Statement of the dispute
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):
I said it, I said it! Telling it like it is!
- Applicable policies:
- Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
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 ~~~~):
- Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- 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.
MORONS who don't know their heads from their arseholes!
Response
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)
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 fascists 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? My coworkers, like me, are similarly disgusted by Guanaco's belief that there's something bad or "wrong" with a Wiki member's taking full advantage of our services (see his sarcastic comment above about my profession!)! When people's American rights are trampled (this is an American website and it is therefore subject to American Constitutional law, including the individual's right to file legal charges against those who would victimize him! As I pointed out to one of Guanaco's agents, it would be considered an act of treason for Wikipedia to remove its members' rights as, first and foremost, American citizens; people endorsing such an action cold be convicted of treason, not to mention extortion, in a court of law!
- 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, in addition to the charges I'm planning to file against them in my county---since UPGRADED TO STATE---court of law.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. These people who are arbitrarily filing charges against anyone and everyone with whom they disagree have the same level of legal understanding as do the lawyers who are futilely attempting to defend Saddam Hussein!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!
- MORONS who don't know their heads from their arseholes! (People who signed above--people who know nothing about me or this fabricated 'dispute')
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!
The above few paragraphs are merely the tip of the iceberg. In filing my own, legitimate complaints against Guanaco and the rest of you, I will have to compile the above and all the rest of the evidence. Your blankings and revertings of the evidence has concealed nothing--it just causes me extra frustration and aggravation; it also makes your guilt look all the more certain because it makes you look all the more suspicious. Innocent, noble people, such as myself, have nothing to hide and are never ashamed of their comments--we can always back our statements up with reasons and facts. Guanaco can't now and can't ever. I will work on compiling the master file on his, including his hostile, unilateral aggression against me and dozens of others at this site. I've formed allegiances with others who've been unfairly harassed by Guanaco. His apology and resignation, or his appearance before a Newark Court of Law, is a certainty.152.163.253.33 19:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
From Outside View
The people on that list tend to ban people unnecessarily.64.12.116.208
I'm never biased.
Outside view
(Remarks moved as they were not outside views. They were transported to Response.) Mike H 00:13, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.