Talk:Abd ul-Rahman Lomax/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 30 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

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.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (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.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (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.リムルテンペスト 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.リムルテンペスト 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)

RWW

I made an article on him. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 01:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is he will probably now show up there on accounts & complain to wikia. He spends his life attacking people on his blog, but if someone merely spends 5 minutes writing something about him it's unacceptable...Callimachus (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, what you wrote was good. I don't think I will edit and leave it to others. You mentioned Lomax has 29 articles on RationalWiki; he has 51 on me. It's done to abuse google traffic to my name, i.e. search my real name so the lies and smears show up on his blog.Callimachus (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind and wrote a little. Abd has been divorced 7 (!) times; not surprising is it. Callimachus (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing Internet drama

RationalWiki analyzes woo, not Internet drama. So I removed Lomax's trolling antics.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I'm aware this is a controversial edit, but we aren't Encyclopedia Dramatica. We cover KiwiFarm's harassment because they target minorities, however, we don't cover every single detail of the harassment. I added that Abd was a harasser to push his ideas, but I don't think we should have dedicated sections for it.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 21:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is this guy?

Noticed this guy mentioned my name on his blog saying I'm someone I'm not. What a nutcase. Octo (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Octo, he was a long-time editor here who did actually make some good edits. He's a bit nutso about cold fusion, hence the title of his blog. He was permabanned earlier this year for doxing people, something he's continued to do on his own blog. You can read about some of his antics on his talk page:[1] Bongolian (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

He seems to be saying there is one person who owns about 1000 accounts here, including mine. I know this not to be true, at least for mine. It also seems unlikely one person owns that many; his blog also presents zero evidence.Octo (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

He's made unsupported/unsupportable claims like that before as I recall. It sounds rather paranoid. Bongolian (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

He looks at article edit histories and for some odd reason thinks only one person can edit an article.Octo (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

King of the trolls label

“”'King of the Trolls' Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I think the title is appropopiate given the huge number of wikis/forums Lomax has been banned from for trolling and harassment. Even the troll wiki Encylopedia Dramatica banned him a few days ago. Of course he isn't actually a good troll, nor is funny; the trolling he specialises in is malicious in the sense of constantly attacking people.Arcticos (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It just strokes his ego. Bongolian (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Also I am contesting the king of the trolls label. — Dysk (contribs) 20:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There are probably worse trolls than Abd. Bongolian (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Like me. — Oxyaena ^Harass 14:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lomax claims I'm John66, lol

There are many crazy but entertaining ramblings and conspiracy theories on his blog. For some reason he claims I own the sysop John66, someone that blatantly isn't me I have zero knowledge of their edits.Arcticos (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never heard of this Lomax person before, not sure why he has confused me with someone else. My edits on this website are only on fad diets and cholesterol quackery, I have never written about cold fusion. I noticed Lomax is a cholesterol denialist, perhaps that it why he targeted me. John66 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hilarious email from this troll

This was an old email I recieved from Abd:

“”I’m seeing a woman, in her 70s like me, and her children ran an “intervention,” believing that she was getting involved with some dangerous lunatic, because of the RationalWiki article. Tossing mud can cause real-world harm, but that is only the beginning. The field I am working in — I have been published under peer review in, in a significant mainstream journal — has possibilities; if the reported effect could be made to work reliably (which is difficult), it might save a trillion dollars per year. Every year that the necessary research for that is postponed, then, may have a lost opportunity cost of a trillion dollars (times the probability of success). The effect is real, but at this point it is still a laboratory curiosity. My stand is not for “belief,” but for scientific research to clarify open issues, which is funded and under way. If the RW article and other activities ends up harming that cause …. the cost could be enormous.

His "research" could "save a trillion dollars a year!" folks.

Also hilariously, a woman googled his name and found this article, describing him as a potential "dangerous lunatic". Tobias (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling errors

"the sects extreme right wing founder" -- needs apostrophe
"Tuscon" -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. In future, please feel free to make simple changes like this yourself. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Abd's lawsuit was dismissed

His lawsuit was dismissed. "Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended complaint is hereby dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close this case." [2] John66 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Family section

I think the family section is only slightly missional and should be deleted. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Besides, isn't that section...how shall we say...creepy?-Flandres (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

His daughter Zippy Lomax has a lot of press coverage at the moment, at least six newspapers cover it, I think it deserves a mention. Also a couple of forums have picked up on the fact his daughter is a BLM activist but Abd Lomax holds racist views. Its a weird mix. Johns (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

HELPPP!

Ok, sorry, I accidentally reverted an edit b/c I got sausage fingers on my Kindle. I reverted my revert, but did it work? If it didn't could someone fix it? Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 19:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Fixed. Bongolian (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting 24 hour unlock of page

Hi,

I want to update the page but it won't let me. I want to add a new section to the article. 2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:240 (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you describe what it is that you want to add? Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are a few things which need to be added. Abd Lomax has a long history of defending his friend Nathan Larson, you can Google "Abd Lomax" and "Nathan Larson", their history has well been documented on various websites. Abd was banned on 3 websites for this including Wikipediocracy forum. Abd has admitted in writing to being Nathan Larson's friend and even wrote a bizarre blog post on his coldfusioncommunity website claiming Larson's "sexual interests are perfectly normal" and he is not a thread to children. He has offered Larson legal advice. Abd sent him a board game in prison. He talked to him for over ten years and continues to defend Larson on Reddit. Lomax was banned from a Reddit board (RealWikiInAction) for defending Larson. Since Abd wrote supportive things about Larson on his blog, Larson was arrested for abducting a child. Lomax showed up on Reddit and defended Larson claiming he never abducted the child and it was the girls fault because she lied to Larson about her age. Many people were horrified by Abd's offensive comments and he was banned from a Reddit sub. He has since deleted some of his offensive comments but they are all on archive. Abd has recently gotten into trouble again on Reddit because he has written huge essays defending child-marriage. The moderator that banned Abd Lomax has written an entire blog post about his defence of Nathan Larson [3].
• Also not mentioned on the article is that Abd Lomax had a heart attack last December or January (this was after his stroke). He had a stent put in because his arteries were blocked up. Yet Abd Lomax is a cholesterol denialist and posted he would never have coronary angioplasty and stent insertion. He now also has a pacemaker. Lomax last year before his heart attack posted on his own website and on blogs that he would never have a heart attack and that his high-fat diet is a not a risk factor for cardiovascular disease but instead reduces the risk. He has viciously attacked people who eat low-fat or vegan diets. As of May 2022 he has not explained his reason for his heart attack or stroke but he denies that his high blood LDL and high-saturated fat meat diet had anything to do with it. Lomax has also been promoting a keto carnivore diet on Reddit (his hero is Gary Taubes]) and he says he is eating a keto-friendly ultra high-fat diet in his nursing home which he says is improving his health (he's clearly insane).

• Lastly Abd Lomax appears to be a theistic evolutionist with a soft-spot for intelligent design. He has been posting a lot of nonsensical essays about Allah creating everything on Quora. 185.252.222.20 (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, have a go. I have changed the protection. Please make sure to add citations that confirm everything that you claim. He is still alive and has sued us once already. I wouldn't make too much about his heart attack: he is in his late 70s and that in itself is a risk factor. Bongolian (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, he sued WikiMedia, but not RationalMedia, as a paragraph mixing up the two said for time on RW:Pissed at us. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Bongolian (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)