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 To verify an archived page, check the original URL.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:


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)


Hey, what is the deadline the WMF have to respond? Is it 21 days they have? When do you think they will respond? 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 ? ... 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 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. 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)