Talk:Leo Stoller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why an article?[edit]

a good choice for the dee dee dee award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

indeed. but why dignify his arrogance with a wiki page when one can ignore him into oblivion?
-Lordraydens 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems good to know this hypocritical scumbag is out there and that he's likely involved in fraud all over the board. Hopefully the courts will get a chance to file some criminal proceedings. A lot of what he's doind is nothing less than extorsion and someone should drop the hammer on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaganeNoKokoro (talkcontribs)
Scum is the best word to describe this idiot.--Cheezymadman 08:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Why dignify Stoller with a wiki page? So anyone sued by this scumbag knows about it. The latest "victim" is CastleCops, whom Stoller claims is infringing on his "Castle" trademark. Give me a break Leo. Ikester 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
He is an idiot. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois just hammered him. Here is the PACER entry. "The EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER of 03/08/07: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Leo Stoller, or anyone acting on his behalf, is enjoined from filing any new civil action or proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois without first obtaining leave. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Clerk shall cause to be created and maintained a miscellaneous file with the title In the matter of Leo Stoller and case number 07 C 1435. The miscellaneous file shall serve as the repository of this order, all documents proffered for filing by Mr. Stoller covered by the terms of this order for which authority to file is not granted, and any order or minute order entered pursuant to this order. The Clerk will also maintain a miscellaneous docket associated with the file. All orders retained in the file will be entered on that docket following standard docketing procedures. A brief entry will be made on the docket indicating the receipt of any materials from Mr. Stoller.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be mailed to Mr. Stoller at 7115 W. North Avenue, Oak Park, IL 60302, the address given by Mr. Stoller in documents received on March 2, 2007. Such mailing shall be by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.Enter: For the Executive Committee. (tlm) (Entered: 03/27/2007)" See IN RE: Leo Stoller, Civil Action No. 07-cv-01435. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:29 28 March 2007

Trademark troll?[edit]

There is a patent troll page, why is there no trademark troll page? It seems that mr Stoller would be a prime candidate as an example.

this term is used by Boing Boing today --kris 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article failed a deletion vote. No published reliable sources have used the term (BB excepted). Feel free to try again. Jokestress 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

n.b. the Trademark troll article exists, since 2009.--Auric (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Stoller appears to be editing this page himself[edit]

User Ldms4 has repeatedly added a biased and redundant summary of the recent 7th Circuit decision requiring Google to include Mr. Stoller as a defendant (which was hardly a total victory for Mr. Stoller, as claimed by one of Ldms4's edits). User Ldms4 apparently has the same lack of respect for Wikipedia that Mr. Stoller has for our judicial system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the user name Ldms4 is the same user name Stoller posts under on Youtube. His edits should be watched closely, and perhaps he should be warned against self editing.Lothar97 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just became aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard today. Stoller seems to have gone dormant for a while, but if (more likely "when") he resumes his biased editing of this article again, I plan to bring it up there as an incorrigible. TJRC (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Removal or complete rewrite of "APPEALS COURT GIVES STOLLER A VICTORY OVER GOOGLE" section. How is it even there? SouperAwesome (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not done Please provide a specific description of the change. "rewrite" is not nearly specific enough. Happymelon 11:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
OK... the factual information in that section is already present in a more appropriate section, while the disputed section itself ends in a highly POV and arguably highly inaccurate claim that it's a "total victory for Stoller" (actually, it's just a reversal, on a technicality, of a defeat for Stoller, and resulted in the case being sent back to the lower court for further action, with the sanctions against Stoller making further filings until he pays a court-ordered fine still in effect). *Dan T.* (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, note the improper style of this section, with all caps header, it is clearly an attempt to spin the story in favor of Mr. Stoller. On the case itself, what the 7th circuit said was that Stoller got to participate in this lawsuit against his former companies (which are now in bankruptcy), but it did not reach the merits--Google's lawsuit against Stoller is still very much alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above points, the complained-of section is being added only by User:Ldms4, a Single-Purpose Account who is apparently Stoller himself, in violation of WP:COI, and once by an anonymous IP user, who is probably the same user not signed in.

"Rewrite" is not needed; the information is already present in the article, as noted above. This section should be deleted. TJRC (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done section removed. Happymelon 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stoller imprisoned[edit]

I question whether an article on this man is appropriate, but if it's going to be here those of us who have had run ins with him will rejoice that he is currently incarcerated and that his blog, youtube, etc are deleted. If someone has better access to Circuit Court of Cook County records than I do, perhaps the Law Bulletin service, this article needs the court's several contempt citations directing the Cook County Sheriff to take Stoller into custody. (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)