RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $720Goal: $3500

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Emil Kirkegaard | Result: Keep

Emil Kirkegaard (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Hi, I would appreciate if you read this in full to understand the situation, why I recently requested article deletions (many, but not all of them my own page creations):
  • For legal reasons I cannot go into much detail or specifics, but only point out in 2018 someone from OpenPsych sued me for defamation; a lawsuit that is ongoing, and there has been a demand to remove all the above RationalWiki articles, hence I submitted deletion requests and voted to remove them. Aeschylus (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. I vote to keep it of course, as the subject is a well know public figure, the article is accurate and missional, and having it fulfills RationalWiki's aim of providing free content for informational purposes. — Arthur Kerensa Esq.legal enquiries? dysklyver@linuxmail.org … 20:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Any demonstrably inaccurate information should be removed if there is any. We do not delete articles based on legal threats. Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. While I empathize with Aeschylus' misfortune at being caught up in legal shenanigans with these racist scumbags, they can take their article deletion requests and shove them up their collective asses. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. We don't back from legal threats. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's not technically true. "We" don't allow legal threats to dictate editorial policy, but "we" do acknowledge and respond to them, if submitted properly. "We" have a process for formally addressing legal complaints, but it isn't through the wiki editing process. See the RationalWiki:Legal_FAQ. In the meantime, as a regular old editor I would advise that all such discussion be frozen, and this user submit their request through proper channels. I'm not a member of that "we"(i.e. the rationalwiki board) anymore. The appropriate venue for that is addressed in the legal FAQ. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. If we deleted an article every time we got a legal threat we would have to get rid of many extremely mission important articles. Commie Lib (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Direct them to the complaint department, we should never even consider vaping articles because of legal threats. Adjust as necessary? Yes. Vape? Never. For further reference see the Kent Hovind incident. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. Keep. Both the pedophilia apologism and scientific racism have been documented in mainstream media (Guardian, New Statesman, etc), so missional and properly sourced. Particularly important as his Wikipedia page was deleted largely for not meeting the notability requirements for academics (which don't apply on RW). --Annanoon (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. If writing articles about racist dickheads is causing problems for a certain user, that particular should stop doing it. And while he's at it, he can get the hell away from RationalWiki once and for all and stop coming back under a different user name all the fucking time. No wonder our opponents think the entire site is written by one man with 300 different user names. But that's no reason to delete this article. If the racist dickheads don't like the articles about them, they should stop trying to use pseudoscience to justify their racism, admit they were wrong, apologize and, hopefully, change their ways. Spud (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)



Bleat. This article, like all the others proposed for deletion by Aeschylus, was created as part of a campaign of harassment by the nominator, using RationalWiki with, overall, hundreds of related accounts here, all very well-known on the internet everywhere but here, in places that cover such things. See his user page and what he did with his tools as soon as opped. That is only a small fraction of his known socks.

It is no wonder he was sued, his ass is grass. In the biographies he created, he spent much time looking for anything that might look bad, real or not, and related to our mission or not. Guilt by association, words with emotional impact, the whole nine yards. So his sources should be viewed with suspicion, and checked carefully, understanding that they may have been cherry-picked and even misrepresented in the text. Some quotes are taken out of context and presented as if characteristic.

These actually were hit pieces, whether or not the subjects are worthy of RatWiki articles. Intention matters in the real world.

He has been de-opped and blocked indef "for his own good" by the one who opped him. He has actually been blocked on RatWiki many times, and he has claimed impersonation by others that was actually him or someone connected with him. So these articles should be seen in the light of their history.

It was claimed in one of these deletion requests that an article was created by Mikemikev. It was promptly deleted (by Aeschylus) with no objection, even though it was very similar to other articles in this series. If anyone looks at that history, and at all contributions of that user, Schizophreniac, which will take sysop tools to see the deleted contributions, and if what I have seen elsewhere matches the original here, this was not Mikemikev, it was Aeschylus, impersonating himself, creating an actual biography of himself (he recently talked a great deal about his political and "scientific" views on Encyclopedia Dramatica recently, and they match. This guy has played us for fools for years, all to pursue personal vendettas. The admitted editors have been openly admitted to be him, the subject of that article, in many places. Mikemikev I know very little, but he would not have written that article, which was practically laudatory, how he wanted to be seen. Mike would have torn him to shreds, not, instead, giving all his rationalizations for his crank positions. That article, deleted immediately, was not an attack on him, being far more fair to him than any of the articles on others he admittedly created here.

As to the articles, I DGAF. I am not going to repeat this in the other nominations, and as a collection of nominations by a single author, they should have been only one nom, even though results might differ. Consider, though, the implications of the abuse of RationalWiki as a platform for personal attack. --Some random Smith (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine, but kirkegaard, in particular, is a huge shithead, whose shitheadedness is very public. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Your choice. There are 79,495,276, give or take a few, shitheads in the world. Go ahead, have a bio on every one, and have their worst enemy write it. Should be entertaining. Most of of the publicity on Kirkegaard was created by the author, who showed media the RatWiki articles, which then, not carefully checking, repeated the claims, and then the articles cite the media. Really, brilliant! Carry on. I'm going to finish the cleanup here and go back to flattening the earth. --Some random Smith (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no libel on these articles. Emil Kirkegaard and his associates at open psych are well documented racist and white supremacists that have been criticized in many references. There is no misrepresentations, everything is well sourced. People here should be warned "Some random Smith" is an impersonation account created by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, he is the person trying to stir up legal problems behind the scenes. He created his account in 2017, after his Rationalwiki article was created. I repeat - Some random Smith is Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, exactly the same writing style. Lomax is [1] banned from Rationalwiki and was cooped by David Gerard. Last week Abd Lomax was banned on ED for saying exactly the same things as his comment above about Mikemikev, [2]. Abd has written several articles on his website defending racists such as Emil Kirkegaard and Mikemikev. Amazing how he has used this secret undetected account for so long. He should be banned immediately. Roberts (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah whatever, if he goes nuts I will bash him with the banhammer. The sheer number of mostly groundless accusations of impersonation and sockpuppetry of late is getting farcical. — Dysk (contribs) 20:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
nah, that's Abd, I'd recognise that text-producing bioweapon anywhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record both were banhammered. — Dysk (contribs) 21:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)