Self-admitted troll

Great example of Smith trolling on Reddit, I see this morning.
The thread is
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation is a failure

started by u/RationalWikiuser with only one other trolling comment.

The comment, account deleted by the time I saw it (this is done to make it difficult to track comments, there is no other sense to it)


22 hours ago edited 22 hours ago (as of 17:10 UT)

Laughable; you’re now boot-licking Dysklyver to try to get him to side with you against Smith.

Actually, this troll has been doing quite a good job of influencing Dysklyver toward recognition. My goal with Dysklyver is to support him in realizing and expressing reality, not to get him to “side with me,” because reality has no sides. No boot-licking. I have disagreed with Dysklyver, but my work is not — as the trolls claim — about attacking those with whom I have some disagreement. It is all about finding consensus rooted in reality, the only place where genuine disagreements can be resolved, and trivial ones vanish.

You did exactly the same thing with Rome Viharo. Originally you described Viharo as a “troll” and “loser”, yet when you realised you could use him against Smith, you suddenly started boot-licking him and did a 180 degrees turn over night, suddenly claiming he’s not a troll. Funny that.

The trolls create fantasy stories that amuse them no end. Here, the troll is, as usual, displaying “guilty knowledge,” i.e., knowledge that would be very rare, except for someone who has intensively searched for my history. If that is done with them, they call it “stalking.” But I am not hiding, they are. So they unmask themselves by revealing these “facts.” What they report here is based on a fact, a comment, but the interpretation, they invented. The fact.

The context: I was a RatWiki sysop, and wrote that in Ratspeak. It could be considered harsh, but that’s normal on RatWiki. I still stand by the analysis, Rome Viharo was ineffective on Wikipedia. I already recognized the pseudoskeptical faction that he confronted and that faction dominates on RatWiki. Because he was expressing a very unpopular point of view on RatWiki, with response being predictable, that was “trolling.”

However, in the other direction, as I noted then, he had been abused and was being abused on RatWiki. Later, I learned much more about what had happened and who was involved. I continued to — and still continue to — disagree with some of Viharo’s conclusions, as being, at best, premature. The situation is a bit more complex, my opinion, than the simpler understanding he has shown. But he did not lie on his blog, and his clues led me to more direct evidence. None of this was about “boot-licking.”

And no, you aren’t a journalist. (laughs)

An anonymous troll imagines he can define the word and apply that as if fact, and have it make a difference for anyone. Journalist (Wikipedia). That is what I do, with researched, verifiable fact, and with editorial opinion, the two distinguished (if anyone asks). I am, as implied in what he was replying to, a “responsible journalist.” I can be called to account by my readers, and my name and reputation are at stake. This is radically different from anonymous editors and trolls.

At what university did you study journalism, or what newspaper or online news website do you write for? You have zero credentials and own a crummy blog that you use to attack people you get in slap-fights over the internet.

A small percentage of the blog space is devoted to this affair. Most of it — by far — relates to cold fusion, the subject of the blog, and reporting on cold fusion is where I have functioned the most as a journalist, explicitly supported by the public (and by private grants), see, which does not show the larger contributions. I am not a “professional,” because I have never been paid for journalism; rather, I am an amateur, and the funding covers expenses. Relevant to the topic on this reddit, none of that funding has gone toward the filing fee for the lawsuit.

I do use the blog for personal expression, pending the formation of an editorial board. It is all related to the cold fusion work, in some way, but it can be peripheral. For example, the attack on me on Wikiversity focused on deleting the cold fusion educational resource there, which had stood for a decade or so with no disruption at all. They lied in the deletion discussion. So, cold fusion related. And nobody supporting my work has complained. Only the people I supposedly get in slap-fights with, which is only Oliver and Darryl Smith, who create massive disruption and then blame it on others, like me. And like they are doing with their throwaway accounts on reddit.

As to the central point, are bloggers journalists? Yes, according to a U.S. court. I have been given press credentials to attend a conference without paying a fee. I could have presented credentials in the U.S. Federal Court in Miami, but all I would have gained would have been the right to carry my phone into court, and I didn’t bother.

At this point, would not be considered “reliable source” for Wikipedia purposes, because there is no formal fact-checking editorial supervision. Not yet, anyway, but there is a rough fact-checking process, which is through public comments, which are invited, and anyone covered on the blog is allowed to present comments that will be featured as responses, if the original material is not “corrected.” Simply screaming on reddit that the blog is full of lies is not a correction. Specific links to specific information would be required.

But I was saying that Dysklyver was a “reliable source” for my purposes, which is an editorial judgment I can make, until there is a review board in place (which I expect, eventually).

Dysklyver did not provide any evidence for his claims. As for “highly respected”, lol.

Dysklyver confirmed evidence and provided personal testimony, which is meaningless to the trolls, because to them, anonymous is equal to real-name. For “highly respected,” Dysklyver is a tech on RatWiki, basically he is trusted with the most sensitive of tools. He has done nothing that I have seen that is not in conformity with the stated purposes and traditions of RatWiki, and complaints about him, from accounts of the trolls, have gone nowhere.

This claim of not “any evidence” is common with liars and purveyors of fake news. “There is no evidence.” when there is evidence, it’s obvious, and it has been shown and some of it is verifiable. Legally, personal testimony is evidence. In court, yes, to be admissible it must be attested, but informally, this is how society runs: on trust of personal testimony. But not to basement-dwelling trolls, who imagine that somehow by multiplying accounts, they increase credibility. It worked for them somewhere, so they repeat it.

Trolls equate “evidence” with “proof,” which is bizarre for alleged skeptics. But it’s common, to be sure. All the time, people say “there is no evidence” when the reality is that there is evidence, but they do not agree with certain conclusions. Not distinguishing between evidence and conclusions is common for the naive. An ordinary person can testify in court according to what they have experienced, but not about their conclusions (unless they are qualified as an “expert witness” which is a huge can of worms.) The distinction is clear.

That multiplication of accounts is classic sock puppetry. And it is completely obvious on the subreddits these trolls have been infesting.

I do not wish to attack Dysk,


but he’s a self-admitted troll

This is interesting, but what Smith makes of it could be misleading. Fact, a subhead on Dysklyver’s blog:

Cornish Lawyer, long time Wikipedian and Your Favourite Troll.

In other trollsock ravings, Smith has claimed that when Oliver D. Smith admitted to suffering from schizophrenia, he was being sarcastic (which the context did not support). Here, was Dysklyver being sarcastic?

Trolling is a specific kind of action, related to motivation. Trolling is not normally my habit, but there are places and times for it.

I was prohibited from any editing related to cold fusion by a Wikipedia sysop. I filed an ArbCom case over that. In the middle of the case, the sysop claimed that I was still banned, and he could prove it. I had been voluntarily complying with the ban. This was an opportunity, a testosterone-crazed bully making a threat, inviting me to wave a red flag.

So I formally withdrew from voluntary cooperation, and waited a day. No objections appeared. So I made a small, harmless edit to the cold fusion Talk page, pointing to a prior discussion in answer to a question that nobody had answered. This was not in the least disruptive, by any argument, other than “defiance of administrator.” I went to sleep.

When I woke up and looked, all hell had broken loose. As was predictable, the admin had blocked me, I had been unblocked by an arbitrator, and immediate desysop was under discussion. That edit was the most efficient action I ever took on Wikipedia. Almost wordlessly, it demonstrated the problem I was confronting, and in the end, he — very popular in his faction! — was desysopped.

Was that trolling? Yes. I took an action that I knew would provoke him. But is trolling always bad? Trolling can unmask pretenders. But that is quite unusual. More often what I do that is called trolling (especially by trolls) is that I tell the truth, or provide reasonable inference, with evidence, and there are those it angers, but my goal is not to anger them, it is to hew to reality. If reality angers them, that is their problem, not mine, though I’m still responsible for effects where I have power.

Is Dysklyver a troll? I’ve seen very little, if any, to confirm that, but his actions on Wikipedia would be considered trolling to the mindless there, because they have no other way to imagine that they could understand his behavior. I’m not sure that I understand his behavior, but what I’ve seen so far is consistent with . . . I’ll call it genius. I suspect he will go far, if he doesn’t get himself killed. There is always that risk.

and SJW/Antifa who uses photos on the internet pretending to be someone in a balaclava (certainly not normal), and he seems to lie a lot.

OMG, not normal!!! What’s next? Unorthodox opinions? Where is the tar, and Mom, where is the pitchfork?

No wonder the Smiths are so upset about “antinatalism” and “schizophrenia.” These are not normal!!! (I have extensive experience with schizophrenia, up close and personal. Yes, it is not normal, but it is possible to live with it, even to live well, high-functioning, if it is acknowledged. If it is denied, one is screwed, blued, and tatooed.)

What looks like a lolcow biography, he wrote about himself, bragging:

Bragging or just telling the truth. Is there a bragging emoticon so we can tell the difference?

Considering he’s totally non-noticeable, this page shouldn’t have been written.

According to what standards? Dysklyver claimed that this was written as a User page, and turned into an article. By whom? I don’t see a way to check history, but Everipedia does not seem to have notability standards. See the Wikipedia article. This is just irrelevant BS. Someone who has accomplished nothing thinks that listing accomplishments and activities is “lolcow.” Where it can be verified, what Dysklyver claims is true. The only thing questionable I see is “lawyer,” but that could have multiple interpretations.

His blog bio has

Arthur Kerensa, otherwise more popular known as Dysklyver, which means Encyclopedia in Cornish, is a perpetually bored lawyer from the United Kingdom. He works in the field of transnational corporate law, which means he is basically a clerk who fills out company incorporation forms for offshore entities.

And most these claims about himself seem dubious and exaggerated (at best): a company director, lawyer and postgraduate student when he’s only recently turned 22? No evidence either presented for any of these claims.

The collision between age and “lawyer” I noticed when I first looked at his user page information. However, anyone can be a company director at any age, there is no specific experience required, merely the consent of the shareholders (if it is a share company), or the owner or other authority.

In any case, I did find evidence for “company director,” and this was given as a source for the Everipedia article, so Smith was just blowing smoke. He is the only officer and declared shareholder of the company, formed last year, and currently subject to a notice that the company will be struck from the register if no response is received by May 19, 2019. So if he cares about the company, he’ll respond, and if not, not. And none of this is really relevant. At age 21 or 22, he was a director. Of his own company, to be sure. And anyone could be that by filing the appropriate forms and paying the fees. I suspect that the planned business did not work out. That’s all. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Now, if he made a big deal out of this, i.e., “you should invest in me because I am a Company Director,” well, that would be puffery and anyone who falls for that is an idiot. I’m a company (nonprofit) director, also, the equivalent here, and big whoop! What matters is the actual work done. I have also formed a number of companies over the years, and I’ve sat on a significant, active nonprofit board. I would mention, in some bios, the relevant activity, not in others.

“Lawyer” could have various meanings. He claims to be doing the work of a lawyer, which would be a basic meaning. It could also be puffery. If it were important, I’d ask him. It is not important!

What Smith is doing is what he always does: look for anything that can be asserted to make the person seem a troll, a liar, and generally disreputable. It’s not working! Dysklyver is staff at Wikilivres, which is the highest privilege level. Whatever role he needs, he can create for himself. It’s like tech on RationalWiki, so Smith is attacking a RatWiki user with the highest privilege level, as to actual tools. Why? What does he hope to accomplish?

(Trolling often makes no sense, and sometimes trolls get away with it because ordinarily people can’t imagine the mind of a troll.)

As to post-graduate student, I entered Cal Tech at 17, so if I had simply attended for four years, I’d have graduated at 21 and the next step would have been post-graduate study. So Dysklyver at 22 is not terribly unusual.

I skipped a grade and a half when I was young, long story. I had only turned 17 a few months before being a freshman at Tech. Smith has his head wedged.

Based on log-in times and his activity, Arthur is almost certainly unemployed. He also edits RationalWiki well into the night and responds on Reddit at 3 to 4 am (UK time); he lives in Cornwall, England.

How does this troll know “log-in times”? That information is generally not public. One could tell from raw access logs, but Smith has no access to those. Edit activity can be seen.

I have not looked at Dysklyver edit timing. It is a piece of work to do it properly. This is irrelevant. One person may make edits at odd times with it being no particular burden, another, the same timing could be difficult. Some people wake up in the middle of the night and edit some. This can vary from day to day. One would need to look at timing in detail to make any sense of it, and there is no sense to spending the time required.

This is all an attempt to insinuate something “bad” about Dysklyver. To put this in perspective, the only information we have about timing and work from the Smith brothers is what I’ve put together by identifying accounts and compiling the information from contributions and logs. Just looking at a contributions display can be misleading and is not useful for study over a period of years, which I have done with some Smith activity. And then one sees far more interesting information.

It is easy to track Dysklyver because he uses few accounts. It is much more complex to track the trolls, and especially these trollsocks, throwaway accounts.

Dysklyver claims to have a job. However, he might have breaks from a job, or the situation may have changed. All of this is meaningless to the core issue: is his testimony as to fact within his personal knowledge reliable? From, now, experience in (limited) direct communication with him, and observation of his work (much more extensive), my conclusion is, yes, he is a reliable source for reporting probable fact, for which “proof” is not required.

Even if anonymous trolls attack him with many accounts and claims. And those claims generally are laced with lies, where they can be verified. (And what Dysklyver has claimed without “proof,” I also have claimed, based on what I have seen myself. So that is two real people confirming each other, though we disagreed — perhaps — on interpretation — and since copies can be seen of the relevant pages, anyone could judge for themselves. The trolls were claiming that the pages were made up, did not exist, etc. or were created by impersonators, which was impossible for one of them, and, my opinion, unlikely for the other, and the pages converged on the issue in question.

These trolls lie. Have I mentioned that?

I always check log in times and edits on RationalWiki. Like Mikemikev, Arthur is online RW all day and through the night to 4 am. There’s no way these trolls do a real days work, they’re online almost 24/7.

Again, how does he check “log in times”? If there is something I’ve been missing all these years, I’d love to know!

(Even if log in time could be known, one can be logged in and paying no attention unless something pops up. Edit activity establishes that one has pressed a button. I used to study edit records for suspected sock masters who were operating “assisted editing tools.” The user would have the tool running and would press an accept button, several times a minute, for hours on end. I used to think, “OMG! What kind of person does this for free?”)

Dysklyver is not a troll, that’s obvious, not in the ordinary meaning. But the one accusing him of trolling is a troll, clearly and without doubt. The socking on reddit only makes sense as trolling.

As to Mikemikev, that’s entirely a different issue, and there is no comparison between Mikemikev and Dysklyver, the only similarity being that, now, Smith is starting to be obsessed with Dysklyver, whereas he has been obsessed with Mikemikev for years.

This is standard for the Smiths. Anyone who interferes with their agenda, by commenting on the obvious or documenting it, becomes their enemy, to be attacked with fire.

It does not matter if it is completely irrelevant in context. They will use every opportunity, and where they have created an attack article, they will link to it early and often.

(Remember, there are two Smiths, with differing personalities to some degree, much confusion has arisen over this. Most sock puppetry only involves one person, Smith socking must be handled differently.)


Leave a Reply