User:Mr. Treason/Request for arbitration

User:68.36.175.254[edit]

Anonymous User:68.36.175.254 has continued to make personal attacks and edit messages in an inappropriate manner in inappropriate places, such as articles and user pages. More recently anonymous has begin to make personal legal threats and legal threats against wikipedia. Example:

Posted by user:Guanaco, I believe. Martin 23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, only the link to meta was. The bulk of the complaint was posted by Hyacinth in this diff. Guan aco 05:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[1] Guan aco 07:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User is now vandalizing my user page and has made a death threat using the address 205.188.116.12 [2]. Also listed me on Recent deaths using 172.140.154.253 [3]. I'm requesting expedited action. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that 205.188.116.12 should be banned immediately -- can you tie that address to 68.36.175.254? --the Epopt 19:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, they're at least claiming to be the same person. Snowspinner 19:35, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

It's me, yup...I have nothing to hide! I can support everything I say, unlike the rest of melodramatic loons! Go ahead, try to accuse me of doing something--anything--that was a "blockable" violation of "Wiki standards". It cannot be done! Remove Guanaco's privileges now! It is he that must be permanaently banned in order to uphold this project's sanctity!172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definitively, no. However, see the Requests for comment talk page. There's a clear continuity of style as he changes from one address to another, largely consisting of threats to file lawsuits in Trenton, New Jersey. The vandalism and threats began after I blocked his use of 205.188.116.11 for excessive personal threats on the talk page there. He is now claiming that criminal charges have been filed against me in New Jersey. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I, like Starr Jones, am a lawyer--so sue me!172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response[edit]

LIES, as usual! I NEVER threatened to sue Wikipedia itself. However, if Wikipedia were committing treason by, for example, using coercion, extortion, or otherwise making people afraid--due to some form of threat--to exercise their legal right to press charges against those at this site who would victimize them (which Wikipedia has attempted with me), a court would most likely find Wikipedia guilty of removing people's Constitutional rights and deem it a terror organization because of its disregard for American law and its placing its own law above that of the nation this project is under jurisdiction of. Wikipedia's scare tactics, in order to give its "administrators" Unconstitutional power and control over others, in manipulating and preventing those others from exercising their Constitutional rights, is a form of treason. I would not have to "sue" Wikipedia at all. I'm just letting them know how one of their administrators' "defense" would hold up in court, if the administrator were to explain that I was banned from this site for doing nothing more than practising my American rights, as per the Constitution. Thus, the administrator, in attempting to defend himself for a crime which is indefensible, would screw Wikipedia over. Is it, or is it not, Wikipedia's policy to use scare tactics to removes people's Constitutional right to defend themselves in a court of law? Answer this question. If the answer's "yes", which I'm sure is not the case, then Wikipedia is committing treason. If the answer's "no", which it likely is, then Guanaco's reason for banning me was self-created, and he deserves to be punished for misreprenting Wikipedia, as well as his litany of other crimes and abuses of his "administrative" priveleges! Guanaco is the =Saddam Hussein= of the Wikipedia Universe!68.36.175.254 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Notice, no one has any comment. Check my edits--go 'head! They're all justifiable and on-topic. Hyacinth complains above that I "edit messages...such as articles...in an inappropriate manner and in inappropriate places". What does this mean? Explain. How can an article be edited "inappropriately" unless the information being placed into it is untrue or off-topic vandalism? Comments, please, from someone as intelligent and open-minded (and with as thorough an understanding of the law) as I. If there are no comments about these ludicrous accusations about me, I shall proceed to remove this section from this page. Consider that a warning so that my deletion of this shit cannot be used in the future as an "example" of some "crime" I've committed. If no one legitimate in the Wikipedia community has anything to say about this, it is obviously over, at least regarding the fraudlent accusations against me. The trial of my harassers and libelers, however, is just beginning.68.36.175.254 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that legal threats are a violation of the rule against personal attacks. This does not mean you do not have the right to sue - merely that you may not use Wikipedia to threaten people with lawsuits. Snowspinner 17:22, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough--I "threaten" no one. I merely inform them of what I will do as a last resort. When you're on the john taking a dump, and you notice a little blood in your shit, you ignore it. If it happens again the next day, you might become a little more concerned. If your shit's red diarrhea after weeks or months, you may decide, as a last resort, to take your shit to a doctor in order to ultimately solve the problem. You shit should not be bloody diarrhea--if it is, it could be a sign that you've got some cancer, which would need to be removed. So, what do you do? Do you "threaten" your bowels that if they do not stop bleeding you will have to "threaten" them by making use of a doctor against them? No! You go to a doctor because dealing with (lit) shit is what we, as a society, are paying them to do. As a society, we are paying me and my associates to uphold the American system of justice and to assure that all Americans are granted their God-given rights. So, how dare you tell me that speaking of or making use of my profession is "threatening" to anyone! I have successfully defended those whom ignorant, mainstream America has deemed things such as "corrupt C.E.O.'s", "street thugs", "mafiosi", "criminals", "Bloods", "Crips", and loads of other simply untrue and slanderous statements! It is the ignorant and stupid members of society who would judge these people based on stereotypes! Without my help, these innocents would have been condemned by people like you, who think you have the right to judge them based on their alleged "actions" that you know nothing about! So, who, exactly is being "threatened" by my defending of innocents? If anything, it is the true criminals and law-breakers, not my clients, who are afraid of the American legal system, because they know they will, some day, be caught. You perceive my comments regarding my profession as "threats"; do you have some skeletons in your closet? Is there some reason why you would be afraid of seeing justice be served? There usually is....172.143.124.11 01:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion and votes by arbitrators[edit]

Accept case as Guanaco vs Anon - looking at complaints of both parties. Martin 00:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Accept --the Epopt 00:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Accept for both parties. James F. (talk) 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
... except that, if the anonymous user has indeed made death-threats, I don't see any case in investigating, as it's an automatic banning action, and Arbitration would be a waste of time. James F. (talk) 02:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)