Talk:Marc Randazza/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More stuff to talk about...

There's a lot of other noteworthy stuff he's done that deserves mention. His legal briefs are known for their wit and entertainment value. I'm doing an infodump here, hoping to inspire someone else, because I don't have time to find all the best references.

Marc Randazza: First amendment badass is a good summary article. His website terms and conditions are also highly amusing. E.g.

and

-71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP Violation and SPA

The user “007news” is violating the BLP policies. There is a very clear SPA set up to push an agenda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/007news Although, now with some recent edits, they are trying to make it seem like it is not an SPA, they are not all that creative about it. Recommend that the SPA be blocked from this page.

I disagree with much of the above, which amounts to an evidence-less ad hominem attack. Two possible issues with the arbitration coverage exist, though: Firstly, since the arbitration finding apparently was only an interim finding, not a final result, should we wait until it's finalized? And secondly, while Ars Technica and Ynot.com report on the bankruptcy, is that significant enough to be mentioned? Huon (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that the fact that it is an interim finding would make it inappropriate to report here. Further, yes, perhaps two blogs write about the filing of the bankruptcy, that does not seem significant enough for it to be part of a BLP. Additionally, there may be an absence of direct evidence of the owner of the 007news account, but its activity (especially given the content of its edits) are circumstantial evidence that it is a SPA. The post-hoc attempts to make it appear otherwise are not compelling.

You're accusing me of being an SPA, but I think you should be more focused on whether my edits and contributions to the page are SPA-driven. I think I've done a reasonably good job of presenting things objectively, and relying on the cited materials for the substance of my edits. I don't believe the same can be said for some of the others who have come in here and edited the page from various anonymous accounts and IP addresses and who've clearly tried to present a specific agenda. Again, compare my edits to those of the people who've attempted to change the substance of my edits and it should be fairly easy to spot the SPAs. Much of what is so good and valuable about Wikipedia is it can be so organic and things can be updated and edited by any contributor, so I'm under no illusions my edits are flawless or should be permanent, intact fixtures - but I don't particularly feel you can just unilaterally call me an SPA. If the substance of my edits are unfair, then by all means edit those and I'll gladly accept any feedback (being a contributor here involves a learning process, after all). But, again, when I see how some have edited this page and edited the portion I contributed to over the last couple weeks I think there is some pretty blatantly biased, subjective, and often questionably-cited edits and contributions coming from others.
As for whether or not it's appropriate to cite an interim award, XBiz did cover it (and they're the sole reference for other material here) and Ars did cover it; I'll also add in some citations here that discuss how interim awards are quite conclusive, enforceable, and make it fairly apparent matters can be fully settled through them. In actually reading the award included with the Ars article, it would suggest the decision was definitive and conclusive (with only a final calculation of damages pending with the final). But, otherwise, an interim award is quite the substantive and relevant finding.
″The arbitral tribunal may, at any time during the arbitral proceedings, make an interim arbitral award on any matter with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award. The interim award may be enforced in the same manner as a final arbitral award [Cal Code Civ Proc § 1297.316]." [1]
"...the court concluded that the award was confirmable under section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)."[2]
"...the court disagreed that the "interim" label is dispositive as to whether an arbitral award is final, and stated that the same standards for finality apply with equal weight to awards labeled "interim."[3]
I'd gather the above, combined with the wording of the award in question here and its coverage by multiple news sources, makes it more than relevant. Again, I am under no illusions my edits are without fault and I actually pay attention to all edits of them because I value the opportunity to learn (for instance, finding out that court documents are not valid citations [and there is still some material on this page with court documents being the only citations but I'm a bit too gun-shy to edit them because some people are clearly very sensitive about this page]). I don't want to turn this page in to some big discussion forum but still felt obliged to respond. Thank you! -007news (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I did leave messages about this content dispute post on each user's talk page, but if there is a better way to notify someone, please let me know. Not entirely sure if an unregistered user would be made aware, unfortunately. 007news (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so how about this, do you deny that you are either an employee or a contractor of Liberty Media / Excelsior Media?

A section was removed citing this as the reasoning for it:
http://cigarsandlegs.com/why-is-the-left-wing-publication-ars-technica-attacking-marc-randazza/
I'm having a difficult time believing that should be the basis for the content of a substantive section of the wiki entry, or for the removal of material cited through the Ars Technica article referenced. I can understand how a casual observer might find some of the edits going back and forth odd and worth scrutiny (and am not surprised by the SPA accusations directed towards me - though I'd hope my edits are built around proper citations first and foremost, and on at least a couple of occasions the ones calling me an SPA also have an edit/authorship history focused around a single person/page).
Having said all that, should we consider edit 702066230 appropriate? Insight and feedback appreciated! 007news (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the best place for any discussions on edits, possible SPA/BLP violation issues, etc (as opposed to edit comments). Thanks!007news (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal blogs are not reliable sources nor a reason to dismiss reliable sources. For this highly inappropriate edit I have blocked Lappisberget for WP:BLP violations. I have no idea what they are up to, but neither attacking Randazza on the basis of personal blogs nor whitewashing the article on that basis is acceptable. Huon (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does this page read like someone's LinkedIn account?

I gather from the entry that Mr Randazza is a wonderful, wonderful person with absolutely no faults at all. A quick web search, though, turns up a very different story. Ars Technica has two articles that are somewhat less glowing in their opinion of Mr Randazza; the first is "Embattled copyright lawyer uses DMCA to remove article about himself", while the second seems even more concerning, discussing as it does "Bribery, gay porn, and copyright trolls: The rise and fall of lawyer Marc Randazza". It is unclear how none of this news has made it to Wikipedia; please, can the page be made slightly less hagiographic?

I am also puzzled by the long list of seemingly every time the subject has been seen in public - does this add any value to the entry? As for the sources, pointing to the subject's own blog does not seem to provide an independent source!45.74.43.63 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hired guns do become rockstars.

"Readers of this site will be familiar with Randazza and his reputation for repudiating bogus takedowns and lame uses of intellectual property in this matter. His involvement does not bode well for the Mormon Church's prospects for the continued bullying of MormonLeaks through the inappropriate application of copyright law. The site is clearly well within the boundaries of Fair Use. And, while Utah's version of an anti-SLAPP law is horribly neutered, limited only to suits involving "the process of government", Randazza's otherwise congenial notice to the Church hints that there will be consequences of it doesn't walk away from all of this."--Link

Nevertheless WP can stick with something along with lines of "noted 1st Amend. lawyer Randazza agued such and so" without editorializing. "Just the facts, ma'am."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

MormonLeaks

WaPo article mentioning Randazza'a letter on these Nevada-based journalists' behalf.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Put it here: MormonLeaks#2017_Apostasies_PowerPoint.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marc Randazza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I would like to update two sections of the Marc Randazza's page: Career and Controversies. The new information describes the most recent lawsuits that Mr. Randazza has been working on. Please review them:

  • Career

Marc Randazza filed a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit on behalf of American Performance Artist Vermin Supreme after the City of Concord in New Hampshire denied Supreme a permit to bring a live pony to protest Hillary Clinton. [4] Randazza successfully protected Supreme’s right to protest with the pony and the City gave Supreme the permit. [5]

  • Controversies

Randazza often represents controversial public figures in First Amendment cases which has resulted in criticism. The New York Times highlighted Randazza’s representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer and “Alex Jones, an online conspiracy theorist” in First Amendment cases. [6] Vice News, while covering the Daily Stormer case, also pointed out that Randazza often represents, “high-profile clients who test the limits of free speech: 8chan trolls, porn site operators, and even Mike Cernovich.” [7]

References

  1. ^ "Arbitratl Award and Legal Definition". USLegal.com. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
  2. ^ "Interim arbital award confirmable under Federal Arbitration Act". Practical Law. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
  3. ^ "Arbitration. Enforceability of "interim" arbitration awards". Lexology. Retrieved December 1, 2015.
  4. ^ {{cite web|url=https://www.concordmonitor.com/Vermin-Supreme-sues-city-of-Concord-ahead-of-Clinton-booksigning-14105729 title=Vermin Supreme sues Concord to have pony protest|publisher=Concord Monitor}
  5. ^ {{cite web|url=http://nhpr.org/post/vermin-supreme-hosts-pony-parade-protest-outside-clinton-event-concord#stream/0 title=Vermin Supreme Hosts 'Pony Parade' Protest Outside Clinton Event In Concord|publisher=New Hampshire Public Radi}
  6. ^ {{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/us/politics/sandy-hook-alex-jones-lawyers.html title=Lawyers for Neo-Nazi to Defend Alex Jones in Sandy Hook Case|publisher=The New York Times}
  7. ^ {{cite web|url=https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/ned95g/meet-the-lawyer-defending-notorious-neo-nazi-trolls title=Meet the lawyer defending notorious neo-Nazi trolls|publisher=Vice News}

Kind regards, Wise-Rachel (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Edited 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think these edits are perfectly fine, but I would remove the descriptive language (eg "neo-nazi") in the controversies section and replace them with Wikipedia page links. The subject's page is the place that they should be described. Would shorten it too, since it'd just be a list of people represented rather than explaining why they're controversial people.
What's your COI? Sai ¿?✍ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saizai (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sai Thanks so much for your recommendations, I've edited the descriptions and added COI to the signature as well. Please, take a look at it and let me know if any additional information needs to be added.

Kind regards, Wise-Rachel (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply 19-JUL-2018

 Deferred to WP:COIN
  • The COI edit reviewer will seek to obtain the input of editors at WP:COIN in order to determine whether announcements of representation are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Lawsuits and their effects are often mentioned in numerous articles after the fact. Less often, are mentions in circumstances where significant trial documentation is lacking due to: cases being in a preliminary stage; in circumstances where cases were resolved outside the courtroom (the Vermin Supreme case); or in situations where clients are just past the retention phase (Alex Jones).
  • Particular care will be taken to discover if and when claim statements mentioning that an attorney has been retained are notable, and if so, whether or not those mentions might be construed as promotional in nature.

Regards,  spintendo  03:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply 25-07

Hello!

Thanks so much for your edits and suggestions.

I understand your point of view regarding the New York Times article, here is another resource that can be referred to Alex Jones case. https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/07/05/attorney-defending-right-wing-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-says-1st-amendment-is-the-only-litmus-test/?slreturn=20180625065134 .

Wise-Rachel (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability of an attorney's claim of retention requested to be made in their WP article

Hello! A request has been made to make mention of the attorney as having been retained in Connecticut by a notable individual. That client is also being sued in Texas. The case in Connecticut has not had any preliminary hearings. There is a mention in the New York Times, but since the client's suit in Texas was filed earlier, the article's only courtroom information comes from their case (attorneys other than Mr. Randazza.) To round out their article, the Times makes mention of another client of Randazza's which is similar in tone to the first client, but also with minimal court records generated owing to its recent nature. Because there is little courtroom-generated info from these cases to mention other than the retention, the attorney wishes to make mention of the other cases discussed in the Times article. My guess is the Times combined coverage of all three cases into one article because none of the cases on their own have generated much in the way of information.

Three questions:

  1. May these new client-attorney relationships be described on the attorney's Wikipedia page?
  2. The move to mention their new attorney-client relationships might appear to some as advertising by association. To others, it's reporting notable facts. How does one determine which side of the threshold these claims fall upon? Is there a grace period for when it becomes acceptable for an attorney to begin mentioning these types of business relationships?
  3. The attorney also represents a client who filed a lawsuit which was eventually dropped. The only coverage of the suit comes from 3 local in-state sources (the three sources echo each other). If a case never sees the light of day, how much of it should be mentioned in an article, especially when minimal reporting has been done on it outside of the state?

Thank you in advance for any feedback editors can provide, its most appreciated!  spintendo  12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia isn't a publicity agency.
The move to mention their new attorney-client relationships might appear to some as advertising by association Because it is?
To others, it's reporting notable facts If it were, you wouldn't need to ask, because someone besides the article topic's agent -- reliable sources -- would actually note said facts.
In other words, if you have to ask, you've just demonstrated what the answer is: no. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

So there’s this story. Are you SURE you want your client associated this particular client? --Calton | Talk 08:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin, etc.

This is regarding this revert.

There is a lot to go over.

First, having a WP:CSECTION in a WP:BLP is usually a bad idea. Having a section solely dedicated to the TST issue is something which should've been addresses earlier, but expanding that section to indiscriminately lump half of his notable clients together seems like it's making the problem worse. His entire career is a controversy, so slicing it up this way is arbitrary, and invites editorializing. He represents many extremist clients, but so does the ACLU, so does Ron Kuby, so do lots of civil rights lawyers. Few are as unpopular as Randazza for various reasons, but we need to summarize sources, not editorialize. So find reliable sources which indicate why this is a controversy, and incorporate that information into the body in a balanced way.

Randazza's representation of neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin is certainly significant. The specific details of this incident are already covered at The Daily Stormer, so duplicating it here to paint a suggestive picture of Randazza seems like a WP:COATRACK. We, as editors, might chose to describe Randazza as a hypocrite for defending Anglin's right to harass an innocent person, while also defending "Krystall.night"'s right to complete anonymity and insulation from any consequences, but we need reliable sources to point that out for us. Get it? Trying to nudge readers towards a specific conclusion not made by any sources is WP:SYNTH. It's also leaning way too hard on some weak sources, but perhaps that's a separate issue.

I have a problem with naming a woman who's sole claim to notability is being targeted for harassment, as well, and will discuss this at that article's talk page. The plaintiff from Montana in the lawsuit against Anglin is a WP:NPF, and even if reliable sources provide her name, we are not obligated to repeat it without a good reason. I do not believe such a reason has been established. We should not be amplifying this person's harassment beyond what is absolutely necessary for the article... but this article isn't really about her, is it? It's about someone else's lawyer. Summarizing this according to WP:DUE is tricky. I think it can be expanded, but this seems excessive in the extreme and the use of lengthy quotes is cherry-picking. He got dunked-on in court. Certainly wasn't the first-time, and probably won't be the last time.

As for the issues with the Nevada bar: This has been brewing for a while, and will probably develop further, but for one thing, WP:NOTNEWS, and for another, we absolutely should not be trying to summarize WP:PRIMARY court documents in a BLP. This is specifically cautioned against in WP:BLPPRIMARY. Explain how reliable, independent sources explain it. Trying to figure out which parts of a court document are important enough to include here is WP:OR. If this leads to something, we'll know, and if it doesn't, it wouldn't belong here anyway, right?

Finally, the sourcing was very inconsistent. I already went through these sources once, and they don't always support the statements they are attached to. This is not acceptible, as every claim needs to be supported by a reliable source.

Hopefully that explains why I reverted this content. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfellfor your guidance. I have made some additional edits as they violated the following Wikipedia rules WP:QS, WP: NPOV, WP:SELFPUB, WP:Sources, WP:Notreliable, WP:blog, WP:BLP and because were neither verifiable or neutral. Tech dirt is a personal blog it is questionable sources and is neither verifiable or neutral and Legal satyricon is a Blog of Randazza. I appreciate your valuable feedback. There is a new article in the Washington Post today that might be of interest and might be worth adding. I removed the content that was based on Techdirt or Legal Satyricon as they did not meet the above Wikipedia policies. MKPatel66 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marc_Randazza/Archive_1&oldid=1164855456"