Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax/Archive1

AP did a lot of work!

Revenge is apparently a strong motivator. See some history. He found stuff that I'd more or less lost.

The lede: ah, what is "cold fusion"? There is a confirmed effect, the FP Heat Effect, which also is confirmed as generating helium. Is it fusion? Nobody knows, except, of course, a collection of internet fanatics.

Background I was at Cal tech in 1961-63 (when Feynman gave those Lectures) and then for one term a year later, I left in good standing, but never went back. Yes, I sat with Feynman, in the lectures and at Page House. You may kiss my ring. (I learned to think from Feynman.) Beyond Politics is about an organizational technique that works (spectacularly when it's been tried), but that is little known. I just upgraded the overall site software and BP is an old MediaWiki installation and is thus temporarily down, till I get around to upgrading it. My blog is much more important.

Religion Ah, how stories can be distorted by over-simplification. Long story short, I ended up with nothing but a positive relationship with Abd ul-Qadr, though I have not seen him nor any of his people for many years. Interesting man. Many of his followers went on to study Islam formally, some have become famous. I was also a Muslim chaplain at San Quentin State Prison for some years. Fun! Nothing like prison to get rid of "fake." Fake piety goes over like a lead balloon there.

"Lomax does not deny the possibility of miracles." Indeed. How could I? What the hell is a "miracle"? The article here has: "A miracle is what you call it when something occurs that you can't explain". That's argumentative, what "you call it." Who is "you"? Call what? Something not explained. So, is it possible that there is something that isn't explained? What an idiotic question! Start with existence itself! After all, it seems wildly improbable.

That Martin Gardner quoted me was really fun. He had been a favorite writer since I was a teenager. I had accepted Khalifa's "discovery" (I knew him in person) but, when he was assassinated (he paid for his ideas with his life), I decided to confirm it, pushing through obstacles that I had found before. What I found was that it was confirmation bias, and clearly so. So that's what I wrote. As a Muslim, -- or just as me -- my full trust is in Reality, not in some ideas about it.

Cold fusion The real underlying cause of my eventual ban from Wikipedia was that I successfully took two administrators to the Arbitration Committee for abuse of tools. When I created the RfC for the first, I had started to work on the cold fusion article. The cosigner of that RfC warned me that I'd be topic banned if I went ahead. (I didn't care. One editor is not that important.) What was amazing was not that it happened, but how long it took. And the admin who first topic banned me on cold fusion lost his tools over it. Eventually I gave up on Wikipedia and used the occasion to test a technique for the nondisruptive participation of banned users that I'd developed (and it actually worked). The eventual "community ban" was not about cold fusion, but about that "defiance." Long story. I could easily get unbanned there, but actually don't want it. Wikipedia is, too often, a cesspool, and a temptation to waste endless amounts of time making very little difference. Once banned, I turned to much more productive work. Like work providing money for my expenses, clearly appreciated, and actual social impact, making a difference.

I started Infusion Institute to promote scientific research (not "cold fusion," as such). Yes, it's just funding my work at this point, though others are participating. The first visible activity was a peer-reviewed paper, published in Current Science, in 2015. The work suggested is under way, in Texas, having been fully funded. This is not wiki-wanking.

My major ongoing activity is a blog. Skeptics -- and even pseudoskeptics -- are welcome. I was funded to report on a trial in Florida, Rossi v. Darden, a $270 million lawsuit over an alleged cold fusion device. Fun. Through Darden's company, about $70 million has gone into cold fusion research over the last few years. (The funded Texas work was separate, receiving $12 million.)

Parapsychology. Supportive of research in parapsychology? No. Supportive of academic freedom and the study of subjects without a priori bias. I wouldn't give a dime for parapsychology research. Well, maybe a dime. I assisted with the creation of the Parapsychology resource on Wikiversity, to set it up so that it was overall neutral, while individuals were allowed full expression. It has been in existence for years, now, with no real conflict appearing, except for Smith socks showing up to attack occasionally, easily fended off. If they actually wanted to write skeptical material, they could, but that is probably too much work for them, they prefer to attack and try to get others banned. The user who created this article here is almost certainly that user. (I used to think this was a faction. Turned out, that was unfair to the faction. Just one devious, persistent, very nasty troll.) On the other hand, this article was pretty nice compared to what he wrote as socks on Wikiversity.

Diet woo When I have a health concern, what do I trust? It appears that the author here imagines that "standard of practice" and "official recommendations" are "science-based," but all too often, they are not, they can be political creations. Yes, I eat a low-carb, high-fat diet, have for almost 15 years. Why? I did the research and consulted my physician. A major source for me has been Gary Taubes. Atkins was merely the best-known author about it; the idea is very old, and the science behind it is decent, but Taubes realized that there is a paucity of good research, so he started the Nutritional Science Institute to facilitate better research. This is not about "belief," except that a lot of people believe a lot of crap about nutrition.

Missing from the article. I founded the Arizona School of Midwifery, supporting home birth in Arizona, and helped write the state regulations for practical midwives. No, we didn't do "water births," and I never ate any placenta, though I'd wonder why some think that crazy woo, after all, animals eat them. I delivered about 30 babies, my ex-wife about 200 before leaving Arizona (she had gotten licensed, I never attempted it). No negative outcomes.

Fun. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You keep spamming "you took lectures under..." then name a renowned scientist to sound impressive; the fact is though you never graduated from the university you said you briefly attended, so why mention this at all? Pseudo-intellectual much?MrOrganic (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why just use one account when you can use many? MrOrganic, Marky, Crank destroyer, quacking, and Smith knows that I can list hundreds of confirmed socks, and that's why he researched my history and showed up here after being demolished on the WMF wikis. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice trolling, but this is my only account. There's now a wacky conspiracy theory on this site that anyone who creates or posts on individual articles is someone named "{redacted Abd (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)}". Remember to take those meds.MrOrganic (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No Ad hominem attacks, MrOrganic. ClickerClock (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yea, sure. I'm just against wild accusations of sock-puppetry. For all I know those accounts are Abd's socks - he recently posted he welcomes this article as more web-traffic to his name and voted against its deletion - he probably created it, then tries to pin his socks onto innocent people. Also notice this guy being inactive for years, but only logging back on within days of his article creation (how did he know?). He pretty much incriminated himself!MrOrganic (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No, Abd is not me, and nor am I a sock-puppet. I created this article because I discovered his cold fusion paper and then researched him and found he has other pseudoscientific beliefs. The guy is totally on-topic to be on RW. MrOrganic, I appreciate it if you would stay out of this and keep to the topic at hand. Marky (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

One point. How did I find out about this article? I have been mostly inactive here for a long time. However, Google informed me of a page link to RW with my name. The page here was created on 17:34, 5 October 2017‎. The archive.is version was archived at 6 Oct 2017 13:27:40 UTC. This was referenced in a Reddit post at Fri Oct 6 13:32:48 2017 UTC, archived at 6 Oct 2017 13:34:04 UTC. The Reddit user is an SPA, with one post (in the wrong forum). It was the Reddit post that triggered a google alert. Later, the user apparently realized his error and posted another, in the Reddit RatWiki forum, Sat Oct 7 12:51:22 2017 UTC as another SPA, using a common Smith type of username, skepticguy44. This guy

• (1) hides his identity and history. Is there a pattern of assassinations of skeptics on cold fusion to justify this? People losing their jobs as a result of being skeptical about cold fusion? and
• (2) is accustomed to attacks disappearing, hence the routine and rapid archive.is placements. And from the timing, this is AP. The oldest known Wikipedia sock is Anglo Pyramodologist, but the conclusion of many who have studied this (and from personal contacts) is that this is actually two brothers, surname [redacted --Abd (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)]. It's easy to find the names if one really needs them. I don't. I don't care if this is one person or two. The patterns are two, AP/O and AP/D, and AP/D denies being AP/O. Sometimes we see the reference to "brother" from them. (It wasn't me, it was my brother, or vice versa.) Wikipedia DGAF and both were ultimately tossed into the AP sock bucket. Since they apparently live together, checkuser is likely to pick them up as identical. Behaviorally, the user involved here would be AP/D. And the more he keeps stirring the pot, the more information becomes public. By being allied with the sometimes-powerful "skeptical" faction on Wikipedia, he avoided much on-wiki consequence for years. He (likely him) bragged about it here. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The material above was removed with an edit by a single-edit SPA with a common AP username. And then again. If any established RW user wants to remove the material, they may, but this behavior is very much routine for AP. I am removing the family name from this, though it was extremely common and thus not really doxxing, replacing this with "AP", i.e., Anglo Pyramidologist, the Wikipedia sock master. --Abd (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

~ I'm as confused by all this drama/socking, but RationalWiki_Smith_brothers_conspiracy_theory now covers the silly conspiracy Abd is spamming - it traces back to a gay porn article on Encylopedia dramatica (the troll site). What abd is spamming has no truth to it.MrOrganic (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

700 socks and counting, WTF?

The person who created this article showed up again with this edit. This user claims to be "running this site" with 700 socks . I have seen the rate of sock creation. 700 is believable. On WMF wikis, the user has over 200 identified socks, see the WP SPI archive, and then include all the very active "Michael skater" socks, see steward checkuser findings and [1] and [2], tracked back to an AP sock through IP evidence on RW, see the rev-deleted edit, and he claims to be running four major Wikipedia accounts plus many minor ones.[3] The user commonly impersonates others with his socks, and this has often been believed. (To be sure, the possibility of impersonation or false flag socks in the other direction must be kept in mind. The user in question here, however, is doing a good job of imitating the original, and has clearly done extensive research on me, all toward the end of digging up dirt or what will look like dirt if one squints. Only AP would be that interested in my biography but AP, as revenge for what I did on meta.)

To the points:

• "B.Sc" is British usage (the puppet master is British). Thanks to User:bongolian for correcting this to "undergraduate," which is correct for Cal Tech.
• "Daniel Lomax" is not my birth name. It's a name I used for many years, long story. I'm still known as Daniel to some in real life. Not that this matters. There is biographical information that can be found by looking for "Daniel Lomax," though my birth name is still my legal name. It should not be hard to find for a serious researcher, so ... go waste your time if you want. Harass me in real life? Go ahead, make my day! (I am not giving permission to publish the birth name.)
• I am not by any stretch a spiritualist. I have no such belief, and have debunked spiritualist practices when I encountered them among certain Muslims (most Muslims would consider the idea heretical). The user invented that from my use of the term "spiritual program," which has long been used to describe Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs. As it was used by Carl Jung, in correspondence with the founder of AA, "spiritual" refers to "meaning," and that is a huge conversation by itself. I was very active in 12-step programs, which included attending many open AA meetings. I am not an alcoholic, but was very interested in the structure of AA, and in the personal stories of recovery that can be seen, real life, there. AA members include atheists and agnostics, and the use of the word "God" there is a term for "something greater than the individual," and many of the programs (or local meetings, which are autonomous) have removed the word "God" from the Steps and Traditions, because of possible misunderstandings.
• "failed to complete the course." I did complete the physics course with Feynman. I did not go on to get any degree, anywhere, becoming far more interested in non-academic pursuits, for a time. Hints: musician, well-known in some circles, founded a school of Midwifery (my wife got licensed as did others associated with the School), pioneer with "home computers" (built an w:Altair 8800 and had an article published in Byte magazine, February, 1977), and more, including a small detail, seven children.
• "Desperate for credibility" is mind-reading, pseudoscientific. Mostly, I don't rely on personal authority, but provide evidence, as in the peer-reviewed paper. Mostly, as well, I present myself as a writer and journalist, not as a scientist (i.e., in today's usage, as a credentialed professional). My credibility as a journalist depends on a history of accuracy and depth, but people can judge that for themselves. I cite Feynman because I find, looking back, that I largely learned how to think from him. Read his books! In that line, recently, I did a w:flotation tank session ("sensory deprivation"). See the RW mention -- which doesn't mention that Feymnan did it with Lily, the originator of the technique. Quite an experience, I'll do it again. Some people (including Feynman) do report "out-of-body" sensations. I haven't, yet. I do know that the "world of experience" is a fantasy, created by the nervous system, wherein much activity is ignored and set aside. It's quite a mind-blowing to experience, for example, the visual field with the habitual filtering turned off for a moment (which can be done). DYK that it is possible to see white blood cells moving in near-retinal capillaries?
• "Claims to have studied chemistry with Linus Pauling. I did, the same as every freshman at Cal Tech when I was there. The author doesn't seem to realize that simply being admitted to Cal Tech in those days was a "qualification." But did I "study"? I write "sat with," because that's what I actually did, and I have always learned by exposure to material and people, not by "study." This is about how the brain works, at efficiency in the presence of various kinds of noise. Children learn this way, not by "studying."
• "successor to Samuel L. Lewis." And with that and twenty-five cents, at one time I could have gotten a ride on the subway. On his deathbed, he named me as his successor, using that word. However, then he also named another, who went on to lead the "successor organization." Dodged that bullet!
• I never "lived with" Abd ul-Qadr, but did live with some of his followers, and had some adventures with him, see what the author cited. This was about 1980, before the "Murabitun" organization was founded. Abd ul-Qadr was a brilliant writer, and had some very interesting followers, some of whom went on to become serious students of Islam, at least one is very well-known. I've never had any connection with the Murabitun, so I never "left the group." If I ever described the Murabitun as a "shady cult," I don't remember it. I really don't know much about them. Okay, he gives a source. Nice. I did not call them a "shady cult." It is a cult, in the old meaning (which is how I use the word, it refers to a body of practice, with a group of people who tend to think in the same way. Like, say, RationalWikians. It becomes an "abusive cult" under some conditions. That source does tell more of the story of my journey with the Shaykh. ("Shaykh" means "old man," by the way.)
• "spiritualism". WTF is that? w:spiritualism. Nope. Not how I think, not what I believe.
• "Lomax does not deny the possibility of miracles." I deny few possibilities. What's a "miracle?" Words have various meanings. By seizing on a particular meaning, a critic can then make the target "wrong." Let's start with this: I consider the universe a miracle. It seems wildly improbable. From this I can derive no logical consequences. I am trained to create miracles, things that are not rationally expected, but that can be created by declaration and other techniques. Some might call that magic, but ... it is just how the brain works. Ah, I could tell a Feynman story here, but this is getting too long.
• "Lomax might be rational about one thing, but is irrational or cranky about others." He might be, indeed. So might anyone. This belongs in the article?
• Only one thing? I tie my shoelaces with PK? Hey, if the shoelaces get tied, who cares? And if a troll who has done a great deal of damage is drawn out and becomes more visible, so that those who care may deal with the situation, who cares? The troll wants to hide his identity so he imagines I would hate being "exposed."
• "banned on LENR Forum." Indeed, I was. I declared that, until I could be confident that content was not going to be deleted without notice or opportunity to recover it -- as was happening, at the hand of a particular administrator --, I was boycotting the Forum. That administrator then banned me, which was hilarious. I then put all my energy into my own blog, which allows genuine and deep and organized content to be created, and actually raises money for expenses, whereas LENR Forum is endless argument that goes nowhere, most of the time. When life gives me lemons, I don't just make lemonade, I make lemon chicken or lemon chiffon pie. Yay lemons! Limes too! Even troll Limeys make great lolcows.
• "sysop account privileges removed on RatWiki." Navel-gazing, anyone? In any case, I have one account on RatWiki which is still autoconfirmed. Removal of sysop privileges supposedly takes a Coop discussion, but that wasn't done here. What harassment? But if nobody cares, hey, nobody cares. I'm not going to raise a fuss about it, not here at least. WTF do I need those tools here for? That actor is not just a sysop, he is a tech and moderator, and wanted to do this, apparently, years ago, and apparently felt he now had enough cover. However, I'm drawing conclusions from it, I tend to do that from evidence. Just sayin'. And boy am I finding evidence! The author here knows that I'm looking, which is why he is so interested, interested enough to start another round of attacks on WMF meta the other day.
• The author here has 700 accounts here, he claims. RatWiki, then, is much of his life. He has at least 200 accounts that are blocked on WMF wikis, with the most recent ones being globally locked on sight. Lulz are accumulating, but also consequences.
• The largest consequence for him: isolation from real life, a world outside the troll and lolcow infestations.

I was, for a time, blocked on en.Wikiversity (which, not long before, I had been running as the only active admin). I started up on Quora, where I gained over 3 million page views, and have 1500 followers. Compare that to 1000 page views per month (currently) for my most popular creation on Wikiversity. Who lost and who won?

In any case, thanks, trollface, for working on the article. Every bit helps. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made some corrections based on your comments above. Hopefully, you will find this more accurate. I removed the "sysop account privileges removed on RatWiki" not because of navel gazing per se, but because I don't know with certainty that your account is the same person as the person that page is about. If you have any other corrections to make, please state them here. I would appreciate brevity because I don't really have much personal investment in this particular page unlike 700. Bongolian (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd you have been in trouble for doxing by admins already. I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing people of being sock-puppets here, or linking to external websites that contain names of people. I do not own "700 sock-puppets", another user wrote that on his user-page, it was probably a joke. I am not that user in question. I am well aware of your date of birth is, your birth name and other personal details. It is not the purpose to share such details on this website that is your business. Nobody is really interested in your full life story. Rationalwiki is not Wikipedia. The pages here on people do not have to document every minute detail of your life, only your pseudoscience and fringe beliefs. I am not interested in expanding the article. There are more interesting people out there than yourself. Take care. Marky (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Its obviously a joke... I only have a tiny fraction of that amount of accounts (over a 5-6 year period). Also, just Googling Mr. Abd shows how many forums, social-media etc he infests. I find it funny this old man says "I have no life" for excessive internet-usage, when he's on countless websites, forums and social-media. I don't have any social-media or forum presence whatsoever, and am limited to few websites. Me thinks Abd plays a lot of psychological projection here about his own internet addiction.Asgardian (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Spiritualism

Abd is an elderly man (70s) who might be senile: he may forget what he writes on the internet, either that, or he is not being honest about his "bio" and just makes nonsense up and/or changes details about his life, contradicting himself regularly. As an example Abd denies being a "spiritualist" and above writes something weird about this allegation. However, he boasts on a webpage that he was a so-called "spiritual leader of a community". A leader of a spiritual group is quite obviously a "spiritualist", so why the denial? Did Abd forget he wrote this? There's more evidence for his forgetfulness; Abd described a group as a "shady cult", but admits he forgot he wrote this. I'm not adding falsehoods or inaccurate statements to the article- the problem is Abd has written things about himself he has forgotten, or changed his mind about; I can hardly be criticized for quoting his own words, only for him to forget or deny what he has himself posted, owing to old age and loss of mental functioning (i.e. memory) or because he lies about his own background. The rest is him spamming walls of text nit-picking at trivial details; OK so change the fact he was an undergraduate rather than took a bachelor's degree. Regardless, he failed to complete the course and earn a B.Sc. Its also not an "attack" to criticize him for his lack of qualifications because he tries to present himself as knowledgeable in physics, when he doesn't have a physics degree. Normally people who have knowledge or expertise about something, have a degree in it.Asgardian (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below). As we age, certain faculties decline. My ability to attend to multiple activities simultaneously started to go when I was about 50. There are certain other aging phenomena, and "crankiness" is a common stereotype. I can certainly see this in some of the scientists I know, and I understand it. Crankiness is a form of reactivity, and most of us are reactive, the common cultural upbringing actually encourages and trains it, especially in males. It's extreme with some social disorders. Unless it is recognized by the individual and handled, it can be fatal. It gets worse and is associated with severe dysfunction, long before my age.

My recent activity on RW is largely a common male response, called in my training "avoiding domination." (The AP socks trampled on my turf, impersonating and attacking a user I had protected, converting his own aggression into learning behavior, and then attacked me for cleaning up and correcting the situation, which is still in process.)

Avoiding domination is one of the major, probably instinctive, motivators of behavior (not just for men, but also for women, and especially teenagers, but women are less likely to become aggressive and will rather avoid conflict -- as a stereotype, this is definitely not all women! There is an "AP" sock with a name strongly implying "female," who was not nearly as aggressive as other identified socks. My suspicion is that this is the sister in the family. My suspicion is also that these socks, in the early days, told the truth about themselves, the routine lying only appeared later. They were severely cranky, only pretending to be "skeptical" because that is where the power was on Wikipedia, and they used this to attempt domination (with some success!). In fact, some of those earlier accounts also promoted strongly fringe points of view. The severe skepticism that may be median behavior on RW is actually fringe as to general society, including scientists. It's merely very vocal.

To the point, whether I am senile or not is irrelevant to the article. w:Senescence is a normal phenomenon, and I'm 73. I have a friend, a scientist, still a professor at a university, who is in his 90s. Sharp as a tack, still learning. So some people dodge that bullet, many don't. --Abd (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuck me, is this half-baked gobshite still around? Boredatwork (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

On the meta wiki, my checkuser requests, for many accounts, have been 100% verified as members of this sock army. Accounts like this, SPAs with a very clear and aggressive focus, stand out like a sore thumb. It is always possible that someone new dives in, but, statistically, it must be very rare, or non-existent. If someone comes here for the RW mission, I would not be the first thing to notice, and this account's vomitus shows familiarity. I.e., not new. So why the new account? Because that's what the "gobshit" has been doing for years. And what I've been doing for years is describing what I see. --Abd (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a yes, then. Boredatwork (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Still around, yes -- isn't that obvious? --, still having fun, only now it's actually, sometimes and in surprising ways, paying off. --Abd (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Now, as to "spiritualism," the word has an established meaning. As I described, "spiritual program" and "spiritual community" use a very different meaning. Very few "spiritual communities" or "programs" have anything to do with "spiritualism" as defined here on RW. Only in a very weird and highly reactive community, or to someone attempting to accuse another of believing what they do not believe, would that equation be created. Try googling "spiritual program" and see what you get. Then try "spiritualism." Or just look at the Wikipedia article. There is a decent post on "spiritual program," "faith," etc., from someone who included "critical thinking" as "spiritual," which I certainly do (as an aspect of it, not the whole banana). The Wikipedia article on Spiritual but not religious is a decent approach to this.

The understanding of the distinction seems absent from RW, probably because of knee-jerk reactions to words like "God," "faith," or "spirit" (ghost?) etc. Does RW want serious dialog on these issues? If not, it is confining itself to a dark corner of the internet and human intellectual life. Genuine skeptical inquiry would want to understand why people use these words, and the varieties of meanings assigned. "Faith-based," for example, was co-opted by the religious right, taking the meaning of "faith" away from the pure psychological meaning, which refers to a condition of trust that is deeper than reason, because it is the condition of babies. This then can get confused with "belief," which is interpretive. Mostly RW is deaf to this. On Quora, there are excellent discussions, where I am in high agreement with academic atheists, not with the political atheists, who are not critical thinkers in general.

This kind of insistence on accidental meanings of words is typical of fanatics and trolls or just plain liars. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Boredatwork. Abd wildly accuses anyone of being some random user named "Anglo Pyramid" with no evidence. So he will probably accuse you of being this person next since your account is recent and you left a comment here... None of us though are the article creator. If you edit his article or left a comment here, he accuses you of being this same person. Anyway that's my final comment here; Abd is free to spam more deranged walls of spam that no one even reads.Asgardian (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

All he does is go on and on and write walls of meaningless text that nobody is interested in. Even a small issue he will write hundreds of words on it. Give it a break abd. Stop soapboxing. Marky (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd now attacking Joshua Schroeder

Abd attacks and trolls a new skeptic every few months. He is now personally attacking astronomer Joshua Schroeder and posting slander about him on his personal website [4] (note this blog post has been changed on December 3, 2017) and on forums.

An archived copy, if he tries to remove it.

119.81.64.88 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd has deleted the slander he wrote about Joshua yesterday, yet archived evidence remains, so he cannot deny what he wrote! He did this because he is scared he will get in trouble with admins on Wikiversity or Meta-Wiki. Abd has been blocked on Wikipedia, but he still has an active Wikiversity account. Abd claims he is a victim of 'skeptic harassment', actually the only harassment comes from Abd. Not only is he banned all over the web, he stalks and posts lies and slander about skeptics on his website. AstroPhysics (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an update, Abd's original post about Joshua has entirely been changed. It is back up live, but all the original material has been deleted. AstroPhysics (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd posting libel about Joshua on the Thunderbolts forum [5], [6]. He will not doubt complain this has been archived as well. The deeper question is why does he sign up to forums to slander people? It is not an offense to archive his harassment. Archiving is for documentation purposes. If he is so concerned about getting in trouble for what he has done, why does he do it in the first place? He is clearly one of these guys who can never own up and just admit he has done wrong. AstroPhysics (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd's latest target is again Wikipedia user JPS, [7], [8]. This is getting obsessional. AstroPhysics (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Dishonesty from Abd

Abd on October 4, 2017 attacked Joshua on his blog as a "pseudoskeptic" and stalked this persons identity [9], also archived.

On December 2, 2017 he was warned about his harassment and deleted his offensive blog post. His original post has since been deleted but Abd has been dishonest and decided to completely change it on 3 December, 2017. His new blog post on the same link which is live [10] now attacks another user and a bunch of random IP addresses, who he blames for archiving his original post. Outright deception and dishonesty from Abd. He does not apologize for his original attacks on Joshua, he now hides his original slanderous article, and shifts the blame onto someone else he has a personal vendetta against complaining that this person archived his original post. AstroPhysics (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd says it is 'harassment' to archive his website posts. Lol. He slandered Joshua, got scared about his original slander and has now tried to hide it. AstroPhysics (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You might want to archive everything Abd writes, because not only is he now removing past material on his own blog, he is now trying to remove negative things he wrote about people on other websites. 46.246.93.60 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd banned on four forums for trolling

According to this post written by someone that Abd got in an argument with, he has been banned on four forums. 46.246.93.60 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It was actually 3 forums he got banned on, the fourth was an Islamic group that he got asked to leave, not a forum. He was likely booted from that group but we do not know the true details. His bans on Wikipedia and Rationalwiki would bring it to 5 though. The guy Zeus46 you linked to described Lomax as the "king of trolls", I would agree with that description. AstroPhysics (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd in this post claims [11] "I am permanently banned on LF. I actually declared a boycott, that I would not be posting any more, because of extensively deletions of content without warning or opportunity to recover it. So I was immediately banned, there was no other cause or explanation, public or private." Yet according to other users who post over there, he was banned on that forum for arguing and trolling. He then wrote an obsessional 4,000 words on his blog [12], blaming the administration of the forum for his ban. Like I said above, he seems to be someone who can never admit to being in the wrong. His bans have been well documented across the internet but he never admits to his disruptive behaviour. AstroPhysics (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd and his sock-puppets

Abd was blocked on one called "EnergyNeutral" [13] AstroPhysics (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Abd banned on Wikiversity for a year for disruption

Abd was just banned on Wikiversity (31 December, 2017) for a year [14] for "Repeat disruptive editing of pages: you have interfered with a legitimate discussion of the scope of a wikiversity resource."

He seems to get banned from everywhere. AstroPhysics (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

He has now been banned indefinitely. Previous to his perm block he had been blocked 8 times [15]. This guy is obviously a serious online harasser and trouble-maker. Anti-Fascist for life (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, he was blocked 11 times actually (between 2010 and 2017). Mad. He has since blogged about this claiming he has been incorrectly blocked. Yeh right, incorrectly blocked a total of 11 times, funny stuff. This guy has traits of a narcissistic personality disorder. He seems to think no matter what he does, he is always right and everyone is wrong and should bow down to him. He's been blocked on various cold fusion forums, Rationalwiki, Wikipedia and Wikiversity by separate admins... yet some how everyone is wrong about his disruptive behavior and he should be unblocked. AstroPhysics (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Still trolling

I see Lomax is still trolling people online. Zeus46 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax is now siding with activists from the far-right

Lomax is now siding with alt-righters who hate Rationalwiki. He has just written an article on his blog defending Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Richard Lynn and the Mankind Quarterly. He has also admitted to being a "friend" Ben Steigmann for "years", but does not mention Steigmann's holocaust denial. Convenient. Anti racist man (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia user who has been harassed by Abd Lomax. I think Rationalwiki should take legal action against Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, on his Cold Fusion Community blog he has defamatory material and is cyberstalking Rationalwiki members by posting their families house addresses. He also said he would legally defend a pedophile. He appears to be a very disturbed man. No doubt the police have him under their radar. El Badboy (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Suing people is not without risk. First it opens one up to a discovery process by the person one is suing. Second it can be very costly. Third the grounds for suing may not be very strong. In the US, everyone accused of a crime (including pedophiles) is entitled to a legal defense. Bongolian (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am well aware of this. The issue about Lomax though was also raised by another editor I noticed [16] Lomax has about six defamatory articles about Rationalwiki on his Cold Fusion website and he spams them onto this website on sock-puppet accounts. He is obviously looking for trouble. Would it not be possible for the RationalWiki Foundation to take legal action against him? The RW Foundation as far as I know are not anonymous. Trent Toulouse etc. Wouldn't they take interest in this? El Badboy (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the foundation should be bothered by anything posted by this twit thusfar. I've looked at the pages on his blog and they all are obviously the ravings of a complete raving loony and crank. If one or more of the supposed editors he claims to have doxxed takes offense, then it's up to them to do something about uit, and not Rational Wiki. His insane ramblings do not rise to the level of anything action except for ignoring it completely, or poking fun at the idiocy of the whole thing. Just my observation, Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was merely curious, given Lomax's shall we say tenacity.

PS: I've been to his blog, mainly out of curiosity and found that it was very poorly formatted. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

171528 words, 19 articles attacking me and counting

http://archive.is/KH2bC

So I decided to copy and paste all the posts Lomax has made attacking me on his website (19 articles in total, filed under one category).

By copy & pasting all his crazy rants on Microsoft word and using their word count: 171528.

He's also sent me about a dozen harassing emails.ODS (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Abd Lomax now banned by WMF (global ban)

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abd&diff=prev&oldid=17768039
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List&curid=6606548&diff=17768040&oldid=17694317

He's now globally blocked.

Note that that a WMF Global Ban "is an extraordinary permanent measure to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects" without having to go through the typical blocking processes - so this type of ban is for only the most extreme vandals or harassers and only about 30 users by the Wikimedia Foundation have been banned this way.

Lomax has been harassing the families of various wiki editors, including mine (on/off the wiki); this includes doxing, libelling and cyber-stalking us by posting personal house addresses and phone numbers (that he acquired through a paywall) on his blog; writing up to 20 defamatory articles of his victims to abuse Google searches, as well as causing mass disruption on the wiki by filing fake sock-puppet investigations and posting ad hominem non-stop. The guy is seriously deranged. I'm glad WMF took this action.ODS (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Laughable legal threats by troll harasser Abd Lomax

http://archive.is/IIY3s

Since his global ban by WMF, and his ban by RationalWiki, he now posts a bogus legal threat threatening to sue loads of people, including myself. lol

In possible legal action, you will be named as an additional defendant. The primary defendants will be people who happen to be local to me, whom you deceived into supporting your demands, and who were, in their actions, negligent and with intention to harm, and, of course, the WMF, which would not, until the global lock, have had any liability at all. Now they do, because of the false claim of TOS violation.

I expect a series of co-plaintiffs, also thoughtfully created by you because you attacked many, but, for now, a list of possible co-defendants:

Michael Umbrecht, Rhode Island (or close), bureaucrat on Wikiversity Joshua P. Schroeder/Tan, New York, long-time disruptive Wikipedia user, who lied about harassing email from me. Guy Chapman, England, with a vendetta against me with many public defamatory comments, for almost ten years, Oliver D. Smith England, creator of attack articles on RationalWiki, doxxers and trolls and libels against many The WikiMedia Foundation, which acted without balanced investigation on the requests of the above and others, identities unknown, and, of course, The RationalWiki Foundation, host of defamatory articles, which has blocked attempts to correct these articles and allow response, which has also thoughtfully been collecting funds to protect against lawsuits, which, of course, makes them a more attractive target. I think these would fit nicely into a U.S. federal action, and I’ll be looking for counsel, to advise and assist, and other support.

(To those of the possible defendants listed above who see this, you may expect formal letters, from me or from counsel, in the near future. You may also contact me at this time to see if some compromise or settlement is possible, even before the involvement of counsel. I cannot speak at this point for other possible plaintiffs, but attempts to resolve issues in good faith will be respected by me — as I offered before to Oliver D. Smith.)

Note by "resolve issues in good faith" he means spamming your email inbox like he did mine with harassing emails.ODS (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In this and in many recent comments, ODS has been outing himself ("myself").

That does look like a legal threat, all right, but not posted here, except, of course, by "ODS," identity obvious. Lomax has published the emails from "ODS". Smith wrote him, not the other way around, and there has been no harassment by Lomax, the latest mail was from ODS, complaining about trolls commenting on Lomax's blog]. Responding to an email is far, far from spam or harassment. So, here, ODS is lying as he (and/or his brother) have been lying for years.

See and compare what ODS wrote on the same day:

• 99.9% of those accounts are my twin brother.email January 25, 2018
• I have no control over his activities, he doesn't now live with me, although does sometimes visit. I cannot comment on allegations of his disruption since I don't know nor am interested in what he edits on wikis. The overlap between us is actually very minor. We both have different qualifications, interests etc; for example I have no interest in debunking the paranormal, while he does. What little I do know is that he is linked to 'skeptic' organisations, supposedly is either paid or works with other people.email January 25, 2018
• The only people I’ve united against me are crazies and pseudo-scientists whose RationalWiki entries I created or edited for past 6 years.[http://coldfusioncommunity.net/anglo-pyramidologist/emails/#January-25-2018 UNZ January 25, 2018

Is he lying about his brother? Regardless, it looks like that "paranoid conspiracy theory" as touted for months by ODS socks was right on. The chickens are coming home to roost.--109.201.137.39 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I wish you people would take your drama, your feuds, and all your other crap and just sort it out via email like normal people... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Lomax is a habitual liar. "No harassment by Lomax" shows the insanity and delusions of this guy; he was just globally blocked by Wikimedia Foundation for harassment and I received this confirmation email today:

Hello Oliver,

Thank you for your patience while we reviewed this. I just wanted to close the loop on this matter as we concluded our investigation. We've taken what you've sent into consideration as we reviewed Abd's conduct in a larger context in regards to whether the Foundation should take any action. We determined that the conduct did merit Foundation-led action and yesterday, 24 February 2018, we proceeded in enforcing a Wikimedia Foundation Global Ban against Abd. This means that this user is no longer welcome on the Wikimedia projects, under any username he has used or may use in the future. While we obviously can't guarantee our global ban will stop the issues the community has been facing I'm hopeful that it will help. We will continue to watch and listen for future issues, moving forward, but please let us know if you have any questions or believe there is something else we can do to help. Warm regards.

As I noted above, a Wikimedia Foundation Global block is rare and only applies to severe cases of harassment. I have no further interest in responding to Lomax - he sent me harassing emails. Why is it Joshua P. Schroeder also has said Lomax sent him harassing emails, if I'm making this up? Why is Lomax banned from Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Meta-Wiki, RationalWiki and now a Wikimedia Foundation Global Ban? It's obvious to anyone the guy is a notorious troll and internet harasser.ODS (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The "paranoid conspiracy theory" started by Rome Viharo that Lomax mentions, has no basis in fact. Read my reply: "The overlap between us is actually very minor", is that not clear enough? There's virtually no overlap with our edits; secondly Viharo spreads a rumour, that my brother is "paid" by a skeptic organisation. As I noted above, I don't know if this is true or not. So congratulations at the end of the day - there are brothers who have edited this website, almost entirely on different topics and articles - not at all like Viharo's conspiracy that a covert or shadow skeptic organization is paying two brothers to "harass" random people. The allegations of "harassment" are of course nonsense - we've simply used this wiki to document and debunk pseudoscientists.ODS (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Although the Wikimedia Foundation keep their case files confidential because of safety issues. Lomax was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation because he was doxing users, and this is a serious health and safety risk. If you check his user-contributions he was posting his personal blog on Meta-Wiki. On his ColdFusionCommunity blog he has posted the real life names, home addresses and work places of where different Wikipedia users live, including their families. This is obviously serious harassment. Lomax had previously done this to Joshua Schroeder. He has done it to more than one person.

In regard to emails, Lomax has posted certain emails from ODS and Joshua Schroeder on his blog. Firstly there is no way to prove the emails are legitimate, they may be edited or impersonation. But if they are true emails, then what is Lomax doing publishing private emails on his blog without the senders permission? This guy is a full on doxer, he does not respect peoples privacy. I have been watching over this case in detail for the last few months. Lomax's online behaviour has got worse and worse, he is now indulging in criminal activities. His ban by the Wikimedia Foundation was justified. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In regard to Lomax saying he is going to sue the Wikimedia Foundation, that is laughable. Over what? He was harassing users for years (blocked on Wikiversity 11 times before his ban). He has no legal case to stand on. This is some interesting drama though. I might tip off some skeptic blogs, so they can cover this story. I recommend keeping this talk-page for autoconfirmed users. No doubt Lomax and his new friend Rome Viharo will turn up here on more IPS or socks. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

More Abd drama

Someone is crazy-vandalizing RationalWiki and it isn't Abd

Debunking spirituality has been making a list of alleged socks of Abd, which was exactly the kind of activity that Abd was blocked for, and he seems desperate, obsessed.

It's going to be especially hard to stop Abd from doing what he isn't doing. Lomax has claimed that all the named accounts that have been vandalizing RationalWiki recently and making legal threats are impersonations, not him -- but I don't think he's seen the newest two, Cold_Fusion_Research and RealDeal, which is a takeoff on his only actual sock, The real deal. He has shown evidence. As to the two newest named accounts, they are obviously the same as the others.

Here is more evidence. The real deal is confirmed as Abd by his Identity page linked in his edit. The first three IPs show cogency and are on-message as to what would be communicated by Abd or anyone following him. Likewise 5 and 6. So we can see what Abd or a friend looks like. But 4 is disruptive, threatening to sue (as are the named accounts). With the exception of (4) in the list of IPs, probably the same as the sock master for the names, these are two different users, at least. The named accounts are posting material copied from a post by one of the IPs or from Abd, over and over, but altered to show threat.

Someone is being highly disruptive, stirring up drama, and it isn't Abd. All the named accounts have been quickly blocked. Not so the IPs, except for (4), and except for (4), the IPs do not show any behavioral match to the named accounts. --159.65.86.218 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The amount of actual disruption seems rather minimal to me. It doesn't really matter if the socks are ABD or some ally of ABD. Bongolian (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The named accounts are neither Abd nor an ally, but are impersonations, vandalizing and making legal threats in order to create reactions, which, by the way, seems to be working, even though it is obvious obvious. The IP editors that Debunking spirituality named may be Abd or an ally. Is real-name impersonation "minimal"? Are legal threats "minimal"? I could say who the impersonator is, it's also totally obvious, but ... doxxing, you know. --37.220.14.210 (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please note the above proxy IPs are Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, he now talks in third person and pretends to be someone different. Lomax was banned last week by the Wikimedia Foundation for doxing Wikipedia users, a serious health and safety issue. He hosts the addresses of where people live on his blog. He has been banned from Rationalwiki on many accounts. I can confirm the sock-puppeting accounts are all him or an ally of his working for his blog. He now likes to blame these accounts on "skeptics" and incorrectly claim he has been framed. As for legal threats, Lomax had made these himself on his cold fusion community blog. As Abd has now resorted to socking on proxy IPs it is best to ignore the troll. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia user who Abd Lomax has abused and I have been following this. If you want to get rid of Abd Lomax you have to close him down by removing his access. He was blocked on Wikipedia so he created socks, after this failed he argued with people on his talk-page. They had to remove his talk-page access. After he was banned from Wikipedia, he went to Wikiversity. He was banned from Wikiversity, he then started to argue on his talk page. His talk-page access was removed. According to admin over there he was causing "persistent long term disruption". After he was banned from Wikiversity he started harassing users on Meta-Wiki. He was eventually globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and his talk-page access was removed. Before his ban on Meta-Wiki he was filing fake check-user reports. These backfired and the admins dismissed them as a nuisance. An admin actually closed one of his requests, he was shut down, so what did he do? He went to the talk-page to continue his rant. He was eventually shut down there. Lomax will look for any avenue to spam in his long rants. Now his socks have been banned on Rationalwiki he has resorted to using IPs. No doubt he will create a discussion on this saloon bar about it everyday. Unlikely the saloon bar will be locked for auto-confirmed users, so RW will with his trolling for years. He won't give up on this. Sad considering the guy is pushing 80 and probably doesn't have many years left. This is the "high" of his life. Trolling wikis and stirring drama. 146.0.42.77 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your Wikipedia user name? Abd has harassed Joshua Schroeder and user called Kujilia. You can keep your Wikipedia identity private, I am just interested if you want to reveal it. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not reveal my Wikipedia user name. Over the users Abd has targeted about 6 Wikipedia users and outed them on his blog, including personal details. I know some of these users complained to the Wikimedia Foundation including an admin. Abd is a bad doxer, he happens to find a Wikipedia users real name he will target that person's family and post where they live and where that person works. It is all quite dangerous really. I am happy that the Wikimedia Foundation banned him, he was putting users in real life danger by doxing them. 37.235.48.138 (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A trade mark characteristic of Abd's online behaviour is "bolding" text so he can shout and get the last word in, I have removed this in his comment. I find it unlikely the above IPs are an ally of his, they are him. The writing style is exactly his. 37.235.48.138 (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My advice would be to sign up an account here. Hiding behind different proxies is what Abd Lomax does, and you do not want to be confused with him. This website doesn't need anymore of his drama. If you create an account you can edit his article to make improvements. Regards. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Using an account rather than an IP is also more secure because, unless you are using a proxy IP, the IP address can reveal something about your location. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Abd Lomax is socking and linking to his cold fusion community blog. I just had to revdel one of his edits. He now has a blog post on my Rationalwiki account claiming to have identified me. He says he knows my real name and location and he lists it. He got my name and location wrong, but as he is attempting full dox of users here, I just semi-protected this page as he will no doubt turn up here again and again on new IPs. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lomax attacking Joshua again

Lomax has restored his attack piece article on Joshua P. Schroeder. I will add this to the article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Words Cant Express My Hate

Thanks to this idiot, people thought i was him. This is for you Trollmax. 凸ಠ益ಠ)凸 --Anonymous4thelolz (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Abd's latest shenanigans, attacking himself on fake names to play victim on Lulu

http://www.lulu.com/shop/ben-steigmann/abd-ul-rahman-lomax-internet-troll/ebook/product-23565204.html

Lomax is trying to pin this book on me I never created. The book creation was deliberately made so he could review it, trying to blame it on me as well and link to his blog. Also a new method for him to try to appear as the victim. ODS (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I cant unsee that, I never would have guessed he wanted to photoshop his face on pictures of obese men. Is he trying to send a message (aside from the trolling)?Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 01:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He never created the image, but copied it from Encylopedia Dramatica. Someone can easily take down inappropriate Lulu content by the report feature that appears at bottom of each page for a product. Lomax of course doesn't report it, because he uploaded it. Instead, he goes on the book and writes a review to attack me. If this wasn't really him who made it, then he would report, not review; he's implanting false attacks on himself and then trying to blame them onto others. ODS (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, so does he just go after everyone or just the ones he hates the most?リムルテンペスト 01:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He's got a section on his website that lists most RW users/sysops. However, his main focus is me and the sysop 'Debunking Spiritualism'. There's now something like 25 blog posts doxing us (such as street address), with all sorts of wild allegations and misinformation, some libellous. Its all about abusing Google traffic for him, so for example if someone now Google's my real name- 7 or 8 of his website articles show up. Regardless, I've reported the book and hopefully it will be taken down by Lulu.ODS (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I see, well I wont be surprised if he targets me next. If he does try to make it seem like I did this or I did that, I can call him out easily. It's not like an 18 year-old can just write a book on hate and mass produces it with ease :P Řïmũŗû Ţèmpéŝţ 02:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The e-book has been online less than 48 hours - I find it suspicious that within that time, Abd Lomax had already reviewed the book and doxxed ODS in the book review section. If Abd Lomax didn't create this book how did he find it so quickly? Lomax is also an ED poster. There is an IP claiming to be Ben Steigmann (he was blocked as a Lomax sock though) [30]. Ben Steigmann claims to have suffered from a schizophrenic disorder. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

More bullshit from Lomax, huh?Rimuru Da Ninja 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this guy on drugs?

Abd's latest article called "hatewatch" says the Smiths (who is obsessed with and digitally stalks) travelled to Birkbeck College, University of London to impersonate Michael Coombs to get him blocked on an IP. Very unhinged. One only has to look at Michael's Wikipedia sock archive, to see that is where Coombs often edits from, as noted by an admin:

Any IP editing race articles whose IP address is Birkbeck College is the racist Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

MrsBlintz (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

He has stooped pretty low that he is now defending Neo-Nazis like Mikemikev. Lomax will basically side with anyone who hates Rationalwiki. The funniest thing though he says on his blog he has identified me as a young guy in my 20s. Last time I checked I was a 41 year old guy. I find it funny though so he can continue to spread misinformation. Truth is obviously not his goal. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This 51-year old woman is also one of the Smiths, apparently. Wilder^Bicycle 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the all-male rock band named The Smiths? Bongolian (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Abd Lomax trolling

He is moaning about Rationalwiki on Wikipedia Sucks and on Reddit

• https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=443&start=40
• https://www.reddit.com/user/Abdlomax Debunking spiritualism (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know. Tbh I don't get what his whole ordeal with all the Wikis is. What is his goal? Does he not have anything better to do?Ultimate Slime 01:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think he has a goal with the wikis as such. I think he just has a thin skin and feels the need to have a go back. Wilder^Bicycle 15:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

I re-wrote some sections, but they got reverted. I've spoken to Lomax by email, and he says he will no longer disrupt or make more articles on RationalWiki on his blog etc., if we just focus more on his cold fusion and try to more neutrally present his research on this. The problem is his page has been a battleground and much drama over his activities on wikis that are mostly irrelevant to RationalWiki - its main purpose is to document pseudoscience. I just think its sensible if we rewrite his article and the drama will end.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki is objective not neutral. Furthermore this sounds like extortion to me, i.e. "do what I say or else I'll harass you." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually proposed to re-write some of it. At the very least there's been lots of mistakes & errors on the article. What I wrote was actually a lot more objective. I would invite Lomax here to correct things he has a problem with, but he's already published a response on his blog and I went over it. He's mostly telling the truth about his cold fusion research. It is misrepresented by the original article creator. Of course I'm not defending Lomax's antics on wikis and other sites (he recently got blocked on the RW reddit section), but I think the article should more accurately present his cold fusion stuff.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I invited @Bongolian and a few others to discuss my edit.Debunking spiritualism (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's a matter of correcting errors on RW, then, yes, this should be done. We should not however be put in a position of tone policing ourselves because of Lomax. I don't think that Lomax is a trustworthy actor based on his past documented history here and elsewhere, and we should not cater to his whims. There is no possible guarantee that he could make that he will not continue his harassment on or off of RW. Bongolian (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lomax wants some kind of deal where his lead is edited, and the cyber-harasser and troll is removed and the article accurately reflects his cold fusion research. Lomax had about 30 articles very negative about Rationalwiki users, some of these contained dox. He has now removed some those from public-view and they are password protected, but he is talking about contacting the media privately about his ban from Rationalwiki and Wikipedia. He says that is a possibility, he also says his obsession with all of this has damaged his health, I can believe that. He was writing thousands of words about this every-day, it was not normal.

I personally would have his RW article deleted, I actually voted delete in the deletion discussion. The whole thing has caused too much trouble here and these petty internet feuds with Lomax are messing with peoples lives. It would be better for everyone if this was all to just end. Obviously many people voted to keep his article so it will not be deleted but I don't know if it is worth inviting him here to comment on what he wants changed on his article. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If Lomax permanently removed and deletes all the negative commentary about Rationalwiki on his cold fusion community blog and decides to move on with his life, is it possible his article could be deleted? This might not be policy but is it not possible to arrange some kind of deal like this? Both parties would win at the end of the day and people could move on with their lives. Several users have been doxed by Lomax on his blog so all this is having real life consequences. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rimuru Tempest, @Readymade, @Christopher @David Gerard your thoughts about the above? Debunking spiritualism (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Fuck no!!! We will not cave in to every halfassed crank that suddenly decides that they've "reformed". that is the very definition of whitewashing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think he has delusions of self-grandeur if he thinks "the media" will be interested in his petty squabbles and persecution complex. Password-protecting his doxing is not a particularly conciliatory action in my view: this is basically an admission that he has been a harasser. I invite other moderators @CheeseburgerFace, @Christopher, @CowHouse, @DiamondDisc1, @LeftyGreenMario, as well as the semi-active: @David Gerard to comment. Bongolian (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should whitewash his past. If he shows signs of a changed man for over 5 years, we can add that to the article and perhaps give him a nicer writeup.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, why are we even covering Internet drama? We care about woo. I was under the impression that we don't cover Internet drama for anyone on this website.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, after looking into all of this stuff I'm not so sure we can just throw it under the rug. I agree with Cheeseburger on this, let him show he decided to change through his actions and others will begin to see better of him. Let us not forget what we do here at RW.

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;

2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas;

3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.King Tempest 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

focusing on each and every crank rather than the ideas they espouse is such a waste of time and energy. Anyways, if this Lomax fellow is vandalizing the article, just lock it down--"Shut up, Brx." 02:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across his site at one point, didn't think much of it, I kept scrolling down and I saw my name of his "Enablers and Supporter" claiming he was working on a draft of me. Idk what he is or was going to write (as he seems to have password blocked it) but after reading a few things of his I think now see him in a worse light than I did at first. I don't know why he put me on one of his pages and made it seem like I told him "The Christian God is the real God and not Allah" but seeing what he said about everyone I wont really believe him unless he actually shows a change and apologized to those who he attacked. I'm not going to hold a grudge with him but he needs to show we can trust him.Rimuru Tempest 04:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

An apology and even a website wipe won't be enough to have us remove what he has done with the past. He remains responsible for any harm he has done and he will learn the consequences of being a little less than an unpleasant piece of work. I'm not holding any grudges, but this person will have to do quite a bit to make up for all the the trouble he has caused. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 05:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Any actual inaccuracies should obviously be removed, but don’t cave in to his threats and don’t remove information about what he’s done in the past just because he claims to have changed. Christopher (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate making the changes Debunking spiritualism made to the article. I'm someone Lomax smeared and doxed on his blog. He's since removed nearly everything and is happy to stop this feud if we make amendments. There are clearly inaccuracies, just like Lomax writing lies and hearsay about people on his blog, so it would help to correct/remove the misrepresentations, errors, poorly sourced content and mistakes from Lomax's article. Agent47 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps @Debunking spiritualism could write a short synopsis here of each correction along with a supporting reference for each correction, then we can move forward. Bongolian (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Lomax email

The above attempted re-writes or deletions requests is because of Lomax blackmailing, coercing and harassing RW users - so like myself we want the option of being left alone by this nutcase. Below is a harassing email I've just received. Lomax believes I have a brother involved in this website, I don't. That's the "smith brother conspiracy theory" he's obsessed with. Aside from this misinformation and conspiracy theory, he claims to be taking legal action. But note how rude and aggressive this old prick is:

If I don't want RW to have an article on me, my recourse is with the RMF. I did email them, they ignored it (not surprising). Next step is a certified letter, a formal demand.

You and your brother have lied so extensively about me and what I was doing, and created such a widespread mess, that the only way to undo it is probably to come completely clean, and openly acknowledge what you know, in a way that is verifiably you. Otherwise it would be considered impersonation. That is the mess you and your brother have created.

You complained to the WMF. What did you complain about? That is not going to be a privileged communication, it's vulnerable to subpoena.

I don't think you realize how difficult it could be to undo the damage you and your brother have done. Having a sysop account is largely meaningless on RW. Any user, generally, can rewrite an article. I could rewrite may article. But would it stick? The two of you have created a myth that the RW community believes, demonstrating how naive and gullible they are.

All those vandalizing socks on RationalWiki, copying my text, twisting it, and vandalizing with it, who were they?

David Gerard only acts when he has cover. He is, after all, real-name and vulnerable to defamation suits.

And it appears that it will be coming to that.

I basically retract my claims above. There are no inaccuracies on the article, its just that Lomax has threatened us and doxed our family members etc, that people want a way out of this dispute and some of us were prepared to give in to his demands and whitewash the article. I've changed my mind and won't be further doing this. I don't see this guy stopping his harassment, he'll probably end up getting a restraining order against him, or sectioned under a mental health act.Agent47 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

My point still stands. Even if he has reformed on a dime, he still has to make up for it, a formal apology to every specific person he doxxed is a start, but that's that: it's a start. Given the damage he's done, he probably has to go through an entire personality change. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)