SkipCaptcha
48
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: − + − + + +
→Article creator: clues
*The deletion reasons for my work on Wikiversity were not that it was "pseudoscientific," but that it had not been approved by a committee that never existed before or since. It was a pure excuse, the 'crat admitted his actions were based on private emails. Just as had been threatened. This is outlined in the Amended Complaint.
*The deletion reasons for my work on Wikiversity were not that it was "pseudoscientific," but that it had not been approved by a committee that never existed before or since. It was a pure excuse, the 'crat admitted his actions were based on private emails. Just as had been threatened. This is outlined in the Amended Complaint.
*The WMF filed a Motion to Dismiss, relatively routine at the point and also, from precedent, unlikely to succeed. The most that is likely, if my case was defectively pled, is that I will be given an opportunity to amend it.
*The WMF filed a Motion to Dismiss, relatively routine at the point and also, from precedent, unlikely to succeed. The most that is likely, if my case was defectively pled, is that I will be given an opportunity to amend it.
*The Foundation indeed retained Jones Day (I spent some days with Jones Day lawyers in a case in Florid a couple of years ago. Competent, cordial, and tough. I have a suspicion that they recommended to the WMF that they settle and the WMF refused (I know that twice, they took the time to ask), but I don't know what they recommended. Their stance with me was that I was wasting my time, I have no case, etc., which is more or less what I'd expect. I don't take it personally.
*The Foundation indeed retained Jones Day. I spent some days with Jones Day lawyers in a case in Florida a couple of years ago. Competent, cordial, and tough. I have a suspicion that they recommended to the WMF that they settle and the WMF refused (I know that twice, they took the time to ask), but I don't know what they recommended. Their stance with me was that I was wasting my time, I have no case, etc., which is more or less what I'd expect. I don't take it personally.
*I'm happy to answer any questions, use my talk page here, or I'll make sure that email is enabled.
*I'm happy to answer any questions, use my talk page here, <s>or I'll make sure that email is enabled.</s> [No email here, but I'm [https://www.reddit.com/user/Abdlomax Abdlomax on Reddit] and there is the blog -- see the docket link above.]
*Thanks --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
*Thanks --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:46, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
==Article creator==
:Who created the article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:26, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
:Who created the article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:26, 29 July 2019 (EDT)
::What kind of answer do you want? I don't know site policy about outing. However, I can state the obvious: the article was created by "TomSuarezDinoCrisis." "DinoCrisis" is a old R wiki account name for one of the proposed defendants in Lomax v. WMF, see the amended complaint and google "DinoCrisis." "Suarez" is a long-term critic of this person. Using account names like that is a long-term behavior of the person. However, it is also quite possible that this is an impersonation of the him, he has made many enemies. The page was ''immediately'' placed on archive.is, also a common behavior, [http://archive.is/QNeYo 19 Jul 2019 19:26:17 UTC] and, again, an impersonator might do that. The goal might have been to increase visibility for the R wiki and ED articles, which his enemies would not want to do. Instead, the goal of an enemy would be to make him look bad. He often claims he has been impersonated, but I have never actually found a proven case, aside from parody accounts (which are not intended to be taken as the person). --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 08:17, 30 July 2019 (EDT)