1,168 Matching Annotations
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    6. stupid

      Baker knows his stuff.

    7. vegetables are bad for health

      That would depend on context.

    8. believes that anecdotal evidence is more important than scientific research

      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.

    9. Baker's license was reinstated in 2019.

      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.

    10. ollows a dangerous all-meat diet

      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.

    11. more relevant to an individual than an epidemiological study.

      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..

    12. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence

      That is actually correct.

    13. bodybuilder

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

    1. measurements must be wrong

      "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.

    2. worth investigating.

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

    3. easily confirmed.

      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.

    4. his website.

      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

    5. the NRC involved

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

    6. Magnegas is making so much money

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

    7. I wasn't attacking anyone

      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.

    8. I challenge anyone to do the same

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

    9. seeing real proof

      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.

    10. a patent application

      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.

    11. poor science

      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.

    12. unquestionably

      That requires strong evidence

    13. argument

      what argument?

    14. published

      Nor was it "published" in the sense requested.

    15. reliable recent

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

    16. question

      The question was not answered with what was requested.

    1. reliable recent

      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.

    2. question was

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

  3. May 2019
    1. better off with them forcibly removed

      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.

    1. The judge might take pity on him

      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.

    2. third grade education.

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

    3. poverty stricken net.kook

      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.

    4. Ottava Rima

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

    1. @Midsize Jake. Voila https://archive.is/cZQdp

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

    1. Nothing works

      Rome, you gave up before trying.

    2. no legal theory

      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.

    3. they are saying the court should throw out his complaint as having no basis in law.

      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.

    4.  Re: Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al video: show

      useless video, text: "Well, bye."

    5. Curs, the lot of you.

      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.

    6. I have a fan on r/wikiinaction.

      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

    7. That's the ballgame, folks.

      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.

    8. Better to remain silent

      He might consider taking his own advice.

    9. the WMF isn't trying to change the venue.

      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).

    10. Classic example of a well-intentioned but painfully stupidly executed idea.

      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.

    11. prove that he doesn't have any sense.

      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."

    12. I'll just leave this here.

      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.

    13. Plaintiff does not dispute that he was banned, butsuggests obliquely that the ban was the result of wrongdoing of unnamed parties who inducedWikimedia to ban him.

      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.

    14. The WMF hasn't raised the issue of venue, probably because they're certain to prevail in the current docket.

      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.

    15. somewhere else.

      Possibly in Federal District Court in Massachusetts

    16. bound by precedent

      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.

    17. then absent actual malice on the part of Staples, the libel claim must be dismissed regardless of whether the e-mail defamed Noonan.

      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.

    18. mental health evaluation panel.

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

    1. A statement is per se defamatory if the statement consists of “words charging [Haischt] with conduct which [tend] to injure him in his trade, business or profession.” Deloruso v. Monteiro, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 475 (1999). The alleged defamatory statement must be a factual assertion, not just pure opinion. Meany v. Dever, 170 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D. Mass. 2001). A statement cast in the form of an opinion may imply the existence of some undisclosed defamatory facts on which the opinion purports to be based, and thus may be actionable. King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705 (1987).

      Bingo!

    1. wouldn't make on-wiki threats

      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.

    2. You shouldn't even take it personally, as that just encourages them and inevitably makes things harder for the mods.

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

    3. have to deal

      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?

    4. They've been here, I have no idea where to find the threads.

      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.

    5. claiming that all of his good work was ruined

      Huh? Where?

    6. offwiki.org

      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.

    7. the editor who has literally sued the WMF would run around the wiki posting legal threats.
      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.
    8. Abd_ul-Rahman_LomaxCold_Fusion_CommunityEnergyNeutralDefending_myself

      He is correct, those were not my accounts.