User talk:Mirv/AOL lawyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

(Removing comments in order to make conversation more understandable--I am getting confused; I am assuming that some of the older comments are no longer relevant to the current discussion. I am not censoring--as this is your page, obviously reinstate whatever comments you want here, and you'll get no fight from me.)

I've been through this already. My rights to file civil suit or take criminal action, and to talk of said rights, *are* protected by the Constitution. Wikipedia *cannot* legally prevent people from doing so; if they do, it is an act of treason, which is being carried out via extortive means--illegal.

You're right, Wikipedia can not prevent anyone from filing suit or opening criminal prosecution (I assume that's what you meant by "take criminal action"?); however it is not obligated to serve as a venue for threats of legal action, any more than the New York Times is required to print notices of lawsuits—which isn't to say that the NYT doesn't print notices of suit (for example of class-action suits), but it has no obligation to do so. —No-One Jones ^(m)

I never said Wikipedia had an obligation to house information regarding people's legal proceedings. However, it is a scam that speaking of a legal issue can be interpreted as a "violation" of Wikipedia policy, as if Wikipedia were not itself governed by American rule of law. I would have no problem if the person to whom the legal message were being addressed were to remove the message from the site once it had been read; however, I would have a problem with others' deliberate removing of the message in order to prevent the addressed party from ever having received it. I would have a problem with discussion of legal matters being perceived as a "threat" to this project, and I would have a problem with any who would use their special abilities and powers (e.g., the ability to ban, and the ability to threaten to ban) in order to quell dissent against them and to remove their own legal obligations. As I said before, this is extortion.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's no agreement that legal threats deserve a ban or a block, so if you were blocked for such a reason, you probably shouldn't have been. (However, you shouldn't be making legal threats on Wikipedia either: see Wikipedia:No legal threats for the policy, and MeatBall:LegalThreat for reasons why legal notices are perceived as harming the project.)

Trust me, I've been studying law for *years* now and practicing long enough to know what I am talking about. Were I, or anyone, to take action against Wikipedia members for illegally enforcing such a policy, I'd win. I *cannot* be forced to choose between either practicing my legal, Constitutional rights (and my job) or contributing here. I especially cannot be "banned" for violating rules that do not exist, as I have been.

Wikipedia is a private organization and has the right to admit or exclude whomever it chooses, based on its own policies. Its rules are its own business. —No-One Jones ^(m)

Whose decision was it to exclude me? See the "list of banned users" page! I was banned by "the Wikipedia community", whatever the hell that means. More like it, I was banned by a corrupt clique of five or so people who did not like that an "anon" was making valid contributions (and had been for 18 months prior) to "their" project. They also had issues with my opinions and point of views; my neutral positions were not acceptable to them, so they had to censor my voice since I did not fit in to their agenda.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia community" in general was not consulted about your ban, no, but see Jdforrester's comment at the end of user:Mr. Treason/Request for arbitration. —No-One Jones ^(m)

Then help me to get rid of him! He is *clearly* a troll. Every action he takes is with the intention that he will create trouble among people or make this palce more factually inaccurate or biased!

I don't know about that. I do know that he's careless, reckless, rude, and disturbingly unilateralist in his actions; I can't say anything about his intent. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is any one of those things that you describe him as *not*, in and of itself, a "bannable" offense? Who permitted him to become an "admin" when he cannot even contribute as a "normal" editor usefully and properly?172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, unfortunately we have no rules against certain kinds of antisocial behavior. C'est la vie. —No-One Jones ^(m)

If *no one* here has anything good to say about him, WHY the hell is he capable of banning people?

He's not capable of banning people, whatever he might think or say; he is capable of blocking people. The distinction is a fine one, but it's there. —No-One Jones ^(m)

It's a distinction I don't accept. The fact of the matter is that he, by his own "unilateral" actions--as you admit he is often guilty of committing--prevented me from editing this site from my own, static I.P. address for a period of 24 hours. After I complained about it, he performed the same action 24 hours later, etc, etc. He forced me to move to dynamic I.P. addresses, as I am now. Because others did not like my frank and blunt way of dealing with Guanaco, and because I was an "anon" and he was a "respected" "admin", they automatically took his side. The way the conflict began was so absurdly ridiculous that no one without a biased agenda would have sided with Guanaco or his friends Hyancith and Mike H. But...they did! This site's not biased? Hardly!172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was *he* who illegally banned me the very first time. Since then, others have perpetrated aggressions against me, following in Guanaco's evil footsteps! WHY do you people allow this sort of thing to run rampant and unchallenged? If you are TRULY "supporting Wikipedia", you'd see to it that Guanaco and his pack of bad apples are removed from here. I have no choice but to vandalize this site for as long as their aggression against me, which includes the reverting and removing of valuable information from articles to which "anons" have contributed, continues unchecked! The Wikipedia community NEEDS TO GROW A SPINE!205.188.117.18 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: if you spend three hours a day vandalising this site, you've wasted three billable hours (you're a lawyer, right?). Sysops, of which there are around 300, have a link that looks like this:

[ rollback ]

You're wrong. I only began to vandalise this site as a result of my illegitimate banning. No matter which I.P. address I use, people are here specifically to hunt me down and remove all my hard work. Well, two can play at that game--and I have, very well. As I've said before, I will not stop "vandalising" these pages until others stop vandalising MY pages, stop treating "anons" like we are sub-human, and offer sweeping apologies to me and all other "anons" that they have intentionally victimised.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

next to each edit in someone's contributions list. We can revert vandalisms faster than people can vandalize, and the load is distributed among the dozens of sysops who regularly fight vandalism. Ergo you end up wasting more of your time than you do of anyone else's. Is it really worth the trouble?

Nope. I have consistently vandalised pages at a more rapid rate than you have been able to keep up with me. Unfortunately, there are several of my vandalised pages that the "rollbackers" have missed. It is a shame that these pages may forever contain false information. However, my cause is a just one! This issue *must* be addressed, or else I will continue in the same manner.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but you're not going to convince anyone with this course of action. If you've been around for a bit, you may remember the case of Wik, who embarked on a massive vandalism spree in order to enforce his demand for a ban on another user—and failed.

Especially since there are other ways you could address the issues you have; I mentioned joining the mailing list earlier, and all you need for that is a working e-mail address. —No-One Jones ^(m)

I will consider contacting them with my "Treason" address. However, I would like more information. Who reads the mailing list? Who responds to comments? How much bias exists there?172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and at least two other board members read and respond to it; apart from them there's a varying cross-section of Wikipedians. There's no bias that I could identify, other than those that are common to most Wikipedians, and as is the case here, there's a great deal of dissent and disagreement. —No-One Jones ^(m)

Then block those who see to it that EVERYTHING I write is removed. The sheer quantity of information that Guanaco and his corrupt clique have removed from this site because they disgaree with the writer's opinion, or they do not trust the "anon", or whatever other absurd excuses they've given, is the most frightening threat that this place currently has to deal with! The reason he is such a danger is because everyone KNOWS he's a threat, but is, like you, too afraid to confront him about his terroristic actions.205.188.117.18 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What exactly has he removed? When and where? —No-One Jones ^(m)

There's too much to list specifically. See the history of the "User: Mr Treason" page for information on just his most recent removals of my updates. Any edit to any article that he and his pals even suspect was done by me is immediately reverted. Time and time they have confessed to not even checking whether or not the edit was legitimate. This action has pissed off other "anons" whose edits have been mistaken for mine. These people are clearly reverting article content according to WHO makes an edit rather than WHAT changes the edit brings. It's scary! All supporters of free exchange of knowledge and information MUST band together to end this cancer that's slowly but surely overtaking the Wikipedia!172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The majority of the above crimes were committed during June and July of 2004, by various individuals, such as Guanaco, H Cheney, Mike H, Hyacinth, Neutrality, and some others.

Where? —No-One Jones ^(m)

All over the place. Again, because of their whitewashing of anything posted by me, especially anything I posted regarding their criminal actions, I cannot recall exactly which page histories might contain such offenses.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More recently, Blankfaze has committed fraud--fraud that still exists on his User Page.

He's claimed credit for articles on which he didn't do much work, true; that's dishonest but not fraudulent, and easily disproven to boot. —No-One Jones ^(m)

As the creator of the Big Boi article, I asked him to stop taking credit for "creating" the article. He couldn't tell me *he* was its creator when I knew that I was. He then claimed that the Big Boi article was "sub-stub" when he encountered it--it most certainly was not. His "changes" were the deletion of two sentences and the slight rewording of what I had already written. Nothing major. Were I to remove everything from the page *but* his "additions", the article would certainly be "sub-stub". He also takes credit for "creating" about ten other articles that he merely contributed to. So, when someone else creates a "stub" and he adds 2 sentences to it, it's "his" creation? However, when *he* creates a "stub" and someone else comes along and takes the time to add in all the detail, it's *still* his "creation"? Bullshit!172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you try telling him politely that he's misleading people? —No-One Jones ^(m)

Any attepts to remove the fraud is met with oppositiong from the corrupt group who does not care about this project's integrity. Currently, Snowspinner, Texture, and Neutrality are the biggest committers of crime at this site. They are blanketly removing any and all edits by "anons", regardless of the edits' content.

This may not be a good idea but it's not a crime. As far as I know no law covers the editing of wikis, apart from those that cover publishing in general. —No-One Jones ^(m)

Of course. But, likewise, no law covers my editing of Wikipedia. Legally, I can vandalise all I like.

True—and likewise, you can be blocked for vandalizing. —No-One Jones ^(m)

They are now attempting to report me to AOL in order to completely remove my online access. But, they fail to see that I have committed no crime. I'm simply giving them payback! Sure, what I am doing is not "nice", but these are not "nice" people that I'm having to deal with. So, we are all free to write whatever the hell we want here. Right, there's no LAW against it. But, fraud and extortion, among their other crimes, are NOT tolerated legally.172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this NOT a problem? The anti-"anon" racism that is prevalent here scares me...205.188.117.18 21:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anons aren't a "race". I agree that there's some bias against them, but unfortunately there are many of them who don't help matters at all—most vandalism comes from anonymous IPs. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A "race" is, by definition, a "group of people who share common characteristics". Indeed "anons" are a race here, as "Wikipedians", in general, is a race. Or are you one of those bigots who believes that a group of people shares characteristics only if those characteristics are shallow, superficial ones, such as the color of one's skin or the shape of one's eyes?172.130.105.30 19:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was using these definitions of "race":

1: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3: A genealogical line; a lineage.

Those are the definitions of "race" that people most often use. However, the term "race", as evolved from its Latin roots, simply means "class" or "group". The Romance languages use such terms interchanably. It is funny that the dictionary you've quoted defines "the German race" as a common usage of the word, when most people would consider "Germans" to be an "ethnicity" and not a "race" any more than "anons" here are a race. However, I do not wish to argue semantics; "race" means something different to everybody, so I am apt to use "race" in its most general sense: any group of class of people is, by definition, a "race" of people. Here, the race of "admins" has the tendency to subjugate the race of "anons". The throwbacks to the apartheid era disgust me!172.130.196.212 06:37, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I consider anonymous IPs a group, yes, but not a race by any definition. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)