Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

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

Post by CrowsNest » Sat May 25, 2019 10:56 pm

8-)
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 8816#p8816
Me wrote:If the outcome of the case is a judge endorsing the WMF view that they can ban people for any reason, that the merit of any anonymous complaint is entirely within their remit to decide, and the banned person has no right of appeal, or any other recourse at all, then rather obviously, that would be a massive win for those who are seeking to highlight the true nature of the cult.
WMF_Lawyer wrote:He does not even claim that the ban was in violation of Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, which vest Wikimedia with plenary authority (which Wikimedia exercises infrequently) to ban any user for any reason, and even for no reason.

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 » Sat May 25, 2019 11:11 pm

If you read carefully what that lawyer of WMF wrote is his only weak defence WMF is protected by section 230 because Twitter is that too and a lot of paper filling bullshit.....

They have not any defence and that is the true! Only the hope that judge will buy there shit.
We will see, but to me that judge seems a clever lady who doesn't let fool herself so easy....

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

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

Post by CrowsNest » Sun May 26, 2019 1:39 pm

The chuckleheads of Wikipediocracy baffle me, they really do. It is easy to show the theoretical basis of the defamation, and indeed to show real world harmful impact. It is even easier to show it all stems from the unreasonable and unfair actions of the WMF, regardless of what they might now wish to say in court to justify their actions.

The WMF's legal position is they want to ban people for any reason they like, including no reason at all, not give anyone that reason, and then pretend there can be no harmful consequences from there being a public list of who is banned and the possible reasons it could have occurred, all highly damaging if true.

Abd's case is clear, the WMF's unreasonablenss, their sheer lack of duty of care for him as a publicly identifiable person they entered into a legal contract with, as well as the people they claim these bans protect, has meant his life has become a living hell of endless harassment from anonymous trolls aided and abetted by impersonators, all posting stuff he has absolutely no legal recourse against if it is the Court's position that the WMF are not obliged to help him in any way to prevent people making allegations and suggestions that can be made to appear at least plausible by combining elements of their established ban policy, their public record of this ban, and the publicly accessible breadcrumbs of prior dispute resolution efforts that are scattered all around their site. That they now seek to dismiss this by falling back on an idea he could have been banned for no reason at all, and the damage is non-existent, not only reinforces their lack of care, it bolsters the case they are cowardly shitbirds of the highest order.

They should have settled. There is no way they come out of this without either a hugely damaging public revelation of their true nature, or being forced to change the way they operate in ways they probably already know is just going to give them even more headaches because of who they are and what they do.

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 May 26, 2019 6:52 pm

]Boing! said Zebedee wrote:Whatever you think about our friend Vigilant, I think you are 100% dead wrong about that. In my view, from my experience of this site, Vigilant's words here are carefully and deliberately chosen. Whatever your opinion of him, dumb he ain't.

Sja. I really don't know what to say. Vigilant is nasty, brutal, has no manners, has obesely a mental defect, he is autistic because most times he is missing total the clou, and this man should make a better wikipedia. That was the reason I have let him go for a while to notice what his mental defect is and I have to say he is a very good actor and very good in hiding his autism.
I a way he seems indeed to think Abd has deserved that ban as WWHP noticed, and indeed he is not dumb. He has extreem poor social skills and every time I noticed he doesn't see the connections and is in that way missing the clou.

His problem is his one-track mind, for him is everything a^2+b^2=c^2 and special with legal matters that doesn't work. He simple is missing every nuance because his autism and any form of decorum also because of his mental defect.

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 May 26, 2019 10:22 pm

WWHP wrote:Well, he is crazy enough to file a case against the WikiMedia Foundation and bring attention to the issue. He is crazy enough to due diligence on a very disturbing troll farm operating on Wikipedia and RationalWiki and did so successfully.

Whatever you want to say about his personality, fine, but it pales in comparison to the Smiths and how easily they abuse wikis and influence communities, including this one I might add.

Indeed, I am very, very thankful to him and I hope he will learn WMF a lesson they will never forget.

WWHP wrote:Another serious problem is the lack of self-reflection in online communities, especially making assumptions about others online that are speculations at best, and then broadcasting those assumptions to others using non-resolving speech or communication, spreading confusion instead of clarification.

Somey and Zoloft give these dipshits and scumbags a podium and are in this way a part of the problem, they give the Smith brothers and others there weapons in there hand.

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 » Tue May 28, 2019 3:50 pm

CrowsNest wrote:The chuckleheads of Wikipediocracy baffle me, they really do. It is easy to show the theoretical basis of the defamation, and indeed to show real world harmful impact. It is even easier to show it all stems from the unreasonable and unfair actions of the WMF, regardless of what they might now wish to say in court to justify their actions.
Yeah. What I see at this point is that overconfidence led them to not be careful. First of all, I expected them to challenge the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court. They didn't even try, and by not trying with their first responsive pleading, they accepted the jurisdiction which will accept the jurisdiction of Massachusetts law as to libel. The WMF attorney "informed" me that the law was open and shut, a true statement cannot be libel and therefore I should go soak my head. Except he was polite, of course. These are real attorneys, and we both knew Christopher Lomax, a Jones Day attorney who was very helpful to me in Rossi v. Darden in Florida (a real cold fusion lawsuit!)

I suggested that the whole thing might be easily settled if the WMF would re-examine the claims behind the ban. His response to that was "What if they come up with the same conclusion?" I'm pretty sure he took that back to the WMF for their review, and they decided to stand on the technicality that they don't need no effing excuse to do whatever they please. They can. If it is not defamatory!

And in Massachusetts, libel law specifically allows claims for defamation through true statements, if malice is found. That's actually the old common law rule, only different in the U.S. because of the constitutional protection of free speech. Further, the troll EtherMan on Reddit, thoroughly contemptuous, nevertheless acknowledged that the "truth" of a statement includes what it might imply. And a WMF global ban implies, to many, a Really Bad Person.

So the legal issue here is not the ban -- I agree that they have, must have, the legal right to decide on a ban, and to implement it without notice, but the *publication* of the ban, which is not necessary. They use the clunky global lock tool because it is *slightly* easier, but it creates logs and records easily access by the public. Instead, they could ban in a different way, in an emergency, by changing the user's password, which anyone with database access can do. This would accomplish exactly the same as a global lock except for two things: no log, and the user's incoming email would not be disabled. Which was the most intrusive effect of the global ban process. It actually was not accomplished by the lock tool, so they must be manipulating the database anyway.

To challenge the WMF for a Bad Ban is much more difficult. However, as my case shows (see the draft Amended Complaint), the existing process, with no appeal, is ripe for abuse, a disaster waiting to happen. And it happened.

The WMF's legal position is they want to ban people for any reason they like, including no reason at all, not give anyone that reason, and then pretend there can be no harmful consequences from there being a public list of who is banned and the possible reasons it could have occurred, all highly damaging if true.
What attorney advised them to create that list, that Wall of Shame?

I'll be disappointed, to be sure, if all they do is to stop publishing banned users and scrub the logs. Rather, what I'd hope for is that they establish an appeal process, that is actually neutral. It could protect the privacy of complainants. It might actually protect complainants better than the existing system. After all, I know the identity of five of the probable six complainants, and the ban simply intensified my effort to uncover the truth of what had happened (impersonation socking to defame and private manipulation of wiki process). I had not actually outed anyone, but in the process of the research, I did out the Smith brothers. (the alleged doxxing of Joshua P. Schroeder is more complex, but that was far from what the WMF declares is cause for ban, and if there was harm to JPS -- highly questionable -- it would be because the Smiths archived the outing and noised it about, when it had been obscure and removable, and I did remove it from my blog and convinced admins on that web site to take it down. And then JPS claimed I harassed him!

Abd's case is clear, the WMF's unreasonablenss, their sheer lack of duty of care for him as a publicly identifiable person they entered into a legal contract with, as well as the people they claim these bans protect, has meant his life has become a living hell of endless harassment from anonymous trolls aided and abetted by impersonators, all posting stuff he has absolutely no legal recourse against if it is the Court's position that the WMF are not obliged to help him in any way to prevent people making allegations and suggestions that can be made to appear at least plausible by combining elements of their established ban policy, their public record of this ban, and the publicly accessible breadcrumbs of prior dispute resolution efforts that are scattered all around their site. That they now seek to dismiss this by falling back on an idea he could have been banned for no reason at all, and the damage is non-existent, not only reinforces their lack of care, it bolsters the case they are cowardly shitbirds of the highest order.
More or less, even if a bit colorful.

As to "living hell," the road to the Garden passes through the Fire. My training is to have peace of mind and power regardless of conditions. Nevertheless, people in my life have been harmed, and it has occupied many, many hours, getting to the bottom of this. Several thousand, probably.

They should have settled. There is no way they come out of this without either a hugely damaging public revelation of their true nature, or being forced to change the way they operate in ways they probably already know is just going to give them even more headaches because of who they are and what they do.
I really thought they might settle. The lawsuit as filed was a device to get their effing attention. They ignored an email, they ignored a certified letter to the registered agent, so, what would any lawyer tell you to expect if you do that with someone who believes they have been harmed by you? They relied, I suspect, on the idea that the people they ban could not possibly afford to sue them, or would, if filing pro se, do it incompetently, as has happened. However, they would be required to respond to a filing, even if incompetent, or face a default judgment.

I'm blazing a trail here. I can predict with high confidence that they will change their policies, because those policies leave them wide open to action. At least in Massachusetts, and probably in Florida, and Noonan v. Staples raised a lot of concern that exceptions to the veracity defense may exist.

I think this one is obvious: If I secretly decide to ban user X, while assuring the public that I only ban users when it is absolutely necessary, because they are very dangerous. I ban user X and publish the fact. The fact is true.

But what it implies is false and defamatory, and malicious. So I'm still liable.

To determine if it is malicious not, if reasonably alleged, requires a trial. That was what was found and ruled in Noonan v. Staples. It is possible that exceptions will be found elsewhere, it could be argued. To find out actually costs only $400 and a little time. Stonewalling, their policy, creates motivation. When one considers how much work many put into editing the wikis, $400 is peanuts.

(And a kind soul has already sent me half of that amount, and I have not yet created a GoFundMe.)

The WOdiots have no idea what real action in the real world looks like. They sit around stewing in their own self-satisfied opinions, complaining about Wikipedia and everyone else. It only takes a handful of people to transform society, actually. Used to be my saying:

Lift a finger, change the world. But most people won't lift a finger.

Why not? Mostly despair, belief that "they won't let us," "I tried and failed when I was young, it can't work" and other stories. Blaming Bad People instead of something missing in structure, that could be supplied. We have a culture that avoids personal responsibility. And wikis, as structured, mostly, created an irresponsible community, by not only using anonymous editing, but *anonymous administration.* In theory, the WMf could have been the adult supervision, but never set up structure for it, only this weird star chamber ban process.

A draft, still incomplete, of my Amended Complaint is here: http://coldfusioncommunity.net/w/index.php/User:Abd/Lomax_v._WikiMedia_Foundation/Draft_Amended_Complaint

I am doing something new here, crowdsourcing legal counsel. So far, I have learned a great deal from being criticized by idiots -- and from comments by the knowledgeable. I will be consulting an attorney before I file the Amended Complaint, and if the attorney advises me to STFU, I'lll consider it. I'm responsible for the choices I make, no matter who advised me.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

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

Post by CrowsNest » Tue May 28, 2019 5:03 pm

Y'know, I think the WMF would be stupid enough to think they could win even if you had a Peter Thiel bankrolling you. You get that impression every single time you hear them talking about a legal matter.

It really did blow my mind, that having seen your complaint, their actual response to the Court, something that crossed a highly expensive lawyer's desk, would go anywhere near the possibility that you might have been banned for "no reason at all".

I don't know if you've seen it, but it will probably help your case to include the fact that the WMF is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights because Turkey's ban of their website's somehow infringes the "fundamental human right" to "freedom of expression", specifically by denying Turkish citizens their rights to "contributing, debating, and adding to Wikipedia’s more than 50 million articles".

I didn't go to no fancy lawyer school, I don't work for Jones Day, but I think your judge is going to be well aware of the basic legal principle that denying a person their fundamental rights for no reason at all, is kinda shady. And yet this appears to be the aggregate view of the WMF, at least insofar as how they intend to use the law.

A Judge can't in good conscience endorse the arguments of lawyers who are that incompetent. He will have to hear the case to settle the matter as to who has what rights, and it is hard to conceive any outcome where they win on any substantive point of disagreement.

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 » Tue May 28, 2019 7:11 pm

CrowsNest wrote:A Judge can't in good conscience endorse the arguments of lawyers who are that incompetent. He will have to hear the case to settle the matter as to who has what rights, and it is hard to conceive any outcome where they win on any substantive point of disagreement.

And this exact what they want, losing this case.
And I complete agree with the WMF attorney, that would be the best for anyone including Abd.

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 » Wed May 29, 2019 8:15 am

Midsize Jake wrote:It seems to me that most, if not all, of our previous discussions about the SanFranBan list have focused almost completely on the people who are listed - we rarely seem to go into this question of why they actually publish that page, with the list on it, in the first place. Maybe that's because we are who we are and therefore we all just assume their intent is pure malice, but... is it? It seems to me that it's almost a kind of vanity, whereby they're indirectly saying "we have a whopping 80 million registered user accounts, but we've only applied our heaviest available sanction to these 30 accounts." The intention could simply be that they want to feel better about themselves and justify their horrendous misdeeds in general.

It seems self-evident to me that there's no clear rationale behind it, or any ongoing crisis situation that requires that page to exist, but I'm guessing that's probably not how they think.

Easy question to answer Jake. Gaming the algoritmes. First the brave Dutch wikipedians have connected my rare last name to my nick Graaf Statler and other nicks/socks with the strange Ymnes block request and on my blog (in Dutch) in the first posting you can find how they connected later my first name on the Graaf Statler account. The ultimate punishment for not being loyal to the sekt.

My analyse is a few clever guy had discovered in a early stage wikipedia was THE place not only to pimp yourself on wikipedia, but also the place to pimp your personal algoritmes and of others. Wikipedians could latterly break or make someone in this way. The happy prostitution of them to Google made this very easy, because Google is the master of the game on the internet. And, like every hooker get something back for there services this was what the wikipedians got back and a bag with dirty bullshit money what will make no one happy at the end.
Because it was bullshit money, an present of the devil. Money what have lost any value. Shit money, fake money, money what makes people very unhappy. Because you can buy anything except Integrity. because that is not for sale my father always told us as a child.

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 » Wed May 29, 2019 6:31 pm

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 00#p238244
Vig wrote:It's nice to see you putting that third grade education to work.


Well Vig, let me try to explane the situation to a briljant high educated person like you are .

There is a Atlantic Ocean with different seashores. You got that? Great! And one one coast is the States of America, and on the other coast Europe, Holland. still clear?
Well, it doesn't matter how you enter those country's, but if you enter digital Europe, even a shitty country like Holland, special if you have a server in Holland like WMF has, you are under the Dutch jurisdiction and stop the protection of the American legal system, even if you are physical in America. Remember that Dutch hacker who had entered the American jurisdiction only digital and ended up in a prison on America. 12 years imprison. You still got it? Yes? Fine. good boy! You get a stamp and a kiss of the teacher!

And now we are speaking of two SanFanBan winners and one is living in America, Abd who has started a trail, and he is under American jurisdiction, and I am living in Holland, a country with many rumours, also called laws and i am here in Holland under the Dutch jurisdiction! I, me, myself.
So, I have nothing to do with American law and regulation or even not with American courts, only with the Dutch. But WMF and it staf and contractors for sure have to deal with both and the Dutch legal regulation, and the American legal regulation here in Holland. And yes, as said, also with what you call rumours, but we prefers to call it laws.

Is this so clear to you high educated and absolute bright and briljant brain, Vig?

Post Reply