User talk:Researcher47

Your question on the Teahouse
Hey, Researcher, I wanted to reply in a little more detail on your talk page, because your question is beginning to get a little out of scope for the Teahouse. If you have a dispute about content, dispute resolution methods are the way to go.

As for your question: no, it's not censorship in the sense that you mean it. Indeed, it can't be censorship in the sense of suppressing your right to free speech, because no such right exists on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has several rules about the information it can include. Many of these roles stem from Wikipedia's existence as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; they seek to use secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. Primary source use should be minimized, and the use of original research or original conclusions derived from primary sources is not permitted. From the talk page, it appears that you've been trying to insert your own conclusions drawn from a court case. Frankly, I don't have enough legal background to really say whether you have or not, but at a layman's first glance, it looks like you could be. Other editors, who are quite likely more knowledgeable about it than I am, [[Talk:Pro_se_legal_representation#injunctions_against_pro_se_litigation
 * have expressed similar concerns]]. You should take those concerns to heart and try to address them.

Finally, as people have also mentioned on the talk page of the article, it has become pretty clear that this account is a sockpuppet for a currently-blocked account, which is not allowed. You need to stop using multiple accounts like this and go back to the account you used first. If that account is still blocked, you can request an unblock, but before that account can get unblocked, you need to demonstrate that you're listening to our concerns about your editing behavior. Continual socking is just not going to help. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How could one prove that one is a new user on Wikipedia in order to get these 11th Circuit opinions mentioned?

Do you see a problem with the following being included on the page and if so what is the problem other than gossip about my identity?

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal) ruled, En Banc, that Congress has authorized special procedures for handling in forma pauperis complaints a Tnd significantly these do not involve use of injunctions. They found that even when the plaintiff is a prisoner who has engaged in a large volume of previous litigation, the responsibility for review of the case is not shifted away from the district court and that even when exhibits are filed prematurely and noted that even abusive pro se litigants may have an occasional legitimate claim. They stated that the time involved in reviewing frivolous complaints is minimal and a cost that the judicial system should absorb when the alternative restricts the constitutional right of access to courts. The 11th Circuit later ruled on another appeal involving the same pro se prisoner and suggested that lower courts could limit the length of documents filed, limit motion practice, and inquire about attempted representation. The 11th Circuit ruled in 2011 that a prisoner can file any post conviction claim he wants iif he either files through counsel or pays a filing fee.

Are you saying that these decisions will never be included on the page because it is impossible to prove the identity of the poster and the various anonymous editors think that the poster shouldn't be allowed to post anything and will assume that the posting is associated with a banned user?

If not, can you just post the above if I promise that I will never ever go to the Wikipedia site for any reason to read or write on any article for the rest of my life? Researcher47 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Researcher47 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would get removed if I post it. The reason that it keeps getting removed is not the identity of the poster, it's a problem inherent in the material itself.  Look at what ravensfire posted on the article's talk page:
 * You should read the two links that Ravensfire produces (WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH) to get further insight on the issues with what you posted. As quick nutshell versions: WP:UNDUE says that we need to make sure that an element of an article is not being covered out of proportion to its importance, significance, or scope.  WP:SYNTH says that we need to be careful not to link two different sources and draw a conclusion from them that is not supported in either.  Seriously, though, please follow those links and read them; they're key to understanding why your changes keep getting reverted.  It's not you; it's the information itself.
 * We're not trying to force you to never contribute or read Wikipedia again; we're not out to get you. Indeed, we'd like for you to stay and edit constructively.  We're just trying to help you to understand and appreciate some of the rules that we have about Wikipedia.  These rules are important; although I'm sure you have the best of intentions for trying to add this material, the problems within the material is making it more harmful than helpful.  This is the reason for the blocks against you; if we've blocked you or otherwise prevented you from editing an article, it's because we have to make sure that the information in the article follows these rules.  Indefinite blocks are not "infinite"; you can get unblocked and return to editing, but you have to demonstrate that you understand what is wrong with what you did, that you intend to not do it again, and you understand the rules enough for us to be confident in your ability to edit constructively and collaboratively.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The content that I asked you to post was not one decision it was three decisions the later referring to and confirming the first. These opinions contradict the opinions of other courts that are posted, so to leave these out is not constructive because it makes the information totally unavailable. I am not complaining about the exact description of the opinions or trying to make the opinion longer. We are talking simply about totally excluding information.

I received this email

The censorship in Wikipedia has been documented repeatedly, as well as corporate/government editing: [1] 07-08-14 Wired - See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, The CIA, A Campaign http://www.scribd.com/doc/47616724/ [2] 11-03-07 Judicial Corruption and Human Rights Violations in the US? Not on Wikipedia http://www.scribd.com/doc/50219758/ [3] 11-11-24 Wikipedia on 1) Barack Obama, and 2) #Occupy a propaganda tool of the corporate-government complex http://www.scribd.com/doc/73681805/ [4] 11-12-02 Wikipedia as a Propaganda Tool Posse Comitatus Act (1878) and current martial law in the United States. http://www.scribd.com/doc/74572860/

Who is using the words "you" and "we" and what do they mean?

I am so disappointed in Wikipedia I can't begin to tell you.

Do you disagree? Researcher47 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

PS the Rules of Wikipedia seem to be that a group can exclude any information they don't want available to the public. If that were not the case, then information that contradicts what is on the article would remain if it is from a reliable source such as a federal court of appeals even if the exact wording is changed. So it is clear that it is the information that is to destroyed, the messenger is not important except as an excuse, and this is shown because as admitted you don't know who I am or am not. Researcher47 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC) First, I will not post that material to the article for you; it's not material I can vouch for myself, as I don't have the legal background to understand it fully. Nothing personal; I just can't stand behind it if I don't understand it, and I can't post it if I don't stand behind it.
 * "You" means "you", the human being who is sitting behind a computer screen somewhere. "We" means the Wikipedia community, of which I (the other human being behind a computer screen, typing out these words) count myself a member. If, with those URLs and questioning of pronouns, you are implying that I am somehow editing with a conflict of interest and unfairly trying to keep you out of the article, I resent that.  I've never even heard of this issue before you posted your question to the Teahouse.  However, I'll assume that's not what you meant.  I do tend to throw pronouns around willy-nilly, so a simple misunderstanding is more than possible.
 * As for your argument, this is similar to a conversation I've had with a different user not too long ago. Verifiability, which is expressed in the need for reliable sources, is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion of information in Wikipedia.  Please take another look at WP:UNDUE.  Things that are reliably sourced can be removed from a Wikipedia page because they put undue emphasis on a minority viewpoint.  Just because there is information that contradicts the subject, doesn't mean it needs to be included in the article. Look at what Ravensfire talked about in the quote I posted above.  How would you specifically respond to his concerns?  Note that he's not telling you that you can't put any information about these court cases in the article!  He's giving you advice on how to get better-quality sources, and how to reword what you were trying to add to provide the right amount of coverage.  He's raising concerns about the information, yes, but he's not telling you that you will never be able to put them in. He's saying that the material needs to be improved in its amount of coverage and its over-reliance on primary sources before it's acceptable to be put in the article. If you can address those concerns, nobody will object to the information going into the article.  There is no cabal out to keep this information out of Wikipedia; we just want to make sure that everything gets its due. And yes, material that is overly long, biased, or poor can indeed be removed, if it's bad enough.  The burden of proof for suitability of inclusion is on the person who adds it.
 * As an aside, do I disagree with what? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's address his or her concerns one at a time

Court decisions are primary sources and trying to draw conclusions from them is iffy at best. ... Is it still valid?

"We are talking about a federal court of appeals opinion. That is not the same as a court decision. Was there a later ruling on that issue? What's the scope? All of that usually gets done by a good secondary source. ..."

The info that was deleted were three court of appeals decisions, the later ones affirming and expanding on the first. In the talk page it was asserted that the first one was "vacated" but that term was not used and the second and third decisions were not contrary to the first one. The last decision was less than one year ago. There doesn't seem to be a book, law article or newspaper article on the 11th Circuit rulings. If there were I would have no objection to it being cited.

"There's a WP:UNDUE concern, putting that much material for a ruling that affects a single federal district only."

That is a falsehood because the 11th Circuit decisions affect 9 federal districts -- Florida, Alabama and Georgia

"Since we've got a primary source, you have to interpret it to determine what that ruling means, the limits, etc, which is getting into WP:SYNTH concerns".

Other editors would be able to post on whether it was limited or not if the sources were cited.

"The ruling was a while ago"

The last ruling deleted was from May 2011

"so has it been limited or overturned"

There are three consistent opinions from the 11th Circuit

"how are courts in that federal district applying limits to pro se litigants, what limits are they using, etc."

Here is a link to a current pro se guide from the federal court middle district of GA and it is consistent with the three opinions deleted from the website

"Did you even know that the same case / issue ended up back at the appellate court later?"

Yes, the second opinion that was deleted concerned the same person and the third one that was deleted concerned the same issue

"Using court cases as the basis for making conclusions is not a good practice on Wikipedia."

All the articles on Wikipedia about law reference court cases.

"There's a reason the article is flagged with the primary source issue. ... " Researcher47 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if you consider court opinions to be primary sources. The other articles on Wikipedia about court opinions don't call the primary sources. A primary source would be along the lines of I was in court and this is what happened.

"Generalize / summarize more and keep most of the specifics out of it."

The deleted references were summarized and weren't specific at all

"All time you spend trying to add the narrow limitations based on this or that court ruling would better help Wikipedia by taking longer to find good secondary sources about that scenario and how widespread is it, how others handle it, etc."

The limitations weren't narrow at all.

If the other editors have sources about injunctions against pr se litigation they should go ahead and add them to the article. If I had that information I would add it but I don't have it so I can't add it. Researcher47 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Researcher47 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You should have the source, as the injunction was against you, Kay. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Gee, Arthur Rubin, do you have a copy of any injunction against "Kay"? Do you have a statutory basis, was there a motion, was there a hearing, and is there a document that doesn't include a complaint and conforms with Rule 65(d)? Do you even have a rule? If no, you don't have an injunction, what you have is a judge who is a criminal and deprives rights under color of law. a felony. That's what the 11th Circuit says can't be done but you don't want anyone to know that right so you don't want to quote the three 11th Circuit decisions. You're a first year law student aren't you? What do you know about felony witness intimidation and felony witness retaliation 18 USC section 1512 and 1513 166.249.96.112 (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're still Kay, and an injunction does not have to be in response to a complaint; Rule 11 sanctions (among others), which do not require a motion or a hearing, can include an injunction. Whether the injunction against you (sorry, Kay) conforms with rule 65(d) is unclear; but your case was not in the 11th circuit.  (And, although the record is unclear, it appears that the witness intimidation was by you, rather than to you or your witnesses.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Rule 11 sanctions include injunctions? Where did you get the idea that "Kay" was subject to Rule 11 sanctions? Where did you get the idea that "Kay" committed the crime of witness intimidation? Now you got me really interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.96.112 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * The injunctions against Kay were issued "sua sponte" by the judge, not in reference to any motion by an opposing party. They may have been civil contempt, rather than rule 11, but...
 * An objective reading of Kay's summary of the actions strongly suggest that many of Kay's complaints could not possibly have merit, as a matter of law (and, in some cases, as a matter of logic, even allowing for pleading in the alternative).
 * I cannot see any possible reason for some of Kay's complaints other than to intimidate witnesses in other actions in which Kay was involved (although many were state issues, and I'm not sure intimidation of state witnesses is a federal crime)
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is really serious to accuse Kay Sieverding of federal witness intimidation, a felony. It is defamation per se. So since you think you are such a legal expert, please be precise as to what you think she did that constituted that felony. Here is a link to the statute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 As I understand it, Kay was prosecuted without probable cause in retaliation for complaining that the president of the city council violated the zoning. That tort is called First Amendment Retaliation and was recognized by the Supreme Court in Hartman v. Moore in 2006, two years after former judge Nottingham dismissed her section 1983 complaint without writing an opinion. I happen to know that there were no Rule 11(c)(6) orders also--as can be shown by paying $2.40 to download the docket report of D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 from PACER and using a word search for Rule 11. See document 911.

Do you have a reference to a civil contempt statute that authorizes injunctions against pro se litigation?

It seems to me that you are engaging in really serious defamation that you Arthur Rubin know or should know is totally unsupported by the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.129.20 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be defamation if untrue. And Kay was prosecuted for, among other things, "malicious prosecution", after many of her complaints were thrown out as "frivolous".
 * But, still, clearly, none of this is relevant to improving the article, so it should all be ignored. And you're still almost certainly Kay, and hence, as Kay is banned from Wikipedia, your comments should then be removed.  I'm willing to have my replies removed if your comments were removed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is totally relevant to the article on pro se litigation where you, Arthur Rubin, a law student in California right, have advocated that pro se litigants should be at risk of threats of jail without criminal prosecution in order to deter them from filing in federal court --a crime punishable by 20 years. I don't want your comments removed, I want everyone on Wikipedia to know that you think it is fun to bully pro se litigants and think it is fun to accuse people of federal felonies that they didn't do when there is absolutely no basis in fact to think that they did. I'd like to know more about why you are here posting on the internet that Kay Sieverding was prosecuted for "malicious prosecution"? As I understand it a convicted drug dealer who was president of the city council had her criminally prosecuted for complaining about the zoning and two years after her complaint was dismissed the Supreme Court recognized the tort. These statements are supported by articles on the Steamboat Pilot website that can be found by searching on her name. Also, I happen to know that she filed a FOIPA in the District of Eastern VA 11-cv-732 and that document 30 contains what the USMS claims are all the records they have about her while document 47 contains all the documents that the FBI claims it has about her. None of them show that she was prosecuted for malicious prosecution. Instead they show that the USMS entered non existent criminal charges for drug dealing and for criminal bail jumping into their computer systems. You shouldn't be so mean and irresponsible as to accuse people of felonies on the Internet if you can't back up what you say, Arthur Rubin. You think this is fun, but I don't. And saying that you want to retract your comments won't help, you know they stay on the Internet forever. You have taken Kay Sieverding's reputation and scattered it to the wind like a feather pillow, to quote a rabbi and I don't believe that this is the first time that you have written and said that she committed crimes. You just think she can't do anything to you no matter what you do to her. The Steamboat Pilot also contains an article in which her former neighbor the city council president admitted at a meet the candidates even that he had pled guilty and served time for conspiracy to sell hash oil The magistrate's R&R recommended that all sorts of bad things happen to her because she had written that she heard he was a drug dealer and now he admits that he was a drug dealer as defined by conspiracy to sell hash-oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.129.20 (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So basically by issuing injunctions against self representation, you make people totally vulnerable to bullies, crooks and criminals and that is why Kay Sieverding wants it to be known that this sort of thing goes on. As shown here, Arthur Rubin just assumes and repeats that she is a felon, something he has absolutely no proof of. He is just a mean mean bully who doesn't care who he hurts as long as he can seem important and he seems important when he deletes circuit court opinions, bans users and tries to ruin people when he could have simply wrote together, sourcing with footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.129.20 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kay, we know who you are. You're not a felon.  You've made false and frivolous accusations, but I don't think you've been convicted of a felony.  You have been "convicted" for civil contempt, and that conviction has not been overturned.  I decline comment as to whether you have committed a felony, as the felonies in question require evidence of a state of mind, and you have shown no evidence that you have a mind &mdash; that is, the required mens rea.  And I haven't commented on the 11th circuit ruling, except that I don't see how it's relevant to this article, and we cannot use it until some legal commentary (possibly even including another court case) publishes an interpretation of the ruling.  It does seem to imply that the injunction against Kay would not hold in the 11th Circuit, but it does hold in the 8th Circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 19:03, April 8, 2012‎

Your 3RR report
Hello Researcher47. I tried to fix up your report at WP:AN3 so that the header was legible. Please note that your report contains no diffs of any edits you are complaining about. If you don't add them to the report, it may be declined with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to continue discussions
Kay, if you want to continue any discussions, please use your original, User:Kay Sieverding account. I've got your talk page watched so I'll see any sections you create there. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)