No special evidence this was Suarez. Simply an off-hand comment by a Rat. This user was not considered highly disruptive. The last edit does look like it could be Suarez, but this was not "impersonation." The account was finally indef blocked by Debunking spiritualism, i.e, Darryl Smith, based on a claim on Wrongpedia, a satire wiki that Oliver Smith edited on. Wrongpedia had a robots.txt that prohibited archiving.

I captured a site copy and here is what was there, apparently written by Oliver:

RaiderFan is Merkel (=Wyatt on Rightpedia), who is impersonating me on that account [I used the name "RaiderFan" on another wiki; Merkel signed up that same name here and has pretended to be me in early edits and note how he also edited Rightpedia. The above evidence was recently put together by JuniusThaddeus a former RW sysop and the impersonation is mentioned on Merkel's page.

So this was not Michael D. Suarez at all. Notice that here, later, MDS is called a 'former RW sysop" instaed of a "banned Rationalwiki sockpuppeteer." This is the world according to Oliver Smith, full of meanings he invents.

This is the kind of evidence commonly presented by Oliver. Useless.

Indeed. Obsessed with it, in fact.

Right. He was not Goblin Face, that was his twin brother, Darryl L. Smith, and this is no joke. A real "evil twin" story. Later, Suarez clarified this.

Google will block, in the U.K., almost any page on request from one who alleges defamation. This is meaningless.

Smith calls reports of evidence or reasonable conclusions "malicious lies." Routinely. The Smith brothers created a massive cloud of confusion, then blame people for any understandable confusion.

Oh, dear, he must know something the author doesn't. what about cholesterol? It is clearly not a major cause of heart disease, but is "associated" with it, but then the correlation is poor, and correlation is not causation. As well, there are groups withi very high cholesteriol but low incidence of heart disease, so something is off.

That is what you call people who like someone, if you don't like them.

That sounds like a lot, but they are 4 ounce patties, so this is four pounds, which is not huge for someone of his size. In the meal shown, that was all he ate.

There is a lot of common wisdom about diet that has never been tested, such as eating a "balanced diet," when "balance" has never been tested.

And this is typical for this author: a single video is conflated to many.It's lazy polemic.

He is not anti-scientific. He is commenting with what is well known to people who actually study science, that much is not known, has been poorly studied.

Baker knows his stuff.

That would depend on context.

That's not what he said, and then, what someone says is not necessarily what they "believe." This statement as it was actually made was quite reasonable. What is missing in the author's report is "important for what" or "important to whom." It matters! Quite simply, he did not make the claim reported here, except off-and in a twitter comment where he was expressing something quite real. Epidemological research is often very poor, far less significant than blind control studies, and, unfrotunately, with diet that is just about impossible. So the state of nutritional science has been in flux for much of my life, with strong recommendations being mate that are later modified, modified again, and sometimes abanonded entirely or contradicted. Eggs and cholesterol, for example.

As is common, what looks bad is emphasized, and what is to the contrary is reported (this time, not always!) is brief. Baker tells a story about this. What does he claim. The author doesn't care, because he sees his job as collecting whatever negative evidence he can find. "Voluntary and permanent surrender sounds extreme. It obviously was not a permanent revociation, because he was allowed to show competence to be relicensed.

The link does not establish what his diet is. It's a critique from Popular Science, which parrots a lot of popular ideas, many of which are not established with solid science.

That is quite arguable. Key: to an individual. some of the worst science is found in epidemiological studies. Of course, the best anecdotal evidence is one's own personal experience. A "study" may show some sort of average response to some condition, but individuals vary tremendously..

That is actually correct.

Doesn't "physician" belong in there" He's licensed.

"Must be" would be pseudoskeptical. However, "missing mass or energy" is a truly extraordinary claim and requires better evidence even to inspire confirmation efforts. Santillil's claims are almost literally cloud cuckoo land, how about the "Santilli Telescope"? One can see many breathless reports of this, and here is a contrary view, and the author was actually sued by Santilli.

It might be, but this did not answer the question.

It is not easily confirmed by vague claims like those in this post. If the user has done what he claims, it would be publishable, probably, in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. The foundation of science, as a collective human enterprise, is controlled experiment and independent confirmation.

Not even a link. There is a Wikipedia article on Santilli. Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but I have researched Santilli in the past, and the article is not entirely off, either. I mentioned "cloud cuckoo land." Looks like that to me. I found two web sites (both appear to have the same content), and it is not obvious where the "data" is. THE R.M. SANTILLI FOUNDATION

A common excuse, not realistic. Unless radiation is being produced.

The basis for this claim? It is contradicted by information in the Wikipedia article.

So now we see that the user doesn't see what is right in front of him. He did attack the OP as "spreading false generalizations about patents." The OP's comment was casual and pointed to a general problem with many patents.

The challenge is meaningless without a detailed description. Few, if any, will even look, even with adescription, but without it, forgeddaboudit.

The user confuses evidence with proof. And what he has done, as far as we know, has not been published, so, while of interest, perhaps, it is not confirmed.

Patent applications are not "reliable reports." They are not designed to communicate results. Inventor reports in applications are generally unconfirmed, and, as stated, may fail to reveal necessary details. It's complicated.

It is poor science to assert proof based on an isolated report, which can be in error six ways till Sunday. And then again on Sunday.

That requires strong evidence

what argument?

Nor was it "published" in the sense requested.

Those were key terms. We could call what the user reports "recent," but it is not reliable.

The question was not answered with what was requested.

key words. There are observations, some reliable, but not recent, and "reliable" can be relative. The most reliable observations are not only allegedly repeatable, but actually independently confirmed. This has been elusive. Reported transmutation levels are low, and artifact has been found in some.

Yes, the question was not answered and still is not answered.

I had abandoned WMF wikis as hopeless before all this came down. I was just protecting an innocent user and the academic freedom of Wikiversity, but I knew it was not a safe place to create content. So no improvement arose from the ban, except just possibly this will end up whacking JzG beyond recovery. Maybe. A lot depends on what is in the WMF records.

It is not impossible. Pro se plaintiffs have some disadvantages, but also possibly some counterbalancing advantages, so much so that even if I retain counsel, I might represent myself in actual court, as advised., and use the attorney to advise. Cheaper, too.Much cheaper.I've done this before.

I don't know Graaf's educational level,but Vigilant does not possess the wisdom in Graaff's little toe.

I am not "poverty-stricken," I have what I need, and I have conversed with the Jones Day lawyers representing the WMF, and they are not quaking in their boots, nor would I expect that. I predict that they will either settle quickly, or my Amended Complaint will blow their Motion to Dismiss out of the water and they will need to start over. They are not afraid of that. Professional lawyers are not afraid of losing a point or a case, they get paid either way, and, in fact, they get paid more, in this case, if they lose than if they win. Lawyers can be very interesting people, they often have seen it all, and they are professionally detached, the good ones. I'm happy that Jones Day is the WMF firm. Good people.

Vigilant is quite careless. Ottava Rime is not banned, the list on that page includes unsuccessful community ban attempts.

Nice catch. Back in 2016, there were people telling the truth, and it was largely ignored.

Rome, you gave up before trying.

More accurately, the facts presented enough are not complete enough to show an obvious legal theory. I need to assert the context of a WMF ban. It is not a mere button-push. It has strong implications.

This is correct, and if I do not amend the complaint, it will be dismissed. The original complaint was really a stub to get the case started. I had hoped the WMF would negotiate, but they elected to contest the action instead of agreeing to postpone the next steps pending agreement.

useless video, text: "Well, bye."

Being insulted by the vicious, those full of hatred and contempt, is an honor. However, I don't think I have any cause of action for libel against him, so far, because nobody who matters believes him. I suppose that could change.

Of course he has a fan, widely known as Darryl L. Smith (or not impossibly, his brother Oliver). They deserve each other. Smith has previously allied with others quite like Vigilant.

One of the common Smith tactics: attempt to inflame any dispute, of anyone, with the target. Then use that as "proof" that the target is Very Bad. "Making people fight" is literally Satanic, it is the opposite of what sane people do. Actual Reddit discussion is here: Lomax v. WMF

Vigiliant does not know libel law as it applies to Massachusetts. I am not required to assert a "viable legal theory" in a Complaint, only to allege facts that could possibly lead to success at trial. My original complaint was drafted based on my understanding of common law, which is superseded by statute and the U.S. constitutional protections for free speech. But the constitutional veracity defense fails in claims for libel of a private citizen, leaving (in Mass.) the statute, which allows a claim if malice is alleged (and success if shown, after evidence is gathered in the discovery period. I found no cases, so far, of a successful motion to dismiss before Answer and discover. Malice is easy to show for some of the defendants.

He might consider taking his own advice.

Basically, I suspect, overconfidence on this point caused them to think they could quickly dispose of the complaint. It is not impossible, but the research I've been doing indicates that precedent is clear: if I assert a claim properly, there must be discovery to show, in particular, the absence of malice; in Massachusetts, so far, the defense of truthful statement fails if there is malice (and other conditions).

Will had no idea of how to manage a community. I did, I had run Wikiversity with few problems, but Will was so freaked out that he panicked. If he disagreed with what I'd done., it would have been easy to manage it. but he was terrified he was going to be sued, because a troll threatened him, so he desysopped me. His right, for sure, but he had no better ideas. His vision was shallow, but, yes, well-intentioned. In the end, though, he demonstrated the result of arrogant assumption that one can do better what others have experience with. He had been attacked on WO, by . . . Vigilant.

Actually, what is being demonstrated is how many users have little or no knowledge of law and practical legal reality. The lawsuit, as filed, was bare-bones, to get an action started within the California statute of limitations, just in case it got moved to California. The complaint will be amended, possibly mooting the Motion to Dismiss. All I have to do at this point is to allege fact that, if shown by evidence at trial, could lead to recovery. It is not necessary to prove fact in a Complaint, it is not even necessary to have evidence, facts may be alleged "on information and belief."

This is a link to Rome Viharo's blog, Internet Drama: a consensual field study into online consensus building.. His analysis is well worth reading.

This is more or less correct. Most of the parties will be named, and malice by the WMF or agents will be alleged as well. I do not like to allege malice without direct evidence, but direct evidence is not necessary. I have indirect evidence that shows the possibility of malice, but would need access to WMF records to be sure. I've become confident that the court will agree.

As it happens, by filing the Motion to Dismiss, they "appeared" and may not raise the issue of venue. It turns out that Massachusetts may be the ideal Federal court for this case to have a chance, there is clear precedent for a malice exception to the "truth" defense.

Possibly in Federal District Court in Massachusetts

They are bound, but not as bound as Vigilant believes. Nevertheless, Graef is mostly writing from the perspective of European law; in this case, though, stare decisis favors my case, because of Noonan v. Staples. It can get me to the next stage, discovery, which then opens up many possibilities. All the cases I have seen for dismissal of Massachusetts cases because of "truthful defamation" have been dismissed at summary judgment, which is after discovery, were based on review of what was revealed in discovery.

Noonan hinged on a requirement of malice in Massachusetts law as an exception allowing true statements to still be actionable. Because malice is certainly possible, there was an atmosphere of malice and revenge involved in the whole affair. That may be alleged, and, if suspicion is at all reasonable, the motion to dismiss must be rejected.

Again, isn't he charming? Mr. Congeniality and all.

Bingo!

Right. I made no on-wiki threats. I did write some ruminations on the blog, but that's what a blog is for, opinionating. Those were then spamming onto RatWoiki using impersonation socks and turning this into threats against persons. Impersonation socking. Don't leave your bridge without it.

Right. Rule number one for on-line survival came from my AA-sober relative, Don't Take Everything So God-Damn Seriously.

It gets a lot easier when you realize you don't "have to" deal with anything. You can notice something, decide whether or not it serves you to respond to it, and choose. There is no compulsion, ordinarily. If you think there is, I recommend stepping back and deciding if this is truly an emergency. If it is, your amygdala will not let you step back, you will act. But watch out! I mean, give yourself at least a few seconds: Could I wait on this a few seconds? Or minutes, hours, days, years?

Rome, making a factual claim where you can't find the evidence, Bad Idea. As you age, you may learn that you cannot rely on your memory. You saw something, somewhere, you reacted to it, and what you actually remember is your reaction, which you translate back into "remembered fact." It's common, ordinary, and can cause a lot of damage.

Huh? Where?

Offwiki was a classic example of a clueless noob who started a wiki, thinking he could do it better, failed to realize what would happen, gave me admin tools and I short-blocked a disruptive user, and he went bananas. Vigilant very likely was the troll who massively disrupted offwiki.

Will was overwhelmed by stress, he was threatened with being sued. I talked him down. But he was very unfamiliar with wiki culture and how it could work and not work, and didn't, in the end, trust me. I don't think he really trusted anyone.

1. Different wiki.
2. Making legal threats on a wiki is generally a dumb move.
3. Threats are quite distinct from action. The question really is if I would use throwaway accounts to make public threats, when I could easily make them directly.
4. The people threatened by those accounts have not been sued.
5. This was impersonation socking which is precisely what I confronted on Wikipedia and Wikiversity, as was confirmed by stewards.
6. So likely: same sock master.

He is correct, those were not my accounts.

Rome, you misread Emblyn. I know, easy to do. She was simply pointing to the RationalWiki snark about you. You failed to notice the main thing she did: out Darryl Smith as the source of the Reddit sock avalanche.

Darryl, probably

The motion was quite as expected. I give myself a reasonable chance of making it through the MfD. While they appear to claim it's open and shut, there is a legal theory that is untested, and resolving it for this case may require discovery, hence they could renew the claim (for summary judgment) if discovery fails to find adequate evidence. The standard for a motion to dismiss are very, very high. There really must be no possible case. Because a significant point of law may be involved, previously untested, this won't necessarily be over even if they prevail on the motion.

the cases cited in the memorandum are irrelevant to the claim I have made, because the WMF is the publisher of the defamation. One of the cases actually distinguished between the libel published on the site, by user provided content, and dismissed with prejudice on that, and statements by the WMF itself, dismissing without prejudice on that (i.e,. allowing an amended complaint.)

I'm not dead yet.

They did not claim improper jurisdiction, so they have waived that claim, if I'm correct.

Inmates don't have post office boxes in the town where the prison is located. How could they pick up their mail? Vigilant has half a brain, the back part.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bauer_v._Glatzer_et_al./Second_Amended_Complaint Yes, this is a section 230 immunity ruling, but Lomax v WMF is about the Foundations own statements. Note, from the ruling:

1. To the extent that Plaintiffs' claims in the Second Amended Complaint alleged liability premised upon "statements made" by Wikimedia (Thirty First Count, Paragraph 5), this dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend.

the terms of use are irrelevant to this case, though, of course, the WMF will claim they are immunized by them

Well, as a knowledgeable Muslim who found he enjoyed spending time with prisoners, and especially Muslims, who generally had high dignity, I had a lot of fun. I actually got to spend the night in San Quentin once, in the "Muslim chapel" with inmates. The only difference, really, was that they wore blue (regular population) or orange (transient), and I could walk in or out whenever I wanted. One of the most rewarding things I have ever done. I had a PO box at San Quentin because there were bomb threats from "jihadi" fanatics, and I was there several times a week. But no bombs ever arrived.

We would use medieval torture methods, appropropriate for a witch-smeller. We would read his posts to him and ask him to confirm or deny that this was him. and ask him what he is so pissed about? Does he believe in evil and is he fighting it by trying to kill it with insults?

Who would waste money on him?

Captain Occam has hit the nail on the head. This is what the Smith brothers have done, and they have often worked privately to convince administrators -- and media -- of their views. They used impersonation socking to defame and prevent response by their targets.

"really are" implies that "unsavory" is an objective thing, when it is surely relative to the observer I might agree with point of view, personally, but that a person is "unsavory" does not give us license to defame them, to present misleading evidence, etc. Such confuses our public consciousness and inflames and widens disputes, instead of clarifying or resolving them.

emphasis some. There are many more. I should make a list

that was my impression. I'm checking.

Very obvious for years. Vigilant is a hater.

What team? I filed alone.

He really is incoherent.

There will be, high confidence, at the minimum, a Motion to Dismiss, a response to that and I think they get an extra response. Before that, I expect I will amend the complaint. And then there will be arguments in court. The WMF has a possible basis for dismissal, to be tested. If the court agrees with what is expected to be the WMF position, then the WMF part of the action will be dismissed, but there will be other defendants, and subpoenaed evidence, I expect. How much can be come public record is not clear. Sometimes discovery is Attorney Eyes Only.

I'm amazed at how confident shallow thinkers are in their opinions. But that's social media for you.

Must be true, then, right? I'm checking.

Not necessarily related to the legal action

Martin would only be called to testify if the case is widened. And it would probably be a deposition, and such a subpoena would probably be rejected. Someone who is insane can still testify; it is up to the court to assess the probity of the testimony. Vigilant lives in a pus-filled fantasy.

Indeed. He has made so many mistakes in this thread, but he does not understand the legal principle.

He's lying. What "inflation"? I have no degree in any field, so what "credentials."

clueless, he is. I'm trained in science, and, while I am working withi a field often considered fringe, it is not considered pseudoscience except by the ignorant. I've been published under peer review in a mainstream scientific journal on the topic of so-called cold fusion. Vigilant is simply an arrogant asshole, with nothing better to do than spend day after day, year after year, on Wikipediocracy pretending to authority.

Vigilant clearly does not understand the WMF's legal position.

There is no such long-standing pattern. This is a Smith brother myth.

Attorneys are not in charge of clients. Most attorneys would advise not discussing the case, I'm sure, but the choice would be the client's. If I do obtain an attorney (I have not tried to do so yet), I will certainly listen carefully to advice.

I'm sure they would be grossly irritated by it. And it might dispose them more favorably to me. More likely, no effect at all.

It would be prohibited for the WMF to refer to a prior action. Unless a precedent has been established, of course, which might take an appeals court decision. Then they could cite it, but that still might not be enough to allow a vexatious litigation claim, unless the immediate facts warranted that.

I don't thing there is a snowball's chance in hell of this being ruled vexatious.

Many have not understood my goals. Bottom line, I filed the lawsuit because I've been libelled and the legal issues are not clear, and I want to find out. It is very unlilkely that I will regret filing. This is quite an adventure for $400. And it may do some good.

Classic Smith sockname, but not proof, of course.

those threads were not created in a day. Maybe one or two a day. Then many highly repetetive comments. In one thread that they really wanted to bury, about 130 comments, often identical, threaded on top of each other. It doesn't really work.

Highly likely. Oliver did claim the brother story was a lie, but the evidence for two is very strong.

That would be a violation of judicial ethics.

Viharo has claimed Tim Farley on the Wikipedia side, and David Gerard on RationalWiki. David Gerard has definitely aided and abetted massive defamation, that's obvious.

Tim Farley has been connected by Oliver Smith (when someone makes a claim getting close to the truth, Oliver starts frothing at the mouth and attempts to create a smokescreen by lying. It's quite a good diagnostic sign), but I would not "accuse" Farley without much more evidence. (And supporting a so-called skeptical writer is not a crime.) Farley is a pseudoskeptic, that's all (which is fairly common, genuine skeptics are harder to find). Darryl Smith has claimed organizational support, so maybe Farley was involved with that. Or not. So far, evidence for this is weak. But as time goes on, more evidence can appear.

Rome is a friend, to be sure. however, my complaint about him would be that he makes many claims, that might be right, but provides inadequate evidence for his interpretations. Still, he doesn't lie, and anyone who doesn't lie is a leg up over the trolls who attacked him.

In other words, they mostly did nothing, but Ever-Vigilant interprets this as boring, which, on Kiwi Farms, is good news. They more or less rejected the idea that I was a lolcow. Now, Oliver Smith, that's another story!

(It was explained to me that if I like laughing at stupid people, Kiwi Farms was the place. But I don't actually like that.)

I advocate scientific research into what is called "cold fusion" but which is actually an effect of unknown mechanism but significant potential, if it can be learned how to control it. It's widely believed that it was rejected thirty years ago, but that did not actually happen. It's a great example of fake news, widely accepted. In fact, all major reviews recommended more research. But to knee-jerk know-nothings, it's an interest in it is "proof" of "crank." I get to communicate with major scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner, and Kiwi Farms people get their own sterling company. Which do I prefer?

Overall, better known as a Muslim for the rest of this stuff. I was a Muslim chaplain at San Quentin State Prison. That was fun!

not by any stretch. That's Kiwi Farms, where they raise rotten potatoes for the lulz, and then everything looks like a rotten potato to them.

Actually, no. First of all, I don't have a "fixed objective." it's not how I work. I stand for possibilities, but my goals shift as reality unfolds. My stand is that reality is better than I can imagine. But I am not interested in working on a doomed ship. Wikis, without protective structure, are not sane places to create content. I had already abandoned Wikiversity, which was about the safest place in the WMF, until the trolls hit it. The problem is intrinsic to wikis that are missing protection. Of course, if the WMF committed to setting up genuine protective structure . . . it could all change. I'm not holding my breath. Being "unbanned" is one possible outcome, that's all.

they can stand in line.

Well, not exactly. Rather I never cared much about money, much more about my children and a series of causes. And I have enough to make it through each day, which has always been enough. I don't think of myself as poor, but technically, I am, so I may file in forma pauperis, it can help with certain things. I could have done this to avoid the $400 filing fee, but decided to go ahead. Some intuition or other than it was fair.

Yeah, that's one response. But what's it all for, Kumioko? The wikis are a terrible place to create content. There are other places and modalities far more rewarding. I can write on Quora, for example, and get millions of page views, nobody can mangle it, and upvotes and comments thanking me profusely for what I've written. Some people end up capitalizing on this. I can write on my blog and then request funding for expenses, and, so far, it has always appeared. Why work where you are not welcome? For whose benefit is it? One of the Smith trolls just wrote about me on Reddit, and a user popped up. "Lomax? I know him from Quora!"

interesting

On social security. Minimal expenses paid by a nonprofit, which has not supported the lawsuit (though that is conceivable). The nonprofit has been supported by people with access to billions, but I have not solicited support on this from them, and might not.

That could get very expensive, and for what gain? Vigilant would do this, sure. But he's an anonymous asshole, big toad in a small pond.

I've anticipated many of the arguments. None of them are slam-dunks either way. I have the advantage of full funding for my lead attorney, no matter how involved this gets. Me. Pro se. The down side, Me does not have deep experience at law. However, maybe I have some friends. In the end, it gets reduced to writing and then is presented in court by a real person, whose ability to engage a judge matters. And I'm good at that, actually. Pro se might give me some advantage. Or not. We never know for sure unless we try.;

I'm not squashed if the action against the WMF is dismissed, but I do need to amend the filing. First, I need to seek funding and counsel. See, there are other defendants to be named and served. It's complicated and I'm not moving swiftly. I get distracted by crap like this page.

Perhaps. But I knew all this.

No, they aren't. They will either advise their client to settle, and then work on that, or they will file a Motion to Dismiss, and then I get to prepare an opposition, and we will appear in court. I win no matter what, because my life is not based in zero-sum games. Someone like Vigilant does not understand how to live.

I am getting the impression that they are willing to spend more to fight this than it would cost them to settle, but I don't know for sure. Of course, I have not fixed a settlement payment, nor is it even clear that I'd want more than my costs. Or that I'd want less than $X. I really have not decided, I look to the next step, that's all. My conversation with the WMF attorney was interesting. They are competent, as I'd expect. I'm not going to reveal more than that because I do not want to prejudice any future conversations.

I don't think that it's necessary. I am suing the WMF for libelling me, which was not contemplated in the TOU, and it would be unconscionable to interpret the TOU to create a protection of them from libel by them. At last that is how they will argue. No, their primary initial argument will be that because their publication of the ban was "truth," they are immune. I don't think so, and I think it is an interesting question. Their legitimate need, to protect users, did not require publication of the ban.

Not an attitude I'd recommend. He may be right, so to speak, but I've watched the best lawyers in the US in court, and they don't think like that.

Bottom line, what I am asserting in the case has not been tested. People who confidently predict outcomes where a matter is not clear and has not been clearly tested are fools. No sane lawyer would do that (though they may argue for it if that is in their client's interest. I.e. they will tell the court that, of course, plaintiff's argument is totally bogus and against all precedent, etc. But then the court decides. That's what they are for!

This case is unlikely to be heard in California. I am not sure our Dutch friend has relevant testimony. but if he does, it could happen that he is deposed, which could happen where he lives. (Vigilant is so busy smelling witches and ranting about them that he does not understand the case.)

Yes. Every time one of these accounts appears, I tag it as a throwaway account. I am doing that will all immediately registered accounts in those threads, no matter who they look like. This allows later analysis, because, without this, the accounts become [deleted] and cannot then be correlated. Interesting patterns appear when this is done. Sometimes it becomes possible to correlate accounts across multiple platforms.

Probably Darryl. Oliver denies it and might be telling the truth, but he keeps claiming that I have accused him, when I have not. This was not Mikemikev, I have been researching Oliver's claims of Mikemikev impersonations and they are mostly false or misrepresented. I do know that a Smith created impersonations-to-defame on Wikipedia, that's what got me involved with these lunatics, when I defended the impersonated user and Wikiversity, successfully, tagging and getting many socks globally locked. So then they came after me.

the RatWiki story.

Yes. Created by Darryl, not any doubt about it. (There is some possibility that there is another family member involved, not Darryl, but it's unlikely. Oliver has lied, many times, no matter how we slice it. At one point he claimed it was all him, he had fooled everyone. At the same time, he blames anyone who mentions the "brother" story that, at that point, he admitted creating. He really is insane.

article created by Oliver and maintained by a long series of Oliver socks, and he's being sued over this. The "paedophilia apologist" claim was added by Oliver and based on deceptive, cherry-picked evidence that only looks that way if not read to the end. This is a Smith speciality: finding and framing highly misleading evidence. It has often worked.

And now he's really pissed. That article is on a right-wing site. It was intensely researched, obviously. It outs the hell out of Oliver.

Emblyn is interesting. When I first saw her edits and actions on RatWiki, I suspected that she might be a Smith. However, this never rose to a level where I'd write about it. I have since been assured by Someone Who Knows that she is definitely not a Smith, and she has acted to restrain Oliver (i.e., Tobias). And he's pissed.

The blog has Posts and Pages. Posts are very visible. You only see Pages if you look for them, or are linked to them. I use blog pages to compile evidence and analysis, they are my notes, shared with anyone who cares. They are not designed as polemic.

Charming, isn't he?

I haven't seen it from them, but from at least one other well-known troll, obvious obvious.

Yeah. There was a level of collusion. How much, I don't know, but Darryl has been an attack dog for the skeptical faction (JzG et al) for a long time. He's useful to them. Oliver has managed to run a blatant sock recently, anyone who knows him would recognize it, but those who know him are mostly gone, banned, etc.

I don't know about that. Maybe. But they would need to disregard a take-down notice. I have not sent a formal one, only one email.

Actually, the RatWiki article on me was created before the block on Wikiverswity and the WMF ban, and that article was probably used in that process. It was the fulfilment of a threat to get all my work deleted if I did not stop collecting sock evidence.

No. I found Rome's work later. And it was impersonation on Wikipedia, not Wikiversity. Then that impersonation socking on Wikipedia was used to attack Ben S on Wikiversity.

I have documented more extensively than Rome. Yes, that was an impersonation account created by Oliver, he's acknowledged it (but denies that the obvious impersonation was an impersonation)

Actually, my impression -- not certainty -- more likely his twin brother Darryl. Even though the motive (hatred of Kirkegaard) would be Oliver. The existence of two crazy brothers has made all this very tricky to interpret. Oliver is literally insane. Darryl is more high-functioning, but vicious and radically unethical.

He is correct. The Smiths, however, manage to recruit others, especially knee-jerk wiki users who do not look deeply at evidence, but only react to surface impressions. Sitting ducks for fake news.

One person's obsessive is another's persistent and patient. But, yes, I know what obsession is and it is a constant hazard.

Bongolian does not really have a deep undertanding. The best person to open a cooping, where a user has been banned like this, would be an independent sysop, already established, and if the banned user has no way to contact anyone, they could create that sock, and post to that user's talk page, and identify themselves. A sysop user will see it, generally, even if it is deleted. This would not be disruptive.

Well, they didn't waste much time! Less than two hours. Nobody supported Oliver. If his brother was aware, he decided that discretion is the better part of valor. Now, if any reputable Rat (is that an oxymoron? Well, no, there are Rats I trust) thinks Oliver did not get a fair shake, they could open this up again and comment in it, asking for more time. There is always a way, if there is a reality.

What's remarkable is that he did this for years, and the Rats didn't notice. Oliver had off-site conflicts with people, and then wrote articles on them. These people were mostly racists or people who might look like racists. (Racialists operate on an assumption that there is a reality to race, and the scientific issues is not whether there is such a reality, but the significance. The "hereditarians" argue that their position is attacked by "political correctness," and I must agree. Even if their position is distorted, itself, from reality, those are questions best answered by science, not by circulating petitions, for example. Oliver takes one side and attacks the other, sometimes in extreme forms.

As pointed out on the discord server, he needs help. My sense is that he believes what he wrote. A clever liar would never try to get away with the blatant deceptions he asserted.

When Emblyn wrote, in response to Oliver's "zero evidence," "u wrote the evidence," she was saying that the evidence came from him, I think. My guess is she was referring to the emails from him, where he clearly writes about a brother, and she may have read more of my blog, there are many pages that cover Oliver brother admissions.

Direct doxxing is obvious. But indirect doxxing, which may not look like doxxing, can ultimately do the same damage. Doxxing, by the way, is not libel, if true. This is all an issue created by allowing anonymous administration, a decision Wikipedia made early on that practically guaranteed that the structure would fail to be reliable. Anonymous editing, great for fixing typos or pulling in obscure facts, but not for resolving conflicts!

"Nice" always depends on context. Most of what Spud has seen of these others has been heavily affected by deceptive articles, impersonations, and, then simply differing political positions. In the real world, where power exists, people with differing political views are nice to each other. Opposing lawyers are congenial. Etc. I urge Spud to consider that what he "knows" about these "enemies" has been heavily conditioned by a climate of lies, that then leads to a colored interpretation of whatever evidence is real.

Yes, it looks like Oliver Rat is dead. He may try to create new socks, but it will certainly crimp his style. We now have the first half of what the Smith brothers called the "Rational Wiki Smith brothers conspiracy theory", nailed. There is another brother, in spite of Oliver's lies. There is evidence to review on that. The suspected current account has been inactive for two weeks.

Coops are not made when multiple sysops agree. Banned like this, one would need to find another user to file it. Instead, Oliver creates a new sock, writing about himself in the third person. He never really understood how to behave on a wiki, probably because whenever he got into trouble, he just created a new account -- even when he did not have to.

Again, this is how Oliver thinks. Here is a single incident, and it becomes "going around the internet harassing." His articles are full of that kind of distortion.

If it was doxxing, it was not on RationalWiki. Oliver routinely claims that this or that sock is "Mikemikev." That's doxxing, actually, and distracts from the real point: if the edits are disruptive, they should be reverted and the user blocked. Because RatWiki has no checkuser, acting "because it is Mikemikev" was an error, and unnecessary. (My guess is that a decent percentage of these have been misidentification, and Oliver had been warned to stop being the Mikemikev Police.)

This is very common with Smith "evidence." It is quoted out of context and becomes misleading. The sysop responds below. It did not appear to be doxxing at first glance, so he was asking if he could restore it. He was apparently satisfied, and the point is? If Oliver is correct, some true information, not actually doxxing, but also not necessary, or not yet, no foundation having been laid, is invisible to ordinary sysops. So? The fact is that non-doxxing information about the Smiths was often hidden. It has mostly stayed hidden because nobody can be arsed to look at it.

When I put up information that was merely WMF wiki information, public, (and iwthout the real names, by the way). the Smiths screamed that this was doxxing. And, in fact, such information could be, sometimes. Rome Viharo accidentally revealed his name in a post, with a signature, probably a stray paste. He immediately deleted it, but Dan Skeptic or friends immediately pulled that up and noised it everywhere. That was doxxing. It appears that the link, if followed, could lead to other information that would lead to Emblyn's identity. Pointing to that without any necessity would be offensive doxxing.

Nor would I, in her shoes. To an insane famous internet troll, as was becoming apparent, who will attack with whatever he can find, as he proceeded to demonstrate.

What Oliver knew -- our should have known if his mind was functioning, which is in some doubt -- was that Emblyn was EK. he didn't know real-life identity, nor was it appropriate, for RW purposes, for him to demand the information. Emblyn was considering writing an article about him. Well, he writes many articles about internet figures, why not one about him? And if it is written in RW style, at which Oliver was expert, it will be heavily distorted toward whatever can look bad to the RW audience. Her draft was quite mild.

Oliver has revealed that his brother is involved many, many times. That was the one thing that Emblyn did that she was responsible for, reporting the massive socking on Reddit as being from Darryl, i.e., Oliver's brother. That was, in fact, a reasonable conclusion, though certainly not proven, not yet. Oliver wants to control what Rats do anywhere, everywhere; the old tradition was that one would not be sanctioned on one site for alleged misbehavior elsewhere. The Smiths were experts at demolishing that tradition, as article targets researched who had been writing about them, and then reported it. Right or wrong (and the Smiths created such massive disruption, it was all quite confusing.

What happened was that Rome Viharo made some comments, according to his beliefs. Emblyn added some links for research, not necessarily approving those sources. But simply linking to material,anywhere, is, to him, "harassment." Yet if he searches the internet for dirt on his article targets, or even what merely looks like dirt if one squints, that is "research." Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

no crime is alleged

Well, I have not actually tried. I'm not in a rush.

Yeah. the ban was immediately published on RatWiki by the Smiths, who had, of course, created it through coordinating private complaints. Dysklyver has been coming to recognize this. He is real-name, straight-shooter.

Don't bother, Kumioko. Unless a need appears. Ask me privately. You can do that with any comment on my blog. I see all of them before approving them. coldfusioncommunity.net

NewYorkBrad was always a bit clueless. I socked for a short time on Wikipedia, as a demonstration of something that had previously been approved by an arbitrator, disclosed editing under ban with self-reversion. I knew that this could eliminate a lot of unnecessary disruption. But of course, to the Wikipediots, a ban is a ban is a ban, and the hell with WP:IAR. NYB was trying to figure out of the WMF could legally stop me . . . from making s few harmless edits. I used to like NYB, but he lost all respect from this and a few other clumsies. Something about long involvement with Wikipedia seems to damage sanity.

He noticed the problem with the Witchsmeller. This guy has been defaming people for a long, long time, and has been supported in that by Wikipediocracy. Great for the lulz, I expect.

It was discussed on Jimbo Wales talk page. There were trollsocks impersonating me as well.

Doing so anonymously is going to be a tad difficult. And "eccentric" is not relevant in the least.

Bingo. Even if they libeled me through the publication (which, by the way, included mails to complainants, Oliver D. Smith published one, crowing how I'd been banned because of his complaint of harassment. Wait- there was no plausible claim that I had harassed him. So he lied. Oops.) they could ameliorate it greatly by admitting it was an error. They could turn around and globally ban the real trolls who created the situation I was addressing. But that's up to them. And I'm suggesting that they dump the ban announcements entirely unless the become necessary. (But any banned individual could waive privacy. I also think that disallowing others to email a banned user is offensive, and the ban tools they use are excessive, in general. But that's a much more complex problem.)

Well, I don't expect that, but I'm ready for it if it happens. Again, I get to spend time with my grandchildren. That's a win.

This has been common law as well. When a party wrote the contract with no participation by another party, unreasonable terms may be set aside. But the law is full of exceptions, etc.

And I have not researched her. I look forward to meeting her. I generally have high expectations of federal judges. Most of them are intelligent, compassionate, fair, and thoughtful.

No, I will call Midsize Jake an idiot, now and here, and then forget about it unless he repeats this stupidity.

Where did I claim that?

Rather, I get to spend time with my children and grandchildren within easy community of the relevant court. But I don't think they will win a motion to move. Still, this part of my larger point. For the WMF to treat users like worthless shit, and powerless, is a very bad idea. No lawyer would advise that. But they do it. And I don't know why. They could do much better, easily. So maybe we find out and maybe we don't, and maybe we all die someday. No, not maybe. We do, and what matters is what we did pending.

I would assume a settlement would drop with prejudice, but under what terms?

So, let me see if I understand this. A person has edited Wikipedia. Then they are hired by the WMF for something and the WMF fires them and claims they did something reprehensible. The WMF defends, claiming this person was a user and had therefore agreed to the TOU.

Just a little hyperbole, eh? I have little idea what is going to happen, but I go through life finding out. As a result, I've seen some truly amazing stuff.

I consider him a friend, though I know him hardly at all, to be sure, but I expect my friend to serve his client, fully and well. That's what my friend would do. Vigilant has a poisoned view of the world. He's been smelling too many witches. (Not real ones, to be sure.)

Well, so far, judges have obviously liked me, joking with me, etc.

Well, that's a mistake if they decide not to negotiate, that's all. There is no rush to file, but at this point they might be nearing the deadline. It's only a mistake if they refuse to negotiate. Their attorney was quite willing to talk with me, but was obviously not at liberty to consider settlement. I told them I'd be happy to give them extra time. We can postpone the deadline for filing about anything by mutual agreement. If I tried to file a motion for default, they would simply respond. Judges dislike default judgments unless the defendant has had plenty of opportunity to fix a problem.

My guess is not well enough. But we will see. A more relevant question would be how skillfully will I pursue this.

I'm not sure that it would benefit them to push hard.

Whatever it takes within my rather lazy capacity. Still, over time, I tend to get stuff done.

It's possible. There might need to be a little more, but ... I am not deciding in advance. The WMF could have resolved all this easily when I first sent them a certified letter over a year ago. A few minutes. But they have this policy, see, which appears to be something like

WE ARE RIGHT. SHUT UP. GO AWAY.

He noticed. The WMF used to protect itself by deferring all decisions to the community. Instead of setting up systems that supported that, they decided to intervene, but did not consider that they might be libelling users by publishing bans. They could easily ban without publication, trivial. I could do it in a few minutes, all I'd need is database access. Just kill the password. That is more or less all that the lock tool does, anyway, prevent log-in. And, of course, they would notify the user that they are banned, and that any usage of the site would be a violation of the TOU and they might then be forced to take other action. (Like publication to solicit community support for the ban). They could also set up a community-based but legally supported appeal process that protects complainants and alleged problem users. But, no, they did nothing of this. So it's being tested.

I have family in Marin County, which supports my action. I prepared for the California jurisdiction possibility by filing when I did, it was pushing the one-year statute of limitations and I was not sure I could claim an ongoing libel.

The TOU did not contemplate that I might be libelled by the Foundation. This lawsuit is not filed under the TOU, which could not possibly cover something like this. The WMF instead will defend based on truthful statements not being libel, that is their most obvious argument. And then I have a counterargument that, to my knowledge, has never been tested.

Hah. Hypothes.is is easy, These are notes. They are not voluminous, for me, they are easy and quick. It's an easy way to comment on a page where I cannot directly comment. Safer than on fora where administration is unreliable.

Right. Obvious. However, that might not avoid discovery. See . . . other defendants, which nobody seems to realize. Are complainants to the WMF protected from defamation if they lie?

$400 I found in a drawer. Beeblebox confidently states what he does not know. Common for Wikipedians.

Some people take great pleasure in what they see as the stupidity of others. Reality, which has an incredible sense of humor, is laughing at them.

I'm sure it will be fun for me! I have been sued before (always prevailed when I defended), but have never filed an action before. First time, what will happen? I don't know, and that is what makes it fun.

He doesn't realize it, turd that he is. I \(like\) Jones Day attorneys. I expect competence from them. What I want in the court is justice and truth. Our legal system is adversarial, and justice is more efficient when the parties are competent. I'm waiting for news. We will see where this goes. Much is up to the WMF, not the attorney, who works for them. But I suspect he will give them good advice. Whether they will take it or not, I cannot predict, nor do I know exactly what it is, nor will I ever find out, unless the WMF decides to disclose it.

Which would have zero experience with someone like me, I expect. His thinking is "corporate attorney," which can be competent but which may also be, ah, limited.

Information from Vigilant is about as reliable as reading , ah, something I won't mention.

Except I didn't. The court called me and we checked the address and it was correct. They sent the papers again and they arrived. No idea what happened. And meaningless.

the entire universe is at stake! AND MORE! That is what "limitless" means.

Really, what is clear here is what an Idiot this Witchsmeller Pursuivant is. (but he is correct, that is the exposure of the WMF if they move to dismiss and the judge agrees -- and if it is clear enough that I don't appeal.

To be more accurate, though, a Jones Day lawyer may be about $500 per hour, and it's going to take substantially more than an hour to push an MtD through. My conversation with the lawyer was 33 minutes, and there was another listening. They may have already spent more than $500.

Again, he doesn't know how to read. She didn't. Her children did.She knows me well, but I've only met her adult children a few times. I have a daughter with some public visibility and she received an email from someone warning her about her father, he didn't "know for sure if he was a pedophile, but he was defending them." Etc.