Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:03 pm
What do you mean? talktotransformer.com is still there.Moral Hazard wrote:No more TRANSFORMER!
Wikipediocracy
The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Page 7 of 9
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:26 am
Hmm...Poetlister wrote:What do you mean? talktotransformer.com is still there.Moral Hazard wrote:No more TRANSFORMER!
Satellite's gone up to the skies from Russia after six years spent orbiting the world's largest known satellite.
Ceiling was lowered at 8:37 pm CST.
The Soyuz TMA-07M1 lifted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan's western Kola Peninsula at 527 km/h.
Just before 7:00 UTC, the Soyuz was flying over the Atlantic Ocean near Bermuda at a cruising altitude of 36 miles (55 km).
The Soyuz was powered by the RD-180 engine developed by state-owned United Launch Alliance.
It was launched atop a Buran rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan before entering the Atlantic at 10:43 UTC, according to NASA.
The TMA-07M1's second stage burns liquid oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen, producing a total of six Merlin 1D engines.
Rockets of various sizes are also supplied to the launch vehicle. All previous Soyuz launches to space have had one engine of unknown make use of one engine.
This second stage, which uses about 18 RD-180 engines, is able to burn for about 15 minutes as a "dynamic boost." The additional fuel adds two minutes to the launch time.
During the third and final burn, the Russian booster is supposed to Edit: "burns liquid oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen"???
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:50 am
Yes, that's probably a mistake. But nitrogen is not inert, which is why diesel engines can produce nitrogen oxides.greyed.out.fields wrote:Edit: "burns liquid oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen"???
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:46 pm
I'm listed as a defendant purely based on a vendetta. I actually did nothing wrong and Lomax doesn't substiantiate any of his allegations about me. I never sent any "defamatory" emails to WMF; I merely sent an email asking an admin to remove where Lomax had doxed my name on either Wikiversity or Meta-Wiki; Lomax was warned multiple times not to dox other user's real names who were anonymous.
The rest of his lawsuit is based on wild allegations another user was impersonated. However even if true, none of this is "defamatory". There was no defamation posted on the alleged impersonation accounts; all that was posted was someone copying what the alleged real user had posted. So it would be equivalent to someone using my username "Jelly" (or something similar) and copying this message.
The lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.
The rest of his lawsuit is based on wild allegations another user was impersonated. However even if true, none of this is "defamatory". There was no defamation posted on the alleged impersonation accounts; all that was posted was someone copying what the alleged real user had posted. So it would be equivalent to someone using my username "Jelly" (or something similar) and copying this message.
The lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:51 pm
Poetlister wrote:The WMF would surely fight to keep some of these secret, especially the checkuser wiki. And of course the US courts have no power over chapters outside the US, so that would get quite complicated.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:11 pm
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the lawsuit actually entails ... Mr. Smith.Jelly wrote:I'm listed as a defendant purely based on a vendetta. I actually did nothing wrong and Lomax doesn't substiantiate any of his allegations about me. I never sent any "defamatory" emails to WMF; I merely sent an email asking an admin to remove where Lomax had doxed my name on either Wikiversity or Meta-Wiki; Lomax was warned multiple times not to dox other user's real names who were anonymous.
The rest of his lawsuit is based on wild allegations another user was impersonated. However even if true, none of this is "defamatory". There was no defamation posted on the alleged impersonation accounts; all that was posted was someone copying what the alleged real user had posted. So it would be equivalent to someone using my username "Jelly" (or something similar) and copying this message.
The lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:39 am
This motion is a disaster
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.28.0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.28.0.pdf
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:22 am
Oh my god the table of authorities is a goldmine already.Vigilant wrote:This motion is a disaster
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.28.0.pdf
HOLY CHRIST actually learn how to cite cases! Not just regular Bluebooking, but you need to learn what your jurisdiction wants to see (there are probably local rules for the circuit and possibly the district on citations, and probably local practices)."Iqbal" John D. ASHCROFT, Former Attorney General, et al., Petitioners, v. Javaid IQBAL et al 129 S.Ct. at 1949
I was going to give the right citation for Ashcroft v. Iqbal but I don't want this guy claiming I tried to help him and screwed him over somehow. The worst part is the citation for Iqbal comes inside a block quote that spans two pages. Never using enormous block quotes is like first day of 1L legal writing.
The citations in general in this are absolutely horrific. There's a mix of inline citations and weird endnotes that only contain bare URLs (with repeating endnote numbers, like Wikipedia does, rather than just using a single note once and using "Id." or "supra, note 2" or anything like that). Like it's so bad I'd want to kick this back and say it's incomprehensible just on the basis of citations.
I honestly feel sorry for people who do this to themselves. Litigation is frustrating enough when you're a lawyer.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:47 am
Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:58 am
Well to be clear, it's just Jones Day fighting this for pay. In-house counsel are probably only tangentially involved at this point.Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly.
Meh. I don't think he's achieved any of that. The only places anyone's really talking about this either already think WMF is corrupt, he's batshit crazy, or both. The fact of the lawsuit doesn't change anything.I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:15 pm
Read some of the content of the filing after you get past the rats nest of case citing.
It's a laundry list of disconnected claims and hurt feelings that would make a middle school girl blush to have written.
It's a laundry list of disconnected claims and hurt feelings that would make a middle school girl blush to have written.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:59 pm
Hah. I'm tempted to ask to be paid to do this. This is so bad.Vigilant wrote:Read some of the content of the filing after you get past the rats nest of case citing.
Anyway, as I recall the motion to dismiss is on 12(b)(6) grounds: failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Basically the FRCP equivalent of the common-law demurrer—a "so what?" defense. The bulk of the response is at least sort of the right thing: He's trying to argue that he's properly alleged all the elements of each claim—that the complaint contains prima facie allegations of each cause of action. One of the problems with this is the Twombly and Iqbal cases, which imposed heightened pleading requirements in federal cases in order to survive 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Those cases essentially held that you can't just allege causes of action like conspiracy by pleading the bare elements, but you have to actually plead enough information such that the claim is plausible on that basis. However, you can also go back to the basic premise of a 12(b)(6) motion: If the complaint alleges something that isn't a cause of action, it should be dismissed. WMF's motion claimed, primarily, that WMF is immune to the claims as a matter of law due to the CDA. There are a few procedural wrinkles to this; generally 12(b)(6) motions need to depend entirely on what's in the pleadings, and not fact evidence, otherwise they are legally the equivalent of summary judgment motions. I don't know enough about this aspect of motion practice to explain properly it off the top of my head.
So really, this memorandum fails for a couple reasons. First, it doesn't really rebut the CDA argument. In fact it seems to concede it on page 18. In a memorandum like this you need to actually destroy the other side's argument rather than trying to sidestep it like you're some kind of matador. While legal writing textbooks say it can be in your advantage to frame the issues and approach the arguments in a different way than your opponent when responding to their motions, you need to actually address their arguments. Even if they're so frivolous that no response is needed, it's still better to be safe than sorry. Second, the section on civil conspiracy (which is the most important count for Twombly/Iqbal purposes) doesn't cite any legal standards or law, it just recites allegations and makes a bald assertion that those satisfy the elements of civil conspiracy. Three common legal writing strategies are IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion), CREAC (Conclusion, Rule, Explanation, Application, Conclusion), and CRAC (Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion). What Abd is doing, especially in that section, isn't legal writing; there's no application of facts to the relevant legal rules, let alone a coherent statement of the legal rules being applied.
I really don't get why he's abandoning the implied contract claim (though really I didn't understand that theory of the case in the first place).
Also on page 3, he uses the word "moot" as a synonym for "irrelevant" in a few places. He really, really, really shouldn't do that. Holy crap. At least one of those could be read as an admission that his own complaint is moot. Mootness raises subject matter jurisdiction questions. If I were the Jones Day lawyer, if I were to file a reply memorandum, I'd definitely take advantage of that.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 2:48 pm
It sort of looks like Abd the kook as lost interest in wikipedia, like so many things before it.
He spends all of his visible online time now haranguing the poor sods in r/sudoku about how stupid they are.
He spends all of his visible online time now haranguing the poor sods in r/sudoku about how stupid they are.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:43 pm
It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:48 pm
I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:02 pm
It's actually rare to end up paying a significant amount of your opponents costs and of course the WMF would have to collect the money from a poor old man, which would be hard, and Abd probably could dispute the costs for a while (not sure how that works in his jurisdiction).Poetlister wrote: It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him.
Well this thread here alone has 161,380 views, versus for example our FRAMGATE thread that *only* has 70,545 views, and even last years entire Arbcom thread at 91,936 views. And then there there are the ~30 threads on Reddit and countless other places. So I would say quite a bit.Poetlister wrote:And how much publicity is this case getting?
Well it all helps right?Poetlister wrote:Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:17 pm
I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I've been on the defense against patent trolls with past clients.
The only long term play against these types of frivolous, vexatious lawsuits is to leave a smoking ruin where the first one was filed.
Make an example out of the net.kook and everyone else will look for greener pastures when the itch takes them.
If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:20 pm
Yeah, I'll grant that deterrence of frivolous and vexatious litigants is a consideration (within the limits imposed by professional ethics of course).Vigilant wrote:I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I've been on the defense against patent trolls with past clients.
The only long term play against these types of frivolous, vexatious lawsuits is to leave a smoking ruin where the first one was filed.
Make an example out of the net.kook and everyone else will look for greener pastures when the itch takes them.
If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:23 pm
Given that there's even a policy, WP:NLT, you'd have to think that the deterrent effect would loom large in any rational strategy conversation.mendaliv wrote:Yeah, I'll grant that deterrence of frivolous and vexatious litigants is a consideration (within the limits imposed by professional ethics of course).Vigilant wrote:I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I've been on the defense against patent trolls with past clients.
The only long term play against these types of frivolous, vexatious lawsuits is to leave a smoking ruin where the first one was filed.
Make an example out of the net.kook and everyone else will look for greener pastures when the itch takes them.
If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:58 pm
Abd hasn't violated WP:NLT (T-H-L). "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." He said nothing about it on Wikipedia. Anyway, he didn't threaten legal action; he took it.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:00 pm
That's not what I meant.Poetlister wrote:Abd hasn't violated WP:NLT (T-H-L). "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." He said nothing about it on Wikipedia. Anyway, he didn't threaten legal action; he took it.
Given that legal threats are such a pervasive problem on en.wp that they have to have an explicit policy about them, the deterrent value of nuking Abd from orbit as an example to all of the other potentially litigious net.kooks that inhabit wikispace would be well worth the additional expense and effort.
And jolly good fun into the bargain!
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:20 pm
I mean that the policy is useless. Anyone serious about legal action won't discuss it on Wikipedia so will not violate the policy.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:27 pm
I honestly think the NLT policy was created just as a cleverly worded way to permit indeffing people who make legal threats, but by justifying it as "protecting the community from the disruption of ongoing litigation" makes it sound non-retaliatory, and thus shouldn't create more leverage for actual legal action.Poetlister wrote:I mean that the policy is useless. Anyone serious about legal action won't discuss it on Wikipedia so will not violate the policy.
I kind of doubt it'd make a difference in practice, but people on Wikipedia are fond of asserting things about the law without any real understanding or appreciation of it. At the very least, if I had a Wikipedia case land in my lap involving a block for making legal threats, I'd probably look into whether a claim of retaliation could make a difference.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:32 am
I'd be surprised if you're wrong. Could the policy be challenged on the grounds that people have a legitimate expectation that they are allowed to take legal action?mendaliv wrote:I honestly think the NLT policy was created just as a cleverly worded way to permit indeffing people who make legal threats, but by justifying it as "protecting the community from the disruption of ongoing litigation" makes it sound non-retaliatory, and thus shouldn't create more leverage for actual legal action.
I recall a case where someone was blocked for calling something defamatory, without explicitly saying that he would take legal action.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:43 am
Legally challenged? I really don't know. I'm honestly not even sure if the "it could be seen as retaliatory" thing I'm kicking around has any real legal basis, at least in US law.Poetlister wrote:Could the policy be challenged on the grounds that people have a legitimate expectation that they are allowed to take legal action?
Challenging it as Wikipedia policy, I've actually thought about that before. I mean, if another editor legitimately does something to you on-wiki (or elsewhere) that gives rise to a cause of action, the community shouldn't penalize you for pursuing it. That said, NLT technically only means that you can't post about it on-wiki.
Yeah, a few years ago people would commonly draw "NLT" blocks for things that weren't actual threats to commence litigation.I recall a case where someone was blocked for calling something defamatory, without explicitly saying that he would take legal action.
Nowadays it's understood that NLT blocks should only lie when the editor says the equivalent of, "I'm suing you and WMF because you did X", or perhaps, "Your edits are defaming me and I'm talking to my lawyers about it". Things like, "Stop posting this, it's defamatory and exposes Wikipedia to lawsuit by the article subject" isn't within NLT, but I have argued that similar non-NLT comments should draw a block when they're basically disruptive fearmongering being used to win an argument by driving off other editors. Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:14 pm
There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:51 pm
Yup. As with the whole concept of “aspersions”, it’d just be something to turn a disagreement into abuse. I actually had a neat exchange with isaacl on ACN last night, wherein he talked about the need to improve content dispute resolution so that we don’t even get to bad behavior. My realization from this is that an incredible amount of Wikipedia dispute resolution occurs because of the behavioralization of content disputes. That is, because conduct dispute resolution is so much more advanced than content dispute resolution (which isn’t saying much; conduct dispute resolution on Wikipedia is awful, but at least it exists), people have an incentive to exploit any behavioral dimension of a dispute in order to bring it to a noticeboard.Poetlister wrote:There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:48 pm
Arguably most non-vandal blocks are because of conduct so it would make sense that Wikipedia's dispute resolution focuses on it. But the system is woefully lacking. One could say Abd's entire case is an example of how once you get blocked/banned there is absolutely no proper procedure to deal with it.mendaliv wrote:Yup. As with the whole concept of “aspersions”, it’d just be something to turn a disagreement into abuse. I actually had a neat exchange with isaacl on ACN last night, wherein he talked about the need to improve content dispute resolution so that we don’t even get to bad behavior. My realization from this is that an incredible amount of Wikipedia dispute resolution occurs because of the behavioralization of content disputes. That is, because conduct dispute resolution is so much more advanced than content dispute resolution (which isn’t saying much; conduct dispute resolution on Wikipedia is awful, but at least it exists), people have an incentive to exploit any behavioral dimension of a dispute in order to bring it to a noticeboard.Poetlister wrote:There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:56 pm
It would be virtually impossible to have content dispute resolution on Wikipedia. That would require a subject expert trusted by both parties. Content disputes almost by definition are nearly always in controversial areas, so at least one party would decry the expert as biased.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:54 pm
New docs
DEFENDANT WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
DEFENDANT WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Stick a fork in it, it's done.INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) (the “Opposition”)
fails to identify any allegations in the Amended Complaint sufficient to state a claim against
Wikimedia. The claims solely rest on bare conclusions and a misunderstanding of the law.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses Count 4 (“Violation of Implicit Contract
-- WMF”). See Opp. 18. He also concedes there are no allegations against Wikimedia in support
of Count 1 (“Defamation -- All Defendants”). See id. 8-9. That leaves Count 2 (“Defamation --
WMF”) and Count 3 (“Civil Conspiracy -- all Defendants”). On Count 2, Plaintiff concedes he
alleges no false statement, and his allegations of malice amount to pure speculation. See id. 10.
Without an underlying tort or allegations of substantial assistance or agreement to conspire,
Plaintiff likewise has no claim for civil conspiracy under Count 3. See id. 15-18. Moreover, he
admits that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Wikimedia from his
claims which seek to hold it liable for banning him from editing its websites. See id. 14.
Plaintiff has failed twice to plead plausible allegations. The Opposition, for which he
received additional time to file after missing the deadline, reinforces that his claims arise only from
his frustration with Wikimedia’s website administration and the alleged conduct of the individual
defendants. See ECF No. 26. Neither is a basis for a claim against Wikimedia. For the reasons
set forth herein and in Wikimedia’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF Nos.
19, 20) (“Motion to Dismiss” or “MTD”), Plaintiff has no prospect of stating a claim against
Wikimedia, and the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.1
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 3:01 pm
For anyone who’s reading, this is almost a textbook example of why you shouldn’t go “pro se”.
Additionally (for you paid lawyers) when you construct a motion, always start with your strongest argument first, to your weakest last. Don’t jump all over the fucking place. You’re trying to convince the judge why he should do what you want. Make his life easy by blasting the opposition with both barrels from the start. Don’t make him plod through your motion multiple times looking for gold.
Additionally (for you paid lawyers) when you construct a motion, always start with your strongest argument first, to your weakest last. Don’t jump all over the fucking place. You’re trying to convince the judge why he should do what you want. Make his life easy by blasting the opposition with both barrels from the start. Don’t make him plod through your motion multiple times looking for gold.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:20 pm
linkhttps://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.33.0.pdf[/link]
More lubeless, legal anal rape for Dennis "my head is filled with sawdust and feral cats" Lomax.At no point has Plaintiff pleaded allegations sufficient to state a claim or demonstrated any prospect to being able to do so.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:23 am
It's been over 4 months since the last filing.
Is it dead yet?
Is it dead yet?
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:08 am
Since there's no chance at all of it succeeding, and it probably won't ever even make it to open court, it's probably in WMFs best interest out drag it out as long as possible. More effective when the plaintiff is paying for their own lawyer, but probably still plays in their favor.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:18 am
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:29 pm
That depends on whether the WMF's lawyers are racking up extra costs for some reason. It's a fair bet that they'll never be able to recover their costs from Abd.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:08 amSince there's no chance at all of it succeeding, and it probably won't ever even make it to open court, it's probably in WMFs best interest out drag it out as long as possible. More effective when the plaintiff is paying for their own lawyer, but probably still plays in their favor.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 11:39 pm
The lolsuit is certainly dead at this point.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 10:23 am
The case was dismissed.
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting19 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) Related [+]; 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)
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 2:59 pm
So close.Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
And the Judge cites Noonan v Staples, Inc., the core case Abd was hanging his hat on, AGAINST Abd...
Who would've guessed that a pro se net.kook would get their shit packed in?
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:01 pm
Ooo oo everyone?
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pm
Will the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:19 am
In further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
tim
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:27 am
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:32 am
Hicks, reporting for duty, sir!
In the pipe, 5x5...
In the pipe, 5x5...
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:33 am
Rough air ahead... we're in for some chop...
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:07 pm
Is this like the stroke Jim Bakker had right after credit card companies refused to process payments for his snake oil? Like, I lost, I'm publicly shamed, so I -totally- had a stroke and now need to spend some me time away for that reason only and you should feel sad for me.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:19 amIn further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
tim
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:17 pm
Abd isn't lying about the stroke, if you're wondering about that. I hope he recovers and I wish him the best with that.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:07 pmIs this like the stroke Jim Bakker had right after credit card companies refused to process payments for his snake oil? Like, I lost, I'm publicly shamed, so I -totally- had a stroke and now need to spend some me time away for that reason only and you should feel sad for me.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:19 amIn further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
tim
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:29 pm
It's been two months since Abd posted anything (August 18th).
I suspect the rumors of his death are true.
I suspect the rumors of his death are true.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:47 pm
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:54 pm