View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:29 am




Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Abd banned from the WMF projects 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 997
Reply with quote
Strelnikov wrote:
Did I say that Abd was sane? My point in the last post was that RationalWiki was created and run by drama-creators so they could stick it to people and ideas they didn't like in a way bound to create even more drama*. It is not a science wiki or encyclopedia. It is a snarkier, longer, more detailed version of that Skeptic's Dictionary site run by Robert Todd Carroll who had published a book by the same name. The difference is that Carroll's site hasn't been updated in two years, while the regulars are still on RationalWiki, because wikis are never finished - they just run out of energy. You are mistaking symptoms for diseases with Abd because he is really determined to fight like a troll. People have been blackmailed on Wikipedia to leave - FT2 emailed Poetlister a series of demands in a document now known as "The Anvil Email" to get him off the site and FT2 is still on Wikipedia. All wikis have weak spots or rules that can be twisted, and it becomes Bedlam Asylum quick enough. Abd ul-Rahman Lomax will keep this up until he finds something else to occupy his time; Willy on Wheels went away after a while.

;)


Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:41 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
This is going to be fun. I believe I have a cause of action against the WMF. I did not violate the TOS, and I did not use WMF access to harass anyone. The only plausible complaint at all would be that I harassed Joshua P. Schroeder by email, and the office could see that I mailed him, once. In no way could that first email be considered harassment. It was an offer to cooperate in getting certain material he wanted taken down, taken down. We had some back and forth, directly. When he later called this harassment, I published the emails. When he stopped responding, I stopped emailing him.

The real story here: Darryl L. Smith, twin brother of Oliver D. Smith, canvassed for complaints on Wikipedia, and certain SPOV fanatics signed up, and they managed to convince -- with private emails -- a Wikiversity bureaucrat to delete the cold fusion resource that was not an article, but a study (that's what is done on Wikiversity), and to indef block me as disruptive. For, ah, what? Well, I had a long block log. No blocks for two years. No warnings. But "long" proves something, he thought.

The ban is being used to defame me by the Smith brothers, who promote the fact that Office bans require something very serious. I had no warning and received no explanation. Others who have been banned report the same. No conclusion can be made from a ban. We can only guess.

Why did the Smith brothers attack me? Because they had used impersonation socks on Wikipedia to defame and arouse action against another enemy of theirs, and I exposed it by asking for steward checkuser. And I started to document the SPAs and the problem of highly disruptive process started by SPAs, which should raise eyebrows, but commonly doesn't.

As my cause of action against the WMF would be for defamation, it cannot be limited by the TOS. They are responsible for harm they cause. They do have the right to prohibit anyone from editing the project, and had they issued such a prohibition or restriction, and then I violated it, they would have a justification for the ban. If I had actually used the email facility to harass, they'd have had some basis, as well.

Instead, I plan to demand copies of the complaints, because I suspect I was defamed in them.

I opined some years ago that the Office Ban practices were destroying the legal protection they had from being only a service provider. We'll see.


Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
I suspect you'll find nobody here who really believes these global bans are fair or just. Quite the opposite in fact.

It doesn't surprise me to hear your side of the story regarding the harassing nature of the emails - as you probably know JPS is a long time member of Wikipediocracy, and that place is basically the venue of choice now for people who cry harassment as a means of escape. They're letting him get away with pretending like he isn't even aware of your statements. Snowflake central.

The Smiths, they're some fucked up people too. But the WMF has historically failed to deal with people that are that obsessive, that determined, that devious. But you know that. I expect you'll find people here who know more about them than I, but I do sympathise.


Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:16 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:46 pm
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Guys,

I am not interested in having a huge debate with Abd. I just want to fill you in on the real facts. I was the one who reported Abd, there were six people who did this, not just myself. My complaint was legit. Abd was doxing Wikipedia users by posting their real life addresses, names and work places on his cold fusion community blog. This is no doubt illegal and against the rules of the foundation. The ban was justified.

The facts:

1. Abd had doxed Joshua Schroeder's new legally changed name, work place and address on the Thunderbolts forum and on his cold fusion blog. As I understand Joshua has moved country, job and has a slightly different name now. Abd stalked this man and doxed him.
2. A few weeks later Abd doxxed Oliver Smiths mothers house address on his blog, including details about his other relatives.
3. Darryl Smith - This is an individual who is anonymous was doxed by Abd, although there is still no proof this individual is the account Abd claims he is. There is no public social media accounts for this person, photographs, nor has he linked his real life name to any Wikipedia account. Yet Abd claims he has unmasked this individuals identity by going to 192 and finding this persons address. Another case of doxing.

Abd likes dox people behind the safety of his keyboard by revealing where people live, this is a nasty thing to do, he does this to abuse Google traffic on his blog. He can essentially tarnish peoples reputations by doxing people or putting their safety at risk by exposing where they live. The Wikimedia foundation does not tolerate off-site harassment. By linking to peoples real life names, addresses, family details - Abd had put people at risk.

I received an email from the Wikimedia Foundation that they had received "six" complaints of this nature about Abd. Joshua was not the only person to complain. Regards.


Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:56 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
ericbarbour wrote:
Anyone who was on Wikipedia Review prior to 2012 remembers Abd. He is a good content writer, obsessed with cold fusion, and has tried to mess with a whole string of WMF projects like Wikibooks and Wikiversity. I literally cannot count how many times he's been blocked/b& since 2007. They've been diddling his block log and there are entries missing.

Guarantee this is the doing of Mister Fattyfat James Alexander. Someday they will fire him--because he's too pathetic to have real political power anywhere.


Thanks Eric. A bit shallow, I'd say. I saw nothing in my Wikipedia block log that was suspicious, it's how I remember it. That was not a particularly long block log, for someone who took on admin abuse -- successfully.

They detest whistle-blowers, and by 2011, I exhausted due process and left with a defiant test of "self-reversion under ban" which worked when I'd previously tested it as a sysop on Wikiversity (with Greg Kohs, in fact, and it bot him unbanned there), and with another banned user on Wikipedia -- which also worked until they realized this was an Abd Plot to Allow Banned Users to Edit and demanded the work stop. (Self-reversion created a situation with that user where the user who had asked for the ban actually reverted the edit back in. It turned conflict into cooperation. There are people who hate that. I documented that editing on Wikiversity and have rescued the content from the mass out-of-process deletion by the same 'crat who banned me there -- and banned all study of cold fusion, parapsychology, or other fringe topics on Wikiversity, demolishing what had existed for a decade.)

As to cold fusion, I knew about the original announcement in 1989, but had assumed, with everyone else, that it was all a mistake. "Nobody could confirm it," is the common story. I saw an abusive blacklisting in 2009 of a web site that hosts peer-reviewed and other papers on cold fusion, legal copies all, blacklisted by JzG, and asked him to undo it. Those who know JzG might expect how he replied. That ended up at ArbComm and he was reprimanded, though what he'd done amply deserved desysopping, I'd seen others de-opped for less. JzG resigned in disgust, after the case closed, but was able to request his tools back later. And carried a grudge against me for all these years, even long after I was gone.

He was very likely one of those who complained to the WMF, probably about "pseudoscientific cold fusion" or some such nonsense.

I started to pay attention to the article, and discovered that old and weak sources were allowed about how cold fusion was rejected, but more recent mainstream peer-reviewed reviews of the field were systematically excluded. Fast forward, when I left Wikipedia, I began to work on Wikiversity, on many, many topics. Wikiversity is not a collection of "articles," though Wikipedians often think of it that way. It is "educational resources" and includes "learning by doing." I.e., one can do, as part of the original mission, "source studies," where one collects and reviews sources on a topic. Mainspace Wikiversity must be neutral, but opinion can be expressed if attributed. So very much was possible that could not be done on Wikipedia. And it worked for years, there was no conflict over cold fusion on Wikiversity. None. Zero. On other very controversial subjects, when edit warring might have started up, I created owned forks where each position could be fully expressed, with common pages where consensus could be found.

I have since become a journalist-bloggerspecializing in reporting on cold fusion. I'm funded, modestly, enough for expenses, so I get to travel. This is not "promotion" of cold fusion, I document and report verifiable fact. I'm also active with the socio-politics of cold fusion, long story. I'm promoting careful scientific research with fully skeptical analysis.

I don't know the exact nature of the complaints that were made to the WMF, but I know enough to know that they were lied to, and they apparently believed the lies. And I mean lies, not merely disagreements. (The alleged harassing mails are at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wikiversity/alleged-harassing-emails/)

I do not know of cold fusion was at all involved with the ban. There was no sign that it was coming, but ... stewards had become strangely hostile. Something was going on behind the scenes.


Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 779
Reply with quote
A, thank you very much for this posting, I made a screenshot for my lawyer. So, WMF puts me on the same level as this dirtbox? Fine!

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:17 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Max wrote:
I am not interested in having a huge debate with Abd.
Well, it kind of comes with the territory. Find better interests, I'd say.
Max wrote:
I just want to fill you in on the real facts. I was the one who reported Abd, there were six people who did this, not just myself.
A real fact would be who you actually are....
Max wrote:
My complaint was legit. Abd was doxing Wikipedia users by posting their real life addresses, names and work places on his cold fusion community blog. This is no doubt illegal and against the rules of the foundation. The ban was justified.
I guess it depends on the exact circumstances, which are kept from us, even in redacted form. Wikipedia's definition of doxxing, which can be as benign as the mere putting together of publicly available information the user hasn't volunteered on Wikipedia (but may have elsewhere), is certainly not similar to any kind of law governing online harassment or any other illegal activity that I know of. Indeed, it all rather contradicts Jimmy Wales' stance on the right to be forgotten. Since these global bans are nothing short of secret trials with no habius corpus, no prospect of appeal or review, and since, when placed on people's real names they can do tremendous harm, anyone arguing they form part of a legal and indeed morally justifiable code of conduct, is on shaky ground. They are what they are, and if they keep using them, the WMF is unlikely to withstand the inevitable public scrutiny of their rules.
Max wrote:
Abd likes dox people behind the safety of his keyboard
His identity is known, so by your own admission, this is not a safe activity. So he must have good reason to put himself at risk, no?
Max wrote:
He can essentially tarnish peoples reputations by doxing people or putting their safety at risk by exposing where they live.
A reputation would indeed be tarnished if they are doing something anonymously online that they'd rather the real world couldn't connect to them. Are you arguing this is a freeom he should not have? That nobody should have? As for safety, well, it's a well established principle that if you're doing something so controversial your safety could be in danger, you take the necessary steps to protect yourself, or use the law to protect yourself (since you are adamant the law has been broken). Since I don't think Abd is a super sleuth or has contacts in the NSA, it seems like these people have either not taken adequate precautions, or are using these fears to invoke sympathy they do not deserve.
Max wrote:
The Wikimedia foundation does not tolerate off-site harassment.
Proveably false. Gamaliel used Twitter to try and get a noted Wikipedia critic fired. Did you see any action taken then? Where's his global ban? Would be a bit embarrassing to be seen globally banning people who sit on WMF chapter boards, wouldn't it?
Max wrote:
By linking to peoples real life names, addresses, family details - Abd had put people at risk.
I sense you're trying to tell us something, but please, say it one more time so we understand.
Max wrote:
I received an email from the Wikimedia Foundation that they had received "six" complaints of this nature about Abd. Joshua was not the only person to complain. Regards.
This seems to contradict the WMF's policy on how they handle global bans. As such, we would be most grateful to be forwarded these emails.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Abd wrote:
I do not know of cold fusion was at all involved with the ban. There was no sign that it was coming, but ... stewards had become strangely hostile. Something was going on behind the scenes.
Don't attach too much significance to the timing. It could be anything you did, or an aggregation of such, covering your entire editing career. We've seen plenty where it was nothing that happened recently. Remember, this is the WMF, they're not known for their speed. If you look around, there's a few quotes from JAlex complaining about how few resources he has to deal with his supposed workload.

That's the beauty of these bans - since they give no details whatsoever, and there's never even really a conclusive timeline to go on, you can legitimately say to anyone who claims to know why it happened, even those claiming to be complainants like this Max dude, that they're talking complete bollocks, and nobody should believe a damn word until they forward to them any emails they claim to have received from the WMF.

Why they created a global ban system for the supposed worst of the worst that makes it so easy to quash speculation about the reasoning, is beyond me. It certwainyl doesn't make them look either strong or fair, quite the opposite. It's been debated many times, and we always come up with the same likely answer - they're trying to avoid legal liability, they want to be able to not have to actually justify it unless or until a judge compels them to. That's enough of a heads up for them to be able to manufacture new evidence after the event.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:46 pm
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Crowsnest you hate Wikipedia so you will say the opposite of anything I say - But I will try and make this simple.

Abd Lomax has fully doxxed where Wikipedia users live and work on his blog. Not just Wikipedia users but the family and parents of one of these users. Wikipedia users who have not disclosed their real life identity have the right to remain anonymous. Agree?

Do you think that harassing peoples family members is acceptable? A simple "no" or "yes" will do.

You are using the anonymous name Crowsnest, you have not revealed your full real name anywhere. So If I create a blog doxing your real name and address and posting the house address of your mother and father, you would be cool with it? This information would come up on a Google search. It may mess around with any job employment you or your family may have. Do you think this sort of behaviour is acceptable?

Think about this, before you reply me.

Criteria for a global ban:

Quote:
engaging in significant or repeated harassment of users on multiple projects;
engaging in significant or repeated harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to threaten (emotionally or physically) users;
endangering, significantly compromising or otherwise threatening the trust or safety of our users or employees;

repeatedly or egregiously violating our Terms of Use, such as through hosting illegal content on Wikimedia servers; or
threatening or compromising the security of Wikimedia infrastructure.


By posting peoples house addresses that are not public on the internet, that is a threat and a safety risk because Abd has no proof he even had the right addresses, he is attempting to link real life identities with anonymous Wikipedia accounts. There are dangers involved here. Abd's ban was justified.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy


Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:46 pm
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Quote:
That's the beauty of these bans - since they give no details whatsoever, and there's never even really a conclusive timeline to go on, you can legitimately say to anyone who claims to know why it happened, even those claiming to be complainants like this Max dude, that they're talking complete bollocks, and nobody should believe a damn word until they forward to them any emails they claim to have received from the WMF


Crowsnest I am not going to publicly reveal the emails to you, that could cause trouble. On Wikiversity before he was banned, Abd publicly accused my IP and another person from the UK of being a sock or associate of Oliver Smith - Til this day Abd has not removed this error on his blog. He then wrote negative things about my IP on his blog. I emailed the Wikimedia Foundation my identity privately to confirm my identity to them.

You can see my public IP 74.175.117.2, here in the conversation. Another user 82.21.88.44 also complained to the Wikimedia Foundation health and safety team about Lomax.

Quote:
I initiated it, I am not "Anglo Pyramidologist". I have posted to that effect on Abd's request for a global block at meta. As I stated there, I am a user in good standing on multiple WMF wikis, banned from none. I emailed the Meta stewards who have been in touch n return. Abd already knew this but chose to start this: [5]. This does not appear to be a good faith request, and it has been closed. 82.21.88.44 (discuss) 01:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Quote:
Abd's paranoia is getting the better of him. he has requested a global block of my IP at Meta. I am in contact witht he stewards there. This IP does '''not''' belong to any of the people Abd includes in his purported "long term abuse". I am a user in good standing on multiple WMF projects, my home project is enWP. This is not associated in any way with the O2 mobile IPs he is trying to have banned. Special:Contributions/82.21.88.44|82.21.88.44


https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... old_fusion

https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... id=1791745

Here is what a Wikiversity admin, Mu301 wrote about Lomax's disruption:

Quote:
Your long term activity at Wikiversity shows a persistent pattern of long term disruption that has been going on for the past SEVEN YEARS! This activity has also drawn a great deal of unwelcome contentious activity to our site that distracts the community from developing learning resources. The unblocks in your log show repeated attempts by our community to assume that you are making a good faith effort to improve Wikiversity despite much evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to get into the minutia of your individual actions. I'm going to make a call based on the sum of your contributions. Wikiversity is not your personal podium. Your participation here has become a drain on the resources of our community and we will not allow this to continue


https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... id=1795534

Please do not pretend Abd was not causing disruption. Mu301 was influential in Abd's global ban. This is a long-standing well respected Wikiversity bureaucrat. I understand you will all stick together on this forum to hate Wikipedia, but look at the facts - Abd was causing trouble on multiple wikis for years. It is not surprising he eventually got banned. I am afraid there is not much more I can tell you. Regards.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:55 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.