The List GROWS....

[Graaf Statler]

Well, Eric, you inspired me to write this article, because there are a lot of parallels, including a border blaster. It seems with new technology there are always this kind of phenomena.

Other thema. About the Western Electric 320A I have a few questions, but it's a bit out of topic. Does it matter? Or shall I open a new topic?

[ericbarbour]

I'd suggest starting a new thread in the nl-WP section....

[Strelnikov]

And another....

INeverCry, since 30 January 2018

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request ... _INeverCry

From the page:

Support
(start your !vote with "# {{s}}")

Support The facts speak for themselves, no matter who started this Rfc. Also, Daphne Lantier is indefinitely blocked on Wikidata for vandalism, and the user has had almost two months to rectify the problems (including attempts to recover control of the accounts) since the link was confirmed on 11 August. — Jeff G. ツ 12:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Criteria for global bans? --Base (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That is the decision-making by the person closing the discussion, not per the opinion seeking. I feel it is inappropriate for such a comment to be made by you in this section. Have your vote, express your opinion if you wish, not appear to disparage a voter's opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst, I asked a question, not made a statement, nor intend to. What I did intend additionally to asking the question itself though was to provide with that comment a link to the criteria for any further voters as given the broad invitation I think it is needed. --Base (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Base: Yes. The user engaged in serious on-wiki fraud on Commons by obtaining adminship for DL while INC was effectively unable to pass RfA there again after its final desysop (as performed by a Steward). Also, please note that my Commons userpage has already been vandalized by a suspected sock of this user, presumably because I created c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/INeverCry and c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 65#Community ban of Daphne Lantier / INeverCry. — Jeff G. ツ 13:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Support. After the recent socking at en.wiki (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry) shows the latest, the archive page shows the previous one, both since INC was indef blocked at that project) I was considering suggesting a global lock. But I'll support this instead, even though it does not look like it's likely to pass. INC is not a problem for Commons only - there are indefinite blocks at en.wiki and at Wikidata too (though I do agree it's mostly been at Commons, so the opinions of Commons regulars should carry more weight than mine). What we have here is someone who has turned troll in an avowed and unrepentant way, and he needs to be told where to go as firmly as possible. Should he go away and come back in six months or a year or so, express some kind of genuine regret and make a convincing case for leniency, then I could support some possible way back. But until then, I support a global ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Support Russavia was a commons problem too, he got globally banned, why is INC any different? This user has not only abused his OTRS access, but CU access as well as his administrator rights many many times. There was also the issue of using false identity to identify to the Foundation which is a violation of the ToU. The user has no intention of stopping his editing and now seems to be trying to compete with another globally banned user in the number of edits and accounts he can create so trying to "game the system" should be another ToU violation. This user has blocked many users over the years, some usually out of anger, including myself with an attacking block reasoning (which was oversighted by another admin to protect this user, something admins on commons have been doing for the last 3 years). I have been around for 11 years, i have seen editors getting banned globally for much less. This user is likely to again "game the system" with another "fake account" and thus why he should be globally banned to ensure if and when (when actually) he does do it, there is no way those pathetic admins we have on commons who have been defending this person for the last 4 years can do to prevent him from getting banned, this is basically my main reason for supporting this even though i do not agree with some of the support reasoning above. Commons is overrun with idiots (some with badges), they are incompetent when it comes to making decisions like this, WMF has to "drop the hammer" cause they can't...sorry are incapable of doing so--Stemoc 03:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Support from INC's comment below "I realize I've done some things that are completely unacceptable." and "When I started socking on Commons..." He is certainly admitting a long-term problem and saying that he will probably do it all again. We have to have some standards. Smallbones (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Support likely to create disruption again, and this is dangerous for his health. See this comment. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Support: Should me startup my comment with "what is your f*****g problem with Russavia? Is ironic how he claimed Russavia es the evil while he done actions Even more disruptive actions, with his admin tools and also a sockpuppet admin.

Altrough I agree the Russavia's sockpuppetry is bad and a violation of the WMF TOS, Me, like some users considered his block as unfair. Unlike Russavia, INC has been blocked and desysoped several times for REALLY disruptive actions, and, ironically, acused several users like Fae as sockpuppets of Russavia. The ammount of sockpuppets does not matter, but the intentions (Aka. Assumming bad faith, and I don't see Good faith when he created Daphne Lantier and when "she" became an admin).
Also, he blocked me once (actually two times, the latest by the sockpuppet account) for good reasons (Ellin Beltz), but IMHO also for "political" reasons (my "support" to Russavia -notice the quotation Marks), and this is more evident by the use of the sockpuppet admin. Then, this is not the best user ti block me but that is other history.
Despiste the good contributions of INC, this (years of) sick behaviour should end, and the only way is a global ban. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: I haven't political reasons for voting (as an involved user), but the evidences presented of disruptive actions un Commons and other WMF proyects, a global ban is aplicable. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Support This is an admitted troll with mental problems who has sworn to continue to disrupt these projects wherever they can. --Adam in MO Talk 19:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

(start your !vote with "# {{oppose}}")

Oppose Oppose due to wikiwide canvassing and forum/IP-hopping. The Banner (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose This IP claims that "I do not use my account here because I would like to continue to live & edit in peace". If you ask the banning of someone assume who you are and dont hide behind an IP. This, together with your attempts at vote canvassing and forum shopping, gives you zero reputation to ask for a global ban. This smells as pitty revenge and grudge. Tm (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read Global ban#Obtaining consensus for a global ban: It's not canvassing, but obligatory to "Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited". But I already stopped this now, anyway it would have been near impossible to do so in all wikis INC has contributed to. --78.53.71.61 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose The evidence presented above (a simple statement from INC that they intend to continue evading their ban on Commons) doesn't come close to demonstrating "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse". As far as I can tell, INC is a Commons problem and can be dealt with locally on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We've also had two sock accounts on en.wiki since INC's indef blocks on both projects (see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/INeverCry for the latest), and there's an indef block at Wikidata on the Daphne Lantier account, so I'd say it's not just a Commons problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose "confessions" by SPAs not connected by checkuser to the primary account can easily be created by an enemy of the user. INeverCry is a tragic case, to be sure, but beating him when he's down is not going to improve one single project, and the IP is clearly seeking some kind of revenge. Commons and enwiki can handle this, and are. Right now, INC should be given time to reflect, and to communicate with friends, and should not be pressured by the extreme process of a global ban. As I argue below, with Fae, this should be speedy closed. --Abd (talk) 12:49, 2017 October 5 while the principles remain, I am changing my vote to support the ban, to reflect what I express in this comment. INeverCry is very likely to fall into disruptive activity again, he is not taking all this seriously, and makes promises without understanding his own behavior, which is flat out foolish, and only a way of attempting to avoid consequences. How could he honestly promise to not do what he's done many times and doesn't understand? --Abd (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
as noted above, the high-contribution Commons admin sock was blocked on WikiData for "vandalism." Commons admin activity can look like vandalism, easily. Daphne Lantier was indef blocked without warning. INeverCry is not blocked on WikiData. INC requested unblock on Wikipedia. The decline expects an appropriate delay, not a permanent ban. Yes, INC screwed up, royally. I have no opinion on whether or not he should have another chance, only that shutting it down from meta, while no local wiki has decided on a permanent ban, is way premature. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Do any projects actually do permanent bans? The harshest en.wiki does is indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and my words at this decline did not say I expect a permanent ban for the simple and obvious reason that en.wiki does not do them - but I would not expect the current indef block to actually be lifted for a very long time at this point, if ever. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Lots of edits in es:WP are minor; the few interactions with other users have been always respectful. No reason to ban in es:WP. Problems in 2 o 3 project don't need a global ban. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose no reason to ban on vls.WP Lotje (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - such a global ban has no purpose. I don't see how this would help us achieving our project goals. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Seems only to be a local problem with some Users. That's why a global ban is not necessary. --Schlesinger (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose My opinion is that a Global ban is not appropriate in this case. It is mainly a Commons issue and has to be dealt there. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Firstly, I do not like hastely prepared proposals for global bans that were posted anonymously by an IP. We do not know even for sure that the quote is indeed coming from INC or if it is the work of an imposter. Overall, the opening of this RfC looks to me as if someone wanted to start this and watch it for fun without risking their own account. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that this will gather sufficient support nor that it will help to find a solution. INC states in their recent comment at en:wp: “I realize that my behavior has been unacceptable here and especially on Commons.” This is indeed a moment of truth, a lot of bridges have been burnt at Commons. However, in a recent discussion no resolution was found except that we do not want to allow INC to return at this time. But there was also no consensus yet for a hard ban. For the moment, I think, we should keep it this way. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose ACK Neozoon and AFBorchert. As a Commons issue, it should be handled there. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Obviously not a global problem but a Commons one. --ArdiPras95 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose The Commons community is not dealing wtih this situation effectively, but that's for Commons to figure out. I see no evidence of ongoing off-wiki or cross-wiki abuse. Guanaco (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose The IP is German? There is a Commons Russian user who is regularly staying in Germany... a user who is bad as a ringworm... from that to see a common point, there is surely only me... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This may be a kind of trap, all the more serious according to who did it. I don't vote in such possible thing. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose - Sure he's probably edited on other projects but for the most part he's always stuck with Commons so IMHO this is more or less a Commons problem, The other issue I have is that he plans to constantly evade detection so is it really worth wasting stewards time in constantly locking his accounts ?, Essentially people are going to try and fight a losing battle which really ... isn't worth fighting for, Anyway it's Commons issue so should be dealt with at Commons. –Davey2010Talk 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - as per my comment below --Tiven2240 (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - this is a problem on commons, not on all wikis. --Donna Gedenk (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose a global ban but not oppose an attempt to find a global solution. How about a fresh unique global account assorted with a commitment to refrain from using socks on all projects ? — Racconish ☎ 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose It seems like a local problem rather than a global one. Banfield - Reclamos aquí 16:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Unless edits by INC on Wikidata are vandalisms, there is no justification for a global ban. This can be dealt on Commons, with blocks and filters. --Ruthven (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose 1. No reasons for a global ban and 2. Like Rschen, anonymous IPs must be discouraged to start such requests. -- Blackcat (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - No global bans for users who only cause troubles on local projects. De Wikischim (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose – There is no ongoing pattern of cross-wiki or on/off-wiki abuse. The differences started at the Commons alone and I am optimistic hope that time will heal them. INC's recent comment also give confidence. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC) updated - NitinMlk (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Per Requests_for_comment/Improvement_of_global_ban_policy global ban requests should not be submitted by IP. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Bottom of the Page (not Jimmy)

A note about Russavia

I haven't been reporting Russavia's socks for quite a while now, but as a way of helping the Commons community without editing or socking, I will now be returning to my daily monitoring for Russavia socks on Commons and reporting them to WMFOffice to get them blocked as quickly as possible. I've reported probably half his blocked socks (1000 or so) and it will feel good to be helping in this quiet hands-off role again. lNeverCry 08:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

....And James "wide-lad" Alexander banned INeverCry ANYWAY, nearly four months later. Graff Statler is on the money - this is the mentality of the Nazi "People's Court" (Volksgerichtshof), especially as the law was laid down by Roland Freisler, aka "Judge Screamo." Nuremburg never got Freisler - he was bombed by the US Army Air Force in his own courtroom in 1944.

[ericbarbour]

....And James "wide-lad" Alexander banned INeverCry ANYWAY, nearly four months later. Graff Statler is on the money - this is the mentality of the munchkin "People's Court" (Volksgerichtshof), especially as the law was laid down by Roland Freisler, aka "Judge Screamo." Nuremburg never got Freisler - he was bombed by the US Army Air Force in his own courtroom in 1944.

This is a dead-typical treatment. No matter how many supporters INC has, someone powerful didn't like her. And Alexander is always happy to shove the knife in later.

I see that little snot "Billinghurst" was involved. Do you know who he is?
https://twitter.com/sDrewth
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewbillinghurst/

Andrew Billinghurst

Experience

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Safety Systems Manager
Company Name Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Dates Employed Nov 2015 – Present Employment Duration 2 yrs 4 mos

Wikimedia Foundation
Volunteer Representative
Company Name Wikimedia Foundation
Dates Employed Jul 2008 – Present Employment Duration 9 yrs 8 mos
Volunteer at Wikisource (transcriptions and administrator)
Volunteer at Wikimedia Foundation (steward, since 2013-2015)

Only an idiot brags on his LinkedIn about being an unpaid WP admin for 9+ years. Lol

[Strelnikov]

....And James "wide-lad" Alexander banned INeverCry ANYWAY, nearly four months later. Graff Statler is on the money - this is the mentality of the munchkin "People's Court" (Volksgerichtshof), especially as the law was laid down by Roland Freisler, aka "Judge Screamo." Nuremburg never got Freisler - he was bombed by the US Army Air Force in his own courtroom in 1944.

This is a dead-typical treatment. No matter how many supporters INC has, someone powerful didn't like her. And Alexander is always happy to shove the knife in later.

I see that little snot "Billinghurst" was involved. Do you know who he is?
https://twitter.com/sDrewth
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewbillinghurst/

Andrew Billinghurst

Experience

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Safety Systems Manager
Company Name Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Dates Employed Nov 2015 – Present Employment Duration 2 yrs 4 mos

Wikimedia Foundation
Volunteer Representative
Company Name Wikimedia Foundation
Dates Employed Jul 2008 – Present Employment Duration 9 yrs 8 mos
Volunteer at Wikisource (transcriptions and administrator)
Volunteer at Wikimedia Foundation (steward, since 2013-2015)

Only an idiot brags on his LinkedIn about being an unpaid WP admin for 9+ years. Lol

I would hide my Wikipedia experience from any employers or coworkers after the Essjay fiasco and Russavia and BetaM....and the list goes on. "The optics" (as the Poli-Sci geeks would say) are pretty bad, and the hint of even the slightest BS throws certain HR droids into Dalek mode ("Must EXTERMINATE from EMPLOYMENT at OUR FIRM!!!")

Jimmy "Horizontal" Alexander needs to be discussed - the guy is playing Lord High Executioner in WikiLand and thus accelerating the destruction of the site on almost a robotic level. Nobody at the WMF today seems to realize that their entire enterprise is like a game of Jenga that is at its hundredth hour*, and the tower is thus incredibly fragile so that the smallest cat fart could knock it over. Alexander's Nazi German 1944 "flying drumheads courtmartial" tactic is as counterproductive as the original one, which left a raft of Wehrmacht officers and NCOs useless corpses because some deputized NSDAP member/overaged member of the Allgemeine SS decided whatever those soldiers were doing at the time they ran across the defendants was somehow damaging the German war effort. After all, JA and JW "globally banned" me for showing up to their convention, and I never edited a byte of Wikipedia before Wide-lad handed me the letter.

_________
* I've never seen a Jenga game last longer than 30 minutes, but you know some band of maniacs out there has tried to see what the tallest tower possible is. I'm guessing 20 feet, and it collapses two seconds after construction.

[ericbarbour]

Jimmy "Horizontal" Alexander needs to be discussed - the guy is playing Lord High Executioner in WikiLand and thus accelerating the destruction of the site on almost a robotic level. Nobody at the WMF today seems to realize that their entire enterprise is like a game of Jenga that is at its hundredth hour*, and the tower is thus incredibly fragile so that the smallest cat fart could knock it over. Alexander's munchkin German 1944 "flying drumheads courtmartial" tactic is as counterproductive as the original one, which left a raft of Wehrmacht officers and NCOs useless corpses because some deputized NSDAP member/overaged member of the Allgemeine SS decided whatever those soldiers were doing at the time they ran across the defendants was somehow damaging the German war effort. After all, JA and JW "globally banned" me for showing up to their convention, and I never edited a byte of Wikipedia before Wide-lad handed me the letter.

Now that people like Cary Bass, Erik Moeller and Philippe Beaudette are gone, he's taking over their jobs as Chief Toilet Deodorizer. And just like them, he's totally dishonest and manipulative and evasive. The "Wikimedia movement thing" grew up twisted and it remains twisted today. Tretikov got rid of some really bad players, but there are always substitutes in the wings.

[Graaf Statler]

I notice in Wikimedia and on wikipedia-NL a incredible chaos. Is not the same going on in WMF? Is it not complete panic because the Wiki mouvement is out of control and has changed in Frankenstein's monster? Is what Alexander does not just blind panic? Because that is what I think is going on.
Wikipedia-NL is going to collapse, that's for sure. It is running out of control, breaking every rule of WMF, they openly don't respect copyright, there is only one way for them, strait into the ravine.
And what if that happens. What can WMF say to it's sponsors. And for sure people start to ask questions. Eric pointed my attention to John R. Brinkley. This is a new Brinkley affaire. Mark my words.

[ericbarbour]

I notice in Wikimedia and on wikipedia-NL a incredible chaos. Is not the same going on in WMF? Is it not complete panic because the Wiki mouvement is out of control and has changed in Frankenstein's monster? Is what Alexander does not just blind panic? Because that is what I think is going on.
Wikipedia-NL is going to collapse, that's for sure. It is running out of control, breaking every rule of WMF, they openly don't respect copyright, there is only one way for them, strait into the ravine.

Keep watching--you might be the only outsider who will see the final collapse.....

[Graaf Statler]

I notice in Wikimedia and on wikipedia-NL a incredible chaos. Is not the same going on in WMF? Is it not complete panic because the Wiki mouvement is out of control and has changed in Frankenstein's monster? Is what Alexander does not just blind panic? Because that is what I think is going on.
Wikipedia-NL is going to collapse, that's for sure. It is running out of control, breaking every rule of WMF, they openly don't respect copyright, there is only one way for them, strait into the ravine.

Keep watching--you might be the only outsider who will see the final collapse.....

Not the only one, because De Kolonel aka Die Vandaal aka Kapitein Zeiksnor sees the same.......... And the internal problems must be tremendous. Because I think many there slowly start to understand that free source boys and girls and Wikilaywers are a bunch of idiots, and Staler is not the troll and psychiatric wreck what them was told. So, they are complete locked up in there luxury hotel California. Because they can reading my blog and here am complete right, and not only that, I can proof it too. Looks to me very stressful. And I think it is also clear to them they don't have to expect anything from Wikimedia-NL with that foolish Sandra and Frans, and also not from WMF legal. Because that are about the same idiots.
The final crash will be very spectacular, and I don't think WMF will survive, and will crash too.

[Abd]

I now have an, ah, personal interest in Office Bans. I had been opining for quite some time, before I was involved, that the WMF has been needlessly exposing themselves to libel actions by diving into Office bans without

1. Creating a viable appeal or negotiation or arbitration process, which is certainly possible and could even be staffed with volunteers and *fair arbitration rules*. How to do this is reasonably well known, but they haven't done it, and an obvious cause is that sometimes an arbitrator might rule against them, and if nobody actually takes legal action, why should they bother? Well, if they actually care about project neutrality, and fairness and respect for the volunteers who built the project, they would. But they don't.

2. Creating a ban procedure that does not defame the banned person. Again, that would be trivial to do. Some of the people they ban are real-name accounts or are easily known. And enemies can and do use the ban as proof of bad behavior. A harassment message about me actually claimed that the WMF doesn't ban people except for "serious criminal actions." Because he has been claiming that, and claimed that to the WMF, and the WMF thanked him for his complaint and told him they had acted on it, and he published that, they are aiding and abetting defamation.

3. Providing any warning that specified behavior would result in a ban.

4. Using the lock tool, intended for spammers and global vandals, and which is unnecessarily intrusive and damaging to a user, instead of informing the user they are banned, and allowing voluntary compliance, with an appeal process, such that if the user voluntarily complies and pursues appeal instead of continuing to edit, more intrusive means need not be used. One of the problems with the lock tool was that it did not allow the user to log in, and therefore to change notification and email preferences. Their "fix" for this was to disable email, but that, then, would not allow users to email the banned user. They were then shutting the user off from communication from those who might be concerned -- unless they already had the email address. None of this was necessary to protect the community and the projects. Users sometimes become "long term abusers" because they have been provided with no recourse against attacks on them, only draconian enforcement with no balance or compassion or neutrality. Cut off legitimate avenues for redress of complaints, people will often not simply go away, some will fight. Scibaby's massive sock farm was created by abusive administration, far beyond what was necessary for the protection of the project.

(Playing whac-a-mole can be much more fun for the mole, once the mole realizes that the hammer cannot actually harm him. At one point, I and another made some attempts to communicate with Scibaby. We were attacked by the Fat Enforcer. It is not allowed to treat "abusers" with respect.)

So ... I just sent a demand letter, certified, return receipt requested, to the WMF, since they ignored an ordinary email. It claims damages of $500 per day for every day that the ban remains visible after receipt of the notice. I've given them 30 days to respond, and then I'll file an action, and I'm claiming that the terms of the TOS are unconscionable if applied to defamation by the Foundation, which this is. (They require filing in San Francisco and a maximum liability of $1000, which could barely cover the cost of an attorney to sit down with you and tell you it's not worth filing. Instead, it is cheaper to actually file an action to test that BS -- whereas an attorney's opinion might be just that, an opinion. -- Any attorney will tell you that the outcome of legal action cannot be predicted, and it's better to avoid it where possible. And I assume that WMF attorneys are likely to provide the same advice. If they fight this, they will be risking losing, at very substantial legal expense even to win. They will probably try a Motion to Dismiss. Even that will be expensive and is likely to fail if I have properly designed the Complaint. I spent about a year following and documenting a case and trail where every trick in the book was tried (Rossi v. Darden if you are curious), and I attended the trial as the only media present except for one day.

I've looked for precedent cases. I haven't seen one like this. The WMF has gotten away with running abusive star chamber process because nobody has challenged them.

My opinion is that the publication is an ongoing offense so the statute of limitations would not apply. I can file, myself, as "indigent," because I fit the definitions (I'm on social security, I have enough and have some expenses paid by a nonprofit, but this is a personal defamation action. If the nonprofit is included, it would then pay the filing fee, I think it is $350. I'm thinking of filing myself and then allowing others to join (which I think would be free). I have one SanFranBan eager to be on board. Anyone else want to join the fun?

(Some of us have suffered real-life harassment and harm from the situations that may underlie the bans, and from the ban itself. Behind some bans is a faction that defamed the user, and one of the things that becomes possible with a lawsuit is discovery, subpoenas to reveal what defamatory communications may have been received by the WMF, and what process was followed. If the WMF refuses to respond, they would then become more fully liable, and it gets expensive, and if they spoliate the evidence, even more so. It might take quite some time to sort all this....) I have not decided whether to file one action or more than one. Probably one, with a series of named defendants and Does. This would be a "diversity" action, allowing me to file locally in Federal District Court.

There will be another action, I suspect, in the United Kingdom, against the Smith brothers, they have blatantly defamed certain people, and indefensibly, even more obviously and provably than me, and I know that action is being investigated, I provided evidence.

(Strelnikov was banned with no account, by real name. Naughty, naughty! In no way could the TOS limitations apply to him. It is arguable that they could apply to me, but that requires a legal interpretation that I doubt a court would allow. I encourage him to consider taking action, it could be as simple as allowing his name to be used and providing a notarized affidavit. The WMF involved itself in some very nasty business, when they could have taken action without defaming alleged abusers. Instead of creating sane procedures that would allow them to act to protect without defamation, they used the defective and public lock tool with announced policies that implied serious offenses.)

I have many questions to ask lawyers, and will consult wherever possible, but I will start the ball rolling without a lawyer. (I have already requested comment on the demand letter, we'll see if it happens.)

(It is a common misconception that it is necessary to have "proof" to file an action. No, one can simply file a Complaint. It can even be false, but Complaints are exempt from libel law. An attorney should not knowingly file a false statement, but some do anyway. Rarely is anything done. I will not file any false statements, but I can merely assert what I think may have happened. When the case is filed, Discovery begins and then it can seek evidence, I do not have to have evidence to start, merely enough to allege to make a claim of harm if I can show to the satisfaction of a judge or jury that the facts asserted are true. I can take this case to a certain level on my own steam. If nobody else joins, I do not know if I will continue. It will turn into a lot of work, and I'm 74 next month. But, hey, not dead yet.)

(One can be sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits, ones where one would know that one will lose, but files to harass someone. I'm not worried about that, the issues I'm raising are plausible on the face.)