Abd is on a mission
Abd is using this talk-page to dox and stalk skeptical Wikipedia editors, another user Marky has also engaged this user in a long debate  . I have moved his material to an archive, but Abd is reverting. He is using the talk-page as a soap-box for his conspiracy theories. Skeptical (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Skeptical Imma brake him. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 00:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies, I will not engage Abd on here anymore directly then. But as we have all established Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is a pseudoscience promoter with a strong grudge against skeptics, should his RW account really have sysop privileges? All I have seen him do on here is write walls and walls of text attacking someone else recently. Indeed a check of his account reveals no constructive edits to this website and no article creations. He comes here to argue with people and attacks skeptics. As for the statement about his soap-boxing, this goes waaay back. Have a look at his archived talk-page , users have complained for years about him. BTW I also documented above in another section about he has lied elsewhere on the web. He claimed to be an "admin" on this website. I noticed he has now corrected that mistake, but he still remains a sysop. From his behavioural issues... I say he should be demoted. Marky (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) Because of complaints about drama, I semiprotected that page. I did revert blanking of discussion. I have not reverted Skeptical's archiving, though it did cause an edit conflict. The "conspiracy theory" is reporting fact, about one person (or maybe two) who are identified as sock puppets on WMF wikis, and who are also, quite obviously, active here. There are conspiracy theories about skeptics in General and "Guerilla Skeptics," but I'm not at all writing about that or them.
The pattern I have found recently is a series of SPAs, with high and narrow interest. registering and immediately diving into into high controversy, typically controversies difficult to find if one was not already highly involved, and with very recognizable language and argument. Skeptical (contributions) fits that pattern, but has been active long enough to be able to edit through semiprotection. And now he's a sysop, too, courtesy of Bigs at 00:49. Pretty fast, for such a narrow focus, but this is RationalWiki. (The socks throwing a party on that Talk page were obsessed with Laird Shaw and so has been Skeptical.... Not my problem.
Here's my admittedly flawed take on the situation: Either Abd has been prolifically doxxing people, in which case he should be banned, or he has done nothing wrong, in which case he deserves no sanction. Being a pseudoscience promoter is not a promotable crime on this wiki, if it were then RobSmith would not be a sysop. Unless you can prove that he has been vandalizing articles or attempting to silence opposing voices, then I think he should remain a sysop, and unless you can prove in the coop that he doxxed people, then he shouldn't be banned. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with you, RoninMacbeth. The only ban-worthy activity that Abd may have committed is doxing, and I have yet to see evidence to that effect. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to add that there was quite a bit of back-and-forth about whether Abd should be a Sysop back in 2012, with several people, including @David Gerard removing that status due to abuse. Abd doesn't have the benefit of the doubt in my view, but let's see evidence first. Bongolian (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, has he done anything ban worthy? See RationalWiki:Blocking policy. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sanctions for Ikanreed and Ariel31459
- Sorry for embarrassing you. Not sorry for roasting Ariel and his shitty-ass internet-driven ideologies. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
A word about my reason for bringing up the subject at the Bar. I thought it touched upon a more general openness towards language, especially new language and not following the tendency to tie everything entirely to ideology. This did not work out well. Lefty gave what turned out to be good advice: go to the talk page. I apologize to ikanreed for upsetting them. If they had been more specific about which internet driven ideology they had in mind, there might not have been a cause for disagreement.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)