Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:38 pm

This is a bit like the McLibel case (T-H-L), though Abd is the plaintiff rather than the defendant.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:56 am

Kumioko wrote:Ok, you might be right, I guess only time will tell.

What I am hearing here that you seem to be alluding to is that Abd will lose less than a $500 while costing the WMF several thousand dollars in donor money and a bunch of time. Does that seem true to you?

If the WMF moves to dismiss early and the judge agrees, then yes.

If the WMF declines to do that and moves to countersue, asks the court for discovery, deposes Abd, etc, then Abd's exposure is limitless.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:54 pm

Probably the former to avoid discovery, which is the stated purpose of Abd's suit.

Speaking of, Abd has blatantly stated on his blog that he filed the lawsuit at least partially to abuse discovery. He even went so far as to allude to the fact he included monetary damages only because it was a requirement to file in federal court. I wonder if this may open him up to a claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings. In that case, even if the WMF moved to dismiss early, they could recover legal costs and bury him.

Plus, Abd filed suit in the wrong jurisdiction. Section 13 of the Terms of Use requires all suits to be filed in state or federal court in San Francisco County, California. If this proceeds to any extent, he'll need to fly out there.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:53 am

Moderator's Note: Several off-topic posts were split to a separate thread (registration required to view). As always, members are asked to use discretion when engaging in inter-lingual disputes with people on other websites. We also apologize to the developers of Google Translate, if only because it seems like the right thing to do.

BURob13 wrote:Abd has blatantly stated on his blog that he filed the lawsuit at least partially to abuse discovery.

I assume the blog post in question is this one, and the relevant passage is as follows:

Abd on coldfusioncommunity.net wrote:The lawsuit ... does not name anyone other than the WikiMedia Foundation. To have a claim against others, I would have to know that I was defamed by them. So part of the purpose of the lawsuit is to gain access to the records of the WMF through discovery, because the evidence they relied upon when making their decision would be relevant.

Is that really an "abuse" of discovery? Presumably he'd call it a "side-benefit," but I'm not a lawyer myself.

I mean, he still has no shot at this, and he's not on my list of favorite people or anything... but let's not assume his motives are completely malign.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:04 am

Midsize Jake wrote:Moderator's Note: Several off-topic posts were split to a separate thread (registration required to view). As always, members are asked to use discretion when engaging in inter-lingual disputes with people on other websites. We also apologize to the developers of Google Translate, if only because it seems like the right thing to do.

There are rules for everything now.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:21 am

Vigilant wrote:There are rules for everything now.

Sorry about that...

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:34 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:Is that really an "abuse" of discovery? Presumably he'd call it a "side-benefit," but I'm not a lawyer myself.

I'd have thought that that is exactly the sort of thing for which discovery is needed.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:17 am

Case status
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... _Inc_et_al

Sounds about right for that dipshit, Abd.
Really hold their feet to the fire by giving the court a bad mailing address so the other side can't send you shit...

Pacer wrote:Friday, March 08, 2019
7 misc Mail Returned Fri 4:14 PM
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Dennis Lomax. (Figueroa, Tamara)

Hey Graaf, at least you're not the dumbest guy on Sucks any more...
You've got that going for you, which is nice.

And, of course, r/wikiinaction has about 3 threads on this rank imbecility.

Watching u/EtherMan try to talk this ding dong off the ledge.
He's filed pro se EtherMan, you're polishing a turd in there.

Abdlomax wrote: Uh, Etherman, apparently you have not noticed. This was filed pro se. I chose to keep the filing simple, and I doubt that anything omitted from the filing will unfairly harm the defendant, and I'm sure that I'll be notified if there are problems. What is correct is that I do have some ideas about the complainants, but because I do not know the content, I have only speculations. I have seen this play out with expert attorneys, who did amend their complaint multiple times, even though they knew some identities at the beginning. And that was Jones Day, one of the largest firms in the U.S.

Core to this complaint is that I was harmed by a choice made by the WMF to publish the ban, which was used as could have been anticipated if they had competently investigated the situation and the complainants. This is not just about attempting to coerce them into disclosing the complaints. They may be able to avoid disclosure, I'm not familiar enough with the parameters to be confident on that. More likely, though, from what I have seen, they don't have a strong claim of privilege. In essence, they passed on and published libel even if they withheld details.
EtherMan wrote: I did notice that you FILED it yourself... I assume (or at least I seriously hope), you have SOME sort of legal representation you're discussing the case with... Because if not... You're going to get eaten alive. You DO realize you're paying Wikimedia's legal fees if you lose right?

As for that they published your ban... Uhuh... And? You were banned so truthful statement. That's simply not enough... And at this point, I think you can only HOPE that it gets dismissed because you're going to end up very very poor otherwise...

I've tangled with EtherMan before and he's a bit on the autism scale.
However, he's a corporate attorney and clearly knows his field.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:10 pm

Oh dear...

Another Boring Dick wrote:The WMF has retained Jones Day for this, one of the top legal firms in the U.S. This will become public record, so I think there is no harm publishing this here. The attorney is Christopher M. Morrison, office in Boston, [redacted phone number].

https://www.jonesday.com/cmorrison/

Oh dear...

He has appeared in federal courts across the country and has experience trying cases in the Massachusetts state and federal trial courts. He has argued appellate matters in the First Circuit, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Chris is a trustee of the Boston Bar Foundation, where he is on the Grants Committee. He serves on the Medfield School Committee and is chair of the B.C. Law School Alumni Association's Boston Chapter.

Chris is the Hiring Partner in Jones Day's Boston Office.

Oh dear...

Actively Being Dumb wrote:I'm not afraid of facing a Jones Day attorney in court

Someone's about to get their shit pushed back in.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:23 pm

This is going to get really fun to watch. I'm not too surprised the WMF went with Jones Day. They've sent work to them before.

Guido den Broeder · Unread post by **Guido den Broeder** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:19 am

Kumioko wrote:I would be interested to know how often someone has sued the WMF or some member of the community. Even just the people and organizations from California would probably be quite a few given how often libel, copywrite violations and other problems appear on the Wikimedia foundation sites.

I haven't, even though I have more cause than most and would probably win.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:10 am

Here's a primer for those who have been found to be soft headed people:

This is a civil case.
Prosecutors are for criminal cases.

I wonder some times how certain individuals of low apparent intelligence are able to exchange gasses without complicated external assistance. This demographic often seems to overlap with those who are naturally submissive and will willingly hand over personal details if told to by authority figures which they assiduously cower before. Further Venn diagram overlay is found among those poor creatures who have a life long fascination with a topic with which they have absolutely zero competence yet will never keep silent about.

I call it the trifecta of cuckery.

In the end, there's only the lulz.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:36 am

Vigilant wrote:Further Venn diagram overlay is found among those poor creatures who have a life long fascination with a topic with which they have absolutely zero competence yet will never keep silent about.

Dunning-Kruger effect?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:38 am

rhindle wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Further Venn diagram overlay is found among those poor creatures who have a life long fascination with a topic with which they have absolutely zero competence yet will never keep silent about.
Dunning-Kruger effect?

The cherry on the dipshit sundae!

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:52 am

Lomax.png

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:02 pm

Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.

They didn't hire some local scrub lawyer, they hired a specialist and are obviously willing to spend tens of thousands of donation dollars to win.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:29 pm

And when they countersue Abd for their expenses they'll get at least some of it back. He clearly has money to waste filing this useless rattletrap of a suit.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:37 pm

Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.

They didn't hire some local scrub lawyer, they hired a specialist and are obviously willing to spend tens of thousands of donation dollars to win.

The WMF is not known for competence but tens of thousands of dollars is a drop in the bucket for them. This still looks like a squash.

This is what it this what I picture in this lawsuit.....

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:51 pm

Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.

I guess it shouldn't be so surprising, really. Logically, the WMF's main objective here would be to get an early dismissal to prevent having their internal discussions exposed via the discovery process. Dollars to doughnuts, some of those internal discussions contain material showing the near-total contempt the WMF staff has for Wikipedia contributors - especially those who end up getting banned by them, for whatever reason. If even a small-ish amount of that were to become public, it could put a serious crimp in their recruitment efforts.

By the same token, I would imagine that new internal rules have been made and imposed from the top to prevent WMF staff from saying anything negative anywhere about WP users, just in case these sorts of lawsuits become a trend, or even more likely, if pro-Trump Republican efforts in the USA to "open up the libel laws" result in the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases. That's not to say the WMF folks are constantly going on about how awful WP users are, but let's face it, if we can do it, they can do it too - and they have a lot more information about those users than we do.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:51 pm

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 9:57 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.
I guess it shouldn't be so surprising, really. Logically, the WMF's main objective here would be to get an early dismissal to prevent having their internal discussions exposed via the discovery process. Dollars to doughnuts, some of those internal discussions will contain material showing the near-total contempt the WMF staff has for Wikipedia contributors - especially those who end up getting banned by them, for whatever reason. If even a small-ish amount of that were to become public, it could put a serious crimp in their recruitment efforts.

By the same token, I would imagine that new internal rules have been made and imposed from the top to prevent WMF staff from saying anything negative anywhere about WP users, just in case these sorts of lawsuits become a trend, or even more likely, if pro-Trump Republican efforts in the USA to "open up the libel laws" result in the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases. That's not to say the WMF folks are constantly going on about how awful WP users are, but let's face it, if we can do it, they can do it too - and they have a lot more information about those users than we do.

Remember all of the nasty backbiting that culeaker exposed on WR.

All that being said, Abd is the most ludicrous vehicle possible for this preemptive self-annihilation attempt.
His picture should be the one on the Dunning Kruger algorithm.

His voluminous outpourings on some other dying platform are some of the most hysterical I've seen. Incompetent and arrogant about it.
Sound like a perfect fit at either the WMF or the Trump junta.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:53 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.
I guess it shouldn't be so surprising, really. Logically, the WMF's main objective here would be to get an early dismissal to prevent having their internal discussions exposed via the discovery process. Dollars to doughnuts, some of those internal discussions contain material showing the near-total contempt the WMF staff has for Wikipedia contributors - especially those who end up getting banned by them, for whatever reason. If even a small-ish amount of that were to become public, it could put a serious crimp in their recruitment efforts.

By the same token, I would imagine that new internal rules have been made and imposed from the top to prevent WMF staff from saying anything negative anywhere about WP users, just in case these sorts of lawsuits become a trend, or even more likely, if pro-Trump Republican efforts in the USA to "open up the libel laws" result in the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases. That's not to say the WMF folks are constantly going on about how awful WP users are, but let's face it, if we can do it, they can do it too - and they have a lot more information about those users than we do.

That's a good point. I would love to see Anonymous leak some of those emails.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:15 am

Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.

They didn't hire some local scrub lawyer, they hired a specialist and are obviously willing to spend tens of thousands of donation dollars to win.

That's ... not how legal departments work. Hiring outside counsel is extremely common for businesses of all sizes. This is especially true for an organization of the WMF's size and nature, where it really doesn't make sense to have an in-house litigation team. The WMF's in-house counsel manages their liability and handles all sorts of transactional work for the WMF, but it's much more cost effective to hire outside counsel for litigation than to pay salary plus benefits to a team of litigators that aren't used that often. Not to mention you're saving on the costs of flying them all over the place by hiring outside counsel local to a specific court where you need to litigate.

Plus, this just really won't be expensive. As I noted before, Abd agreed to the Terms of Use, which states he agrees all lawsuits must be filed in California. That sends the suit right to the can almost immediately, because it will be transferred to California and Abd presumably will decide flying there repeatedly is not worth his time and money. The burden is on Abd to demonstrate why it shouldn't be transferred to California.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:56 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.
I guess it shouldn't be so surprising, really. Logically, the WMF's main objective here would be to get an early dismissal to prevent having their internal discussions exposed via the discovery process. Dollars to doughnuts, some of those internal discussions contain material showing the near-total contempt the WMF staff has for Wikipedia contributors - especially those who end up getting banned by them, for whatever reason. If even a small-ish amount of that were to become public, it could put a serious crimp in their recruitment efforts.

By the same token, I would imagine that new internal rules have been made and imposed from the top to prevent WMF staff from saying anything negative anywhere about WP users, just in case these sorts of lawsuits become a trend, or even more likely, if pro-Trump Republican efforts in the USA to "open up the libel laws" result in the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases. That's not to say the WMF folks are constantly going on about how awful WP users are, but let's face it, if we can do it, they can do it too - and they have a lot more information about those users than we do.

So, lay down a marker.

How much of a case do you think Abd has against the WMF?

What is the resolution of this matter and why?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:11 am

BURob13 wrote:Plus, this just really won't be expensive. As I noted before, Abd agreed to the Terms of Use, which states he agrees all lawsuits must be filed in California. That sends the suit right to the can almost immediately, because it will be transferred to California and Abd presumably will decide flying there repeatedly is not worth his time and money. The burden is on Abd to demonstrate why it shouldn't be transferred to California.

Just for reference, the relevant ToU passage is this one:

We hope that no serious disagreements arise involving you, but, in the event there is a dispute, we encourage you to seek resolution through the dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided by the Projects or Project editions and the Wikimedia Foundation. If you seek to file a legal claim against us, you agree to file and resolve it exclusively in a state or federal court located in San Francisco County, California. You also agree that the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America will govern these Terms of Use, as well as any legal claim that might arise between you and us (without reference to conflict of laws principles). You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use.

To ensure that disputes are dealt with soon after they arise, you agree that regardless of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action you might have arising out of or related to use of our services or these Terms of Use must be filed within the applicable statute of limitations or, if earlier, one (1) year after the pertinent facts underlying such claim or cause of action could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (or be forever barred).

I'm inclined to agree with you about this, but I assume Mr. Abd's counter-argument will be that the publication of his ban status doesn't arise out of his actual use of the site, only the ban itself. It's not completely inconceivable that a judge would agree with him, but I'd say the odds of that are not at all in his favor - judges (at any level) are usually not that sympathetic.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:36 am

Vigilant wrote:How much of a case do you think Abd has against the WMF?

I think that if he sticks closely to his claim that it's just the publication of the ban that he's objecting to, and not the ban itself (and putting aside the whole issue of jurisdiction), then he has at least a puncher's chance of having the judge tell both parties to settle by simply taking his name off the published list. In percentage terms, IMO there's maybe a 5-10 percent chance of that. The question then becomes, will the WMF fight this outcome - because obviously if they do it for him, they might have to do it for everyone else on the list, which might ultimately mean not publishing the list at all, and everyone in the WMF will suddenly have to put their penises back in their pants and find something else to masturbate to. (Or who knows, maybe someone else will publish it and they can jerk off to it on some other website entirely, though it might take them longer to achieve climax with an off-site list.)

What is the resolution of this matter and why?

Well... I don't mean to be super-equivocal, but a lot of this depends on who gets picked to be the judge. Like I've said above, call me crazy but I do think Mr. Abd has a valid complaint; the question is how far is he willing to go in pursuing it, how hard will the WMF push back, and how well has the WMF immunized itself through disclaimers and ToU language, etc. (Okay, that's three questions.) All of these factors are strongly in the WMF's favor, so the most likely result by far will be that the case is dismissed, probably with prejudice, and as you say, possibly with an order for Mr. Abd to reimburse the WMF's costs to some extent. But again, he could get lucky - not $200,000 lucky of course, but I don't think it's impossible for him to get a favorable "moral victory" kind of result, with the right judge.

One thing I don't understand is, why does Mr. Abd think the WMF would be making a tactical mistake by filing a Motion to Dismiss on Day One (or earlier)? Perhaps he'll read this and maybe explain it on that site where he's making comments... It seems like it would be standard procedure in a case like this, and the WMF lawyers would almost be committing some sort of malpractice if they didn't at least try, especially since there's a pretty good chance it would work.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:11 am

If the WMF and Jones Day decides to go hard, they will bury Abd in motions, documentation and legal expertise.

He's an amateur in the arena against world class opponents and Abd thinks he's 'clever' and likable and will be able to charm the hiring partner of Jones Day into being his friend and seeing things counter to Jones Day's client's interests.

It's self deception on a nearly unprecedented scale.

Dennis might as well challenge Mike Tyson to a boxing match, all the while thinking he'll convince the referee of his own mythical boxing skills, ability to dance cleverly about and be utterly surprised when a Tyson uppercut nearly takes his damn head off.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:29 am

Jake, your reading of that clause is far more narrow than it actually is. The clause states that the editor is agreeing that they will file any legal claim against the WMF in California. There's no qualifications on what types of claims this applies to, so it should be taken to apply to all legal claims. It doesn't matter whether it arises from their use of the site or not.

And I think it's rather fantastical to think the WMF will bury him in motions or the like. They won't have to. This will require one motion to move the venue, and then I imagine both sides will reach an agreement to drop the suit with prejudice to avoid Abd facing incredibly large expenses to continue litigating in California. If he decided to continue on his suicidal quest beyond that point, they would presumably file a motion to dismiss, because Abd has still yet to articulate any false statement made by the WMF or any monetary damages that he has incurred as a result of such an alleged statement.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:45 am

BURob13 wrote:Jake, your reading of that clause is far more narrow than it actually is.

Again, it's not my reading, I'm just saying that's what his counter-argument is likely to be - IOW, that the ToU doesn't apply in this case, because, you know, whatever. I mean, he can't really argue anything else if he really wants to keep the venue in Massachusetts.

Still, he did also say in one of those comments that he has family in California, and that they don't hate him as much as everybody else seems to, so maybe he could stay with them and thereby afford to pursue the case there for a short period of time. We don't really know how much money he has, do we? (I suspect it's not all that much, of course.)

I'm not saying he has a realistic chance. The only thing I would say for him, in terms of an unrealistic chance, is that the US Senate has been packing the courts with extreme right-wingers ever since Trump was elected, and extreme right-wingers don't like Wikipedia much these days. Extreme right-wingers these days also tend to believe in things most of us think of as wacko fantasies, and one of those things is cold fusion.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:52 am

Vigilant wrote:He's an amateur in the arena against world class opponents and Abd thinks he's 'clever' and likable and will be able to charm the hiring partner of Jones Day into being his friend and seeing things counter to Jones Day's client's interests.

And then when he doesn't, Mr. Abd will call him an "idiot" on every internet venue available to him, voluminously, and in so doing make things a whole lot worse for himself.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:56 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
…

What is the resolution of this matter and why?
Well... I don't mean to be super-equivocal, but a lot of this depends on who gets picked to be the judge.
…

According to the web page cited by Tarantino, the case has already been assigned to judge Katherine A. Robertson.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:18 am

I don't know if this has any parallel in American law, but in England the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (T-H-L) can be used to set aside unreasonable terms even if the plaintiff has apparently agreed to them. Requiring a private citizen of limited means to litigate only in a court thousands of miles away might be unreasonable.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:26 am

lonza leggiera wrote:According to the web page cited by Tarantino, the case has already been assigned to judge Katherine A. Robertson.

....in Massachusetts. Obviously I don't know anything about her, but based on what I can find via a cursory Google search it looks like she should be fairly competent. My guess is she'll probably agree that the judicial venue ought to be in San Francisco, and after that, who knows.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:44 am

BURob13 wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Personally I think it's pretty hilarious that the WMF hired one of the most expensive law firms to represent them in this case and hired a lawyer rather than using their own. This both shows the lack of faith in their own counsel and it shows that they are taking the matter very seriously contrary to what some would have us believe.

They didn't hire some local scrub lawyer, they hired a specialist and are obviously willing to spend tens of thousands of donation dollars to win.
That's ... not how legal departments work. Hiring outside counsel is extremely common for businesses of all sizes. This is especially true for an organization of the WMF's size and nature, where it really doesn't make sense to have an in-house litigation team. The WMF's in-house counsel manages their liability and handles all sorts of transactional work for the WMF, but it's much more cost effective to hire outside counsel for litigation than to pay salary plus benefits to a team of litigators that aren't used that often. Not to mention you're saving on the costs of flying them all over the place by hiring outside counsel local to a specific court where you need to litigate.

Plus, this just really won't be expensive. As I noted before, Abd agreed to the Terms of Use, which states he agrees all lawsuits must be filed in California. That sends the suit right to the can almost immediately, because it will be transferred to California and Abd presumably will decide flying there repeatedly is not worth his time and money. The burden is on Abd to demonstrate why it shouldn't be transferred to California.

I know it's common, but the WMF isn't a common or competent company. They have a history of doing strange and stupid things. Of course I agree that Abd won 't win but he's costing the WMF thousands of dollars in the process and will likely be required to give him a more detailed description of why he was banned. Even if he loses, in a way, he still wins.

Of course it's true they could countersue, but we'll see what happens. Personally I don't think that a court of law, even if it favors the WMF in the end, would give the WMF money in a countersuit just for someone wanting a clear answer on why they were banned. He could also settle with the WMF without going to trial if they tell him clearly why he was banned and give him a chance to appeal the ban.

Guido den Broeder · Unread post by **Guido den Broeder** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am

The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters, while at the same time it helps them to create jurisprudence in their favor in case a real threat emerges. It is all very profitable for them, that's why they hire a top lawyer.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:55 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters, while at the same time it helps them to create jurisprudence in their favor in case a real threat emerges. It is all very profitable for them, that's why they hire a top lawyer.

Yeah that I do agree with and frankly we don't even know if they are paying for these legal fees. The law firm may be donating their services as a tax write-off.

As an aside, the WMF's tax exemption is a complete scam and in many respects it borders on fraud. The things they do, including their political stances and advocation, IMO, put it on a slippery slope of violating it's tax exemption status.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:04 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters, while at the same time it helps them to create jurisprudence in their favor in case a real threat emerges. It is all very profitable for them, that's why they hire a top lawyer.

An excellent point.

When they destroy Lomax in the process, they will have the added benefit of discouraging further suits of this type from net.kooks.

If they move the venue to SF, I might even file an amicus brief detailing for the court Mr Lomax's serial and abundant online eccentricities.

Newyorkbrad · Unread post by **Newyorkbrad** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:03 pm

Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters....

To date, I haven't seen the WMF mention or publicize the case anywhere. The only place I've seen it discussed is here.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:54 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters, while at the same time it helps them to create jurisprudence in their favor in case a real threat emerges. It is all very profitable for them, that's why they hire a top lawyer.
An excellent point.

When they destroy Lomax in the process, they will have the added benefit of discouraging further suits of this type from net.kooks.

If they move the venue to SF, I might even file an amicus brief detailing for the court Mr Lomax's serial and abundant online eccentricities.

They allow anonymous amicus briefs???

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:58 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters....
To date, I haven't seen the WMF mention or publicize the case anywhere. The only place I've seen it discussed is here.

Yeah, they make their money from people giving $5 to buy those hard-working engineers a cup of coffee or helping to "keep the lights on," not for bucks to pay Perry in Earle Stanley Gardner's The Case of the Blathering Ban-Victim.

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:19 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Guido den Broeder wrote:The WMF will use this suit to collect millions of dollars from supporters....
To date, I haven't seen the WMF mention or publicize the case anywhere. The only place I've seen it discussed is here.

In fairness it has been discussed here, the Wikipedia sucks site, multiple Discord sites and IRC. It's not surprising the WMF wouldn't publicize it though. I mean really who would!?

It does kinda make me want to sacrifice one of my sock accounts to mention it on Jimbo's talk page. I have a couple that are well over 6 months old so they shouldn't pop on any of the normal CU checks, not that it would stop someone like Bbb23 from shouting "I have a gut feeling about this one so let's block 'em" from the rooftops.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:18 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:The only place I've seen it discussed is here.

You missed the 500+ post multi-thread flame war on Reddit I take it.

Obviously you aren't on IRC or Discord.
You don't read WikipediaSucks or Genderdesk.
You haven't noticed Abd's own website.

Even on RW it was being spammed so much there is now an edit filter programmed to automatically ban anyone that mentions it.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:47 pm

I'm a little surprised we're discussing it as much as we are, TBH. And really, until a story about it appears on at least a second-tier general news site, the whole thing is still going to be "inside baseball" as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

The thing is, though, Wikipedia may well be the only site on the web for which this kind of legal action makes any sense at all. If you're an academic or some other high-level professional type, you probably don't care much if you get banned from Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, even though people will notice it because those are huge sites that tons of people use. Whereas, if you get banned from a specialty forum or chat-site somewhere, hardly anyone will notice... Wikipedia may be the only site that (for good or ill) is "respected" enough to have a ban affect you professionally, and is big enough for substantial numbers of people to take notice of the ban, and publishes a "SanFranBan"-style shit-list that people can easily refer to. By that logic, a ruling against them in this case (as unlikely as that is) might not qualify as sufficient precedent to force the rest of the internet to do anything they're not already doing (or stop doing things they are).

That's all just complete speculation, though, obviously.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:12 pm

Kumioko wrote:It does kinda make me want to sacrifice one of my sock accounts to mention it on Jimbo's talk page. I have a couple that are well over 6 months old so they shouldn't pop on any of the normal CU checks, not that it would stop someone like Bbb23 from shouting "I have a gut feeling about this one so let's block 'em" from the rooftops.

This site is read by numerous admins. Now you've mentioned this on here, people might be on the lookout!

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:22 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It does kinda make me want to sacrifice one of my sock accounts to mention it on Jimbo's talk page. I have a couple that are well over 6 months old so they shouldn't pop on any of the normal CU checks, not that it would stop someone like Bbb23 from shouting "I have a gut feeling about this one so let's block 'em" from the rooftops.
This site is read by numerous admins. Now you've mentioned this on here, people might be on the lookout!

It's ok, I'm not that worried. I make several new ones a month anticipating them to be caught (or sacrificed).:-) I can afford to lose one every once in a while for a good cause.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:25 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:I'm a little surprised we're discussing it as much as we are, TBH. And really, until a story about it appears on at least a second-tier general news site, the whole thing is still going to be "inside baseball" as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

The thing is, though, Wikipedia may well be the only site on the web for which this kind of legal action makes any sense at all. If you're an academic or some other high-level professional type, you probably don't care much if you get banned from Facebook or Twitter or Reddit, even though people will notice it because those are huge sites that tons of people use. Whereas, if you get banned from a specialty forum or chat-site somewhere, hardly anyone will notice... Wikipedia may be the only site that (for good or ill) is "respected" enough to have a ban affect you professionally, and is big enough for substantial numbers of people to take notice of the ban, and publishes a "SanFranBan"-style shit-list that people can easily refer to. By that logic, a ruling against them in this case (as unlikely as that is) might not qualify as sufficient precedent to force the rest of the internet to do anything they're not already doing (or stop doing things they are).

That's all just complete speculation, though, obviously.

All true of course. Personally I think it's having more of a Streisand effect than anything else. No one really cared about his ban (or mine for that matter) except the one that's banned. But now that it's being mentioned on multiple Fora and potentially more as it gathers steam, it's sure to attract more unwanted attention to his identity/ban.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:22 pm

Kumioko wrote:No one really cared about his ban (or mine for that matter) except the one that's banned.

*cough* Smith *cough*

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:29 am

Kumioko wrote:No one really cared about his ban (or mine for that matter) except the one that's banned.

You may well be right about yourself!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:12 pm

See who this reminds everybody of ...

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... f0cea5fe7f

pro se litigants often file complaints that do not meet legal pleading requirements or lack cognizable claims

Many pro se complaints lack sufficient facts to state a claim for relief; pro se litigants often rely instead on speculation or bald conclusions.

Since a pro se plaintiff ’s allegations are likely to be disorganized or muddled, it is all the more important for a business-defendant to promptly retain an attorney who can review the complaint to determine whether to answer or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint.

pro se plaintiffs often ignore discovery rules, “refuse to respond to discovery requests, and try to extort settlements

pro se litigants may see discovery as an opportunity to retaliate against or embarrass an entity he or she feels has done him wrong

Many businesses refuse to settle with pro se plaintiffs, lest they encourage meritless suits brought solely to obtain an easy payout.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:27 pm

Vigilant wrote:See who this reminds everybody of ...

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... f0cea5fe7f

pro se litigants often file complaints that do not meet legal pleading requirements or lack cognizable claims

Many pro se complaints lack sufficient facts to state a claim for relief; pro se litigants often rely instead on speculation or bald conclusions.

Since a pro se plaintiff ’s allegations are likely to be disorganized or muddled, it is all the more important for a business-defendant to promptly retain an attorney who can review the complaint to determine whether to answer or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint.

pro se plaintiffs often ignore discovery rules, “refuse to respond to discovery requests, and try to extort settlements

pro se litigants may see discovery as an opportunity to retaliate against or embarrass an entity he or she feels has done him wrong

Many businesses refuse to settle with pro se plaintiffs, lest they encourage meritless suits brought solely to obtain an easy payout.

As they say he who represents himself has a fool for a client. He'd hire an attorney if this really had a chance(if no attorney agreed to take this case it would be telling). PI attorneys generally work on a contingency and they probably don't want to feel like they are working pro bono.