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 » Thu Jun 13, 2019 8:51 am

Abd wrote:This raises a common law issue of an expectation of fair dealing and due process. That can trump the literal words of a contract. It's a long shot, to be sure, but simply arguing it could be of value. I.e., the WMF could be forced to defend its policies and procedures by insisting that they don't have to be fair, and the hell with the community and transparency and fairness. They just might choose not to do that!

Common law. The whole wiki construction is indeed bases on common law, to avoid responsibility. But NL law is a Code Napoleon system with unwritten law and what we call een onrechtmatige daad. A judge will roast them, there is not any protection of the American Common Law legal system and there is case law WMF is complete responsible.
Should there have been anyone inside WMF who has who realized himself with SanFanBanning me they left the safe American Common law surrounding and had entered the erratic and unpredictable continental European legal system? I wonder. Or was it because they where convinced I was dead?
Must be, because they have entered a legal nightmare. That SanFanBan was legal suicide.

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 Jun 15, 2019 2:04 am

Abd wrote:I doubt that Fram would have a case for defamation even though there is some similarity. The ban is mild in implications and may actually have improved Fram's reputation. Nobody is using his WP ban as proof that he is a dangerous harasser (which is how my WMF ban was intended and then used, widely).
The boilerplate reason ("Repeated misconduct" ... "with considerable impact") is actually open to wide interpretation, and it looks worse when you consider how rare they are.

Apparently the Women In Red Twitter account tweeted the words "real crimes" in connection with the ban. It's since been deleted but I think the gist was they were trying to argue the ban must have been for something serious. Ironically it too is a role account, but we at least know who deleted it......
I am an admin on the Women in Red Twitter account and I have deleted the post in question as the wording lacked precision. On behalf of Women in Red, I apologize for that. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There's also speculation like this being openly bandied about.....
Why else would WMF get involved? I was told they didn't do anything on Wikipedia that involves editing or editors. I have to believe this is an extreme case because of the extreme reaction. I don't think that the WMF or T&S are full of vindictive people who block admins on a whim. Others (obviously) disagree with me. But this is how I see it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
These are not just ordinary Wikipedians either, so that would magnify the effect in a judge's eyes.

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 Jun 15, 2019 10:05 am

The admin involved is well known for breaking Wiki rules. The Foundation are unable to talk about the real crimes because of privacy but the admins supporters on wiki are not letting that stop them. Ashamed of them
Not remotely the sort of thing you expect to see on a role account, regardless of its official status. It didn't just lack precision, a role account has no business even making posts like this. It's reasonable to assume every Tweet from that account should also be appropriate as a post on their project noticeboard, signed as 'from the Women In Red WikiProject'.

For a while now the Women In Red project has been a law unto itself, with causal slurs appearing with some regularity. Just another example of the English Wikipedia's inability to govern itself.

Then again, tbf, unlike Fram, I don't think anyone has even bothered to even warn them, making them aware of things like WP:ASPERSIONS, much less remind them that they can and would be sanctioned on-wiki for off-wiki actions.
WP:HARASS wrote:As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning.
If they have been so warned, well, now we know that complainents who have genuine privacy/safety concerns if they use the community dispute resolution channels, can simply file a report with Trust & Safety.

It is also a stark example of the way prominent Wikipedians have seemingly never understood that WikiProjects are not entities that can have a view at all, people can no more speak for them as an entity than any random editor can speak for the community as a whole. They are not an organization, they are analogous to a conference room inside the Wikipedia office building. If the people who casually congregate inside that room, nominally for coordination of their work efforts, want to actually constitute themselves as a sub-group with leaders and spokespeople (and therefore media channels), they need to take that shit over to Meta.

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 Jun 15, 2019 10:25 am

Let the law speak and judges from the world outside Wikipedia, that's the best. i believe in law, let's see what the judges have to say.

Wikipedia has been much to long under a safe glass bell, time to show the world what Wikipedia really is.
And than the people can decided if this project is worth to donate their money to or not.
Because that is fair to the world, charity is not a business model and a way to get free lunches. It is our duty to show the world the true.

Abd was the man who dared to take up the glove, and I will follow him. And make up your mind, WMF, find out what what you want. To protect that strange class of editors who do a lot of productive work? What I doubt by the way. Well fine, in that case Abd and I shall learn you a lesson civility you will never, and when I say never forget!
And that is not a threat but a promise.

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 Jun 16, 2019 11:29 pm

Graaf Statler wrote:Let the law speak and judges from the world outside Wikipedia, that's the best. i believe in law, let's see what the judges have to say.

Wikipedia has been much to long under a safe glass bell, time to show the world what Wikipedia really is.
And than the people can decided if this project is worth to donate their money to or not.
Because that is fair to the world, charity is not a business model and a way to get free lunches. It is our duty to show the world the true.

Abd was the man who dared to take up the glove, and I will follow him. And make up your mind, WMF, find out what what you want. To protect that strange class of editors who do a lot of productive work? What I doubt by the way. Well fine, in that case Abd and I shall learn you a lesson civility you will never, and when I say never forget!
And that is not a threat but a promise.


I want everyone to stand for what they believe, and then let reality decide.
Thanks, Graaf.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 24 times

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

Post by Dysklyver » Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:23 pm

Still, it will be very interesting to see how this turns out since a lot of effort has gone into this and it has every chance of success. I may not have worked on it myself but I do look forward to seeing what happens next. ;)

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 » Tue Jun 18, 2019 5:36 am

Graaf Statler wrote:But NL law is a Code Napoleon system

Hmm, do they still do the guilty-till-proven-innocent thing? I would think Wikipedians would LOVE that setup. Because they love nothing more than to abuse and beat up each other, and then get each other banned for absurd "reasons". Even Napoleon himself would not like that scheme.

WP runs more like Soviet tribunals that dealt with things like the Chernobyl disaster. Lie, cheat, lie more, blame an unimportant third party. Silence critics. Disappear someone if they become too honest. "Our system is best system!"

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 Jun 18, 2019 8:32 am

ericbarbour wrote:
Graaf Statler wrote:But NL law is a Code Napoleon system

Hmm, do they still do the guilty-till-proven-innocent thing? I would think Wikipedians would LOVE that setup. Because they love nothing more than to abuse and beat up each other, and then get each other banned for absurd "reasons". Even Napoleon himself would not like that scheme.

WP runs more like Soviet tribunals that dealt with things like the Chernobyl disaster. Lie, cheat, lie more, blame an unimportant third party. Silence critics. Disappear someone if they become too honest. "Our system is best system!"

Yes, we still have the guilty-till-proven-innocent thing. But we have something else what the code Napoleon system so unpredictable makes. Unwritten law, and this is the most tricky part of it. And this makes the continental Europe legal system complete different from the Anglo-Saxon common law. Complete.

A judge is not bound to common law, he is complete free. He can do whatever he wants as long he stays within the borders of the law. He or she has only to deal with reasonable and fair and what is reasonable and fair is complete up to the judge.
And a second very tricky thing is many things what is in the Anglo-Saxon common law civil law is in our system criminal law. For instance copivio on a lage scale, deformation, and many other things. And, if something is under criminal law the state, the prosecutor prosecuted and as a private person you can ad a civil claim, what is guaranteed by the state. You always get your money, and the state cashed it. It is a criminal and a civil trail in one for free. Without any risk for you.
So, you don't have to deal as a foundation if you break the law not with a private person, no, you have to deal with the Dutch state. And I guarantee you that is a tuff component!

But Abd is a wise man, all the time he is saying take your time and step by step and that is what both Abd and I are doing, a step, and discussing that step in Dysk his war room on Discord. Whit very intelligent other people, well informed people, and extreem skilled lawyers like Dysk. Step by step.

And about WP-NL, well after Kim MoiraMoira-un has left screaming the wiki house and even hide herself for the press is there wiki house is on fire. Most of the brave key persons have left, it is absolute clear the bake bone of the power structure is broken. There pirate approch has failed and there simple is no plan B.
There situation is hopeless, if article 13/17 is implanted they can be any moment be hit by the EU with fines and strong messenges. There is not any escape because those European regulation works out as digital Roundup. Pirates there heads are chopped in the future in Europe, or at least they end up in prison.

Jimmy said after EU article 13/17 was accepted on Jimmy talk it was against us, and he was complete right. Because article 11 and 13/17 are the ultimate Wikipedia Daisy Cutters together with all those European privacy laws. There is not any future for them left.

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 » Tue Jun 18, 2019 8:39 pm

Abd wrote:Wikipedia is protected by Section 230 for statements made by the users, but they might need to take them down on complaint, or become responsible for them, and my opinion is that a new cause of action appears for each "edition" of a page, so they could get whacked for really old stuff. To protect them, they probably have no liability unless there is a complaint. Then it is speculative. The law on this is weird in the U.S, and, my opinion, not settled.

There is a case which will help to "settle" Section 230 responsibilities of website operators. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia, it's the federal criminal case against two assholes from Arizona who loved to scream "FIRST AMENDMENT" to protect their little empire of "alt weekly" newspapers. They sold off the newspaper business but kept the website, because it was making a fortune. In a very bad way.

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-back ... =synd_digg
The government indictment that triggered Lacey and Larkin’s arrests, United States v. Lacey, et al., includes 17 “victim summaries”—stories of women who say they were sexually exploited through Backpage. Victim 5 first appeared in an ad on the platform when she was 14; her “customers” made her “perform sexual acts at gunpoint, choked her to the point of having seizures, and gang-raped her.” Victim 6 was stabbed to death. Victim 8’s uncle and his friends advertised her as “fetish friendly.” The indictment accuses Backpage of catering to sexual predators, of essentially helping pimps better reach their target audiences.

In the years before their arrest, Lacey and Larkin had successfully beat back charges like these in court. They took refuge not only in the First Amendment but also in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Congress’ great gift to the internet. Passed in 1996, Section 230 largely immunized online platforms from liability for the user-­generated content they hosted. They were free to police offending material as they saw fit, without undue fear of prosecution by state or local authorities—as long as they didn’t create it themselves. America’s tech behemoths, from Twitter to Facebook, have often invoked Section 230 in court. The internet we have today wouldn’t exist without it. After all, you can’t build or sustain a giant network if you’re getting sued every time a user says or does something objectionable.

For a while, Lacey and Larkin’s strategy had worked: They’d won case after case, with the support of Big Tech and civil libertarians alike. But by the time the Feds descended on Paradise Valley that morning in the spring of 2018, the tide had turned. Many of their friends and allies had fled, spooked in part by too much bad press. The tech industry, which faced withering scrutiny over its role in the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, had thrown them under the bus. Their top lieutenant had flipped. And Congress had used them as an excuse to finally accomplish what it had been trying to do for more than 20 years—tear a hole in Section 230.

Maybe they should have seen it coming: The betrayals. The asset seizures. The changing zeitgeist. They were, to be sure, brazenly cashing in on the sex trade. But here’s the thing: Silicon Valley had better hope they win. United States v. Lacey is a dangerous case, with potential consequences far beyond the freedom of two aging antiauthoritarians.

Will this have an effect on the WMF? Don't know, but the next couple of years will be "interesting" for Section 230.

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 » Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:03 pm

That Wired article also mentions Craigslist's problem with "adult services" ads. This is stuff that you will have difficulty reading about on Wikipedia, because Craig Newmark has spent the last 15 years sucking up to Jimbo and the WMF.....
For some officials, though, these changes weren’t enough. In early 2009, Thomas Dart, the sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, sued Craigslist for facilitating prostitution. “Missing children, runaways, abused women, and women trafficked in from foreign countries are routinely forced to have sex with strangers because they’re being pimped on Craigslist,” he said. “I could make arrests off Craigslist 24 hours a day, but to what end? I’m trying to go up the ladder.” That same spring, tabloids across the country were awash in headlines about the “Craigslist killer,” a young man in Boston who’d responded to a massage ad on the site, then murdered the woman who posted it.

A federal judge in Chicago quickly tossed Dart’s case, citing Section 230. But Craigslist eventually surrendered anyway. On the night of September 3, 2010, it quietly covered its Adult Services section with the word censored. Two weeks later, in testimony before Congress, Craigslist execs explained that they’d done their best to address their critics’ complaints; now, it seemed, they just wanted out of the headlines. They also warned that law enforcement was losing a valuable partner in the fight against trafficking. Yet Ernie Allen, the lanky Kentuckian who ran the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, saw this as a necessary step. “Some of this problem will migrate to other areas,” he said, “but frankly that’s progress.”

Post Reply