User talk:Mofb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] LIBELS BY WIKIPEDIA
WARNING to all who look at any content concerning The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley that appears on Wikipedia: The entry about Lord Monckton contains numerous libels and deliberate inaccuracies. Wikipedia has refused on many occasions to allow the inaccuracies and libels to be corrected. Legal proceedings are currently in contemplation, and Lord Monckton's solicitors have written to Wikipedia to ask that a list of serious inaccuracies in the article be corrected, failing which legal proceedings may be lodged in the Court of Session without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 April, 2008 (UTC)
[edit] legal threats
Please be aware that there is a policy Wikipedia:No legal threats against making legal threats on Wikipedia. Threats to bring libel actions can qualify. I don't think you have yet done anything block/ban worthy, but given your comment and concerns in the Arbitration case it would seem appropriate to caution you that the policy exists and advise you to read it. GRBerry 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, if you wish to take legal action, please do so through the proper channels. Edit summaries like this are not permitted on Wikipedia due to the chilling effect, and any further mention of legal action whatsoever will leave us with no alternative but to block this account per our no legal threats policy until any and all legal actions are finally resolved or withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
From Monckton of Brenchley: I have replied to "Stifle" in some detail on his own talk page. Briefly, I have tried on many previous occasions to have several serious and damaging factual errors removed from my Wikipedia entry, which was posted without my knowledge or consent and without anyone having had the courtesy or common sense to check the facts with me. On the most recent occasion on which I attempted to make careful and fair corrections, a Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen reversed my edit within two minutes of its posting. He could not possibly have had time to verify the facts that quickly, and he certainly checked none of them with me. On enquiry I have discovered that he is a strong believer in the alarmist presentation of climate change, and that he is notorious for dive-bombing the biographical entries of those with whose opinions on this subject he disagrees, inserting as much detrimental material about them as he can, whether accurate or inaccurate. I am by no means his only victim. I believe he should be permanently debarred from editing biographical entries, and perhaps from playing any part whatsoever in Wikipedia. This Christmas game must now stop. After numerous previous warnings that Wikipedia has regrettably treated with frivolous contempt, I have, therefore, instructed my lawyers to write to Wikipedia in detail about these persisting inaccuracies, and to seek an undertaking that the inaccuracies will be permanently removed and that my biographical page will either be altogether taken down (my personal preference, since I am adequately and accurately listed in reliable reference sources) or permanently protected against Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen. I very much regret having had to take this action, and I do think I have tried my best to resolve matters as best I can by all other possible means first. - M of B—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs) 07:36, 25 April, 2008 (UTC)
- The matter is under discussion at the admin noticeboard.
- May I please remind you again of Wikipedia:No legal threats and that Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization domiciled in California, USA. As such, you may find that the courts of Scotland have no jurisdiction against it.
- Can I please ask that you specify what you find wrong about the page Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, either here or at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley? Given the recent edit history of the page I have taken the precaution of protecting it from further edits for the time being.
- If I cannot dissuade you from legal action, the Wikimedia Foundation's address at which process can be served can be found at foundation:Contact us. However, I must stress that editing from your account is liable to be disabled in this case to avoid prejudicing any legal action.
- Thank you for your patience. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.
Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.
I am afraid that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Wikipedia content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Wikipedia had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Wikipedia libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.
On balance, therefore, Wikipedia may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signing your posts
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Legal threats
Please note that Wikipedia's policy on legal threats requires that you desist from editing until the legal matter has been resolved, to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. As this is, I believe, at least the third time you have made legal threats (previous occasions were in December 2006 and August 2007), your recent edits to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley are inappropriate if you are indeed contemplating legal action. As required by Wikipedia:No legal threats, I have therefore blocked your account indefinitely until the matter has been resolved. Please note that you can still edit this page, so please feel free to leave any further comments here or contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- To add to the above, it is usually considered incompatible to be both editing with others, and also threatening the same people (presumably) with legal action. If you withdraw the threats and state that they are withdrawn, then the blocking admin or any other will quickly unblock your editing access. However, whether or not you decide to do so, there are strict standards on content and whether you are a party to the editing or not, it is expected a high quality of editing takes place. As a passer by though, I have no knowledge myself on the content issues, I am more commenting on the block. You may find this page useful as well. My tentative understanding is that whilst some matters need further review, a number of the other edits you propose may not be considered well founded enough to be accepted by the editorial community. The above page may help. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- And if you wish to withdraw the legal threats as above, please put the text {{unblock|I withdraw all threats of legal action I have made on Wikipedia}} on this page. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with my previous fair warnings to Wikipedia, I have now instructed my solicitors to send to Wikipedia a list of the changes which I require to be made to the biographical entry about me. I expect this list to be attended to by Wikipedia's lawyers, who are invited to respond to my solicitors constructively, courteously, and fully, and within 14 days. Your remarks about not allowing victims of libels to correct them are not appropriate, and I reserve the right to draw them to the attention of the Scottish courts when the case is listed for trial. The correct procedure - had Wikipedia had the slightest intention of being fair - would have been to freeze the page in a form acceptable to me pending legal resolution of the matter. The courts are liable to regard Wikipedia's attitude as vexatious: and this will certainly color their attitude to the extent to which content from Wikipedia will be allowed to be transmitted on the internet in the United Kingdom.
You may, therefore, wish to restore my right to edit out the lies that Wikipedia continues to circulate about me, or I shall issue legal proceedings without further notice. You have 14 days.
Finally, your comment that my amendments are not referenced is inaccurate and inappropriate. To take just one example, the article which I wrote about AIDS specifically stated that the intention of isolating carriers was to prevent the holocaust that has since occurred, but that the isolation should be done humanely. Yet because Wikipedia dislikes me because I do not agree with its alarmist stance on "global warming", I note that my amendment to the text of the biographical entry about me has been removed notwithstanding that it is referenced. This is demonstrable, deliberate, and unfair bad faith. I urge you t reconsider this matter. Your current stance is likely to prove very costly to Wikipedia and to what little reputation it retains. - M of B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 April, 2008 (UTC)
- It might be helpful if you could post your list of required changes to this page, so that other editors could make those changes on your behalf or advise you on whether your changes would be compatible with Wikipedia's basic policies of neutrality and verifiability. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but, as you will see from the long and tedious history of this matter, it is "other "Wikipedia editors" - or, rather, a small and troublesome clique clearly and persistently favored by Wikipedia's administrators - who have made the libels on the biographical entry related to me the libels of Wikipedia. I can no longer have any confidence whatsoever in the integrity, independence, or fairness of Wikipedia. I have already given an indication of one change by me which is independently verifiable in a source already cited on the page, yet which has been extinguished by that clique, with the apparent full support of Wikipedia and its administrators, to the considerable and unfair detriment of my reputation.
Wikipedia and its "administrators" have acted, and continue to act, in very bad faith. Therefore the matter will now have to be handled through my lawyers, who have sent a straightforward list of required changes to Wikipedia. You and the others who have acted in bad faith are now out of the picture, permanently.
It is perplexing - to say the least - that Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen, who destroyed all my edits (edits which one of you accepted were reasonable and restored a balance that had previously been unfairly lacking) two minutes after they were posted, continues to edit with impunity, while I - for a reason that no court will accept for an instant - am forbidden to remove the libels which Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen and those allied to him continue to perpetrate.
I am now in touch with dozens of others who have been treated in a similarly outrageous fashion, and we are no longer prepared to tolerate this persisting misconduct. If someone from Wikipedia's legal department would like to telephone my lawyers, perhaps they can discuss a way forward.
Otherwise, I shall require - and I do now require - all references to me to be deleted permanently from Wikipedia, and - if I read the signs right - the courts here will so order. You have had plenty of chances, but you have failed to take them. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 April, 2008 (UTC)
- There are editors here who do want to help you. But if you don't tell people what specifically you object to, you're not giving them anything to work with. If you want people to help you, you have to help them to help you. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As I had hoped I had clearly explained, my lawyers have sent the list of required changes to Wikipedia, which, however, has not yet seen fit to act upon them or to respond. If the required changes are not made, legal proceedings will follow. If there were any serious intention on the part of "editors" or "administrators" to help, they would have debarred Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen and his associates from editing my page as soon as the 2-minute reversal of my edits had been made and complained of. Accordingly it is not possible to believe that Wikipedia has honorable intentions, though I have no doubt that, by now, Wikipedia's lawyers will have suggested that you should be more polite than in previous messages. Restore and lock my edit as briefly protected by "Stifle", pending resolution by the lawyers, and I shall believe you: not otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs)
