Flagged Revisions installed. Unapproved pages display a Red unchecked notice under the title. Trolls attack here by creating and archiving pages with offensive content. To verify an archived page, check the original URL. Questions about administration? Contact User talk:Abd. Limited privacy on this site, see CFC:Limited privacy

User talk:Abd

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search

Please contact me by email[edit]

It is urgent that the person who left a message on this page yesterday contact me privately. This can be done by enabling email here and sending me a mail, also notify me on this talk page that you have sent the mail. You may also have someone you trust contact me. That we communicate more directly is important for your protection. --Abd (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not contact you by email because you will trace it. You have an old public IP I used. It traces to Florida not Reading UK. You will never find out who I am. The Wikimedia Foundation will never tell you.

I have emailed my identity to the Wikimedia Foundation, they know who I am, I recently emailed Michael Umbrecht my identity. I have a long-standing Wikipedia account - I did not want to disclose publicly. Your material on cold fusion deserved to be deleted. I have not done anything wrong in voting to delete your pseudoscience. Please remove my IP from your lawsuit. Max (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that you told the truth, if you did. But there have been so many lies and impersonations that I cannot be sure. I believe you because the story you told made many otherwise mysterious pieces fit together. But to know for sure, your real identity is needed.
First of all, I cannot trace you through an anonymous email unless you don't take precautions, and I think you know how to take them. (And even then, without a court order, converting IP to name is not easy.)
If the case survives dismissal, it proceeds to discovery, where the WMF will be compelled to disclose information it has. They will attempt to protect privacy, I'm sure, but that protection will be limited. There is no privilege for private defamation, my opinion, and only privileged communications are most intensely protected, and those are still not fully protected.
Many things I would say to you privately that I cannot in public. And this is public. I want to communicate privately to protect you, not to harm you. I suggest enabling email for Max, using an anonymous email account that I cannot trace. We can then establish that the account is the same as Max here, and there are other steps that can be taken to establish your probity, short of revealing identity.
There no real safety except in the truth. --Abd (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep trolling[edit]

The Smith brothers, getting desperate, are pulling out all the stops. This message was left here today:


Dennis,

I emailed you the divorce papers Nasima Bernhardt (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


Nasima was my first wife, we were married for ten years and had five wonderful children, and seven wonderful grandchildren so far. We were divorced almost forty years ago, and are good friends. She remarried years later and Bernhardt is her present married name. I spent some time with her and a pile of kids and grandkids last Thanksgiving. Life is good, even if it sometimes takes unexpected turns.

Besides this being nonsense, and she would not call me "Dennis," and she would certainly not use a Tor node for access, as this impersonation sock did.

The Smiths try everything, and have been doing that since September 2017, when I uncovered impersonation sock puppetry on Wikipedia, used to defame an innocent user, and exposed it. They are currently creating several sock puppets a day for attack, mostly on Reddit at this point. Their scheme has been unravelling in many, many ways. --Abd (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Drop the lawsuit[edit]

Just drop it. Move on with your life. Thanks Move on with your life (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This may or may not be a Smith brother, but the Smiths have been "advising" me to do this since 2017. I decide what is my life, not them. I am responsible for what I accomplish and fail to accomplish, not them. The lawsuit is moving forward, the Amended Complaint has been filed, and we are waiting for the WMF to make the next move, as they choose. Legal opinion is starting to appear that just maybe this is not a "lolsuit," or as one defendant called it (before he had actually been named, by the way), "frivolous." Some people are learning or are about to learn that the too-common wiki contemptuous snark can be expensive. Reality has a way of intruding. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hey, what is the deadline the WMF have to respond? Is it 21 days they have? When do you think they will respond? 51.15.68.66 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They have 14 days from the service of the Amended Complaint, or Monday, July 1. I've been told to expect it then.

51.15, I have been in email communication with Jimmy Wales et al. Only hints given away but very likely The WMF will respond with motion to dismiss. Abd will not get discovery... his defendants are resting easily.

His lawsuit should have been filed against the RationalWiki Foundation. Do you plan on filing a new one against RationalWiki Abd? If your WMF lawsuit is dismissed how will you go on without discovery? Are you filing another ? ... 51.158.166.175 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

While they could change their mind, very unlikly. They will file a Motion to Dismiss, and I pretty much know the arguments they will present, unless they come up with something new. Several points here. Their MtD will be based on certain principles that apply to them and not to the other defendants. This will not affect the suit against the other defendants. As to Discovery, I have little experience, but information can still be subpoenaed from them, and certainly I would attempt that. I would not file another suit unless I am unable to serve the defendants. Most of them can be served. If the suit is dismissed against the WMF, that might or might not cover Alexander.
The RMF is a separate issue. I have not dropped a certified letter on their registered agent, as i did with the WMF over a year ago. Yes, when this particular suit is out of my hair, I will probably do that, and if they ignore it, well, I have strong reason to believe that RMF agents or officers were involved in the conspiracy to defame. I rather doubt that the WMF is going to prevail with an MtD, from the precedents I have studied. But they will certainly try, and any sane lawyer will tell you that little or nothing is a slam-dunk. Something that non-lawyers don't seem to understand: Motions to Dismiss usually fail. The original WMF motion would not have failed, it would have succeeded, because the original complaint, being a form filled out with little study by a pro se plaintiff, was defective. I also knew that I would be able to amend it.
It is, my humble non-lawyer opinion, much stronger now, based on relatively recent law. We'll see what Jones Day comes up with. These are highly competent lawyers, and while that is important, it is not everything. Fact also matters. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the IPS above might be Guy Chapman. He has responded to you here laughing at the lawsuit and citing your RationalWiki article https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikipedia-ban-editor-culture-war 192.42.116.13 03:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a TOR node, as is your access. Not so likely to be Chapman, but maybe. In any case, thanks for the heads up. I might not have noticed that. Chapman cites the now-moot WMF response as if it means something. He calls it a lolsuit, as have others. I hope they believe that and ignore the summons when served. That could be fun. --Abd (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2019
How long do you have to respond to the WMF? What date has it got to be filed on? Will you be making your response public on here like your amended complaint? I find Guy Chapman's public replies very odd. Nowhere in them did he deny the civil conspiracy. He has gone public about this but did not deny anything, I was assuming he would do the opposite, but maybe that is a tactic he is using. Who knows. 178.17.170.91 01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Monday, 7/15. However, I will probably be requesting court permission to amend the complaint, because it will save the time of the court if the complaint is amended now, and, if I read the regulations correctly, I should have requested permission to add the new defendant's names. I had automatic permission to amend the first time, and incorrectly assumed I could add plaintiff names then as part of that.
Really, the Amended Complaint was the first attempt at proper pleading, the original complaint just being a pro se form provided by the court, filled out. I will likely drop Count 4 as being too difficult legally, and better filed as a class action with an attorney. Most of the WMF MFD was really about Count 4, which matters far less to me and which I added with less research.
I am working on the MFD, I copied it to the wiki and annotated the Authorities page, creating links to a subpage for all cases cited, and compiling the subpages -- almost done -- has given me a strong sense of the authorities involved. The WMF has cited much out-of-context, pulling text that supports their position, ignoring text and fact that don't. Rather typical lawyer stuff.
It is truly illuminating to read the cases cited, and, as well, to look at case dockets and see the trajectory of each case. It has often been very different from what the WMF would imply. Pro se plaintiffs sometimes win. Complaints dismissed because of defective pleading are re-activated by a request to amend and sometimes making it to discovery motivates the defendant to settle. Actually fighting a defamation suit is expensive. Even if you win. In one case, quite unusual, attorney's fees were awarded. That case had been filed by an attorney, it's an important case (against the parent company of Ripoff Report), and the court awarded the defendants attorney's fees, it was something like $200,000. An attorney has pointed out on Wikipediocracy how attempting to be covered for their costs would require that the WMF sue me, which would again open them up for discovery, the very thing that they probably most want to avoid.
They are, I infer, hoping for a quick win while their costs are low, probably a few thousand dollars at this point. Maybe $10,000. If I make it past an MFD, then costs start to ramp up, rapidly. My goal has always been settlement, with their no-communication policy more or less demanding that I sue. They are attempting to preserve and justify that, to avoid encouraging any other lawsuits. But that's probably a false hope, because the precedents are clear. Most of the precedents they provide for dismissal are from cases *after discovery* in motions for summary judgment.
Those opining on social media as if the WMF has blown my case out of the water are ignorant of the law and the precedents, and they look at the MFD and see what looks to them like impenetrable legalese, very "lawyer" sounding, and imagine that it's strong and must prevail. Not. It's actually weak as hell, but if I don't respond with some skill, they could win, at least temporarily. Most of these fast opinionators have no clue about how difficult a defamation MFD is, if there is *any reason to suspect untruth or malice* -- and, clearly, it does not need to be proof. But it is easily possible that I failed to properly marshal the facts and present them so the basis for proceeding is crystal clear. By now, I have read many of these cases multiple times, and precedents are actually clear and the only remaining question is whether I have properly pled the basis for suspicion. It appears to me that they have already cited all the cases I need. Convenient, eh?
The WMF has been doing legal research for me. Nice of them, don't you think? They looked up cases that closely resemble mine in some way or other, especially the two Noonan cases and Doe v. Amherst. They pull from Noonan a quotation that is actually the opposite of what that court decided. If I wanted to rake them over the coals, they have given me cause, and it is actually possible that this is deliberate strategy against a pro se plaintiff (which would be, I think the legal term is "scuzzy").
But I've been reading case law for years, and studied Rossi v. Darden in intimate detail, reading hearing transcripts, etc., collecting and analyzing the entire docket, with a thousand documents. (And then I attended the trial.) Judges hate it when parties fight in pleadings. I saw quite legitimate complaints shot down by the judge because they really don't want cases to turn on whether or not lawyers misbehaved. Pro se plaintiffs are famous for long and rambling pleadings that accuse defendant counsel of bad breath and bad behavior. And they beat their dog and should be disbarred. If they can provoke me to respond like that, they might influence the judge, though judges are generally very skilled at cutting through the bullshit.
So my goal is for my pleadings, at least, to be as simple as possible, and to clarify the law without dwelling on irrelevancies. The WMF MTD is full of irrelevancies, such as references to my first complaint, which became totally moot, utterly irrelevant with the filing of the amendment. For defamation per se, actual damages are not necessarily relevant, and the only relevance of the number claimed is that it must be more than $75,000 to qualify for diversity jurisdiction in federal court. They make noises about attempting to seek the action to be removed to California, which may be barred -- according to some authorities -- but which would also fail even if allowed as a motion. I am not suing under the terms of use, but suing them for defamation, and nothing about the TOU allows them to defame me. (And so they mention that I raised the amount claimed from $200,000 to $2 million, which is utterly and totally irrelevant to "dismissal for failure to state a claim." So they have gunked up their motion, but I'm not about to point it out to the judge. That is also irrelevant! "Motion to strike for containing irrelevancies" would fail. Period. Never file a motion likely to fail unless it is required for future process!
Yes. The current study is public, so anyone can study the law, and comment -- and advice -- is welcome. The case is *not* about the ban itself, but about publication of it, which is outside their Section 230 immunity. The ban itself did little harm to me, I had already abandoned Wikipedia and Wikiversity. But the publication did create harm, and this has exposed a massive flaw in their policies and practice. I actually pointed out the flaw years ago, as I recall, wrt other bans. This is not "content provided by others," over which they are protected, usually at least. They provided this content and published it.
If the facts behind the ban come out, and they still maintain it, the egg is on their face, not mine. Honesty and open faith in truth are my plan. Theirs is defense through secrecy, arbitrary action through private investigation of unknown depth and care, without any due process and explicitly not appealable, and attempting to create legal impregnability. Fun for an organization purporting to serve humanity, eh?
Basically, I win even if I lose. Unless, of course, I actually was a serious hazard. But I know I was not. Perhaps my evil twin was using my account to send disgusting and deeply harassing emails. (it is quite possible, by the way, that emails were spoofed, but a careful investigation would have disclosed that.)
I will probably be asking for additional time to amend the complaint, it's reasonable and would cause no harm to the defendants. If granted, I won't be filing an opposition to the motion, other than maybe a one-page motion to moot it. But then my work preparing an amended complaint, I would keep open if I can. There is some risk to that, by the way. I'm prepared to take risks. I always have been. --Abd (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy Chapman[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Lomax_v._WikiMedia_Foundation,_Inc.

"What does RationalWiki have to do with the WMF? Nothing, other than that Abd dragged his bullshit there. I actually left RW because Abd arrived and satrted trolling and some obnoxious tit refused to let me delete Abd's comments from my user page. I do my best to avoid him, have done since the arbitration case. There is no documented instance where debating anything with Abd has ever caused him to change his mind on anything, as far as I can tell, and since he's banned here he's not my problem. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)"

So Guy Chapman quit RationalWiki because of you? 185.100.87.206 20:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was his claim. He's lying, he did not "do his best to avoid" me. When the attack on my exposure of the Smith socks began, he dove right in, and it is believed that he organized complaints. That part depends on the testimony of an anon, but it is plausible from the events as they came down. Somebody was pulling strings behind the scenes.
Long before that, but after the Arbitration, he started the community ban discussion on Wikipedia in 2011. He also proposed for deletion many of my user space pages, and he (and others) misrepresented them. So he is lying about doing his "best to avoid him, have done since the arbitration case."
JzG dove into RatWiki with very little clue how it was operating, and ran into some, ah, "issues." Not gust with me. My last edit to his user page. (I was a sysop then, and until the end of 2017. (Notice also the editing of Bad Faith, who was a sysop since 2011 (and retired with the right intact.)
David Gerard removed my last comments there, and I did not object, that was November 10, 2012. JzG did not retire until February 12, 2013, his last comments were arguing with a moderator, Blue. He did blame me, indirectly, his actual comment:
I do not care what others do, the consensus last time was that it should not be an issue, the people who lost that argument have decided to pretend it never happened, the result is an insistence on an asinine non-policy. Since I have no time for any site that basically insists that the value of trolling fuckwittery by Abd on my talk page outweighs any potential value I might have to the project, I'm off. JzG (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
He did not remove his sysop rights, he still has them. The "non-policy" was community consensus, and he was reminded on February 11, and a moderator confirmed it. He had deleted this discussion.
Blue, the mod, replied to JzG's "Fuck this" farewell
There was exactly one user who gave you the OK in the last discussion if I am reading the right one (at the top of this page), and that user was neither a mod nor a longstanding community member. I don't get why the extra few clicks to archive, so the history is searchable, instead of deleting, are such a problem for you that you'd just leave the site. By the way, David Gerard set up Pibot for you, so hopefully you won't have to archive or delete anything from now on. User:Blue/sig 18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
JzG never did care about consensus, unless he could manipulate it. He used me as an excuse, he actually hated a community where he did not have superior tools and backing. The user was Hipocrite, who was the troll sent by the faction to harass me after ArbCom reprimanded JzG, to provide cover for William M. Connolley to ban me. WMC protected Hipocrite when I attempted to add him to the ArbCom case against him, revert warring. I, in fact, stopped being active on RatWiki because of Hipocrite, who charmingly told me, November 8, 2012 to "go back to raping your kids." I took the events to the mods, and this discussion was the result. Seeing that truly vile trolling was tolerated without any disapproval at all, and having no critical interests there, I put up the nonparticipation notice November 10, 2012. 20 edits before September 2017.
Bottom line: I was not responsible for JzG leaving RatWiki, and certainly did not harass him off the site. --Abd (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you see this commentary over at Suggested amendment: Public logging of bans made by CoC[edit]

Siebrand:

I’m against this. Even with the on wikitech-l suggested option of only making it public while the ban is in effect, if the log is kept on a wiki, the (history of) the ban list can (and will) be used for naming and shaming, long after punishment has been dealt and served.

DBarratt (WMF)

Also, the ban might be worn as a badge of honor, which would encourage further abuse. :(

Peachey88

Is having a list of bans performed by CoC any different than a wiki having Special:BlockList?

DBarratt (WMF)

No, but perhaps that shouldn't exist either. Most websites don't list all of the users who have been banned, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.

Smalyshev (WMF)

Most websites are not collaborative projects supported by a huge community.

DBarratt (WMF)

That's true, but as an example: GitHub, Stack Overflow, or any an all Open Source projects (including projects much much larger than ours). I can't think of a website/project (other than Wikimedia's) that publicly lists bans. I think the public log is an assumed virtue, when the existence of the list, may in fact, encourage more harassment. I have no evidence to suggest this, my point is only that the existence of such a list may have unintended consequences.

DBarratt (WMF)

I don't believe there is value in transparency for the sake of transparency. Especially when that transparency comes at the cost of someone's privacy.

Stjn

The problem of bad reputation that is provided by public logging of blocks in Wikimedia projects is real, and consequences of implementing it on a real world abuse would probably be more damaging to both parties, so finding a more sophisticated approach should not be scoffed at.

See also how they have refrained from providing names of banned users in the list of CoC enforcement cases at Statistics for CoC Cases Term May 2018 to May 2019 69.230.244.1 06:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting. They do not realize the distinction between a global ban of an account and of a person. In some cases, it's the same thing, but not in all. To ban a person requires notice to the person, otherwise it has no legal effect. (And, by the way, I was not notified, to my knowledge. Yes, I found out about it, but that is not the same.) A person could be banned without touching the account, or the ban could specifically exempt the user's talk pages. A stated ban could be completely flexible. Then if it is considered necessary to enforce the ban, it could be done privately, it's trivial. All that would be required would be to change the password on login wiki.
The privacy rights of banned users were mentioned, but it was not taken up. They really don't care about the privacy rights of banned users, only of complainants. It is also clear that they think of bans as punitive, betraying what is legally malice. Protection is not malice. They are aware that other sites don't list bans.
That discussion was a year ago. --Abd (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, getting the judge to rule in your favor is just the beginning[edit]

Then you have to figure out how to get the other side to actually obey the order. That can be tricky, as it's not immediately obvious what steps to take to get them to comply, unless it's a family law case where the other party didn't pay their child support or violated a restraining order or something like that. (In those cases, of course the system will hurry to remedy the situation, because there's a woman in distress, being victimized by some evil man who needs to be punished.)

It feels good to get a court to rule in your favor, and maybe the moral victory is primarily what some people are looking for; but it can also leave you with a little bit of a hollow feeling when you realize, you're still pretty helpless to try to enforce it unless you have the gumption to keep pressing the issue. A lot of times, though, they'll just ignore you the same way they would a bill collector. 69.244.230.1 17:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about. Yes, there can be enforcement issues. However, one step at a time. There is value in judicial confirmation, in itself. At this point in Lomax v. WMF, simply surviving dismissal will have value, can open up other possibilities, and that's how I live, in possibility. And I do not base my life on despair or fear of failure. I trust reality, fully, and more than my own ideas. --Abd (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)