Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu May 23, 2019 6:27 pm
Luckily for us, the contents of his lawsuit prove that he doesn't have any sense.
The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Random Dutch mental patient makes an unsolicited call to the Amsterdam office about a case in the US office and who is not a party to the US case...Giraffe Stapler wrote:But what about if I should call Monday Jones Day Amsterdam to see if we can work something out? i mean a total solution for the whole SanFanBan problems and I swear that will be confidential and I will not record it? i am a gentlemen, Somey, you know that and I will keep my word.
That really was painful to watch. Will got in way over his head with the trolls and nut jobs. Classic example of a well-intentioned but painfully stupidly executed idea.Vigilant wrote: offwiki.org was a classic example. He lasted only a few days before Wil had to desysop him. After which, Abd stormed off in a huff claiming that all of his good work was ruined.
Why make a reference to me, though? Does he think I have any influence over who gets banned by the WMF and how they go about it? I mean, come on - it's been weeks since I was in charge of that stuff.Vigilant wrote:Random Dutch mental patient makes an unsolicited call to the Amsterdam office about a case in the US office and who is not a party to the US case...Giraffe Stapler wrote:But what about if I should call Monday Jones Day Amsterdam to see if we can work something out? i mean a total solution for the whole SanFanBan problems and I swear that will be confidential and I will not record it? i am a gentlemen, Somey, you know that and I will keep my word.
Everyone knows you're secretly Jimbo.Midsize Jake wrote:Why make a reference to me, though? Does he think I have any influence over who gets banned by the WMF and how they go about it? I mean, come on - it's been weeks since I was in charge of that stuff.Vigilant wrote:Random Dutch mental patient makes an unsolicited call to the Amsterdam office about a case in the US office and who is not a party to the US case...Giraffe Stapler wrote:But what about if I should call Monday Jones Day Amsterdam to see if we can work something out? i mean a total solution for the whole SanFanBan problems and I swear that will be confidential and I will not record it? i am a gentlemen, Somey, you know that and I will keep my word.
And I actually don't know that he's a gentleman - I'm not saying he isn't the type to "keep his word," but where I come from, gentlemen don't disparage women on public forums for no legitimate reason. (Maybe they do in the Netherlands, though.)
Come off it. When has Mr Midsize ever claimed to be the Sole Flounder of this site?Kumioko wrote:Everyone knows you're secretly Jimbo.
I thought the little smiley was evidence enough but if not, it was intended as a Joke.Poetlister wrote:Come off it. When has Mr Midsize ever claimed to be the Sole Flounder of this site?Kumioko wrote:Everyone knows you're secretly Jimbo.
No, dipshit.Giraffe Stapler wrote:This said, Lomax has his first victory's, the judge has excepted his law case outside the State of California, so the Terms of Use of WMF are not accepted by this court. Just like they where not accepted by the European continental judges. This is a very important victory also for other American law cases in the future agains WMF.
Plaintiff’s allegations that Wikimedia published the ban and that he was harmed because
the ban is publicly visible on the internet amounts to no more than a mere allegation of harm
without a cause of action, which fails to satisfy even the most generous pleading standards.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (complaint must contain “more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
He does not even claim that the ban was in violation of Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, which vest Wikimedia
with plenary authority (which Wikimedia exercises infrequently) to ban any user for any reason,
and even for no reason.
Because Plaintiff has not identified a viable legal theory or cause of
action, nor provided any supporting allegations, the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for
relief against Wikimedia.
That's the ballgame, folks.Plaintiff does not dispute that he was banned, but
suggests obliquely that the ban was the result of wrongdoing of unnamed parties who induced
Wikimedia to ban him. Absent even a colorable allegation of falsity, Plaintiff cannot plead the
elements of defamation and Wikimedia has an absolute defense
My reply was also intended as a Joke.Kumioko wrote:I thought the little smiley was evidence enough but if not, it was intended as a Joke.Poetlister wrote:Come off it. When has Mr Midsize ever claimed to be the Sole Flounder of this site?Kumioko wrote:Everyone knows you're secretly Jimbo.
We focus first on Noonan's arguments concerning the e-mail's falsity, because if the evidence corroborates Staples's asserted defense that the e-mail's contents were true, then absent actual malice on the part of Staples, the libel claim must be dismissed regardless of whether the e-mail defamed Noonan.
He's probably just being immodest by not pointing it out himself, but I think this underscores the value of having someone like Mr. Vigilant participating on the site (despite his occasional abrasiveness) - he predicted this very argument as being central to the WMF's case almost immediately, in this post. I, for one, wouldn't have even thought of that, though of course that may be because I've never been personally involved in a lawsuit. (At least not one that I can recall, anyway.)Plaintiff’s allegations that Wikimedia published the ban and that he was harmed because
the ban is publicly visible on the internet amounts to no more than a mere allegation of harm
without a cause of action, which fails to satisfy even the most generous pleading standards.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (complaint must contain “more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).
This is exactly backwards and publicly proves you to be a fool with your own words.Giraffe Stapler wrote:Yes. I am sure Abd has wrote a few very nasty mails, just like I did. But what happend before, why did he?
Action is reaction, a judge will always look what happend before, so you can never produce just a piece of case law or verdict like you are doing now. The situation is important. And that is where your genius bot systems derail. On autistic shitheads like you who are playing with tools and stuff they don't understand. You are because of your mental defect not able to see this connections, you have a mental handicap.
Every law cause is different because the situation is different, and that makes every law cause unique.
So, here we show that not only is Giraffe Stapler wrong, but he is exactly wrong ... incontrovertibly wrong ... irretrievably as wrong as it is possible to be, all the while feebly attempting to insult his betters.From the motherfucking article wrote:Stare decisis (/ˈsteɪri dɪˈsaɪsɪs, ˈstɑːreɪ/) is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.
The principle can be divided into two components:
A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.
A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.
The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.
So, you're not even man enough to apologize when you know and tacitly admit you were wrong.Giraffe Stapler wrote:bla, bla, bla...
It's interesting that you interpret questions as statements instead of just answering them at face value.Vigilant wrote: It's interesting to watch you try to attribute meaning that isn't there in my words.
Gee, those MediaWiki attack articles created by disgruntled Wikipedia and RationalWiki trolls sure come in handy when you're out of relevant things to add, eh?Vigilant wrote: I'll just leave this here.
This may be why no attorney is representing him, assuming he's sought any consultation.BURob13 wrote:...presented no legal theory under which the facts he alleges translates into a tortious act that could give rise to liability on the WMF's part. In other words, they are saying the court should throw out his complaint as having no basis in law.
"Boy". I see. That must make you the "man"?Vigilant wrote:You’re in the wrong thread, boy.
Your pity party is somewhere else.
No attorney is repping him because a case like this is at least $1M - $2M to follow through on and $250k just to get the conversation going. Abd is doing this to make a point. I hope more do something similar.rhindle wrote: This may be why no attorney is representing him, assuming he's sought any consultation.
I very much doubt he sought any consultation - he gives the appearance of thinking he knows everything about everything, and that he doesn't need advice from anyone about anything.rhindle wrote:This may be why no attorney is representing him, assuming he's sought any consultation.BURob13 wrote:...presented no legal theory under which the facts he alleges translates into a tortious act that could give rise to liability on the WMF's part. In other words, they are saying the court should throw out his complaint as having no basis in law.
Whatever you think about our friend Vigilant, I think you are 100% dead wrong about that. In my view, from my experience of this site, Vigilant's words here are carefully and deliberately chosen. Whatever your opinion of him, dumb he ain't.WWHP wrote:...lack of social skills...
Didn't say he was dumb. I said his communication is abusive and not relevant.Boing! said Zebedee wrote:Whatever you think about our friend Vigilant, I think you are 100% dead wrong about that. In my view, from my experience of this site, Vigilant's words here are carefully and deliberately chosen. Whatever your opinion of him, dumb he ain't.WWHP wrote:...lack of social skills...
The problem is Abd is just going to make it more difficult for others to make a point the way he is going about this.WWHP wrote:No attorney is repping him because a case like this is at least $1M - $2M to follow through on and $250k just to get the conversation going. Abd is doing this to make a point. I hope more do something similar.rhindle wrote: This may be why no attorney is representing him, assuming he's sought any consultation.
A reasonable concern I suppose, but how so?rhindle wrote: The problem is Abd is just going to make it more difficult for others to make a point the way he is going about this.
Case in point. That "fan" of yours is Darryl and or Oliver Smith, and they are only a fan of yours because you are attacking the same individuals they are targeting. So congratulations, two of the most disturbed internet users I have ever met are huge fans of your spewing abuse on this forum and are using it to target other individuals.Vigilant wrote:Apparently, I have a fan on r/wikiinaction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... man_lomax/
It's mainly about the legal process. I know you feel that Vigilant is too abrasive for your tastes but has been extremely on point in this matter. Abd just looks way in over his head. This situation could give the WMF much better legal ammo the next time someone with a better case comes up. If this case is dismissed, which seems likely, the same precedents can be used to dismiss future cases. If the case continues to a discovery phase, the attorneys for the WMF will walk all over him, and can find ways to suppress evidence that Abd will think are damning but will not be able to use it.WWHP wrote:A reasonable concern I suppose, but how so?rhindle wrote: The problem is Abd is just going to make it more difficult for others to make a point the way he is going about this.
This case would likely be dismissed because of earlier precedents dismissing cases of a similar nature, no? What about this case would be a new precedent for the defendant (WikiMedia)? I'm no attorney, but I don't see how this dismissal would create any precedent, primarily because of what you said, Abd looks way in over his head.rhindle wrote:It's mainly about the legal process. I know you feel that Vigilant is too abrasive for your tastes but has been extremely on point in this matter. Abd just looks way in over his head. This situation could give the WMF much better legal ammo the next time someone with a better case comes up. If this case is dismissed, which seems likely, the same precedents can be used to dismiss future cases. If the case continues to a discovery phase, the attorneys for the WMF will walk all over him, and can find ways to suppress evidence that Abd will think are damning but will not be able to use it.WWHP wrote:A reasonable concern I suppose, but how so?rhindle wrote: The problem is Abd is just going to make it more difficult for others to make a point the way he is going about this.
I said the precedents used in this case not that this would in itself create a precedent. That's for appellate courts and sometimes federal trial decisions. I probably should have said "case law" instead.I'm no attorney, but I don't see how this dismissal would create any preceden
Perhaps, either way - if there is ever a legal move that is going to be notable, it is going to cost $$$$ and that is the biggest hurdle I see at this point, not a random filing by a disgruntled user.rhindle wrote:I said the precedents used in this case not that this would in itself create a precedent. That's for appellate courts and sometimes federal trial decisions. I probably should have said "case law" instead.I'm no attorney, but I don't see how this dismissal would create any preceden
You're not wrong about that, but that doesn't make Abd any less of a loon. it really is hard to find anyone to root for in this case when everyone involved seems to be awful in their own unique way. Including the people cheering from the sidelines.WWHP wrote:EDIT: Make no mistake about it, Abd was targetted and harassed on MediaWikis and removed from Wikiversity solely because Abd did good diligence and exposed a genuinely toxic troll farm via the smiths and skeptics on Wikipedia. I was there in the background when it happened, and I am directly familiar with every step that was taken. The Smiths got him removed and Abd still faces extreme harassment to this day. He should have expected protection from WikiMedia based on the community guidelines alone, just like many others.
Well, he is crazy enough to file a case against the WikiMedia Foundation and bring attention to the issue. He is crazy enough to due diligence on a very disturbing troll farm operating on Wikipedia and RationalWiki and did so successfully.Giraffe Stapler wrote: You're not wrong about that, but that doesn't make Abd any less of a loon.
Subtle.Giraffe Stapler wrote:
it really is hard to find anyone to root for in this case when everyone involved seems to be awful in their own unique way. Including the people cheering from the sidelines.
No, I'm specifically thinking of this website, and both directly and indirectly.Midsize Jake wrote:Look, I don't know why you would suggest something like this, but you're completely mistaken. This simply never happened. Maybe you were thinking of some other website?WWHP wrote:They've been here, I have no idea where to find the threads. By trouble, I mean targeting me, for example.
They didn't last when it happened, and it happened on a thread I created here, which was deleted by one of the admins, which was the point of their little operation in the first place.Midsize Jake wrote: I read every post in every thread, the other admins do too, and I can assure you that nobody with the Smiths' agenda, persona(s), or interaction patterns has ever posted here, nor would they last long here if they did.
" unfailingly polite and supportive" is quite an understatement, and I am not accusing them of being the smiths, however for sure the perception of me on this forum when I arrived was influenced by the Smiths, who outed me on Wikipedia.Midsize Jake wrote: Also, anyone can do a topic search on the word "Viharo"; it's easy-peasy - I just did, and I can vouch for every member who posted to those threads. They're all regulars or at least known quantities. It's true that not all of them are unfailingly polite and supportive, and they have certainly criticized you, but just because someone criticizes you does not automatically mean that the someone in question is Oliver/Darryl Smith, or anyone else in particular.
If I have the reputation that you suggest, that is because you've been influenced to have that perception by the smiths rationalwiki article, and haven't even read what I've published, because I've made my position very clear on the matter.It might be nice to think so, but the fact is, lots and lots and lots of people object to pseudoscience of any kind - with varying degrees of vehemence - and since you have a reputation as an "anti-skeptic," they probably object to you too, by association.
I arrived here fresh from a pretty personally traumatizing experience on Wikipedia back in 2013, after I found myself outed and targeted by the smiths and the skeptic crew.You shouldn't even take it personally, as that just encourages them and inevitably makes things harder for the mods.
Midsize, read that thread, please? Of course, you would not have heard of me, I registered here before I published Wikipedia We Have a Problem. I came here confused, traumatized, and seeking some sort of collaboration. That was just a month or two after what happened to me on Wikipedia.Again, no, and hopefully you're just confusing us with some other website. We first encountered you when you registered here as "560wasbullied" and started this thread. Most, and probably all, of us had never heard of you at all before you started that thread.
I'm not sure what point you are making, but same here, I got involved because it was getting a lot of attention.
It's true that we'd already had two earlier threads about the Sheldrake BLP situation, in response to the coverage it got in SFGate and the New Republic, but I see no practical reason why anyone here would have been interested in it before then. It would have been just another of the millions of terrible articles and/or silly disputes that happen every day on Wikipedia.
okay, not sure what point your making, or perhaps maybe you think I am accusing WO of something that I am not.Admittedly, most of us would have heard of Deepak Chopra, but probably not enough to have checked out the history of his BLP - and in any event, his BLP wasn't where the dispute was taking place at that time.
Doxxing someone and verbally abusing and assaulting someone who comes to your forum seeking assistance or advice right after they have been doxxed and harassed on Wikipedia requires far more than just a more "genteel" fashion.I apologize for that, and it would certainly be better if everyone behaved in a more genteel fashion.
I have no idea what you are talking about here but would like too. What expectations do I have exactly?But in addition to the points already made, you've had unrealistic expectations regarding this whole situation pretty much from Day One, and that can be a little frustrating for the rest of us.
This tactic is very detailed on Wikipedia We Have a Problem, the Smith troll farm know how to game google search.Midsize Jake wrote:Indeed. Are they ramping up on this now because they think some sort of preliminary hearing is imminent? Earlier in the thread, I suggested that the joe-jobbery is being done to try to prejudice the judge in Mr. Abd's case against him, given that most judges know how to use Google and might well try to research upcoming defendants with it, if only to save themselves some time.Emblyn wrote:Darryl Smith tho, has been spamming r/WikiInAction using many accounts while saying Abd and Mikemikev did it... <snip> ...yes there are many threads
No one needs to accept any claim, there is so much verifiable third-party evidence that shows them doing this over and over. Truly, it IS one of the craziest things I've ever experienced, and it is very real and very recorded on the internet.Other than that, if we accept the claim that Oliver and Darryl Smith (assuming they are, in fact, two different people) are some sort of high-functioning autistic brother-duo who have literally nothing to do all day except irritate pseudo-science people on the internet, then sure, maybe two dozen threads on Reddit is just a normal day for them.
A response to this thread is coming, I can assure you, either here or elsewhere. I've dealt with this for more than five years, the pattern is pretty consistent.[As for this forum, following up my question to Mr. Viharo from the other day, we do have a recently-registered member named "SkepticDude," but he hasn't posted anything (yet).
Midsize, serious facepalm here. There was absolutely zero fairness and objectivity when I arrived here, there was zero objectivity when I posted an article detailing this sort of harassment by the Smiths (who got the article deleted).What's more, I haven't seen anyone here with a non-zero post count who really shows similar activity-characteristics. For the most part, I think we've been extremely fair and objective about the people these Smith brothers have apparently targeted over the past couple of years, despite several of them having promoted highly-problematic ideologies, etc., in the past...
Other than present company included, one person targeted by Oliver and/or Darryl who absolutely did not deserve it is Laird Shaw, an old online friend of mine from years ago who I met because I hired him to write a proposal for a project. Laird is a serious sweetheart, lovely guy. He also has schizophrenia which is well managed with medication. The reason I feel bad about Laird so much is because he was targeted because of me. Years back he volunteered to help negotiate the deletion of my RationalWiki article. Naturally, the trolls there accused him of being one of my sock-puppets. years later, Laird was retargeted for helping me, with Darryl or Oliver going to a forum where he moderates, impersonating another RationalWiki editor.Captain Occam wrote:
Some of these individuals (such as Anatoly Karlin) really are quite unsavory, but mixed in with the actual far-right individuals are other people who don't necessarily deserve to be targeted in this way.
Bing! Bing! Bing!Boing! said Zebedee wrote:I very much doubt he sought any consultation - he gives the appearance of thinking he knows everything about everything, and that he doesn't need advice from anyone about anything.rhindle wrote:This may be why no attorney is representing him, assuming he's sought any consultation.BURob13 wrote:...presented no legal theory under which the facts he alleges translates into a tortious act that could give rise to liability on the WMF's part. In other words, they are saying the court should throw out his complaint as having no basis in law.
You misinterpret.Vigilant wrote:J
None of that changes the fact that you're still whiny and verbose and in the wrong fucking thread.
Make your own to snivel about how mean some semi-professional trolls were to you.
Well, lemme jump in here.WWHP wrote:You misinterpret.Vigilant wrote:J
None of that changes the fact that you're still whiny and verbose and in the wrong fucking thread.
Make your own to snivel about how mean some semi-professional trolls were to you.
I'm not posting this to "snivel", I'm posting this to show you how WO was duped by the Smiths, and psychologies like yours the easiest to manipulate.
I've posted under 50 times in this forum and you're well over 16,000. That's 16,000 posts of you whining about Wikipedia and you snivelling about other people you don't like as if that is so important.
projection is not your friend, and this post was short enough for you to appreciate.
Nobody cares.WWHP wrote:You misinterpret.Vigilant wrote:J
None of that changes the fact that you're still whiny and verbose and in the wrong fucking thread.
Make your own to snivel about how mean some semi-professional trolls were to you.
I'm not posting this to "snivel", I'm posting this to show you how WO was duped by the Smiths, and psychologies like yours the easiest to manipulate.
I've posted under 50 times in this forum and you're well over 16,000. That's 16,000 posts of you whining about Wikipedia and you snivelling about other people you don't like as if that is so important.
projection is not your friend, and this post was short enough for you to appreciate.
Lol, okay dude, whatever word you want to apply to someone "complaining" ad nauseum, I'm sure that only applies to me and not you or anyone on this forum.Randy from Boise wrote:
But "whiny" or "sniveling" — about anything ever? Nope.
oh I'm sure it's absolutely brilliant.Vigilant wrote:
You've obviously not read much of what I post if you think it's anything like in the same vein as the sad, sobbing mess you've just committed to the ether.
There are three choices those with problematic personality types make online in a consensus process, and it is consistent 100% of the time.Mods, can we split out the stuff that has nothing to do with the Lomax case and associated dingbats into a different thread, please?
I'm not trying to censor you, sped.WWHP wrote:Stop playing the tough guy, its a ruse. if you were so tough, you wouldn't try to censor me and send me to the bad boy corner every time I confront you for being an asshat.
I'm sure you are, I confront them directly, exactly as I am confronting you.Vigilant wrote:
I'm starting to see why you attract so many trolls.
Ah, the self righteous infant speaks.WWHP wrote:I'm sure you are, I confront them directly, exactly as I am confronting you.Vigilant wrote:
I'm starting to see why you attract so many trolls.
Trolls can dish it out, they just can't take it.
Let's call it a day amigo. Its really boring.Vigilant wrote: Ah, the self righteous infant speaks.
Here's the thing. I probably shouldn't admit this, but we don't actually delete threads that turn into clusterf***s here, we put them in this special trash-dump forum so we can refer to them later in case a situation like this comes up. Since I'm a site admin now, they would turn up on any search I do for relevant search terms, and I'm just not seeing this thread to which you refer. And while I could be lying, if what you describe is actually what happened, then it can hardly be called a "successful" trolling attempt, can it?WWHP wrote:They didn't last when it happened, and it happened on a thread I created here, which was deleted by one of the admins, which was the point of their little operation in the first place.Midsize Jake wrote:I read every post in every thread, the other admins do too, and I can assure you that nobody with the Smiths' agenda, persona(s), or interaction patterns has ever posted here, nor would they last long here if they did.
Look, I'll accept that this may have been true for some of our members, but I'm sticking by my assertion that hardly anybody here would have had any significant reason to know who you were at the time, or why anyone should have been all that interested in your situation....I am not accusing them of being the smiths, however for sure the perception of me on this forum when I arrived was influenced by the Smiths, who outed me on Wikipedia.
That was me, actually, and all I did was name your Wikipedia account - no other personal identifying information about you was initially exposed here. That's the facts! And frankly, your story made it extremely clear who you were. IMO this whole victimization act of yours is beneath you, and quite frankly, kind of narcissistic as well.I arrived here fresh from a pretty personally traumatizing experience on Wikipedia back in 2013, after I found myself outed and targeted by the smiths and the skeptic crew.
My first post here was anonymous, yet within a few posts, a member here decided to "out" me on this very forum, again.
I dunno... "verbal assault," sure, I can sort of see that, but I think it should be up to the reader as to whether the subsequent "accusations and suspicions" were, in fact, just basic criticisms of your work - the nature of which (almost by necessity) made it difficult for most of us to support you as much as you probably would have liked.I was then treated to a verbal assault and a series of accusations and suspicions that were not warranted.
So you honestly think that your TED talk about how Google is a "conscious entity" had nothing to do with that? I'm sorry, really I am, but I for one am not buying it.And the people on WO only said I was a pseudoscience troll because that is what the smiths and the other skeptic trolls spread around Wikipedia.
The obvious one is that whatever your claim or argument is at any given time, you expect everyone to simply take your word for it without disagreement. Sure, it's a common problem on the internet, but that doesn't make it any more tolerable, generally speaking. And it isn't just that you don't accept that anything you say could possibly be wrong or inaccurate; you actually act as though your entire career/background is just one uncontroversial, obviously-true observation after another - and you pretend you "don't understand" when someone doesn't go along with this, implying that the other person isn't making any sense. And then, when you distance yourself intellectually from the people you associate with (the way many people do when they don't want other people's work to reflect badly on them by association) and claim that you support those people to the extraordinary extent you do because you met them personally once or twice and thought they were "nice guys," you expect the rest of us to go along with this because, again, we're supposed to take your word for it that they really are "nice guys."I have no idea what you are talking about here but would like too. What expectations do I have exactly?Midsize Jake wrote:But in addition to the points already made, you've had unrealistic expectations regarding this whole situation pretty much from Day One, and that can be a little frustrating for the rest of us.