Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< September 1 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 3 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 2[edit]

Australian minimum-wage enforcement[edit]

The following statement was written by a US Supreme Court justice in 1923:

In Australia the power to fix a minimum for wages in the case of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State was given to a Court, and its President wrote a most interesting account of its operation. 29 Harv. Law Rev. 13.

Do we have an article on this court and an article on its president? Minimum wage in Australia is a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of minimum wages by country has a fairly big chunk on Australia, including a couple of links. Maybe a redirect to one of these would be in order Gem fr (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone more familiar with Australian labour law than me will be able to say more but I suspect that is referring to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Per that article, it only had 3 presidents before the position was abolished/before 1923, I suspect the one referred to is either Charles Powers since his article says

As President, Powers introduced the first system of automatic adjustments to the basic wage to account for changes in the cost of living, applied quarterly.[7]

or H. B. Higgins

In 1907, Higgins delivered a judgement which became famous in Australian history, known as the "Harvester Judgement". The case involved one of Australia's largest employers, Hugh McKay, a manufacturer of agricultural machinery. Higgins ruled that McKay was obliged to pay his employees a wage that guaranteed them a standard of living that was reasonable for "a human being in a civilised community", regardless of his capacity to pay. This gave rise to the legal requirement for a basic wage, which dominated Australian economic life for the next 80 years.[7]

Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I just realized what 29 Harv. Law Rev. 13 is. Volume 29 of the Harvard Law Review includes an article beginning on page 13, "A new province for law and order : industrial peace through minimum wage and arbitration", written by Higgins, Henry Bournes. I wrote this at 1:30AM my time...maybe I should have waited until I was more awake. Thank you for the help. Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kant on paralogism and sophism[edit]

i came across this quote of Kant (I believe it accurate):

“A syllogism which, though it has the appearance of a right one for it, is false in point of form, is termed a fallacy (Trugschluss (fallacia)). A syllogism of that nature, when one deceives himself with it, is a paralogism (Paralogismus) 6 ; and when he endeavors to deceive others with it, a sophism (Sophisma)”

I wonder if, as Kant means it, he endeavors to deceive others implies he knows he is wrong (i.e. a sophism is never a paralogism, and vice-versa, so both category do not overlap --again, as Kant means it--), or doesn't imply this, so if he first deceive himself (paralogism) and then others (sophism), it is both a sophism and a paralogism (while if he knows of he fallacy, it is not a paralogism but only a sophism: that is, a sophism may or may not be a paralogism) Gem fr (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions:
SYLLOGISM n. a statement that consists of three facts, the third of which is proved by the first two
PARALOGISM n. an unintentionally invalid argument
SOPHISM n. a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
The parties who dispute a statement are unlikely to agree on the underlined parts of the definitions above and a Wikipedia reference desk cannot read their minds. Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason" cites as examples of paralogism arguments that there is an immortal Soul in every body. DroneB (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can rephrase my question as: "are those definitions the definition Kant used?" I take it for a yes. Thanks. Gem fr (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the German original, Kant distinguishes the two clearly, and explicitly writes "mit Absicht" ("with intention", i.e. "intentionally", "deliberately") for his definition of sophisma. This is missing in your translation/paraphrase. A person intentionally attempts to deceive others with that particular form of fallacy. So, that person knows it's wrong, and knows that the fallacy is just that. I do not see any overlap, for all practical purposes. Here's the German original (italics by Kant, bolding by me):
"Ein Vernunftschluß, welcher der Form nach falsch ist, ob er gleich den Schein eines richtigen Schlusses für sich hat, heißt ein Trugschluß (fallacia). — Ein solcher Schluß ist ein Paralogismus, in so fern man sich selbst dadurch hintergeht; ein Sophisma, sofern man andre dadurch mit Absicht zu hintergehen sucht."
(Logik - ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen, § 90. "Trugschluß - Paralogismus - Sophisma") ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the original ref. German is clearer than English Gem fr (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culture[edit]

How do we know who or what decides what is culture and what isn't? I mean we know the arts, science and education are important factors. But what about the class distinction between high class and low class does that have anything to do with it? Is low culture apart of culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:A5C9:2211:E484:81FE (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What, this again? Culture is whatever the people say it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All cultural products (especially high culture) have a certain demographic to which they appeal. High culture encompasses works that a self-aware Intelligentsia collectively esteem as having exemplary philosophical, historical, or literary value and in the West it aims to preserve the classical Greco-Roman tradition of demonstrating the imagination of the artist. Low culture depicts traditional working class values and stresses substance without concern with abstract ideas, appealing simply to basic human needs. DroneB (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those who stand guard over the passages decide, and you better know who they are, lest you die (or at least, you are not recognized as a member, meaning, you don't get the job, admitted to the party, or whatever) (see also: Sociolect). Of course, knowing who they are may be part of the culture, meaning, this is trivial to insiders and hard to fathom for outsiders... Gem fr (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2001:8003:7471:6C00:A5C9:2211:E484:81FE -- are you aware that the anthropological definition of "culture" is very different from the literary critic definition? Anyway, a mid-20th-century way of referring to what you're talking about is based on the word "brow": There's "highbrow" vs. "lowbrow", and sometimes "middlebrow" between them. I believe that Mad Magazine once claimed to be "no-brow"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of culture is a unibrow? --Jayron32 18:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Who decides that the work day is from 9 to 5 instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year, and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all the decisions that happen transparently around us?" [1]. Only The Shadows know. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
[2] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are they saying low culture's stupid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7471:6C00:4955:DBD2:525:E8C7 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A better word might be "simplistic", but you've got the gist of it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither stupid or simplistic, it is merely culture that appeals to the lower social classes. Complexity and intelligence has little to do with it. --Jayron32 18:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like how baccarat is more highbrow than baseball or mystery novels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clement Greenberg has something to say about this. And see Avant-Garde and Kitsch. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc.[edit]

What do you make of this?[3]

Related:

I read the first few legal documents, and I am wondering; what does RationalWiki has to do with the WMF? Because he mentioned RW in the filing, I looked him up on RW: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actual complaint is missing from court listener, but I recall reading it when this popped up a while ago. Abd is alleging that certain people have engaged in a years-long campaign of defamation against him across multiple websites, including RW. He was seeking access to confidential communications to the foundation in the hope of finding evidence that said people had defamed him privately to them as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are pretty much the same allegations Abd was making ten years ago that failed to get any traction here, before he was banned as a time sink. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For bonus lulz, Abd asserts that presence on m:List of globally banned users is inherently defamatory. As an exercise for the reader, if mere presence on a list is defamatory, who should Abd sue? Clue: check the earliest page history.
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)[reply]
The problem is that the WMF has to engage with the proceedings to avoid a default verdict against the WMF. In civil proceedings you can be subject to a default verdict, even if the complaint is unlikely to be true. What matters is that the complaint has been presented in a legally correct way. This is e.g. how Iran was found liable for the 9/11 attacks by a US court. Count Iblis (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have to have sympathy for the WMF lawyers who have to put up with and respond to this sort of thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is fair to assume that these WMF lawyers are well-paid and that defending this type of lawsuit is not all that challenging, since the precedents are all in the WMFs favor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the strain they endure from all the necessary eye-rolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but also consider the fun they enjoy for all the lulz. I mean, I had colleague dealing with some legal issue, and they did enjoy instances of ROFLMAO from some lawsuits Gem fr (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WMF uses Jones Day, so yes, they’re paid quite handsomely. Jones Day has quite a few high-profile clients. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Quote: "Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution has at times been excessive and repetitive"... For legal reasons I should point out that that's a quote from an Arbcom motion with unanimous support found in one of the links above and not my personal opinion. Poveglia (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that this Lomax guy is in fact the user behind the account Abd? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is none, but the account claims to be the person and it is unlikely to be some huge coincidence where there are 2 people with a very rare name talking about the same topics in the same way. Poveglia (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so he outed himself at some point early in his Wikipedia career. I'm curious to know his reasoning that his user name on list of banned users is somehow defamatory. It would only be defamatory if he was not actually a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that while the list is an inherently true statement of its own membership, the act of listing implies unstated facts, specifically that those persons on the list have violated the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. This is sort of (and by "sort of", I mean, "completely") undercut by the fact that said ToU also state, We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A tiny percentage of the people who use words like "libel", "slander" and "defamation" are actually legal experts. Poveglia (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ya think? :) It's interesting that the guy's been banned since 2011 and is still frosted about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to some random site he is asking for 6 million USD. Oh, and $1000. To be honest I would also like to receive 6 million and I'll give you permission to insult me while transferring the money to me. Poveglia (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So tempting to send you 6 million Zimbabwian dollars and then insult you... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, I'd love having some of those. Poveglia (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That site is overcharging.[4][5] Also interesting: many Zimbabwe banknotes f0r sale online are counterfeits, printed up just so they could be sold on the Internet. It is an interesting philosophical question as to whether printing up new banknote with zero value is illegal. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing philosophical here. Forging is illegal, period. Whether the thing has value or not is just irrelevant (however, Zimbabwean jurisdiction may have limited reach...) Gem fr (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure all would be forgiven if Abd's editing rights were reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I haven't read the whole thing yet, I started skimming at the section header "Wikiversity administrator joins conspiracy". Poveglia (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is being discussed on Reddit by Lomax [6], Abd has created about 50 threads on Reddit about his lawsuit, he also been spamming his GoFundMe campaign against WMF which I will not link to and threads on JzG [7]. Dude is a pro-troll. 185.246.128.4 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is strong in this one. Abd is suing the Wikimedia Foundation because they published his username on the global ban list, but guess who created that list and added the first banned user to it?[8] This is pure comedy gold. I wonder if the WMF will be awarded legal costs when this gets thrown out of court? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that he should sue himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Who created the list is just as irrelevant as "who wrote the article" for the purpose of copyright issues: in any case, WMF is sole responsible for what still Gem fr (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So part of his suit could be that Wikimedia is at fault for allowing him to create the list? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That; or just responsible for maintenance of the list instead of deleting it (I mean, if some rando vandalize a bio by including defamation, I am pretty sure no judge will strike WMF for it if the defaming material is swiftly enough removed), inclusion of the defendant on it, its publication allowing outsider to see it... whatever. When editing article, it is clear enough that we work under "copyleft", but I wonder if this also apply to the administrative background work, like, creating ban list, or automatically created "contribution" pages Gem fr (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But what if some rando vandalized a bio by including defamation and then sued the WMF for not deleting it? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hum... you mean, like, a rando set fire to his apartment and sue the building owner for not calling the firefighter fast enough? My understanding is that the judge would have a hard time not ROFLMAO, but I am no legal expert, so don't take my word on it. Gem fr (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to a copy of Restatement of the Torts, Third, I highly recommend it for investigating questions like this - it is quite the fascinating area of law. I read it on HeinOnline myself. The example you propose would invoke several conflicting doctrines. Generally, a land possessor is not liable for harm caused by either unforeseen risks or unknown risks created by others not in his employ. Nor is he generally liable for deliberate acts of self harm (bodily self or own property) by anyone occupying his land. However, while "pyromaniac tenant" might be an unforeseeable risk, "flammable apartment" is likely not.

Under the common law concept of comparative liability, a land possessor is not generally liable for harm where the tenant is determined to be 100% responsible by reason of negligence. Of course you're implying a situation where the land possessor allegedly had an opportunity to minimize the damage but did not. I cannot find relevant case law in the restatement on the situation where the tenant/plaintiff is not merely negligent but malicious, and suing over damages to own property, but I think this is likely to be superseded in most states by statutes prohibiting criminals from recovering damages related to their own crimes (for examples I know of, cannot collect property insurance of a building/vehicle you deliberately destroyed, cannot collect life insurance from someone you murdered).

Thus, if conviction is secured, the question of liability has already been answered by the legislature, and the courts do not have to render a decision. Back to the original question, section 230 of the CDA makes it incredibly hard to hold the WMF liable for any user generated content on its servers, so that's just a nonstarter. Regarding the argument that the list is itself defamatory, this would naturally stem from the assumption many people make that the people on that list must have done something awful to merit an entry. However, the WMF is not liable for the assumptions that people make. If WMF has always maintained that A is B, but the general public assumes B is C, you can't accuse WMF of saying A is C. Unless there is some evidence that WMF knows the public assumes B is C, and deliberately said A is B because they want everything to think A is C.

Furthermore, a defamation claim requires damages. It is said that same plaintiffs are "defamation proof" because their reputation is so poor that it is impossible to make it worse. That threshold might be met by someone who is widely regard as [redacted]. Saying that it's okay to list Abd because he started the list is a red herring. Going further into the actual accusations, Abd holds that the listing was malicious because he was already globally banned, and therefore the office action had no effect, and therefore it harmed him with no benefit to the foundation.

This is an incredibly fantastical concept of malice indicative of legal ignorance. Indeed a dictionary definition of "malice" could be "spite", and a useless office action may be considered spiteful (in fact it is not useless, as it serves both to ensure the community ban is never reversed, and potentially as a valid pretext for civil action if the ban is evaded - the series of actions would normally be 1) Site owner bans you. 2) Site owner catches you evading ban, sends you cease and desist letter. 3) Site owner catches you again, seeks restraining order. 4) site owner catches you again, asks judge to take action)... anyway, even if it is considered spiteful, privileged actions do not become malicious simply because the actor doesn't like you. WMF is privileged to ban anyone they think is contributing material they personally consider objectionable, and they do not need to abide to a reasonable person standard.

So basically they can ban for anything short of membership in a protected class. There is a caveat to 230, and that is good faith. I have never seen a federal court (though I could be wrong, would love to see the case if so) that rejected a 230 immunity claim on the basis of good vs. bad faith. About the only way I could even imagine that happening, where you could even say with a straight face that such a broad privileged action was in bad faith, would be if the WMF did not find Abd objectionable, but were instead coerced to ban him for their own or another's selfish motive. Proving that, even reaching discovery on that type of accusation, would requiring hurdling an incredibly high bar. Now, that is indeed sort of what is being claimed.

Abd suspects that third-party conspirators defamed him to the foundation, and this is the reason he was office-actioned. My impression was that he was using this lawsuit as a fishing expedition to discover documents that might prove a case against said conspirators. Ultimately, after all the blah blah wall of text I posted, this fails, as the foundation itself insists, for failure to state a claim. Abd has no evidence that WMF was acting in bad faith - only idle speculation and an insistence that the foundation's behavior is irrational - but 230 does not require a site owner to behave rationally, so that is irrelevant.

Abd claims to have mountains of evidence that various conspirators are acting in bad faith, but he sued the foundation. If he were to sue those against whom he claims to have evidence of defamation, and he believes that further evidence exists on WMF servers, he can subpoena them, and they can comply or move to quash. What he cannot do is sue them first to go looking for that evidence. It doesn't matter if he has a potential case against someone else. He needs to have an active case against someone else. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: I love you, but please use the Enter button once in a while. Please. The stuff you wrote is interesting, but it is very difficult to read when there are no paragraphs and just one big wall of text. Update: Thank you, Poveglia (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someguy1221, "This is precisely the sort of fishing expedition the Supreme Court sought to avoid in requiring the plaintiff to plead facts demonstrating their entitlement to relief and the defendant’s liability for misconduct. [A] district court must retain power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to pursue “extensive discovery” with nothing more than a series of conclusory allegations and an unfounded hope that the process will yield favorable results." Ali v. Allergan USA, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-115, 2012 WL 3692396, at 14 (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2012)
Obviously not Massachusetts, but an exact statement of what Abd is trying to do here. He's had two bites at this (three with his opposition motion) and has yet to produce any reason to suspect that the evidence he wants to get via discovery, exists. It is very likely that "Anglo Pyramidologist" has actual malice towards him, and it would be entirely plausible that AP has libelled him, ads he has clearly libelled AP in return. they have plainly harassed each other and engaged in outing and doxxing. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else is involved, and close to zero chance that Abd, as a self-proclaimed public individual, will get any meaningful redress against AP. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I am my worst enemy. Poveglia (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a variation of the Dram shop principle - that the one who sold the drink to the one who caused the accident is at fault for allowing him to drink. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens it is guaranteed to be a waste of time and money and effort for all involved. The WMF can literally ban everyone including Jimbo; its their website. Of course people would riot and start a fork but they are legally allowed to do it. Poveglia (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well, if WMF wanted Jimbo out, they would start by calling a nazi AND a sex offender, then proceed to make him angry so has a bad reaction, and that's it. Then no riot and failed fork Gem fr (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit, banning everyone would certainly reduce the number of content disputes and reduce the workload on T&S... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I do admit that. But best move would probably to troll, pretend I don't admit, and try to get you banned for such gross statement. Gem fr (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion linked above Abd is not, nor have they ever really been on the list Abd created AFAICT [9]. They are on the WMF list Meta:WMF Global Ban Policy/List which is transcluded in the above list but where never added directly.

Anyway, I had a quick at the complaint or at least what I could find [10], where does it say the problem is the global ban list? It says

published a global ban of plantiff, and publication continues

and

Harm continues through Google searches for plantiff's working name (Abd ul-Rahman , user "Abd" on WMF wikis.) With no legitimate necessity, the ban can be seen by anyone, and is being cited as proof of reprehensible behavior

etc. I don't see where it specifically complains about the global ban list, even the WMF one. The publication bit would seem to apply to User:Abd, Meta:User:Abd etc.

The Google searches bit is more interesting. On en.wikipedia Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, and from what I can tell Meta and wikiversity user pages and user talk pages are always noindexed. So the user page and user talk page template shouldn't show up for searches for the user name. However, it is on Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. And other than the WMF list itself which does show up, Meta:WMF Global Ban Policy which also has the WMF list on it also shows up in search results for me.

In other words, putting aside their responsibility for the global ban it may be funny to think Abd is indirectly responsible for their name appearing in Google search results, because they created the list which causes it, it's not clear to me this is really the case. It seems it me there's a fair chance the WMF would have created their own list whatever Abd did and so Abd would still be appearing in search results whatever.

By the same token, where is the $6 million coming from? On the initial complaint I only see $75000 and $200000.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I have added a noindex template to the category. Now we just need someone to add one to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List Poveglia (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a case of right to be forgotten. WMF was involved in disputes, both on theoretical issues and practical cases. Regardless of the guy, seems legit to me to have such list private, lest it gets turned into some sort of "social credit" Gem fr (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me he would have to prove actual damages, not just "I don't like it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May be so; or not... Moreover, would most probably depends on the jurisdiction. Gem fr (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the jurisdiction for a suit against the WMF? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me somewhat of the infamous user Xanderliptak, who uploaded some artworks of his with his own advertising stamp on them. They were altered to remove his stamp. He didn't like that, and his attempts to get them deleted were thwarted, so he wrote a legalistic complaint to the WMF complaining that the stuff that he himself uploaded should be deleted as copyright violations. So they were deleted and he was banished. A fair tradeoff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Xanderliptak case was a little more complicated than that -- it was really his artistic ego in seeing people make revised versions of some of his images, changing his personal style in the process, which offended him most. In order to prevent this, he tried to retroactively revise a CC license, then when people told him he couldn't legally do that, he had a complete hissy fit (see the discussions leading to his first block). Eventually, he issued a DMCA takedown on his own images. The genius part of that maneuver was in most cases there was no one other than himself who had a right to dispute the takedown request (with some very limited exceptions -- see comment of "15:51, 21 January 2011" here). However, by doing that, he basically automatically got himself banned under the "no legal threats" policy... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That describes it well. It was a case of "good widdance to bad wubbish." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the part where it says: "I do in good faith affirm that the use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by myself as the copyright owner or the law". I agree that the category Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and the WMF Global Ban Policy/List on meta should be noindexed for reasons ranging from "no shrines for vandals" to avoiding harm to real people (whose identities could've been used by others without their permission and knowledge) and not poking bears. Poveglia (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Poveglia (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link you left above. I was thinking there should be some larger complaint but there didn't seem to be any in the link above. I can't be bothered reading the whole thing, but from a search, it sounds like the page or one of the pages they are complaining about is Meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and the list on it. As I said above transcludes the WMF's Meta:WMF Global Ban Policy/List. And Abd was added by WMFOffice [11]. So yeah, I still don't think Abd can really be said to have created the list they are complaining about (or at least one of the lists) since the WMF may have created their list whatever happened. (I'm not saying I think they have an actual case, simply that the specific criticism above doesn't really seem to be spot on.)

It does seems they are suing for over $6 million combined.

I am somewhat confused why stuff like "Global Ban Plicy" seems to appear on even the filed version [12] as that doesn't seem to be something a spell check should miss and common sense would suggest you want your legal complaint for $6 million to have as best chance as possible for example, by avoiding basic errors. Although I guess someone would argue since the complaint was (I think) largely prepared by Abd, it's actually better to leave some basic errors to remind the reader 'this wasn't professional prepared' to cut them some slack.

Incidentally does anyone know if hyperlinks in a PDF are accepted in whatever court that is? I'm doubtful that "Rather than printing complex links, active links for this and all references in this pleading may be found incontext on a draft page" would be well received in court. (At least they included a archive link I guess. It would be especially funny if they were basically telling the court 'you can find the links at this page we can modify at any time'. Of course they are introducing the unnecessary complexity over whether the archive page can be trusted to be unmodifiable.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2019_September_2&oldid=914905256"