User:Mr. Treason/Request for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

  • Description:

Anonymous has twice questioned Hyacinth on his user page. Reasons given are Hyacinth's edits to Missy Elliott.

So, questioning someone to RESOLVE a problem is now considered a "dispute"?!

  • Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
  1. User talk:Hyacinth, moved to User talk:Hyacinth/Words of wisdom from someone who's actually SANE
  2. Talk:Main Page#Porno

I said it, I said it! Telling it like it is!

After I blocked one of his addresses for extreme personal attacks on this RfC's talk page, he began vandalizing my user page and making death threats against me. [1] [2] [3] -- Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Applicable policies:
  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:User page
  • Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
  1. User talk:68.36.175.254

The "dispute" has already been resolved, as Hyacinth (FINALLY) explained what "Back In The Day" means. It's information about a Missy Elliott song title of the same name. Hence, it belongs on the Missy Elliott page!

Actually, the explination was in the Missy Elliott article all along: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Missy_Elliott&oldid=4072997. You must not have read the entire article. Hyacinth 19:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Hyacinth 05:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Mike H 15:52, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
  1. Guanaco 17:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) A request for comment doesn't seem necessary for this kind of behavior. I have blocked the IP for 24 hours.
  2. Neutrality 01:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Cyrius|✎ 18:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- Anon is extremely combative and is now threatening lawsuits against those who question his behavior.
    And this person is threatening to file criminal complaints. Guanaco 18:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 18:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) His behavior is appalling

-- very reminiscent of users like Plautus Satire, who was banned for a year by the AC. If he continues to violate site policy and act abusively towards users here, he can continue to be legitimately blocked (as he has been already, it seems).

His attempt to convince

"Attempt"? "Convince"? As if I care what you think of me; I know my profession and I know that what I've said is true. What--you don't like that there's a lawyer out there with street cred? What--you think we're all stuffy old prudes, like you? If anything, my open-mindedness and love for supporting the oppressed against the despots who would subjugate them is what brought me into this profession in the first place. You think it matters that I'm young and listen to rap music and don't give I shit if I make full use of the entire language that is at my disposal, including the fucking "taboo" words? If anything, the amount of power I've already achieved--in spite of qualities that some might view as setbacks in such a profession, i.e. my unabashed candor, my background, and my age--is testament to the fact that I'm just really that damn good and that damn passionate about my job and my obligation to serve the oppressed! Ya see, to me, it's really not about the fame and fortune, though such things have been an added blessing; I'm not gonna lie. It's not about presenting an image. Far too many fools have held a stereotypical view of how we lawyers are "supposed to" behave and present ourselves--it's been the death of them. Though, their looks of "we fucked up" in the courtroom have always amused me. So, would you be the first to mistakingly question my credibility due to my young age and how I present myself? Nope. However, I still would strongly advise against your letting your foolish prejudices and stereotypes blind you into heading into something you will regret!149.174.164.74 19:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

us all he's a powerful lawyer should not be taken seriously -- he's behaving like a child who's learned legal jargon

"Jargon"? Excuse me--I paid a pretty penny to learn such "jargon". 149.174.164.74 19:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

and is using it to intimidate others into doing what he wants. His misunderstanding of federal law is profound.

Doing "what I want"? You speak as if I have an agenda to push--if it's now a crime to be nice to people or to have an opinion that differs from the status quo, I'm guilty as charged of intimidation. However, in the rational world, it is you who are the guilty party! BTW, federal law is not my area of expertise, I'll admit. That is why my assocites in Trenton are the ones who communicate with the D.C-area legal teams! My jurisdiction is my county, which is one of the most urban and oppressed, despite also being one of the wealthiest, in the nation. My county is one of bipolar opposites, which is why it needs a person such as myself as its defense! If need be, I have practiced in surrounding county courts and occassionally in Trenton's state court. Federal and international law are not my specialties; but why do you think I've got friends?149.174.164.74 19:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the thing that's wrong about me practising my profession, as well as exercising my right as an American is...? Note for courts: Gunanco has multiple times justified his "blocking" of my by harassing our profession and claiming we, as Americans, cannot abide by our laws or our American rights on the Wikipedia website. 172.132.1.86 01:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Response" Part 1 (Civility Still Attempted)[edit]

You're all being absolutely, insanely CHILDISH AND RIDICULOUS! I've been forced to get another I.P. address because of your bullcrap (I'm being what you call "polite"); since it is a holiday tomorrow and I'll be somewhere without internet access, there is a lot of minor editing I have to do today. I don't know/care if my "ban" is supposed to wear off tonite or whatever. At any rate, AOL's got MILLIONS of available I.P. addresses that I can use. Your bannings are pointless, annyoing, illegal, and Unconstitutional. I've already consulted with some of my lawyer friends, relatives, and acquaintances, and they've basically backed up what I already suspected to be true. Guanaco acted unilaterally in banning me, and his act was a purposeful, Unconstitutional censoring of statements he does not agree with. This is not the first time he's done this, as I've clearly pointed out at several pages on other Wiki projects. As I'm forced to work whatever editing I do here this afternoon through a dial-up connection, I will sue for any extraneous charges that I might incur from AOL as a result of going directly through their servers and not "bringing my own internet access".

Basically, your claims are all baseless, if not flat-out lies. Mike, as usual, is putting words in my mouth because he's too slow to understand the situation, even after multiple attempts on my part to explain it to him. I guess he probably knows he was wrong and just does not want to admit it; either that, or he's incredibly dumb. Meanwhile his friend, Guanaco, comes along to silence me before I could even defend myself. You've got four people supporting each other's lies and defamation! Guanaco has made three times as many enemies within the past 2 weeks alone. I wonder who, if any, should be the one BANNED from this site...64.12.116.208 20:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Response" Part 2: Timbaland Remix[edit]

(Fighting The Oppression Full-Force/Fuck Being Civil Towards Fascists)

172.132.1.86 00:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)'

Re-reverted again, on the above date & time. More of a "cut & paste" than a revert--as Guanaco has finally had something to say, and I shall not censor people.

68.36.175.254 17:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At the above date, I once again reverted this page so that all my unanswered questions, comments, and concerns were displayed, and such that the defilers' several attempts at sweeping-under-the-rug all that which exposes them as the guilty party are all documented. 68.36.175.254 17:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In response to the deleting of entry (*), I wrote: See what happens when I write something? BIASED!

From Mike, the schizophrenic: "People are requesting comment on you. This is not "your page." That's what the talk page is for.)"

Well, if people are going to insist on making false claims about me by utilising my permanent, digital cable modem I.P. address, you had better believe I'm going to defend myself! Anything with my I.P. address on it is legally mine, just as if this page had my full name or social security number posted on it, and was claiming to represent me, I would be the one who judges what is and is not permissible on it!152.163.253.33 19:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From Hyacinth: "Actually, the explination was in the Missy Elliott article all along: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Missy_Elliott&oldid=4072997. You must not have read the entire article. Hyacinth 19:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Nope. That is the article I read. It states, "Below is a list of old school things from "Back In The Day", followed by a section listing seemingly arbitrary "old school" hip-hop cliches. No mention was made of "Back In The Day" being a Missy song title. It seemed like spam--however, ALL ALONG I accepted the possibility that it might not have been, which is why I contacted you rather than deleting it myself. Once you had explained (in a rude, childish, and intentionally-confusing manner, I might add), I wasted no time in expanding upon what you had written, being that it is a viable piece of information on Misdemeanor Elliott! The "conflict" (as if you and I had ever had one) ended at that point! You just chose not to end it!152.163.253.33 19:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mike has already deleted this once, and has someone else who should not be getting involved. Just for the record in case the judge deems such a piece of evidence credible.152.163.253.33 20:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What follows is entry (*):

As this is my page, I am placing this important information where I want to place it, so that people cannot make excuses about not having seen it. Things I've written here that have been censored:

In response to Guanaco: I put the comments where they're most likely to be seen. If someone says something asinine, I'm going to rebut the ludicrous statement directly underneath it, so that all those who are supporting me against this barbarism can read what I have to say in context, such that it appears logically, in its place, and that my words cannot again be taken out of context by [sysops] with an agenda!

In the above, I basically state what I've already stated above. It is appalling that I am in a situation where I am being forced to justify why I place comments where I choose to place them. I could ask the same fucking thing to any of you! Methinks you'd have no legitimate answer. Hell, Guanaco couldn't even resond to my above explanation; instead he and his agents chose to remove it as if it had never existsed...INTERESTING!

From Guanaco: "Guanaco (rv - Put comments in the proper sections and stop the legal threats.)"

So, that's his response, I guess? He cannot answer my questions because my comments are not "in the proper sections". Curious! Surely a man so convinced of his righteousness as Guanaco is would not have to resort to an ad hominem argument...or would he?

As has been blanked out several time at this very page:


"This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.
Description:
Anonymous has twice questioned Hyacinth on his user page. Reasons given are Hyacinth's edits to Missy Elliott.

The above is no reason to ban someone!

I replied: "The question has been answered...where's the dispute? Go ahead, tell me...where is it?"
AND ALSO: "Question that remains to be answered: so, questioning someone to RESOLVE a problem is now considered a "dispute"?!"

I got no answer, from any of yous!

Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
User talk:Hyacinth, moved to User talk:Hyacinth/Words of wisdom from someone who's actually SANE
Talk:Main Page#Porno
I replied, "I said it, I said it! Telling it like it is! Self-defense from harassment and libel--nothing wrong with any of that from a legal standpoint."

Which is all the truth. I had no reason to attack anyone, until I was attacked, and subsequently censored first!

I went on to say:

Applicable policies:
68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)What these policies have to do with me, and how I violated any of them remains a mystery. SOMEONE please explain--don't just sit there! I want answers! If there's been such obvious violations that they warrant repeat blockings of my I.P. address, there must have been legitimate violations of SOME rule. As can be shown, there was no violation of EITHER of the following two policies, let alone a violation of both. READ:
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
I violated the above policy in self-defense. Those who have come under personal attack from me first instigated personal attacks ON me. It is acceptable Wikipedia policy to do to others what they do to you, so I have broken no Wiki rules! If this frivilous, libelous, and fraudulent accusation is NOT dropped, I will be forced to submit a Wiki complaint against the four people on this page, for personally attacking ME, prior to ANY of my attacks on them.68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page
INAPPLICABLE!! There is NOTHING on that page that I am in violationm of. READ IT! It details what is acceptable and what is not acceptable ON a member's Wikipedia USER PAGE. As Mike himself pointed out to me, I have no User Page. The above link is completely irrelevant--it's just more evidence that the fraudulent accusers are grasping at straws in order to quiet certain voices. I violated NOTHING listed at the above link, since I do not even have a User Page on which to violate any of the listed rules. This is not so for the four members who have filed the complaint against me, however, all of whom currently break the standards of acceptable use of User Pages several times over. 68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, all of you, comment on the above three paragraphs, why don't you? What did you do instead? You deleted them. I rebutted both of your ludicrous claims against me. The ball's in your court now!

Also, answer the following:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

User talk:68.36.175.254 The "dispute" has already been resolved, as Hyacinth (FINALLY) explained what "Back In The Day" means. It's information about a Missy Elliott song title of the same name. Hence, it belongs on the Missy Elliott page!

PRAY TELL: If it was not Mike H who filed these ludicrous accusations against me, why are you quoting a conversation I had with him on *MY* user page as part of the "trying to resolute the 'dispute' (that doesn't exist) with Hyacinth?68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And, to the three interlopers:

Other users who endorse this summary (sign with 152.163.253.33 19:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)):
Guanaco 17:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) A request for comment doesn't seem necessary for this kind of behavior. I have blocked the IP for 24 hours.
Neutrality 01:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cyrius|✎ 18:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- Anon is extremely combative and is now threatening lawsuits against those who question his behavior.
Do I know you? Have we met? Have I ever said a single word to you? Maybe our previous encounter somehow escapes me. As for "combative", tell your friends Hyacinth and Vuanaco to look in the mirror! The same questions above could be asked of "Neutrality"; Guanaco is horribly biased and therefore his comments are irrelevant!

Comment, please. I dare you! I double dare you. Tell me what I did wrong. Or are we playing 20 Questions now? This whole ordeal and the way you folks are going about it make Michael Jackson look sane by comparison!

From Outside View

The people on that list tend to ban people unnecessarily.64.12.116.208

I'm never biased.

Outside view[edit]

(Remarks moved as they were not outside views. They were transported to Response.) Mike H 00:13, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Fennec, I'm just trying to figure out why I've been "blocked" about 10 times, under a myriad of different I.P. addresses, as well as why I've had nearly all comments in my defense removed. I have to be insistent in making sure my questions are:

  1. Seen
  2. Answered

To date, they've not been answered--none of them. I'd assume they've been read, but maybe they haven't. At any rate, I don't know which is a worse crime: reading someone's questions and purposely ignoring them, or not even reading the comments but deleting them as "trolling" anyways. How come my side of the story is "trolling", "attack", and "vandalism", but their false accusations should be admissible? Is there no justice at Wikipedia.com?

Also, Fennec, I don't misunderstand the Wik. I've been here for 18 months. I've contributed to thousands of articles and been a most productive member here. I've also learnt a great deal, about many subjects, which I was rather ignorant in before stumbling upon this project. IMO, this is (or was) one of the most incredible and selfless examples of philanthropy, cooperation, and socialism that the world has seen. With the advent of the internet, and the ever-increasing democratization, industrialization, and technologization of the entire planet in recent decades, this is the first time in history true Marxism has displayed itself. This is the wave of the future and will be how civilization spreads new ideas and knowledge until the time when we finally merge our collective consciousness with the robots and computers themselves, a la The Matrix. To move us towards that goal peacefully and successfully, we must ensure that the Socialist online community is a tolerant and open-minded one, in which all its citizens are equal members to all others. A group of antagonistic, selfish, and greedy administrators are attempting to bring chaos into our community and allowing that chaos to strive and grow, in order to prevent our goal from reaching its fruition.

Among other things, these people extinguish dissenting viewpoints, unilaterally and authoritarianly drive people out, and harass people whose opinions they disagree with. Those of us who point out their corrupt sycophancy to them and to others, they try to make into Wiki pariahs. I am merely standing up for myself against their Evil Empire. If you have to know more about this issue, I'd advise you to carefully check the histories of the "talk" pages to which I have posted. There, you'll see the details regarding how their incessant censoring of my comments led to my ever-growing anger towards them. The pages you see now--the "final" versions of these talk pages--are edited, by them, so as not to show my gradually building frustration and their hostilities from the get-go. My most valid postings are removed, my questions unanswered. They leave the recent versions that depict me as being incredibly hostile because they're counting on people, like you, coming along and assuming just what you're assuming: that it is I who have hurt my own cause from the "conflict's" inception. This is simply not true. 172.132.1.86 00:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I won't pretend to address all your points at once, but here's a start. I'll add more later.

You have my respect thus far. No one else even got this far; they just shoot off the blocks like they're going out of style.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Block evasion is an offense for which users may be blocked.
First of all, I don't know what "block evasion" is. If I have multiple I.P. addresses, am I not allowed to use any and every of them to post as I see fit? Secondly, assuming the answer to that question is "no", what precipitated the first blocking? There was no block to evade at the time the first one was instituted. Ditto for block #2, as I was not even aware #1 had been in place; not having attended this site once for the 24-hour duration of #1. Also, I'd doubt that unilateral, illegitimate blockings, which were imposed in violation of the "use blocks as a last resort after all other options have failed" policy, during a time when there was no on-going conflict--rather, there was a fabricated one--woulc be covered by any of the standard regulations. If this were the case, anyone could block anyone whenever they so chose? I could block you right now, and any attempt on your part to clear your name or explain your side of the story (that you had doing nothing that justified a blocking) would be considered a "block evasion" and automatically get you charged with an offense? I hardly find that fair! That's Saddam Hussein-syle manipulation of the law.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a .org, not a .com
Sorry. I do know this and I am well aware of the difference between the two. However, no private organization can legally get away with extortion, or else the head of a private corporation could legally get away with extorting his secretary into having sex with him. 172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a wiki. Wik is a user (incidentally, a blocked one- after a spree of bot-assisted vandalism)...
I do not understand the sentence. What's a "wiki"?172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And several of which I'm sure I have; however I have only done so after others violated them first; and subsequently proceeded to violate my right to defend myself once I attempted to explain the ridiculousness of their initial claims. For each alleged charge against me (two), I offered sound rebuttal--my side of the story was deleted immediately by an interloper. And, things just kept escalating from there. It is very frustrating when the Wikipedia's justice is meted out in a way that you're guilty until proven innocent and you cannot even argue your case without a battery of new charges being lobbyed at you because people don't like the way in which you choose to defend yourself.
Also, considering the charges filed against me, I could easily file three times as many (Wiki-rule charges; I'm not even talking American civil or criminal) against each of the five people who signed the charges against me. Their lack of neutrality and even lack of understanding of simple concepts like sarcasm suggests that they are not performing their administrative duties as per Wiki's standards and guidelines. I couldn't even be bothered to file a Wiki complaint against Guanaco now--I'm sick of this. 172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This was an issue where I was made the victim. I tried to solve things civilly, and, for a while, thought things had been settled, as the original issue, in regards to a Misdemeanor Elliott article, was dealt with. Nevertheless, I soon learned that people wished to pursue foolish, unfounded allegations of "personal attack" against me. 172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, regarding "I am merely standing up for myself against their Evil Empire": Comments such as these are largely regarded as "extreme". If you could perhaps refrain from such vehemence in your accusations, and be more civil in your tone, you could better help your cause-- purely as a practical consideration.
I'm being purposely dramatic now. I have to be as vehement and obnoxious as possible in order to assure that I'm being heard. I'd love to be civil, but can't be so to those who would use corrupt tactics and step all over people for their own personal gain. I've seen a lot of that. Do I truthfully think those people are "evil"? Of course not. But do I think they're a sad group of selfish, elitist, and arrogant individuals who need to learn a few lessons in life and maybe get out in the "real world" a little more, where you can't just ignore problems and hope they get away? Yup!172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not exist to further "true Marxism". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is NPOV and released under the GFDL; all other concerns are secondary. The goal is to futher knowledge.
Via Marxist principles of all people being equal and all contributing for the greater good. If Marxist principles were not involved, this would be just like any other website, where the "webmaster" can edit and everyone else can just read. This is the first real online common-property resource, in that it's non-excludable. By that definition, it's as Communist as our national parks are--but in an obviously more collaborate manner, as well.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You claim you want your comments seen and considered. Well, consider obtaining a Wikipedia user name. ALL you need to do is go to the "Log in" link above, pick a (unused) username, and click Create Account. (The password is highly reccomended, however, and the email address is good to have too.) This facilitates communication, via the User Talk page. (It also gives you a little extra functionality, such as watchlists: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?.
I've aready discussed this with people. I'll consider it. But, Wikipedia is just a hobby I'm pretty passionate about. I like being able to do exactly what I've been doing for the past year and 1/2. I wouldn't want to be able to remove others' editing privileges; I wouldn't want to devote too much time to mediating conflicts, updating the main page--none of that stuff really appeals to me. I come to modify some articles about topics I'm interested in, and, mainly, to read and learn things about topics I'm relatively uninformed about. I'm perfectly content just using my I.P. address when I choose to edit articles. As far as I'm concerned, edits should be judged by what they contribute to the site, rather than who's contributing them.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You claim to have been here 18 months. Assuming that this is true (in other words, "I'm too lazy to check" :)
It is. Checking won't tell you it, though, because I got a new I.P. address in early June. I could go back and list all the addresses I've posted under however--I may end up having to in order to placate some of my critics and prove to them that I have indeed been a useful contributer for a good while.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

that fact is nigh unto irrelevant: Doing good stuff is not an excuse for doing bad stuff.

I never meant to imply it was. I was outrated at how my critics assumed they were in a position of "seniority" over me merely because I'm just a bunch of numbers, as opposed to a bunch of letters. I don't consider what I've done "bad", either: another reason I stated my length of time and my amount of contribution was to clue people in to the fact that, given all the effort I've personally invested into this site, I'd have no ill-regard for Wikipedia or its mission, and especially no reason to "vandalise" it, as they allege. As I said, I love what it's attempted to do. Certain people have begun to take its magic away, though.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has precedent in the real-world legal system which you speak so fondly of; if Mother Teresa had gone and committed murder, she would still be sent to prison.

Of course. Like I said, I wasn't implying that a lot of good should excuse something bad--I was implying that they are misconstruing all my good actions as bad ones, and are insinuating that my only purpose here is to do bad things. A look at the early part of this I.P. address' history will tell one otherwise, as would the histories of any of my other I.P. addresses.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Continued Effort To Have Guanaco, HCheney, David's Privileges Revoked[edit]

Make An Example Out Of Them

  • If Wikipedia, its policies and its administrators are categorically unsuitable, realize that you have the option at any time to fork the Wikipedia content. See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks for details on existing forks, and the aforementioned Wikipedia:Copyrights for the legalese.

Still more later. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fork? I'll check it out. Thanks for the first unbiased mediation I've encountered at this place.172.132.1.86 02:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Treason. You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.
    • In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who reneges on an oath of loyalty or a pledge of allegiance, and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." The state of Florida's constitution defines treason as: "[Treason is] levying war against [the state], adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort..."
      • In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions.

Still more later. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should add that according to the United States Constitution,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

—Guanaco 02:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason I wouldn't be surprised if Wikipedia's use of extortion would be upgraded to treason is because we are involved in the "War On Terror", and the stripping of American Constitutional rights could be considered a violation of our country's policies in specific regard to the war. A blanket revoking of the American right to file lawsuit could be considered treason during a time of war as per Oran's definition "a". I don't see why it couldn't be argued that the extortive removal of hundreds of thousands of American Wiki members' Constitutional rights to defend themselves (especially in a time of war, during which an American's legal right to defend himself against terrorists/terrorist governments, in result of an attack, would need to be firmly in place) is "treason", according to that definition. I think it holds. Not that I'm saying I think Wiki should be convicted of treason, but it is something they should think about nevertheless. In many respects, since 9/11, the interpretation of the Constitution has been perhaps far broader than orignally intended.172.132.1.86 03:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, how does removing your ability to publicly threaten to sue me equate to stripping away your Constitutional rights? If you want to sue me, be my guest. Just don't threaten me about it. Either sue me or don't. Hell, if you want to threaten me about it, go ahead. Just don't use Wikipedia to make the threats. How is that a problem? Snowspinner 06:12, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


I don't "threaten" people. I inform them. How is my pointing out that they're violating civil and, perhaps, criminal law considered a "threat"? Only those who know they've done wrong have reason to fear the law. I don't want to be tied up in personal court proceeding any more than you likely do. I do the shit for a living--it's easier (not to mention funner) to do when you're not the one you're defending! Therefore, I am offering step-by-step explanations of my actions as they are implemented. I have just returned from a meeting in Trenton, and some other interesting aspects have been added into this violation of my rights, at the state level. Still other, different civil charges could be levied against you at the national level, it seems. All options are still on the table, but the ball is now in your court, as it has been since you have refused to take responsibility for your actions. Discussing what I do for a living is not "threatening" anyone, any more than it would be a "threat" if you told me you shovel shit for a living and enjoyed it very much and pointed out to someone else that he was shoveling shit wrongly. In America we not only have the right to file charges against people--but we also have the right to talk about it. If I wanted everyone at Wikipedia to know about the injustice that has been allowed to flourish at this place, it is my American right to do so. Again, Wikipedia cannot legally remove our Constitutional rights with threats of "edit blocks" any more than an employer could legally remove an employee's right not to be raped with threats of firing him. It's extortion any way you look at it. In fact, you are now suggesting that Wikipedia uses extortive practises to strip its users of two of their Constitutional rights. Keep digging your own grave, I suppose. Stubborn fools!205.188.116.80 17:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You know full well that the Constitutional right to free speech is that Congress may not abridge it. Wikipedia is not Congress. Wikipedia, or, properly, the Wikimedia foundation, is a private institution. The servers that you are using the bandwidth of are paid for by Jimbo Wales. He is not obliged to turn over his servers without concern for what people use them to say. They are his servers, and he may decide what they are used for. And who uses them. Just as, for instance, the law school you supposedly graduated from is not obliged to let anyone into its classes, the Wikimedia foundation is not obliged to let anyone onto its servers, and the fact that it lets one person on does not mean it has to let more on. You're welcome to sue anyone you want. You're welcome to talk about suing whoever you want. But the Wikimedia foundation doesn't have to let you do it on their nickel. Snowspinner 17:42, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've already stated that numerous times--however, Wikipedia is not allowed to use extorion to either remove said rights or allow people not to be banned. I've spoken to Jimbo and he agrees with my position. He sees Guanaco as a horrible abuser of his power. And, there is no Wiki policy which says you can ban a member for exercising his right to free speech or to file claims. In fact, Jimbo states that fabricting such a policy in order to justify the banning of someone is a huge no-no! GUANACO ABUSED HIS POWER IN BANNING ME AND I EXPECT TO SEE ACTION TAKEN BY YOU FOLKS--IF NOT, I WILL! I'm lazy though, and I'd rather you do it!

If Jimbo thought that, he'd have acted on it by now. And where, pray tell, have you been "extorted?" And, more to the point, what the hell do you think you have that we'd bloody well want to extort out of you? Snowspinner 20:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia can practice whatever policy it was, as a private organization, as long as it does not attempt to supercede American law, as it is an American corporation which is therefore under jurisdiction of American law. As I said, Wikipedia has the right to prevent whoever it wants from coming to its private site from doing so. It also has the right to tell people that it does not have to accept certain behavior from them. However, in using extortion to prevent people from exercising their Constitutional rights to sue each other, or even to sue the Wikipedia itself, they are violating American extortion laws. The secretary who becomes the extorted rape victim does not have to work at a private company where her boss threatens to either rape her or fire her. She has the choice to quit. Still, just because it's a private company, he owns that company, and he's giving the woman some choice in the matter, that does not mean he is not committing extortion. If Wiki's policy is "give up certain American legal rights or do not be allowed to 'work' here", they are similarly employing extortion to manipulate their workers. You have no legal grounds! I do this for a living; don't attempt to argue it!205.188.116.80 17:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a corporation, though, it's a non-profit organization, and as such, can choose to include or exclude on whatever basis is deemed necessary. Mike H 18:06, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

I already made clear that I know this, as well. It can absolutely decide whom is entitled to contribute here. However, it cannot threaten people with extortion--a crime. Threatening people with a lawsuit, however, is not a crime. You folks are so damn stubborn! I have to repeat everything 3,000 times! Take against against Guanaco and Cheney, apologise to me, and we can all fucking move on already! This is a bigger joke than Tonya Harding!149.174.164.74 20:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia seems disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Historically, demanding action from Wikipedia in a unilateral matter such as this has a success rate of nigh unto zero- and any perceived success using these tactics are merely because Wikipedia was going to do it anyway. Wikipedia acts on such matters as community consensus directs. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policy asks that you make no lawsuit threats/promises/informative-type-letters on Wikipedia. If you have a legal problem with a user, you should contact that user privately. If you would like to discuss legal matters with the MediaWiki foundation, use the Foundation-L mailing list. In the meantime, any further notice of such kind of threat would widely be considered grounds for immediate banning. Thank you for whatever concern in this regard you choose to express. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mr._Treason/Request_for_comment&oldid=157629264"