RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax | Result: Keep

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Unclear notability & possible hack piece. Right now, he seems like a random nobody. How prominent is he? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   I thought we didn:'t care about notability. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   If nobody listens to a crank, and our article on that crank isn't very good, it's not a useful article. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   That would be true. (and the article was intended as an attack). However, $12 million, half matching funds from the state of Texas, was dedicated for the research I suggested in this peer-reviewed paper. I obviously fooled the reviewer and editors there, and that donor. I have a level of influence over many millions in research dollars. Many have complained for years about how much I write. Martin Gardner read it and quoted from it. I wrote about Wikipedia in a private email -- at length -- and a man who was on cc (I'd had no idea who he was) liked it and sent me a check with more zeros than I'd seen on a check in a very long time. On Wikipedia, I challenged an administrator who had banned me from cold fusion. Very popular, he nevertheless lost his tools over his actions. (I'll tell the story if anyone asks about how easy that was to accomplish.) Obviously, some people are listening, poor deluded souls. My old WP user talk page. (CAUTION IS ADVISED!) maybe I should put that warning here. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

2. Abd Lomax is a minor internet eccentric who joins wikis, argues with practically everyone and gets banned, sometimes for doxing. He been banned on Wikipedia, Wikiversity and Meta-wiki for causing disruption. A few weeks ago he was globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. In his defence he claims he was framed by various Wikipedia users who do not like him. I find this hard to believe. The article continues to attract a lot of drama from Abd and has now spilled onto other websites including ED. He accuses two skeptical brothers of creating his RW article, one of these is called ODS. He continues to dox users on his website. It appears to be un-needed drama that is spilling onto different wikis. I don't see anything recent Abd has published on cold fusion. He now spends 99% of time moaning on his blog about Rationalwiki or Wikipedia users. This article plays in his favour, it gives him attention. He has been socking on RW on loads of proxies. He claims 5 of the sock accounts were his but the rest were 'impersonation'. It appears to be drama spilling out onto the website. If the article was deleted, he would then have nothing to moan about and fuck off away from this place. He is feeding off the publicity, I also believe he is making money about his RW article, because his blog is funded and he keeps writing articles on RW. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   @Debunking spiritualism, how do you explain your voting for deletion, as well as your large number of edits both before and after, mostly adding material? Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   Abd has been socking and causing disruption on RW for weeks. I am getting tired of reverting his vandalism. He has written about 20,000 words about me on his blog, and several other RW users including ODS. I just wanted all this to end so started a deletion discussion. I then realised there was too many keep votes here as there was already a previous vote on this so went back to editing his article. As Abd has written so much defamation about RW on his blog, yes its unlikely his article is going to be deleted now because he has pissed everyone off over here. But like I said he is feeding off this publicity, possibly profiting out of it etc. He is also a bull-shitter he said he was suing the Rationalwiki Foundation, after I quoted him on it, he now claims this was only a thought experiment and 'speculation'. I will just have to blank this guy from now on because I am tired of his games. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

3. Thank you for opening this discussion. Abd does not have a single skeptical blog or website that has covered him. He has no media attention. He is basically a Wikipedia nut who has been banned. There is no reason to keep the article, he is feeding off the attention. Strange but True (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

   You seem to be someone's sock, @Trange but True. This is your only edit. Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian, view my comment #9 below in the keep section.ODS (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is notable pseudoscience promoter. He has a peer-reviewed paper in Current Science claiming cold fusion is real. He has also debated Rashad Khalifa on miracles. Abd is mentioned in a book by Martin Gardner and several others. He was also mentioned in this news report in regard to cold fusion [1] Marky (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   The paper does not claim that "cold fusion" is real. It claims that there is evidence that the "effect" is real, i.e., the anomalous heat first reported by Pons and Fleischmann in 1989, casually called "cold fusion," though the origin is not known, based on already widely confirmed production of correlated helium at a ratio consistent with nuclear transformation), and that this deserves confirmation with increased precision. Which is being done, real money being spent. That's testable, clearly so, and so not "pseudoscience." I did not "debate Rashad Khalifa" (he'd been assassinated), but rather a follower of his.

   But maybe that means I'm not of interest to RationalWiki. Real science is boring. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Lol, you must have a bad memory. Your own paper claims "Cold fusion is real, and it is time that serious work is funded to study the conditions of cold fusion and other correlated effects, gathering the evidence needed to understand it." Your paper does indeed claim *cold fusion is real*, in those very words! The scientific community disagrees with you. [2] Marky (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Apparently I managed to fool the physicist who reviewed the paper. "Cold fusion" is a popular name for the heat effect described. I called for serious work -- i.e., real science, by experts, and it was funded, the troll here has no concept of science, imagines that science is a vote, and that reality depends on opinions. The paper is rooted in experimental evidence, widely confirmed. Yes, I'd forgotten about the words in the conclusion. The reviewer was originally very negative, so I rewrote the paper to communicate the evidence more effectively. The reviewer then helped write that conclusion. Yes, many remain highly skeptical, but not among those who know the evidence, and the extreme skeptical position has not been able to get published in a peer-reviewed journal for many years. Science moves on, idiots don't. And what did I come to based on the evidence? Belief? No, a declaration of what the preponderance of the evidence shows, and a call for better work, controlled experiment, to increase precision. Standard science stuff for a secondary source review. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

2. He seems to pop up quite a bit touting [3] the company "Industrial Heat", which is trying to sell "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" devices, and seems to be currently involved in litigation. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   Industrial Heat has never offered "LENR devices." Aside from some unreliable research test beds, there are no such practical devices. Sifferkoll is a troll with no credibility, he was a supporter of Andrea Rossi, a fraud. I reported on litigation (crowd-funded, not by any party to the $270 million lawsuit, Rossi v. Darden). --Abd (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   An issue with Abd is he is calling himself a physicist and a member of an institute, but he has no degree (he admits he dropped out of university) and his "institute" is completely phony- it seems to have only one member (himself) and its website is a wordpress blog. lmao. the guy is a fraud. He reminds me of Clyde Winters who also invented an institute only he is a member of.MrOrganic (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

   As far as I know Abd has not called himself a physicist, this was an error in a news report [4]. "We have direct evidence that the effect is real and is nuclear in nature," US physicist Abdul-Rahman Lomax of the Infusion Institute in Massachusetts says in his report." Would agree though, it is not a recognized scientific institute so should not be passed off as such. It appears to be a non-profit 'corporation' and he is the only member [5]. Marky (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Correct, I have no idea where the reporter got that from. Infusion Institute pays my expenses and sponsors a blog, Cold Fusion Community, which is creating study resources, including skeptical analysis. Skepticism is essential to science. Smith ought to try it, the real thing, that is. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Keep. Any publicity is good publicity. I do prefer "wheee!" to "woooo!" Heh! Obvious conflict of interest here. So sue me. --Abd (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah, your vote doesn't count for much regarding your own page. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Also, it would be best if you @Abd refrain from editing your own page. It is frowned upon on RW. If there is something that is factually incorrect on your page, contact another Sysop or state your case on the talk page. Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   for convenience, I made one tiny edit to the page. It was easier than proposing it on talk. If I were doing this on Wikipedia, I'd self-revert it. Here, I DGAF. If it is removed, I will not edit war, I will merely generate a nuclear text bomb on the Talk page, see David's Keep below. To solicit that bomb (I listen to my fans), revert the link to my blog. However, adding snarky comments will not, unless I think of something really funny. Carry on.

4. Keep, just. He also swang round RW to promote cold fusion, though I'm not sure it's worth article note. The mods declared him "some sort of highly advanced text-producing bioweapon" - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks, David. I try. "Rational Wiki" educated me on just how smug, but dim-witted, dull, lazy, and occasionally vicious, some prominent Wikipedians are. The author of the article here created enormous disruption on Wikipedia, over years, quite distinct from the normal editor activity of normal skepticism. Once actually blocked and tagged, he has continued to create WP socks that mostly escape notice. Until he went a bridge too far and attacked Wikiversity with impersonation socks on Wikipedia. For some time, instead of actually working for the support of scientific skepticism, he has been engaged in a cross-wiki campaign of harassment. I've been told, cross him and he never gives up.

   His on-wiki (meta) parting shot. He frequently lies, bald-faced, so none of this can be trusted, and it is also possible that an enemy -- and he has made enemies -- does with him what he has done with others many times. So far, I know of no checkuser on that account. {"Paid work," if offered to him, how about to others?) Much of what he says, though, has been corroborated, such as that "a skeptic group" comment (but GS, the likely referent, is not responsible for what he has done, and that could have been a specific person, probably not the organization itself and not the woman known most prominently as the founder). He probably partitions his internet access, but mostly that may be too much bother for a low-value accounts being quickly generated. He routinely creates socks on RW, I've seen quite a few, some with definitive identification (more than the blatant and immediately obvious agenda). He also copied the RW page on me to archive.is immediately, because he can then continue to use it even if it is deleted. Back to you, David, your wiki. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   What he wants deleted, erased, nuked (and not from just that edit, other socks clearly checkuser-identified pushed for it as well): archive.is copy. That is long, it's a draft, basically notes, put together from pieces. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   By "I've been told" Abd means Rome Viharo, who he cites on his Wikiversity article he just linked - its the same misinformation about the same users, boring. Regardless, David is already familiar with Viharo's shenanigans and antics (Viharo even created an article on his website attacking him), so you're wasting your time trying to win over a personal army here. Take your drama elsewhere.MrOrganic (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

   [edit conflict] Abd it seems you have a lot of enemies. Not me though, you are confusing me with someone else. I have nothing against you personally. I came across your paper on cold fusion a few weeks back and then decided to look you up and discovered your history of pseudoscience. I am afraid I have no idea what the majority of your comment is about. If someone was a paid editor for a skeptic group it is unlikely that will admit that on RW. Editors are anonymous here you should stop trying to out people. You seem to be writing 100s if not 1000s of words. Best thing to do is sometimes to sit back and be quiet, nobody wants to read your walls of text that have nothing to do with this discussion. Marky (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

5. Abd above has said he would like some free publicity. So I think this wiki should give it to him. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

   That's a really bad reason. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

   It is a very bad reason. The article should be deleted. He is feeding off the publicity. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

6. A crank. Christopher (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Prominent user. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Runs a small but persistent "institute" pushing fringe/pathological science (cold fusion), and is an active promoter of same in other venues. I would rather the article be about the Institute rather than the person, and focus more on refuting the ideas he is pushing, rather than showcasing details like "he is a Muslim". But on the whole this article is missional, unlike the Laird Shaw article i.e. someone who is frankly too small a fish to deserve attention from RW. Leuders (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Debunking Spiritualism has been coerced into deleting the article by Lomax, since the latter has been harassing him and posting threats. I'm the other person, Lomax smears on his blog, but I don't give in to cyberbullies. So I vote to keep the article. Furthermore, even if the article was deleted, Lomax won't stop harassing DS.ODS (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
10. Abd Lomax can go fuck himself. He has abused me on his blog The zeus46 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Goat

• Wouldn't this discussion be better suited for the appropriate talk page? Discussion seems to be about dispute of the content matter rather than its viability to be its own article (i.e. is it missional or notable?). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What is a sensible comment doing under Goat? On second thought, what better place? At this point, the socks are revert warring on the Talk page. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)