Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:06 pm

Abd has filed a lolsuit against the wmf.

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

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:27 pm

Good for him, I hope more people take them to court. Even if they dont win, if enough people start using the. It might compel them to change their Wiley and wicked ways. This will also force them to provide information rather than the current policy of ignoring anyone they don't like or don't agree with.

The downside to this is that when you do that you announce your real life identity.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:46 pm

Kumioko wrote:Good for him, I hope more people take them to court. Even if they dont win, if enough people start using the. It might compel them to change their Wiley and wicked ways. This will also force them to provide information rather than the current policy of ignoring anyone they don't like or don't agree with.

The downside to this is that when you do that you announce your real life identity.

Abd makes no secret of his identity. I wonder where he found the money for this though. But let's not drag in Wiley!

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:22 pm

Well it's only $400 bucks for the court fees but I dont know if he is hiring a lawyer or what he is trying to achieve. If his goal is getting money or some result it's probably hopeless. If he just wants information or some acknowledgement from the WMF he might get that.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:39 am

Alas, it's a "Personal Injury - Assault, Libel, & Slander" suit against the WMF and "John Does 1-9," not a general-purpose attempt to get the WMF to cease all operations and give all that donor money back to the donors, or at least to someone who might do something socially beneficial with it.

Mr. Dysklyver knows more about this, having interacted with Mr. Abd on RationalWiki and on ColdFusionCommunity.net. There seems to be more going on here, particularly as regards to two individuals he names as Oliver and Darryl Smith (the "Smith brothers"), who for some reason want to refer to him on RationalWiki as the "King of Trolls." Still, apparently this particular lawsuit is really just about Mr. Abd's now year-old WMF global/office ban (what we would call a "SanFranBan"), and probably not anything much more specific than that, though I haven't spent the $5 to see the document(s) so I can't say that with complete certainty.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:24 am

Do they charge by the page or the document to get access to the filing?

With Abd, you could inadvertently bankrupt yourself by downloading one of his filings.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:34 am

Vigilant wrote:Do they charge by the page or the document to get access to the filing?

With Abd, you could inadvertently bankrupt yourself by downloading one of his filings.

10 cents per page, with a max of $3 per document. The first $15 per quarter is waived. There's currently a class action lawsuit challenging PACER’s fee structure.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:58 am

Okay, I guess $3 isn't much, even for a notorious skinflint like myself. Still, if you wait long enough, Mr. Abd will probably publish all the relevant documents himself on ColdFusionCommunity.com, as he did with the Rossi vs. Darden case.

I suspect the only real issue here is whether or not he's likely to insist that the WMF's reasons for banning him be made public, or at least revealed to him. And who knows, that might even be a case he could actually win, assuming he's willing to take it far enough up the judiciary food-chain.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:36 am

Yeah to be honest theres reallybno reason for a website or business in general to not tell someone why they were banned or barred from it. I also think it's possible he could get them to reverse the policy of bans being non appealable.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:27 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:There seems to be more going on here, particularly as regards to two individuals he names as Oliver and Darryl Smith (the "Smith brothers"), who for some reason want to refer to him on RationalWiki as the "King of Trolls."

Maybe he can sue RationalWiki too. They'd be more likely to fold.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:30 pm

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

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:02 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Midsize Jake wrote:There seems to be more going on here, particularly as regards to two individuals he names as Oliver and Darryl Smith (the "Smith brothers"), who for some reason want to refer to him on RationalWiki as the "King of Trolls."
Maybe he can sue RationalWiki too. They'd be more likely to fold.

Yeah, but nobody cares about them and they have no money.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:54 am

Prediction: Will be dismissed because he failed to claim damages.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:37 am

Earthy Astringent wrote:Prediction: Will be dismissed because he failed to claim damages.

Call.
Fail to claim a cause of action.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:54 am

Abd would like everyone to know he is busy being awesome.

He has used... a thing... to annotate answers to this thread.
https://via.hypothes.is/https://wikiped ... ons:query:

And posted on WS about it.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =18&t=1110

Unless you go to his blog, you won't see any of his trademark verbose speeches.

charliemouse · Unread post by **charliemouse** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:11 pm

Assuming this is a libel suit, how can he sue for libel if he is using a pseudonym online?

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:55 pm

charliemouse wrote:Assuming this is a libel suit, how can he sue for libel if he is using a pseudonym online?

Well firstly, Abd is actually his name, and secondly you can still sue for libel et al even if you are named only by an alias such as a username which is a pseudonym.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:48 pm

Dysklyver wrote:
charliemouse wrote:Assuming this is a libel suit, how can he sue for libel if he is using a pseudonym online?
Well firstly, Abd is actually his name, and secondly you can still sue for libel et al even if you are named only by an alias such as a username which is a pseudonym.

Yes, if people know who you are, then of course it doesn't matter how you're referred to. If someone libelled say Kirk Douglas (T-H-L) or Cliff Richard (T-H-L), the defence that it's not his real name wouldn't get very far.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:16 pm

Dysklyver wrote:He has used... a thing... to annotate answers to this thread.

You know what would be really cool, would be if one of us got the Highly app (no account required) to annotate Abd's annotations using the Hypothesis app (account required), at which point we'd be using software to discuss Abd's use of software to discuss our software-based discussion about Abd's use of software (though that last bit assumes Wikipedia can accurately be described as "software").

It's totally meta!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:05 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:He has used... a thing... to annotate answers to this thread.
You know what would be really cool, would be if one of us got the Highly app (no account required) to annotate Abd's annotations using the Hypothesis app (account required), at which point we'd be using software to discuss Abd's use of software to discuss our software-based discussion about Abd's use of software (though that last bit assumes Wikipedia can accurately be described as "software").

It's totally meta!

How can Wikipedia be meta?

WBG · Unread post by **WBG** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:30 pm

See https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 20.1.0.pdf.

Claims (among other stuff) that:-

3. (on) February 24, 2018, without warning or notice and with no violation of the Terms of Service ("TOS"), WMF
published a global ban of plaintiff, and publication continues. WMF has refused response to plaintiff.

And thus seeks for:-

1. $200,000 to date for harm to reputation and public support of plaintiffs legitimate activities as a writer,
2. Order that alleged Terms of Service (TOS) violations be disclosed to users so that they may correct them.
3. Order for due process with bans, and, failing that, that they be lifted or, as a minimum, hidden for privacy.
4. Order that Does 1-9, on discovery of identity, cease defamation and, where possible, issue corrections.
5. punitive or exemplary damages for negligence and malicious defamation.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:39 pm

The WMF doesn't respond to me either, because I honestly don't think they care about the effects bans have on the people, the projects or the community. As I have stated before, it is my belief that the so called trust and safety section issues the bans at their discretion and legal and other areas are courtesy copied to make sure the paper work is right and to give the appearance of a fair process.

I think 1, 4 and 5 are unlikely and amount to wishful thinking but it's worth a try. The law in the US says we have the right to face our accusers but technically being banned from a website isn't a crime and according to multiple cases in California nor is violating the ToU or ignoring bans for ToU violations. So I don't know if the courts are going to compel the WMF to divulge the identities of editors for something that isn't considered a crime.

2 and 3 are reasonable IMO in most cases. Certainly the lawsuit will compel them to detail exactly why he was banned rather than some vague terms of use violation.

In the end, even if the result is NULL, it will cause the WMF to spend time and resources for what amounts to $400 of the individuals money and a few hours of time.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:38 am

WBG wrote:See https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 20.1.0.pdf.

Claims (among other stuff) that:-

3. (on) February 24, 2018, without warning or notice and with no violation of the Terms of Service ("TOS"), WMF
published a global ban of plaintiff, and publication continues. WMF has refused response to plaintiff.

And thus seeks for:-

1. $200,000 to date for harm to reputation and public support of plaintiffs legitimate activities as a writer,
2. Order that alleged Terms of Service (TOS) violations be disclosed to users so that they may correct them.
3. Order for due process with bans, and, failing that, that they be lifted or, as a minimum, hidden for privacy.
4. Order that Does 1-9, on discovery of identity, cease defamation and, where possible, issue corrections.
5. punitive or exemplary damages for negligence and malicious defamation.

Nice to see his crack dealer is still in business.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:40 am

Kumioko wrote:The WMF doesn't respond to me either, because I honestly don't think they care about the effects bans have on the people, the projects or the community. As I have stated before, it is my belief that the so called trust and safety section issues the bans at their discretion and legal and other areas are courtesy copied to make sure the paper work is right and to give the appearance of a fair process.

I think 1, 4 and 5 are unlikely and amount to wishful thinking but it's worth a try. The law in the US says we have the right to face our accusers but technically being banned from a website isn't a crime and according to multiple cases in California nor is violating the ToU or ignoring bans for ToU violations. So I don't know if the courts are going to compel the WMF to divulge the identities of editors for something that isn't considered a crime.

2 and 3 are reasonable IMO in most cases. Certainly the lawsuit will compel them to detail exactly why he was banned rather than some vague terms of use violation.

In the end, even if the result is NULL, it will cause the WMF to spend time and resources for what amounts to $400 of the individuals money and a few hours of time.

He will be lucky not to have the WMF awarded legal fees.
The WMF doesn't do much right, but they have friends and donors who know which legal firms to retain.

Abd just opened a can of whoopass on himself.

Edit: He went Pro Se...
If the WMF want to make an example of him, he's just committed bankruptcy.

Ongoing libel, unremediated injury to plaintiffs reputation, harassment of family, $200,000

As an anonymous account?
Who all knows the Abd account is you?
What more damage could the WMF do to your reputation?
Harassment of family sounds like you're on the edge of committing libel here.

1. Having threatened plaintiff with harm, one or more Does created an article defaming plaintiff on RationalWiki,with malice, and acting to preventing correction.

The WMF doesn't control RationalWiki and is not responsible for anyone who posts there.

2. Does 1-9 filed false complaints, possibly coordinated, with the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF").

What injury does a 'false complaint' do to you?
How will you prove this?
Again, close to the libel edge.
How is the WMF liable for this?

3. February 24, 2018, without warning or notice and with no violation of the Terms of Service ("TOS"), WMF
published a global ban of plaintiff, and publication continues. WMF has refused response to plaintiff.

You don't have a constitutional right to use their platform.
You don't have a financial injury from being prevented from using it, unless you're copping to paid editing now...

4. Defamation and harassment of plaintiff by one or more Does continues.

Your account is not your full name nor obviously you.
You're going to have a hell of a time proving harassment of an anonymous person by another anonymous person.
Then you're going to have to show how the WMF is liable for that alleged harassment.

Dipshittery.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:39 am

Vigilant wrote:...Dipshittery.

Life is hard...

Personally, I think he can make the case that he isn't anonymous, at least - for a long time his user page looked like this, so they even have his birthdate, and I'd assume the name-association is also common knowledge among the cold fusion people. I also don't think he's trying to assert a "right" to participate or use their platform... as to "harassment of family," who knows where that comes from - possibly his imagination, but we know that he does have a granddaughter, so maybe someone sent her an e-mail or something.

Not enough to obtain damages or even avoid a summary judgment, but I suspect he might manage to get away without paying the WMF's legal fees if he actually takes it that far.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:18 pm

Vigilant wrote:
1. Having threatened plaintiff with harm, one or more Does created an article defaming plaintiff on RationalWiki,with malice, and acting to preventing correction.
The WMF doesn't control RationalWiki and is not responsible for anyone who posts there.

He's after the John Does as well as the WMF. He's demonstrating that one of the John Does has done things other than harass him on Wikipedia, to strengthen the case for the WMF having to help identify said person.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:23 pm

Has he lost his mind? Or does he just have a lot of money he doesn't mind throwing away on nonsense? The WMF don't owe him or anyone else access to their servers. Really, regardless of their TOS, they can ban anyone they like for any reason they like, so long as those reasons don't violate discrimination laws. He'll be lucky if this is simply thrown out as frivolous.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:06 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
1. Having threatened plaintiff with harm, one or more Does created an article defaming plaintiff on RationalWiki,with malice, and acting to preventing correction.
The WMF doesn't control RationalWiki and is not responsible for anyone who posts there.
He's after the John Does as well as the WMF. He's demonstrating that one of the John Does has done things other than harass him on Wikipedia, to strengthen the case for the WMF having to help identify said person.

He's asking for $200K in damages.
He's brought the WMF and their legal team into this.
He's exposed himself to countersuit and discovery.
He's pro se vs real lawyers.

His very best hope is that WMF legal moves to dismiss and the judge grants it.

If this gets past that into discovery, the WMF can bury him alive and get their court costs paid.
Lomax has opened himself up for a $10M liability.

This is suicide by court.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:14 pm

Rational wiki page

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:23 pm

His gofundme to do cold fusion
https://www.gofundme.com/cold-fusion-journalism

My work is supported by Infusion Institute, Inc., a Massachusetts non-profit organization. Federal nonprofit status has not yet been obtained, but is intended. GoFundMe contributions will be donations to Infusion Institute.

He fails to note that he setup the Infusion Institute and is its sole member.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:24 pm

His patreon
https://www.patreon.com/posts/abd-ul-rahman-18151650

Does he do anything but beg on the internet and get in stupid slap fights?

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:31 pm

Old man yells at cloud on steroids.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:57 pm

Moderator's note: Several posts related to a separate dispute were split off into a new thread that requires registration to view.

I thought this blog post by Mr. Abd was interesting, assuming you can get past the whole length issue of course. Apparently he's being joe-jobbed, possibly for the purpose of seeding doubt in the (potential future) judge's mind about whether or not he's actively violating the WMF terms of service. And he's right, we've certainly seen that before, and it does quite often work as a smear tactic.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:07 pm

Both in the US and the EU he could quite likely force the WMF to disclose the basis and evidence on which he was banned (in the EU he could just GDPR them regardless of the WMF's location).

Defamation? Unlikely in the EU, possibly in the US if the WMF both did it publically AND had no reasonable basis for doing so.

Being Abd, I'm willing to bet there is a reasonable basis for his banning even taking into account the WMF's usual clownfuckery.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:56 am

Anroth wrote:Both in the US and the EU he could quite likely force the WMF to disclose the basis and evidence on which he was banned (in the EU he could just GDPR them regardless of the WMF's location).

In the US, he's shit out of luck.
The WMF has real lawyers and real money.
They'll bury him.

Anroth wrote:Defamation? Unlikely in the EU, possibly in the US if the WMF both did it publically AND had no reasonable basis for doing so.

In the US, no way.
He has to have suffered an injury to his reputation.
The WMF can conclusively show that he's a net.kook with no reputation to harm.
And the WMF can bury him in lawyers.

Anroth wrote:Being Abd, I'm willing to bet there is a reasonable basis for his banning even taking into account the WMF's usual clownfuckery.

They don't have to even give a reason.
It's a private, non-profit corporation that operates the website.
This is a non-starter.

Can you just imagine the deposition of Mr Lomax?
Think about how that will play in front of a judge....

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:27 am

The WMF has made no statements about Abd publicly except to say he's globally banned, so they cannot have defamed him. Moreover, he isn't even claiming he was defamed by the WMF, at least by my reading. His only claim about the WMF in that filing is that they globally banned him. Obviously, they are legally entitled to bar anyone from contributing to their privately-owned website.

I struggle to see where he has even articulated any claim that the Wikimedia Foundation has committed a tortious act. I agree that, if Abd is fortunate, the WMF will move to dismiss, it will be granted, and they will not seek costs. There's a snowball's chance in hell this reaches discovery.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:29 am

Kumioko wrote:As I have stated before, it is my belief that the so called trust and safety section issues the bans at their discretion and legal and other areas are courtesy copied to make sure the paper work is right and to give the appearance of a fair process.

Also, this is very, very wrong. Several people outside of Trust and Safety must sign off on any action they take, including Legal.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:29 pm

BURob13 wrote:The WMF has made no statements about Abd publicly except to say he's globally banned, so they cannot have defamed him.

Surely the ban itself is a declaration that he is so abominable that they won't let him edit any WMF website.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:35 pm

Poetlister wrote:
BURob13 wrote:The WMF has made no statements about Abd publicly except to say he's globally banned, so they cannot have defamed him.
Surely the ban itself is a declaration that he is so abominable that they won't let him edit any WMF website.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 2:36 pm

You said that, not them. Their full statement regarding the global ban is simply "Consistent with the Terms of Use, Abd has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites. Please address any questions to [insert email here]." The "consistent with the Terms of Use" can mean that the WMF reserves the right to terminate any person's use of its services in the ToU. It doesn't necessarily allege any ToU violation.

The two facts the WMF appears to have laid out are that it has the power to terminate use of its services and that Abd has been banned. Both are undeniably true.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:11 pm

BURob13 wrote:Also, this is very, very wrong. Several people outside of Trust and Safety must sign off on any action they take, including Legal.

But if we look at it more as a matter of perception, we'd have to ask: Has a SanFranBan ever been rejected because someone outside of T&S disagreed with it?

They'll probably never answer that question one way or the other of course, but since there's little or no transparency on that process, speculation is inevitable. And I, for one, certainly wouldn't be surprised if the answer turned out to be "no."

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:30 pm

It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:56 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
BURob13 wrote:Also, this is very, very wrong. Several people outside of Trust and Safety must sign off on any action they take, including Legal.
Has a SanFranBan ever been rejected because someone outside of T&S disagreed with it?

I'm aware of at least one such case.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:28 am

The whole reason the office bans are a total block box is to make a lawsuit like this hopeless. All Abd has done so far is waste four hundred bucks, and that's probably all that will happen.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:02 am

Kumioko wrote:It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.

Please.

If I were tasked to run this lawsuit to ground, I'd grind him so fine, they'd have to sweep him into a Ziploc bag to make the trip home.

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:08 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:The whole reason the office bans are a total block box is to make a lawsuit like this hopeless. All Abd has done so far is waste four hundred bucks, and that's probably all that will happen.

Ding, ding, ding.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:46 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.
Please.

If I were tasked to run this lawsuit to ground, I'd grind him so fine, they'd have to sweep him into a Ziploc bag to make the trip home.

As I've mentioned before I really don't think it's a matter of winning, it's a matter of the WMF being compelled to give him a defined reason for his ban aside from because we want you gone.

As for the $400, that's only for the court costs. That doesn't include airfare, hotel stay, etc. if he is coming from some where outside the US (which I believe he is).

Of course there is a small chance that he will get a favorable ruling from the Judge but in California it's doubtful.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:46 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.
Please.

If I were tasked to run this lawsuit to ground, I'd grind him so fine, they'd have to sweep him into a Ziploc bag to make the trip home.
As I've mentioned before I really don't think it's a matter of winning, it's a matter of the WMF being compelled to give him a defined reason for his ban aside from because we want you gone.

Firstly, I don't think that's what Abd is trying to accomplish. I think that's you overlaying your concerns on his lawsuit. Given his rapacious online begging for his various "cold fusion""institutes", I strongly suspect this is a shakedown for money. In that rat's nest of a brain, Abd probably thinks that the WMF is a soft target and that's he's just the Pooh Bear to extract that delicious mhoney.

Secondly, there is no lever that Abd can use in a judicial arena to force the WMF to explain why they banned him. If he can't prevail on the merits of the lawsuit, he has no leverage to force a settlement.

Any law firm that the WMF has representing them is going to evaluate Abd for the net.kook on steroids that he is. They'll evaluate his fiscal state to estimate how long he can afford to litigate. They'll see the obvious deficiencies in his case. The fact that he filed pro se means they can rest assured that their opponent is not going to pull some rabbit out of the hat and surprise them. The fact that Abd opted for a non-jury trial means that they don't have the unpredictability of 12 random ding dongs to deal with. The WMF's legal team will hire local legal counsel to assist. The local counsel will already know everyone in the local jurisdiction's court system.

There is absolutely ZERO that Abd can accomplish here.

The WMF, on the other hand, has a prime opportunity to display to any other ne'er do well malcontents that there is a ruinous cost for litigation that will be borne by vexatious litigants.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:03 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.
Please.

If I were tasked to run this lawsuit to ground, I'd grind him so fine, they'd have to sweep him into a Ziploc bag to make the trip home.
As I've mentioned before I really don't think it's a matter of winning, it's a matter of the WMF being compelled to give him a defined reason for his ban aside from because we want you gone.

As for the $400, that's only for the court costs. That doesn't include airfare, hotel stay, etc. if he is coming from some where outside the US (which I believe he is). …

The address listed for him in the details of the filing posted by Tarantino is in Massachusetts …

… Of course there is a small chance that he will get a favorable ruling from the Judge but in California it's doubtful.

… And the case is being heard in the Massachusetts District Court.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kumioko wrote:It's also worth noting that as a top 5 website Wikipedia has a high visibility. So associations to it could negatively affect people in real life. Since the WMF does not engage the individual prior to the ban and cherry picks the info to get the result they want; does not communicate anything and it's not appealable, I think Abd may have some merit in his lawsuit.
Please.

If I were tasked to run this lawsuit to ground, I'd grind him so fine, they'd have to sweep him into a Ziploc bag to make the trip home.
As I've mentioned before I really don't think it's a matter of winning, it's a matter of the WMF being compelled to give him a defined reason for his ban aside from because we want you gone.
Firstly, I don't think that's what Abd is trying to accomplish. I think that's you overlaying your concerns on his lawsuit. Given his rapacious online begging for his various "cold fusion""institutes", I strongly suspect this is a shakedown for money. In that rat's nest of a brain, Abd probably thinks that the WMF is a soft target and that's he's just the Pooh Bear to extract that delicious mhoney.

Secondly, there is no lever that Abd can use in a judicial arena to force the WMF to explain why they banned him. If he can't prevail on the merits of the lawsuit, he has no leverage to force a settlement.

Any law firm that the WMF has representing them is going to evaluate Abd for the net.kook on steroids that he is. They'll evaluate his fiscal state to estimate how long he can afford to litigate. They'll see the obvious deficiencies in his case. The fact that he filed pro se means they can rest assured that their opponent is not going to pull some rabbit out of the hat and surprise them. The fact that Abd opted for a non-jury trial means that they don't have the unpredictability of 12 random ding dongs to deal with. The WMF's legal team will hire local legal counsel to assist. The local counsel will already know everyone in the local jurisdiction's court system.

There is absolutely ZERO that Abd can accomplish here.

The WMF, on the other hand, has a prime opportunity to display to any other ne'er do well malcontents that there is a ruinous cost for litigation that will be borne by vexatious litigants.

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

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