Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Luckily for us, the contents of his lawsuit prove that he doesn't have any sense.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
I predict the response would be. "New phone, who dis?"
Followed by another involuntary appearance before a mental health evaluation panel.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3835
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
- Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
- Location: The end of the road, Alaska
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9950
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.)
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.)
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Kumioko
- Muted
- Posts: 6609
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:36 am
- Wikipedia User: Kumioko; Reguyla
- Nom de plume: Persona non grata
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
That isn't how this works.
The WMF hasn't raised the issue of venue, probably because they're certain to prevail in the current docket.
The judge has nothing to do with this.
Further, the terms of service haven't been brought up around a venue change, again, because the WMF is certain to prevail and there's no reason to involve that particular clause in the TOS if the WMF isn't trying to change the venue.
You'd think a guy with a kindergarten education coupled with severe mental issues and a Know Nothing attitude wouldn't be allowed to represent the Sucks crowd, but here we are.
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Last edited by Vigilant on Sat May 25, 2019 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Court filing
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 20.9.0.pdf
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 20.9.0.pdf
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
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Noonan v Staples
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1308763.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1308763.html
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.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9950
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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)).
However, this Cause of Action thing is also disturbing, because the concept of "reputational damage" has never been something that can be easily quantified to the extent that someone could say, "this false Wikipedia edit from a few years ago reduced my annual income by $50,000," or some such - even though it's quite possible that a single Wikipedia edit could do just that, or worse. If the WMF is successful at raising the Cause of Action standard for lawsuits against it so that plaintiffs have to specify, in detail, how the claim of reputational damage has translated into material harm and personal/business loss, obviously that adds a whole lotta new chilling effect to an already-problematic process (i.e., one which I would say is already heavily tilted against plaintiffs). Who knows, this case could even be used as a precedent to dismiss future cases in which the plaintiffs fail to provide spreadsheets or other documentation on how their clients are treating them or how their sales are going.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Even though en.wp fucks this up and includes stare decisis in Precedent (T-H-L), the article goes over it in detail.
Stare Decisis, a basis of US jurisprudence, literally means "to stand by that which is decided."
Judges of all jurisdictions are, quite literally, bound by precedent that is applicable to the cases they are ruling on and will get swiftly overruled on appeal if they deviate from prior decisions which control in a current case.
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.
Well done, Martin. Well done.
I really like your chances in the upcoming Village Idiot Olympics.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
So, you're not even man enough to apologize when you know and tacitly admit you were wrong.Giraffe Stapler wrote:bla, bla, bla...
I'm none too surprised.
You are a tiny, useless shell of a person who will never have any value in any society.
You are a parasite, utterly without redeeming value.
Rightly repudiated by your family as a dangerous schizoid.
You're a perfect compatriot for Abd.
Curs, the lot of you.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
By sharing the RationalWiki link that Oliver and Darryl created, you're enabling them, and enabling this sort of abuse of mediawikis. I have been harassed for five years in a manner that is criminal and has affected my personal and professional life.
Darryl and Oliver are going to use this thread, even cite it, on other forums, saying something like "Viharo is a known troll even Vigilante at Wikipedicracy blah blah blah"
I don't need to interpret your meaning from your words Vigilante, I interpret meaning from your actions.
You think people like Abd, or myself, deserve this treatment.
If you didn't, you would not have shared those links.
I'll just leave this here.
You are apart of the problem, and you blowharding yourself on this forum is not solving any problem on Wikipedia. Why are you even here?
EDIT: I dont mind the Encylopedia Dramatica article, its funny - and at least it is making fun of something that really happened. The RationalWiki article is 100% misinformation, and Vigilante supports that kind of thing, obviously.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
You’re in the wrong thread, boy.
Your pity party is somewhere else.
Your pity party is somewhere else.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Jake, respectfully, I think you're misunderstanding what a "cause of action" is. A "cause of action" is a legal term of art meaning the legal theory behind which a case is brought. For instance, if someone shoves an elderly man and that man wants to sue for the medical costs of his broken hip, their cause of action is battery.
The intended cause of action from Abd is likely defamation, but he doesn't actually spell out any potential defamation in his complaint. He states the WMF publicly noted he was banned, and that this has caused him harm. Even if both of those things are true, this wouldn't constitute defamation, since defamation requires harm to be brought about by false statements. No-one is disputing the fact that Abd is actually banned from WMF wikis, so the WMF's public note about his ban cannot be defamation.
In saying Abd has failed to state a cause of action, the WMF is merely stating that Abd has 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.
The intended cause of action from Abd is likely defamation, but he doesn't actually spell out any potential defamation in his complaint. He states the WMF publicly noted he was banned, and that this has caused him harm. Even if both of those things are true, this wouldn't constitute defamation, since defamation requires harm to be brought about by false statements. No-one is disputing the fact that Abd is actually banned from WMF wikis, so the WMF's public note about his ban cannot be defamation.
In saying Abd has failed to state a cause of action, the WMF is merely stating that Abd has 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.
- rhindle
- Habitué
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
- Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
"Boy". I see. That must make you the "man"?Vigilant wrote:You’re in the wrong thread, boy.
Your pity party is somewhere else.
Okay, big man, I'm in the correct thread, as this is a case that I have background story on, and have more clarity on than most here.
I'm not seeking "pity" I am addressing the unintended consequences of your poor and abusive communication and lack of social skills.
Your commenting is not just inappropriate and utterly vacant of relevancy, its turned Wikipediocracy into some sort of wannabe high brow kiwi farms.
And if you want to be the "big man", stop playing the role of community gatekeeper, it is obnoxious and juvenile.
Last edited by WWHP on Sun May 26, 2019 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
- Boing! said Zebedee
- Gregarious
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:47 pm
- Wikipedia User: Boing! said Zebedee
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
- Boing! said Zebedee
- Gregarious
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:47 pm
- Wikipedia User: Boing! said Zebedee
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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...
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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...
To me, I don't see how spewing insults, posting memes, attack articles, and videos in a critical discussion are hallmarks of careful and deliberate communication.
- rhindle
- Habitué
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
- Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
It is a different media landscape nowadays, so far WikiMedia foundation has somehow been able to avoid the assault on social platforms that others like Twitter and Facebook have earned.
If Abd fails (and it is likely to fail) that helps more, actually - because when abuses happen on a MediaWiki, there is literally no pathway to recourse, and every failure proves that, yet every failure makes a greater case for the next time around.
I personally believe that a case could be made against the WikiMedia Foundation in regards to the software itself, but the problem is public awareness of the problem with MediaWikis is close to vacant, heck even last year the tech giants were actually considering using Wikipedia to solve the problems of misinformation on social platforms.
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.
Last Edit: Additionally, I hold WikiMedia foundation responsible for all MediaWiki abuse, not just Wikipedia. Media Wikis are one of the biggest vulnerabilities on the web for misinformation and targeted harassment and WikiMedia wont be able to uphold the same argument that "we are not responsible, the community is" forever, because WikiMedia is responsible for giving the community the proper tools, and they haven't.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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/
I'm not bringing this up to bust your balls, I am raising this because this community should be holding a much higher standard if they are presenting themselves as critics of what are genuine issues with the WikiMedia Foundation.
- rhindle
- Habitué
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
- Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
A little anecdote: When I was in college I worked in a movie theatre. An assistant manager got hurt and sued for disability. I subsequently saw her at a job fair which may hurt her case. I didn't really know what was going on at the time and told the manager I saw her there. He asked if I would testify to that fact. I said sure. (In hindsight I wish I wasn't involved in that drama but I didn't know better.) Anyway, I testified that I saw her there. The only question her attorney asked in cross examination was if I followed her. I didn't follow her because I didn't feel the need to and it was pretty obvious I saw her. The attorney said he had no further questions and requested my testimony to that fact be stricken from the record. The judged granted it. This factoid was not super damning but it would have been part of building a case against her. The point is something factual and relevant to the case happened but a technicality prevented it from being admissible. Legal procedures, you really have to dot your I's and cross your t's.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
And of course, Abd looks way in over his head, he is. He has no legal representation, and I'm sure if he was a gazillionaire and hired an attorney the case would be filed much differently, and because he is likely to make legal filing errors, any dismissal is likely to be based on filing errors.
No matter how great future cases could be they are all crap cases unless someone has over $1M to take this on. And if they have more than $1M, for that kind of legal money any case can be made good even if it isn't.
So at least he is doing something. The only thing he can do. It won't work. Nothing works. There is no recourse for any issues on any MediaWiki.
- rhindle
- Habitué
- Posts: 1451
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kafkaesque
- Wikipedia Review Member: rhindle
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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
I think that, because the issue Abd has is genuine, regardless of any personal flaws of his that bother others, we should support him based on that principle - because what happened to Abd is creepy and enabled by the MediaWiki community and morally and ethically wrong.
- Giraffe Stapler
- Habitué
- Posts: 3155
- Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Whatever you want to say about his personality, fine, but it pales in comparison to the Smiths and how easily they abuse wikis and influence communities, including this one I might add.
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 one has to "root" for anything other than common decency and a reasonable pathway to recourse with the WikiMedia Foundation if they are serious about confronting and communicating awareness to what is a very serious problem.
Sometimes, a very serious problem is the dominance of psychological types in consensus building who attempt to bully discussions and lessen the participation of others.
Another serious problem is the lack of self-reflection in online communities, especially making assumptions about others online that are speculations at best, and then broadcasting those assumptions to others using non-resolving speech or communication, spreading confusion instead of clarification.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Hi Mid size Jake, I missed this earlier, apologies.
This is a bit long, but so was your post. I'm glad you brought this up.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015 ... his-study/
My first post here was anonymous, yet within a few posts, a member here decided to "out" me on this very forum, again. I was then treated to a verbal assault and a series of accusations and suspicions that were not warranted.
Apparently, because I had the "perception" of being this "promoter of pseudoscience", it was deemed okay to verbally abuse me on this forum, dehumanize me, and the obvious takeaway was that I somehow "deserved" this because I was a "promoter of pseudoscience"
That discussion thread, that you and others here participated in, was then used as further fodder by my stalkers, the smiths, who then used the WO discussion as "proof" that I was a pseudoscience pushing troll because people on WO said so too as a source on RationalWiki, further building out the perception of me being a disruptive troll, a narrative that they began on Wikipedia in 2013.
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.
That's how this troll farms works, and WO fell for it hook line and sinker.
That fact that everything I write about is lumped into some category of "pseudoscience" so as not to take me seriously or my case study is a direct result of me being targeted on Wikipedia by the Smiths.
Consider, I get doxxed on Wikipedia, and then I come here and get doxxed on that very thread by a member of this community, and then the RationalWiki article gets brought in.
And this community is STILL doing it!
Suggesting that I deserved it, for any reason, even one as unfounded as I am a "promoter of pseudoscience troll", shows how well the Smiths can influence a community, hence what I wrote.
When I came here years ago, it was because I had no idea what happened to me on Wikipedia and was hoping to find a community that could help me, and requested critical analysis.
Instead, I was treated to some pretty ridiculous trolling and a heap of misinformed assumptions about who I am and what happened, all influenced by the smith skeptic troll farm on Wikipedia, and not one wiz kid here could do enough diligence to see through the ruse.
One of your contributors even defended Manul, the editor who doxxed me along with Darryl/Oliver Smith, and said I wasn't even harassed or doxxed at all.
Yet no critical analysis, no breakdown, no Q and A, just an onslaught of memes and hardy har har personal attacks and links to the RationalWiki article. Basically, a continuation of what I experienced on RationalWiki and Wikipedia.
So yeah, it is a safe bet for me to say that this community has been influenced by the smiths, and rather easily too I might add.
This is a bit long, but so was your post. I'm glad you brought this up.
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.
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015 ... his-study/
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.
My first post here was anonymous, yet within a few posts, a member here decided to "out" me on this very forum, again. I was then treated to a verbal assault and a series of accusations and suspicions that were not warranted.
Apparently, because I had the "perception" of being this "promoter of pseudoscience", it was deemed okay to verbally abuse me on this forum, dehumanize me, and the obvious takeaway was that I somehow "deserved" this because I was a "promoter of pseudoscience"
That discussion thread, that you and others here participated in, was then used as further fodder by my stalkers, the smiths, who then used the WO discussion as "proof" that I was a pseudoscience pushing troll because people on WO said so too as a source on RationalWiki, further building out the perception of me being a disruptive troll, a narrative that they began on Wikipedia in 2013.
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.
That's how this troll farms works, and WO fell for it hook line and sinker.
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.
That fact that everything I write about is lumped into some category of "pseudoscience" so as not to take me seriously or my case study is a direct result of me being targeted on Wikipedia by the Smiths.
Consider, I get doxxed on Wikipedia, and then I come here and get doxxed on that very thread by a member of this community, and then the RationalWiki article gets brought in.
And this community is STILL doing it!
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.
Suggesting that I deserved it, for any reason, even one as unfounded as I am a "promoter of pseudoscience troll", shows how well the Smiths can influence a community, hence what I wrote.
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.
When I came here years ago, it was because I had no idea what happened to me on Wikipedia and was hoping to find a community that could help me, and requested critical analysis.
Instead, I was treated to some pretty ridiculous trolling and a heap of misinformed assumptions about who I am and what happened, all influenced by the smith skeptic troll farm on Wikipedia, and not one wiz kid here could do enough diligence to see through the ruse.
One of your contributors even defended Manul, the editor who doxxed me along with Darryl/Oliver Smith, and said I wasn't even harassed or doxxed at all.
Yet no critical analysis, no breakdown, no Q and A, just an onslaught of memes and hardy har har personal attacks and links to the RationalWiki article. Basically, a continuation of what I experienced on RationalWiki and Wikipedia.
So yeah, it is a safe bet for me to say that this community has been influenced by the smiths, and rather easily too I might add.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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
That's one of the problems with RationalWiki, many internet users go there and mistakenly assume it is Wikipedia proper.
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.
For example, on that Wikiinaction thread, one of them has created a post that shows "all of viharos Wikipedia accounts" after I edited deepak chopra. all of those accounts were created by the Smiths. Every single one.
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...
This has been a very very difficult problem to define and bring awareness to. No one even knew the Smiths existed after years of them doing this.
Michael Suarez, Abd, myself and a few others have had to handle some pretty significant and life-altering attacks from them as retribution for getting this information out there.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Laird banned him from the forum for impersonating, and the Smiths responded with an attack article on the guy.
Case in point: They were able to justify the attack article on RationalWiki because Laird is a moderator of a discussion forum that is into psi research and out of body experiences. All he does is moderate a forum that has probably 20 members.
Easily, as here as there, the Smiths were able to get the article created because of course if someone is interested in "out of body experiences" they must be some danger to society and must be shamed.
They then went on a campaign across reddit and elsewhere claiming that Laird was a "hired" by me to edit on Wikipedia and RationalWiki.
The Smiths play off of ideological knee jerk reactions to then use that to build out personal armies against their targets.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Jesus fucking Christ, kiddo.
Keep up the crying and the farms will probably make a thread in the lolcow section for you.
Wikipedia is awful and filled with awful people who treat almost everyone like shit.
The WMF management has largely been filled from the solid waste at the bottom of the en.wp septic tank.
They are distilled awfulness and have been so since day one.
Abd and Giraffe Stapler are still worse than that.
They add crazy Dunning Kruger on top of the turd sundae.
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.
Keep up the crying and the farms will probably make a thread in the lolcow section for you.
Wikipedia is awful and filled with awful people who treat almost everyone like shit.
The WMF management has largely been filled from the solid waste at the bottom of the en.wp septic tank.
They are distilled awfulness and have been so since day one.
Abd and Giraffe Stapler are still worse than that.
They add crazy Dunning Kruger on top of the turd sundae.
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.
Last edited by Vigilant on Mon May 27, 2019 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Hey Martin,
I thought you were leaving back to Holland and retiring, etc.
Do have the common courtesy not to get all Eric Corbett about this and fail to honor your word.
I thought you were leaving back to Holland and retiring, etc.
Do have the common courtesy not to get all Eric Corbett about this and fail to honor your word.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Winnar!
RfB
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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 posted this in response to Midsize's inquiry; 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.
Last edited by WWHP on Mon May 27, 2019 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Vig is not to everyone's taste. He can be abrasive and he calls a spade a spade with great vehemence and style.
But "whiny" or "sniveling" — about anything ever? Nope.
RfB
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
The Smiths and other weirdos in the Wikipedia ecosystem come and go so often that I just don't take the time to dig into most of them.
You're in that pile too.
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.
Mods, can we split out the stuff that has nothing to do with the Lomax case and associated dingbats into a different thread, please?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
I dont mind abrasive, I just mind when it is ONLY personal attacks and not even a hint of genuine criticism or coherent analysis. I like confrontational, be confrontational with me.
But when I only get personal attacks and nothing else, I call bullshit. Or a spade a spade.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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?
The psychology will first try to intimidate another user to lessen their participation, i.e. you being "the man" here and all "abrasive" and "non-genteel" and calling a "spade a spade", which is just bullshit really, you're just covering up your vacancy.
If the intimidation doesn't work, the next choice will always be to attempt to control the permission or access to the consensus in some form, things like banning, deleting, removing etc.
Your intimidation isn't working on me, so now you're trying to control the permissions, and since your not a mod, your making the third choice, bullshitting.
The third choice is some form of bullshit manipulation, like you trying to convince people here that a discussion about the Smiths and their influence on communities like Wikipedia are not relevant to the Lomax vs Wikipedia case, when that is the whole of the Lomax case, i.e. you're literally making the third choice to enforce the second choice, which you can't control.
Seriously dude, I'm not impressed. You're as predictable as Oliver and Darryl.
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.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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 telling you that you're not special and asking that you put your whiny shit in a separate thread with a more apt title.
I'm starting to see why you attract so many trolls.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.
-
- Verified Banned Pseudoidentity
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:35 pm
- Wikipedia User: Tumbleman
- Actual Name: Rome Viharo
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Let's call it a day amigo. Its really boring.Vigilant wrote: Ah, the self righteous infant speaks.
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9950
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
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.
If I had to summarize your initial exchange with us in a simple script (since nobody has time to actually read these things), it would probably go like this:
RV: Hello! I've been bullied by Wikipedians who are engaged in terrible BLP violations, and I believe this could be a major scandal.
WPO: We're sorry to hear that, but since we don't know who you are, it's hard for us to say one way or the other...
RV: Well, you don't have to know who I am, but trust me, this is huge, there will be lawsuits, media coverage, etc., etc. HUGE.
WPO: *Checks recent WP blocks/ANI threads for outing accusations and related disputes* Tumbleman?
RV: Thanks for the welcome!
WPO: Maybe you should publish your story, which will explain its importance, first? And then we can discuss it?
RV: It's not ready quite yet, but trust me, it will definitely be huge.
...
RV (three days later): Here it is!
WPO: Ehh... that's it? Some guy doesn't want to be referred to as a "former" biologist, and everyone loses their shit? On Wikipedia, that's just called "Tuesday."
I guess what I'm saying here is that your actions (at least at that point) may have had perfectly good intentions, but since they were so strikingly similar to those we expect from shifty and deceptive characters, it was difficult - if not impossible - for us to provide you with what you appeared to want.
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.
And it isnt just us, either - you showed up on the International Skeptics Forum, for example, and literally the exact same thing happened. But maybe Oliver & Darryl were behind that too... in 2005?
Now, as for the status of this thread, I actually would prefer to leave this section of it where it is, messy though that may be. All this business involving Oliver & Darryl Smith needs context, especially for readers who, like me, own most of the Morrissey/Marr Smiths discography on both vinyl and CD and are confused by the idea that "the Smiths" are actually Wikiland criminal masterminds.
We might disagree as to the extent to which these two guys (Oliver & Darryl) have influenced us, but I don't think it makes sense for anyone to pretend they're not a significant part of this dispute - if we're going to have a thread on the Abd vs. WMF lawsuit at all, it's only fair that people should have some idea as to what Abd and these other folks are actually talking about viz a viz these (non-musical) "Smiths." If I'm overruled, then that's fine - I'm just saying that's how I'd handle it.