Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3786
kołdry
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

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:53 pm

Poetlister wrote:I don't know if this has any parallel in American law, but in England the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (T-H-L) can be used to set aside unreasonable terms even if the plaintiff has apparently agreed to them. Requiring a private citizen of limited means to litigate only in a court thousands of miles away might be unreasonable.
I don't know the names of the particular laws off the top of my head, but there are a number of consumer protection laws, both federal and at the state level, that might apply here. (although I wouldn't be surprised under the current regime if a lot of the federal laws were rendered toothless) I seem to recall fairly recent cases where the argument used was basically "nobody reads these giant walls of legalese that we're bombarded with on the internet". California in particular is known to have a packet of laws as thick as a phone book for every possible circumstance. (for you youngsters out there, a phone book is even thicker than a Harry Potter novel)

I'm being sued at the moment myself, but I have a corporate shark lawyer hired by my insurer (meaning he works for me, but I don't have to pay him, pretty sweet deal) , while the people suing me seemed to have hired the only lawyer they already knew, who seemingly has no experience in this area of the law. If it actually goes to trial it should be a good laugh watching my guy mop the floor with this fool. :evilgrin:
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:55 am

Beeblebrox wrote:I don't know the names of the particular laws off the top of my head, but there are a number of consumer protection laws, both federal and at the state level, that might apply here. (although I wouldn't be surprised under the current regime if a lot of the federal laws were rendered toothless) I seem to recall fairly recent cases where the argument used was basically "nobody reads these giant walls of legalese that we're bombarded with on the internet".
Did that argument succeed, though? My impression has been that the US courts are too corporate-friendly to overlook ToS language for the benefit of an individual, though I suppose if the wording were so blatantly and egregiously deceptive that even the lawyers are appalled by it, who knows.

I would think that Mr. Abd's best approach here would simply be to point out that he registered on Wikipedia in February 2005, and identified himself via his user page shortly thereafter, whereas the first SanFranBan issued by the WMF wasn't until 2012. (User:Abd (T-C-L) himself wasn't SanFranBanned until 2018, of course.) If he had known in 2005 that the WMF was the sort of operation that published ban lists, of course he would never, ever, ever have even registered an account there, much less identified himself. Moreover, he could even argue that his efforts to later influence the WMF's list-publishing policy by posting things to the appropriate talk page on Meta were hampered by the fact that he was "community banned" on Wikipedia in 2011, which sullied his otherwise stellar reputation.

Not that it's going to do him much good in the long run, of course. I'm just sayin', he could at least try that.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:55 am

I'm just hoping that the WMF will reveal more about how the process works internally and how much this cases ends up costing them.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:20 pm

My favorite part of this will be watching Abd and Graaf move from smug certainty to dismay.

Jones Day is going to drag Abd.

The goalpost moving after every loss will be delicious.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3786
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

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:51 pm

Kumioko wrote:I'm just hoping that the WMF will reveal more about how the process works internally and how much this cases ends up costing them.
I suspect the will reveal very, very little, if anything, that we don't already know. That's the whole point of the way these bans work, it is intended to cover the Foundation's ass in exactly this sort of situation, I have no doubt it was the lawyers who put that together in the first place, so they're way ahead of the Abd here.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
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

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed Apr 24, 2019 4:13 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I'm just hoping that the WMF will reveal more about how the process works internally and how much this cases ends up costing them.
I suspect the will reveal very, very little, if anything, that we don't already know. That's the whole point of the way these bans work, it is intended to cover the Foundation's ass in exactly this sort of situation, I have no doubt it was the lawyers who put that together in the first place, so they're way ahead of the Abd here.
You're probably right of course but as Vigilant put it, it will be enjoyable to watch. I generally agree that Abd will get squashed but I hold out the hopes that this will be at least a partial defeat to the WMF. Call me spiteful if you want, but I would very much enjoy them getting a slap in the face.

User avatar
rhindle
Habitué
Posts: 1448
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

Unread post by rhindle » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:25 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I'm just hoping that the WMF will reveal more about how the process works internally and how much this cases ends up costing them.
I suspect the will reveal very, very little, if anything, that we don't already know. That's the whole point of the way these bans work, it is intended to cover the Foundation's ass in exactly this sort of situation, I have no doubt it was the lawyers who put that together in the first place, so they're way ahead of the Abd here.
You're probably right of course but as Vigilant put it, it will be enjoyable to watch. I generally agree that Abd will get squashed but I hold out the hopes that this will be at least a partial defeat to the WMF. Call me spiteful if you want, but I would very much enjoy them getting a slap in the face.
The key is what evidence(if Abd has anything truly damning or even just embarrassing) can get through the discovery process. The defense can and will try to suppress any of Abd's evidence using all the legal mechanisms in the book. Without representation, this would be where the Abd might be rethinking things. A trial, where things would finally go on record, may not be the bounty for those hoping to see at least a black eye for the WMF in this whole process. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have any problem with the WMF losing face in some way, I'm just being real.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:38 pm

If I were the WMF, I would countersue.

I would spend the money to obliterate Lomax and set an example.

Here be dragons.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3786
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

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:44 pm

Vigilant wrote:If I were the WMF, I would countersue.

I would spend the money to obliterate Lomax and set an example.

Here be dragons.
Agreed, that would be the smart move. Make a clear example out of a windbag troll and the other trolls will think twice.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:24 am

Beeblebrox wrote:Agreed, that would be the smart move. Make a clear example out of a windbag troll and the other trolls will think twice.
Ehh, I'm not so sure. It would be a smart move if their primary goal was to defend their "institution" and its reputation from real or imagined enemies, but in fact their primary goal is to maintain the flow of donation money. If they're perceived by the public as mean, nasty, vindictive, and unforgiving, it seems like that might run counter to their financial interests. (Also, let's not forget that Mr. Abd isn't a rich man, at least according to him.)

Mind you, I'm not saying they aren't already mean, nasty, vindictive, and unforgiving; it's just that since whatever meanness they have is so easily surpassed by their technical and managerial incompetence, it's easy not to notice.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Kumioko » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:05 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:Agreed, that would be the smart move. Make a clear example out of a windbag troll and the other trolls will think twice.
Ehh, I'm not so sure. It would be a smart move if their primary goal was to defend their "institution" and its reputation from real or imagined enemies, but in fact their primary goal is to maintain the flow of donation money. If they're perceived by the public as mean, nasty, vindictive, and unforgiving, it seems like that might run counter to their financial interests. (Also, let's not forget that Mr. Abd isn't a rich man, at least according to him.)

Mind you, I'm not saying they aren't already mean, nasty, vindictive, and unforgiving; it's just that since whatever meanness they have is so easily surpassed by their technical and managerial incompetence, it's easy not to notice.
I completely agree with your assessment. The more I think about this, the more I see this as a game theory kind of scenario.

In a nutshell, in game theory you have two basic kinds of games (or conflicts if you are in the military). There is the finite game and the infinite game. In the finite game there are defined rules and a clear winner and loser (think of the old style of fighting when you had colonial armies facing off on the battlefield). With the infinite game, the players keep going until one side or the other run out of resources or the will to continue (think Vietnam or Afghanistan). Any time you have 2 finite players or 2 infinite players, the game is relatively stable. If you have one of each however, then the result is unstable.

In this case, Lomax is working towards a fixed objective, to get unbanned or something akin to that. The WMF has unlimited resources and can continue until they simply exhaust Lomax's resources, but they really don't have that much to fight for like Lomax does (at least in theory since he is fighting to restore his good name). Even if the WMF wins, I don't see that ending the conflict unless the WMF is willing to follow through on the victory and crush the opponent and I do not think they have "the will" to do that, so unless Lomax gets a result they are happy with, or can at least live with, then this will continue until Lomax loses the will or the resources to continue. As long as the WMF is expending more resources than Lomax, he could still consider this, at least in his head, as a David and Goliath kind of win.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:25 am

Ignoring the analogy, I just want to point out that the description of game theory is very incorrect. You've described two types of repeated games and ignored static games entirely. You've ignored all games that are not constant-sum.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "stable", since that isn't a well-defined economic concept. I'll assume you meant the existence of an equilibrium. If so, there is an entire literature on reputation in repeated games, especially where you have one infinitely-lived player and one finitely-lived sequence of players. This is a well-researched type of game, since it can be used to represent a seller interacting with a sequence of buyers. It wouldn't be much of a literature if they didn't find any equilibria.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Dysklyver » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:07 am

Globally banned after 7 years.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Kumioko » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:53 pm

BURob13 wrote:Ignoring the analogy, I just want to point out that the description of game theory is very incorrect. You've described two types of repeated games and ignored static games entirely. You've ignored all games that are not constant-sum.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "stable", since that isn't a well-defined economic concept. I'll assume you meant the existence of an equilibrium. If so, there is an entire literature on reputation in repeated games, especially where you have one infinitely-lived player and one finitely-lived sequence of players. This is a well-researched type of game, since it can be used to represent a seller interacting with a sequence of buyers. It wouldn't be much of a literature if they didn't find any equilibria.
You're clarification is a fair point. I inaccurately described a complex subject in order to not have a wall of text. I do think though that the point is clear that the WMF has more resources than Lomax and can simply exhaust the process whereas Lomax, while using minimal resources and time is causing the WMF to use significantly more resources than he in order to win. If the WMF wants to actually win though then they need to do more than just win the case because Lomax, as with me, aren't simply going to go away because it's inconvenient to the WMF.

Using myself as an example, I don't care about my ban and I will and do edit whenever I want because my ban has lacked any merit from day one and I refuse to honor a ban that was based on lies.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:44 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:
Vigilant wrote:If I were the WMF, I would countersue.

I would spend the money to obliterate Lomax and set an example.

Here be dragons.
Agreed, that would be the smart move. Make a clear example out of a windbag troll and the other trolls will think twice.
And, despite the crazed ramblings of an insane Dutch clown cosplayer, Abd being judgement proof through self imposed crank poverty, this only means that the WMF judgement will hang over Abd and his estate until Abd’s Blessed release from this mortal coil.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Smiley » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:22 am

Abd now infecting the Kiwi Farms?

Dat edit tho!
ProgKing of the North wrote:Plenty of websites publish who is banned, I fail to see how that’s illegal.

When it comes to suing people who say mean things about you on the internet you’re no Russell Greer

Edit: holy shit this dudes an alt right Muslim convert who advocates cold fusion

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:52 am

Send in the farms....
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon May 13, 2019 5:03 pm

Any updates on the lolsuit?

The farms kicked him to the corner as boring as fuck.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Versieck
Contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:22 pm
Wikipedia User: Bart Versieck
Actual Name: Bart Versieck

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Versieck » Mon May 13, 2019 6:50 pm

Well said, and I don't either, because mine (both on Commons and the Dutch Wiki) is ridiculous too, but let's just hope they will be beaten by "Hotel California"!!!
Kumioko wrote:
BURob13 wrote:Ignoring the analogy, I just want to point out that the description of game theory is very incorrect. You've described two types of repeated games and ignored static games entirely. You've ignored all games that are not constant-sum.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "stable", since that isn't a well-defined economic concept. I'll assume you meant the existence of an equilibrium. If so, there is an entire literature on reputation in repeated games, especially where you have one infinitely-lived player and one finitely-lived sequence of players. This is a well-researched type of game, since it can be used to represent a seller interacting with a sequence of buyers. It wouldn't be much of a literature if they didn't find any equilibria.
You're clarification is a fair point. I inaccurately described a complex subject in order to not have a wall of text. I do think though that the point is clear that the WMF has more resources than Lomax and can simply exhaust the process whereas Lomax, while using minimal resources and time is causing the WMF to use significantly more resources than he in order to win. If the WMF wants to actually win though then they need to do more than just win the case because Lomax, as with me, aren't simply going to go away because it's inconvenient to the WMF.

Using myself as an example, I don't care about my ban and I will and do edit whenever I want because my ban has lacked any merit from day one and I refuse to honor a ban that was based on lies.

WWHP
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

Unread post by WWHP » Tue May 14, 2019 8:42 pm

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.
I have plenty of back story on this, and I'm pretty clear these are the details of events as they happened.

1. ABD: He has an obsessive personality once he starts digging into something he doesn't stop (he is retired, so lots of free time on his hands) the only complaint about ABD that would be reasonable is that he posts too much, and his conversations are too lengthy. hardly a crime.

2. The Smith Brothers are the true culprits behind most of this mess. Both of the Smiths have impersonated a number of Wikipedia editors (for any number of reasons, myself included) and what happened with ABD and the smiths dovetailed my own research into the RationalWiki troll farm.

3. I discovered that one of the Smiths (likely Oliver) was impersonating someone by the name of Emil Kirkegaard on RationalWiki, threatening to sue RationalWiki. It wasn't Emil.

4. I discovered a number of attack posts on Emil that were created by another impersonation account (Ben S.) on Wikiversity.

5. My discoveries were read by ABD, who then researched the impersonation on Wikiversity of Ben S by the Smith troll farm.

6. The Smith troll farm then used Wikiversity and a host of other nasty online tactics to get ABD banned, and then went on to create articles about him on RationalWiki.

I do know there are lawsuits against the Smiths in the UK, and RationalWiki will probably being getting served at some point as well.

The issue with WikiMedia is that ABD was targeted by the Smiths on Wikiversity, and the Smiths have some connections within the Wikipedia community and somehow are able to leverage support for their cause in targeting others. Why I have no idea, something stinks to high heaven on this one.

So an atheist, a muslim, a fruitarian and a futurist walk into a saloon. and Oliver D Smith, MediaWiki poster boy

they've even used this forum to stir up trouble, successfully I might add.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Tue May 14, 2019 9:13 pm

WWHP wrote:they've even used this forum to stir up trouble, successfully I might add.
Really...? What kind of trouble did they stir up?

Depending on your definition of "trouble," that could mean just about anything and anybody.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed May 15, 2019 11:40 pm

Given the recent sputtering, spittle flecked outpourings of the crazed Dutch scab eater, I can say with certainty that Abd should definitely call him as a corroborating witness in his lolsuit

Can you imagine the transcripts?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Emblyn
Contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:02 pm
Actual Name: Emblyn

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Emblyn » Thu May 16, 2019 12:47 pm

1. ABD: He has an obsessive personality once he starts digging into something he doesn't stop (he is retired, so lots of free time on his hands) the only complaint about ABD that would be reasonable is that he posts too much, and his conversations are too lengthy. hardly a crime.
Abd posts many interesting pages
2. The Smith Brothers are the true culprits behind most of this mess. Both of the Smiths have impersonated a number of Wikipedia editors (for any number of reasons, myself included) and what happened with ABD and the smiths dovetailed my own research into the RationalWiki troll farm.
Oliver D. Smith is a known troll
3. I discovered that one of the Smiths (likely Oliver) was impersonating someone by the name of Emil Kirkegaard on RationalWiki, threatening to sue RationalWiki. It wasn't Emil.
Emil Kirkegaard is a Danish paedophilia apologist whose defence of child-rape...
6. The Smith troll farm then used Wikiversity and a host of other nasty online tactics to get ABD banned, and then went on to create articles about him on RationalWiki.
this article
I do know there are lawsuits against the Smiths in the UK, and RationalWiki will probably being getting served at some point as well.
Dysk knows more about this, perhaps they will comment
The issue with WikiMedia is that ABD was targeted by the Smiths on Wikiversity, and the Smiths have some connections within the Wikipedia community and somehow are able to leverage support for their cause in targeting others. Why I have no idea, something stinks to high heaven on this one.
you know who the contact was, im not here to speak against him tho
they've even used this forum to stir up trouble, successfully I might add.
says crank enabler, egomaniac and internet troll extraordinaire Rome Viharo





Darryl Smith tho, has been spamming r/WikiInAction using many accounts while saying Abd and Mikemikev did it

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... inc_et_al/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... wikimedia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... a/ekz9m2o/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... awsuit_on/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... cked_from/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... ng_emails/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... erm_abuse/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... l_article/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... ming_this/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... _spamming/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... dia_after/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... klyver_is/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... wikipedia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... mikemikev/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... s_working/

yes there are many threads

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 16, 2019 2:34 pm

Vigilant wrote:Given the recent sputtering, spittle flecked outpourings of the crazed Dutch scab eater, I can say with certainty that Abd should definitely call him as a corroborating witness in his lolsuit

Can you imagine the transcripts?
I'm sure even Abd isn't dumb enough to have that madman in court with him.
Pretty sure Martin couldn't raise the money to get to California anyway.
I highly doubt there's a big market for women peeing dioramas in that scale.

If we're really lucky, the newly elected government of whatever shithole country he lives in will provide him with a one way airfare so he can testify.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu May 16, 2019 7:59 pm

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
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.

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.

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). 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... Obviously there's been a lot of derision in this particular thread regarding Mr. Abd's chances of success with his lawsuit, but that strikes me as a different situation, because (in theory, at least) having people file lawsuits with no chance of success could make future litigants (who could potentially have better cases) look more "vexatious" by association, and maybe even help the WMF by allowing them to claim a history of "victimhood" in future court proceedings. Again, though, I'm not an expert on this stuff.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 16, 2019 9:55 pm

I'm sure the WMF legal team would love an anonymous dossier on both Abd and Martin's backgrounds and glorious online pronouncements.

The fact that both of them have voluminous material of the deranged type will only serve to eviscerate this "case" before it ever is heard.

It's nice to see that these dingbats haven't availed themselves of any legal representation as those attorneys would have firmly told them to STFU until litigation was finished.

Every sputtering, stammering, incoherent diatribe is admissible evidence.
Every threat, insult, misrepresentation, crackpot theory or generally unhinged proclamation can be entered into the record.

If Martin is called to testify, his previous mental health medical history will likely be subpoenaed as it goes to the credibility of the witness.

Abd's long standing pattern of online doxxing and generally threatening behavior will play into the WMF's hands. "He's a dangerous lunatic that we were forced to ban from our community because he, like the others on this list, represents a clear and present danger to our users."

Abd's well deserved reputation as a puesdoscience crankpot theory pusher will further erode his credibility.
His using of his various cold fusion websites for malicious behavior towards others will likely be enough to force his entire web history into the record.
His continuous inflation of his own credentials in the field of physics will only serve to undermine his testimony. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"

I am eagerly awaiting the inevitable conclusion of this legal matter, but not so much that I won't savor every tiny element of this modern day Children's Crusade as if deliveries from the world's finest chocolatier.

As they say in France, a real country in Europe, Bon Appétit!
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Dysklyver » Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 am

Emblyn wrote:
I do know there are lawsuits against the Smiths in the UK, and RationalWiki will probably being getting served at some point as well.
Dysk knows more about this, perhaps they will comment
Yes, the Oliver Smith one was apparently the subject of legal threat and/or legal action from OpenPsych or people associated with it after he wrote a series of RationalWiki articles which accused them of being racialist pseudoscientists.

Judging by the fact that the OpenPsych contributors moved to a new Journal and how Oliver told me that no lawsuits were outstanding last month, I would say that didn't really get anywhere.
Globally banned after 7 years.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Fri May 17, 2019 2:26 pm

There will be no record. This won't even get to discovery.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri May 17, 2019 10:55 pm

There's a lot of rending of hair, wearing of sack cloth and throwing of ashes on sucks over my 'transformation'.

The truth follows Occam's Razor.

I just hate Abd and Giraffe Stapler more than the WMF.


You two are crazier, dumber and generally more gross than everyone at the WMF.
Your place on the SanF(r)anBan list is entirely well deserved.
I'm reduced to rooting for the other team because your team is chock full of frenzied speds behaving the like Chihuahuas on meth/viagra speedballs.

Think on that.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Captain Occam
Gregarious
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Captain Occam » Fri May 17, 2019 11:32 pm

Dysklyver wrote:Yes, the Oliver Smith one was apparently the subject of legal threat and/or legal action from OpenPsych or people associated with it after he wrote a series of RationalWiki articles which accused them of being racialist pseudoscientists.

Judging by the fact that the OpenPsych contributors moved to a new Journal and how Oliver told me that no lawsuits were outstanding last month, I would say that didn't really get anywhere.
If you're referring to the same lawsuit that I think you are, that isn't what it's actually about, and I know from recent correspondence (less than a month ago) with the plaintiff that it's still underway. However, I'm not sure how much detail about the lawsuit it's appropriate to post in public.

Incidentally, Oliver Smith is the author of the majority of RationalWiki's article accusing people of being racist, sexist, or transphobic pseudoscientists. A list of some of the articles he's created is on this page, and a few more can be found in the contributions of this account, which is the account that he used to create a large portion of them.

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. For example, compare Wikipedia's (fairly objective) article about Claire Lehmann (T-H-L) to the article that Smith wrote about her at RationalWiki. If you read the articles about Lehmann that exist on various mainstream news sites, they all describe her in more or less the same way that her Wikipedia article does, and the tone taken by Smith's RationalWiki article about her stands out like a sore thumb.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2019 4:25 pm

I eagerly await being served as a witness in this case.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat May 18, 2019 4:49 pm

Vigilant wrote:I eagerly await being served as a witness in this case.
Yes, that would be fun. Especially the cross-examination. :B'
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Sat May 18, 2019 9:08 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I eagerly await being served as a witness in this case.
Yes, that would be fun. Especially the cross-examination. :B'
How would that work with Martin??

Does the court provide Dutch sped to proper English translators?
If so, I pity them this fate.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun May 19, 2019 8:44 am

Vigilant wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I eagerly await being served as a witness in this case.
Yes, that would be fun. Especially the cross-examination. :B'
How would that work with Martin??

Does the court provide Dutch sped to proper English translators?
If so, I pity them this fate.
They'd insist he speaks in Dutch - assuming he can talk coherently in Dutch - and have a translator.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Sun May 19, 2019 11:32 am

Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I eagerly await being served as a witness in this case.
Yes, that would be fun. Especially the cross-examination. :B'
How would that work with Martin??

Does the court provide Dutch sped to proper English translators?
If so, I pity them this fate.
They'd insist he speaks in Dutch - assuming he can talk coherently in Dutch - and have a translator.
Given his inability to write coherently in any language, I suspect the translators will earn their money on that day.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue May 21, 2019 2:46 pm

Well, well, well

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... _Inc_et_al
Monday, May 20, 2019
11 misc Corporate Disclosure Statement Mon 3:55 PM
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Doughty, Erik)

10 misc Declaration Mon 3:51 PM
DECLARATION re8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM ,9 Memorandum in Support of Motion by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc..(Morrison, Christopher)
Att: 1 Exhibit Wikimedia Terms of Use,
Att: 2 Exhibit Bauer v. Glatzer Order,
Att: 3 Exhibit Twitter v. Sup. Ct. Order

9 14 pgs respm Memorandum in Support of Motion Mon 3:46 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.. (Morrison, Christopher)

8 motion Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Mon 3:43 PM
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by WikiMedia Foundation, Inc..(Morrison, Christopher)
A new attorney appears for the WMF
https://www.jonesday.com/edoughty/

Bauer v Glatzer is a Section 230 immunity ruling.

Twitter v Superior Court is another immunity under the CDA ruling.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue May 21, 2019 3:07 pm

On numerology and the Quran

https://www.answering-islam.org/Religio ... lomax.html

Notice this is signed by him, references a known email and domain name he's used, and is published from
P.O. Box 459, San Quentin, CA 94964
Which makes one wonder...
For what was Abd incarcerated?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Dysklyver » Tue May 21, 2019 3:25 pm

Vigilant wrote:... San Quentin ...
As a good and holy Muslim, Abd was a prison chaplain at San Quentin for a time. :B'
Globally banned after 7 years.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Tue May 21, 2019 4:14 pm

I read the filings. They're seeking a dismissal with prejudice, and it certainly looks like they'll get it.

WWHP
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

Unread post by WWHP » Wed May 22, 2019 9:35 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
WWHP wrote:they've even used this forum to stir up trouble, successfully I might add.
Really...? What kind of trouble did they stir up?

Depending on your definition of "trouble," that could mean just about anything and anybody.
They've been here, I have no idea where to find the threads. By trouble, I mean targeting me, for example.

Oliver and Darryl Smith targeted me on Wikipedia in 2013, chances are the majority of the perceptions of me here were formed by them and their group of editors they collaborate with.

Speaking of definitions of trouble...
Excuse you?

Is this going to be another one of those Wikipediocracy discussions where I come here in good faith and have to deal with a bunch of misinformed bullshit and snark from rude disgruntled asshat Wikipedia and rationalwiki editors?

WWHP
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

Unread post by WWHP » Wed May 22, 2019 9:48 pm

I just found Michael Suarez's post about this and he sums it up better than I, this is copied from another post here
Abd's ban is unjust. Abd noticed that Oliver and Darryl Smith were impersonating Ben Steigmann, and Oliver and Darryl then proceeded to harass Abd and plot his ban from Wikimedia.

Oliver and Darryl then wrote a hit piece on Abd at RationalWiki using multiple accounts (notice how many of the accounts attacking Abd are also attacking Laird Shaw, Rome Viharo, Mikemikev, Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, John Fuerst):

Marky (attacks Marky, Laird Shaw, and Craig Weiler)

Asgardian (attacks Abd, Emil Kirkegaard, and John Fuerst)

Skeptical (attacks Abd, Laird Shaw, Rome Viharo, Emil Kirkegaard, and John Fuerst)

AstroPhysics (attacks Abd, Ben Steigmann,and Emil Kirkegaard)

Anti-Fascist_for_life (attacks Abd, Ben Steigmann,and Emil Kirkegaard)

Dr._Witt (attacks Abd, Mikemikev, Rome Viharo, John Fuerst, and Emil Kirkegaard)

SkepticDave (attacks Abd, Laird Shaw, and Emil Kirkegaard)

Nick_Lowles_Fan (attacks Abd, Mikemikev, John Fuerst, and Emil Kirkegaard).

Vimpto (attacks Abd and Emil Kirkegarrd).

----

I also believe that Oliver and Darryl operated multiple false flag accounts to make Abd look bad:

Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax

Cold_Fusion_Community

EnergyNeutral

Defending_myself

Anyone who knows Abd knows that Abd wouldn't run around a wiki and post legal threats.

----

It should be noted that RationalWiki is fully aware that Oliver and Darryl are operating multiple, manipulative accounts.

----

Despite Oliver and Darrryl attacking Abd on RationalWiki for several months, Oliver ran around Wikimedia claiming to be the "victim". This isn't the first time either; Oliver used his alleged "victimhood" as a rationale to obsessively attack others (Mikemikev in particular) in the past:

https://archive.is/gUPe0

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev ... st-1253631

Abd spent the last days of his wiki career combating his twin harassers and their sockpuppets, yet Abd was banned for it. The WMF is enabling the RationalWiki-using harassers.

User avatar
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

Unread post by Kumioko » Wed May 22, 2019 11:36 pm

I think that is a very fair and factual summary as well. I can attest that many of the same things they did to Abd were done to me by others showing a pattern of that sort of conduct in the culture of Wikipedia.

BURob13
Contributor
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by BURob13 » Thu May 23, 2019 2:42 am

Yes, it is completely unthinkable that the editor who has literally sued the WMF would run around the wiki posting legal threats.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 23, 2019 3:45 am

Abd is a blowhard with advanced mental illness (NPD) that won't let him stop writing and pontificating about things he just doesn't understand, civil law in the US being the latest example.

Every single time he got into any position of even minor authority, he shit the bed and went full dictator and tried to throw his weight around and inflate his position and authority while driving everyone else nuts and/or off the platform.

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.

He's simply a terrible person who turns every venue he visits into a cesspit.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

WWHP
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

Unread post by WWHP » Thu May 23, 2019 3:49 am

BURob13 wrote:Yes, it is completely unthinkable that the editor who has literally sued the WMF would run around the wiki posting legal threats.
Unlikely and unthinkable are not the same thing. ABD has a right to sue someone, so do I and a number of others. WMF suit is probably not going to work, everyone knows that, but it is a place to begin and get more attention to this crap.

WMF puts all the responsibility of the world's most influential and powerful publishing platform in the hands of a community that cannot arrive at a consensus. How convenient.

I think that old "hey we're not responsible go pound sand" is eventually going to be an argument of the past.

WMF is responsible, they designed a platform that gives users zero tools for reconciliation or collaboration and only tools that increase competition.

That makes them responsible morally.

MediaWiki's in some way are more flawed than the social platforms because at least there is some hope that Facebook or Google or Twitter could make a technical correction, with MediaWiki's - that hope does not exist.

There is nothing that could ever prevent the majority of Wikipedia editors to evolve as a majority culture that is covert, agenda based for commerce, politics, or any agenda anyone could think of.

WWHP
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

Unread post by WWHP » Thu May 23, 2019 3:52 am

Vigilant wrote:
He's simply a terrible person who turns every venue he visits into a cesspit.
So you're saying he deserves being targeted by the Smiths?

That he has no right to expect a pathway to recourse?

I wouldn't use the "he is a terrible person" argument, I don't see many shining examples of humanity here either.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31485
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Vigilant » Thu May 23, 2019 4:45 am

WWHP wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
He's simply a terrible person who turns every venue he visits into a cesspit.
So you're saying he deserves being targeted by the Smiths?

That he has no right to expect a pathway to recourse?
It's interesting to watch you try to attribute meaning that isn't there in my words.
WWHP wrote:I wouldn't use the "he is a terrible person" argument, I don't see many shining examples of humanity here either.
I'll just leave this here.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Rome_Viharo
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu May 23, 2019 8:20 am

WWHP wrote:They've been here, I have no idea where to find the threads. By trouble, I mean targeting me, for example.
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? 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. (There's a better chance that Morrissey or Johnny Marr have posted here than them, and that's even taking Morrissey's bizarro vegan-fascist ideology into account.)

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. 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.

You shouldn't even take it personally, as that just encourages them and inevitably makes things harder for the mods.
Oliver and Darryl Smith targeted me on Wikipedia in 2013, chances are the majority of the perceptions of me here were formed by them and their group of editors they collaborate with.
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. 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.

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.
Is this going to be another one of those Wikipediocracy discussions where I come here in good faith and have to deal with a bunch of misinformed bullshit and snark from rude disgruntled asshat Wikipedia and rationalwiki editors?
I apologize for that, and it would certainly be better if everyone behaved in a more genteel fashion. 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.

User avatar
C&B
Habitué
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Location: with cheese.

Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

Unread post by C&B » Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 am

Midsize Jake wrote: (There's a better chance that Morrissey or Johnny Marr have posted here than them, and that's even taking Morrissey's bizarro vegan-fascist ideology into account.)
Excuse me, but That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore :B'
"Someone requests clarification and before you know it you find yourself in the Star Chamber."

User avatar
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

Unread post by Poetlister » Thu May 23, 2019 3:58 pm

BURob13 wrote:Yes, it is completely unthinkable that the editor who has literally sued the WMF would run around the wiki posting legal threats.
Anyone with any sense (which of course may or may not include Abd) wouldn't make on-wiki threats, knowing he'd be blocked. he'd just go and do it.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Locked