time to create and file demand letters and legal actions.
There is a large world out there with many good things to see or get educated about. We all make mistakes but this whole thing is ridiculous. If the mods here have any sense of knowing what is right you should remove this page. JuniusThaddeus has removed other attack pages he has created on people. The whole point in ED is to be funny. These pages on Oliver are off-mission.
The Smith escapades are beyond hilarious. They are utterly and completely outrageous. There was a RatWiki user who has (had) a blog, “I’m not making this up.” That was generally about what passes for “conservative.”
I fully understand why ED users would want to keep the Oliver D. Smith page, and why there would be interest on Kiwi Farms. If Darryl doesn’t understand it, it could be because he’s a socially dysfunctional basement dweller. (Does he really have a job? Maybe. One of the socks appearing on the blog claimed that one of the brothers had a family he was supporting. Let’s say that this could not be Oliver. Yet Darryl is obviously dysfunctional, continuing to stir the pot, as he did with the impersonations on Wikipedia (illegal!) and the attacks on me for pointing that out. There is an obsession there, obviously, and I have other material to publish on this.)
I am not posting here again. You guys all need to move on in your lives. The world is bigger than this. We are all going to die one day, and I think it’s sad websites exist like this. I have made a lot of mistakes myself but you guys should just see sense and move on with your lives. Oliver has promised me from this week he will be doing this, so you will never hear from him again. Regards. Skeptic 04:48, 27 November 2016 (EST)
That did not happen. This year, Oliver attacked me on Junius Thaddeus’ talk page, and created many socks pursuing all this. Did Darryl ever again edit ED?  Not with that account, for sure. I haven’t seen any other Darryl edits there, but it’s difficult to tell, there are brief snarky comments in sequences of Oliver sock attacks (or continued attempts to get his article deleted). All of these could be Oliver. There was an immediate response from one user:
Fuck off Oliver. Cobalt Cat.jpg CobaltCat 05:45, 27 November 2016 (EST)
CobaltCat appears to have been a regular ED user, and then

17:13, 27 November 2016 LulzKiller (talk | contribs) blocked Skeptic (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Sockpuppet wankery: oliver we know it’s you m8)

This reminds me so much of RationalWiki…. simply turned around.
In any case, what appears to be the real Oliver Smith shows up. He had already been arguing on that talk page:
The vast majority of these accounts are not mine; this article doesn’t record my internet history, but other peoples. Michaeldsuarez is a deranged liar. Barkhang Monastery 18:26, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
and then this, after more documentation from others


  • 1. Vordrak has seen a family photo of me and my brothers. He knows I’m telling the truth and you’re a bunch of delusional idiots. I requested he covered a blog post on his forum about how Michael D. Suarez and Kiwi Farms have harassed me for the last year. He accepted, but I changed my mind a few days ago when I realized Rome Viharo was creating defamatory threads about me on forums (Wikipedia Sucks, Wikipediocracy etc). Vordrak doing an article on me will just feed Viharo’s trolling. Instead I will request to Vordrak he does a separate blog entry on Viharo.
  • 2. Providing a family photo to Suarez is a obviously not an option since he’s cyberstalking and harassing me (just look at this creepy “connecting the dots” link where Suarez is trying to dig up my internet history, but failing), do you really think my brothers want this nutcase following them and writing more Encylopedia Dramatica articles filled with smears, lies and personal attacks?
  • 3. Suarez has just admitted if I provided the photo – he still wouldn’t retract any of his misinformation about me because somehow its all my fault – when he is the dim-wit who confused my identity. As I mentioned in my post on Wikipediocracy: Suarez is one of those people who thinks he’s correct 100% of the time. He will never admit when he’s wrong and has a narcissistic personality disorder.
  • 4. Several accounts/links of this “connecting the dots” include impersonators and dubious/no evidence to link my IP to them. So even if I showed what accounts were my brothers, it wouldn’t remove the accounts Suarez is outright lying about and trying to pin onto me.
  • 5. It’s rather laughable Mikemikev falsely accuses me of impersonating people, when that’s all he does. Today Rationalwiki blocked yet another of his sockpuppets using my real name. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_smithBacchylides 19:24, 25 November 2016 (EST)

The RatWiki account demonstrates absolutely nothing. The account was blocked on registration, it has no contributions (not even deleted or suppressed). There is no evidence shown that this was Mikemikev, other than purely circumstantial (i.e., perhaps nobody else would impersonate Smith). Or it could be a red herring. However, compare this: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax, blocked as soon as recognized, but with two contributions. Absolutely not me, and this was one of many socks created there impersonating me, and claimed to be me, by Debunking spiritualism, i.e., Darryl.

This post rings totally, to me, as authentic Oliver Smith, as I have read a great deal directly from him. There are persistent mentions of another possible brother. It might explain certain anomalies. But I have no definitive information on this. One thing is clear to me: Michaeldsuarez may have been mistaken about this or that, but I’ve known him for years and I have never seen him lie. Crying “lies” is a common behavior of liars and trolls, and Oliver is both.

The Smiths commonly claim “there is no proof,” even when evidence is completely overwhelming. They claim impersonation, and very recently, Darryl L. Smith, as Debunking spiritualism on RW, went on a deletion rampage, mixing that in with a block of an enemy and an unblock of his brother, creating vast confusion, ultimately admitting to his “family being doxxed” to justify it, i.e., admitting he was a Smith brother, and then, next day, he retired and a new account appeared, claiming to be him and that the old one had been hacked, and, of course, I was accused of being the culprit. I think that trick was used by Oliver before, he claimed that the accounts on Metapedia, where he made racist comments, were hacked.

Yeah, right.

So then Darryl showed up and wrote the screed quoted above. And, after that skeptical rejection also quoted above, Oliver responded again. Damage control:

  • 1. “Skeptic” isn’t mine, nor my brother. Its a troll impersonator from Kiwi Farms, probably Dynastia (I noticed him doing something similar here: https://allthetropes.org/wiki/User_talk:GethN7). The IP on “Skeptic” also won’t be mine.

That Dynastia comment bears no resemblance to what Skeptic wrote. Here is the discussion on that wiki. They conclusion there: this was “copypasta” from Oliver, not Oliver, it was actually Dynastia. That Oliver then jumps from that to attempting to connect Skeptical to Dynastia is his classic deception. The argument holds no water at all. Skeptical was not an Oliver impersonation, at all, but rather precisely how Darryl had behaved and had written, in many places, and at this point, Darryl was not at all well known, the focus had been on Oliver. I find it impossible to imagine that someone, in 2016, knew the situation well enough to create such a sophsticated impersonation. Only if Oliver was telling the truth when he claimed that he had been lying since 2011, and it was all him, then, of course, he’d have known that he created that persona and would have known what he had written before.

No, very unlikely, and it conflicts with checkuser evidence from WMF wikis, and just plain common sense.

Apparently Oliver IP and Darryl IP are almost always distinct, but they occasionally use the same address, so Oliver was setting up a red herring here by mentioning IP. ED does have checkusers, but checkuser would likely have provided zero useful information. Apparent Oliver socks are immediately blocked on ED, and they don’t care enough to go through the motions of verifying by checkuser.

  • 2. Most of the above is misinformation; I do though share a Wikipedia IP and the edits on parapsychology were never me – so yes its true large chunks of the “connecting the dots” are not my accounts and Michael Suarez is a dim-wit who confused my identity. Needless the say, all the talk about me and sex at Kiwi Farms is libel; Lulzkiller is the sick freak spreading these lies about me because I exposed him as the pervert (https://lulzkillerblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/30/connor-evans-pests-females-on-twitter-for-sex-admits-to-watching-porn-all-day/).

    The link is to an obvious attack blog created by  an obvious AP sock, in a common tactic. They create these blogs and immediately archive them before the host takes them down. It purports to present the real name of “Lulzkiller.” (If Lulzkiller requests it, I will redact that link.)  It is completely deranged to expect any other result than dedicated enmity if one does this. My guess? Lulzkiller doesn’t care about what he wrote being “exposed,” or he wouldn’t have written it. Lulzkiller is not far from normal as a young man. And, yes, this could later be embarrassing. Yet this was all irrelevant, feuding. It’s what Oliver and Darryl do.

No wonder the ED article was restored after Junius Thaddeus deleted it!

Oliver is deranged about sex, he acknowledged to be being an anti-natalist, and he commonly accuses others of “perversion,” sometimes for acknowledging normal male sexuality, about which he appears radically ignorant. At that point, Junius Thaddeus had not apparently realized the issue of two brothers. He did, later. The Smiths have lied for years, and then blame others for being “confused” “dim-wits.”

  • 3. My brothers are not stupid and know nothing here will be deleted by requests. This site won’t remove content about people since its used to harass them like at Kiwi Farms.

Except they, and especially Oliver, keep pestering ED, with hosts of sock puppets. Hundreds, maybe thousands. They are very quickly blocked and immediately new socks replace them. Recently, AP socks requested the deletion of Rational Wiki articles that they had created. They did not, however, reveal that they had created them. In one request, for example, the article was called a revenge article. But they did not admit their own role. And they had succeeded, with years of impersonation socks and other tricks, that the article targets richly deserved the articles. So simply asking for deletion was not enough. To clean that up, they would need to admit, in detail, exactly what they had done. They would need to apologize to the community and to the targets, using real names and confirming how much disruption they had created, on RationalWiki and elsewhere.

  • 4. I did not cease going after Gethn7; I work with Vordrak and we are obtaining his personal information by going through his internet history; the same for Lulzkiller. Eventually Vordrak will cover a blog post on them both. We just now do this behind these scenes. Lots more to come.

Notice that he admits stalking and harassment and attempted doxxing. Was this an impersonation? If so, brilliant! The impersonator knows exactly how Oliver would write and think. But I don’t think so. None of the people who might be candidates would be this accurate.

He worked with Vordrak for a time, (Samuel Collingwood Smith, no relation, apparently). Then apparently Vordrak figured out how crazy he was and that fell apart.

Yes, he does a lot “behind the scenes.” The Smiths file complaints with administrators, privately. They often succeed in getting their targets banned, and perhaps web sites taken down.

  • 5. These ridiculous ED pages on me do not affect “my mental health”, whatever that is supposed to mean. My work colleagues and family have seen it all and know they are full of lies and smears and so they paint a false picture of who I am. And you don’t get many page views on my articles here because (a) I blocked them from UK search-engines for defamation and (b) I’m of little interest; few people search my name. Michael Suarez should have his own Kiwi Farms thread called the “goofy documenter with no life”. Iambic 13:27, 27 November 2016 (EST)

I cannot be sure that Oliver is lying about “Skeptic.” That is, he might not have known this was Skeptic, except he’d have known that the “impersonator” was mostly telling the truth. Later, Oliver personally confirmed much of the story. GethN7 is associated with RationalWiki, I’m not sure of his account there, but he ran into Oliver and wrote an expose, but eventually gave up, being so broadly attacked.

One of the extant Google complaints from Oliver is about the GethN7 blog. Google does not completely remove all trace of search results. The search I used was for Oliver D. Smith, and in the U.K. (where Oliver would care), there is a note with results that responses have been suppressed, and there is a link to see the complaints. On that linked page there are URLs with the critical name redacted, if it was in the URL. By knowing the name already, I was able to find all of them. Many still exist or have been archived. If a new employer is looking for “Oliver D. Smith” and sees the omitted results, they might do something similar. As well if the employer is in the U.K. and is at all sophisticated, they could use a proxy server to access Google in, say, the U.S. Trivial to do.

Hiding is not a decent strategy, particularly when one keeps up the behavior that one would want to hide, continually motivating others to document it. I explained all this to Oliver, and he rejected it, claiming that I was “immoral” because I was supporting alleged racists and pedophiles who had been defamed. He is clearly deranged. (I have never supported racism and pedophilia. There are no pedophiles associated with this situation, to my knowledge. I have pointed out that someone who was accused by Oliver D. Smith of being a pedophile was not, and Darryl pointed out that a false charge of pedophilia would be libel. He was right.)

His complaints would only affect Google access from the EU. Further, the huge pile of complaints would be a red flag to someone investigating that something was amiss.

Update: Darryl as Darryl

Public information showing Darryl as Darryl is rare. However, it exists, in spite of apparent efforts to erase it.

First of all, the famous “doxxing my family” image, which is in many places. The Smiths apparently don’t realize that by saying this is “my family” they are confirming it. Not terribly bright. (On Wikipedia, the standard advice, if you are outed, is not to mention it on-wiki, but email a functionary privately, to get it revision-deleted. Making a public fuss will call attention to it. However, if your goal is to prove that someone is Bad, not actually caring about your “family,” then you will wave it about and archive it!

(There is some evidence that this is not the “birth family,” but the home of a relative. At this point it does not matter. For me, the concept of two Smiths, rather than one, helps organize the data, and there are clearly two behavioral patterns and special interests. That there can be some overlap could be confusing. Oliver might edit “Rome Viharo” pages, as an example.)

Then there is https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mutations_random, apparently a question asked by Darryl Smith (“Deleted profile”, as can be seen by responses that quote him and refer to him as Darryl.)


Can_Neo-Darwinism_ND_today_be_considered_a_valid_scientific_theory begins with [Tip of the hat to Darryl Smith.]

In it, “Deleted profile” refers to another question of his. What_is_the_scientific_position_on_the_inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics_Lamarckism, In that, as well, he is called “Darryl.” That Answer set contains why he left ResearchGate.

In an Amazon discussion, the user was apparently Forests, one post refers to him as “Forrests [sic]/Drifter/Darryl Smith”.  Another quotes him as claiming to have created the RationalWiki article on William Fix. That was created by DinoCrisis, a known Darryl sock.

Since I am collecting edit times, there are these notes:

  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:38:42 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 3:23:02 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:38:53 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 5:48:56 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:39:00 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 5:50:52 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013, 2:39:07 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Oct 25, 2012, 10:10:51 PM PDT

Going to the internet archive, I find more for that thread.

  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:30 PM PDT]
  • Initial post: Sep 2, 2012 2:28:50 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 31, 2013 5:37:10 AM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 3:28:17 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:38 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 5:00:05 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:49 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:17:24 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:09:55 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:22:32 PM PDT
  • [Deleted by the author on Mar 26, 2013 2:10:04 PM PDT]
  • * Posted on Sep 2, 2012 8:30:29 PM PDT

The middle of the discussion (which went on for a long time, for 1871 comments by last capture, April 7, 2013) is missing, AFAIK. So Darryl started the thread, about “Darwin believed in God.”

DinoCrisis retired from RatWiki, 22 August 2013, (Perm Retired moving to NZ.)” Retired messages are common for Darryl socks. He had previously announced retirement 8 June 2013 with “(Retired from this site. Too busy in real life. Got an entire biology dissertation to finish :)” 5 June 2013 Forests “retired” and requested that DinoCrisis lock his talk page, still pretending they were different accounts.


Sites with evidence and claims

If you are reading on an archive site, be sure to check the URL for possible updates, corrections, and retractions.

This is a draft, incomplete, to be expanded.

The realization that there was a family of disruptive users, and that one of them was Oliver D. Smith, goes back to at least 2012. Many of the targets of the Smiths were marginal in some way, fringe or provocative. However, the level of sock puppetry was quite unusual, and the intensity of attacks and harassment. Early documentation was often not clear on which brother was involved in a particular incident, and there were impersonations (both by the Smiths and possibly impersonating them as well), creating a veil of confusion, and there were deliberate actions to create confusion.

Nevertheless, it is possible to see reality through confusion. Such perception may not be free of error. Consider looking at some scene through a dirty window, one particular snapshot may be almost unintelligible. But if we move, we can see through the visual noise, by what remains constant behind it. The AP socks do not come with ready tags when we observe them (usually). It is much easier to, however, consider them as if the same, to distinguish the sock family from others who might resemble it in some way or other. When an account has substantial edits, I have become sufficiently familiar with the traits to identify “AP socks,” and, as well, there are two obvious general families of interests and modes of expression.

I did not develop this facility by reading what others have written, I developed it from integrating the study of the account behaviors with my own experience and confirmed knowledge. As an example, there has been massive impersonation on RationalWiki, including impersonation of me. I know it wasn’t me! So for my own purposes, I don’t need to find specific evidence for that, I may assume it. As well, I concluded quite some time ago that Debunking spiritualism was Darryl L. Smith, and have covered evidence for that. When Dubunking spiritiualism continued some patterns of behavior, becoming more and more extreme with them — not abruptly but more or less gradually — and then appears to have realized how much he revealed, he then told the story that his account had been hacked, and probably by me.

The story did not match the actual evidence of his behavior, but on RationalWiki, studying actual evidence is deprecated in favor of snark and quick judgments.

Here, some other web pages have been pointed out to me. I will link to them here and make a few comments. Listing here is not an approval of those sites, and those pages may have many errors. Few of them, in my experience, are lying. (It is a common Smith practice to call documentation of the behavior of the brothers “Lies.” He does not specify which statements are lies, or if he does, it’s misleading. I.e., if some source misidentifies the activity of Darryl as Oliver, say, Oliver will call it “lies” and Darryl will remain silent. Calling a possible error a “lie” is common among fanatics and trolls.) To the pages:

The archive.is search for *Oliver Smith returns almost 55,000 pages. Oliver has filed Google blocks for many sites, I documented those on another page; these affect google results, but not archive.is searches.  *Darryl Smith returns over 8,000 pages, but almost all are not the same person as is of interest here.

Encyclopedia Dramatica.

That project is down at the moment, it may be restored [note 5/11/2018: it’s back up], but many pages are archived. ED has long been a parody site, for the lulz, not to be taken seriously. This was commonly obvious from articles themselves, but it was also well-known. The site was somewhat cleaned up recently, the pornographic and pop-up ads were removed, but some of the pages linked here, through archive copies, are NSFW. (All of the pages linked here are for information and further research, they are not “approved” other than for possible usefulness, to be confirmed, later.)

In listing pages, I may comment as to the general content of the page, without necessarily approving all the content. Anyone may point out errors to me, and I am committed to correcting what I cannot personally confirm. As well, my intention is to allow the Smith brothers the right of comment, if comment comes as verified. (I.e., Oliver Smith has a known email address. He can write me and I know it’s him. — and if someone spoofs that address, he’d still see it when I reply, as I would.)

Other comments will be approved based on my discretion.

Oliver D. Smith as of 4 Feb 2018, recent version of the article, which is sarcastic, lulzy and dramatic. There is factual basis underneath.

Oliver D. Smith/Connecting the dots 15 Jun 2016. This was well-organized but defective in one way: the author does not apparently realize what is now seen as a probability that Forests was Darryl, not Oliver. In order to link them, the author depends on an assumption that conversations between the accounts was faked to divert researchers. A certain level of common article and mutual support would be expected from the brothers.

There are some who believe, apparently, that there is “no brother,” and that it is all Oliver. It is plausible, but, because it is known independently that there is a brother of the same age, Darryl, it must be interpreted as “the brother is not involved,” not that he doesn’t exist.

This is inconsistent with many claims from Oliver, except a very recent one where he claims he was lying to everyone for many years, including lying to a possible supporter of Darryl’s work. Tim Farley. (Farley has claimed to not know the Smith brothers, as I recall, but he has not yet been asked more specifically.)

To me, there are visibly distinct personalities that can be seen. On the other hand, Oliver claimed at one time to be schizophrenic, which could create very erratic behavior.

Oliver D. Smith Brothers in spite of the displayed capture date in 2012, shows that it was last revised 20 December 2016. It begins with a description of the brothers:

The Oliver D. Smith Brothers are a duo or trio of brothers involved in massive online arguments, sockpuppetry, impersonation, deception, and harassment. Of these brothers, Oliver D. Smith is the most prolific, as well as the only one whose name is known. Topics of interests to the brothers include Rightism, Racialism, Atlantis, and the paranormal. Known pseudonyms used by the brothers include Anglo_Pyramidologist, Atlantid, Boglin, Dan Skeptic, Jake Speed, DinoCrisis, Cassiterides, and Krom, as well countless others. Oliver is a former Neo-Nazi and a former British Israelite, whose autism and bibliomania lead him to keep changing his political and religious views. Oliver is “hetero-demisexual” and lack of interest in sex leads him to wage an online war against what he calls “sex pests” and other immorality despite the fact he claims to love violent video-games and once watched Cannibal Holocaust. Oliver’s internet history traces back to least 2005. He also has a disturbing history of impersonating people and inventing personae on forums and is a pathological liar who will blame his impersonations on his enemies, apparently unaware of how transparent his efforts are. As “Atlantid”, Oliver was a sysop on Metapedia, while his brother (“DinoCrisis”, “Forests”) was a sysop on Rationalwiki. Oliver, as “Krom”, later became a RationalWiki sysop as well. Together, they’ve upset various people with their edits. Hundreds of the brothers’ Wikipedia accounts have been blocked.

“Neo-Nazi” is a problematic claim, possibly an exaggeration (but there is evidence for it). I have seen clearly racist comments from Oliver, but that was years ago, on Metapedia, and he claimed to have changed his position (which then is roughly consistent with the article description). I consider the allegations about his sexual interests irrelevant, other than his having a penchant for accusing others of pedophilia based on statements that reflect normal male sexuality rather than anything pedophilic.

I suspect that Oliver has been impersonated, but it is clear that the Smiths collectively employ impersonation socking to defame, there are many examples. From circumstantial evidence, the most extensive impersonation socking was by Darryl, not Oliver.

In the list of interests, they were all Oliver’s interests except the “paranormal,” which was Darryl. This distinction of interests is found back to Wikipedia in 2011. Interest in the paranormal can slide into interest in pseudoscience and fringe science (which some skeptics call pseudoscience, though that is clearly a misapplication of the term) and then we see claims that racialism and associated intelligence studies are “pseudoscientific” (which some may be). As well, the brothers communicate and help each other out, as is described in the ED pages.


RationalWiki has a salted page, Oliver D. Smith. Only a sysop can create a page with that name. Why? It was never created. I don’t know the history. However, the Smiths claim that there is no “Smith brotherconspiracy” it is all a paranoid fantasy by crazies.

Oliver claims to have been harassed, meanwhile he and his brother create many articles on RationalWiki about their enemies

Further, someone is creating massive impersonation socks on RationalWiki, and it unlikely to be Mikemikev and it sure is not me!

In the most recent craziness, Debunking spiritualism went on a massive revision deletion and blocking spree, and then, next day, retired the account and claimed it had been hacked. Meanwhile, though most of his actions were reversed, some were not. Here is a page from RationalWiki today:

He blocked Merkel, Oliver’s harassment target (for which Calimachus had been blocked), and he also unblocked Calimachus, and both actions are standing.

User:Merkel (history). The current text was added by Merkel January 9, 2018.

Vindicated about Oliver/Atlantid[edit]

I mentioned this fact and everyone flung venemous insults at me. He later admitted it. He never apologized for lying nor did anyone else.
Dr. Witt and User:Anti-Fascist for life put that they retire on their user page at the same time. The second account didn’t get its sysop powers removed like the first.
Debunking spiritualism removed this and added:

This user is banned indefinitely from editing RationalWiki.
The reason given is doxing, impersonating and posting libel about a RW editor; also off-site harassment.”

Why I permabanned this editor:

Doxing and posting libel about a RW editor.
Ongoing harassment: Merkel is a sysop on the neo-Nazi wiki Rightpedia.
He uses Rightpedia to dox and harass the same RW editor.
Merkel has also impersonated the RW editor.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

So that was reverted, but the block was not.


Working page, in process.

List of accounts

List of impersonation accounts (likely)


Details for accounts:

Largewarhammer (metawiki contributions)

first edits to Forum, revision-deleted by Billinghurst.

Acknowledges being Oliver D. Smith. — archive copy.

Interacts with Michaeldsuarez.archive copy.

(ODS has acknowledged that he was ZaFrumi in an email to me (published on this blog) where he said all the other socking in that period was his twin brother, i.e., Darryl L. Smith. Later, a few days ago, he claimed that this was all lies, that there is no brother. Yeah, right.)

Discussion on User talk:Billinghurst. — archive copy. Blanked by MDS.

Billinghurst would know, if he were paying attention, that the new account was the original Anglo Pyramidologist, Wikipedia defacto banned and with associated accounts globally locked. He’s quite correct to say that this mess doesn’t belong on meta. We’ll see what he does with this.

By the way, could this be an impersonation? It’s pretty elaborate. Not impossible, but unlikely. The arguments are fresh-baked Oliver D. Smith.

Then the sock adds more:

Thanks and request

I removed comments I made about that drama not relevant to here. I just have one request. A banned Wikipedia editor whose website is blacklisted for harassment is misusing his user-page on this wiki as traffic to that website. His name is Rome Viharo. His only edits on this wiki was creating a userpage to influence google searches of his name so his website is advertised. The website Wikipedia we have a problem is blacklisted by Wikipedia, it doxes and attacks Wikipedia & RationalWiki editors. I’m a sysop from the latter and we have an article on Rome Viharo that documents more about his harassment against Wikipedians. It’s not appropriate he misuses this wiki for traffic to his website. Largewarhammer (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The page itself is no different from hundreds or thousands of others. In itself I have no scope to delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Remarkable. So Rome linking to his own blog (very normal for a user page) is offensive, but linking to Oliver D. Smith’s wiki is not? Billinghurst is not noticing that this is harassment of Viharo, a real person, using his real name, by someone hiding (though he is effectively outing himself in many of his comments).

Final request

I’m no longer posting here, but have a final request. Can you delete this and this. The user Abd was recently globally banned by the WMF for harassment, as part of that he was creating LTA “studies” filled with misinformation on another user. Those separate articles were taken down, but he has two “user-data” links still up that still links to the edits; someone else recently blanked them complaining, but they should be completely deleted. Abd deceptively is linking to this on his blog still since there are still edits on that page if you view the history, as well as it comes up on a google search. Is there any chance these here and this link can be deleted completely? Largewarhammer (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That has already been assessed by another administrator, and I have no need to override their decision by discussion at my user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UT

Smith lied in several ways. The history, in fact, showed the attack socking, of course he wanted that hidden. The links are redlinks as displayed on meta. So I made them red above. That signifies that the pages have been deleted. Yes, Oliver simply forum-shopped, and found an admin who didn’t realize the history and deleted. He cited speedy deletion criterion G3, which would not apply. That content was not created after I was banned. It’s hard to find good help.

Not that it matters. I knew that those pages could evaporate at any time. Wikis are unstable.

OMG! He even deleted my Sandbox! Waaa! My favorite Sandbox, carefully raked! (I’m not going to complain about this — I’m globally WMF banned and any use of WMF facilities would violate the TOS, other than reading what is public — but anyone could. But does it matter enough to be worth the effort?

So, I had exported the pages and imported them to the CFC wiki. With full history, which is what was most important.

(the main LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist study was copied to the blog long ago. The current version is here.)

(The pages use meta templates. They are broken, and it’s not worth fixing them yet.)

Why did he pick that admin? I don’t know, but the fellow is a ‘crat on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia G5 criterion is very similar. One would think he’d know the principle! One might think he would also look at prior history, deletion discussion, etc., but either he didn’t or he wanted plausible deniability.

Just something to keep in mind.

Canaries demonstrate that the air is toxic. Billinghurst knew to be suspicious of a new account demanding sanctions against another user. That deletion request was a personal attack on me. Xaosflux apparently did not suspect a problem, and rushed to satisfy the misleading request. I have seen that many, many times on Wikipedia.

Rightpedia activity

NemeanOdes an obvious Oliver sock. created an article on Rightpedia.

There were then disruptive socks, with names characteristic of AP impersonations. Impersonation socks want to be seen as socks and blocked, the goal is to defame the impersonated one. This is a great example:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eleonóra Dubiczki/Archive#21_February_2018


(Notice how readily some Wikipedians assume that an account waving a Red Flag is a Red. Most real socks with a political agenda don’t do that, only trolls do it. And impersonators.


Correspondence with Oliver D. Smith

Warning: these mails contain false or misleading allegations about others. This should all be seen as coming from an extremely unreliable and deceptive source. The Smith brothers often make a claim and cite a source that “looks like” the claim, and the incautious may then glance at it and think it is verified. This is actually a problem with Wikipedia, in some topic areas.

At law, a party may legally present evidence that is misleading, but it is then vetted for a judge or jury through an adversarial process which will examine it closely. Under some conditions, on wikis, one point of view has been banned and another dominates. This can be a problem on any wiki or other forum that bans unpopular points of view. This comment is not a claim that any specific allegation here is false or deceptive. I would generally assume that a person’s account of their own experience is true, but the Smiths are far from the general case.

Names of third parties here may be redacted on request.

These were from the email address given on oliveratlantis.blogspot.com

I will be adding my responses to the mails in January and February and then the second round of recent emails (both sides).

The original page with commentary has been moved to here. This page now will show only the original email correspondence with Oliver D. Smith, with minimal context. ODS has claimed that I harassed him by email, making it necessary to publish all the mails. He wrote me, on two distinct occasions. Dates refer to the Oliver mails, my responses follow them (once this is complete).

There is analysis of the emails here.

The emails:

January 24, 2018

From: Oliver Smith [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:07:53 +0000
Subject: Allegations

Someone informed me about the allegations about myself on your website. I’m not the person leaving messages on your website, and they read stupid. I have a new blog where I will cover my side of the story to Emil Kirkegaard; hopefully this post will be up in the next few days. The problem is explaining myself in more detail or clearing myself of other allegations, because this will take a longer period of time. The reason I am focusing on Kirkegaard is because he was in the newspaper headlines recently, and some journalists contacted me, and I may be of help to the UCL inquiry. All will be explained in my post.

January 25, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/25/2018 1:50 PM


Michael Suarez just deleted the ED article on me.

However, view how many times it has been deleted and re-created: http://archive.is/jprUo (but again deleted today).

I presume Michael knows none of those MetaWiki/Wikiversity accounts are mine, with the exception of Za Frumi and possibly one other when I left him a comment on his user talk – this was months back. And the only reason I showed up there is because mistaken identity. The fact is, I don’t post on these websites and have never disrupted them. 99.9% of those accounts are my twin brother. I have no idea what any of that stuff is and it doesn’t involve me. I’ve tried explaining this to Rome Viharo about Wikipedia for ages, but he never listens. For example, I was never “Dan Skeptic”/”Goblin Face” on Wikipedia. Yet I’m named on his website when I never spoke with him on Wikipedia.

In an old comment Michael says that even if I’m telling the truth – I’m still to blame since my twin brother edits from my house. However, that was mostly years back when we were young. Regardless, I have no control over his activities, he doesn’t now live with me, although does sometimes visit. I cannot comment on allegations of his disruption since I don’t know nor am interested in what he edits on wikis. The overlap between us is actually very minor. We both have different qualifications, interests etc; for example I have no interest in debunking the paranormal, while he does. What little I do know is that he is linked to ‘skeptic’ organisations, supposedly is either paid or works with other people. I do not see any ‘real world’ harm by what he does though, if he’s just refuting or criticising spiritualists or ghost-believers where is the harm?

January 27, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/27/2018 11:16 AM

I can respond in full when I get the spare time. http://emilkirkegaard.blogspot.co.uk/ will be where I make the post on Kirkegaard in the next 24 hours, if not sooner.

My advice at the moment to you – is its not a good idea for you to side with neo-Nazi paedophiles like Kirkegaard.

I’ve had a look at your blog, and you’re disturbingly defending neo-Nazis and paedophiles. Also, my brother provided evidence [redacted] is a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier *right now*. He never changed his views, since there are comments he posted in 2017 (less than a year old) which show this. [redacted] is also a borderline paedophile who thinks girls should be married and “impregnated” about 16 by much older men. rationalwiki.org/wiki/[redacted] This is the guy you consider your “friend”, so I don’t need a lecture on morality from you.


January 30, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/30/2018 1:28 PM

I was busy, but it’s now up. I submitted a legal report to Google complaining about defamation on Kirkegaard’s website; they’ve blocked the article for UK (and possibly that applies to all CommonWealth countries). I will do the same to your website.

Pretty much everything you’ve written about me is misinformation and lies, so not sure how you want me to proceed. For example the claim I “send harassing phone calls” – just garbage. If Michael Suarez is saying that he’s lying. I’m in UK, do you really think I would waste $$$ phoning overseas, phone numbers I don’t even know?

You listed like 10 IPs + accounts that are not mine on your “identity” article on me. So your MO just seems to be to write lies about people like the RationalWiki accurately described you. You’re banned on tuns of wikis and forums and then use your blog to harass people you quarrel with by writing falsehoods and made-up stories about them. It is very clear what you are doing that can only be described as harassment.

January 30, 2018 (second)

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith [redacted] Date: 1/30/2018 4:14 PM
To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@lomaxdesign.com>

Well certainly not me, I’m an antinatalist and have had those views even when I was young- I don’t have nor want children. The fact you said you have 7 children IMO is disgusting.

I don’t know if my brother left you comments, it was probably not even him but someone fooling around.

I’ve made the Kirkegaard page because it made mainstream newspapers and people contacted me over it. I really have no interest in responding to the ‘allegations’ now I’ve seen its like 100,000 words. What I wrote about Kirkegaard answers some of the allegations about accounts, I did explain this earlier. I’m simply though am not wasting time going over every single account. Its pointless and nobody cares.

To ordinary people who click on your blog – you just look like disgruntled and a looney-tunes who is spending far too much time on this stuff that is all irrelevant.

You have no legitimate criticism against my brother or myself. We simply have used RW to document and refute pseudo-science. No laws broken.

Also – I’m now inactive on RW.


January 30, 2018 (third)

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/30/2018 5:48 PM

There are no impersonations by me or my brother, never was. I & my brother typed some silly things online when I we were teenagers – difference is, what I/we typed was innocent and no one cared. Kirkegaard however made some obscene pro-child rape comments when he was 22 – they will haunt him forever, and there’s much evidence he is a paedophile.

[redacted] is an online pseudonym, anyone can use it.

The person who often uses that alias has a different real name: [redacted], and its unclear if his real surname is actually [redacted] because he uses a different surname on Facebook. So who cares if some stupid accounts were created with variants of this title? I see no impersonations. No crimes committed. Have I been impersonated? yes, in silly wiki wars with mikemikev e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oliver_D_Smith its all in the past though.

There’s no evidence viharo has been impersonated. Of course someone can claim they have been impersonated to get sympathy and viharo does this a lot since he has a self-victim complex. I do not know anything about new accounts impersonating Viharo on RationalWiki.

The best I can do, is ask my brother re-write your article intro or other pieces you take issue with and possibly remove your photo. There’s no way the article though is going to be deleted unless you want to submit a coop case thing. Up to you. I made very few edits to your article.

January 31, 2018

Subject: Re: Allegations
From: Oliver Smith
Date: 1/31/2018 10:34 AM

I’ve now spoken with my brother:

* Denies any impersonations.
* Says he finds you boring and won’t be editing your RW article anyway.

As to my suggestion we revise or edit things you take issue with: he declines and says everything he wrote is accurate. Therefore if you have an issue you will have to email the RationalWiki foundation or create another account and raise the issue.

I’m aware of the fake report by Kirkegaard or Viharo; the accounts now filed on that AP sock archive – are not mine. No technical evidence, and the method these accounts were put there was external and dubious. Kirkegaard or Viharo just emailed an admin their lies. A admin even commented it was an unusual block and there was no real evidence.

I will cover this in another blog post. However, beyond that I won’t be responding to allegations because like I said, no one cares about random accounts on RationalWiki.

February 14, 2018

Subject: comments
From: Oliver Smith <redacted>
Date: 2/14/2018 6:38 AM

None of the comments posted on your blog are mine. Would appreciate if you stopped impersonating me like a nutcase and writing foolish things, or ban the trolls (if you’re not impersonating me) to prevent them posting there and misattribute these accounts or comments to me.

Those comments might be misread as ‘defending’ me to fool you, but they are posting libellous things and misinformation mixed with the phony defences.

For example I’ve never been a “fascist”. My politics has always been ‘populism’ and I’ve supported parliamentary democracy and pressure groups that want more direct democracy (e.g. proportional representation/ referendums/ an English parliament) for as long as I can remember. You present zero evidence for your fascist smear. Plenty of other falsehoods about me on your blog, but I don’t like wasting time typing out long responses to your nonsense.

But a silly inaccuracy written about me on your blog is the bizarre claim I consider myself an “academic”. That seems to be your psychological projection since you don’t even have a degree. I don’t and never have called myself an academic. I’m a postgrad student and write a few independent research papers in my spare time; its a hobby, nothing more. Jobs I’ve done are the complete opposite of academia, unless you think bookbinding, other arts and crafts and some basic digital archivism is somehow “academic”.

There’s also a now a full rebuttal to your lies concerning Kirkegaard and the London Conference on intelligence = https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/London_Conference_on_Intelligence Basically you take a comment out of context – I didn’t even write then invent a wild allegation I am the single person responsible for the news coverage. You’re losing your marbles old man? Finally blogspot never removed the emilkirkegaard blog, I simply did for the reason I can simply link to it on RationalWiki as an archive. I have no intention of writing about this stuff off RW since this “drama” means little to me. Unlike you, I don’t waste my personal blog writing about petty internet feuds.

April 4, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[redacted]>;, Rome Viharo <[redacted]>;
Subject: Proposed truce, deletion of RationalWiki articles
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 21:36:19 +0100

Recently [redacted] emailed me, and I agreed to delete his RationalWiki article. It has since been deleted. I then helped him delete his RW talk page, other stuff that mentions his name and will also help remove some Reddit threads on him in the RationalWiki section (since I’m on good terms with the mods). [redacted] also offered to delete anywhere that mentions my name, such as on Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity, for example he removed this talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd/LTA/Anglo_Pyramidologist&action=history

I’m willing to offer the same truce and deal to you both, since I think everyone is bored of this online fighting that is time-consuming. I’m not interested in debating contents of those articles or responding to allegations, only that we delete everything like [redacted] who is now happy and moving on with his life. This would only work if you delete mention of my name on your websites – I will then help you delete your RW articles and other mentions of your names in regard to RationalWiki such as Reddit. If you are sensible, take the [redacted] approach and we can remove everything. It also won’t work to betray me, i.e. I delete your RW articles, but then you restore articles about me on your websites; If you do that I’ll just restore your RW articles. [redacted] has sense and genuinely wanted everything deleted so we helped each other.

I’ve offered a truce and deletion request to all other people whose RW articles I’ve edited or created. Mikemikev responded by calling me a “Jew”, so he’s beyond help and I’m not taking the RW article on him since he won’t delete his articles on me.

Subject: Re: Proposed truce, deletion of RationalWiki articles
To: “Oliver D. Smith” [redacted] From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd@lomaxdesign.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 22:32:44 -0400

I will consider your kind offer.

[redacted] had a problem I don’t have. I told him that he could courtesy blank it that meta talk page and that this would probably not be reverted. So apparently he did it.

Unfortunately, Oliver, the damage may not be recoverable simply with what you suggest, and there will be your brother to contend with. The biggest damage was to Wikiversity, the private complaints influenced a clueless bureaucrat to delete resources, completely out-of-process that had stood there, one of them, for a decade with no problems and no disruption, and, ahem, there is a certain global ban that your brother mentions at every excuse. I assume that Bill Connors is him and not you.

Further, the affair has exposed a serious problem with Wikipedia bias and off-wiki coordination and cross-wiki disruption. However, that was mostly your brother, I think, not you.

Thanks for helping [redacted]. He is doing much better now.

By the way, I was never reasonably described as his “friend.” I simply helped him and others create a neutral resource on Wikiversity — that resource was not “promotion of parapsychology” — and showed him how he could do his research into sources without offending site neutrality.

You also complained about my email with you as harassment. To clean this up, you will need to do more than get the RatWiki article removed.

Right now, your name is still mentioned, even though most pages are password protected. The post announcing “going dark” is tagged with your name. That kind of tagging was not previously done, I escalated very slowly, I wasn’t mentioning your name until well after being blocked on RatWiki for doxxing that I had not done. Stating sock suspicions is not doxxing.

Mikemikev is cute, eh? I have little problem with his being called a racist, he may qualify, but … I just found a bio of him and I will be reviewing it. I have had no communication with Mikemikev. However, your brother is lying about him admitting to all those socks. That was obviously not what he meant.

The Wrongpedia attack on Mikemikev and his mother is beyond the pale. So you are continuing your rampage. Or is someone deviously impersonating you on RatWiki?

April 5, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 08:05:15 +0100
Subject: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite

Having emailed a few people and looked around there’s no way to remove the articles (especially not Viharo’s), but since I have access to a sysop account I can just rewrite them completely and remove your and Rome Viharo’s photos etc.

The problem is Viharo has annoyed a lot of people including David Gerrard and since he’s the main admin on RW there’s no way he will want Viharo not to have an article there. The solution though is just to rewrite.

Subject: Re: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite
To: “Oliver D. Smith”
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 18:24:15 -0400

If I don’t want RW to have an article on me, my recourse is with the RMF. I did email them, they ignored it (not surprising). Next step is a certified letter, a formal demand.

You and your brother have lied so extensively about me and what I was doing, and created such a widespread mess, that the only way to undo it is probably to come completely clean, and openly acknowledge what you know, in a way that is verifiably you. Otherwise it would be considered impersonation. That is the mess you and your brother have created.

You complained to the WMF. What did you complain about? That is not going to be a privileged communication, it’s vulnerable to subpoena.

Unless you and your brother are the same person — which I rather doubt! — your brother, as Debunking spiritualism, lied about communicating with me. I have nothing from him, only from you. And I did not say to you what he claimed, on Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. As well, DS mentioned the Reddit ban, which, of course, he suggested to Gerard, promptly actioned.

I assume that Agent47 is you.

I don’t think you realize how difficult it could be to undo the damage you and your brother have done. Having a sysop account is largely meaningless on RW. Any user, generally, can rewrite an article. I could
rewrite may article. But would it stick? The two of you have created a myth that the RW community believes, demonstrating how naive and gullible they are.

All those vandalizing socks on RationalWiki, copying my text, twisting
it, and vandalizing with it, who were they?

David Gerard only acts when he has cover. He is, after all, real-name and vulnerable to defamation suits.

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

[and in response to quoted email text]:

You don’t seem to understand something. I had long experience with RW, so your idea about how you could fix the problem isn’t going to fly with me. I know how little “sysop” means there.”

DS just tried to rewrite my article and it was reverted. Having sysop tools does not help, actually, unless you are doing something that no other sysop cares about.

April 7, 2018

From: “Oliver D. Smith”
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 02:44:03 +0100
Subject: Re: Deletion of RationalWiki articles not possible, but rewrite

Ask Rome Viharo to see the last email I sent him. There is no brother. I’ve just had fun misleading people, like yourself stalking me as have other RW sysops who have tried to protect their identities. It’s a problem though that you would target and dox an innocent family member of mine, based on this. Ask Viharo to see the full email, or I can post it here later. The ” smith brother” conspiracy theory is a joke.
I’m not really interested in you complaining about lies, since all you’ve done is lie about me. You’re currently writing all sorts of nonsense and smears about me on Wikipedia sucks on the bizarre mikemikev section on your blog. I’ve never in my life been to Birkbeck college, I never studied at London University and never have been a “white nationalist”. Also, I don’t live close to Birkbeck. None of the accounts you claim are me are mine, but mikemikev. You’re clearly mentally ill to be posting these ridiculous false allegations to defame me. Also the impersonation claims are bizarre, considering Mikemikev has impersonated me all over the internet including at Metapedia. I closed my account, it was then reopened to impersonate me with a false accusation of having schizophrenia. This is proven if you bothered to actually view the logs.
I also find it mind boggling that you dispute Mikemikev is an online nazi. He’s a white supremacist neo-Nazi nutcase. Just look at his twitter or gab accounts where he posts crude anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. Heck, his avatar on kiwi farms and EDF is adolf hitler.
Of course though, you could argue because his Nazism is so ridiculous that he’s some sort of agent provocateur see https://archive.is/Y6e3C. It’s basically impossible to distinguish between these, like Poe’s law. i.e a real fundamentalist and someone pretending to be one for parody. Many online-Nazis in America have turned out to be FBI informants. However, there’s no dispute that Michael is actually posting the most extreme racist material and anti-Semitism online. Why deny this? Because compared to this guy I’m  totally sane and this doesn’t fit the way you try to misrepresent me.

I proposed to delete your articles, and failure to do that rewrite. After I proposed this you start posting libel about me on Wikipedia Sucks. So he deal or solution is therefore probably off. I agree with Bongolian that there’s no way to reason with you, you’re a nasty piece of work and internet harasser. You clearly don’t want peace but to just attack me more and more across the internet. And your emails are being ignored by the RationalWiki foundation, I was told this.

(I have not responded to this last mail.)

Oliver Smith, above, suggested that I get copies of his emails to Rome Viharo. Because these provide additional detail as to Smiths’ new claims, I am publishing these here (but not Viharo’s comments, unless he gives permission.)

April 6, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 2:09 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

look what happened:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax [I made this a permanent link to the revision of  22:46, 6 April 2018, which would probably be 15:46 Viharo time]

The problem is Lomax wrote articles on his blog, not only about me, but 5+ other sysops, including other doxes. None of these people now want to help, which is understandable. This is the same thing with you, so for example David Gerrard will never vote to delete your article. The only solution is to rewrite the articles. Therefore the offer is to unblock you and Lomax, at least temporarily to say what you want rewritten.

April 6, 2018 (To Rome Viharo)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

Abd lomax has resorted to posting yet more defamation about me such as on Wikipedia sucks, and sending me abusive emails, so the deal is off to help him. The guy is clearly nuts to attacks me when I try to help him and resolve this.

I’m still prepared to get your article deleted or rewritten though. I can attempt a deletion request. I;m not sure what you mean when you want me to “own up” to things; as I explained there was no brother, paid editing or ‘skeptics’. The rather mundane truth is its just one guy.

April 7, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 1:55 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

There is no brother involved. I made it all up to mislead people stalking me, or trying to investigate who I was (this goes back to when I had trolls following me 24/7 on other websites like Encylopedia Dramatica, Kiwi Farms etc). There’s plenty of other false information I fed them and I found the situation rather funny since I fooled most, or all these stalkers. Michael D. Suarez even was tricked eventually, but he sceptical at first. This worked for quite a long time, but Lomax has recently doxed my brother’s real name and other personal information on his blog. It never mattered before because it was just an unnamed brother, who could be imaginary; later a real brother of mine was doxed by Mikemikev (who acquired a dox through a paywall), but still no one was interested in this brother, and he was only briefly mentioned on your website. Lomax however is obsessed with this brother, writing dozens of articles on him when he has no involvement on either RationalWiki or Wikipedia. He’s never posted on these at all, and doesn’t even know anything about this, and he has no internet or social media presence. I just mislead people who are trying to stalk or dig up information me, as with lots of other stuff. I found all this amusing at first, but it’s now a problem that Lomax is writing all these articles on someone who isn’t involved at all that is abusing search-engine results of a real person who is innocent.

A method to get unblocked on Wikipedia is to claim you have a brother or sister editing. I used that excuse several times to get unblocked many years back. I don’t even have a real sister, but made an account pretending to be female, and so on. I don’t have any links to ‘skeptics’ and I posted the same false information to Farley. At one point he was trying to see what was going on, and I just gave him the brother story I invented. I fed people nonsense about shadow skeptic organisations and paid editing, there’s none of it. It’s all one guy (me) and I have no connections. I’m now nearly 28, and I think it’s time to throw in the towel editing wikis completely (leaving RationalWiki etc), furthermore I have a lot of things to be getting on with and this has been time-consuming and wasting my time. I would rather now just end any feud or disagreements with people on wikis. Hence I proposed to either delete or edit articles people have an issue with.

April 8, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I don’t see any evidence for harassment. What I said is I would try to delete some RationalWiki articles, so people stop writing about me on their blogs, or other websites. Time to move on, it’s now 2018 and like I said I’m busy and don’t want to be involved with anymore squabbles or drama.

There’s no way to delete your or Abd’s articles because you’ve annoyed too many people there; I tried though. [redacted] in contrast has annoyed no one, and I got his article deleted. That’s what could have happened if you and Lomax didn’t create websites and moan about RationalWiki. Neither of you have been sensible.

And we clearly live on two different planets since you cling to these wild allegations about abuses on Wikipedia, when I find these claims laughable. This isn’t taken seriously by anyone rational, furthermore virtually no one cares anyway. I said in my other email I’m not interested in these allegations or the content of your articles; just try to remove them.

I’ve never “abused” anyone on Wikipedia or RationalWiki. You keep mentioning Dan Skeptic, but someone can easily click that account and see what was posted. And this is silly to be talking about this stuff from years ago that has no relevance. I never dug up your internet history on Wikipedia or RationalWiki – that was done by other people. I’ve actually always been again quoting your really early stuff and maintained your article should only focus on the Chopra/Sheldrake thing that has relevancy because RW has a whole separate page about Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page as a battleground.

Farley has no involvement with your RationalWiki article. He’s never edited it. Furthermore as I keep telling you, I made few edits to your article. The bulk of it such as documenting your early history (which to me is irrelevant) was done by other sysops, as you can easily check. So not sure why you still blame me, or Farley for it.

Since the article deletions have failed, my only advice is you move on and stop focusing on this stuff. I fail to understand why you still want to write about me when I have no involvement. 

April 11, 2018 (to Rome Viharo)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:47 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I submitted a deletion request: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Technical_support#Deletion_request_for_Rome_Viharo

You should understand everything you’re saying about me,-I’m saying about you. Your latest article is filled with misinformation, lies and false allegations. This is why I said I’m not interested in talking about the content, but just deleting articles so people can move on and not waste more time with this.

Lomax and yourself are not being honest when you state you will correct lies and mistakes. So that’s another reason debating the content is a waste of time. As an example, Lomax says on his blog I attended London University. I never studied there, nor have been there. This is a rather trivial mistake, but Lomax refuses to correct it. So if he refuses to do this for trivial things, there’s no chance he’s going to correct all the more serious false allegations about me. That’s why I emailed him to just delete articles. Instead the day I emailed him he starts writing more lies about me on Wikipedia Sucks. I don’t own this [i’m a separate person to mikemikev and none of the socks filed on his archive are mine, according bizarrely to Lomax though these are my accounts, potentially defamatory since there’s holocaust denial, racism and other crazy stuff on all these]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev

To Rome Viharo, April 11, 2018

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

I don’t have an exact figure, but I’ve created around 300 RationalWiki articles since the beginning of 2012. 90% of my article creations are not on people. And of the 10% (about 30 people) I created articles on I’ve only had trouble with 3 or 4 people.In other words, an extreme minority (1%) of my articles have caused controversy.

So of course I’m being misrepresented on your or Lomax’s blog. Why don’t you or Lomax discuss 99% of my other edits? Why cherry pick those 3 or 4 people (like in your saloon bar article)? You’re lying and must know you are yourself.

As for myself lying about Dan Skeptic, I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether I’m really him, or protecting a brother as Lomax thinks. Should I be criticized for the latter?

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:52 AM, Oliver D. Smith [redacted] wrote:

No way of deleting the article:

This is what I predicted and said to you and Lomax before I made requests; you’ve upset and annoyed too many people, so you aren’t liked and RW sysops are all against you.

I’m completely done and have nothing else left I can do. All I can advice is if you further mention me in articles, that I tried to delete your article and I have no (further) involvement.

As I said I wasn’t interested really in content of your article and would prefer to just delete everything to end this, that failed, but if you want to change stuff to your article (the page has been unprotected now) create an account or leave a comment there, or at the above page, where someone mentions if there are “inaccuracies”.

To Rome Viharo, April 12, 2018

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Oliver D. Smith <oliveratlantis@gmail.com> wrote:

You are already blocked on rationalwiki on your account you made today. I’m just putting a leave template on any accounts I have left up and won’t further post there.

And if I didn’t exist – you would invent me. You’re trying to make a profession or money-making scheme out of claiming to be against “online harassement”. for that to work you need an aggressor. The problem is you chose the wrong person. I was criticizing online harassment, doxing and defamation etc, having been a victim of this long before your campaigns.


Going dark on a topic

(May 2, 2018) This is obsolete. Some pages are still hidden, being reviewed before being re-opened. The content here has been misrepresented elsewhere. Simple documentation has been called “attack.” If we are attacked by reality, we are in big trouble no matter what others say!)

I have been documenting the Anglo Pyramidologist sock puppetry and massive disruption. Because of what I have found, and the tasks before me over the next year, I am going dark. All pages in the category of Anglo Pyramidologist will be hidden, pending, and possibly some others. Some have been archived (often on archive.is) and will remain available there. If anyone has a need-to-know, or wants to support the work, contact me (comments on this post will be seen by me, and if privacy is requested, that will be honored, the comments will not be published. Provide me with an email and a request for contact and I will do so.)

The connection with cold fusion is thin, but exists and is significant.

Warning: documenting AP can be hazardous to your health.

As well, the next year’s journalism will need support, some of this may become expensive. I will be asking for support, to supplement what is already available or in the pipeline.

Sometimes reality comes to our door and knocks. Do we invite her in? Other times we need to search for her. Ask and you shall receive. She is kind and generous.

Don’t ask, and reality might seem to punch you in the nose, and you might be offended. In reality, you just walked into a lamp post. Who knew?


The sock family known on Wikipedia as Anglo Pyramidologist is two brothers, Oliver D. Smith (the original Anglo Pyramidologist) and Darryl L. Smith, perhaps best known as Goblin Face, who continues to be highly active with the “skeptic faction” on Wikipedia. It is possible that there is a third brother involved.

They have engaged in impersonation socking, disrupting Wikipedia while pretending to be a blocked user, leading to defamation of the target user, and they have engaged in similar behavior elsewhere.

I was attacked for documenting the proven impersonation and other socking. My behaviot did not violate any policies or the Terms of Service,

The Smith brothers were able to coordinate or canvass for multiple complaints, (they have bragged about complaining) and it is possible that this led to the WikiMedia Foundation global ban, but those bans are not explained and the banned user is not warned, and has no opportunity to appeal or contest them.

Substantial damage was done to the long-standing tradition of academic freedom on Wikiversity.

Action to remedy this will continue, but privately.

IP study

If you see this page on an archive site, be sure to check the original URL, the page may have been updated, which could include corrections or retractions.

Subpage: list of RW IP edits (mine and impersonations/imitations)

Pages linked here might be deleted or hidden, so if a link does not load, check archive.is for possible archives for the URL given here.

I have been writing about impersonation socks, and I decided to look at recent IP edits to RW, using Recent Changes and looking for any red flags, as well as my own edits. Here is what I found.

  •  was certainly not me. I notice that the edit to User talk:Debunking spiritualism was deleted by GrammarCommie. GrammerCommie also blocked the IP with “piss off, Lomax.” Why? The plot thickens.

A conversation on User_talk: was read because it was edited by Debunking spiritualism, which is obviously Darryl L. Smith. He did something nice, asking for and implementing the deletion of an attack article (which he or his brother created). DS, however, assumes that the IP editing the talk page was the article target, which I’m not planning on mentioning here, but anyone can find it. And I do think he is correct, but he also took previous actions inconsistent with that.

These would be the edits to the talk page in question, March 9, 10, and 17. Those were reverted by DS, though they seem harmless. This could have been the article target attempting to explain the record. There had been sock editing before, March 6, which had been reverted. The two socks were 20,000 and Litoes. Those are not me, but they vandalized the page with material copied from me.

DS then protected the page with “abd lomax sockpuppeting,” in spite of substantial evidence presented of extensive impersonation — which has been removed whenever I pointed to it (in edits that I will be acknowledging there). And here we have more evidence of impersonation taking place. RationalWiki invites discussion from those who disagree. They lie. They block users with disagreements or complaints, with the slightest excuse, when

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ben-steigmann/abd-ul-rahman-lomax-internet-troll/ebook/product-23565204.html I will be taking legal action. RW users have created this. (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The page on lulu.com, is an alleged book.  This was a copy of what Oliver D. Smith created on an Encyclopedia Dramatic Forum, then archived on archive.is within a minute, then linked from Rational Wiki, on his talk page, within a few minutes. The latter was revision-deleted by his twin, Darryl. Darryl surely, then, knows what Oliver is doing.

See also edits and page creations relating to the lulu book by impersonation socks: GrammarCommie, intrepid sysop, handles them

I had considered it likely that Darryl was the impersonator I had exposed on Wikipedia, but Oliver had impersonated this person on RationalWiki, starting the articles on Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst. So …. maybe that actually was Oliver. Oliver has claimed that Darryl was the one creating massive numbers of socks. But … these trolls routinely lie. The IP evidence from Wikipedia checkuser could be misleading. Etc. Of this I’m sure: the ED Forum page was created by ODS, which does not demonstrate that the Lulu “book” was created by him. Impersonation of the alleged author of the book was apparently by Darryl.

Oliver had, for the first time, openly acknowledged some of his RW accounts, and started editing as ODS, his real initials, at the same time as Darryl was editing as Debunking spiritualism, and confirmed that Darryl was his brother. Darryl is still trying to cover it all up, by creating a huge smokescreen that will confuse RW users, too many of whom dislike actually studying WIGO. They prefer snarky reactions, not realizing what fools the Smiths are making out of them and the wiki.

As to Darryl, he clearly realizes or thinks that the IP is Steigmann, so … why did he protect that page because of “abd lomax sockpuppeting.” He obviously knows that I am being impersonated, and he is still trying to convince others that the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is just a paranoid fantasy, though the horse ran out of that barn long ago. There really are two brothers, who really have created an enormous number of socks, some of which impersonate others in order to defame them.

Now, back to the IP study.

  • 17:38, 10 March 2018 User account Anonymous4thelolz (talk | contribs | block) was created
  • A4TL created a user page with wikicode, which fooled many user because it displays the name of the user who is reading it. The user also claimed to be a sock of Rimuru Tempest.
  • The discussion is priceless. Christopher points out what is happening, but ODS doesn’t get it. He is absolutely fixated on “Lomax” with zero evidence. DS actually blocked A4TL, saying “look at his user page,” meaning that anyone who mentions Debunking spiritualism must be Lomax. Neat!
  • Truly amazing, A4TL ends up blaming me for the hysterical reaction by DS and ODS, and the socking. This affair ends up testing the intelligence of the RW tribe, and they are failing badly.
  • 17:32 17 March 2018 was not me, it’s an impersonation, repeating the claim of impersonation with twists, as usual. It wrote: “Readymade, debunking spiritualism and Christopher have impersonated me to blacklist my name on this website.” I do not believe and have never claimed that Readymade and Christopher have impersonated me. The impersonator could be DS, but it could also be ODS. This is all straw man attack.

Notice this lovely sequence. This was me.

This was, literally, not me, i.e., User:Notme. Why would I create an account to simply revert?  https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChristopher&type=revision&diff=1937228&oldid=1937183 and this edit takes the case, written as a response to Christopher:

Actually, that whole section is worth looking at:

An explanation

Sorry about all that, I’ll explain what happened.

There is a banned troll who has been harrassing and doxing people here, including Debunking Spiritualism. He spammed a link to his website which revealed personal info about one of our users here just before (I think) you posted about pi in the Bible. Debunking Spiritualism (who was probably still looking out for this troll as he’d just dealt with him) saw your post in special:recentchanges and clicked on your username. He saw “Hello Debunking Spiritualism” on a new user’s page just after a troll obsesssed with him had been active, he then started all of that discussion above. Christopher(talk) 17:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

They are impersonations from maybe yourself, readymade and debunking spiritualism. I will do a new article about this. Notme (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher seems to be incapable of understanding alternate hypotheses. I have never claimed, nor do I believe, that any of the impersonations are from Christopher or Readymade. These are claims being made by an anonymous troll. They might be from DS, but I am now leaning more toward ODS, it is much less likely that it was another troll besides one of the brothers. The active troll that Christopher was talking about was “New article,” I think. See also Christopher’s logs, his activity dealing with the troll.

This trolling has developed a clear pattern. I created a page studying Readymade’s activity with respect to me, as the first in a possible series of pages on RationalWiki “Supporters and Enablers..” Soon after that page was opened for public view, many copies of what I had written appeared, as can be seen with the links above. This same behavior had happened before, when I wrote the page supra,

Most of the “personal info” would be about Readymade, who was a very well-known RW user, and who did not attempt to conceal it. Readymade lied, and I documented that, but Readymade is, I’ll repeat, not suspected of impersonations, just of terminal carelessness and of providing support to trolls. None of the information in what I wrote rises to the level of “personal information” that would be called doxxing. For comparison, look at my RationalWiki article, giving a birth name which is difficult to find. That article was written and developed by a series of accounts documented here. This was clearly the original “Anglo Pyramidologist” sock master, whom I had exposed on Wikipedia and Wikiversity. Originally, I did not know about the “Smith brothers,” only that the original Wikipedia Anglo Pyramidologist, with two hundred identified and blocked socks, was actually two brothers, as they claimed. (I.e., AP was Oliver D. Smith, and the brother, later known to be Darryl L. Smith, was creating many accounts.) Both were long-term disruptive. I requested checkuser and Wikipedia socks impersonating Ben Steigmann were shown to be not him, but single sock master both disrupting Wikipedia with impersonations, allegedly promoting Ben Steigmann’s work, and requesting checkuser and then requesting deletion of the work and blocking of Steigmann on Wikiversity. It worked. The work was deleted and Steigmann was blocked.

Evidence led back to RationaWiki and the long-term socking there. Oliver Smith later admitted he had created articles on John Fuerst and Emil O.W. Kirkegaard; looking at those articles showed that they were created by an account, Ben Steigmans. In an email to me, Oliver claimed that this wasn’t impersonation because the name was spelled differently and because it (allegedly) was not Steigmann’s real name.

When I started to look for socks on RationalWiki, and I was just identifying suspected accounts, this was called “doxxing,” though in the only cases where a neutral observer examined what I wrote, they said it wasn’t doxxing. This is all available for review by anyone who cares.

For a long time, Oliver and Darryl  Smith have used RationalWiki as a platform to defame their targets. This has been combined with a campaign to defame anyone who criticized them. The mother of a critic lost her job from complaints from Oliver Smith (and others working with him at the time). Many accounts on social media sites have been terminated because of a combination of impersonation socking and private complaints. I was globally banned by the WikiMedia Foundation Office, apparently because of private complaints. I was never informed of the charges against me, and the WMF claims that there is no appeal. We will see.

(I was in communication with WMF functionaries and had been told that there was no danger that I would be banned, given the facts. But the complaint letters probably lied, and when a number of people agree with lies, administrators, failing to see the connections, may decide to believe the lies.)

The RW article on me describes me as a harasser, but incidents in the past that might be described as harassment were very few. Basically, any request for checkuser could be considered harassment, as an example. I have absolutely no history of massive and disruptive socking. Recent edits on RationalWiki by me are the first time I have edited personally. (I socked for a very brief period in 2011 to demonstrate a process that had worked for other users, it was a method for a banned user to make positive contributions without complicating ban enforcement, it actually represented cooperation with the ban.)

Impersonation socking to defame is a long-term practice of the AP socks, it appears that both Oliver and Darryl have done it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 16 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 16 March 2018 01:21 – 1:49 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 14:38, 14 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 18:16, 14 March 2018 was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 01:54, 13 March 2018 (and 1:56) was me.

March 4 – March 12, I made some edits to User talk:CheeseburgerFace.. (i.e., not even sysops may see them.) There was unnecessary revert warring from AP socks, as I recall, This was simply a request to look at the impersonation socking; CF did not respond for some days. His response, when he showed up, was to hide the whole thing. See the page logs

and CF suppressed the whole sequence, hiding 22 revisions.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ was me. This was a “message to all sincere users.” At that point, I did not know how many there were. I still think there are some, but almost nobody has come forth to actually engage on issues of substance around how RW is being abused. Maybe it’s not being abused. Maybe defamation is the actual purpose, and those parts of the community that didn’t want to participate in that have left.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A69.181.4.251 was not me, though blocked by GrammarCommie as me. This was probably the real [redacted].

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 22:56, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 18:01, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 19:11, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 15:41, 11 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 15:28, 11 March 2018 (and 15:29) was me. [suppressed edits by CF as above]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 15:05, 11 March 2018  was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 23:49, 9 March 2018 ( – 00:08, 10 March 2018) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/  22:22, 9 March 2018 (- 23:21} was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 18:57, 9 March 2018 (-18.59) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 18:41, 9 March 2018  was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 03:27, 6 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 22:08, 5 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 02:21, 6 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/  21:44, 5 March 2018  was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 21:14, 5 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 19:05, 5 March 2018 (-19:20) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 12:17, 5 March 2018 was not me, nor was it a “friend.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ was likely an AP troll.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 02:56, 5 March 2018

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 10:40, 4 March 2018 was not me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 02:50, 4 March 2018 (-03:15) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 02:35, 4 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 03:25, 1 March 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 02:57, 1 March 2018 (-03.06) was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 19:20, 26 February 2018 (-19:36) was me

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 00:08, 26 February 2018 was me.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ 23:55, 25 February 2018 was me.

I looked back to 00:44 18 February, 2018. I found no more IP edits that were mine. During this period there were many, many impersonation socks pretending to be me, and a few IPs the same. Most edits relating to the “Smith brothers” or “cold fusion community” issues were not me, by far. I created no pages in this period. The creation of abusive pages was an AP traint.

It is possible I have missed edits, though certainly not many. I did not  keep records. It is more possible that I have missed impersonations, particularly later on, when the impersonation socks were editing many user pages for users I had no particular connection with. Some of these may show up later, and suggestions and corrections and questions are always welcome.

01:53, 22 March 2018 Rimuru Tempest (talk | contribs | block) blocked (talk) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment) was not me.



If you see this on an archive site, check the original URL to see if it has been updated, errors corrected, responses received, etc.

This page is under construction. Due to restoration from a crash, after starting to recreate it, it has redundant material. It’s a mess. Read it only if insanely interested in following this as it is edited. (This is not a blog post, it is an information page. Blog posts always have a date in the URL. Information pages may exist in information hierarchies, and multiply like bunnies as information is organized, which takes time.)

As the initials imply, this RationalWiki account is Oliver D. Smith, who apparently decided to register a new account at RatWiki, and he has openly acknowledged being the well-known troll and harasser. He is being protected by his brother, Darryl L. Smith, who is currently using Debunking spiritualism (DS), which would be a classic Darryl Smith user name. In a number of communications, Oliver has essentially outed his brother. But this page is about Oliver.

ODS contributions.

The following sequence took the cake, and shows what DS is faced with, attempting to handle his brother. It also shows a small piece of the cross-wiki behavior, with massive socking on Encyclopedia Dramatica (at the same time as ODS crows about small-scale socking by his enemies).

With his first edits he lied about the Emil Kirkegaard page on him. (Archive copy just in case). Contrary to his claims, and as can be seen by reading the Kirkegaard page linked, Kirkegaard did not claim that “every single editor on his article is Oliver Smith.” This is a classic AP straw man argument, both brothers do it. Oliver claims that “Like 90% of the accounts he lists are not mine and he provides no evidence I’m any of these users.” And then, “For example “igobymanynames”/”Skeptical”/”Antifa Ireland”/Dinocrisis etc I’ve never edited or posted on. Basically he’s looked at the history of the [[Emil Kirkegaard]] article, sees it has about 25 editors over past years, now says I’m all of them, when I;m not.”

Kirkegaard made no such claim. He quotes Oliver (in the archived copy): “Also, I created both their entries at Rationalwiki to warn the internet about these people.” (Referring to John Fuerst and Kirkegaard).  Both articles were created by Ben Steigmans, an impersonation account. [redacted, original name has two n’s at the end and no second s] was the user attacked on Wikipedia and Wikiversity by Darryl Smith; the interests are crossover, but Ben Steigmans’ focus was Oliver, and we have Oliver’s admission. Then, showing a screenshot of the edit history, Kirkegaard claims:

Skeptical is Oliver’s chosen sockpuppet in this case. He appears to have spent 2 days writing my page on this occasion. A list of suspected sockpuppets and IP’s is given later

When Kirkegaard wrote that, the extent of Darryl’s socking was not widely known. Skeptical was very likely Darryl, certainly Oliver claims that. Darryl was also definitely some accounts listed by Kirkegaard. AP socks have played on the confusion caused by the massive socking. Oliver claimed, in email to me, that “99.9% ” of the socks I had identified were his twin brother, based apparently on my Rational Wiki article list page. That was an obvious exaggeration, since he was some accounts and I had not claimed a thousand of them.

When I asked Oliver to identify his accounts, he wrote that it would be too much work.  The following identifications are based on the preponderance of the evidence. In many cases, there is not enough evidence to definitively conclude which brother it was, or even that it was an AP sock (and on Wikipedia, suspected socks will be listed based on thin evidence. Many of these end up being confirmed where checkuser is run.) My sense, however, is that few of the identifications listed on the List page are incorrect. The Smiths often claim this is all stupidity, but they don’t actually point out errors. Notice, the only error Oliver claims is that certain accounts were not him. But that allows them to be his brother, and the two have created massive confusion.

(The following has not yet been thoroughly researched. Links will be added as found)

  1. Asgardian
  2. Aza]
  3. Skeptical probably Darryl
  4. Welliver I suspected Oliver, from interest, but other evidence points to Darryl.
  5. Antifa Ireland single edit to RW. Oliver interest, but Oliver denies.
  6. BenSteigmans
  7. OldSword
  8. Krom As I recall, Oliver admitted this.
  9. Kromscape Encyclopedia Dramatica, definitely Oliver
  10. Krom1991 Reddit account, Oliver from interest
  11. Atlantid well known.
  12. BlackGoatCabal early Smith account
  13. Scionic Evil old account, widely identified as Oliver
  14. AngloSaxon
  15. Hyperboreanar
  16. pyramidologist old account
  17. Truthseeker
  18. cassiterides
  19. Anglo_Pyramidologist
  20. Boglin the name would indicate Darryl
  21. Thule
  22. DinoCrisis certainly Darryl
  23. PS2  see the RW account contributions
  24. Goosebumps the name would be Darryl
  25. Arcticos
  26. Atlantid
  27. Onion_hotdog
  28. Morpheus
  29. Dale
  30. HaraldBluetooth the name would indicate Oliver
  31. BenSteigmann ( Reddit impersonation)
  32. BenSteigmans (RatWiki impersonation)
  33. EvilGremlin
  34. Jean_Lusaz
  35.  … and 100s more (list heremeta-Wiki investigation found ~190 sockpuppets) [most of these socks could be Darryl, though.]

This is a list of suspected Anglo Pyramidologist socks and I have seen many more not yet added to the above list. The socks claimed that the original AP account was not the same as the massive army of socks that have been blocked as AP. I consider this likely to be true. It was Darryl (as Oliver said in 2011 and repeated recently.) However, I have bolded accounts that I would consider Oliver, and have put in italics accounts where I don’t have an opinion. I have not yet researched some of the names, but out of a list of 31 specific names (as this was originally), 15 appear to be Oliver. That’s quite about more than “90% not me” would suggest.

That was not a list of editors of the Emik Kirkegaard article. See the list page for a non-yet-up-to-date list of suspected AP socks (which would include Oliver and Darryl).  (and the same for the talk page).

The use of straw man arguments has been common, for both Darryl and Oliver. They depend on most users not carefully checking sources, reading them with expectation bias.

(I will continue with this page, to add what Oliver Smith revealed as to his Encyclopedia Dramatica activity, and how his twin reacted to this.)

User talk:ODS history currently shows DS hiding edits, including mine (expected) but also very embarrassing edits by Oliver.

ODS had published the WikiMedia Foundation response to his emailed complaint about me. DS advised that this was unwise. Gee, I found it quite useful!

First of all, there was [ material added] to ODS talk that extensively explored the account history. It was reverted by Darryl as DS.

What this will come to is a trolling page added to the Encyclopedia Dramatica Forum, created by Oliver, with proof that this was him from the timing of his creation and archiving, and adding the archive link to his user talk page, in response to a comment that pointed to his very recent ED socks. He did not deny the socks (which were obvious), but attacked. The page he created may be seen here:  http://archive.is/oAiGe

He has not changed his behavior at all. His brother tries to hide it…. Meanwhile, in many places, Oliver outs Debunking spiritualism as his brother, and denies that the massive socking was him. He is lying, but behind that is a likely truth: much of the socking that has been blamed on “Anglo Pyramidologist” was actually his twin.

Right now, I only see two active socks (aside from socks impersonating me): ODS and DS.

A system reset — Windows Update Sucks! — caused the disappearance of this content from a previous version of this page. This is now a mess. But it does show what is mentioned above. I will clean this up later.
If this page is seen through an archived copy, check the original URL for possible revisions or corrections. Errors may be noted in comments here, and replies from affected parties will be allowed, as long as they are not, themselves, illegal.

This page will document the RationalWiki user ODS, who is openly Oliver D. Smith. He is widely known to have a twin brother, Darryl L. Smith. First, a brief incident.

Because there was a section there discussing me, I had commented on User talk:ODS.  This was later collapsed by Debunking spiritualism which is DS, the twin brother, convenient as a name. DS, in his comment accompanying the collapse, lied about the content of my blog pages. That’s been typical.

Cheeseburger face had pointed out that the alleged doxxing above wasn’t. (That is one reason I reached out to him, but . . . too bad. So far, he is either actively enabling AP socks or he has his head firmly wedged in the sand. I had actually been careful, but AP socks call any identification of their accounts “doxxing.” Whereas they freely identify the accounts of others . . . and practically nothing is done about it.)

ODS commented on his talk page. It’s been revision-deleted. He wrote:

 I have to laugh at crazies like Lomax calling me an “internet harasser” for merely documenting and debunking pseudo-scientists. Also, the vast majority (90%+) of my articles creations for past 6 years are/were not on people e.g. [[Multiregional hypothesis]]. So he just cherry picks a few articles, disregarding my main contributions that have helped many people over the years. What a nutcase.[[User:ODS|ODS]] ([[User talk:ODS|talk]]) 07:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, here ODS admits being Oliver D. Smith (as he has in many places, no biggie), but . . . Oliver D. Smith is widely known as a harasser, and little of it has to do with “documenting and debunking pseudoscientists.” This page will document some of that history. However, what has come up is that at least some of the most serious harassment, that got me involved in the first place, was not him, but his brother, DS. But that is not the point here, it’s coming up.

After a series of sock puppets were created on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and with discussion of me standing on User talk:ODS, I dropped a post there.

How is ED treating you?

Hey, Oliver, have you created enough socks on the Dramatica Encyclopedia? I don’t see any today. Are you sick, or what? Wait! Never mind! What am I thinking?

You are sick!

Temple OldKnight Oedipus Stesichorus Corinna Anoncreon Run Herodotus

By the way, “average male life expectancy” of, say, 76, doesn’t mean that if you are 66, you have an average of ten years to live. That’s from birth. Average male life expectancy at 66 is another 17 years. Your education is quite deficient. — (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Some comments about this post: RatWiki has an edit filter that prevents naming or linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. I have, here, linked to the sock accounts, that was not done in the post. But, of course, Oliver knew full well that they were his. It’s not deniable. The comment about age was in reference to this edit of his.

Further, this was trolling. a form of harassment. It is normally reprehensible. There are exceptions. What I found, more or less by accident (including observing their interaction with others), is that when they are trolled, AP socks (Darryl and Oliver) often respond with actions that reveal more information, and information is the advantage I have, I have no “weapon” other than the collection of true evidence. Darryl Smith basically declared war on me on the WMF wikis, threatened what actually came to pass.

(Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they right wrongs, and this is ancient law, and the ancient law also limits such reactions. I have done nothing with the Smith brothers that they have not done with others, more extensively and without justice.)

I continue to trust the truth. What Oliver had written was also trolling, you can judge what was more reprehensible. In context, “harming back” can not only be allowable, but obligatory. These people have harmed many, over many years. He had written:

You will be dead old man, so why bother with this?

You’re 74 years old, and the average life-expectancy for a male in the US is 76.9 (77).

So why bother with this pointless internet feud and stalking my family? You will (hopefully) be dead in 3 years, and all the nonsense and lies you write on your blog will be deleted. You’re just wasting the final years of your life with this. Herodotus (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To answer his question here, I “bother with this” because I care about the society that I will leave behind. Oliver is an anti-natalist, who believes that having children is immoral. So he only thinks about himself. Consistent with his beliefs, his parents were immoral to have children. There has been no “stalking” of his “family,” only documentation of the harassment managed by his brother and him. My blog has a backup administrator, it is not likely to disappear. While it is possible I won’t live long, Oliver’s understanding of life expectancy was deranged, like much of what he writes. Now, this comes to the real point.

Oliver responded to that comment. I can imagine his brother seeing it. “Idiot! Why don’t you keep your mouth shut!” Oliver’s response apparently kept him up late, photoshopping.

http://archiv e.is/oAiGe ODS (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This was all revision-hid by Debunking spiritualism (i.e., Darryl Smith).

This was perfect. Oliver could not link to Encyclopedia Dramatica, the edit filter will prevent it. But they cannot filter out archive.is, they use it extensively. They could filter out an individual page, but anyone could re-archive a page and bypass that. In any case, the archive shows Oliver Smith in all his trolling glory. Really. It’s hilarious. The archive is timestamped 13 Mar 2018 03:39:01 UTC, and it shows the comment as being created “1 minute ago.” Then his RW edit linking to it was at 03:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC).

This definitively shows that ODS on RW wrote that attack thread, and archived it and then linked to it, and the context confirms what as already obvious: he was the ED editors named, and they connect with other editors there, eventually I may document them, but the ED socking has been so voluminous, I’m not sure I’ll get to it.

His brother, DS, didn’t see this, apparently, until 10:46, 13 March 2018 . DS removed not only my comments, but his brother’s, and revision-deleted, covering up for his brother. The comments were archived only a few minutes before DS removed them. I did not do that, then. I believed I had archived the material, but couldn’t find it….

ODS, meanwhile, was today given autoconfirmed status. Does RoninMachbeth know what he or she did? I don’t know. RM is generally sane, but RatWiki is a corrupted and corrupting environment.

Was RoninMacbeth aware that ODS triggered the edit filter 9 times as of today?

(Some of these were innocuous, to be sure, though they show the Oliver Smith obsessions.)

There are secret filters that are not documented in the log. March 4, ODS was attempting to edit the Saloon bar. His edits including that time are here. My guess is that he was attempting to mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Oliver Keyes, or on Emil Kirkegaard — which links to it. Naughty. There is a lot more that could be said about Oliver Keyes, but not here and not now.

March 7, a minute later, Oliver edited the Chicken coop.

I don’t see how anyone could miss it, if they look. This is the infamous Oliver D. Smith. The possible problem is that ODS is a serious troll and will use the ability to edit protected pages. How much difference this will make, I don’t know. (None of my comments anywhere should be construed as defending Rightpedia, which is beyond racialist and deep into racism, unapologetically. They do have a copy of a public record showing the former home residence for Oliver and Darryl, and, in addition, the names and ages of other residents. Contrary to frequent claims, I did show the data from that briefly, but quickly redacted it, it now shows only the two names — as highly relevant to the socking — and the UK postal code. The street name has been removed, but AP socks continue to claim, long after it was removed, that I publish their home address, It is not on this blog. [January 27, 2019:, more has been published, actually, on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Plausible. By objecting to it, Oliver has confirmed it, as he did before.]

(Remember, I was accused of promoting the “paranoid RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory, and my RW article still calls me a “conspiracy theorist,” and still has:

He now uses his personal blog to spread a paranoid conspiracy theory and misinformation campaign that the two brothers described above created and edited his article, for which there exists no evidence.[63]

This is a straw man argument. I identified a family of socks, using the Wikipedia name Anglo Pyramidologist. That family was originally, in 2011, self-identified as two brothers. I did not distinguish between them. Nor, in fact, did I emphasize the “brother theory.” I considered it likely, but did not publish it until I had far more direct evidence, much more recently. The two brothers did not create and edit my article. One of them did, and this would be Darryl Smith. So showing that there were two brothers, twins, that shared residence at some recent point, which could cause checkuser identification, was important. to the research. The actual address was not so important. The geolocation was, and the house location is still on the map, but not precisely, just good enough to show how the IP addresses locate with respect to the residence.

This was not an attempt at harassment. If harassment were my motive, this would not have been on an obscure page that hardly anyone would have noticed except for Darryl Smith obsessively following everything. They accuse others of stalking, but stalking (of me and others) became totally obvious very early on, and what was done to create my RW article was detailed and extensive searching of everything Darryl could find. And this was obvious, and, like many other article targets before, when I simply responded on RatWiki, I was desysopped and then blocked.

Oliver and Darry Smith were being protected, this became obvious, and the extent of this is still becoming visible.

March 10, 14:14. A minute later, this edit. 

Michael Coombs is an obsession of Oliver’s. This is “mikemikev,” and a checkusered Darryl Smith sock (that’s a long story) pointed to mikemikev as a suspect for the sock master. It tricked one sysop for a time. I never trusted it, don’t trust SPAs bearing gifts, unless they can be verified. (They may point to “evidence,” but evidence can be misleading if taken out of context. These sock masters are expert at setting that up.)

Obsession with Michael Coombs is an Oliver Smith characteristic. (There are many of these, as will be found by anyone who actually studies the history, and we now have the benefit of beyond-doubt Oliver Smith accounts, admitted openly to be him.) So this shows up in the next filter triggers:

March 13, Oliver was putting together this edit.

Update January 27, 2019

I will add recent accounts here and later will add other Oliver accounts to extend the list. Most accounts before were classified as “Anglo Pyramidologist,” which is not specific to Oliver, even though he was the original Wikipedia editor by that name. Oliver has claimed that most disruptive accounts were his brother, Darry L. Smith. As distinct from Darryl, Oliver, of late, has created short-term accounts. He “retires” then starts new ones. (Both Smith brothers do that, commonly.)

  • Buxton Obvious. Buxton is allowed to claim that another account is “Wyatt,” but if an IP announces that Buxton is Oliver, it is to be immediately blocked and the page deleted. But the deletion log makes the point: 20:44, 18 November 2018 GrammarCommie(talk | contribs) deleted page User:Buxton(Harassment: content was: “Note to mods, Buxton is another Oliver D Smith sock account.…”, and the only contributor was “” ([[User talk:82.132… Wyatt was not banned, but blocked as Merkel by Debunking spiritualism (Darryl) in his last spree (before disappearing with the claim that I had hacked his account). Oliver had cooped Merkel as Wyatt and it failed. It appears that the average RW sysop is nearly brain dead, or they want this troll protected. Pick one. (The cooping comes very close to admitting that ODS and DS are brothers.)
  • Punisher claims to be Oliver here.
  • JosephGreen entirely focused on Oliver obsession.
  • Nissan common pages with Oliver socks: Octo, M87, Buxton
  • Aeschylus has come back after almost a year.


This story has legs. See Oliver desperate and Oliver D. Smith/Smith on Smith (the latter page has a copy of a bio that Oliver wrote about himself on RationalWiki, then when it was deleted, blamed it on Mikemikev.) Aeschylus has clearly claimed to be Oliver, there is no doubt about it, not that it was in doubt anyway.

Because he is being sued, because he revealed that on RatWiki, the sysop who gave him sysop tools has not only desysopped him, but blocked him indefinitely.

Oliver created biographies as hit pieces, pursuing private vendettas, and used RationalWiki because it was open for that. He misrepresented sources, all with blatant defamatory intention. The RatWikians think the articles are missional, but in fact, that aspect to the RatWiki mission was largely created by Oliver and his brother Darryl. Before them (starting in roughly 2012)  it was not filled with hit pieces. Oliver convinced RatWiki that the targets were worthy of condemnation even if there was little or no connection with the RatWiki mission. He and his brother learned to weaponize the wiki.

And he’s back

Doesn’t take him long. Oliver is back, using an old account, Arcticos. These are so obvious. I spotted it as a redlinked user name in Recent Changes. Sure enough, contributions made it obvious. Oliver Smith, not a doubt. He’s ranting about Encyclopedia Dramatica, where I was blocked the other day, by the same admin who blocked a series of Oliver Smith socks. He never mentions that part!

The history of Arcticos:

logs. Registered 13 July 2015.

Immediately attacked Mikemikev, first edit.

At this point, that this was Oliver was already highly likely. In the next few edits, Arcticos continued the attack. Posts displayed strong Oliver traits, which I’m not going to list because WP:BEANS.

Then, two days later, Krom (clearly admitted and well-known Oliver sock) showed up on Talk:Racialism.

Arcticos was inactive until two days in November, 2016, when he made another series of Oliver Obvious edits. Atlantis. RomeViharo (which could indicate Darryl Smith, the twin brother, but attacking Viharo became routine for Oliver also. Talk:Racialism.

16:56, 2 November 2016 FuzzyCatPotato (talk | contribs) blocked Arcticos (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 314159 seconds (about 3.6 days) (account creation disabled) (mikemikev or troll again)

Classic RatWiki idiocy. This was not at all like Mikemikev. “Troll,” yes, but Oliver is nothing if not a troll. He creates articles on RatWiki to annoy and irritate enemies, as revenge for this or that disagreement. Why did FuzzyCatPotato block? Well, Oliver made an intelligent argument on Talk:Racialism, and Mikemikev also makes intelligent arguments. So by making an intelligent argument, and Oliver knows far more about racism and racialism than FCP, FCP assumed it was Mikemikev. So many RatWiki users think in cartoons.

Usually Oliver just disappears when blocked. I think I have never seen him request unblock except many years ago. The block expired in a few days, and then Arcticos was silent for well over two years, showing up 17 February 2019  with even more Obvious Oliver. That first day back, having been blocked as Mikemikev or a troll, he edited Anatoloy Karlin, an article he had created as SkepticDave as part of his attack on anyone who pointed out how he had presented misleading evidence about Emil Kirkegaard, which he simply denies without evidence, emphasizing “child rape apologism,” and then two edits to my article, and a comment on the Talk page, he was granted autoconfirmed by Paleonictis, and, the next day, with more Oliver Obvious, sysop by Dysklyver, who had just a few days before blocked Oliver as Aeschylus “for his own good.” Oliver is still doing the same things. “Child rape apologist” is almost as defamatory as “child rapist.”

Oliver does this: if anyone points out that Emil Kirkegaard did not actually condone child rape, that to think so requires taking a quotation out of context, ignoring the rest of his post (where he suggests that the idea was a very bad one, and that perhaps the only ethical solution if one is a pedophile is castration), he then attacks them for “defending pedophilia” or “defending a child rape apologist.” He creates news by misleading reporters and then reports the news created as proof of his claims. In the Karlin article, we see pure guilt by association in what he added. He bragged about causing that media coverage on the London Conference on Intelligence to appear; he not only wrote the RationalWiki article but he also directly communicated with reporters. Why would they call him? He was still trying to maintain some anonymity then. No, he called them and he fed them the same garbage as he has long fed RationalWiki.

He actually hates RationalWiki, at least he has acknowledged that elsewhere. But he has found it very useful for attacking his “enemies.” And if they respond, then, of course, they “have a problem with RationalWiki,” and the RationalWikians all rush to defend the wiki from these trolls and banned users.

There are those who love the drama, and those who are using RationalWiki for their own purposes.

So with his brand new sysop tools (which he has held many, many times, and still has sysop accounts, we think), what does he do?

02:01, 19 February 2019 Arcticos (talk | contribs | block) blocked Street scoop (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Block evasion: abd lomax) (unblock | change block)

02:11, 19 February 2019 Arcticos (talk | contribs | block) protected Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 00:00, 18 February 2020) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 00:00, 18 February 2020) (Excessive vandalism) (hist | change)

What was the “vandalism” Street scoop had only two edits. In one, he followed up on a comment  on Talk:David Gerard where Street Guy had made a misleading comment about my activity. (Street Guy could be Darryl) Street scoop gave links to the posts that Street Guy had mentioned.

And then yesterday, Street scoop similarly added a link to verify what Arcticos had pointed to, the actual Arcticos edit not actually showing anything to substantiate the claim made, other than “blocked,”

What articles did I allegedly create? The one who has created many, many defamatory articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica is Oliver, and he has hundreds of blocked sock puppets there. I have, at this point, one blocked account, blocked without warning, for doing what had previously been done by long-time ED users.

I wrote about it here, and it is obvious that Street scoop, at least, reads some of my work. So he linked to an archive.is copy of that article. It’s an interesting article, because it shows Oliver describing himself how he wants to be seen, not as he would be described by Mikemikev, on whom he blamed the article when he wanted to distinguish his obvious sock from the one who had created one of the articles probably mentioned in the lawsuit filed against him. By claiming that Mikemikev was the author, he was then able to delete the article immediately.

Claiming that an article was created by Oliver D. Smith, even though Smith has in many places (including where his identity was validated independently, such as emails to me, from a public address) admitted to creating them, has been and remains grounds for immediately blocking the user and often hiding their edits. This kind of operational bias has been going on for a long time on RationalWiki, but it used to be that RW actually welcomed dissent. Dissenters were more likely to give up from being gratutiously and commonly insulted than from being blocked. That changed over the years, and a large part of that shift may be related to the ramping up of use of the wiki by the Smith brothers, who have created hundreds of socks, possibly thousands. I keep finding more; they are obvious once one knows what to look for. It is possible that there are socks designed to not be so visible, socks that avoid the obvious signals, and that, then, the accounts that do show such signs are throwaway. But what I find remarkable is that even the obvious socks are protected and specially privileged. Rapid assignment of ops is common, whereas other users, with no problems and good edits, may not be opped for a long, long time.

I suspect off-wiki communication, requests for ops. It happens a bit too often to be a coincidence.

And if it wasn’t clear what is going on, another sleeper appeared, Jean. From those contributions, even before the edit to my article, I’d suspect Jean as a sock of Oliver. The interests of Jean are identical with Oliver. Then, the edit to Rightpedia is diagnostic. Who would know about the “demise of Wrongpedia”? Very, very few. It all aligns. Two hours after the Street scoop edit to my article, Jean reverted that edit claiming “sock of Abd Lomax.” The edit itself appears harmless, adding a related link to substantiate what Oliver (Arcticos) had added.

1 minute after that edit by Jean, Arcticos blocked Street scoop. Log out, log in. That is not enough time to communicate, say by email. It was at 2 AM their time. To be sure, it is possible that they communicated first and that Jean then did the revert. But Street Guy was already sure that Street scoop was Abd.

Right, is that you Lomax? By the duck dest and log in times, Abd Lomax or an associate of his (maybe Rome Viharo) is “rationalwiki” guy, playing a false game to cause this drama, he is desperate to try and close down this website because of his own article. According to JzG a Wikipedia admin – Lomax has a history of impersonation. If you check Lomax’ blog he is requesting for Kendrick to sue Rationalwiki (Don’t link to the Lomax blog though, it contains apparent dox). [[User:Street Guy|Street Guy]] ([[User talk:Street Guy|talk]]) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(Who would have been in communication with JzG? Oliver and/or Darryl Smith, that’s who. I have never impersonated, and JzG, to my knowledge, has never claimed I have. JzG is such an implacable enemy, as revenge for my getting him reprimanded by ArbCom on Wikipedia, that when the impersonation sock issue was live on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, he might have suspected me of creating that whole mess — but for what purpose? — but . . . I never impersonated anyone. Yet there are many many socks created on RationalWiki that impersonated me. Naive RatWiki users lap it up. Clever technique they use. They vandalize RationalWiki with text copied from me, often adding a twist, like a threat of lawsuit, or claims that so-and-so is a sock — when I have made no such claim nor do I even suspect it.)

(and what was “false” about that post? It was verifiable. David Gerard did not object to it. Street Guy was making false claims with no evidence at all.)

(rationalwiki guy was probably Darryl Smith, following up on his rather novel impersonation tactic. Socks had claimed that Skeptic from Britain was a certain young man, name and links given, but, oddly, no links to his Wikipedia account — under his real name. And then the SfB account “retired” because of the “harassment.” In fact, Jimbo Wales, a few days later, called SfB an “abusive POV pusher” or something like that. So people were angry with the other young man — who was completely innocent –, and Darryl, who was obviously Skeptic from Britain, had not been mentioned. So I pointed that out, and discussed the implications, hence the attack on David Gerard talk. The Wikipedia account was not mentioned because it would then be obvious that this was a user who had disagreed strongly with Skeptic from Britain on his WP talk page. Oddly, though, I had been alerted to the whole mess by Oliver Smith, who trolled me on Encyclopedia Dramatica, where I had been paying no attention, which must have unfuriated him, so he “made a joke” that I was Skeptic from Britain, and claimed he was going to tell all those angry people. Meanwhile Michaeldsuarez, a long-time reliable ED user (yes, there was such a thing at one time), pointed out that Oliver knew it was his brother, Oliver had disclosed this on the ED Forum, and posted screenshots. So why did Oliver effectively out his brother. All is not well in Smithland, I suspect. Having a schizophrenic brother can wreak havoc on family unity and one’s nice little schemes for profit from “skeptical organizations,” which has been hinted at by both Darryl and Oliver. Probably JREF or something connected with Tim Farley (Oliver claimed he had lied to Farley in an email to me, pretending to be his brother, after the S had hit the F and it was all unravelling, one more desperate attempt to reduce harm, but they never do what would actually clean it up: simply tell the truth.

I’m not sure that Oliver even knows what the truth is. And that is not an attack, it’s a possibility. He’s on the dole, apparently. Young man, 29, apparently living with his parents. (or are they his parents?) Regardless, these trolls have done a lot of damage, wasted many people’s time, gotten people fired (the mother of the owner of Kiwi Farms), caused harassment and blocks based on lies and impersonations, and destroyed the academic independence of Wikiversity, something I always knew was possible, but it had not really happened until they arranged it. They did exactly what they threatened to do if I continued to gather the public information about their activities on WikiMedia Foundation wikis.

Anyone who interferes with their agenda can expect to be attacked, both on the related web sites and anywhere they can find some traction. I have a daughter who is somewhat notable, easy to find. She got an email warning her that he didn’t know if her father was a pedophile, but he was defending them. Many others have reported similar retaliations.

I have not seen signs of Darryl activity on RationalWiki since the last edits of John66, over a month since this writing.

Another 10 minutes later, Arcticos protected the article, “excessive vandalism.” What vandalism? The only users to edit the article since August, 2018, had been sysops and Jean, and one edit by Street scoop, which was certainly not vandalism, it merely substantiated the claim, but perhaps in a way that Oliver would not want, exposing his own activity.

That article was actually created by Darryl, Oliver’s twin brother, as “attack by Google,” which the brothers are fond of accusing others of. For what? Well, I had documented the socks of Anglo Pyramidologist. (The name on the Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigations archive, known to be Oliver and Darryl Smith), and in particular the impersonation socks used to attack a user and resources on Wikiversity. I had not outed them, except once I used a URL that contained the name of Oliver Smith, which was immediately deleted, the revision hidden, then the rest of it restored. Those studies and the vigilance created had led to many successful checkuser requests and then, rather suddenly, the wind shifted. There were obviously off-wiki communications. A steward became openly hostile, for no known reason. There were private complaints to the WikiMedia Foundation (later admitted) that lied about events. And then the big news, that Abd was “office banned,” which is indeed very rare. Office bans are not explained, even to the banned user. (But, of course, the Smiths tell the world why the person was banned, even though there is no actual evidence that doesn’t come from the Smiths. As I have seen over and over, the Smiths create news that they then report. Rome Viharo was banned on Reddit. What is quite clear is that there were many complaints, from many socks, and the Smiths do know how to make it look like socks are not the same user. Administrators seeing many complaints, and especially if they seem to come from different people, will often block first and ask questions later, if, indeed, they ever ask questions.

It is obvious: anyone pointing out how RationalWiki is being abused is to be immediately exiled, and then, of course, if they object and use socks or IP, they are “block evaders” to be blocked with no further thought. But if a sock appears that is Oliver or Darryl Smith, no matter how obvious, they are welcomed with ops. There are policies which are totally ignored. Ban first, rigorously enforced, and then maybe a chicken cooping, occasionally with the person not allowed to defend themselves.

It is a system wide open for abuse. It didn’t matter so much when RW was a joke wiki, designed to annoy Conservapedia. No wiki is a reliable source, but the Smith brothers learned how to create “sourced” claims that are based on even gross misinterpretations of sources. If they can put up what the RatWikians will consider a “killer quote,” they do it. And then later the sometimes-scurrilous accusation are preserved because “sourced.”

Oliver is getting desperate as RatWiki gets wise. Well, some get wise. Some may need a pie in the face or something drastic.

Every so often I look at RatWiki for the lulz. Today I see my name being bandied about. With a little history, (described in detail above):

19 February 2019, Arcticos (Oliver Smith) edited the RatWiki article on me, adding news from ED, and labelling me “King of the Trolls.” Pot/Kettle/Black. If am a troll at all. I took out a Wikipedia sysop by dangling defiance in his face, and, yes, I knew how he would respond. Technically, that was trolling. But nothing else was working, the guy had too many friends. Blocking me in the middle of an ArbCom case over whether he had the right to unilaterally ban me and enforce his own ban, was a bridge too far for even his faction. Making it very obvious who he is, Arcticos wrote:

However, in Feburary [sic] 2019, Encyclopedia Dramatica permanently banned Lomax for attacking other editors by creating defamatory articles about them. http://archive.is/owjUS [(as common for Oliver, link shows nothing of the kind)]

19 February 2019, Dysklyver removed the King of the Trolls caption, “Title disputed.”

19 February 2019, Arcticos added more hyperbole and a different link: http://archive.is/WiyJi , which also does not confirm the claim.

23:38, 18 February 2019, Street scoop corrected the spelling and added a link to point to an allegedly defamatory article. (That article was easy to find, because I had pointed to the page. I was blocked because the article was “unfunny,” and because that admin had blocked a series of Oliver socks and I knew that he might block me if I edited anything about Oliver at all, or maybe just anything. A touchy kind of guy, very much Obay Ma Authorite. Anticipating the possibility, I had archived the page *immediately* and also pointed to it on Talk:Oliver D. Smith. So anyone could have found it by reviewing the contributions display Oliver put up and by suspecting an archiving and checking — or by reading my blog, since I mentioned it here.

02:00, 19 February 2019Jean, possibly Oliver or Darryl (interests cross over), reverted, with “sock of abd lomax”

02:01, 19 February 2019, Arcticos blocked Street scoop. From the timing, Arcticos is likely to be Jean.

02:11, 19 February 2019, Arcticos protected the page, “excessive vandalism.”

03:53, 19 February 2019, Arcticos fixed the spelling error Jean had reverted back in.

16:12, 21 February 2019, Dysklyver cleaned up the article, removing non-missional Smith rants (The whole article might be non-missional, though that may be about to change.)

18:08, 21 February 2019‎, Dysklyver  (Removed protection from “Abd ul-Rahman Lomax“: the vandals interested in this page are sysops already)

The next piece of business is classic Smith trolling. It works, at least on RatWiki, and sometimes elsewhere, which is why they keep doing it.

20:14, 21 February 2019‎ Lomax_is_back reverted: Undo revision 2044222 by Dysklyver

“Ah, that will not look like Lomax, it will look more like Oliver, so I better vandalize some.”

20:15, 21 February 2019  Lomax_is_back replaced lead with Abd ul-Rahman Lomax will close down rationalwiki

20:18, 21 February 2019‎ Ikanreed reverted Lomax is back with (I don’t even know who this person is or why your username references them, and frankly I don’t care. This edit sucks.) 

Gee, who could it be? Let me think … The article is about Lomax and the account is named “Lomax is back”. Probably Mikemikev, maybe Rome Viharo or one of the other trolls. Mikemikev, however is not hostile to Lomax, nor are the others, but there is someone who wants the article to be semiprotected, the person who protected it in the first place. And that person has a long history of impersonations, and uses them to great effect. Hint: the fast easy guess, when Smith brothers are involved, is usually wrong. They are not subtle. Real sock masters only rarely telegraph who they are. Impersonators do, that’s the point!

And by the way, I will not publicly answer questions about non-disruptive socks, socks that do not violate site policies (other than possibly “block evasion”), and I recommend the same to others. It used to be Wikipedia policy that checkusers would not investigate alleged socks unless they were disruptive, and accusing someone of socking was considered uncivil unless done through formal process with disruption. Gradually, in spite of an early understanding that content was more important than identity, obedience to authority took over.

20:24, 21 February 2019 DuceMoosolini  blocked Lomax is back  with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion:: I breathlessly await the day when you manage to close down Rationalwiki)

This idiot is a moderator. The quality of moderators has gone way down since I was active on RatWiki. The person behind the sock is doing everything he can to abuse RationalWiki, including creating legal difficulties, at least for himself, but also possibly for the project. It has never been my goal to “close down RationalWiki” and all the socks claiming that were impersonations. Most accounts blocked as me on RatWiki have been impersonations. I used to disclose all socks, but it did no good at all, so if I sock again I will not disclose it. The behavior of others is trained by how we treat them.

20:44, 21 February 2019‎ Cold fusions reverted.

20:45, 21 February 2019 DuceMoosolini  blocked Coldfusions (Block evasion: fuck off already)

This is standard RatWiki insanity, sysops get their rocks off telling “block evaders” to fuck off. This, with any self-respecting block evader, will encourage more evasion, it’s like clockwork. Most RatWiki sysops are not aware of WP:INSULT. Or they DGAF. If they want more trolling, their behavior is perfect. Encyclopedia Dramatica wants more trolling! In order to stop troll sock attacks, ED shut down account registration, which, I am sure, caused that troll great joy. He won!

But does RatWiki want more drama? How does this further the mission? Comments like that on RatWiki will be called “concern trolling.” Charming, they are. Not.

These trolling accounts were almost certainly a Smith brother. Oliver claimed that most troll socks, impersonations, were Darryl. Then he claimed he was lying. Then he took it all back. In periods when Darryl is active, it can be possible to tell, otherwise, what is very clear is that when the Smiths are involved, and when it serves their purposes, massive troll socking, with provocative names, appear.

20:45, 21 February 2019 Bongolian semi-protected the article with “Excessive vandalism: Chronic vandalism by abd “.

This is typical for Bongolian. Also a moderator. It was exactly the response the vandal wanted.

I have never vandalized RationalWiki. Not ever. All vandalism claimed to be me has been impersonation, generally blatant (like this), since they want to blame it on me. Unless as impersonation, where it is illegal but often effective, vandalism is pointless, all it does is to waste some time of RatWiki users. That’s not enough benefit. I prefer to document what actually happens.

00:17, 22 February 2019‎ LeftyGreenMario edited the section on ED. Did he notice that the link does not support the claim in the text? Did he become curious and look for that “defamatory article?” Did he check to see why I was blocked? I rather doubt it. He’s stupid, not necessarily vicious. Actually, most RatWikians are teenagers or not much older, social misfits. Exceptions are rare. Genuine skeptics who have become involved burn out rapidly.

They lie about my position on skepticism. Skepticism is essential to science, one is not “pseudoskeptical” merely by disagreeing with something. “Pseudoskeptical” is pretend skepticism that is actually a belief in something without clear evidence. Gary Taubes is now under attack by a Darryl sock. He is a genuine skeptic, he wrote the classic book on Bad Science (referring to cold fusion). He is also documenting and writing books about Bad Science in other areas, some of which have become information cascades, where something is accepted as “mainstream” through reputation and not through actual clear science. The author of the RatWiki article is either ignorant or lies. For example, the Atkins diet does not encourage high protein. That is an old myth. The diet is HFLC, i.e., high fat, low carb, moderate protein.

Expose mainstream idiocy (which he did, quite effectively), and there will be plenty who will attack in return, providing lots of quotes for the RatWiki trolls. The Wikipedia article has problems, but is much more neutral and fair.

As to the RatWiki article, if someone creates a straw man argument, attributing it to the article target, that then becomes a source to smear the target with the argument. There is a highly critical quotation from a skeptical physician, but the actual review contradicts much of what the article claims. This is a disagreement, focusing mostly on other issues, where the physician indulges in some hyperbole, while, in fact, agreeing with much, and what he asserted as what Taubes is “preaching” is not a fair representation of Taubes’ actual positions.

RatWiki “skepticism” tends to be a belief in the infallibility of the mainstream, which is definitely not “scientific.” They use “skeptic” about what they call “pseudoscience,” which means, for them, whatever they believe is wrong; if someone is skeptical about mainstream opinion, they are called “denialists,” “pseudoscientists,” “quacks,” or “cranks.” In the cited physician article, much of the “mainstream” view is rejected. This kind of cherry-picking is common, not only on RatWiki, but also on Wikipedia. The physician joins Taubes in cautioning against confirmation bias. An editor searching for material with a slant can find it!

On and on

2019/02/24 at 23:17 (UT), using an open proxy, a troll, calling himself “Chinese Communist,”  posted a comment to the Dysklyver page here. It pointed to the Wikipedia Contributions page for Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard) and claimed he had been “banned.” Calling a block a “ban” is a common Oliver trope. He claims that “six people” emailed the WikiMedia Foundation about his “racist edits.” He named one of them, in fact. I’m not repeating it because nothing from this troll is reliable. There may be a core of truth, though, which could be that he, and certain others, in collaboration, emailed the Foundation or ArbComm. That is more or less how I was Office-banned. No warning, no explanation, and then the Smiths claimed it was for this or that, and they have even claimed a list of complainants, most of whom were plausible. But “plausible is not proof.”

However, Deleet has not been banned. He has been blocked without explanation, and he may appeal to the Committee, and his email access was left so he could do that, authenticated as the user. This would be common ArbComm practice in certain situations and there is an obvious possibility. I suspect he was accused of threatening Wikipedia users with legal action.

Technically, that should not disallow off-wiki warnings of a defamation action, the policy on No Legal Threats only applies to on-wiki threats, but the Committee is not always precise in its responses. Without knowing what actually happened, it is impossible to assess this.

ArbComm would be very unlikely to ban a user privately for “racist edits.” (The Office might. I’m half-way hoping they do, because it would be nice to add another plaintiff to what I intend to file tomorrow.)

That Emil Kirkegaard is a likely plaintiff in the very real lawsuit against Oliver Smith (which was just claimed to be a Mikemikev fantasy, do they actually believe that people will trust them?) could be a relevant fact to an ArbComm decision. I have no information as to whether or not Deleet has questioned or appealed this. Frankly, he doesn’t need Wikipedia for anything.

So, I thought, if this is a Smith, he will not wait long to announce it on Rational Wiki. I looked. Sure enough, eight minutes.

23:24, 24 February 2019 User account Muslim guy (talk | contribs) was created
23:30, 24 February 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+607)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (Adding comment about his recent ban)
00:26, 25 February 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+180)‎ . . N Talk:Alt-center ‎ (Another example)
00:27, 25 February 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+38)‎ . . m Talk:Alt-center
00:52, 25 February 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+2,115)‎ . . Talk:Emil Kirkegaard ‎ (→‎Kirkegaard whitewashing Wikipedia articles)
00:54, 25 February 2019 (diff | hist) . . (+152)‎ . . User talk:Arcticos ‎ (→‎Sysop) (current)

There is zero information on Wikipedia about the alleged ban (which isn’t a ban). It is only visible if you look at Deleet contributions (or in other logs, where it would be buried in a mountain of information). There were allegations of conflict of interest (some from Smith socks), against Deleet, but ArbComm would not issue a private block like that over conflict of interest, that would be handled on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. That someone is somehow involved with a subject does not necessarily create a COI, and even if one were found, the user would normally be warned, not blocked, unless they violate the warning.

There is no notice on the Deleet talk page, so someone watching that page would not see anything. Only if someone were stalking him, frequently checking on contributions, etc., would they notice it. And someone who was complaining, trying to get him blocked, might very well see it, but not necessarily immediately.

And, in fact, the block was on February 21, so all this flap was three days later. Unless Deleet did something I’m not aware of — I certainly don’t follow most of his activity — he has done nothing worthy of a block or ban. His communication with ArbComm will be private. I think there is a good chance the block will be lifted, possibly even with an apology, or not. ArbComm, and Wikipedia in general, are terrible about apologies, and huge messes are created and never cleaned up, because “beating a dead horse” and “it doesn’t matter for improving articles.”

Muslim Guy (liar, he’s not a Muslim, trolls with similar names appeared as attack socks about me), asserts this about Deleet:

On his Wikipedia user-page before he was banned Kirkegaard wrote he was recruiting people off-site to help him edit Wikipedia (link to Wikipedia). What he meant by this was getting his friends to create articles for race realists, this is a conflict of interest and meat-puppet issue which is against Wikipedia rules.

This is standard Oliver Smith BS, and an example of how he creates misleading sourcing. If you have what he claims in mind, i.e., his mind-reading of Emil’s purpose, you can look at the link and it looks real. But this is what Deleet actually wrote, it is on his current user page:

There is nothing reprehensible or contrary to Wikipedia policy or guidelines there. The “recruiting” item refers to an essay on recruiting subject matter experts. Many consider this a good thing to do. I don’t, because Wikipedia never became welcoming to experts who disagree with the views of dominant factions. So it is encouraging experts to waste their time debating Lilliputians, too often.

The FAQ would belong more on Wikiversity. On Wikipedia it is highly vulnerable to deletion. (It would also be vulnerable on Wikiversity, but much less likely unless Deleet were to edit it aggressively and without regard for consensus.) And if it is imbalanced, which it certainly could be, it could be balanced, either through consensus by editing, or by creation of an alternate FAQ, and I developed procedures on Wikiversity, the result of which were an almost complete lack of revert warring, as well as deletion of good-faith work, compared to Wikipedia, and improved neutrality overall. It can be done if the editors are willing. The community generally favored it, but also became, too often, distracted and not paying attention to central process. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and if liberty is lost, it can be too late to protect it.

Kirkegaard does appear to be an academic. When his RationalWiki article appeared, he seemed to welcome it. Then he found that the claims of RationalWiki to welcome civil disagreement were vacuous hypocrisy. They don’t. They actually used to, but that disappeared, and I’m suspecting that a big part of that disappearance was the result of enabling the Smith brothers.

(To keep diversity, it is not enough to tolerate minority opinion, it must be actively protected. Academic institutions have a long history of doing this, often at high cost. There are conditions and situations where simply telling the truth can raise a lynch mob to string up the “liar.” Democracy is superior to dictatorship only where it protects diversity, even diversity that disagrees with democracy. Hence the ACLU, and when I said something that promoted the ACLU ideals, these fascists quoted it as proof of Something Bad. They are actually fascist, i.e., oppressive and intolerant and willing to use whatever power they can gather to crush dissent, while pretending to be “anti-fascist.” Give them admin tools, they will use it to exclude contrary opinion. Oliver, as admin on Metapedia, did exactly that, there was a beautiful example I found.)

So: from the timing, very high probability that “Chinese Communist,” who also used “Chinese dude” in his email address (compare with “Asian dude” for an obvious Oliver sock on the Encyclopedia Dramatica Forum), is “Muslim guy,” and from the focus and arguments, this is very likely Oliver, playing with himself when he commented on User talk:Arcticos, or it’s the brother, Darryl. I will check timings, because Darryl is active and sometimes this provides information.

Anglo Pyramidologist

This was the original page here: List of articles edited on RationalWiki.

When this study began, I was aware of claims that behind the Anglo Pyramidologist socks was Oliver D. Smith, and some sources included his twin brother Darryl Smith. I did not mention those claims because I had not verified them. Eventually, I found enough evidence to assert it. It is not necessary to have absolute proof to state a position or assert a claim

One of the factors that weighed in favor of asserting it was that there was no contrary evidence. That is, there was no sign of the real Oliver D. Smith appearing and denying the claims. As well, some of the people making the claim were reasonably reliable. (Some were not, or at least did not appear so..)

I had identified the real Oliver D. Smith through his interest in Atlantis. He had published a peer-reviewed paper on that topic and all this was detailed on various sites . He had a public email address, he responded to what I wrote, and I quoted and covered that response on Emails.

(Later, he claimed that I harassed him by email, but he wrote me, and when he stopped writing, so did I. Oliver Smith is either a liar or insane. Toss a coin. He could be both.)

In those emails, he said he was writing a blog post to answer the claims of Emil Kirkegaard, and that post did appear. As was easily anticipated, the post was taken down, but was archived: http://archive.is/afNnI

These sources are from Oliver, not from some impersonator. (I have always allowed the possibility that some posts that appeared to be Anglo Pyramidologist were actually impersonators. And AP socks commonly impersonate, as well).

However, Oliver has a twin brother, this is reasonably verified. Otherwise it would be possible that the brother story, which was revealed on Wikipedia by an IP sock in 2011, was itself just one more lie. Most commentary on Oliver D. Smith says little about the brother, but it would appear that the strong interest in “pseudoscience” and parapsychology and the paranormal, was the brother. I find it reasonably likely that the Wikipedia and Wikiversity activity that originally triggered my investigation was by Darryl. However, there is much cross-over. Oliver claimed that “99.9%” of the identified socks were his brother, but that was obviously an exaggeration — because I have not identified a thousand socks. Not yet, anyway!

[Note added May 3, 2018: Oliver claimed, in April, that the “brother” story was a lie, beginning with the AngloPyramidologist Sock puppet investigation on Wikipedia. I conclude that this is just one more lie. There is a brother, that’s apparently public record, Oliver previously indicated the brother was being paid by an organization, and in his “confession,” he claimed that he had lied to Tim Farley, who is connected with two major skeptic organizations, which is pointed out for that fact, to connect the dots, not to accuse Farley of anything.

Recently, a new AP sock has been repeating the claims that the “RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is a paranoid fantasy. Nobody on RationalWiki seems to be checking these claims. In general RationalWiki users have supported AP socks — though sometimes they revert and block them, especially but not exclusively impersonation socks. It still remains the case that the article on Oliver D. Smith has been salted on RationalWiki — without any article having been attempted. He is being protected. Protection also has been seen on Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and meta.wikimedia.org.

(To notice the protection on RW, not logged in, try to create an article with a nonsense name on RationalWiki. I just did this, and I get an option: Create the page “[nonsense name]” on this wiki! Trying that with Oliver D. Smith, no name. This is why:

JorisEnter protected “Oliver D. Smith” 3 November 2016

Following up on this, looking at JorisEnter’s talk page to see a request (I didn’t find one), I do find:

a comment by one HamiticResistance. This would be a Smith brother, very likely Oliver. That comment was waving a big red flag, “Oliver Smith.” It links to a blog devoted to Mikemikev, with the name “Oliver D. Smith.” The blog is pure AP attack and misrepresentation (including “pedophile,” about which it is internally contradictory.) Looking up the user mentioned, Thorwald C. Franke, I find many likely Smith socks. The article on Franke, deleted by discussion (Smith had over-reached with that article), was archived. It is an obvious AP obsession.

HamiticResistance contributions were quacking like an AP duck, of the Oliver type. The talk page for Thorwald C. Franke has a conversation with Oliver (as user Gorgonite). Naturally, Franke is blocked, blamed on Mikemikev. Franke thus joins a substantial list of people who knew that AP socks — attacking him — were Oliver and who were blocked for mentioning it. Notice: not warned. Blocked.

In spite of all the cats being totally out of the bag, the most recent sock I’ve identified [when this was written, there are many more now, in March, 2018) is EvilGremlin (a typical AP username). My comments would not ordinarily be notable for an article on the London Conference on Intelligence; however, Smith is attempting damage control:

Internet troll and conspiracy theorist Abd ul-Rahman Lomax published a blog post in February 2018 defending Emil Kirkegaard and the London Conference on Intelligence.[87] Lomax posts a bizarre claim that a single individual named Oliver Smith is responsible for all of the news sources and RationalWiki articles that document the UCL conferences:

The tragedy of this is that “mainstream media” repeated accusations from RationalWiki, which then cites those repetitions and highly biased analysis — not mentioning where the newspapers got the information, which is obvious. RationalWiki. So Oliver Smith created a media nightmare and then cites it as proof that the nightmare is true. Nice trick. Not.

However, there’s no proof newspapers relied or quoted from RationalWiki, nor that a single individual was responsible for all mainstream news sources hearing about the London Conference on Intelligence. Contrary to Lomax’s delusions, the sequence of events that led to newspapers and the media to discover the London Conference on Intelligence:

Smith tells stories that omit relevant facts, including what he has previously admitted or even bragged about, and says “there’s no proof,” even when there is overwhelming evidence. That’s a characteristic of believers and pseudoskeptics (not genuine skeptics) and liars. (The real world runs on preponderance of evidence, not exactly “proof.”)

Notice the fake news trope: “All.” The way that the stories appeared indicated that some event triggered them. The event was very likely what Oliver or Darryl claimed: direct contact to media, pointing out the RationalWiki article. That article then points to very obscure “evidence,” taken out of context. A sloppy reporter might not check carefully. It happens.

The issue is not “hearing about the LCI,” but, for me, the wild, misleading, and exaggerated claims about Kirkegaard, often conclusory, with very thin circumstantial evidence.

His tactics include exaggerating or misrepresenting the statements of another, which then he can shoot down easily. What I actually claimed was that the original stories in Private Eye and London Student were largely taken, in certain aspects, from the RationalWiki article on Emil Kirkegaard, and I have most specifically in mind the accusations that Kirkegaard is a “pedophile” — a common AP claim about enemies, for which there is zero evidence that I’ve seen — or a “child rape apologist,” which is based on a totally obscure blog post of Kirkegaard years ago, which was only as described if one neglected the context. And that is what an unskilled and immature reporter will do. Quick and shallow research, and for Private Eye, looking for scandal. The same language was used in the stories as on RationalWiki. I will cover details below.

And Oliver D. Smith acknowledged having written those articles, and a sock bragged about it. From his email to me:

Someone informed me about the allegations about myself on your website. I’m not the person leaving messages on your website, and they read stupid. I have a new blog where I will cover my side of the story to Emil Kirkegaard; hopefully this post will be up in the next few days. The problem is explaining myself in more detail or clearing myself of other allegations, because this will take a longer period of time. The reason I am focusing on Kirkegaard is because he was in the newspaper headlines recently, and some journalists contacted me, and I may be of help to the UCL inquiry. All will be explained in my post.

As I replied, he might be telling the truth about those trolling comments. It might be his brother — or even someone else. However, he ends up, in the sequence of emails, repeating the same claims. I found him unwilling to be specific about his claims. This is all circular. Why was Kirkegaard in headlines recently? Maybe his brother contacted the newspapers. Remember, AP is not one person, it is at least two. But he knows what his brother is doing, reasonably well. He ends up, in the emails, defending his brother’s totally outrageous actions. If they were the brother’s actions. Nothing any AP sock writes can be fully trusted. They lie. This is not ordinary disagreement, it is deliberate and willful deception, there are voluminous — and common and frequent — examples.

Most telling, and the basis for what I wrote, was this comment by a recent and very obvious AP sock, SkepticDave (contributions). First the comment header:

RationalWiki to thank for shutting down conference attended by racists and paedophiles

RationalWiki allows AP to make accusations of another being a pedophile. More often, AP backs off from that to some degreem when challenged, with “pedophile apologist” which is a label often applied by hysterics about anyone who points out the definition of pedophilia or asserts that pedophiles or suspected pedophiles might have civil rights. So here the text is:

Lots of stuff in both national and local papers today about Emil Kirkegaard and John Fuerst who RationalWiki first documented and exposed as far-right extremists and paedophile-apologists: [and then a list of sources] . . .

The person who wrote those RationalWiki articles sent a tip-off to some newspapers. The story now has national coverage. SkepticDave (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The Emil Kirkegaard article and John Fuerst articles were started by Ben Steigmans (contributions) and are among the Favorite Topics that identify AP socks, see the RW article sock list for Kirkegaard and Fuerst. (And Ben Steigmann is a favorite target.) Oliver Smith has admitted being the originator of those two articles.


Many Darryl socks use “skeptic in the name,” including the most recent one identified, Skeptic from Britain, on Wikipedia. (That account was renamed and renamed again, in an obvious attempt to suppress scrutiny, see this Twitter comment, the current name is Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434)

Why did Skeptic from Britain “retire”? Well, on Encyclopedia Dramatica, Oliver claimed I was this user, so I looked, and saw many red flags, this was an Anglo Pyramidologist sock (specifically Darryl L. Smith). Oliver also claimed he was going to tell a crowd of Twitter users who were demanding to know who this troll was that it was me. (Oliver is insane, did he think I’d be frightened?) Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Darryl fled, which he has often done. Nobody on Wikipedia seems to have realized who he was. And Wikipedia will not care, unless someone files a checkuser request, which might not be actioned, “retiring” often will be given as a reason not to bother. So it’s used as a defense, in spite of the value for later analysis. They don’t think about it. They just want to know to block or not block.

Why did Oliver out his brother? He’s actually done it many times. Oliver is obviously unstable. Maybe he was angry with something, this happens in families. The brother retires his accounts when outed, if it is noticed. I’ve seen many. Darryl has never talked about his brother, at least not recently. He has, as a RationalWiki sysop, deleted his brothers’ comments, many times.

The last contribution of this sock:

::Hey, I appreciate your help on some of the articles I edited and your advice. You are a good editor. Unfortunately regarding the Malcolm Kendrick thing I was doxxed by some of his associates such as Tom Naughton, Jimmy Moore etc and these people including Kendrick have posted my real life name etc on various social media platforms and low-carb websites. Jimmy Wales spoke to some of these people via twitter but they ended up insulting him. They are not to be reasoned with! I will leave them to their irrational conspiracy theories. I will be leaving Wikipedia. I have requested a courtesy blanking of my username. [[User:MatthewManchester1994|MatthewManchester1994]] ([[User talk:MatthewManchester1994|talk]]) 00:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

He was lying. Not only was I unable to find his “real name” posted by those people, there is an apparent troll who posted the name of someone who is very likely innocent, and this would be the Smith MO: stir up anger against someone innocent, proving that their targets are stupid “conspiracy theorists.” The name mentioned is “Michael Ellis,” or “Michael C. Ellis,” and there is no evidence he is involved. (I will take his name down here on request, but this is declaring him not involved, and may help correct the spurious claims.)

The post on Tom Naughton’s blog:

skeptic from Britain has an Instagram https://www.instagram.com/mixxster/

his name is Michael C Ellis . he is a vegetarian SJW, but oddly claims to eat red meat twice a week.

Tom Naughton did not post any real name that I’ve been able to find. Naughton questions the source for this. No response. The post was by “James,” anonymous. This is typical for AP socks. No evidence, just an allegation, including an allegation of hypocrisy, based on what?

This was then picked up by a commentor on Kendrick’s blog. He thinks he’s being helpful, he does not confirm the identification.

Another comment appeared on Naughton’s blog:

Low-Carb Man

Because Skeptic from Britain got outed as Ellis he changed his Wikipedia username and claims to be leaving the website because he was doxed, but he has sub-mitted your Fat Head movie on Wikipedia to deletion, so you must have touched a nerve of his!

You should check Malcolm Kendrick’s blog comments various vegans have turned up to defend Ellis. This was no doubt an attack from vegan SJW’s and they claim this is only round 1. You were right.

This time Naughton was sucked into agreeing. Notice, however, that this was after the claim that Naughton had outed him. AP socks are expert at feeding people “information” that may confirm their preconceptions. Of course people would defend Ellis! There is no evidence he was this troll.

Using an name like “Low Carb Man” is classic Darryl Smith activity. This all confirms the identification. I have documented many such names, single-purpose accounts that appear to make a trolling comment.

Back to the RationalWiki comments (before the Diversion)

Toby Young at the beginning of January 2018 made news headlines for sending sexist and other inappropriate tweets.[88][89] On 9 January 2018 he resigned his position on the Office for Students regulator for making the offensive comments and apologized.[90][91][92]

Immediately after resigning, journalists looked into Young’s Twitter history and discovered he had mentioned in December 2017 his attendance to the London Conference on Intelligence, that he was told to keep silent about: “[I was] asked not to share the information with anyone else…”[93]

On 10 January 2018, the magazine Private EyeWikipedia's W.svg published an article[94] that mentions: “What he [Young] kept to himself was why the conference he attended was so secretive” and names a few of the white supremacistseugenicists and sexists (including Richard Lynn) who were speakers at the UCL conferences.

After the publication of the Private Eye article, London Student the same day published a more detailed exposure of the far-right extremists and racists who had attended the conferences.[95]London Student informed UCL and the university responded they were investigating.[96]

On 11 January 2018, mainstream newspapers and other news sources reported the story; some of these credit Private Eye and London Student.[97][98][99][100][101]


“ODS”, the first open RationalWiki account for Oliver D. Smith, claimed that Google had de-listed Kirkegaard’s blog. I saw nothing of the kind, but an IP user on RationalWiki, accessing google.uk from UK IP, saw the existence of filtered results and pointed to them and to descriptions of the requests, which are documented on this page.

Anglo Pyramidologist

If you see this page on an internet archive, it may have been updated and errors corrected. Always check the current version of archived pages!

Subpages: See category/anglo-pyramidologist/


Confirmed as Oliver D. Smith. (Copyright unknown. Fair use claimed.)

Anglo Pyramidologist (AP) is a Wikipedia account, created 14 February 2011 , see the block log.

As well, see the SPI case archive. Early on, in 2011, it was claimed that there were two users involved, brothers, sometimes editing from the same location (their family home). An IP claimed to be the “other brother,” not AP.

In many places, Oliver D. Smith has acknowledged being AP. He has also claimed, repeatedly, that most of the accounts tagged as AP are not him, but his twin brother, known to be Darryl L. Smith. Oliver Smith was outed years ago, and widely. In many places, though, where people who have been harassed have criticized and documented him, he has repeatedly claimed that he was not the accounts some have associated him with. This is consistent with those accounts being his brother, who, just as AP shifted from being a white nationalist, apparently, to being antifascist and antiracist, shifted from being a fringe or pseudoscience believer to being a “skeptic,” and Oliver wrote about his brother that, “to his knowledge, he was being paid or working with an organization.”

Summary: the family of Anglo Pyramidologist socks is Oliver D. Smith and Darryl L. Smith, twin brothers. It is unknown to me if they are identical twins or merely fraternal. Oliver Smith has openly acknowledged being at least some of the AP socks. See the Identity subpage. for information on how Oliver D. Smith was identified, and Darryl L. Smith, for information about his twin, who, as a real-life identity, is far less visible, so far, but whom Oliver Smith blames for most (“99.9%,” an obvious exaggeration) of the sock puppets identified.

Recently, as there started to be heat on Darryl L. Smith, Oliver claimed that it was all him, he had been lying since 2011 to avoid a block on Wikipedia and to confuse those who were stalking him.

I thought about what to call this page. Anglo Pyramidologist was the name of an early appearance of the user — or family of users –, and the primary Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigation page uses that name. There is another account sometimes used to refer to the user or family (Atlantid). One of the characteristics of AP socks is impersonation, and it is possible that

  • There have been impersonations of AP.
  • There have been accounts incorrectly identified with AP.
  • There are family members — or friends — who have been tagged because of using family IP or computers This can also happen from sharing internet access, not only at home, but also at, say, a cafe or library.

In the fog created by all these possibilities, what can be known? Plenty.

AP has had certain identifiable interests and practices, leading to the “duck test,” which is often so clear on Wikipedia that an SPI will be closed with no checkuser. That process, however, has been vulnerable to impersonation socks, designed to target an individual by creating blatantly abusive socks. It is very clear that this has happened, and it is likely that both brothers have used impersonations, either for defamation or to confuse reviewers.

My long-term practice in many fields is to collect and present evidence first, before drawing conclusions. Such collections may involve days or weeks of research, or more. Ideally, I come back and summarize and may draw some conclusions. But understanding derives from experience, not so much from analysis and conclusions. Here I am initially collecting reports on the identity and behavior of “AP socks.” These come from sources of varied probity and reliability. AP has attacked anyone who has exposed him, and he threatened me that he would not rest until all my work was deleted. He’s had some “success” in that; but he does it by presenting “plausible lies” to those inclined not to look  carefully. That all, in time, is being documented. I will stop collecting data when I die, which will happen soon enough. I’m not dead yet.

I have now been looking at many hundreds of possible AP edits and accounts.  Patterns appear and become obvious, and I begin to state conclusions. However, I do not expect anyone to “believe” my conclusions, though I do request the courtesy of either examining evidence or suspending judgment. I will review pages and posts reviewing AP socks on subpages.

The first page I saw was one of the Rome Viharo pages. Rome Viharo was Wikipedia editor tumbleman, and a handful of socks. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition,” and not on Wikipedia, countless editors have shown up, believing that Wikipedia was run according to the generally-excellent policies, and it usually is, but where there is a strong faction, a faction that includes a few administrators, with a strong point of view, it often is not. This exception will generally aligned with what is believed to be a “majority point of view.” The problem is not the point of view, in itself, but the methods used to imbalance articles well beyond “due weight,” which methods include targeting and banning those believed to have some “minority point of view.” As if point of view is Bad. (That idea, that “POV-pushers” are to be banned, has resulted in long-term corruption of what could otherwise be genuine consensus.)

These methods include what I have called “attack dogs.” These are users willing to stretch the limits and even act outside them, but who are mysteriously protected and often not sanctioned. With many years of experience, I have concluded they are protected because they serve others allied against some minority view, who are not willing to risk sanctions themselves. Rome Viharo independently came to similar conclusions.

Some pages here on Anglo Pyramidologist:

Wikipedia/Anglo Pyramidologist list of suspected (and often checkusered) socks including IP. Mostly organized by date of checkuser requests or IP discovery.

MrRowser a brief SPA, mentioned in passing (not actually accused), came back recently to attack the studies. Clearly AP from the later comments.

RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist list of suspected RW socks organized by article or page of interest.

Geolocation List of identified IP addresses. There is a map.

Skeptical an obvious AP sock, the one who blocked me on RationalWiki for “doxxing” that was not doxxing. Listing accounts is not doxxing. Naming real persons behind an account is minimal doxxing, and thus this page doxxes AP socks. When an account defames and libels, it looses privacy rights.

AP socks commonly claim that the “Smith brothers conspiracy theory” is an invention and claim with no evidence. In fact, the idea of brothers originally came from the socks themselves. From the Wikipedia Sock Puppet Investigation in April, 2011. “we have a claim of that he is not his brother (Anglo Pyramidologist) but that they sometimes edit from the same house.” There are details about alleged positions on issues. 

In June, 2011, there are more comments from Livingintheforests (the “other brother,” not Anglo) that Anglo is thulist88, again with more details about points of view.

Many analysts don’t make the brother claim, but some do. My own opinion has become that are indeed two major users behind “AP,” matching the stories of “Oliver D. Smith” and “Darryl L. Smith.” Some alleged these are twins. Oliver has confirmed that, and public records confirmed that they are the same age. Another possibility is a multiple personality (deliberate or otherwise), which would require, however, that the impersonated twin be silent.

There are various sites and pages covering Anglo Pyramidologist. It has been claimed on RationalWiki that I am supporting the people who wrote those pages. I have not necessarily investigated the various positions of these people (beyond, a little, Rome Viharo). These sites, however, provide clues for further investigation. I will comment a little on each. Inclusion here is in no way an approval of or ratification of the politics or content of a site, unless that is specifically expressed. This is material for research.


Rome Viharo, the blogger, was attacked on Wikipedia by a skeptical faction there. I had also confronted that faction (and anyone who confronts that faction is risking their account).

However, until recently, I was not aware of extensive socking as part of the problem. Rome started out by describing certain users who are not suspected of being AP.

AP socks commonly lie about Rome Viharo, and an AP sock just posted to my RationalWiki article a comment I made several years ago, on RationalWiki — I had forgotten all about this —  that Rome Viharo was a troll (specifically, that what appeared to be his RationalWiki editing was trolling, not that he was trolling elsewhere.) When I first saw this, I thought that I may have been writing about an impersonation sock. No, it was about the RomeViharo account on RW, which was almost certainly Rome. My fuller comment places this in better context. I was critical of Rome, and have been, as well, recently, though about older posts of his.

Rome has been impersonated and extensively maligned and threatened, and people who go through that often are not polite and carefully correct in response. However, I wrote “opinionated self-important blowhard.” At that point, I had given up on RationalWiki, my edits were few, but that kind of rhetoric was common RationalWiki snark. I apologize to Rome for writing that, it was beyond the pale. He was merely wrong.

This is not the point here. The point is what claims are being made about Anglo Pyramidologist (or Atlantid, or other equivalent names).

Skeptic Sockpuppet army gets busted on Wikipedia. November 15, 2015. Understates the problem.

Latest Email threatens to increase harassment if I don’t stop reporting on it. November 30, 2015. The style resembles the style of threats I received. Threat of impersonation socks to ruin his reputation. Actual sock had been created and wrote fake opinion. At this point he did not have a name.

WP Editor Manul tries to bully WP Admin Liz on Wikipedia, continues with ‘Tumbleman’ paranoia. January 8, 2016. There are some claims here that I may follow up on when I begin to document the “fellow travellers” who have supported and been supported by Anglo Pyramidologist socks. I am indirectly mentioned — I had an article in that issue of Current Science, which is a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. I had seen discussion of it on Wikipedia, which was all strange. Long-term, peer-reviewed reviews of cold fusion have been excluded. The argument might generally be “undue weight,” but where are the reviews in the other direction? Recent reviews are disregarded and very old reviews — that may have reflected the status of cold fusion at the time, perhaps more than twenty years ago — are instead emphasized. In this post, however, Viharo mentions the Smith brothers.

One of those editors on Wikipedia is ‘Goblin Face‘, who edited on the Sheldrake article as ‘Dan Skeptic’. Dan Skeptic was one of over 50 sock puppet accounts used by a ‘skeptic army’ on Wikipedia which has now been busted and linked to the Smith brothers, Oliver and Daryll.

The Smith brothers picked up where Manul left off with their original slanderous comments and began a campaign of harassment and slander which they took to Rational Wiki, Reddit, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikia, and a host of other forums.

When I started to study the AP sock disruption, I mentioned Manul (the former vzaak). It was a casual mention, not an accusation of any wrong-doing. Yet I was immediately attacked by AP sock puppets for that mention, one of the attacking accounts was named Friend of Manul.

Viharo does not provide a source for the Smith brothers claim. The page he links (also linked above) doesn’t contain any mention of Smith.

What will Wikipedia and RationalWiki editor Goblin Face/Atlantid do next? February 19, 2016. This is covered elsewhere. It has a claim of identity of the sock master as Oliver D. Smith. No source.

Factual harassment versus fictional harassment, Deepak Chopra’s Wikipedia article reflects larger problem. March 26, 2016

I’ve seen evidence for much of what Viharo claims, but I wouldn’t expect others to believe it from what he writes, there are too many claims without evidence. It’s a blog, one can simply state one’s opinion on a blog. It is also difficult to establish interest such that people will read evidence, but if the evidence is not available, it’s impossible. Few will do independent research. Most people just react, believing whatever they want to believe. So-called skeptics can be even worse than ordinary people in this way.

Clear Language, Clear Mind (Emil Kirkegaard)

This is reasonably correct, but does not directly provide evidence about identity (though this is where I got the photo of Oliver D. Smith. I have verified a few facts stated there. For example, Kirkegaard claims that he compiled a list of RationalWiki socks and was then blocked for doxxing. That’s true. The list was compiled on his user page. It was as archived. It was not doxxing, it was a claim of socking, which is very, very different. It was deleted by Skeptical, an AP RW sysop (who was shortly to disappear when outed).

Just about Skeptical’s last cough (November 7, 2017):

Hi Oliver!

How’s it been holding up big guy? Parkordude91

Abd Lomax’s conspiracy theory about my identity is getting old… I’m not that person. […] Skeptical (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

At that point, “Oliver” hadn’t been mentioned by me, as I recall. It was all over the internet, though, long before I was aware of the existence of these socks. Skeptical’s behavior had led me to conclude, by about the time Skeptical blocked me, that he was indeed AP. Emil points to my small study of Skeptical.

Other links from his page:

  • Lolcow Wiki, archived from April 2017. Someone did a lot of research. The foundation is laid, thoroughly, for a claim that Atlantid and the rest are Oliver D. Smith. There is also mention of the brother, but the link is dead. There are many socks I recognize from my own research, but others I had not found and will investigate. I recall an AP sock claiming that the Smith brothers story came from Encyclopedia Dramatica, and from what I show below, the clear identification as Oliver D. Smith may indeed have come from there. It’s completely plausible and is at least roughly confirmed by other sources, such as a Smith bio on Wikia.

I’m skipping the three Encyclopedia Dramatica links. There is some research there into early activities, but it’s not worth digging through the noise — and exposing others to it through links.

I found another Lolcowiki discussion.

It gives a home address. There is a reference to another discussion which has a list of five names, appearing to have been taken from some directory, all at the same address, which would be Oliver’s mother and father and then his two brothers. Darryl and Oliver are listed as the same age, roughly confirming the idea I’ve seen that these are twin brothers. I’m putting that address into the IP map database for comparison. (that other discussion shows what purports to be a threat from Oliver Smith to harass Joshua Connor Moon (of Lolcow wiki). I’m not showing more evidence here on that, but apparently there was real-life harassment and damage.


On the issue of the real-life identity of Anglo Pyramidologist, I spent a day compiling information, shown on the Identity subpage.

I received some comments from Anglo Pyramidologist (apparently). I don’t want those conversations featured on the blog home page, so they are moved to a comments subpage. 

Anglo Pyramidologist

I will be reporting newer activity on this page: wikipedia/anglo-pyramidologist/new/


This study of the massive socking called “Anglo Pyramidologist” was originally on the meta wiki, the first study having been moved from wikiversity to avoid disruption, as the file User:Abd/LTA/Anglo Pyramidologist, but was deleted there for mysterious reasons, given that it was the source, the evidence, for a list of socks that was allowed by the same steward. That page was ported here from an archive of the meta page and I am removing all the chatty discussion of why I started the study, etc., the page before such stripping can be read at http://archive.is/iJ1SI

When hosted on meta,  I attempted to comply with WMF privacy policy, and some material was not disclosed there, that is disclosed here, where there is no such restriction. This user is the most disruptive and libelous I have ever seen, and does not deserve protection, and those who are protecting him (and there are some), are taking a side against decency, not to mention WMF neutrality policy.


  • MrRowser deserves a special honor being at this point the most recent identified AP sock to edit using his account. (Identified by the duck test.)  There are other new IP accounts listed.
 There are indications that AP is more than one person, twin brothers are often mentioned on other sites (Oliver D. Smith and Darryl L. Smith) and there may be a third brother or a sister (HealthyGirl?). Behavioral differences may be seen.
Recently (April 7 2018) Oliver D. Smith claimed he had been lying since 2011, that there is no brother, he made up the story to get unblocked. However, in many other places, Oliver Smith  claimed that most socking had been his brother, (example) and there are at least two apparent personalities (sets of interests) involved. (In fact, it’s clear there is a brother, but the issue would be who did all the socking, including impersonations and other major disruption…. He is really saying it was all him, and that his brother is “innocent.”)
Complicating matters is that, as Anglo Pyramidologist is known to impersonate enemies in order to bring down  the thunder on them, it is possible that he has also been impersonated. He has not complained about this, as far as I know, with specifics in any context where claims could be verified. It has not been investigated using checkuser or similar tools, to my knowledge. I am finding, for sure, strong signs that almost all of the activity is coming from one location in England, where IP can be identified (the user often uses open proxies, but not always).
This will be covered in the IP section.
On Wikipedia, though, all the accounts are classified as Anglo Pyramidologist, they don’t really care if it is one or two people, if they behaviorally match one of the tagged accounts, and/or are confirmed by checkuser (which can fail to distinguish between people using the same internet access).
I was banned by the WMF, reasons not explained, and will be pursuing recourse on that. What is known is that there were complaints, and the documentation of the AP socks figured prominently; Oliver Smith, in particular, published, on RationalWiki, the WMF response to his complaint. He was quite proud of it.


Inclusion of an account here is not a claim that identification is correct, only that it — or suspicion — can be documented in some way. If a claim is included that is not documented, correction is invited.
The recent activity has been through SPAs, which register and dive immediately into high conflict discussions, these are easily recognized. Most recently, open proxies and then mobile phone IP addresses have been used
You can delete this message if you like. Just to let you know I will not be further engaging you. It seems you live for this drama, I will not longer be involved. I will do my best behind the scenes via email to get admins to delete all your material.
He meant it, and he has done just that, but was lying when he said he would not be involved. He continued to create sock puppets — or to create disruption with open proxies and then mobile IP>
If you want to spend the rest of your life stalking someone that is up to you, but it is not healthy.
On his favorite web site, RationalWiki, that is called “concern trolling.” The sock master has obviously been stalking Ben Steigmann, then me, and many others.
I object to such a thing. I am done with this.
Excellent, but he just contradicted that with a threat of endless effort.

I would like to add though that AngloPyramidologist is innocent. If you want the debunker of parapsychology/or pseudoscience it is me.

This would be, I tentatively assume, Darryl Smith, whereas AP was Oliver Smith. I don’t really care. Both were disruptive and the checkuser evidence does not distinguish. There does appear to be crossover, i.e., some shared interests. If the original AP is inactive, good for him, but the other brother, then has also taken on some of his brother’s interests, because the original patterns still show up.

I have debated Ben in the past, he knows who I am, I have talked to him on Wikipedia in 2014. I have nothing against Ben personally, unfortunately he uses Wikipedia to promote his fringe beliefs, he promised in 2014 not to come back but his mistake was coming back in 2017.

Obsession with Ben Steigmann is an AP trait.

Take care. Btw I do object to the ‘troll’ allegations. I have written over 250 articles on Wikipedia. As to this very day 30/9/2017 I have four Wikipedia accounts and 12 others I occasionally use, the admins are only interested in banning vandals.

Most of the provocative posts this user made were trolling, poking, attempting to find some vulnerability that could be exploited. On Wikipedia, this user, perhaps hiding his true mission, would poke and provoke until a naive user explodes … and then he can get the person blocked for incivility. There is a trail of wreckage, if one were to look back.

If you are atheist, pro-skeptic like me and debunking fringe beliefs the admins love us.

If admins love this, they have lost the core of Wikipedia, NPOV, in favor of something they like personally. I could think of a couple who might, but most would recoil in horror, and the SPOV faction has lost every time the issue comes to serious community attention.

I can’t go wrong. I was even offered paid work from the owner of a skeptic group.

There are possible connections between AP, the faction mentioned, and a well-known “skeptic group,” but others are working on that aspect of this. I’m not, at this point. That is, I think this may be true, and I may know who that “owner” is. However, I also know that it is possible that some enemy of those people is pretending to be their friend, here.


I still create articles perhaps 12 or so a week. I have serious knowledge and I have improved the Wikipedia in skeptical related articles in relation to fringe beliefs.

I have found some recent activity, but I have not begun systematic study. Now, if this is true, why would he tell me? Indications are that this person is mid-twenties, and is obviously arrogant. He is likely unaware of all the ways that activity can be studied, that socks can be identified. He may imagine that certain defenses are impregnable. Truth, however, tends to out. If he stops attempting to disrupt Wikiversity, and to attack me, maybe I’ll never get to it. He’s been quiet for a day now. I’ve been warned that these people never give up, so we’ll see.

Your statement we are all vandals or doing illegal activity is false.

First of all, there may only be one of him. Secondly, impersonation with intention to defame is a crime almost everywhere.

This is common in his arguments, they misrepresent what has been said. It has not been claimed that the accounts or IPs are “all vandals or doing illegal activity.”

Take care and Good bye. My advise for you would be to give up. You are fighting a war you cannot win.

I’ve already won, thanks to reality. Survival is a game that we always lose, eventually, if that’s the game we play and the war we fight. However, at my age, every day that I’m still alive is a victory, and the mystery is how many more I have left to win.

You will never work out who I am or get rid of me from Wikipedia.

Leon. From a tower (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [this section has a link to the edit in the heading]

Relying on sources I consider reasonably reliable, I have some developed opinions as to personal identity, I’ve mentioned that. This would be AP/D, probably. It doesn’t matter. I’m unlikely to sue, because I have not been damaged. Some, however, might.

If Wikipedia is infested with him, that’s their problem, not mine. No critical interest of mine depends on Wikipedia at all. Nor, in fact, on Wikiversity or any WMF wiki. There are sincere people there, working for the goal of a user-created encyclopedia based on neutral presentation of what is in reliable sources, and that goal is damaged by those who work to selectively exclude some point of view or position, rather than channelling these into collaborative work. Wikiversity, not having limited space for specific topics, is not normally afflicted by factional wars, AP/D attempted to take such conflict there. He failed, because I recognized what had happened and addressed it.

(However, the last attack, by IP, including canvassing on Wikipedia, drawing in his faction, the one that he claims “loves him.” And something was indeed going on behind the scene, because admin response on Wikiversity (1) completely ignored the previous history and obvious personal attacks, and (2) served the AP agenda.  The effect of that is to demonstrate conclusively to me that Wikiversity is not safe, so, unless something drastically shifts, bye bye Wikiversity!

I will continue to document what has happened and is happening. I’m not dead yet.

 SPI investigation archive for Anglo Pyramidologist

roughly 190 socks on Wikipedia, plus IP
11 April 2011

15 June 2011

28 November 2011
13 December 2011
above confirmed mutual.
21 September 2011
27 September 2011
03 October 2011
03 October 2011, take 2
05 October 2011
IP check declined for privacy reasons. There was “other behavior” which the checkuser declined to disclose. I have a suspicion of off-wiki coordinated editing, and the checkuser may have detected actual sock accounts and left them alone. I may look more closely at this later. These are all Verizon wireless. So why doesn’t the account register, if they want to edit that much? Likely reason: they don’t want to be identified. Wikipedia went overboard in privacy protection. Privacy is important, but … sometimes there are higher values. I don’t know if that applies here, yet.
It appears that IPs were blocked. These IPs don’t look like AP, but … open proxies or something else.
02 November 2011
all confirmed. match to BookWorm44.
13 June 2012
claimed to be w:User:Earthisalive
Quack. Previously blocked as User:Earthisalive, now returning as User:The earth has a mind, First edit is to recreate European origin of modern humans as Out of Europe theory. Check user requested to check for sleepers. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up. Mentions a series of articles deleted, that lead to RationalWiki articles and more possible socks there. AP has been claiming that he has created many Wikipedia articles and RationalWiki articles. Yes, he has. Often very disruptive articles, the cloaca of RationalWiki. See the tip of the iceberg in the RationalWiki/Anglo Pyramidologist study. 
29 September 2012

From a combination of the duck test (which I have not confirmed (but the account names!!!), I have not yet studied these account activities) and the checkuser confirmations, I suspect that AP may have been using some kind of open proxy then, though that also seems unlikely.

11 November 2012
24 December 2014
10 June 2015
all confirmed

17 January 2016

At this point investigations were moved to Anglo Pyramidologist

29 March 2016