Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

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

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:25 am

What, calling you a trollmod? What has that to do with not talking sweet, Gazzy? You are a very sweet trollmod, what makes you so upset?
Because of that I said Sweety to to you. But do you prefer Sweet Trollmod in the future?

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

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

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:17 am

Is there some "point" to all of this crap?

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

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

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:21 am

CrowsNest wrote:Whatever happens, it definitely seems like he is costing the Foundation serious money even at this early stage, which together with their own ill-conceived actions elsewhere, might make the legal services column in their yearly financials look pretty insane. Guy Macon eating his own face with rage insane.

That alone might justify his suit. Sit back and watch the cultish, notoriously erratic, freaky-deaky organization spend millions to fight off one guy in court. It does not cost very much to file court papers; it DOES cost a lot to hire a professional law firm to file papers for you.

We could go on and on about how Abd was kicked out of Wikiversity and then "community banned" from WMF projects. Others already have. The point is (or could be), it was done with the usual Wikipedia skeezy non-transparent, vindictive style. Possibly in a private IRC channel with JzG (ask ME about him!) demanding that Abd be "publicly humiliated" by any means necessary. It's his MO, he's done it to other people before and he will keep doing it. Because HE HAS TOADIES. This is not the operating procedure of a "public service" nonprofit organization, this is the petty manipulation of a bizarre cult organization trying to purge a "reactive person".

Amazing that they hate Scientology yet often function very much like Scientologists.

TO THIS DAY it amazes me that Chapman has not been bashed over the head with a garden implement, or beaten to a pulp in a pub backroom, or run over by a car. The guy is a maniac loose screw rattling around in the UK. He is CLEARLY making enemies; yet he keeps on functioning with seeming impunity. Especially on Wikipedia. Why?

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

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

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:54 am

ericbarbour wrote:Is there some "point" to all of this crap?

Not any. I am really doubting if the new sysop is the succes you expected, Eric.

User avatar
Anyone
Sucks Critic
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:20 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

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

Post by Anyone » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:41 am

Lowdown on the Lomax Latest

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.33.0.pdf

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss fails to identify any allegations in the Amended Complaint sufficient to state a claim against Wikimedia.

Image

The claims solely rest on bare conclusions and a misunderstanding of the law.

Image

Plaintiff has failed twice to plead plausible allegations.

Image

At no point has Plaintiff pleaded allegations sufficient to state a claim or demonstrated any prospect of being able to do so.

Image

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

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

Post by Abd » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:57 am

Anyone wrote:Lowdown on the Lomax Latest

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.33.0.pdf

That document is being cited by some as if some sort of definitive demolition of my complaint.

In fact, that a Reply was filed to the Opposition to the WMF Motion to Dismiss required the permission of the court. It is not normal. My sense is that the WMF was desperately worried that the judge would allow the case to proceed, so they instructed their lawyers to "Do Something!" But the Reply repeats the Motion to Dismiss arguments and adds nothing new that is actually relevant.

I filed an opposition to the request, but the judge allowed it (which is next to meaningless, and was not surprising. I considered requesting permission for a Sur-Reply, but decided to trust the court to see the obvious.)

No lawyer will tell you that any outcome is certain. However, from having read all the cited cases and having studied extensive precedents, there are two likely outcomes:

1. The judge will agree that the Amended Complaint is legally deficient, and will give me a deadline by which I must amend it, or the complaint will be dismissed. It is quite unlikely that it will be dismissed with prejudice (which is what the WMF is asking for.). (If the complaint is merely directly dismissed, whicih is unlikely I may still file a request to amend. There is actually new law here, there are no direct precedents I've been able to find, nor has the WMF asserted them, what they asserted was defective.)

2. The judge will decide that enough has been alleged to allow the case to go forward into discovery.

Perhaps my opposition to the request for reply should be read, if anyone cares. All case documents are at http://coldfusioncommunity.net/lomax-v-wmf/

And the opposition is here: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/wp-content/uploads/31-0.pdf

Because I get email notification of all filings, I am generally ahead of courtlistener, and the docket archive linked is complete, every available document is there.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

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

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:07 am

The mistaker of Lomax, Vig, Timmy boy, Kum and name is they think they can have as a individual any influence on the fenomeen Wikipedia. Because they haven't.
They simple don't understand Wikipedia just is and have formed itself. Wikipedia is there because it is, and that is the only reason it is still there.
There is no logical reason or explanation for wikipedia, no one can give you one. There is no organisation what has any influence on it. There is no owner, section 230 makes that very clear.

You could sue some individuals, but not wikipedia, but I don't think that will make anyone happy or change anything.
But has it any future? No of course not! It will end up in one big shit explosion and smear anyone how was ever involved and who has dirty hands. The wiki history doesn't forget, and don't fear, will not forget you. Everything is accurately registered, denying doesn't help you. Wikipedia will follow you the rest of your life till you close your eyes for ever.

But what is the alternative of what Lomax does? I tell you. Doing nothing. Just sitting on the bank of the river and wait. Just wait and wait for the tremendous shitsow what is absolute coming one day.
Can't miss, this ens up in the scandal of this century. But you have to understand no one of us can change anything on that! Not Lomax, not the rants of Vig, not the trolling of Kum and Abd and Timmy here as we have seen here. And not we on sucks, no one!

It is simple gonna happend. ineluctable. No matter what we all do, this shitbomb is going to explode. Lomax can never win this case.
When I can't tell you, except it will happend complete unexpected. You think this will last for eve, but that is simple not true.

User avatar
Anyone
Sucks Critic
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:20 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

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

Post by Anyone » Sun Oct 06, 2019 7:41 am

Abd wrote:
Anyone wrote:Lowdown on the Lomax Latest

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 0.33.0.pdf

That document is being cited by some as if some sort of definitive demolition of my complaint.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer.

Much of the document seems to hinge on your alleged misunderstanding of Noonan v. Staples.

Would you agree that perhaps you've misunderstood the point of law this precedent raised.

I mean, Noonan did indeed pad his expense account and was fired in accordance with company rules / regulations. But Staples "maliciously" defamed him in a manner they'd not done previously with other employees who had also abused expense accounts.

Citing this case strikes me as misjudged. The WMF did NOT publish your block maliciously, and in fact did so in accordance with a straightforward policy they'd adhered to on all prior occasions.

Thoughts.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

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

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:01 am

In my way of thinking, but I don't know if it is correct, WMF doesn't SanFanBan on it's own. They don't pick candidates themself out.
The community's bring up the candidates, T&S filter it and nominate the candidates, and WMF place only the global bans and publish them.

So, if anything was not correct with a ban it is the bad of the community who asked for it and not of WMF. They only own the server.

So, Lomax has to sue the community or some members of it if he thinks there is done bad to him. Because the community took the decision, even Arbcom and the Chapter are involved I have understand, not WMF.

Lomax is simple suing the wrong party.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

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

Post by Abd » Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:19 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:Whatever happens, it definitely seems like he is costing the Foundation serious money even at this early stage, which together with their own ill-conceived actions elsewhere, might make the legal services column in their yearly financials look pretty insane. Guy Macon eating his own face with rage insane.

That alone might justify his suit. Sit back and watch the cultish, notoriously erratic, freaky-deaky organization spend millions to fight off one guy in court. It does not cost very much to file court papers; it DOES cost a lot to hire a professional law firm to file papers for you.
$400 to file in U.S. Federal Court. I could get a half-hour consultation with defamation attorney experts for $250. My conclusion so far has been that it would not be worth it at this stage.

If the case survives dismissal, it will go into discovery, which can get much more expensive. At that point, I may need support. I have possible sources I have not tapped. Having a case that has survived dismissal would be much more attractive of support, I suspect, than just some idea. Discovery could bring out some very interesting facts.

I saw, years ago, that the WMF was sliding down a slippery slope, as they amped up the SanFranBans. When they left all that to the community, they were legally safe. As it developed, though, the CDA was interpreted to allow bans for any reason or no reason. While it might be possible to challenge a ban under Wikipedia circumstances, it would be difficult. I did tack in an implied contract claim, but decided to abandon it. This would need to be challenged with a class action, for various reasons, there isn't enough juice in it to justify an individual case.

Then I realized that the CDA did not protect the WMF against their own defamatory statements. Was a ban "defamation."? Not in itself, but publication of a ban could be. And the legal arguments get a bit complex. Their defense, of course, is that it's simply the truth, and that they are allowed to ban, and it's meaningless. But everyone knows it's not meaningless. They don't just pick a name out of a hat to prove they can ban. No, they have a careful process, they have described (without actually giving real details). They only ban for serious violations of the Terms of Use, or for serious hazard to the project or the community.

And, in fact, the complaints leading up to the Wikversity block and the WMF ban were designed as retaliation and to create "fact" behind defamation. It was actually a conspiracy, that recruited individuals to complain.

Did the WMF realize what they were supporting? I don't know, but failure to exercise due care can be an element in the "actual malice" that is a part of Massachusetts defamation law. So, what did they know, what was the basis for the ban? What was considered and communicated? None of this would be, I suspect, privileged information. It would all be subject to discovery.

When discovery begins it all gets much more complicated and so that would be the time when I may need professional support. And it will also get much more expensive for the WMF.

Post Reply