Infected RationalWiki - Whiny hugbox for spergs and a clusterfuck of neverending drama on a rapidly declining website.

[IrrationalWiki]

Lolcow @Abd / Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (real name: Dennis George Lomax) threatened David Gerard and RationalWiki with a libel suit:

http://archive.md/6cqdD

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.

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.

This will not be a crank lawsuit, I’ve seen many. It will not be filed if it cannot be done to professional standards, with a reasonable likelihood of recovering damages. Responding to harassment is not harassment, unlike what you and others on RationalWiki have been claiming for years. It’s going to bite you and your friends in the ass.

The lawsuit never happened, but instead Lomax filed a libel suit against the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) who own Wikipedia, originally claiming $200,000 in damages, later which he amended to $2,000,000 for "libel and harassment of family".

During his libel suit with the WMF, Lomax complained RationalWiki had libelled him (even though the WMF has nothing to do with RationalWiki): "October 5,2017. a defamatory article about Lomax appeared, on RationalWiki (not affiliated with the WMF), written with malice by DLS." Lomax presented no evidence this person wrote his RationalWiki article - his allegations are unsubstantiated. One might ask why Lomax mentioned this since it's unrelated to the WMF and his lawsuit - he later admitted he wanted purely to attack people he dislikes by mentioning them in the lawsuit and since it's a legal document he thinks this makes them look bad, so this explains why in his amended complaint he extended the lawsuit to sue no fewer than 9 separate people with unfounded claims of libel, including some random Wikipedia and Wikiversity editors he got into heated arguments with such as Michael Umbrecht.

According to Lomax, virtually the whole world is against him and anyone who dares criticise him online is said (without any evidence) to have "libelled and harassed" him or his family. So his lawsuit was filed against 9 separate editors on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, as well as the WMF for merely publishing his ban on the global block list. In reality, contrary to Lomax's delusions of defamation - he was globally banned from all WMF wikis (Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity) for harassment and persistent disruptive behaviour; he was also banned from RationalWiki for the same thing. After kicked off of all these wikis, in a fit of rage he began digitally stalking individuals (including admins) he blames for his ban, thus his blog is pretty much dedicated to doxing and stalking Wikipedia and RationalWiki admins as well as character assassinating anyone who criticises his online behaviour.

The lawsuit of course was a lolsuit. It was dismissed by a judge for failure to state a claim. He won no damages and lost $400 on a court filing fee.

 

[AnOminous]

Lolcow @Abd / Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (real name: Dennis George Lomax) threatened David Gerard and RationalWiki with a libel suit:

Why would he think that David Gerard, of all people, would be remotely intimidated by utter nonsense like this? Gerard is definitely in the "does not give a single fuck" club.

 

[IrrationalWiki]

Another fairly recent lawsuit to mention RationalWiki is Kirkegaard v Smith. Lolcow @Oliver D Smith (Mikemikev's arch-nemesis) was sued for defamation by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard. According to the preliminary judgment (dated December 2019), Smith in 2018 called Kirkegaard a "paedophile" in four online comments. Smith defended his comments on the basis of honest opinion which provides a defence in the Defamation Act 2013 (section 3). The judge ruled in Smith's favour his comments were expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact. Kirkegaard discontinued the lawsuit in May 2020, winning no damages.

If anyone is wondering why a judge ruled Smith's comments were opinions, well, Kirkegaard is infamous for having written an essay on his website in 2012 in which he wrote: "Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they don't notice it is difficult to see how they cud be harmed, even if it is rape." In 2018 he updated this post claiming it was a hypothetical "thought experiment" rather than "actions endorsed or recommended" (the update, however seems to have post-dated Smith's comments). Kirkegaard also wrote in 2012 he wants to legalise child pornography and lower age of consent to 13 year olds or younger if puberty begins first, claiming he thinks age of consent is a "fiction" because "even babies consent..."

For ‘age of consent’-fiction (people can consent at any age, even babies consent and disconsent to stuff happening to them!), perhaps a dual approach. Either 13 years old or start of puberty, whichever comes first.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

This Kirkegaard guy is clearly huge lolcow material himself. To write stuff as sick as this and then file a defamation suit and lose since a judge was presented quotes of his own comments. Furthermore, he apparently now owes Smith thousands in legal fees. Once a claimant signs a notice of discontinuance they immediately become the losing party and have to pay the defendant's legal fees.

 

[AnOminous]

This Kirkegaard guy is clearly huge lolcow material himself.

I am personally insulted by anyone daring to call himself Kirkegaard.

 

[IrrationalWiki]

I am personally insulted by anyone daring to call himself Kirkegaard.

Yes this is actually him. "Autism is my superpower".

4 years after his RationalWiki article he still spergs about it online

Emil Kirkegaard - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

 

[IrrationalWiki]

RationalWiki admins have now renamed all of @Mikemikev / Michael Coombs sockpuppets:

Coombs was also impersonating a guy named Bo Winegard (who has his own article).

User contributions for Bo Winegard - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

• 18:14, 24 November 2020 Bongolian (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Bo Winegard (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: confirmed User:Mikemikev sokpuppet)

Not much other drama to report aside from the fact an SJW admin named GR is likely going to get banned.

RationalWiki:Chicken coop - RationalWiki

rationalwiki.org

Why are insane SJW RationalWiki admins banning other insane SJWs admins? Well, they're constantly accusing each other of doxxing and harassment (with flimsy to no evidence). RationalWiki has a very strange definition of doxxing so you can end up banned for linking to stuff someone else has revealed about themselves and public information.

 

[qwdsadfvzxxz]

I am personally insulted by anyone daring to call himself Kirkegaard.

You're such an obnoxious lonely alt-right faggot dude lol

 

[TheImportantFart]

You're such an obnoxious lonely alt-right faggot dude lol

>AnOminous
>Alt-Right

 

[Shaka Brah]

>AnOminous
>Alt-Right

It's Ashley "The Hutt" Huttsell-Jankowski. Just ignore her.

 

[Basil II]

Lolcow @Abd / Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (real name: Dennis George Lomax) threatened David Gerard and RationalWiki with a libel suit:

http://archive.md/6cqdD







The lawsuit never happened, but instead Lomax filed a libel suit against the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) who own Wikipedia, originally claiming $200,000 in damages, later which he amended to $2,000,000 for "libel and harassment of family".

During his libel suit with the WMF, Lomax complained RationalWiki had libelled him (even though the WMF has nothing to do with RationalWiki): "October 5,2017. a defamatory article about Lomax appeared, on RationalWiki (not affiliated with the WMF), written with malice by DLS." Lomax presented no evidence this person wrote his RationalWiki article - his allegations are unsubstantiated. One might ask why Lomax mentioned this since it's unrelated to the WMF and his lawsuit - he later admitted he wanted purely to attack people he dislikes by mentioning them in the lawsuit and since it's a legal document he thinks this makes them look bad, so this explains why in his amended complaint he extended the lawsuit to sue no fewer than 9 separate people with unfounded claims of libel, including some random Wikipedia and Wikiversity editors he got into heated arguments with such as Michael Umbrecht.

According to Lomax, virtually the whole world is against him and anyone who dares criticise him online is said (without any evidence) to have "libelled and harassed" him or his family. So his lawsuit was filed against 9 separate editors on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, as well as the WMF for merely publishing his ban on the global block list. In reality, contrary to Lomax's delusions of defamation - he was globally banned from all WMF wikis (Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki, Wikiversity) for harassment and persistent disruptive behaviour; he was also banned from RationalWiki for the same thing. After kicked off of all these wikis, in a fit of rage he began digitally stalking individuals (including admins) he blames for his ban, thus his blog is pretty much dedicated to doxing and stalking Wikipedia and RationalWiki admins as well as character assassinating anyone who criticises his online behaviour.

The lawsuit of course was a lolsuit. It was dismissed by a judge for failure to state a claim. He won no damages and lost $400 on a court filing fee.

Imagine being on the internet and being able to choose any name you want and you decide to be a fucking Muslim.

 

[AnOminous]

According to Lomax, virtually the whole world is against him and anyone who dares criticise him online is said (without any evidence) to have "libelled and harassed" him or his family.

Very dumb argument. If he's arguing literally everyone hates him, basically he is claiming to be a libel proof plaintiff. You can't harm the reputation any further of someone who is already loathed by the entire world.

Note: his case was so dumb that the entire opinion justifying dismissing it is literally in the docket itself.

Docket for Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., 3:19-cv-30025 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., 3:19-cv-30025 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. As an initial matter, and as Plaintiff concedes (Dkt. No. 28 at 4), Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is the only properly named defendant in this action, because Plaintiff never sought and obtained leave from the court to add additional defendants. See Knight v. Metlife Inv'rs USA Ins. Co. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4952037, at *1 (D.N.H. Nov. 14, 2008). Accordingly, although this action is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., it is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing of a new action against the additional defendants Plaintiff sought to add in his amended complaint.On the merits, Plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of Counts 1 and 4, leaving only Count 2 (Defamation) and Count 3 (Civil Conspiracy). Plaintiff's defamation claim is based on Defendant's publication of the fact that it banned Plaintiff's username ("Abd") from editing or posting content on its websites. Defendant's published statement in this regard did not include the reason for this ban, in accordance with its Global Ban Policy, or any other information. (See Dkt. No. 28 at 10 ("Consistent with the Terms of Use, Abd has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites. Please address any questions to trustandsafety(at)wikimedia.org."); see also Dkt. No. 16 at 4 ("The Terms of Use ('TOU') provide that [Defendant] reserves 'the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.'").) Plaintiff admits that he was, in fact, banned, making Defendants statement true. (Dkt. No. 28 at 10.) Nevertheless, he asserts "the reasonable implications of the published ban... were clearly false," because "[t]he public will routinely consider a... ban as an indicator that a reputable organization has carefully investigated claims of harassment or other complaints and has concluded that a user is a serious risk." (Id. at 10-12.) The First Circuit (and this court) has rejected such an argument. See Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2009) (rejecting argument that, under Massachusetts law, "an objectively true statement can give rise to a libel claim if reasonable readers might infer from it other, untrue characteristics of the plaintiff or conduct by him"); see also Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 227 (D. Mass. 2017) (holding that statement announcing student was found by college to have violated sexual misconduct policy after full hearing was "objectively true," under Massachusetts defamation law, because the announcement "accurately stated what had occurred"). Defamation, of course, generally requires a false statement, although Defendant acknowledges a "narrow exception" under Massachusetts law whereby a true statement may support a defamation claim if made with "actual malice," in the sense of "ill will" or "malevolent intent." Noonan, 556 F.3d at 26, 29. Nevertheless, as Defendant argues, Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the statement is conclusory and he has not alleged sufficient facts from which the court can plausibly infer actual malice; instead, he relies on mere speculation, which is insufficient. See Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d at 27; see also Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 82-83 (1st Cir. 2012).Lastly, as to the conspiracy claim, Plaintiff has not alleged facts from which the court can plausibly infer Defendant joined any underlying tort or knowingly provided substantial assistance or encouragement in the alleged scheme. See Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council, 576 F.3d 15, 35 (1st Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended complaint is hereby dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close this case. (Lindsay, Maurice) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

 

[IrrationalWiki]

Imagine being on the internet and being able to choose any name you want and you decide to be a fucking Muslim.

Abd ul-Raham Lomax isn't a real Muslim. His version of "Islam" is Sufism combined with Buddhism and New Age beliefs (he claims to be a former Buddhist). Lomax doesn't even believe in a personal god, so Allah to him is reality itself i.e. he's a panentheist who thinks the universe/everything is Allah. He's on the editorial board of the Sufi Ruhaniat International. This isn't traditional Sufism but a weird New Age cult that organises hippy dances. Lomax was also a former member of the Sufi cult Murabitun World Movement but was kicked out for unknown reasons. His name is pretty much toxic in Islam for his unorthodox and cultish beliefs - he used to post on the Usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam but ended up banned there like he's been banned from almost every website he's ever posted on.

Lomax's political views are hard to pin down but can flip-flop depending on who he is attacking online. He recently come out in support for Black Lives Matter and his daughter Zippy Lomax is an Antifa activist in Portland. However, at the same time he has a history of defending figures in the alt-right and neo-Nazis including @Mikemikev while adopting some of their views on issues such as race / race and intelligence. He also changes his views on many other things depending on who he's criticising. As another example, Lomax claims to have had a high-fat meat-based diet for decades and at one point was criticising vegans, after though he got into a spat with a RationalWiki sysop who he described as an anti-vegan - Lomax suddenly began defending vegans, a diet he knows very little about and had never been sympathetic to previously.

Very dumb argument. If he's arguing literally everyone hates him, basically he is claiming to be a libel proof plaintiff. You can't harm the reputation any further of someone who is already loathed by the entire world.

Note: his case was so dumb that the entire opinion justifying dismissing it is literally in the docket itself.

Docket for Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., 3:19-cv-30025 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc., 3:19-cv-30025 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

It was a lolsuit and he was humiliated. In response to his failure he has put his own spin on it and now brags online about costing the WMF legal fees since he wasn't ordered to pay them anything back. The WMF's costs though wouldn't have been very much, secondly, Lomax lost $400 on a court application fee. He's an imbecile.

 

[IrrationalWiki]

@Mikemikev / Michael Coombs back on his socking spree

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Emil_Kirkegaard&action=history

A few more:

• 18:03, 8 December 2020 CircularReasoning (talk | contribs) blocked Jolly Roger (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Ban evasion: Mikey)
• 13:13, 4 December 2020 Spud (talk | contribs) blocked Unoriginal Hack (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Block evasion: Fuck off, Mike!)

 

[John Merston]

Found this gem while reading their annotated Bible.

Except that it doesn't say that Enos was his first child-Enos was the just the only one to be named. For all the mockery RationalWiki gives fundies for reading the Bible literally, they have a bad habit of doing the same thing.

 

[IrrationalWiki]

New Comments on Kiwi Farms / Null -

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Farms#Null.27s_location_needs_an_updating

Not yet sure who Fagin Twist is. Could be another @Mikemikev sock.

 

[Oats12345]

New Comments on Kiwi Farms / Null -

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Kiwi_Farms#Null.27s_location_needs_an_updating

Not yet sure who Fagin Twist is. Could be another @Mikemikev sock.

Good God their stalking null

 

[Darwin Watterson]

One of my favorite articles on RationalWiki is their StoneToss one because it’s just them posting a bunch of his comics while going “wElL aCkShYuAlLy...”

The whole thing has the same energy as one of those long-winded leftist memes. Like, take this for example, this entire goddamn paragraph they wrote under the comic:

First of all, that’s NOT how you use Wiki thumbnails; they’re meant for short blurbs describing the picture, not spergy paragraphs. Secondly, holy fuck dude nobody cares. It’s just a comic.

 

[scathefire]

One of my favorite articles on RationalWiki is their StoneToss one because it’s just them posting a bunch of his comics while going “wElL aCkShYuAlLy...”

The whole thing has the same energy as one of those long-winded leftist memes. Like, take this for example, this entire goddamn paragraph they wrote under the comic:
View attachment 1871736
First of all, that’s NOT how you use Wiki thumbnails; they’re meant for short blurbs describing the picture, not spergy paragraphs. Secondly, holy fuck dude nobody cares. It’s just a comic.

Why would you even bother to get offended over this one? I don't even think it's meant to be a serious promotion of nofap.

Dude, calm the fuck down. What's with the overexplaining? You could've just said "this is racist and sexist" and that would've sufficed.

Oh my god, again with the autistic overexplaining.

 

[Save the Loli]

Was RationalWiki always this bad or have my standards just improved? I remember they had some funny articles like a decade ago debunking weirdos like Kent Hovind and Youtube creationists as well as the ones describing bizarre New Age beliefs. Is RationalWiki full of parodists now writing stupid shit like this in the same way Conservapedia was mostly parodists?

 

[Shaka Brah]

Was RationalWiki always this bad or have my standards just improved? I remember they had some funny articles like a decade ago debunking weirdos like Kent Hovind and Youtube creationists as well as the ones describing bizarre New Age beliefs. Is RationalWiki full of parodists now writing stupid shit like this in the same way Conservapedia was mostly parodists?

It was always bad, you probably just agreed with them more before now. Even in the beginning it was more or less a left-wing Encyclopedia Dramatica but with a veneer of authority because their articles didn't have flashing text or outlandish wording.

I think there was a bit of a change in the userbase after Atheism+ though. They drove out most of the neutral contributors due to not being fully on board with the woke cult, so it definitely has gotten worse.