SkipCaptcha
48
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
about the creation of this article on me and fact
:This article may not be worth keeping. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
:This article may not be worth keeping. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
::The guy appears to be a marginal kook. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:57, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
::The guy appears to be a marginal kook. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:57, 19 July 2019 (EDT)
I'm Abd ul-Rahman Lomax, I've been a user here but have not edited since 2012. The creator of this article is likely the same person as behind the mess that I'm in court with the WMF over, and the same person as created 9 trolling/impersonation accounts on the 27th and 28th. (IThis is a pattern I first saw on Wikiversity and the WMF meta wiki. Massive account creations, abusive article names, all that.
Account creations here the 27th and 28th:
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190728005410&limit=3&type=newusers 2 impersonations and 1 ???]
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190728201958&limit=3&type=newusers 3 impersonations].
*[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20190729013928&limit=6&type=newusers 3 trolling and 3 impersonations] 2 of the impersonations were of me.
going back, 10 days ago:
*19:16, 19 July 2019 User account TomSuarezDinoCrisis (Talk | contribs) was created
No edits until today, this article. The user name is immediately recognizable as from the sock family, I can tell you much about them if you want to know. This guy created the RatWiki article on me, and his brother created the ED article. It should also be realized that there is a huge cloud of confusion around what these users do. That's deliberate.
So, about the article:
*I am an American Muslim
*I am not a parapsychologist.
*I am not a "cold fusion researcher," I'm a journalist/blogger, but I have written about cold fusion under peer review in a mainstream multidisciplinary journal.
*I am indeed in court with the WMF, pro se. The case docket and links to [http://coldfusioncommunity.net/lomax-v-wmf/ all files are here.]
*The cause of action is not as described. At this point the Amended Complaint is not in its final form and it has not been served on the other defendants. That will be remedied. To make it clear, Count 4 did address the ban, but that is being abandoned, leaving the primary counts.
*Count 1 is for defamation, against all defendants, but right now only the WMF is pertinent.
*Count 2 was specific about the WMF defamation, which is not from the ban, but from the ''publication'' of the ban, which, as content they originated, leaves them without Section 230 immunity. (This is why I'm abandoning Count 4, and I don't really want to edit WMF wikis anyway. I had already almost entirely abandoned them as unsafe. What then happened ''proved'' they were unsafe.
*Count 3 is for a conspiracy to harm and defame, hatched by collusion between the sock master you saw here, (who also created the RW article, and his brother, who then recruited others, such that six persons are believed to have complained to the WMF (one confessed).
*Count 4 was a claim of violation of implicit contract, damages limited to $1000 by the TOU, legally difficult and not worth pursuing for an individual.
*I have done no "creationist" studies.
*Nor did I do a "paranormalist" study. At the request of some scientists (including a Nobel Prize winner), I created a Wikiversity resource for studies in parapsychology, which is an actual science, and which is *not* a belief in the paranormal, but which is the ''scientific study'' of the paranormal, i.e, not-understood phenomena, generally involving the mind (hence psychology). I am a strong supporter of the scientific method, and a critic of "pseudoskepticism," which is ''belief'' in the error of others disguised as skepticism. I did very little work on that resource myself, I only set it up so that it would be neutral, and it had been so judged by an administrator.
*The deletion reasons for my work on Wikiversity were not that it was "pseudoscientific," but that it had not been approved by a committee that never existed before or since. It was a pure excuse, the 'crat admitted his actions were based on private emails. Just as had been threatened. This is outlined in the Amended Complaint.
*The WMF filed a Motion to Dismiss, relatively routine at the point and also, from precedent, unlikely to succeed. The most that is likely, if my case was defectively pled, is that I will be given an opportunity to amend it.
*The Foundation indeed retained Jones Day (I spent some days with Jones Day lawyers in a case in Florid a couple of years ago. Competent, cordial, and tough. I have a suspicion that they recommended to the WMF that they settle and the WMF refused (I know that twice, they took the time to ask), but I don't know what they recommended. Their stance with me was that I was wasting my time, I have no case, etc., which is more or less what I'd expect. I don't take it personally.
*I'm happy to answer any questions, use my talk page here, or I'll make sure that email is enabled.
*Thanks --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (EDT)