User talk:Ahsatan76

June 2018
Hello, I'm Tillerh11. I noticed that in this edit to Best F(r)iends, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. S warm  ♠  20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. &mdash; Javert2113 (talk; please ping me when you reply) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not understanding the protocols for Wikipedia. I am unable to state the legal basis for what I said before as it is privileged information under the client-attorney privilege. What I can say is that whether there is a legal basis for any edits for Best F(r)iends will have to be investigated further and then addressed in a manner that is appropriate. I will not make any further edits to this article without following the appropriate protocol for suggesting changes. As of right now, I would like to be unblocked in case I want to make edits in the future to some other article, and I will not use this account for any client work or legal work, etc. I signed up with my personal email address. I'm new to this whole thing, as you may or may have noticed, didn't know any of the community guidelines, and was accused of being a sock puppet (which I also had to look up) of La9810, who I have no relation to, don't know why that person made those edits, and am being unfairly judged as a result. The administrator in the sock puppet investigation noted that it was unlikely that I was related to La9810. I'm not sure what kind of investigation is done here on that, whether its IP look up or what, but I have no clue who owns that account, what edits were done or even when, until someone here told me of their actions. I can't explain something I don't know! Furthermore, to accuse me of lying because I'm not at liberty to break my client-attorney privilege is taking this too far. I feel like I've explained my situation well, apologized profusely, and promise to abide by community guidelines. Therefore, I request that my account be unblocked. Thanks. Ahsatan76 (talk)
 * I am not a lawyer, but there are several features of what you have said relating to the legal situation that I find puzzling, and as long as there is substantial doubt about those points I must have doubts too about other things you have said, which would inhibit me from being willing to consider unblocking you. Since you are a lawyer, you will no doubt be able to clear up the features which I don't understand.


 * 1) It seems to me difficult to believe that there can be any legal basis for giving people a "legal notice" restraining them from performing some act without giving them any indication what the legal basis for that is, merely telling them that it is based on some agreement which you cannot tell them about. How can anyone possibly know whether there is a legal basis for the restraint or not, if the party attempting to impose the restraint refuses to tell them what that basis is? How can those other parties prepare a defense, if they don't know what they are defending themselves against?
 * 2) I find it difficult to understand how an agreement to which neither I nor the Wikimedia Foundation is a party can restrain me from posting information to Wikipedia.
 * 3) I understand how attorney–client privilege (or, as you for some reason prefer to call it, out of line with normal legal usage, "client-attorney privilege") applies to private communications between a lawyer and his or her client, but I have never heard or read anything suggesting that it might apply to the basis for a legal restraint on other parties, nor can I conceive of any way that it could. If that were the case then, as I said above, it would be impossible for the other parties to assess whether there was any legal basis for the restraint, or prepare a defense. How could any court case have any possibility of success if it were based on information which cannot be divulged to the court?
 * 4) My understanding is that attorney–client privilege applies to communications made for the purpose of securing legal advice, which cannot possibly apply to the contents of an agreement which is then used as a basis for restraining the actions of other parties.
 * 5) Perhaps you can also comment on the situation where an attorney acts on behalf of a client without identifying himself or herself, using a pseudonym. Is that common practice? Is it even legal to do so?
 * If, as you say, you are a lawyer, you will be able to explain those things. Note that I am not asking for the details of this particular agreement, but only an explanation in general as to how those things can be possible, so you will not have to breach any confidentiality in order to do so. Possibly, however, you would like to reconsider some of the statements you have made concerning yourself and your profession, and clarify your position.
 * Also, the other questions I posed when I declined your unblock request still stand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The agreement is not finalized, but there is an understanding about the main terms between the various parties on which I was basing my actions on Wikipedia, prior to understanding how Wikipedia “works.” Without going into further unnecessary details, it’s the reason why I can’t spell it out here and why I can’t “show you” an agreement. Perhaps my actions were premature, but again this is moot, since I promise not to edit without knowing how to properly go about things.

Attorney-client privilege protects ALL communications between the attorney and client. (I was very tired when I responded to your last inquiry and that’s why it was worded client-attorney, but I believe you still understood me.) This statement is vague and ambiguous - “you would like to reconsider some of the statements you have made concerning yourself and your profession, and clarify your position.” Please clarify your request. I decline to answer whether using a pseudonym is common practice. I don’t intend to use this account anymore in my duties as a lawyer, so this is a non-issue and moot. I used my personal email account and was trying to do something without knowing the guidelines. I now know the guidelines and I won’t be doing anymore editing or actions for the purpose of effecting legal actions. Furthermore, I’ve retracted the legal notice, so all of this is a moot point. If you want to have an esoteric discussion on ethics law, I have a referral to a wonderful ethics attorney that you can consult with for all of your questions. Moreover, as soon as someone showed me the guidelines, I immediately apologized and retracted whatever legal notices I posted in the edit summary. Now, it’s just been this back and forth between various people that ask questions to which the answers are confidential and privileged at this point. I’m not sure if this satisfies your understanding or not. But I’ve been more than apologetic, forthcoming and responsive. I thought the issue of making legal threats was resolved already. The other administrator found that my account is unlikely to be a sockpuppet of La9810. I feel like you’re interrogating me on something that is a moot point. Please unblock my account. Thank you. Ahsatan76 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed any of my points, except for "Attorney-client privilege protects ALL communications between the attorney and client", and that is so blatantly untrue that no lawyer could possibly think it was true. Various other things you have said could also not have been said by anyone with a basic understanding of law. You are, as I suspected from the first, lying. You are not a lawyer. You could have admitted the truth when you posted your unblock requests, in which case I would have been willing to consider unblocking you, but you chose not to. Nevertheless, I twice gave you further opportunities to come clean, but both times you chose not to. If you continue to lie and lie again and lie again and lie again we cannot possibly trust you to be unblocked. Goodbye. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Another administrator will review your request; they will also need to know what you do intend to edit about since you state you will no longer edit the page about the film. As you stated you are an attorney, you will also need to indicate that if you intend to edit about your clients you will need to review WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
S warm  ♠  23:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I went to the sock puppet investigation page and I don’t know how to add my comments to defend myself. I will do it here and maybe you can tell me how to add this to that page as well. I am not a sockpuppet of La9810 as I have no idea who La9810 even is! I just signed up for Wikipedia yesterday and was unaware of the rules. I apologize, that’s my mistake. I never even heard of the term sockpuppet. I still don’t know what the terms DUCK and UPE mean (please define for me). I promise not to do anything without learning the rules and guidelines. Please forgive me as this was simply a naïve misunderstanding and unblock my account. I feel so embarrassed by this whole thing. I’m requesting that you find that I’m not a sockpuppet if La9810 and unblock me. Thank you.

I went to the sock puppet investigation page and I don’t know how to add my comments to defend myself. I will do it here and maybe you can tell me how to add this to that page as well. I am not a sockpuppet of La9810 as I have no idea who La9810 even is! I just signed up for Wikipedia yesterday and was unaware of the rules. I apologize, that’s my mistake. I never even heard of the term sockpuppet. I still don’t know what the terms DUCK and UPE mean (please define for me). I promise not to do anything without learning the rules and guidelines. Please forgive me as this was simply a naïve misunderstanding and unblock my account. I feel so embarrassed by this whole thing. I’m requesting that you find that I’m not a sockpuppet if La9810 and unblock me. Thank you. Ahsatan76 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please address these points
Alright. I've consolidated your numerous unblock requests, which will be looked into once we clear up the situation. The SPI/checkuser was closed as inconclusive, so there is no need to defend yourself there. You were not conclusively proven guilty or innocent. So, you can just explain the sitution here. First, an IP started deleting references to Paul Scheer several days ago. They did this multiple times. These edits were reverted as obvious WP:VANDALISM. Then, La9810 made the same edits deleting references to Scheer. This was, again, reverted, and then the article's plot section was expanded. La9810 proceeded to delete the expanded plot section and again delete references to Scheer. Then, you come along, and perform the exact same edits, deleting the plot section and references to Scheer. The only difference being that you claimed to be an attorney who was making the edits for legal reasons. So, there's two possible explanations. Either you're the same person as La9810, and were simply lying in order to try to force your edits through (we'll assume that's not the case for now). Or, assuming you're telling the truth, La9810 is somehow related to the situation, unbeknownst to you, but is also trying to remove the same content for the same aforementioned legal reasons. How are you, being the relevant attorney, completely oblivious as to who this mystery person might be, when they're obviously attempting to make the exact same legal-based removal of content as you, at the exact same time as you? Also, if the content is prohibited for legal reasons and you are an attorney who is just doing their job, why did you immediately retract the legal notice you made in favor of an unblock? If you came here to handle legitimate legal business, why are you suddenly more interested in editing other areas of Wikipedia than resolving the actual legal issue you came here about? It must be pretty important, if both the producer's lawyer and another unknown person are repeatedly attempting to remove content because of it. Wouldn't you, as an attorney who was attempting to conduct legal business, be more interested in explaining and resolving that situation, than being allowed to edit elsewhere? Further, please explain, in detail, what the legal issue exactly is. We procedurally block users who issue legal threats, but that does not mean we ignore legal issues. This appeared to be vandalism and sockpuppetry. If we got it wrong, and there are legitimate legal considerations, please explain the situation so that we may assist you in removing the content. Also, as someone claiming to be a lawyer conducting official business on Wikipedia, could you provide some sort of basic proof of your identity to the Wikimedia Foundation? This would be done privately and confidentially&mdash;not even I would have access to it. Look forward to your response. S warm  ♠  17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have no clue who La9810 is. It's rather naïve to think that as one lawyer, I should know every single thing that is going on. There are many parties and many lawyers sometimes and some parties can have similar or competing interests. I am not going to be using this account to effectuate any legal business. I used my personal email address to make this account. I made some edits, albeit naively, and I apologize for this. I did not know the community guidelines, and I barely even know how to respond on this "talk" page. I may never make any edits ever again, but that's irrelevant, because I feel that I continue to be unfairly blocked after I've tried to explain the situation and promise to abide by the guidelines. I would be willing to show proof of my identity if necessary on Wikimedia Foundation. However, someone would have to teach me how to do that, explain to me what that is, and explain how that would help my case. Thank you. Ahsatan76 (talk)
 * You're completely failing to explain the situation and answer our direct questions; rather than simply clearing up this purported misunderstanding, you've done nothing but provide these vague retractions and apologies. You still haven't even explained what you were doing on that article. This block has nothing to do with "community guidelines" that you didn't know; you appear to be a sock who's vandalizing an article, so you'd better have a damn good explanation for why those edits aren't vandalism if it isn't what it looks like. I'll give you one more chance to explain who you are, what your position is in relation to Best F(r)iends, what exactly the legal situation was that led you to delete that content was, if you are unable to do so competently, I will turn off your talk page without further warning. S warm   ♠  22:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)