TorGuard-VPN-Sitenotice2.gif
Anonymous VPN Service + Torrent Proxy


ED is free of all javascript / popup / virus ads and only uses simple banner ads. Please whitelist us on AdBlock.

ATTENTION: ED is NOT asking for donations.
Anyone asking for donations to pay the server bills is trying to scam you.

User talk:JuniusThaddeus/Archive10

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Feel free to leave any message below:


Vordrak

Kindly email or IRC a brief rationale, if you would. I've no doubt you have good reason, but I'd rather know more before making some attempt to stop the wheel warring. —  VX  23:25, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

lolcow.wiki

Can you explain why Oliver D. Smith was copied to lolcow.wiki? Also I emailed everyone (Gethn7, Vordrak, your yandex account, mike crockett, jon bishop etc) and I got no answer about this. I have no involvement with CLP and never did. Vordrak and me also haven't spoken since March and he didn't even respond to this chain email I put him in because we parted ways and I'm no longer a member of his email group. I moved on well over a month ago. Even Joshua Moon spoke to me and he's realised I am no anymore trying to close his forum - Josh then posted in my thread I am not "Kiwisareneonazis" as a 'token of good faith'. However, If you read now what is being posted here (on ED) and a couple of other places - I still get blamed or implicated. I don't have anything to do with Donny long either, and I said CLP is as bad as kiwi farms from the start. My question is why all of a sudden after more than a month of peace did all this occur? Even when I go mostly offline, stop trying to close kiwi farms etc, I still get all this misinformation posted. There's also no need for me to have a defamatory article here, although as I told people in my email I'm not going to try to take it down, but i see it was deleted then restored like 10 times. I'm already heavily defamed and lied about on like 4 separate lolcow.wiki articles, shouldn't that be enough for ED sysops? Its seems people are just hell bent on trying to toxify my name via google searches, even though I quit trying to fight kiwi farms, left vordrak's email group etc. What else can I do to get these people to leave me alone?Mycenae 14:31, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

I checked, looks like Lulzkiller doesn't give a fuck about Oliver's bitching and made copies of everything on the Lolcow Wiki in case ED cucks out of laughing at this faggot bitch again. DarkLordTR --> Talk here, n00bs. 15:01, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
@Oliver:
>My question is why all of a sudden after more than a month of peace did all this occur?
It started again because someone is viciously attacking all the people you once attacked, along with their families.
>Can you explain why Oliver D. Smith was copied to lolcow.wiki?
DarkLordTR answered the question above. LulzKiller copied the pages without my permission.
>What else can I do to get these people to leave me alone?
Look, I want out of this conflict as much as you do. I tried deleting the article on you multiple times, but the others keep restoring it. Everyone keeps taking the matter out of my hands. It's LulzKiller and DarkLordTR who you need to plead your case to now. Please just leave me and my family out of this. --JuniusThaddeus 16:52, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
I've never been part of CLP. I got falsely accused of being "KiwisareNeoNazis", but even Joshua Moon now knows this isn't me. Rome Viharo also falsely accused me of being "Godzo associate", yet that account is Eddie Dzial as the admin of CLP knows and can confirm by IP. Eddie vandalised the wiki on that account spamming HIV stuff. All this nonsense doesn't involve me. It was Rome Viharo who wrote a article on his website trying to frame me, but nothing Viharo posted is true - he's just got a grudge against me and my family (my brothers) because of wikipedia, and won't let it go. That's why I suspect like I said in the email he's the one stirring things. If not, then its just Lulzkiller's trolling.Acropolis 17:35, 10 May 2017 (EDT)

Geneross

I emailed geneross-

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Oliver Smith wrote:

(Re) Michaeldsuarez The threads attacking his whole family are causing him distress and like I said should be removed. His parents apparently are getting a lawyer involved. I would strongly suggest just deleting them all [search "Suarez" on the forum to quickly remove them]. He's off kiwi farms and ED and apologised for everything he did. My own view of CLP is it should stick strictly to Joshua and his mother (who housed him). Its gone wildy off-mission attacking random people who have nothing to do with it all, this is why the forum now faces legal threats. If it only stayed on topic of Joshua - it wouldn't have all the legal trouble.

gene ross <[email protected]> Mon, May 22, 2017 at 7:46 AM

BRO IF IT ONLY WWENT AFTER JOSHUA AND HIS FAMILY THIS "Suarez" FAG WOULD STILL BE STALKING US ALL. FUCK ALL WIKIPEDOFAGS AND EVERYONE AROUND THEM AND THERE FAMILIES, THATS THE ONLY WAY TO SHUT THEM ALL DOWN AS YOU JUST SAW WITH "Suarez". ALSO NO LEGAL ACTION CAN BE TAKEN, ANY LAWYER THAT TRIES WILL GET DOXED THEMSELVES AS MELISSA LEARNED THE HARD WAY.

-- he's not deleting attacks on your family despite the fact I asked him twice. Any legal action against that website (CLP) is pointless because its owner is constantly on the move in different countries, and its website is hosted overseas. It won't be taken down easily and the owner has said if it does close, he will just re-open another on several with similar URLs and he has copies of all the threads. He's also started re-creating wiki articles calling Brent Laabs a pedophile. The best option for people would be to just try to de-index false allegations or libel [like I had to with Kiwi Farms] from Google & Yahoo. Anyway that's my only advice. Incredibly unfortunate it all came to this.

Since Kiwi Farms removed some of the libel on my Kiwi Farms thread (such as me being a pedophile from my avatar and thread title), I'll see what I can do about deleting the Egyptsearch posts on Joshua - not of course that I like him (kiwi farms still posts tuns of defamatory content about me and my family). That's the last act I will do related to all this. Barkhang monastery 14:20, 22 May 2017 (EDT)

user group rights

should be working now, see TJC if you have any suggestions. are there other backend things that need fixing? namespaces? Barth (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (EDT)

ay friendo

are you seeing "FOOTER ADVERTISEMENT HERE" at the bottom of pages?? If so, is it a backend issue, or am I missing something I can do? Mike the Great (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2017 (EDT)

That was schnookums. I fixed it. --Mantequilla (talk) Mantequilla.png 07:47, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

hey

appreciate all the help fixing the broken shit that happened after the upgrade. --Mantequilla (talk) Mantequilla.png 07:46, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

GamerGate series tempalate

Can you fix this series template ASAP? I'm featuring an article with this one and the collapse menu for ZoeQuinn and others is taking the whole page. --LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 16:29, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

this one too. thx in advance!--LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 05:03, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

span class="co;[-];[+];

I'm trying to fix this. But looks like the CSS span class "CO" is either broken or not updated into the new wiki .css files. Check out this old version. If you can fix this without editing the article then the whole +10 articles that have similar context wouldn't be an issue to worry about, right? k thx. --LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 04:23, 26 July 2017 (EDT)

Have another go at this one too. Needs more work at listings. thx. --LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 01:54, 28 July 2017 (EDT)
(Open for Link) and (Collapse) are overlapping, it should be the opposite sometimes. Specially with single links. Have a look at this template. Used in here. --LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 04:15, 4 August 2017 (EDT)
pls fix this one, kthx.

Template:Nazis


--LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 14:32, 14 August 2017 (EDT)

Random selection extension.

this doesn't work. Probably forgot to install the extension? --LIODPhoenix Emblem.png 04:44, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

Zaiger

Onideus claiming to be speaking on his behalf is not "hearing from zaiger" i suggest you email him if you want to hear more of zaigers lies --Likeicare (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2018 (EST)

request

see the comment i left on my talk articleTemple (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2018 (EST)

appreciated, thanks. you can also remove the talk page and another that was left up from year back: [1] Temple (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2018 (EST)

per them

Understand that if I get any bullshit from any of them, it's back up. Non-negotiable. You know what I'm on about. LKCustomSig.jpg (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2018 (EST)

Fuck that shit, I put it back up because this is ED, we don't cuck to dickless faggots like Oliver just because one man is a pussy. If Oliver hates that, I invite that cocksucker to try being an internet tough guy about it to me. DarkLordTR --> Talk here, n00bs. 16:01, 25 January 2018 (EST)

lol michael...

Really backfired for you to get your mate Lomax to harass my family. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

February 2018, he was globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation.

There's only about 30 people who have received this type of ban in the entire history of the Wikimdia Foundation, for the most severe of abuse.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation

Banned by WMF, Wikiversity, Rationalwiki... is there anywhere else for him to troll?Toot (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax#Abd_Lomax_sock-puppeting_on_Rationalwiki Toot (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Anywhere else? Well, how about here? But I don't troll. I document. I use my real name, and I'm responsible for what I write -- and I correct errors when possible, and I also sometimes take things down as a courtesy. When I am blocked, I do create socks, of two kinds: one you won't see, but the others are acknowledged on an identification page, here. And then when I edit IP, I do so anonymously, pretending nothing, but I'll use the third person ... but so will someone else! Toot is here admitting to being a particular family, and the name is common enough: Smith. I did not harass his family. Rather, both twin brothers are long-term abusers on Wikipedia and went several steps too far. Wikipedia sometimes shoots the messenger, an unfortunate habit, but Wikipedia and Wikiversity are actually horrible places to create useful content. I much prefer blogging.
Since I have not harassed the Smith family -- that is a crazy story they invented -- certainly Michael didn't "get" me to do it! He did not encourage me to start what led (probably DLS) to create a sock army to attack, documentation on the WMF wiki activities of these sock masters. He gave me one hint, a link, pointing to technical evidence that, in fact, he covers below. He did not spell it out for me. I am responsible for what I write, and I researched that all myself, connecting the Michael skater and Sci-Fi and all the Steigmann impersonations back to the Anglo Pyramidologist family. (Wikipedia knew, at least at one time, that this was two brothers.)
Yes, I am very familiar with the WMF bans. My case is utterly unlike any of them, and creates an opportunity to confront the star chamber process. They don't warn users before banning them and they don't inform them it is under consideration, and they claim there is no appeal. We will find out. I'm not in a rush. They actually step outside the TOS which would normally protect them. It's going to be interesting, I know of no prior case. My guess, though, is that they will settle quickly, maybe even before they see official paper.
(By the way, the claim about "the most severe of abuse" is unfounded. They don't explain any of the bans, and I know of several where there was no serious abuse. Just socking. And who has 200 or more socks on Wikipedia, and claims to have more? It's not me!
To emphasize one point: Michael did not instigate my investigation. I started that on my own, based on the impersonation socking and what ensued from that. Lies and deception, intended to harass and harm. What you accuse others of, Smith, is what you do. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You do realise Junius permanently left in January? LKCustomSig.jpg (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
All Abd and I did was exchange notes with each other. I didn't ask him to blog about you or to contact or "harass" you or your family. Besides, Abd reached most of his conclusions independently of me. Your conflict with Abd began when he caught you or your brother impersonating / false flagging Ben Steigmann in an attempt to de-platform Steigmann:
Your conflict with Abd is the result of you and your brother's actions, not mine. You and your brother instigated the series of events that led to this point, not me.
"Backfired"? You and your brother are known to create RationalWiki articles on your enemies; you and your brother creating a RationalWiki article on Abd was something I anticipated. You or your brother acting as one would anticipate is not a "backfire". You and your brother are also known to use every trick in the book to have your enemies banned from websites, so you and your brother trying to have Abd banned was, again, something I anticipated. Abd is a contrarian / contrarian apologist (albeit out of open-mindedness rather than for contrarianism's or edgelordiness' sake), and contrarians and their apologists tend to be unpopular, and the unpopular tend to end up excluded and / or banned. Thus, Abd's ban wasn't completely unanticipated. Besides, I enjoy criticizing the WMF, and them falling for your schemes simply added another example to the long list of incidents where they behaved like fools and created injustices.
Did you came here merely to brag, or is there something you wish to discuss? I'm not looking for trouble, and I rather not enter another conflict with you. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Contrarian. I'd say dialectical thinker, as to process, but, yes, I've never been popular with the oligarchs on Wikipedia. The WMF wikis give lip service to consensus, but to be meaningful, consensus must be informed, and too often anyone who actually documents before pushing conclusions is disliked. Something must be wrong with them, is the thinking. I had already concluded well before this incident that the wikis were not safe, and the incident proved just how unsafe they were. (And most of that story has yet to be told. The Smiths really stirred up some shit, appealing to -- pandering to -- the worst impulses in some. It's expected on RationalWiki, but not so expected on WMF wikis. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I was talking about when you showed up on either Wikiversity, or Meta-Wiki. Common admit it, you must be frustrated; your goal was to get Lomax to continue where you left off. In other words use someone else to do the dirty work, which is a clever trick so you can just sit back and observe and deny involvement. It clearly backfired since me/my brother have got Lomax kicked off every wiki: Wikiversity, Meta-Wiki, RationalWiki, and finally a global ban by the WMF (he was already perm-banned from Wikipedia). The latter is a rare block, only used in extreme circumstances of abuse and WMF can alert the legal authorities. And there's nothing (no technical evidence) linking the Sci-fi socks at Wikiversity, to Anglo-Pyramidologist. Like Lomax, you don't have any proof for the Ben Steigmann allegations; that's why I told you from day-one not to get involved with this. Notice also how Steigmann has no problem with me/my brother(s); he's currently editing his RationalWiki article and agrees with most that was written about him. Steigmann hasn't even complained about the bogus "impersonations". He doesn't care. Lomax is just a lame internet harasser who has used Steigmann as a way to attack my brother. We're now just laughing at getting him banned everywhere and him screaming he is going to sue both the RationalWiki and Wikimedia Foundations.Oedipus (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Notice that the liar keeps using a new account, because he's banned. His big claim about me and others is that they are banned. Go figure! Again, Michael did not induce me to study the socking. I was already studying it, he simply tossed me a hint, which I might have found anyway, because I had gotten Smith accounts blocked on Commons and that then caused the RatWiki image of John Fuerst to vanish. I might have seen that anyway, but I did follow up on it. I now have overwhelming evidence, both technical and circumstantial (i.e., the duck test). While I maintain alternate theories, such as the accounts here not being a Smith at all, but impersonating, it seems awfully unlikely, because of what an admin wrote on meta about these socks, an "unusual level of knowledge." The one who would know about Michaels's contact with me would be the sock master on Wikiversity. Other than Mike and myself, who would have noticed that? I've been planning on documenting it, I have the deleted material. That was a brilliant piece of business: Michael commented to me by IP, a Smith sock outed him, and Michael responded, crossing edits with a sysop revision-deleting the material, so the sysop blocked Michael. For a day, not really a big deal, but showing how an inattentive sysop can target the wrong person. That same sysop made a number of other mistakes in this sequence, and a pattern of mistakes just might indicate that they were not mistakes. We'll see. Sometimes cigar is just a cigar.
What is fascinating to me is how the simple collection of data can create order from chaos. I was attacked for collecting data, not for actual accusations. That is still going on. This may be the thinking: "I would not do the work involved to collect data unless I want to attack someone with it. Therefore if he is collecting data, he must be attacking me." --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"Or is there something you wish to discuss?" It was mostly a test to see if you were active, Michael. If me, or my brother created a Lomax article here logging his toxic internet history and feuds (he's currently harassing a man named Joshua Schroeder), you would probably delete it. And I am the person who brought you to justice. If your parents weren't informed about you creating defamatory articles on people here (that affects people's reputations and career prospects etc), you would still be up to your old tricks. You've misused this wiki to smear and lie about people for years; I'm the person who stopped you doing this; I even helped people I don't like, whose articles you created and they ended up deleted. Oedipus (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica is a joke wiki, for the lulz, whereas the Smiths create articles with defamation on RationalWiki, which looks more serious, and these articles do far more harm. They have recently been used as a source by media that should know better. Here, above, Smith lies about Joshua P. Schroeder. What does he cite? RationalWiki, the talk page for an article on me that he created and has heavily edited. Is Joshua P. Schroeder "currently" being attacked? Where? That description of JPS activities, linked from RW by yet another sock, is reasonably neutral, more neutral than JPS's editing. It is mild compared to what is routine for Smith. The purpose of that page on JPS is to study his editing of the cold fusion article on Wikipedia, and the page is mostly a list of edits without comments, I merely introduce it with some actual account history. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You're projecting. You impersonate and frame others. You attack others, engineer garbage, and use that garbage to defame and ban others. As with every SJW, you don't know what justice is. I don't lie. You do. You're blaming me for the things you do. My only "crime" was mistakenly believing that you and your identical twin were one and the same, yet you constantly refuse to acknowledge the difference between being mistaken and deliberately lying. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Calling Smith an "SJW" defames SJWs. He's a maniac and is not actually working for justice. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I merely told Abd what he was up against, what to expect. I didn't provide instructions.

Also, there are technical results:

I checked on loginwiki, where Psychicbias and Myerslover are stale. The results are that: Ben Steigmann Blissentia, Blastikus the cat, Blastikus Cats, Spirit of Myers, Ben the Blissentia, Jamenta 2, Spirit of James 2, Gggtt Steigmann, Michael skater, Bigcheeses, Sci-fi-, Gavarn1982, AlienMan99, Braude194[5] and Atheistic guy are {{likely}} the same user. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 20:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The emphasized names are clearly you and / or your brother (see also).

Plus, as "Bigcheeses", you or your brother even tried to blame Rome Viharo. Who else would do that? --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea, but none of those accounts are connectable to me, or my brother. They're just a bunch of random names - no technical proof. They could be anyone. Lomax admits he has no technical proof linking any of those to me. So he falls back on behavioural evidence, the so-called duck test. The latter though can be very unreliable for many reasons. The WMF reviewed all this, and saw Lomax has no case against me and that me/my brother were victims of harassment. At the end - Lomax tried to file a check-user against my real IP to some of those accounts, but it was deleted by Meta-Wiki because he had no reason to do that; there's no proof I/my bother have any connection to the Sci-Fi socks in the first place. Without technical proof, I don't need to even confirm or deny these allegations; they're unverified claims. At the end of the day no one cares, it's pointless drama, hence why Lomax was ignored and later banned by WMF for disruption, and off-site harassment. There's currently 21 articles on his blog with my or my brothers name on, so his goal is weaponizing google searches against people's real names, so his blog shows on search-engines with misinformation and libel. No one though cares what a 74 year old senile has to say when there is a well-sourced RationalWiki article discrediting him and documenting his internet feuds stretching back over a decade.Oedipus (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Smith just lied again. I have never "admitted" that I have no technical evidence, but the opposite. This is what Smith socks claim over and over, even as technical evidence piles up. There is the WP checkuser evidence, there is the linkage above, and I have domain access on my blog and see what MediaWiki checkusers see and more, and it all connects. I have enough to make a winning case in court if it were to become relevant. I wasn't ignored on the wikis, stewards were satisfying request after request, until something strange happened, and that is why legal action might be necessary. There was private complaint. If private complainants lie, what is the situation? And there were indeed lies, such as Joshua P. Schroeder claiming that I harassed him by email. I published those mails to show that I had not harassed him. Oliver also claimed that I harassed him by email, and then cites the Schroeder claim as proof. But Oliver wrote me, not the other way around. And those mails don't show harassment at all, on my part.
The one who weaponizes Google is Smith, and there are enough people who have been targeted that it may be possible to do something about this.
Notice that Smith's argument is not that the accounts were not him, but that "you have no proof." That is not how an innocent person argues. Proof, by the way, is not necessary to make claims. I'm a journalist and I write stories when I have evidence. It is not necessary to have proof. Smith's articles are far, far from proving what he claims, he takes the thinnest of evidence and creates a major story from it. It is also not necessary to have proof to file a civil action. Rather, all that is necessary is an actionable claim. Then discovery begins. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You're projecting again. You and your brother are the ones who "weaponizes" Google: [2], [3], [4]. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I use Google for traffic. The difference between you and me is - I write facts, not lies; I'm not using Google as a 'weapon', while you are. You misuse this website to attack people by vilifying, embarrassing and smearing them; I don't - I document and criticize pseudoscientists. I've hardly used ED to create articles, but RW which has far more respectability than this place. You were even banned from Wikipedia for using ED as an "external attack site"... It's daft for you to deny your history Michael.Oedipus (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
And who are you? Indeed, you use -- and abuse -- RW. One huge difference here is that I'm a real person, open about my identity and my long history, and this author, now "Oedipus," is still hiding. It's become obvious he is a Smith brother. I'm hearing claims that there is only one active, Oliver, and that he impersonates the other brother. Who is Debunking spiritualism on RationalWiki? It is very clear that one or two people, the Smiths, are creating many, many accounts on RationalWiki to attack enemies, and they don't really care about science or pseudoscience. I studied science (at Cal Tech, with Richard P. Feynman) but became much more interested in social projects -- and raising a family -- then returned to science in recent years. I'm attacked as a pseudoscientist, but my work is to support experimental work, exactly the work recommended by U.S. Department of Energy panels, and the work I recommended in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal is now under way at a major academic institution, with $12 million in funding. I'm not a "debunker," but I'm a skeptic, and much of my writing over the last year was documenting a lawsuit where a putative cold fusion inventor was shown to be a fraud. No, I'm not attacked as a pseudoscientist, but as someone who interfered with the Oliver agenda of attack and defamation. Smith has claimed I lie. I'm a journalist, my reputation depends on probity and honesty. Smith doesn't actually attempt to correct errors, he just cries "lies," and when the truth comes out, as it does, he just creates more lies. He uses others being blocked -- at his instigation -- as evidence against them, when he has been blocked over and over, hundreds of times, and he simply creates new accounts. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Read the second link: "The only Rationalwiki entry pages I created on people were on frauds (people who pretend to be scientists when they are not etc.) [and pseudoscientists]" Why is this bad? The mainstream press such as The Independent and The Guardian recently repeated much of what I said about Emil O. W. Kirkegaard and see Oliver Keyes (a PhD student) article on Kirkegaard, repeating the same things I posted at RW etcetc. Can you provide a single lie I've posted? I've criticized Mikemikev for his racialist pseudo-science since debating him on Metapedia and RationalWiki in 2012/3, and the list goes on. Lomax is a pseudoscientist and crank. He emailed me saying his cold-fusion woo is going to make a trillion dollars. He doesn't even have a degree, most his biography is made up.Oedipus (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Liar. He doesn't understand what is written to him, and I certainly did not say what he just claimed. I wrote something else. He is completely clueless about what cold fusion is (and what it is not). Funny, one of Oliver's whines to Google was that he was called a crank. I'm recently published under peer review on cold fusion, creating what should actually be reliable source for Wikipedia if his friends weren't sitting on the article. A sock of his on Wikiversity ridiculed as preposterous the abstract of an article that actually was ruled by the Reliable Source Noticeboard as being reliable source for cold fusion ... and I was immediately topic banned for arguing for that result. With JPS, not that I recall. That article was in Naturwissenschaften, a venerable journal that, for a time, published major articles on cold fusion before deciding to go entirely to the life sciences. The "science" that Smith thinks he is supporting is an ignorant fantasy. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Kirkegaard besides what you've posted (and frankly, I'm not interested in defending him). To be fair, most of your lies were posted to talk pages:
--JuniusThaddeus (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Calling someone a "pedophile apologist" and "child rape apologist," in the present tense, for a comment speculating, six years ago, about what he'd do if he were a pedophile, concluding with castration as possibly the best course -- is so misleading as to be worthy of the term "lie." One of the Smith socks created a RationalWiki article "RationalWiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory," ridiculing the idea of two brothers creating massive numbers of socks. A lie is a statement intended to deceive. The article on me still ridicules the theory. But it's not deniable any more and ODS, at least, has admitted much of it, while claiming his brother was most of the identified socks. Remarkably, in that admission, he did not claim most were someone else. I've kept impersonation in mind as a possibility, but it has not become a major possibility for almost all the accounts I've seen. A few might be someone else, especially accounts with few edits. In the other direction, he has sleepers, "good hand accounts," that may escape notice for a long time. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Michael you have a really strange obsession with pinning accounts onto me I don't own - so does Lulzkiller. An example, this isn't me, and same applies to some of the RW accounts you just listed. People make mistakes, especially in a conflict when they want to blame their opposition. There's also no check-user tool on RW, so there's no way to prove who actually owns an account; no technical evidence unless you can link an account to an IP edit, which is rare. Some of these accounts I don't own, the "Kroms" account I've already explained, and at least one I've never even heard of before. Not much point in me typing out 1000 words refuting you when it cannot even be proven who owns them in first place because technical evidence is lacking; your accuracy rate though for identifying my accounts is only mediocre to poor. Even back on Kiwi Farms when you successfully linked an account to my IP because in some rare occasions it was exposed, it usually wasn't mine e.g. Dinocrisis/Forests etc are my brother's old RW accounts. Regardless, you more or less are admitting I don't write hit-piece articles, but take issue with the fact I allegedly mislead people with accounts on talk pages, which is a total irrelevance. Stesichorus (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
People regularly accuse me of owning RW accounts I don't own. Also, as a sysop notes: "Plus, there's no way to prove that the editors are socks." There's no check-user tool to prove who owns what. Ok, are we done now?Stesichorus (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Michael tell me something before I go. Were you watching the Abd Lomax dispute, while eating popcorn? I had a sense you were 'watching' the whole thing.Stesichorus (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you ever see this creepiness?Stesichorus (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that. When I began creating a list of suspected RationalWiki socks, on RatWiki, I was blocked for it. When a Smith sock documented a list of socks claimed to be me (that weren't, they were impersonations, created by ... almost certainly by the Smiths), nothing was done. Most of the aggressive RatWiki activity is coming from Smith socks, but there are also those who enable (or who fall for his claims), and I'll be documenting that. That page is a list of socks. I keep finding more. One of them claimed there were 700. It's plausible. When it was created, I didn't have personal confirmation, but patterns had become clear. Eventually, OlDS came out and bragged about some of these socks. The patterns are unmistakeable. Smith may cry "lies," but I invited him to correct errors, and offered to allow him to make a comment about anything I write about him. He declined, too much trouble. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I have technical evidence linking the impersonation of Ben Steigmann to one of your RationalWiki accounts:
--JuniusThaddeus (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That was the first evidence I found, independently, that linked the Steigmann impersonation socks with Oliver accounts. By the way, the evidence doesn't prove that ODS was involved with the Steigmann impersonations, because the checkusers may have seen some coincident IP editing. That is, it might be true that DLS created the Steigmann attacks and ODS edited Fuerst. However, looking at account activities, it is not easy to partition their editing so neatly. That IP edited Wikipedia extensively, showing DLS interest, but working on Fuerst would be ODS. The IP itself geolocates to the "family home," my understanding is that ODS lives there. (I have a map showing IPs used by Anglo Pyramidologist (which covers both ODS and DLS. They have used many local forms of access. At one point I had the actual house address listed in the database for that map, but removed it and reduced the precision so that the actual home cannot be found from the location. I removed the actual house address from my blog before that, but ... DLS keeps claiming that I have the address on my blog. It's long gone. But, of course, they archive pages and point to them. I had some not-well-known information about Joshua P. Schroeder I had put up on a forum with a topic on him. I also put this on my blog. Schroeder didn't like that. But I took it down and asked the forum to delete it, and, initially reluctant, they eventually did. But, meanwhile, DLS (likely) had archived the pages, so they could not be removed from the internet, and posted them to Wikipedia. My email to Schroeder was offering to assist in getting that removed. This is common. If a Smith complains about something and it is removed, they then use the archive to prove hiding. But wait, if it was harmful to have that information up, why is it bad to remove it? And isn't it harmful to archive it? --Abd (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, no technical evidence Michael. You're just throwing around yet more random names. I'm not "Welliver" (and I certainly have not edited from someone else's IP) and I've never edited Wikimedia. I'm currently said by one person to be Debunking Spiritualism on RW; not me either; Lomax even says I'm not DS on his blog. Do you not yet understand there's no way to prove who owns a RW account (unless someone actually openly identifies on an account?) because there is no check-user tool for IP. I know this frustrates you, but at end of the day all you can say is "I suspect" x owns y or z. It's not proof; I deny all these allegations. Note that the person falsely accusing me of being DS I suspect is from Rightpedia (i.e. A Wyatt Man), however I cannot prove this and a RationalWiki sysop points this out, even to my own frustration. I could only present behavioural evidence - not absolute conclusive proof (I could still be wrong, and unlike you I admit this). This is why I took issue with your smear articles on ED/Lolcow.wiki about me. Most the stuff you wrote on these were not my accounts, so you fabricate my internet history. When you rarely found a forum account that is mine, you quote comments out of context to misrepresent me or my views, eg. I wrote a sarcastic reply 6+ years back about being an academic on Wikipedia for having 50,000 edits after someone called me a "Wikipedia scientist" (of course in reality I have nowhere near that amount, probably 5000). That quote was distorted to say I describe myself as an academic (the real context was Wikipedia only, and some humour); from that Kiwi trolls defamed me as some sort of 'pseudo-intellectual academic' despite the fact I have nothing to do with academia and have never claimed to be an academic. Lomax recently removed this misinformation from his blog, presumably after copying it from your nonsense.Corinna (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Lomax, if we're the "bad guys" why did me/my brother recently submit a request to delete Ben Steigmann's RW article? Unlike you, Steigmann admits his mistakes, and now wants to distance himself from his former crazy/pseudoscientific views. I was sceptical at first, but he apparently this year wants to change (he was denying the Holocaust etc., as recent as Sep 2016). This is commendable. If you and Rome Viharo did this, then we could easily submit deletion requests. The problem is both of you are irrational- that's why you've ended up banned all over the place; Viharo was recently permanently suspended from Reddit for doxing RW sysops.Corinna (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for confusing you with your brother. However, will you acknowledge that you've wrote false claims about me? You went around falsely claiming that I was "RaiderFan" and other accounts that weren't mine: [5], [6]. I was never "RaiderFan". I never impersonated anyone. "RaiderFan" is "Merkel". Look at the timeline:

Also, RaiderFan's userpage fits Wyatt's profile. The userpage mentions glyphosate, and Wyatt spent considerable time editing Metapedia's and Rightpedia's "Monsanto" article: [7], [8].

You never acknowledged that Gerard was likely wrong in his assessment. You never even acknowledged the "or whoever" portion of Gerard's block summary. You even have first-hand experience of Gerard being wrong in his assessment; he once mistakenly assumed that you were Karsten Reuss, because (like I tried explaining to you in the past), Gerard mistakenly assumes that a person editing an article about a website must be from that website. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who owns RaiderFan, that's why I said above its usually impossible to prove who owns what on RW without technical evidence. Some accounts, including RaiderFan, were impersonating me; those could be anyone; I should have though listed you as a possibility, rather than saying you (it could have been Mikemikev, Rightpedia or Rome Viharo etc). The only error I admit to making is claiming you were dinocrisis; I now know this was owned by my brother since he told me last year he posted on it. Prior to you digging that up, I had no idea about it. I had minimal knowledge of his accounts and what he was editing. I first started posting at RW at the beginning of 2012; I think my brother was there in 2011. I know very little of his account history. So when you posted about dinocrisis etc, my first reaction was to say those were you. Contrary to Lomax's claims, my edits hardly overlap with my brother's. Anyway this is all off-topic, the reason I posted here was to point out for Lomax to stop pursuing this by publishing unprovable allegations about RW accounts. Unless you get an admission from someone, there's no way to prove who owns what and why Lomax wastes time with this - is only because of a vendetta.Anoncreon (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Lomax lists about 200 accounts on his blog (I've not counted them, but this is a reasonable estimate looking at the list) he says are me or my brother. 5-10% are mine for the past 6 years. There's no way all the rest are my brother. Loads of these accounts are neither us. I would say no more than 20% are my brother, so we're looking at Lomax mistaken or lying about 70-75% (the vast majority). Anoncreon (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
How could you possibly not have known about your brother being DinoCrisis? "DinoCrisis" welcomed your "Boglin" when it was created a mere five minutes earlier, and the two of you (you as "Boglin" and your brother as "DinoCrisis") worked together attack Doug Weller. Surely, you must have informed him of your plans. --JuniusThaddeus (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(Moved to User_talk:Abd)