Changes

*Count 1 is for defamation, against all defendants, but right now only the WMF is pertinent.

*Count 1 is for defamation, against all defendants, but right now only the WMF is pertinent.

*Count 2 was specific about the WMF defamation, which is not from the ban, but from the ''publication'' of the ban, which, as content they originated, leaves them without Section 230 immunity. (This is why I'm abandoning Count 4, and I don't really want to edit WMF wikis anyway. I had already almost entirely abandoned them as unsafe. What then happened ''proved'' they were unsafe.

*Count 2 was specific about the WMF defamation, which is not from the ban, but from the ''publication'' of the ban, which, as content they originated, leaves them without Section 230 immunity. (This is why I'm abandoning Count 4, and I don't really want to edit WMF wikis anyway. I had already almost entirely abandoned them as unsafe. What then happened ''proved'' they were unsafe.

*Count 3 is for a conspiracy to harm and defame, hatched by collusion between the sock master you saw here, (who also created the RW article, and his brother, who then recruited others, such that six persons are believed to have complained to the WMF (one confessed).

*Count 3 is for a conspiracy to harm and defame, hatched by collusion between the sock master you saw here, (who also created the RW article, and his brother, who then recruited others, such that six persons are believed to have complained to the WMF (one confessed to being canvassed).

*Count 4 was a claim of violation of implicit contract, damages limited to $1000 by the TOU, legally difficult and not worth pursuing for an individual.

*Count 4 was a claim of violation of implicit contract, damages limited to $1000 by the TOU, legally difficult and not worth pursuing for an individual.

*I have done no "creationist" studies.

*I have done no "creationist" studies.