1,227 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Something like that

      this was a reference to an interpretation of the Vigilant story, not to the actual reason for the ban. Midsize Jake does not care at all about accuracy, and it is that lack of care that is why the critic community has accomplished so little. Reality doesn't matter, it's all about appearances and snark.

    2. we'd look incredibly irresponsible

      He's avoiding fact here. Were people being accused of being pedophiles (or "pedophile apologists") without evidence? If so, my pointing it out would be ordinary and even constructive criticism. Were people being attacked who did not represent a real danger? I'm pretty sure of it, I recall examples. But others might actually be dangerous, and this would be a case-by-case issue. Mostly, though, the actual hazard was to Wikipedia reputation, the effort was to make the WMF look bad because it was "tolerating Very Bad People." And maybe it was, but that cuts in many ways.

    3. in several near-book-length posts

      I have never written a "near-book-length" post. Ever. Anywhere. I have called some of my posts "tomes," but that is a mere recognition that they can be substantially longer than the standard snarky sound-bites so much in favor in the wiki world. Now, what was the problem, exactly?

    4. mostly consisted of him telling

      With the title, that's unlikely.

    5. He knows that if we restore the thread

      I had no such thought. Again, his own imagination is asserted as if a fact.

    6. then of course his version of the events must be true...

      I made no such argument. Again, mindreading. But was there any error in my "version"? This is all fluff, ungrounded, purely hostile polemic, which I've come to expect from Wikipediocrats, too many of them.

    7. got the sequence of events wrong

      I notice that, while he knew this, I assume, he did not correct it himself, but waited until I corrected it, and then attacks the correction as an attempt to rewrite history. Of course, imagined motives are not history, though people do write them into it.

    8. wasting no time in trying to rewrite history

      First of all, my comment, which he links to, was in response to historical error -- which he acknowledges. So he mind-reads my intention, and projects it onto what I actually wrote, which did not claim what he asserts. To be sure, it could be read that way, which is why I've added a note. Rather, the effect of the ban was to prevent further exposure of the steward issue -- and other critical activity, including review of Wikipediocracy's obsession at the time, Pedophiles on the Wiki!!!!

    9. mendacity

      No errors are shown, much less lies. This is standard Vigilant polemic, hardly anything but unremitting contempt.

    10. Prima facie evidence

      It's long, and it is indeed evidence. In court, contemporaneous notes carry weight, far more than later recollection.

    11. Anal bludgeoning detritus

      A.b.d. ... Charming, isn't he? He links to my contemporaneous "bliki," notes about the Offwiki affair, about which many have been bloviating with no grounding in fact.

  2. Aug 2019
    1. rational strategy conversation

      "rational strategy conversation" assumes rational participants.

    2. within the limits imposed by professional ethics of course

      Which means that you don't file a claim for frivolous prosecution when the rejected plaintiff had a reasonable basis, even if legally incorrect in some way.

    3. If it were my call, I'd tell Day Jones to run up the bill explore all contingencies and then stick him with a $1M bill.

      It if were his call, he'd lose a million dollars, because Jones Day (can't he get the name right) would certainly have the resources to collect it from him, or whatever he had. I know Jones Day, I had extensive contact with them in Florida in 2017. Like any good lawyers, they will be advising their client to settle if at all possible. Vigilant had some narrow experience and imagines it applies to everything. Common for trolls like him. At this point, the WMF is out maybe a few thousand dollars. If I have no case (friviolous, vexatious lawsuit), it will be dismissed, I'm sure. Of course, if I lied in my pleadings, that could possibly shift things. But I did not lie. This is a legal fact: offend someone and stonewall them, refusing to consider their position, and they sue you, you will probably not recover costs. The courts are not stupid. They want people to be nice and work things out, outside of court. If the WMF had been willing put maybe a few hours of staff time into actually communicating with me, the whole thing might have been resolved, either without a filing or quickly after it was filed. I discussed this with Jones Day, actually. I think the WMF wants to test their "no appeal" policy. But if this survives dismissal, it could all shift.; At that point the case goes into discovery and we get to find out what they actually do behind closed doors.

    4. Well it all helps right?

      Dysklyver consistently understands the situation. Notice how he counters bar-chat with factual numbers.

      The WMF brought this case on themselves by refusing to discuss it, that's their "no appeal" stand. They ignored a registered letter. Okay, if they won't discuss it, I can nevertheless appeal. To a real court. So, in fact, could anyone on that Wall of Shame list.

      Of course, can we win? But there is no actual precedent for this case, I read a lot and searched much.

      What one finds is a vast pile of opinion from Wiki kool-aid drinkers and Wikepediots.

    5. I think it's not likely WMF goes for fees unless Abd does something particularly egregious

      He has written this before. I think he is correct. Vigilant, of course, believes that they will mop up the floor with what's left of my clothing after they bury me in lawyers. Vigilant wants them to countersue. For what? I actually think the law is clear, here. Service providers don't publish lists of people they have banned. If you go look at an account, you can see that the account has been terminated, but no indication of why or by whom. The WMF claims that they only ban for very serious violations and hazards, which then makes the fact of a ban defamatory, and that is how it was intended by the conspirators, and how it was actually used. It think it's pretty clear, actually. Hence I think it likely that if this survives the MTD, the WMF will be looking to settle. I have not decided what I'd be willing to settle for, and, indeed, I will probably consult an attorney if there is a serious offer being considered, but my guess is that it will be less than what it will cost them to defend even if they prevail.

    6. That could of course ruin him.

      I need pay nothing more to see a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. All I need to do is wait. To serve the other defendants, those who are servable, perhaps $600. Costs in discovery, I don't know yet, but if this goes forward, I suspect that raising funding will become easier. There are people with money who might support it. My goal is not to destroy the credibility of Wikipedia, only to establish the truth about my ban and what was behind it.

    7. t sort of looks like Abd the kook as lost interest in wikipedia, like so many things before it.

      Vigilant seems not to have noticed that I lost interest, for the most part, in Wikipedia in 2011, and in Wikipediocracy in 2014. Because of the mess at the end of 2017 (which was about Wikiversity, which I had also abandoned almost entirely, finding far greener pastures) I started commenting on Reddit, and then noticed a sudoku subreddit. I've been doing sudoku since about 2005, and I've discovered some things that are not widely known, and I write about them, plus I give advice to newcomers about information they need that is not easily found. And I get a lot of appreciation for that, but there are two trolls who don't understand what I write, who lie about it, and who claim that I'm telling everyone they are stupid. That's a troll argument, so it is not surprising to see it from Vigilant. He's simply joining in the lie. The subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/sudoku/new My Reddit account: https://www.reddit.com/user/Abdlomax

    8. "moot" as a synonym for "irrelevant"

      Yeah, I did. I might have trampled on some conventions. Does he think the judge will be so offended he will lose his lunch? The WMF stuck a bunch or irrelevancies into their motion, which I list on page 3. I considered whether or not to do that at all. In the end, some my state editing the memorandum was "Fuck it! File the Damn Thing." And then I'd think better and allow more time, until a lightning storm hit, I lost a draft filing (I thought) and I decided, this is ready enough, went back on the court site, and . . . they have a system that maintains last log-in state! It was all there and all I had to do was press Submit.

    9. I really don't get why he's abandoning the implied contract claim

      Well, he hasn't understood the precedents on Section 130. The case law has all gone in the direction of protecting service providers from claim because they ban someone without just cause or the like. While it could be claimed that there is an "implicit contract" that they won't do that, this claim is legally quite difficult, and, as well, the TOU would limit damages to $1000, and the TOU would probably apply. Not worth the effort. If this claim is ever to be raised, it should be raised as a class action, with a real attorney. And that will not be cheap, I suspect.

    10. the section on civil conspiracy (which is the most important count for Twombly/Iqbal purposes)

      I added it to strengthen the case. It's true that I have done far less research on it than on the defamation issue. I am likely to have an opportunity to amend (in fact, it is essential to bring in the other defendants). At this point, the court may decide that discovery is necessary, putting off a more definite conclusion to summary judgment stage, where dismissal becomes far more possible if I have failed to show evidence. If the pleadings are defective, I need to know, clearly, that this is the case. And I need to know with more clarity than I'm going to get from a shallow opinion Wikipediocracy from a lawyer who clearly hasn't paid careful attention.

    11. it seems to concede it on page 18

      Definitely I would not hire Medaliv. From page 18:

      A WMF Office ban is intrinsically defamatory, from its rarity and how it has been explained to the community. The WMF may be protected by 47 U.S.C. § 230 from liability for error in banning, but not from defamation from publication of the ban, which has been unnecessary for all bans issued by the WMF. That publication is far from ordinary service provider practice, and, being content that they created, is not protected.

    12. that WMF is immune to the claims as a matter of law due to the CDA.

      He's missed the point, the core of the case. The CDA protects the WMF for publication of content provided by others, they are considered a "service provider." But it does not protect them from defamation claims for content that they create. There are details, we may touch on below.

    13. HOLY CHRIST actually learn how to cite cases! Not just regular Bluebooking, but you need to learn what your jurisdiction wants to see (there are probably local rules for the circuit and possibly the district on citations, and probably local practices).

      A lawyer would surely need to know that for best practice. However, this is expecting way too much for a pro se plaintiff. Mendaliv does not understand what I was doing; I first created a list of citations in the WMF MTD, and added to that any case cited in cases they cited, in what was quoted. I did that as well for what I cited (almost completely). I originally wanted to file with hyperlinks to cases, but the court is still running in the 20th century, external links are not allowed as actual links. So all such links were moved to the end as text. They are there for anyone who wants to look at the cases. Any lawyer or judge is going to know Ashcroft v Iqbal.

      However, that long quote is not from Ashcroft v. Iqbal. It is from Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset 640 F. 3d 1 - Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2011.[15] That's First Circuit. There are no endnotes as such. There is a list of links, keyed at first to the number in the table of authorities, then to .

    14. e

      Right. Clear. First obstacle I overcame in the Amended Compliant. It was legally necessary, for a stronger case, to plead malice. So I sprinkled the claims with "malice." But there is specific evidence for malice, and I pointed that out in the memorandum. The WMF actually ignored evidence for malice, referring to it but then not taking it into account. I would say that Medaliv, if he wants to comment cogently on this, should read both Noonan v. Staples cases. The situation is not as many might think. "Malice" in Massachusetts is not as it is normally understood in defamation cases filed by public figures. The First Circuit made it clear that this was to be interpreted as "common-law malice," which is much easier to establish than the much stronger form needed in cases running up against the First Amendment.

    15. at least sort of the right thing

      Thanks. Vigilant will ignore this part.

    16. as I recall the motion to dismiss is on 12(b)(6) grounds: failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

      Yes.

    17. It's a laundry list of disconnected claims and hurt feelings that would make a middle school girl blush to have written.

      As usual, Vigilant gives his contemptuous opinion, as if he is the world's foremost authority on whether claims are connected or disconnected, and with his sexist comment, SOP for Wikipediocracy.

      I only need to establish a bare outline in the complaint, which has been reviewed in the memorandum.; At the end, I ask a short list of questions that will require, my opinion, discovery and a jury trial to resolve. Vigilant's opinion will not be invited. If he tried to express it in court, they would toss him out on his ear. Or the larger part of his anatomy, what he identifies most strongly with.

    18. fact of the lawsuit doesn't change anything.

      If the case survives the MTD, it certainly ill lead to some "changes."

    19. I don't think he's achieved any of that.

      Mendaliv does not see everything. What I know is that there are many now who know what actually happened, compared to many fewer before I filed. Mendaliv has his head so far wedged in a dark place that he doesn't see the rest of the world.

    20. n-house counsel are probably only tangentially involved at this point.

      My sense is that this is correct.

    21. Litigation is frustrating enough

      I'm not frustrated. My concerns are not those of a lawyer. I am not attached to outcome. I did do legal work years ago where I cared about the outcome. While I was always successful, doing the research gave me headaches. No headaches this time.

      As Dysklyver points out below, I win no matter what. Mostly I win because I'm standing up for what I know and what is possible for me to do. The court will decide what it decides, and I generally trust the process. If I fail to establish my case properly, I may or may not get another opportunity to repair it. I learn from everything that happens.

    22. here's a mix of inline citations and weird endnotes that only contain bare URLs (with repeating endnote numbers, like Wikipedia does, rather than just using a single note once and using "Id." or "supra, note 2" or anything like that)

      What I wanted an original had in the draft was direct in-line citations to URLs. However, that's prohibited in the court rules. And I sure wasn't going to put those lengthy URLs in the middle of the body. So I put them on a page of their own, in smalltext, at the end. They are not crucial to the arguments, they are supplemental, in case anyone thinks that a factual assertiion has no based, and the first links are to google case files, which is largely for anyone else reading it. The court has not figured out that actual in-line citations can save analysis time. But those urls can be copied into a browser address bar, and they can be found easily. As well, they are sequential from the document, I think. Why anyone would want to backreference them to the memorandum is beyond me, though.

    23. Never using enormous block quotes is like first day of 1L legal writing.

      First of all, IANAL. What I could have done with that quote would be to break it up into summarized points. However, that would be me, a non-lawyer, explaining the ruling. Instead, that court decided to include that to explain their ruling, so I put in what was relevant for reference. A knowledgeable judge will skim that. I doubt it will cause any harm.

      I am a writer and I know the principle Medaliv is asserting. However, I also know when to set rules aside and go with what a particular situation needs. If I'm wrong, well, I'm responsible. And no, if Mendaliv offers sincere advice, he would be in no danger. If I were paying him, that could be different. But given what I've seen, I would not retain this guy.

    24. Oh my god the table of authorities is a goldmine already.

      It appears he is not impressed.

    25. This motion is a disaster

      Took him two weeks to find it, he's losing his touch. Vigilant's opinion is a fart in the wind in a place far, far away. Mendaliv will be more interesting. An actual lawyer, apparently.

    1. User:Vihaan Khatri/82.132.187.12 on Wikipedia is Mikemikev.

      Extremely unlikely. Telephonica O2 UK is a major moblie provider. Such evidence is very weak, and Mikemikev would have no plausible motive for that editing.

      I have far, far stronger evidence on the Smiths, still dismissed as "lies." Without actually citing it and pointing to specific errors, if any.

    2. Mikemikev is known to have used Telefonica O2 UK IP

      Yes, he has.

    3. That excludes me

      Oliver has admitted editing in the area, so he has admitted the substance. Then he objects to a detail that he thinks might be vulnerable. This is all part of a long-term habit of deception. He has also claimed, verifiably him, that when he wrote about his brother, he was lying, it was all him. Then he later claimed that this was simply trolling, and we would all have to guess the truth.

      Oliver Smith. Spit. But Oliver is not the truly dangerous Smith brother, my opinion. He is the craziest, that's all.

    4. suspicious account

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Godotskimp was indef blocked without warning. However, talk page access was left open. The user was not an obvious SPA, but had little investment in the account, and it's easier to abandon such an account than it is to appeal. This was very unlikely to be Kirkegaard, for example. Probably not mikemikev, but that is not impossible.

    5. User:Vihaan Khatri

      This account was quacking "Anglo Pyramidologist" loudly, with very specific Oliver interest, but there is some possible overlap, so VK could possibly be Darryl. This was not "wrongly filed," and Oliver promotes confusion by calling the AP SPI archive "my sockpuppet archive." It is for both brothers.

    6. Obviously not everyone who is critical of OpenPsych/LCI/MQ is me

      Yes. However, it's a clue, and when there is an SPA quacking like Oliver, suspicion is obvious. Wikipedia, though has no resident AP experts, they are all banned themselves, which is not unconnected, if there is protection as we suspect.

    7. I also never denied I owned accounts on Wikipedia that made edits critical

      So Oliver is admitting to block evasion through socking, not that this was not already obvious.

    8. This thread was based on false claims I "harassed and libelled" someone on Wikipedia.

      In the context of these WPO discussions, "harassed and libelled" may be more loosely applied than what is strictly legally accurate. Non-actionable defamation is clear, in fact. (that is, hostile opinion, and such can be harassment even if true.) There was no necessity that I can see for Oliver to jump in here to correct what is, in the end, a minor error in expression.

      Oliver, himself, is not accurate. he is being sued over defamation through a constellation of written comments, and possibly verbal ones as well -- he admitted phone calls with the media. It is not just "web sites." What he wrote on Wikipedia may or may not be relevant to the defamation action, and Oliver Smith is not a reliable source for anything.

    9. I've never actually told anyone my middle second name

      These things are available in pubic records, and someone local (Mikemikev is local to Oliver D. Smith) might actually look at. And it doesn't matter what the middle name actually is. This is all "some of the accusations might be inaccurate, therefore it is all lies" pattern of Oliver D. Smith.

    10. created a Rightpedia article on me titled "Oliver David Smith".

      He did.

    11. first claimed my name is David.

      Nobody believes that any more, even if this is literally true. It's totally irrelevant what Mikemikev said, trolling Oliver.

    12. https://archive.is/0k9ZV#60%25

      There can be layers of deception and error, and any error in identifying Smith will be repeated by Smith to promote confusion. Markites cites Rome Viharo's post to skeptico, in which he speculates about David, because of David1234. Rome often jumped the gun. Reviewing this, though, I think MDS was correct. This was Oliver, promoting confusion, because Atlantid was clearly Oliver. But I have not thoroughly research the history.

    13. I've never pretended to be anyone named "Ian".

      Nowhere else, that is, that we have noticed. Notice how he mixes up the two accounts, so that he can claim they were both "blatant troll throwaways," but the Atlantid account was not blocked. Claiming an alleged error with "can't you get anything right?" is a common Smith trope. Was there an error? Actually, what Atlantid removed was a correct claim that "Atlantid" (the metapedia account) was Oliver Smith. Which it was, this has long been admitted.

    14. https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/User:O ... ntid_Smith

      This account could be, even likely was, Mikemikev. It only edited the Oliver D. Smith article. Oliver has often claimed he was impersonated, but, in fact, this was not actually an impersonation, it was an abuse of name. Nobody would believe for a moment that this was actually Oliver Smith, the subject of the article it was editing with anti-Smith content.

    15. https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Specia ... s/Atlantid

      While there are only two posts the likelihood that these are Mikemikev is about zero. This was pure Oliver message, and there is a signal confirming this that Mikemikev would be very unlikely to imitate. Almost certainly, he is lying, but he has created so many accounts that he might not remember. He asserts "Mikemikev" when it is utterly implausible.

    16. https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/index.php?title=Oliver_D._Smith&diff=670878
    17. you have a long history of posting (conflicting) misinformation

      Again, Oliver confuses evidence (which is simply evidence), suspicion, which may be asserted as such, honestly, and conclusion, which is always subject to error. What MDS posted is actually crystal clear, and I had never before seen it, because I never looked at the Wikipedia accounts in detail. DinoCrisis was an admitted Darryl account, and I had even attempted to check out the New Zealand story. I had not noticed the German claim.

      So Oliver's counter-argument to clear evidence, unmistakeable in import, is "you were wrong years ago therefore nobody should take your evidence seriously." That's how crazy he is, but, remarkably, it can work, on fora where people just jump in with knee-jerk opinions.

    18. started claiming DinoCrisis isn't mine

      In other words, as he learned more, he refined his view. The accounts were literally related to Oliver. They were Anglo Pyramidologist accounts. That's all. Oliver is trying to use possible error years earlier as if proof that he is wrong now. Except it proves absolutely nothing. This is trolling.

    19. In 2016, you claimed the above accounts were mine (with no evidence)

      There was evidence, but it was misleading. The brother story was first asserted on Wikipedia in the original Anglo Pyramidologist SPI case. It was thought to be the "my brother did it" excuse. But sometimes there really is a brother. I'm not sure when Suarez realized that there really were two brothers. When I came into the picture, it was very, very obvious to me that there were two quite different personalities and sets of interests. Darryl actually laid all this out on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Oliver, in early verified posts, confirmed the outlines as well. Here, Oliver "there is no evidence" was lying. There is evidence, and Oliver commonly confuses evidence with conclusions. His goal is defense through attack.

    20. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DinoCrisis&diff=1226799

      01:40, 22 August 2013

    21. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fodor_Fan&diff=569651282

      00:16, 22 August 2013

    22. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:David1234&diff=1245879

      David1234, again, obvious Darryl Smith. The sequence of accounts is strong evidence.

    23. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fodor_Fan&diff=568264356

      Fodor Fan, by interest, was duck-test Darryl L. Smith, AKA Goblin Face.

  3. Jul 2019
    1. Plaintiff has not pleaded any claim seeking to hold Wikimedia liable for the allegedly defamatory statements of Wikimedia users, but such claims are similarly barred by Section 230.

      Correct.

    2. claim asserted by Plaintiff would treat Wikimedia as a publisher of content provided by another, and would be barred by Section 230.

      This appears to be all about Count 4, which they would love to kill. The WMF appears to have believed that it has no obligation to treat users fairly. It must have a general immunity, there are reasons for Section 230, but that does not change a possible obligation to nevertheless treat users fairly and, among other things, to respect privacy, and minimize unnecessary harm.

      If the community wants Claim 4 sustained, they will probably need to pay attention to this and support it. The WMF is asserting, in this case as it has with the recent ban of Fram, it's right to do whatever it pleases regardless of what harm it may cause to others. Law in this area is in flux, and it is possible to assert a claim, and survive a motion to dismiss,that seeks to shift law, in the interest of justice and equity.;The Section 230 immunity asserted here is weak and convoluted, not clear and strong.

    3. “what matters is whether the cause of action inherently requires the court to treat the defendant as the ‘publisher or speaker’ of content provided by another.”

      And how is that relevant to this case?

    4. That includes restricting a third-party user’s ability to publish content on that website.

      I don't trust their analysis, but they might be correct. I'll research it.

    5. [T]he decision to furnish an account, or prohibit a particular user from obtaining an account, is itself publishing activity.”

      That's an interesting claim, but it's not relevant to my claims.

    6. o the extent Plaintiff challenges the imposition of the ban, he challenges Wikimedia’s decision to restrict his ability to create content on Wikipedia or other Wikimedia platforms.

      This is not about the defamation claim, but about Count 4.

    7. Where Section 230 immunity applies, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.

      there is no part of this suit that claims liability of the WMF for information it hosted provided by users. This suit is about the WMF's own statements, published, which must be taken as a whole.

    8. laintiff’s claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

      This is outright false. I'm astonished that they assert this.

    9. Wikimedia failed to investigate these complaints

      I allege that they may have failed. I will love over all this carefully.

    10. Having dismissed [plaintiff’s] conversion count

      I will review the case looking for relevance. It certainly is not obvious.

    11. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged an underlying tort. For the reasons stated above, publication of the ban does not constitute defamation.

      They are confusing the counts. There was a plan to harm, through defamation and "deletion of all your work." That's quite clear and is specifically alleged. The complaints to the WMF were in furtherance of this goal. And the WMF was either negligent in investigation or acted with malice, having been given an excuse to ban someone they saw as a critic.If they did not suspect that the complaints were filed with malice, they were at best incompetent. A minimal investigation would have revealed that as possible or even probably.

    12. defendant acts ‘in concert’ with a tortfeasor only if the defendant ‘agrees’ to work toward the unlawful result.”

      Indeed. that is exactly what I am alleging.

    13. how an underlying tortious act in which two more persons acted in concert and in furtherance of a common design or agreement

      Yeah, I read some law on this before adding the count.

    14. o true conspiracy claim absent allegations of “coercion”

      I'll need to read that. But they may be correct.

    15. any individual standing in a like relation to the plaintiff would not have had.

      Yes. Darryl Smith would not have had standing. It is possible that a complaint from Guy Chapman would have been rejected, if they did any investigation of his history with regard to me. However, six complainants could indeed short-circuit their process if they do not anticipate the problem. Conspiracy.

    16. mere force of numbers acting in unison

      That's interesting. In fact, filing six complaints did create a "force of numbers," in a situation where most complaints probably come from one or two complainants. The Smith defendants have a reputation for getting their enemies banned from web sites by filing private complaints, and may be able to engineer two or more of them, appearing to be independent. Administrators, overworked, fall for it.

    17. defamation

      I plead clear and intentional defamation, with obvious malice, on the part of some defendants.this was an actual conspiracy, and if this is found at trial, all defendants who participated in the conspiracy become responsible for the actions of the collection of them, not only for their own actions.

    18. fail for lack of falsity

      They reject the implication of the ban as an aspect of "truth," as if there are no implications. That's a factual question, not a question of law. As well, malice is a factual question, if there is any possible basis. I will, in the objection, review the standard, which they generally ignore.

    19. Wikimedia published the ban in accordance with the long-standing, publicly available WMF Global Ban Policy that provides notice that such bans will be disclosed.

      The Global Ban Policy was not referenced from the Terms of Use. That a policy is "long-standing" does not make it proper. Further, it was reasonable as a user that, if I avoided violations of the Terms of Use, that I would not be banned, so all that was moot. Or so it seemed. I was wrong.

    20. plaintiff failed to allege that published statements “were true but sent with actual malice”); A

      Right. The plaintiff did not claim malice, statements were true including implications, end of story. That is not this case.

    21. here simply is nothing to suggest

      "Nothing to suggest" is conclusory, not a factual claim. There is something to suggest it, they just stated it.

    22. no factual assertions

      Not so. I claim that I was widely known as a critic of the WMF -- and especially of the global ban policy, ironically.

    23. legal conclusion does not satisfy the pleading standard.

      I did not present a "legal conclusion." I presented a claim of malice, on "information and belief." As I read the precendents, it's enough at the MtD stage to have claimed malice and to have a basis for if, even if weak. "Plausible" does not mean "probable," but I have no way of actually determining probability. The WMF is attempting to stop the process by which the fact could be confirmed or rejected.

    24. “with malice” when addressing the publication of the ban.

      Indeed. I am generally reluctant to plead malice, even when I suspect it. However,in fact, I -- and others -- did suspect malice,retaliation for criticizing the WMF. So, I needed to allege that. It is plausible.

    25. without proving actual malice

      The don't mention that Noonan was allowed to rpesent his case to the jury, which, in the first action, found no malice. In the second case, similar circumstances, a mere suspicion on relatively thin grounds was considered adequate to survive (a motion to dismiss? Or summary judgment? I'll need to look it up)

    26. the email accurately stated what had occurred

      So what occurred? In the case, the fact itself carried defamatory implications. If the plaintiff could have shown that this statement was made with malice, the plaintiff could have sustained the case. This, as with other similar cases, was in a motion for summary judgment, where there had been opportunity to discover evidence to support the claims, which had failed. The wMF is attempting to resolve this case, shutting down the possibility of discovery showing what would be necessary for defamation, and neglecting the claim that publication of the ban itself, given the context of the policy and representations made by the WMF to the public that bans are not made except for very serious offenses.

    27. he court held that “the complaint fails to allege that defendants published statements about [plaintiff] that were false.”

      That in some cases "truth" is a defense does not estalblish that in all cases. There is a factual issue here.

    28. The lodestar of Massachusetts defamation law is the axiom that truth is an absolute defense to defamation

      And then they proceed to provide an exception, and Noonan actually established that exception as law. Malice.

    29. Wikimediacaused any actual damages

      So, a person gives ammunition to a shooter, they have no responsibility for resulting damages?

    30. ThatPlaintiff himselfpublished the fact of the ban just two months after Wikimedia confirms the de minimisimpact of Wikimedia’s publication. S

      This is deceptive, because at time, my publication lessened the impact by providing a response. This was two months after the ban, it was already widely published by the conspirators.

    31. without providing defamatory reasons for the firing, is not defamatory

      that is misleading. People are fired all the time without serious cause. Very few people are globally banned by the WMF, and that point is made over and over by those using the fact of the ban for defamation. These, of course, are the same people who created the ban by private coordination of complaints, so that the WMF was looking at not just an isolated complaint but many. Six or even more, which would create a strong impression that there must be something real behind them. Which is exactly what the conspirators intended.

    32. his chosen Wikimedia username. See

      Which is also the name by which I am widely known, including as a journalist.

    33. no allegation that Wikimedia published the reason for the ba

      That is correct.

    34. Plaintiff does not allege that any statement by Wikimedia was defamator

      To the contrary, I allege specifically that the statement of the WMF that I was banned was defamatory. The meaning of a statement is not only the words, but what those words can reasonably be expected to imply. I will be able to show evidence in court that an Office ban strongly implies that a user has committed serious offenses or is otherwise a serious hazard to the community.

    35. a plethora of new allegations

      These allegations were necessary to establish the context, that there was a conspiracy to defame, which, then, ultimately, the WMF supported, missing that there had been serious violations of the Terms of Use on the part of the originator of this mess, Darryl L. Smith, who impersonated another user, and was my exposure of that which led him to declare a vendetta.

    36. Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a cause of action based on either.

      I will look at this carefully. I think they are ignoring some of the AC.

    37. crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would be futile

      This is completely correct. Is it "crystal clear." I have reviwed what has been considered sufficient as reason to suspect malice, which is a critical issue in Massachusetts. However,l that I have been defamed by the WMF is obvious. The fact of the ban is defamatory, in spite of their attempts to protect themselves from responsibility for harm by asserting that they need no cause. Nobody believes that a ban is meaningless. Their argument here is proposterous.

    38. Plaintiff’s claims against Wikimedia have no potential for success on the merits.

      Because they say so?

    39. To survive a motion to dismiss

      This is all obvious.

    40. He further asks the Court to order Wikimedia to rescind the ban, establish an appeal process for bans, and remove publication of all banned accounts absent user consent.

      Yes, if the court deems that appropriate, presumably after a jury has ruled on the claims.

    41. here is no basis for naming Alexander as a defendant,

      Without discovery, it is unknown to me if Alexander's role was supporting the vendetta or merely negligent, or if he played any role at all. But he is named as a defendant because he presumably played a role and because this could have been malicious, and malice would not be surprising at all. There have been many bans were malice has been suspected, as distinct from necessary actions to protect the community and the project.

    42. he Amended Complaint names eight individual defendants, none of whom appear to have been served at this time.

      That is correct. I need to arrange for subpoenas and other details with the court.

    43. Wikimedia “may have” acted with malice.

      Yes. I do not claim proof, but reasonable suspicion that might find confirmation through discovery. I do believe that some level of malice was involved.

    44. allegedly used the “fact”

      Oliver Smth immediately published the confirmation letter he received from the Foundation, plus the information was immediately added to the RationalWiki article.

    45. Two months later, Plaintiff himselfpublished on his cold fusion blog that he was banned by Wikimedia.

      At tjhis point, I have not checked that, but, yes, I probably did. By that time the fact of the ban was very widely published, and often with a link to the Wikipedia "proof." So mentioning it was necessary to ameliorate damage.

    46. “Abd,” with no other identifying information

      Of course, I had long been a disclosed-identity user.

    47. everal individual defendant

      The number that was revealed early on was six.

    48. efendant Umbrecht allegedly deleted Wikiversity pages created by Plaintiff. I

      These were user space pages, where many documents had been held, some of whcih were important for Wikiversity history. Umbricht refused to allow time to rescue them. There was no need for any rush, this was vindictive and punitive.

    49. indefinite community block

      It was not a 'community block." It was a unilateral administrative block. Block practice and policies were ignored.

    50. xcessive use of “checkuser requests” (seeking to identify the internet address associated with a Wikimedia account) could result in a block. I

      I made many checkuser requests that were successful, i.e, impersonation accounts and other illegitimate accounts were identified and blocked or locked, until the last request, which Unbricht (I mispelled his name in the AC) protested -- very much contrary to normal practice -- so there was no "excessive use, there was reasonable suspicion. As it happened, this time these accounts were not a single person,l because the conspliators had solicited others. That last request was not actually granted, they didn't look, and it's fairly obvious that there was private communication taking place.

    51. number of contentious exchanges among users

      there had never been a problem with the cold fusion resource in more than ten years. There were not "contentious exchanges among users until that discussion was opened originally by an anonymous editor, now believed to be Guy Chapman. In other words, the conspirators created a "contentious discussion," and it was then used as an excuse to delete, entirely contrary to tradition and policy, and contrary to other regular Wikiversity users. It was a travesty.

    52. which has no affiliation with Wikimedia

      Which I also have been careful to point out.

    53. According to Plaintiff, several individual defendants have opposed his views by portraying cold fusion as pseudoscientific.

      That's one way to put it. It is clear that there was hostility to the field and to me, as someone supporting research in the field.

    54. He then moved all study or materials concerning cold fusion to his personal blog.

      Not exactly. When I and cold fusion were attacked on Wikversity as part of the vendetta allleged, the Wikiversity cold fusion content was rescued and placed on a new wiki. As well, other deleted content was moved there, some of it was quite difficult to recover, because the deleting administrator, obviously pursuing an agenda to delete all of Abd's work, did not provide opportunity to download archives. So it was recovered from the massive Wikiversity complete dumps, which required the writing of programs to filter that data, out of many gigabytes. This took weeks.

    55. At some point, Plaintiff moved his cold fusion work from Wikiversity to Meta, another Wikimedia web project.

      No. I don't know where they got this. I abandoned most work on the Wikiversity resource before the events in question, but the work went to publication in a peer-reviewed journal and to my blog. Nothing of this went to meta, where it would have been completely inappropriate.

    56. Foundation global bans are “final” and “not appealable.”

      That is a self-serving policy that does not follow from the Terms of Use. Setting up unappealable bans based on private complaints, with no warning to the user and no information as to the basis of the ban, and no opportunity to defend, and no possibility of appeal, is unconscionable. Hence this lawsuit was necessary.

    57. o protect the privacy of all parties involved

      Because the WMF has represented to the public that the bans are only issued, in practice, on strong necessity, pubishing a ban violates the privacy of the banned person. It is not necessary to publish to ban. A ban is in effect when declared, with the banned party put on notice, which can be accomplished privately. As well, access to the global account can be shut down through direct modification of the password in the database. It is not necessary to use the global lock tool, which automatically publishes the fact of the ban.

    58. The only action at issue here is what Plaintiff calls an “office ban,”

      this is true with regard to the WMF's actions. It is not true with regard to the action of another defendant.

    59. Indeed, Plaintiff concedes that Wikimedia’sTerms of Use “do properlyallow it to terminate service without cause.”

      Yes. As I have written, it must have that right, and it must not be specific to a list of causes. It is like the police, who may arrest anyone they see creating a hazard for the public, whether or not the behavior is specifically illegal. However, this does not give them the right to publish such a ban, given how these bans are widely seen, nor is it a carte blanche allowing them to cause harm without recourse.

    60. provide free content to users around the world.

      that is not all that they do, and another function is important to this case, Wikiversity where users may create educational projects, including where they "own" the content, and users put very substantial work into individual resources on Wikiversity, it is very unlike Wikipedia.

    61. Now that Plaintiff has tried and failed twice to plead plausible allegations,

      It remains to be seen if I failed. If I failed twice, that is irrelevant, as long as the last attempt succeeds. It is possible, indeed, that if there is a deficiency, that the complaint may be amended again, with the permission of the court.

    62. no basis for such relief.

      This case asks that question.

    63. eeks to force Wikimedia to adopt Plaintiff’s views on how it ought to run its websites

      If they run their web sites in such a way as to harm the public, the court, in its discretion, may order some correction. I have the right to ask for that.

    64. Plaintiff himselfpublished the fact of the ban two months after Wikimedia did.

      By that time it was all over the internet, vigorously being promoted by Darryl L. Smith and possibly others, with pages archived so that it could still be used if the ban were lifted or hidden. Nevertheless, the continued publication increases the credibility of the defamation.

    65. proving defamation against Wikimedia is not the purpose of his lawsuit

      Because they say so?

    66. has plenary discretion to ban users under its Terms of Use

      Yes, granted, and not denied. They must have that discretion, but that does not allow them to unnecessarily create a defamatory publication. In addition, under Massachusetts law, which applies, even a true statement can still be defamation, if issued with malice.

    67. Plaintiff now concedes that Wikimedia made no false statement when it published the fact of the ban

      This is not correct. The bare words are correct, they did actually ban me, but what they reasonably imply is not true.

    68. flawed

      Will repeating this conclusion strengthen the arguments?

    69. Plaintiff’s original complai

      The original complaint is moot, plaintiff is pro se and used a brief form.

  4. Jun 2019
    1. resulting Sue de Coq

      How one gets there doesn't really matter: the goal of SDQ is to find a locked set, such that any candidate outside the set that interferes with it by eliminating all instances of a candidate within it must be eliminated.

      In this example, the locked set within the block is r13c4 (three cells), and r12c6 two cells, containing 6 candidates. The sixth candidate needed to lock the set then is r5c4, so 6 candidates, six cells, and all candidates outside the locked combination that intersect with it and eliminate all instances of a member would leave no solution if chosen and must therefore be eliminated.

      However, I think I see why they consider the intersection set to be the two cells. The intersecting cells that do not share candidates, if we do that, are r5c4 {39} and r5c1 (168), which, notice, do not share a candidate, so they meet the SDQ criterion.

    2. block set

      that is, of course still short of the locked set. This is a horrible explanation, far more confusing than necessary, at least to me, and apparently it confused someone else.

    3. but it demonstrates a combination of all enhancements:

      I find the explanation unnecessarily confusing. Yes, the intersection set is displayed in two cells as described. (Cell r1c4 is part of the block cells, sure, that's one way to look at it, but it is simpler to just consider it the intersection region, i.e., the entire c4 in block 2, three cells with 6 candidates, so we need to find more cells intersecting, such that either they add cells without more candidates (such as r5c4) or if they add a new candidate, then another is found including this candidate, and so on, until the full locked set is found.

    4. The basic variant is rather simple: Look for cells at the intersection of a row and a block. You have to find either two cells containing 4 candidates or three cells containing 5 candidates. Now find a bivalue cell in the row outside of the intersection whose candidates are draw entirely from the intersection candidates. Find another bivalue cell in the block with candidates drawn from the intersection too, but different from the candidates in the row cell.

      Yes, this is two cells short of a locked set. In the variant described below, it can be more steps short, supplied by adding intersecting cells, which must add two cells more than candidates added, to create a locked set. In the Basic form, the two cells intersecting with it contain no new candidates.

    5. It is important to note, that the SDC can have only two cells in the intersection with the possible third cell being part of either the row or the block cells. Likewise, if additional candidates are used, that are not drawn from the intersection set, the same candidate can be used in row cells and block cells.

      I'm not sure what they mean by "only two."

    1. Nonentities, often hiding behind pseudonyms, like to use dubious references to try to belittle people with real achievements.

      And that is what happened on Wikiversity in late 2017 and early 2018.

    2. it's a total sham

      And even if an MtD fails, that has been reasonably well established. They are far from open, all with "good excuses," but fascists always have such. (I use fascist in the original meaning, and there are fascists on the left and on the right and even antifa fascists.)

    3. An oral depo can last up to 7 hours without leave of court

      I've read lots of them.

    4. you don't expect him to be good

      I don't expect myself to be good either. But I might be able to learn, and once in a while, that basketball goes whoosh through the hoop, even if my aim is lousy.

    5. robably wind up copying and pasting everything out of a forms book or pattern discovery treatise.

      Which I can also do. There are expenses, and my personal resources are limited, but . . . that's why I'm soliciting support. GoFundMe I have had success with GoFundMe over another issue.

    6. something like that could certainly get a bit too spendy for them.

      Indeed. Now that they have an AC, they might actually start to negotiate settlement. If I have a decent settlement offer, it needs to cover my expenses, including asking a competent attorney's advice on the settlement offer. My goal was not money, but, ah, justice. Fairness. And clearing my name. ameliorating harm and preventing further harm..Hey, though, a million or two does sound nice. What is realistic? And that is a question for an experienced attorney, professionally responsible.

    7. very detailed and informative answer

      Detailed and informative answers with links for verification were called "walls of text" on Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy. And that is how communities make themselves increasingly stupid.

    8. if anyone cares

      I care! If someone like Mendaliv tells me I'm FOS, I want to read every word with care and follow every hint. I learn by writing and then reading people telling me how wrong I am. I check it all, I never assume I'm right. But I also don't lie down and play dead.

    9. summary judgment

      Right. The MtD must argue that even if everything plausibly alleged by the plaintiff is true, there is still no cause of action. It will refer entirely to the Complaint and law. Fairly thin grounds for suspicion of malice has been enough to reject a motion to dismiss in Massachusetts. The plaintiff gets to proceed to discovery after the Answer. In first Noonan, even when all the statements of the plaintiff were considered true (in summary judgment, after discovery), the question of malice required a jury finding of fact. So summary judgment failed for a true statement alleged to be defamation. And that is why Noonan v. Staples it so important. First district, Massachusetts District Court case, very much on point.

    10. closely linked to use of the website and the TOS

      The WMF has banned a person who had no account, and the actions which were probably alleged were not about use of the site. But that's not clear without discovery.

    11. I'm skeptical whether you can contract away your right to seek redress for all torts.

      The TOU does not accomplish that, it is about suits under the TOU. This is an action for defamation by the WMF itself, not specifically allowed under the TOU. I considered this for almost a year before filing. I filed when I did because I was looking at a possible one year statute of limitations in California, should the case be heard there. This would have made the case more complicated, I'd need to allege a continuing violation, i.e., every time that banned user list is updated, I would argue that was republication, a new "edition," and therefore the statute of limitations advanced. Winning argument? Hell if I know, but possible.

    12. I really think it's unlikely that they go for counterclaims

      Probably not, I agree.

    13. discovery is expensive and disruptive of your day-to-day operations.

      Yes.

    14. unless he's a frequent flyer.

      And I have never filed a lawsuit before.

    15. changing the case law

      In this case I am not asking for case law to be changed. My reading of Noonan v. Staples (both cases, but especially the second) is that, given what I have alleged, if I did it right or closely enough, this case must proceed to discovery.

    16. file suit with all sorts of garbage all the time.

      Real lawyer who has actually read real cases.

    17. If an order issues and is appealed

      This guy not only knows his stuff, but expresses it clearly.

    18. my pedantry with terminology

      He need not apologize to me. I'm quite accustomed to reading law, have studied common law, years ago, and precise language is one of the things I like about law.

    19. It's not even worth drafting the sanctions motion, let alone serving it.

      That's my opinion, unless they decide to spend the money to make a point. That is not impossible, but could backfire, as I am sure this lawyer, or very accomplished student of law, realizes.

    20. dismissal with prejudice.

      Right. However, this case is against a series of defendants, some of whom are reasonably suspected of serious defamantion. If the WMF is dismissed as a defendant, that leaves the others, swinging in the wind. I see no reasonable possibility that the full case will be dismissed, and Menadliv has not looked at the specific arguments.

    21. And sanctions? Leaving aside the fact that this guy is probably judgment-proof, none of this looks so extremely egregious that it'll result in a legal fees decision

      Yes. I read a lot of cases, and I don't think my conduct is so egregious that fees will be awarded. But WikiPOdiots and Reddiots readily proclaim this nonsense.

    22. Jesus, this is just at the 12(b)(6) stage people. Virtually every comment prior to here is thinking at least three steps ahead.

      Exactly. Rule 12

    23. Peekaboo...

      Who is that? I look at this picture, every time, and I think this is me. Except that it is not quite right. The hair is completely white, mine is becoming white, my eyebrows are much longer (always) and darker.

    24. You're going to get a judge quite angry if you misrepresent a prior ruling[Noonan v. Staples] just so you know... Judges really REALLY don't like that.

      that comment by EtherMan suggested to me that he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I've seen attorneys misprepresent precedent and the judge simply disregarded it. Yes, do this, and you might prejudice a judge, it's a bad idea. If a pro se plaintiff does it, probably no consequence at all, except to support that he or she is pro se, which they already know.

    25. Abd has sufficiently shepardized that case.

      Sufficiently, I don't know. I've certainly done much.

    26. We have no reason to think that Abd is reading this

      Of course I'm reading it. I search every day for the case name. Wouldn't you? Poetlister, we should talk!

    27. I don't think anything in here is offering legal advice.

      He's correct.

    28. Isn't suborning a felony a felony itself?

      I can be. But no felony here unless it is a felony for Vigilant to fart in everyone's face on WPO. Probably not. Just thoroughly disgusting.

    29. He is crowdsourcing legal advice. It is illegal to give legal if you are not a licensed attorney.

      What is illegal "legal advice" is described in the laws. I have invited commentary, not advice, though some commentary could look like advice. I did not actually receive any advice, other than proofreading of the AC.

    30. Amended complaint

      that was a draft. The actual amended complaint is Here

    31. Vigilant

      Fill this topic with irrelevancies, gross in many ways.

    1. Oliver D. Smith

      original main page verison he commented on.

      Most recent version

    2. the deranged

      The one deranged was Oliver D. Smith, claiming a long series of people were lying about him. He has even claimed compilations of evidence without conclusions were "lies." In other words, reality lies. That is, in fact, a deep insanity. Reality may be interpreted in misleading ways, but that's not a "lie." it is partial evidence, that's all.

    3. He will lie about anything,

      No lie was shown.

    4. banned sock

      Michaeldsuarez is his common user name in many places, JuniusThaddeus on EncyclopediaDramatica. There was no RatWiki account by the latter name. So what has been shown is not "dozens of RW socks, but one account and one sock later claimed to be Wyatt.

    5. whoever being a nuisancde

      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.

    6. impersonating me on at least two sockpuppets

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

    7. 10,000 edits on that subject.

      Indeed. Obsessed with it, in fact.

    8. I am not Goblin Face

      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.

    9. google has blocked for defamation.

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

    10. malicious falsehoods

      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.

    1. never done a day's work in my life

      That's unknown, though I think he has had some kind of employment at some point.

    2. my mother's basement

      He does live with his parents. "Basement" would come from someone calling him a "basement-dweller," which may or may not be literally the case. Usually not, unless the parents don't have other space. Sometimes basement apartments are really nice, have a separate entrance, etc.

    3. I live off welfare

      He does, according, apparently, to his attorney.

    4. innocent

      Some are innocent of what he claims.

    5. human, but robots.

      Aren't all parents robots? How else could we explain their bizarre behavior, and that high-pitched whine we can hear?

    6. 2017 I was discharged

      There might be some claim somewhere. I remember seeing something early in my research, but I did not consider it plausible. There is an immense cloud of confusion that has been created, much of it deliberate.

    7. schizophrenia

      He claimed that years ago, in a comment made years ago. He later claimed that his account had been hacked and this wasn't him, but that's implausible. That claim, then, does not show that he is schizophrenic, only that he said that then.

    8. satanist

      I have never seen a plausible claim of this. Except here, of course, where it is obviously sarcastic.

    9. antinatalist

      He has claimed that.

    10. asexual

      He has claimed that.

    11. misanthrope

      Arguable.

    12. Evil

      Arguable.

    13. Uncyclopedia.

      This was in a display rotation with Conservapedia, Uncyclopedia, Rightpedia, Gab, RationalWiki, and Metapedia. Smith has been widely active. Most of his activity has been on RationalWiki, and Metapedia was very old, he did not harass any of the mentioned targets there, AFAIK.

    14. Edward Dutton

      This was in a display rotation with Nathan Cofnas, Edward Dutton, Michael A. Woodley of Menie, John Fuerst, and Noah Carl, all of whom were the subject of attack by Smith

    15. cyber-stalking

      redundant

    16. character assassinating

      Yes, and is being sued for it in at least two cases.

    17. nutcase

      Generally, yes, one who accuses many others of being nutcases.

    18. stalker

      Undeniably a stalker. When Emblyn offended him, he attempted to find her birth certificate, apparently. He scours the internet, intensively, for anything that might look like dirt and uses it to harass.

    19. mentally ill

      definitely true and acknowledged at times..

    20. User:Tobias

      This page is a joke, but one with a purpose: to ridicule those who assert the truth about Oliver D. Smith, i.e, known and acknowledge, Tobias.

    21. as

      sick

    1. cholesterol denialist

      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.

    2. cult following

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

    3. sixteen fast-food burger patties

      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.

    4. videos

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

    5. anti-scientific

      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.