Lomax v. WMF: Abd names names

No real surprises here.

Via reddit.

Abd has updated his pro se defamation lawsuit against the WMF to add names.

The TLDR: Abd’s website, where he posts all the court documents, is here.   The amended court case, naming names is item #16, in other words this document here.

Abd says the WMF does not have the right to publish his name in connection with a global ban.

Oddly enough, the global ban policy was just mentioned a few hours ago in a new Buzzfeed piece by Joseph Bernstein:

Though the foundation does not disclose the nature of the offenses it investigates, it is widely held among Wikipedians that “office actions” apply only to extreme cases: child pornography, pedophilia advocacy, terrorism, realistic threats.

Could the Golden Age of Wikipedia hagiography created by the Women In Red project’s PR now be drawing to a close?

There is now a “Go fund me” page for the lawsuit.  Abd says that at this point he is out of pocket $400, which someone has already reimbursed him for, so will not need funds unless the case goes forward.  and he now needs about $100 per person to serve the defendants.  I count 10 defendants, as Abd says he got the Wikimedia foundation and James Alexander on the same line by mistake, plus a new filing fee of $400, so that is around $1400.

In typical Abd style, there is also a link on his website for those who wish to donate to the WMF instead.

So now we wait to see if the case is dismissed.

Note: See previous piece about this: “Abd files a lawsuit”.

11 thoughts on “Lomax v. WMF: Abd names names

  1. Nice. Thanks. Actually, I do need some support now, probably, to serve process on the added defendants. If I don’t serve them, though, they will be dropped as defendants without prejudice, i.e., I could file again. New filing fee $400. To serve each, if they don’t waive service as the WMF, probably about $100 each. The GoFundMe was intended to be ready to deal with the next phase of the trial if my WMF claims survive the expected Motion to Dismiss. Discovery can get expensive, but at that point there starts to be public benefit in pulling back the curtain. (Some of it, anyway, some of what is disclosed in discovery must be kept private.)

  2. No problem.

    I have updated it with an approximate amount.

    You (or someone) really should post it on Wikipediocracy though, they have a much larger readership than I do with probably with more money too.

    There are probably people on Wikipediocracy who do not believe you should be editing Wikipedia. They are entitled to their opinion. But Wikipedia should treat people decently, I hope even they will agree with that. If you think about it, even an employer is not allowed to say anything bad about a former employee that would jeopardize their future employment. The only thing you can get out of an HR department is confirmation of the dates of employment. An organization that depends on the good will of volunteers should be even more circumspect about their past volunteers.

  3. Yes. The WMF is claiming CDA Section 230 immunity as a service provider, which does, as it has been interpreted, allow them to ban anyone for any and no reason. But publishing the list of banned users is, as you noticed, is far outside of ordinary practice and is unnecessary, and it is content they created, so it is outside their Section 230 immunity.

    Now, as to costs. With permission, I may again amend the complaint, and there is a rule about that which I missed. To amend a complaint does not require a new filing fee.

    When I amend the complaint, the court will issue subpoenas, and I will mail the defendants a request to waive service. If they accept service (as the WMF did), there is no cost other than that mail. However, if they ignore this, as individuals are more likely to do, then it is roughly $100 each to serve them. If I do not manage to accomplish this, after a time the court will drop them as defendants, without prejudice, meaning that I could file a new suit (another $400 plus service costs). At this point, there are six unserved defendants, two whose identities (and therefore addresses) are not known. The WMF will be asked for that information if the case proceeds to discovery.

    So, soon, we are looking at another $400 approximately.

    1. Lomax spreading yet more misinformation I see.

      Wikiversity’s Research guidelines state:

      “At times, it may be useful to amend the Wikiversity research guidelines so as to explicitly exclude some types of fringe research if they disrupt Wikiversity or distract the community from its educational missions.”

      They even have a page to *vote to delete* these fringe research areas that cause disruptions and distractions; the page Lomax is still moaning about years later was clearly voted to be deleted.

      Any deletion really has nothing to do with attacking academic freedom; Lomax never has read Wikiversity’s research guidelines.

      1. Except that’s not what he said, is it. He says that initially there was no problem with hosting original research and fringe theory but later everything changed and they didn’t even give him time to transfer all the documents to a different place.

        I see you don’t give any links, maybe you don’t want anyone to check the revision history to see who might have messed with those pages.

        Are you Anglo Pyramidologist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anglo_Pyramidologist

        Is this you? [removed link to former Wikipedia criticism site -GD]

        And what about this? http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=10542 …oh, but you need an account to access the sekrit forum.

        If I wanted to discredit this Rational Wiki, you are exactly the type of person I would send to follow people like Abd around on the internet. I almost left your comment in moderation, but maybe people should see this for themselves.

        But as I have said before, people have limited time and don’t want to read a lot of back and forth here. They just want brief updates, and a link in case they want to read more. At this point you can either email me a link for further information and I will post it, or you can try your luck with a different forum, maybe Abd will engage with you on his own platform or maybe the wikipediasucks(DOT)co people would be willing to take it up.

      2. I basically ran Wikiversity for a time as a custodian. Oliver is referring to https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Research_guidelines
        That was a proposal that was never adopted, a set of ideas. as it says at the top, “copied from beta wikiversity.”.

        There was no “page to delete fringe research areas.” There is https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion and there is https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Deletions as a policy page. I handled and closed many, many deletion discussions. “Fringe” was *never* a valid deletion reason. Deletion was rare on Wikiversity, the site had so many less disruptive options. which I helped develop while I was active.

        Again, Oliver is referring to https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/16#Cold_fusion — closed by Mu301, explicitly ignoring the discussion, and ignoring that cold fusion had *never* caused any disruption on Wikiversity, until then. This was indeed an obvious attack on academic freedom, backed up by a ‘crat who admitted having been “alerted” by private email, as had been threatened.

        1. You guys are really going to have to take this discussion elsewhere. People just do not have the time or interest to read this level of detail about – whatever it is. Maybe I will have to start deleting comments.

          I am only interested in the lawsuit results, and would like to leave this last thread open as a place for Abd to update any movement in the case.

  4. That is very nice of you.

    I looked for the name of the artist for “Objectify this” so you could credit the photo, and she has deleted all her social media and profiles, so I don’t dare give her name. I suppose you could credit it to Qahwa Project, 2015. It was cropped from a much larger photo that I don’t have anymore, and was part of a street art project to protest violence against women during the Arab Spring, especially in Tahrir.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s