Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:03 pm
What do you mean? talktotransformer.com is still there.Moral Hazard wrote:No more TRANSFORMER!
The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
What do you mean? talktotransformer.com is still there.Moral Hazard wrote:No more TRANSFORMER!
Hmm...Poetlister wrote:What do you mean? talktotransformer.com is still there.Moral Hazard wrote:No more TRANSFORMER!
Yes, that's probably a mistake. But nitrogen is not inert, which is why diesel engines can produce nitrogen oxides.greyed.out.fields wrote:Edit: "burns liquid oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen"???
Poetlister wrote:The WMF would surely fight to keep some of these secret, especially the checkuser wiki. And of course the US courts have no power over chapters outside the US, so that would get quite complicated.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the lawsuit actually entails ... Mr. Smith.Jelly wrote:I'm listed as a defendant purely based on a vendetta. I actually did nothing wrong and Lomax doesn't substiantiate any of his allegations about me. I never sent any "defamatory" emails to WMF; I merely sent an email asking an admin to remove where Lomax had doxed my name on either Wikiversity or Meta-Wiki; Lomax was warned multiple times not to dox other user's real names who were anonymous.
The rest of his lawsuit is based on wild allegations another user was impersonated. However even if true, none of this is "defamatory". There was no defamation posted on the alleged impersonation accounts; all that was posted was someone copying what the alleged real user had posted. So it would be equivalent to someone using my username "Jelly" (or something similar) and copying this message.
The lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed.
Oh my god the table of authorities is a goldmine already.Vigilant wrote:This motion is a disaster
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.28.0.pdf
HOLY CHRIST actually learn how to cite cases! Not just regular Bluebooking, but you need to learn what your jurisdiction wants to see (there are probably local rules for the circuit and possibly the district on citations, and probably local practices)."Iqbal" John D. ASHCROFT, Former Attorney General, et al., Petitioners, v. Javaid IQBAL et al 129 S.Ct. at 1949
Well to be clear, it's just Jones Day fighting this for pay. In-house counsel are probably only tangentially involved at this point.Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly.
Meh. I don't think he's achieved any of that. The only places anyone's really talking about this either already think WMF is corrupt, he's batshit crazy, or both. The fact of the lawsuit doesn't change anything.I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Hah. I'm tempted to ask to be paid to do this. This is so bad.Vigilant wrote:Read some of the content of the filing after you get past the rats nest of case citing.
It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
It's actually rare to end up paying a significant amount of your opponents costs and of course the WMF would have to collect the money from a poor old man, which would be hard, and Abd probably could dispute the costs for a while (not sure how that works in his jurisdiction).Poetlister wrote: It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him.
Well this thread here alone has 161,380 views, versus for example our FRAMGATE thread that *only* has 70,545 views, and even last years entire Arbcom thread at 91,936 views. And then there there are the ~30 threads on Reddit and countless other places. So I would say quite a bit.Poetlister wrote:And how much publicity is this case getting?
Well it all helps right?Poetlister wrote:Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?
I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
Yeah, I'll grant that deterrence of frivolous and vexatious litigants is a consideration (within the limits imposed by professional ethics of course).Vigilant wrote:I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I've been on the defense against patent trolls with past clients.
The only long term play against these types of frivolous, vexatious lawsuits is to leave a smoking ruin where the first one was filed.
Make an example out of the net.kook and everyone else will look for greener pastures when the itch takes them.
If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.
Given that there's even a policy, WP:NLT, you'd have to think that the deterrent effect would loom large in any rational strategy conversation.mendaliv wrote:Yeah, I'll grant that deterrence of frivolous and vexatious litigants is a consideration (within the limits imposed by professional ethics of course).Vigilant wrote:I would.mendaliv wrote:I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious. It's not like they'd collect on it. He'd probably just declare bankruptcy.Poetlister wrote:It depends on whether he ends up having to pay substantial costs. That could of course ruin him. And how much publicity is this case getting? Will it be enough to dent the credibility of Wikipedia?Dysklyver wrote:Well he got it filed and the case is still going, notwithstanding the fact that it's technically one private citizen fighting an entire organisation's legal team plus additional lawyers brought in especially just to hammer him down properly. I am not saying he isn't going to "win" the case in a legal judgment sense, but what exactly counts as a "win" as far as Abd is concerned isn't necessarily a 200k payout. You could say he has got a "win" already simply based on publicizing the facts surrounding his ban and showing the WMF as both corrupt and incompetent. It's certainly better for him than the situation before he filed.
I've been on the defense against patent trolls with past clients.
The only long term play against these types of frivolous, vexatious lawsuits is to leave a smoking ruin where the first one was filed.
Make an example out of the net.kook and everyone else will look for greener pastures when the itch takes them.
If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.
That's not what I meant.Poetlister wrote:Abd hasn't violated WP:NLT (T-H-L). "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." He said nothing about it on Wikipedia. Anyway, he didn't threaten legal action; he took it.
I honestly think the NLT policy was created just as a cleverly worded way to permit indeffing people who make legal threats, but by justifying it as "protecting the community from the disruption of ongoing litigation" makes it sound non-retaliatory, and thus shouldn't create more leverage for actual legal action.Poetlister wrote:I mean that the policy is useless. Anyone serious about legal action won't discuss it on Wikipedia so will not violate the policy.
I'd be surprised if you're wrong. Could the policy be challenged on the grounds that people have a legitimate expectation that they are allowed to take legal action?mendaliv wrote:I honestly think the NLT policy was created just as a cleverly worded way to permit indeffing people who make legal threats, but by justifying it as "protecting the community from the disruption of ongoing litigation" makes it sound non-retaliatory, and thus shouldn't create more leverage for actual legal action.
Legally challenged? I really don't know. I'm honestly not even sure if the "it could be seen as retaliatory" thing I'm kicking around has any real legal basis, at least in US law.Poetlister wrote:Could the policy be challenged on the grounds that people have a legitimate expectation that they are allowed to take legal action?
Yeah, a few years ago people would commonly draw "NLT" blocks for things that weren't actual threats to commence litigation.I recall a case where someone was blocked for calling something defamatory, without explicitly saying that he would take legal action.
There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Yup. As with the whole concept of “aspersions”, it’d just be something to turn a disagreement into abuse. I actually had a neat exchange with isaacl on ACN last night, wherein he talked about the need to improve content dispute resolution so that we don’t even get to bad behavior. My realization from this is that an incredible amount of Wikipedia dispute resolution occurs because of the behavioralization of content disputes. That is, because conduct dispute resolution is so much more advanced than content dispute resolution (which isn’t saying much; conduct dispute resolution on Wikipedia is awful, but at least it exists), people have an incentive to exploit any behavioral dimension of a dispute in order to bring it to a noticeboard.Poetlister wrote:There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Arguably most non-vandal blocks are because of conduct so it would make sense that Wikipedia's dispute resolution focuses on it. But the system is woefully lacking. One could say Abd's entire case is an example of how once you get blocked/banned there is absolutely no proper procedure to deal with it.mendaliv wrote:Yup. As with the whole concept of “aspersions”, it’d just be something to turn a disagreement into abuse. I actually had a neat exchange with isaacl on ACN last night, wherein he talked about the need to improve content dispute resolution so that we don’t even get to bad behavior. My realization from this is that an incredible amount of Wikipedia dispute resolution occurs because of the behavioralization of content disputes. That is, because conduct dispute resolution is so much more advanced than content dispute resolution (which isn’t saying much; conduct dispute resolution on Wikipedia is awful, but at least it exists), people have an incentive to exploit any behavioral dimension of a dispute in order to bring it to a noticeboard.Poetlister wrote:There really ought to be a policy to stop Fae from doing that: Wikipedia:No absurd accusations or something. Of course, such a policy would inevitably be misused.mendaliv wrote:Really, I see these as equivalent to, e.g., Fae calling people transphobic for disagreeing with how the Yanav case should be treated under BLP.
Stick a fork in it, it's done.INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) (the “Opposition”)
fails to identify any allegations in the Amended Complaint sufficient to state a claim against
Wikimedia. The claims solely rest on bare conclusions and a misunderstanding of the law.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses Count 4 (“Violation of Implicit Contract
-- WMF”). See Opp. 18. He also concedes there are no allegations against Wikimedia in support
of Count 1 (“Defamation -- All Defendants”). See id. 8-9. That leaves Count 2 (“Defamation --
WMF”) and Count 3 (“Civil Conspiracy -- all Defendants”). On Count 2, Plaintiff concedes he
alleges no false statement, and his allegations of malice amount to pure speculation. See id. 10.
Without an underlying tort or allegations of substantial assistance or agreement to conspire,
Plaintiff likewise has no claim for civil conspiracy under Count 3. See id. 15-18. Moreover, he
admits that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes Wikimedia from his
claims which seek to hold it liable for banning him from editing its websites. See id. 14.
Plaintiff has failed twice to plead plausible allegations. The Opposition, for which he
received additional time to file after missing the deadline, reinforces that his claims arise only from
his frustration with Wikimedia’s website administration and the alleged conduct of the individual
defendants. See ECF No. 26. Neither is a basis for a claim against Wikimedia. For the reasons
set forth herein and in Wikimedia’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF Nos.
19, 20) (“Motion to Dismiss” or “MTD”), Plaintiff has no prospect of stating a claim against
Wikimedia, and the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.1
More lubeless, legal anal rape for Dennis "my head is filled with sawdust and feral cats" Lomax.At no point has Plaintiff pleaded allegations sufficient to state a claim or demonstrated any prospect to being able to do so.
That depends on whether the WMF's lawyers are racking up extra costs for some reason. It's a fair bet that they'll never be able to recover their costs from Abd.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 6:08 amSince there's no chance at all of it succeeding, and it probably won't ever even make it to open court, it's probably in WMFs best interest out drag it out as long as possible. More effective when the plaintiff is paying for their own lawyer, but probably still plays in their favor.
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
As an initial matter, and as Plaintiff concedes (Dkt. No. 28 at 4), Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is the only properly named defendant in this action, because Plaintiff never sought and obtained leave from the court to add additional defendants. See Knight v. Metlife Inv'rs USA Ins. Co. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4952037, at *1 (D.N.H. Nov. 14, 2008).
Accordingly, although this action is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., it is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing of a new action against the additional defendants Plaintiff sought to add in his amended complaint.
On the merits, Plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of Counts 1 and 4, leaving only Count 2 (Defamation) and Count 3 (Civil Conspiracy). Plaintiff's defamation claim is based on Defendant's publication of the fact that it banned Plaintiff's username ("Abd") from editing or posting content on its websites. Defendant's published statement in this regard did not include the reason for this ban, in accordance with its Global Ban Policy, or any other information. (See Dkt. No. 28 at 10 ("Consistent with the Terms of Use, Abd has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites. Please address any questions to trustandsafety(at)wikimedia.org."); see also Dkt. No. 16 at 4 ("The Terms of Use ('TOU') provide that [Defendant] reserves 'the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.'").) Plaintiff admits that he was, in fact, banned, making Defendants statement true. (Dkt. No. 28 at 10.)
Nevertheless, he asserts "the reasonable implications of the published ban... were clearly false," because "[t]he public will routinely consider a... ban as an indicator that a reputable organization has carefully investigated claims of harassment or other complaints and has concluded that a user is a serious risk." (Id. at 10-12.) The First Circuit (and this court) has rejected such an argument. See Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2009) Related [+]; see also Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d 195, 227 (D. Mass. 2017) (holding that statement announcing student was found by college to have violated sexual misconduct policy after full hearing was "objectively true," under Massachusetts defamation law, because the announcement "accurately stated what had occurred").
Defamation, of course, generally requires a false statement, although Defendant acknowledges a "narrow exception" under Massachusetts law whereby a true statement may support a defamation claim if made with "actual malice," in the sense of "ill will" or "malevolent intent." Noonan, 556 F.3d at 26, 29. Nevertheless, as Defendant argues, Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the statement is conclusory and he has not alleged sufficient facts from which the court can plausibly infer actual malice; instead, he relies on mere speculation, which is insufficient. See Amherst Coll., 238 F. Supp. 3d at 27; see also Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 82-83 (1st Cir. 2012).
Lastly, as to the conspiracy claim, Plaintiff has not alleged facts from which the court can plausibly infer Defendant joined any underlying tort or knowingly provided substantial assistance or encouragement in the alleged scheme. See Taylor v. Am. Chemistry Council, 576 F.3d 15, 35 (1st Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended complaint is hereby dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close this case. (Lindsay, Maurice)
So close.Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
Will the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
In further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
Is this like the stroke Jim Bakker had right after credit card companies refused to process payments for his snake oil? Like, I lost, I'm publicly shamed, so I -totally- had a stroke and now need to spend some me time away for that reason only and you should feel sad for me.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:19 amIn further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
tim
Abd isn't lying about the stroke, if you're wondering about that. I hope he recovers and I wish him the best with that.Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:07 pmIs this like the stroke Jim Bakker had right after credit card companies refused to process payments for his snake oil? Like, I lost, I'm publicly shamed, so I -totally- had a stroke and now need to spend some me time away for that reason only and you should feel sad for me.Randy from Boise wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 12:19 amIn further Abd news, he has announced on Sucks June 5 that he has suffered what sounds like a pretty serious stroke, from which he is recovering.Poetlister wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:55 pmWill the WMF try to recover costs from Abd? Obviously, they won't get very much.
tim