View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:08 pm




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
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 30
Reply with quote
Catapult wrote:
Abd Lomax was banned for doxing, stalking and harassment. It was a justified ban.

He's an internet crazy with a rather toxic internet history:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Ra ... net_antics


Heads up mods, this account, Catapult, is one of the Smiths, who also just pinged me this morning with their latest troll strategy, create a book entry on Lulu to rile up and further inflame internet battles. Please ban this account asap.

Also worth noting on this thread - abd emails me often since we both have been targeted by the same people. It was also Oliver D Smith and his brother that instigated the WMF ban specifically as part of their continued "clean up" ops on the encyclopedia.

I can't wait for these two to go to jail, truly.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:54 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1410
Reply with quote
Max wrote:
Crowsnest I am not going to publicly reveal the emails to you, that could cause trouble.
Don't ask me to believe you then, because I have no reason to (nor any particular reason to stick up for Abd).

Without emails, we'll never know if this incident played any part in his ban. What we can see, is that Wikiversity has some pretty strange ideas about transparency and due process. Two different IPs, turning up to target Abd's work, claiming to be two separate people who both have accounts in good standing on en.wiki? Yeah, that sounds totally legit. It definitely sounds like you're the victims.
Max wrote:
Please do not pretend Abd was not causing disruption.
Where did I do that? If the WMF could globally ban people for mere disruption, well, wouldn't that be something? You've alleged he is guilty of something quite different to mere disruption. We just don't know who you are and can't independently verify any of your claims.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:12 am
Profile
User avatar

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

I can assure you it was many people who complained about Lomax, not just Smith.

Lomax was blocked 11 times on Wikiversity, his behaviour was problematic. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... User%3AAbd read his block log!

The list of people who sent complaints about Abd:

1. Myself (Public IP 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)

No proof of this one, but it is obvious (I have emailed him):
6. Michael Umbrecht - (Username Mu301 - Bureaucrat on Wikiversity)

Quote:
I can't wait for these two to go to jail, truly.


There is no proof "two" exist and Oliver Smith denies most of the things you accuse him of. The other "brother" is rumour. There is no proof of such a person existing. I have never seen this individual come forward or put his name to any account you accuse him of. Based on the evidence I do not believe he exists.

But last time I checked it wasn't a crime to call someone an internet troll. I think the police have better things to be doing like catching real life criminals, muggers, bank robberts etc than arresting someone over calling Rome Viharo an a pseudoscience proponent or internet troll. Regards.

Quote:
Without emails, we'll never know if this incident played any part in his ban. What we can see, is that Wikiversity has some pretty strange ideas about transparency and due process. Two different IPs, turning up to target Abd's work, claiming to be two separate people who both have accounts in good standing on en.wiki? Yeah, that sounds totally legit. It definitely sounds like you're the victims.


I do have a good standing Wikipedia account. Why would I reveal my identity or my account? So Abd Lomax can dox and harass me or my family on his blog, like he does to other people? I have a reputation to defend. Lomax was causing trouble, arguing with users and pushing cold fusion pseudoscience on Wikiversity for years. It was time people came together and took him down!

I will not be further contributing here, I have been pretty fair in the information I have given you.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 30
Reply with quote
Max,

If you are the admin who banned him, then you have supported and given safe haven to the Smiths. Abd was investigating them for abuses on MediaWikis, and everything he posted on his blog was investigating some very disturbing behavior. The person who made the complaints to you were the Smiths. Abd also removed Joshua's name on his blog per his request, but Joshua has also, either willingly or unwillingly, supported these skeptic troll farm activities emerging from the Smiths.

I find your decision to provide cover for this group highly suspicious.

WWHP


Max wrote:
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.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:50 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 4:31 pm
Posts: 30
Reply with quote
Max, you're lying. I wont be replying to you anymore.

Interesting, Max is 99.99% to be an impersonation - this is a tactic commonly used by Oliver and, according to and directly by Oliver via emails and forum posts (which I can publish) it is his brother doing the skeptic side of it.

What Max is revealing, however, are the "skeptic editors" who are likely tied up with the "skeptic troll farm", where consistently for years he has defended them while now we can see they were defending him, even when he was busted impersonating one of their targets, Ben Steigmann, on Wikiversity.

Quote:
. Myself (Public IP 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)



Are their any other groups on Wikipedia worse than these skeptic editors? Enough to have their own throwaway trolls like Oliver and bro?

Max wrote:
WWHP

I can assure you it was many people who complained about Lomax, not just Smith.

Lomax was blocked 11 times on Wikiversity, his behaviour was problematic. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... User%3AAbd read his block log!

The list of people who sent complaints about Abd:

1. Myself (Public IP 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)

No proof of this one, but it is obvious (I have emailed him):
6. Michael Umbrecht - (Username Mu301 - Bureaucrat on Wikiversity)

Quote:
I can't wait for these two to go to jail, truly.


There is no proof "two" exist and Oliver Smith denies most of the things you accuse him of. The other "brother" is rumour. There is no proof of such a person existing. I have never seen this individual come forward or put his name to any account you accuse him of. Based on the evidence I do not believe he exists.

But last time I checked it wasn't a crime to call someone an internet troll. I think the police have better things to be doing like catching real life criminals, muggers, bank robberts etc than arresting someone over calling Rome Viharo an a pseudoscience proponent or internet troll. Regards.

Quote:
Without emails, we'll never know if this incident played any part in his ban. What we can see, is that Wikiversity has some pretty strange ideas about transparency and due process. Two different IPs, turning up to target Abd's work, claiming to be two separate people who both have accounts in good standing on en.wiki? Yeah, that sounds totally legit. It definitely sounds like you're the victims.


I do have a good standing Wikipedia account. Why would I reveal my identity or my account? So Abd Lomax can dox and harass me or my family on his blog, like he does to other people? I have a reputation to defend. Lomax was causing trouble, arguing with users and pushing cold fusion pseudoscience on Wikiversity for years. It was time people came together and took him down!

I will not be further contributing here, I have been pretty fair in the information I have given you.


Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:44 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1107
Reply with quote
I'd kick him, but he claims he "will not be further contributing here". Wikipedia fanboys are a sad bunch, eh?


Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:12 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:10 pm
Posts: 26
Reply with quote
I remember Abd from Offwiki. He's full of it. Happy to be nice when he's getting his way but turns into a vicious, clumsy jerk when he doesn't. Like a lot of Wikipedians. His walls of text are boring too.


Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:06 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 31
Reply with quote
If this is TL, please DR!!!

Max wrote:
WWHP I can assure you it was many people who complained about Lomax, not just Smith.

I know that there were more than Smith. Below, four are listed, plus two anons. One of the four was defacto banned as an LTA. What were the two anons complaining about? That they had been suspected of being socks? But that's normal, in that context. In any case, the names below are precisely those I suspected. The content of the complaints has not been disclosed (except for the email harassment claim). And then this irrelevancy:
Quote:
Lomax was blocked 11 times on Wikiversity, his behaviour was problematic. https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php? ... User%3AAbd read his block log
There had long been claims. But I had not been blocked for two years. When I was indef blocked because of the long block log (I never before saw that a reason), I did an analysis of the block log on my blog, http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wikivers ... block-log/, and then I linked to it in my unblock request. Mikeu denied the request (very much outside of policy and practice), removed the link, and blacklisted the site (which had no other links, as far as I recall). As to whether or not 11 blocks in almost as many years is long, consider the Wikipedia block log for Joshua P. Schroeder, one of the complainants. Wait! Where is that? He's made it very difficult to find, and WP administrators have cooperated with this, to preposterous lengths. Here it is, archived in case he changes his user name again. http://archive.is/3tVdA
Quote:
The list of people who sent complaints about Abd:

1. Myself (Public IP 74.175.117.2 on Wikiversity)
2. IP 82.21.88.44 (privately confirmed his identity to the Wikimedia Foundation)
3. Joshua P. Shroeder (claims Abd sent him harassing emails)
4. Guy Chapman (Wikipedia admin JzG)
5. Oliver Smith (actually leaked one of the emails)

The anons canvassed on Wikipedia to gather JzG (Guy) and JPS. JPS did make that claim, and for that reason he may be facing a defamation action. The emails are here: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wikiversity/alleged-harassing-emails/ Only the first mail was sent through the system. He chose to respond, we went back and forth a bit, he stopped replying and I stopped sending mails. And then he complained about harassment, but he never requested that I not email him. Bad News Bear. ODS leaked the WMF response to his complaint. I'm pretty sure he lied in the complaint, but I won't know until I get copies of the complaints from the WMF. That might take a court order, i.e., this would be a reason to file an action.
Quote:
No proof of this one, but it is obvious (I have emailed him):
6. Michael Umbrecht - (Username Mu301 - Bureaucrat on Wikiversity)

Indeed. Probable. If he was a complainant, it will be very interesting to see what he wrote. On-wiki, he lied, multiple times (or, to be charitable, carelessly repeated what he'd been told or imagined as if fact, such as a long history of disruption over cold fusion on Wikiversity, when there had been none at all. Ever. Until the IP filed the deletion request and canvassed for comment on the Wikipedia Fringe Theories Noticeboard.
Quote:
Quote:
I can't wait for these two to go to jail, truly.
There is no proof "two" exist and Oliver Smith denies most of the things you accuse him of.
This could be Darryl, and that is an argument Darryl has presented. But there are twins, I verified it from public records, and Oliver has openly acknowledged this. "Max" has a high level of special knowledge on this case, and it is highly unlikely that anyone outside that family would have that. Who else cares that much?

Max is lying. If he were independent, there would be differences from the classic Smith party line. Darryl was the disrupting sock on Wikiversity, the one who canvassed, who would know these details. Even Oliver probably would not. Darryl was the one who threatened retaliation for documenting the socking.

Quote:
The other "brother" is rumour. There is no proof of such a person existing. I have never seen this individual come forward or put his name to any account you accuse him of. Based on the evidence I do not believe he exists.
Frauds claim "there is no proof." In fact, the independently verifiable evidence is very strong. There is almost too much evidence. He presents irrelevant fact as if it makes a difference.

This is true: Darryl L. Smith has never used his real name for any account I have seen. However, the current RationalWiki accounts for the brothers are "ODS" -- just posted a "retired" template, as many of the socks do after a relatively short and intense period of editing -- and "Debunking spiritualism," or DS. If that were the only evidence you could start laughing.... Oliver, however, on RationalWiki, referred to DS as his brother, and made references to his twin brother elsewhere, where impersonation was not possible; it all fits together.

There are some who claim that Oliver is the only active brother. I do not consider that impossible. If so, DLS is simply not speaking up, but he existed, as of several years ago, the same age as Oliver, living at the same address, which, by the way, geolocates close to 82.21.88.44. Maybe I'll give some information on that. There are primary interests that are distinct, but then overlaps.
Quote:
But last time I checked it wasn't a crime to call someone an internet troll. I think the police have better things to be doing like catching real life criminals, muggers, bank robberts etc than arresting someone over calling Rome Viharo an a pseudoscience proponent or internet troll. Regards.
There are many aspects of the Smith activities that are illegal in the U.K. Impersonation socking to defame is a crime, and there is admitted impersonation socking, as well as clear harassment, also illegal in the U.K.

It is correct that it is not a crime to call someone a troll. However, how about calling someone a pedophile or "child-rape apologist"? when the claims are then repeated by mainstream media, based on shallow research by a sloppy reporter? Oliver has done that.
Quote:
Quote:
Without emails, we'll never know if this incident played any part in his ban. What we can see, is that Wikiversity has some pretty strange ideas about transparency and due process. Two different IPs, turning up to target Abd's work, claiming to be two separate people who both have accounts in good standing on en.wiki? Yeah, that sounds totally legit. It definitely sounds like you're the victims.
I do have a good standing Wikipedia account. Why would I reveal my identity or my account? So Abd Lomax can dox and harass me or my family on his blog, like he does to other people? I have a reputation to defend. Lomax was causing trouble, arguing with users and pushing cold fusion pseudoscience on Wikiversity for years. It was time people came together and took him down!
I hadn't edited Wikiversity on cold fusion, with anything significant, for years. This was the argument presented on Wikiversity. No "family" has been harassed.

These people attack others, doxxing them freely, and actually calling up family and, in one case, the mother of a target lost her job because her employer was contacted. Known impersonation socks had been created by another person who had filed checkuser on the sock master, having stalked him. There is strong evidence that this was Darryl L. Smith. And at that point, I was not involved, but he claimed he was not using his Wikiversity account for fear of retaliation. There is no known retaliation in that case. This is simply an excuse for hiding while libelling.

Quote:
I will not be further contributing here, I have been pretty fair in the information I have given you.
He revealed enough to make it extremely likely this is Darryl L. Smith, while Catapult was Oliver. But I do not find distinction between the brothers to be necessarily definitive.


Last edited by Abd on Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:53 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:25 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Elsewhere
Reply with quote
Just to get the "Rational"Wiki idiots out of everybody's hair, I wish there was a "Fringeapedia" on all fringe topics; a place where you could have NPOV articles on Cold Fusion, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, Fortean stuff, etc. - all the weird theories and encounters and whatnot under one roof with all the articles locked so that knobs like Tim Farley can't screw it up. The skeptics have "Rational"Wiki, the believers/researchers have "Fringapedia" and nobody fights because it's all intellectually segregated*.


* I don't like intellectual segregation, but the skeptics (who have all copied the style of James Randi in the 1970s-80s, where he was the fire-breathing, "debunk 'em at all costs" stage magician who went on talk shows to nail psychics and was later nearly bankrupted in legal fights with Uri Geller) will not stop online - they fight to "win", whether it be making a crappy conservative Wikipedia knockoff into a pointless-in-the-long-run battlefield, or their war with Rome Viharo. It's trolling with an ideology.

Quote:
“Finally, the high point of the morning arrived, in the form of The Amazing Randi, as he styles himself. Randi looks like Santa Claus and talks like the late Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (Rep.-Wis.) Randi is not a Liberal by any definition but a real, old-fashioned, honest-to-Cthulhu Conservative, fire-breathing variety. He wants to hit the heretics on the head with a blunt instrument.”

You see, The Amazing Randi is of the school of thought which holds that he and his friends have the only ‘real’ reality-labyrinth on the planet. All proponents of alternative reality-labyrinths are therefore, by definition, a bunch of sneaks, cheats, and liars. This is the best rhetorical stance for a heresy-hunter, since it is rooted deeply in the primate psychology… Hitler pointed this out in Mein Kampf, every demagogue knows it, and Randi, an old showman, plays it to the hilt.

Randi’s presentation consisted of saying five different ways that the heretics are a bunch of dishonest bastards who lie morning, noon and night, and lie in their sleep just to keep in practice. Then, in case there were any dullards in the audience who hadn’t gotten his message, Randi said it again, five more ways. The Journalist [Wilson refers to himself in different ways throughout the piece to show where his mindset was at] hadn’t heard such oratory since Jim Garrison way in his heyday, finding new Kennedy assassins every second newsbreak. It was a smashing performance, and the Sociobiologist was convinced that most of the audience were breathing harder and starting to tense their muscles before it was half over. Primate mode psychology at its most primitive.”

- Robert Anton Wilson, “The Persecution and Assassination of the Parapsychologists as Performed by the Inmates of the American Association for the Advancement of Science under the Direction of the Amazing Randi.” (originally written for High Times in the late 1970s), part of Right Where You Are Sitting Now (1982).


Forgot to add that Randi never went to college; he did mentalism in Toronto as "Randall the Telepath" as his first act.

_________________
Still "Globally Banned" on Wikipedia for the high crime of journalism.


Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1410
Reply with quote
I don't think they're winning. Quite the reverse, their methods are very counter-productive, and the harder they try, the wider they reach, the less they will succeed. They actually make intelligent people learn to distrust Wikipedia, to the point they simply do not read it.

I would be sad if the only answer, the only way to serve these skeptic skeptics, was a read only alternative wiki. I think the world can do better, no?


Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:02 pm
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.