User talk:Sannse/Archive of discussion with Anon

STOP CONDONING CORRUPT PRACTICES!!
Stop being so damn biased and do your job properly for a change. Your facade of being a neutral, impartial, and fair conflict-solver does not fool an American lawyer! Though, I don't know what passes for justice in your monarchy!

I quote someone named "Dick Cheney":


 * "I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating several Wikipedia policies, in particular, making legal threats."

Now, I quote you:


 * "Of course you have rights to take legal action against Wikipedia (although I don't recommend it)."

So, my first question is who's lying to me, you or Cheney (or both of you)? My second question is why? My third is, if Dick is the liar--which I strongly suspect he is since Wikipedia wouldn't dare be so foolish as to take away American Constitutional rights--then how can you and your fellow administrators not take action against him? He obviously "blocked" me for no reason other than that he didn't like what I was saying to his friend Guanaco (a similarly corrupt "administrator" who's committed equally heinous abuses of his privelegs). As I said, either you're lying or Cheney is. If you are, then Wikipedia is in violation of the American Constitution, as well as guilty of extortion; if he's lying, his "blocking" me had no justification.

I've yet to come across an administrator who has offered me a single answer to a single question regarding my "blockings" (there have so far been four [two by Guanaco, one by Cheney, and one by someone else], at my main I.P. address alone, with some others at various other I.P.'s). Their silence or, even worse, their purposeful censoring and hush-hushing of the truthful, but unflattering, things I say about them causes me to become even more angry at the jack of true justice meted out at this place, which is more and more quickly becoming a circus with each passing day. When I get angry, I don't sugar-coat my comments. I expect people to be held responsible for their actions, and if shouting and getting in their face is the only way to get through to people, then that's what I do. I wish I could physically get into the same room as these people, so that they cannot hide behind their bans, censorings, their politics, and their "anonymous", long-distance locations! The avergae Wikipedia member, in short, is a politician who feels they don't need to explain themselves and their actions to anyone--and anything is justified. This is not the case...once again, I could go into a long discussion on why I love being a lawyer: we can force people to be held accountable for their actions. If being with them in a courtroom setting is the only way to get an explanation out of some people, so be it. Call my love of my profession and my love of justice a "threat" if you wish (only criminals have need to fear the law and harass those of us who uphold it). But, if it's my last option, it will indeed be my last option.

For the time being, the discussion of challenging these "anonymous", distant people who think they're above the law, within a court of law, is a bit premature. However, I would hate to see yet another administrator on my list of those who do not properly do their job. I'm expecting this edit of mine to be deleted as if it was never here, and my I.P. address to, once again, be banned by an upstart administrator who's hellbent on "proving" himself worthy because of my "harassing comments on Sannse's page" (Wikipediaese for "we fucked up and don't want to admit you're right"). I hipe that does not happen (again). But, the Wikipedia administrator has proven to be one of the most ineffectual and corrupt "dispute"-solvers I've ever seen, in any system of law. If you and some of your other administrators would feel uncomfortable to press Hyacinth, Mike H, Guanaco, "Neutrality", Cheney (and the others who have, with a collective mob mentality, committed various atrocities against me and several other hard-working community members in the name of political gain or peer recognition), then give me the name of the administrators' higher-up. If the administrators would prefer to become corrupt, and therefore irrelevant, I will take this to the one who grants the privileges to certain individuals, but not to others, and see to it that the administrative body of Wikipedia is severly overhauled, in order to make it once again legitimate, productive, worthwhile, and impartial.205.188.116.10 21:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello User:205.188.116.10. I think that you are conflating threats with taking proper legal action. Both of the following statements are true:


 * "Dick Cheney": "I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating several Wikipedia policies, in particular, making legal threats."


 * sannse: "Of course you have rights to take legal action against Wikipedia (although I don't recommend it)."


 * No one at Wikipedia can stop you from taking legal action against Wikipedia, nor is it against any of our policies to do so. However, making legal threats is against policy (see No legal threats.) If you are actually in the process of taking legal action and you are simply informing someone of that fact, that is of course different from making legal threats.


 * I hope this clarifies matters a bit. If you have any questions for me, please reply on my talk page, as I don't wish to use sannse's talk page as a discussion forum between us. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 13:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Banning
I have now been banned a third time by the evil, power-mad pyschophant, Guanaco! My factual comments directed at him and his agents on their various pages are considered "vandalism" because they're just a little too honest, and their answers a little too damning!205.188.116.10 21:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Anon,


 * Firstly, I apologise for not replying on your talk page to your previous message - I didn't edit yesterday, and now prefer to answer here. Hopefully I can answer both messages at once.  There are a lot of points raised by what you say though, so please forgive me if I miss anything - it will be a genuine oversight and not an attempt to evade any issues. I won't remove your messages from this page (until I eventually archive it) and I ask anyone else reading this not to do so either.


 * I had forgotten that the e-mail link is not available when not logged in. However, my e-mail is still available to you if you would like to discuss any of these events and issues privately: the address is sannse@tiscali.co.uk .  I often find that private e-mail is a good way of discussing disputes without inflaming the situation further.


 * I think I need to explain that I have no special standing here, I am not an official of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am an administrator (as is Guanaco and anyone else who has blocked you). I'm also a member of the mediation committee, and so have an interest in dispute resolution.  When I spoke of "us" in my previous message I meant the Wikipedia community.  The higher authorities here are Jimbo Wales and the Foundation board, or the  Arbitration Committee.


 * I should also say that, at this point, I don't disagree with those blocking you. While the initial messages you received may have been a little curt at times, I don't see that they in any way justify your responses and the abusive language you have used.  Attacks like those I've seen from you are very much against our polices and are completely out of proportion to the messages I've seen from others.


 * I think the most important point to cover is the one you raise above - what you see as a contradiction between the part of my message you quote and the blocks. I don't see any contradiction here.  The block does not stop you from taking legal action, it only stops you from editing under that IP.  We are not preventing you from doing anything except editing the Wikipedia.  What we are saying is that if you make threats of legal action against other Wikipedia members or the foundation then you are no longer welcome to edit.  This in no way blocks you from any rights you have under your legal system (editing Wikipedia is not one of those rights).


 * You say "if shouting and getting in their face is the only way to get through to people, then that's what I do." I would respectfully suggest that this is exactly not the way to get through to people here.  I believe that the shouting and offensive language is preventing understanding and resolution.  I think that at this point things have escalated to a point where it is going to be difficult to find common ground, so I'd like to suggest an alternative plan of action:


 * Why not simply stop responding to this conflict? I understand you are on a dynamic IP, when you return next it will be on an IP that has not been involved in this dispute.  You say you have edited without conflict for some time, if you were to return to that pattern then you would be able to edit quietly once more.  You are noticed under new IPs at the moment only because of this argument, if you were to ignore all messages on this issue then I would expect and hope that the conflict will end.  I sincerely hope that you will consider this.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''Firstly, I apologise for not replying on your talk page to your previous message - I didn't edit yesterday, and now prefer to answer here. ''

That is OK. I am still a bit annoyed, however, because it was you who told me that the easiest way to carry on a conversation is through these "talk" pages. As you can see, it is not always so easy to keep up with conversations, if you've got to go back and forth from user page to user page just to see who says what; especially when any attempt to carry on a conversation results in your immediate and unprovoked "blocking" for merely thinking outside the box. You may very well be informed of this reply onto your page, but I still have no way of knowing when/if you respond without remembering to come here and wade through tons of other people's postings. This backs up my original complaint about Hyacinth's page, and how I knew my posting of comments in a non-obvious place would eventually lead to their being missed, taken out of context, or even casually removed as if I was supposed to have forgotten that they were there. Hyacinth, Guanaco, and several others have and are still employing such a policy of "missing" or "misinterpreting" (for personal gain) my comments--it is an outrage! Every time I so much as use an expletive or an "!" in a post, it is dubbed a "threat", "attack", or some other ludicrous, "blockable" violation of Wikipedia's policy. I know my rights--I know that Wikipedia users may only invoke their right to "block" members who are trolling the site or using bot vandalism. Freedom of Expression is protected at Wikipedia, and aggression is permitted in combatting aggression. Wikipedia might not recommend it, but, to date, it still remains my most viable option of ensuring that the ones responsible for this travesty against my person are held accountable for their actions--short of employing the "L" word, that is. (BTW, it is also barbarous that the discussing of one's profession and/or one's lifestyle be deemed "threatening" at this site! Does Wikipedia have a policy wherby those of us who attained power after having grown up in the inner-city slums, in housing projects, are not entitled to speak of our life--however atypical, controversial, or even violent it may have been?  This is my life we're talking about, and I do not appreciate people's efforts to marginalize all that I was, am, and will yet become!  That, to me, is the ultimate in "personal attack".)172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''Hopefully I can answer both messages at once. There are a lot of points raised by what you say though, so please forgive me if I miss anything - it will be a genuine oversight and not an attempt to evade any issues. I won't remove your messages from this page (until I eventually archive it) and I ask anyone else reading this not to do so either.''

Thank you. It is a sham, though, that you need to give justification to others not to remove something that has to do with you and me, and not with them. There are too many busybodies at this site who believe they must "police" others' personal pages, a prime example of which is Mike H, who butted into my conversation with Hyacinth, on Hyacinth's "talk" page, before the conversation even got underway.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''I had forgotten that the e-mail link is not available when not logged in. However, my e-mail is still available to you if you would like to discuss any of these events and issues privately: the address is sannse ~a~ tiscali.co.uk. I often find that private e-mail is a good way of discussing disputes without inflaming the situation further.''

No, there is no email link. I could not, and still cannot, so much as ask Guanaco for an explanation of the banning. I am certain he realized this. I have since asked him, numerous times, for his reasoning behind the banning. If there was no legitimate reason, I believe he owes me an apology, after all the misery he has caused me and after the asinine witchunt he has perpetrated against me and against others with whom he has had issues of mere disagreement. He did not consider the fact that I have ways around his ban. All his unilateral banning has accomplished is a wasting of everyone's time and a damaging of the credibility and productivity of this project. It is a shame that there are people like him here and that they wield the dictatorial abilities that he does. I could email you privately, but I am reluctant to reveal my personal email address to anyone here. A majority of people are cruelly vindictive and would likely encourage their associates, whom I do not know or presently have problems with, to contiue to abuse me via email. Regardless of what people think, I would like to see the Wiki Foundation resolve this issue and see that proper justice is meted out to all at fault, the least of which is me. I am not flawless, but my actions have been committed as result of desperation. An obvious member of the Wikipedia's lower caste, with nary a human right present at this place, I became an easy target of victimization, or so was erroneously believed. To take the conflagration to email, and to open myself up to harassment and slander there, would leave the "L" word as my only option. I need to make a living too. I can only take so many pro bono "business actions" before it starts to have detrimental effect on my livelihood. And, I do not understand why Wikipedia---despite its plethora of single-minded and heavily partial executors of law--should not have a staff of (hopefully qualified and fair) judiciaries of law who posses at least a modicum of efficacy. One should not have to take Wiki disputes to an outside source.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''I think I need to explain that I have no special standing here, I am not an official of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am an administrator (as is Guanaco and anyone else who has blocked you). I'm also a member of the mediation committee, and so have an interest in dispute resolution. When I spoke of "us" in my previous message I meant the Wikipedia community. The higher authorities here are Jimbo Wales and the Foundation board, or the Arbitration Committee.''

The Arbitration Committee has demonstrated to me that it is a biased, hypocritical, and fraudulent organization, as it too has--coerced by Guanaco and his agents--chosen to believe the lies about me. I would like to hope they will rectify this injustice immediately, but I am not holding my breath!172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''I should also say that, at this point, I don't disagree with those blocking you. While the initial messages you received may have been a little curt at times, ''

And the initial four or five bannings unjustified. I admit that the most recent bannings have had basis in theory; however, they should never have been imposed if only for the simple fact that I was, and am, legitimately "ticked" off after having been unfairly censored multiple times prior to my getting nasty. And, again, nastiness is nothing to be a prude about. I'd love to see how you behave when you are victimized. If you were in the process of being raped, I shudden to imagine you would just sit back and try to discuss things calmly with a man who's attacking you at gunpoint. Also, as I have stated, if Wikipedia's policy is to conform to standards of "proper" conduct, it would never have allowed the crimes committed against me to have taken place and the content within several of its controversial encyclopedia articles would be severly muted, if not eliminated. If Wiki were so high-and-mighty, it would permanently delete all instances or mentions of hate speech, violence, sex, profanity, or drugs. It does nothing of the sort, choosing to permanently archive everything. I could create an entire page of slanderous statements about your mother. You'd know it's untrue, as would I. Nevertheless, these false allegations about your mother would be present here for time immemorial. Is this somehow acceptable?

''I don't see that they in any way justify your responses and the abusive language you have used. Attacks like those I've seen from you are very much against our polices and are completely out of proportion to the messages I've seen from others.''

Perhaps that is because you, like others, are unaware of the entire situation. You said it yourself that Mike H and Hyacinth were rudely curt in their first encounters with me. Why this would be so is something I cannot answer with certainty. However, I have reason to suspect they disliked the way in which I have edited articles. Additionally, Mike has been taking steps to be promoted and consequently must "prove", to his higher-up's, his usefulness and willingness to "do his job" as an enforcer of law. It is this shady (read: unlawful) business tactic that has irritated me so thoroughly. I was made an example out of; I was made the victim, the easy target, so that Mike might achieve a lofty and "respectable" Wiki community standing. History has demonstrated that those with login names have long committed heinous abuses of their power against those who choose to represent themselves solely as numbers, as do I. This barbary must be remedied! These crimes against humanity cannot simply be ignored. And, Mike, Hyacinth, Guanaco, and co, have some of the worst track records, in civility, tolerance, and bilateralism, at this entire site. Children, they have a lot to learn. Still, when I was their ages, I knew better than to force my will on others; and they are old enough to know right from wrong. They must be held responsible for their actions!172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''I think the most important point to cover is the one you raise above - what you see as a contradiction between the part of my message you quote and the blocks. I don't see any contradiction here. The block does not stop you from taking legal action, it only stops you from editing under that IP. We are not preventing you from doing anything except editing the Wikipedia. ''

As I've stated in prior postings, I am being indirectly prevented from exercising my legal rights. My choice is either to exercise my rights as an American and then lose my ability to contirbute to this site; or to continue being a productive member of this project after having dissmissed all my American rights. It is a form of extortion, which itself is an illegeal action.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What we are saying is that if you make threats of legal action against other Wikipedia members or the foundation 

I have no reason to "threaten" anyone, especially the foundation, as it is something I appreciate greatly. However, Guanaco's (incorrect) interpretation of this Wikipedia policy has turned it into extortion. I don't doubt that Wikipedia would never use extortion against its contributers. But, that being the case, Guanaco has committed acts of fraud against me.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''then you are no longer welcome to edit. This in no way blocks you from any rights you have under your legal system (editing Wikipedia is not one of those rights).''

So, if I choose to file suit against people I know only through Wikipedia and only as their Wikipedia login names (e.g. Hyacinth, Mike H, Guanaco, HCheney, Cirius), as I have chosen to do, I am not allowed to fill them in on the goings-on of the case and charges? I do want to make sure they notice the legal summons. How, then, should I go about contacting these people and informing them of their rights and responsibilities? If you ask me, I am performing a noble gesture, in making them fully aware of what they have to lose if they insist on breaking the law--and in informing them that it would behove them to start seeking lawyers, if they haven't any already, as they might not appreciate the court-appointed ones they would otherwise receive (not that there is anything wrong with court-appointed lawyers, of course). Again, I consider it a ludicrous mockery of everything I have made of myself for heathens and gangmembers to disrespect the rule of law and, especially, my profession; attempting to marginalize my occupation as a "threatening" one is reminiscent of the days when my grandparents immigrated to this country, poor farmers from Sicily, and were summarily and repeatedly stereotyped as "mafiosi" once they began to accumulate some wealth and prosperity! Such accusations--that we Italians cannot possibly be successful and noble people without having resorted to "threats" and crime--are barbarous! If I were not so well-educated, I would almost consider such accusations against my culture and my occupation a form of anti-Italian defamation! However, I realize that there are people here who have never met a real-life Italian or a real-life black person or a real-life homosexual. People cannot be faulted for having been bought up ignorant, because their parents, too, were brought up ignorant.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''You say "if shouting and getting in their face is the only way to get through to people, then that's what I do." I would respectfully suggest that this is exactly not the way to get through to people here. I believe that the shouting and offensive language is preventing understanding and resolution. I think that at this point things have escalated to a point where it is going to be difficult to find common ground, so I'd like to suggest an alternative plan of action:''

I will, in the future, attempt to refrain from use of profanity, as well as use of irony or wit, as it is all lost on most here. However, I also expect to see action on the other side. The legitimate and compassionate memebrs of the Wiki community must take a stand against injustice and see that Guanaco, Hyacinth, HCheney, David Banner, and the others, are brought before a tribunal, in which nobody is censored, no comments are edited out, no matter how damning and/or unabashedly truthful, and no beating-around-the-bush shall be condoned. Wikipedia must take clear and concise action in weeding out those who threaten its credibility and its legitimacy (as well as its productivity). As I said, weeks ago, when this situation first began, to Mike H: "what is the purpose of an encyclopedia if we are out to turn it into a message board?". Forget "message board". It has become nothing more than a glorified chatroom, in which certain cliques of people tell everyone else, "my way, or the highway". If their authority is so much as questioned, the asker is immediately and irrevocably booted from the room. Is this fair? Hardly. With my knowledge of legal proceedings and my propensity to be impartial, even when directly involved in a situation, I believe I should preside over the hearings against these menaces. As such, I will be granted the chance to prove to the Wiki community that I am not the vandalising "troll" that the aggressors have fought to present me as; I will also, at that time, reveal all my past contributions and I.P. addresses to the community whereby they can see for themselves that I have, indeed, been a prominent and steadfast contributor, having created dozens of new articles of near-publishable quality upon first edit. This was a task I intially refused to undertake, as I didn't (and still don't) see why my "body of work" should be a necessary indicator of my character. I will also, in an attempt to further placate my critics and enemies, consider creating a user name, to quell any possible (racist) distrust that might exist between those with login names and those who are represented only by I.P. address. In return, I expect the court proceedings to be unbiased, and the jury to be representative of Wikipedians of all stature, ethnicity, background, and notoriety. Those accused of harassing and abusing my character will be offered a chance to explain their side of the story and to apologise to me for their crimes committed against me. In exchange, I will explain, publicly, in a location where all are freely available to view my comments for themselves and to judge the situation impartially, my reasoning and justification for everything I have said and done, to date, because I am already well-aware that not everybody is reading each and every pieces of my information--thus, perhaps, the cause for confusion. After I have explained myself, I will again offer those who have banned me the opportunity to rebut my claims and to offer still more explanation as to why they felt the need to butt-in to my conversations with others, why they felt they were justified in viewing the situation with partiality, and--most importantly--their rationale for banning, censoring, or otherwise purposely attempting to misconstrue my valid and legitimate comments. Discussion between all involved will ensue, with the jury members and the then-nuetral Wikipedia-at-large present to mediate the discussion fairly, in the event that personal attack or "threatening" behavior is used. Once the hearing is through, if those members are found guilty of butting-in, victimizing me or others for personal gain, being rude, being curt, being abusive, what-have-you, they will offer me an apology and I will forgive them of their wrongs. Those who are found to have abused banning privileges will be required to step down from their positions for a period of three months' probation, after which period, if they have not committed any abuses against other Wiki members, they will have their authority reinstated. At that time, I, too, provided no further trouble with others, will be promoted to a position of power. After that, all Wikipedia members should be automatically promoted, after three months' contributions, to the higher position, which will formally become the "standard" position. The "low", privilege-free position shall be reserved for those who are beginners, those who are on probation, and those who are convicted trolls and vandals. This way, there will remain no feelings of hostility or distrust between those who choose to login and those who don't, and those who've got extra power and those who don't. In short, essentially all Wikipedians will once again exist in equal standing. Politics, "victim quotas", and other forms of "sucking up" will no longer threaten to overrun this place. People will, once again, come here to write an encyclopedia, not to move up a social hierarchy. And, all of Wikipedia's major causes for concern will be solved at once.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''Why not simply stop responding to this conflict? I understand you are on a dynamic IP, when you return next it will be on an IP that has not been involved in this dispute.''

Not true. I have a set cable I.P. address. It was banned. However, I also have AOL, which does offer me dynamic I.P., but through its dial-up (billed-per-hour) service. This is initially why I began throwing the "L" word around--I am ticked that I should have to pay these outrageous costs in order to post at this site.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You say you have edited without conflict for some time, 

Yes, about 18 months.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

''if you were to return to that pattern then you would be able to edit quietly once more. You are noticed under new IPs at the moment only because of this argument, if you were to ignore all messages on this issue then I would expect and hope that the conflict will end. I sincerely hope that you will consider this. ''

I feel that that would be letting the ones who have gone out of their ways to victimze me "win", if you will. I like to see justice served. Here, it need be only in the form of an apology and an explanation, for those who did anything to be save banning. I'd be happy. For those who've banned me, I'd be happy if they are reprimnaded for their abuse of privilege, by having their privileges revoked for the time being. If they are allowed to continuing using their abilities in such a way, there's no stopping them from abusing and "scaring off" any newcomer to Wikipedia who has an opinion that they do not share. In short, their actions will inevitably bring a bias to Wikipedia; this is in opposition to Wiki's policy to accept those of all backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and opinions--in an attempt to offer the most neutral and thorough information possible. If we wanted bias, we would watch Bill O'Reilly.172.139.212.220 20:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Anon. Talk pages have their limitations, especially in long conversations, but remain our best way of communication.  If you had had an account, or even a constant IP, I would have left a note on your talk page to notify you of my reply.  With an account you would also have had a watchlist and would have seen the change to this page.  But, in the current situation, I have to rely on your checking this page.  It is still a better way of communication than using article or user pages.  I have archived the rest of this page to clear it for our conversation here.


 * As I have said, I believe that your out-of-proportion responses do justify the blocks you have received. Wikipedia policy does allow blocks for such personal attacks (and some of what I have seen you say can not be described any other way) and for threats of legal action.  While I have many concerns about our blocking process and our interaction with anons, your case is not one I would use to explore those concerns.  I don't know if the Arbitration Committee will take your case - I think it is quite likely that they won't as it seems clear to me that your behaviour warrants the ban.


 * On being a lawyer: your profession is not an issue here.  We have some highly respected lawyers as community members who have provided excellent contributions both in edits and in legal advice.  The issue is your use of your stated profession to threaten others.  Again, I cannot describe your words in any way other than as explicit threats to cause harm.  If you need to notify users of legal actions, I'm sure you are aware that there are proper procedures to do so, and proper language to use.  Informing them on Wikipedia talk pages in abusive language is not legally, socially or practically appropriate.  You may not have direct access to Wikipedians outside of these pages, but I'm sure you are aware of the proper procedures to take to notify anonymous Internet users of legal summons and so on.  Wikipedia talk pages are not part of that process.  It is quite possible to take the proper steps without making threats on these pages, or even editing Wikipedia at all.  (That should not be taken, by the way, as any indication that I believe legal proceedings are proper in this case.  They most certainly are not).


 * You said: "There are too many busybodies at this site who believe they must "police" others' personal pages". That is the nature of Wikipedia, and its strength.  We all look after various articles and user pages.  My own user pages has been blanked and vandalised in the past, other users kindly noticed this and fixed it.  I have done the same for others.  This is not interfering, it's part of the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia.  All conversations are public and open for other contributors to join (provided they do so in a non-abusive way) just as I welcomed Bcorr's comments above.


 * On e-mail: I understand your reluctance to reveal your address. I feel this restricts our conversation, as we have noted talk pages have their limitations, but respect your choice.  But I would like to assure you that, should you change your mind at any point, I would not reveal your address to anyone.


 * For the rest of your message, it seems clear to me that our perception of the events here and of the justification for your responses are simply too far apart for reasonable communication. Your description of the actions of logged in users as "crimes against humanity" and your thoughts on how I would react to being raped are examples of the extreme slant you have put on events here, something I am at a loss to understand.  I find these comments offensive and an excessive over-reaction.  To equate keeping polite during discussions on Wikipedia with talking to someone raping me at gunpoint is frankly ludicrous.


 * I'm sorry to say that in these circumstances I can't help. The only advice I can give you now is to leave Wikipedia.  After all, Wikipedia is a small part of the on-line world, and a smaller part of the world in general.  It would be no great thing for you to you to simply leave and find other places to spend your time.  I'm aware that you are unlikely to take this advice.


 * Thank you for your attempts to respond politely here, and for your agreement to do so elsewhere. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response
I hope you don't mind that I've sectioned this off--it's getting hard for me to read again already.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Anon. Talk pages have their limitations, especially in long conversations, but remain our best way of communication.  If you had had an account, or even a constant IP, I would have left a note on your talk page to notify you of my reply.  With an account you would also have had a watchlist and would have seen the change to this page.  But, in the current situation, I have to rely on your checking this page.  


 * I will check your page as often as I can then, for as long as it might offer a chance of some resolution of this ridiculousness (i.e., as long as my comments aren't immediately removed by those who are trying to make sure my side of the story doesn't come out--so far, I'm thankful, they haven't been).205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It is still a better way of communication than using article or user pages. I have archived the rest of this page to clear it for our conversation here.


 * OK, I do understand the purpose of user pages now. Prior to your telling me about them, I did not realize that each of us has both a "User Page" and a "Talk Page", and I especially did not realize that users were made aware of new comments on the talk page.  You gotta understand, things are very different for those of us who just have I.P's.  On these dynamic AOL I.P's, I'm getting all kinds of random "New Message" messages every time the I.P. address arbitrarily switches.  90% of the time, the messages are old and were obviously not directed at me.  Still, thanks to your explanation, I understand the way all that stuff works now.  According to Hyacinth and Mike H, we're all supposed to know everything and have the exact same beliefs as they do.  I'm still waiting for an explanation as to both why Mike H felt the need to butt in to my conversation with Hyacinth and why Hyacinth felt he had the right to file Wiki charges against me for "attacking him" when all I did was ask a question.  But...since they still haven't answered me two weeks later, and since no one else who decided to go meddling in the ridiculous situation has answered a single question of mine or so much as offered explanation/apology of their actions (you've been the only neutral one thus far), I doubt that my questions will ever be answered.


 * As I have said, I believe that your out-of-proportion responses do justify the blocks you have received. Wikipedia policy does allow blocks for such personal attacks (and some of what I have seen you say can not be described any other way) and for threats of legal action.  


 * I do not believe anything I did or said prior to the first two, three, four bannings justified the bannings. You can disagree all you want, but I was the one who lived through it.  In order for the whole story to be revealed, it looks like some sort of Wikipedia tribunal (or any other kind of fair tribunal) will be necessary.  Should this be taken as a "threat"?  No!  As I've said, it is a slap in my face that people now feel that speaking of legal action is a "threat".  I have since been told that informing others of legal proceedings that will be lobbied against them is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy.  That was all I have ever done.  I've discussed my profession, I've made clear my current and on-going actions, I've explained and justified my knowledge of the law by delving into my professional background, and I have stated that, should certain Wikipedia members not agree to a fair and impartial resolution of the conflict, based on the whole truth, I would be forced to (as I have been) take my dispute with them to another system of law, one in which the truth cannot be avoided and facts cannot be glossed over or bended to fit an agenda.  If such unjust policies are not only condoned, but approved of and even encouraged, by many Wiki administrators, justice is not being served.  As I've said time and again, I don't like the prospect of having to settle this outside of Wikipedia (a clear waste of my time, if not the others'), but what choice does my current situation--in which I am made to look like the bad guy--leave me?205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * While I have many concerns about our blocking process and our interaction with anons,


 * What justifies this "anon" crap? Is such discrimination against us "anons" permissible?  Are we somehow supposed to be an inferior class than the rest of you, just because, for whatever reason, we choose not to login with a name?  IMO, this clear bias against "anons" is a violation of the "no personal attacks" rule.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * your case is not one I would use to explore those concerns. I don't know if the Arbitration Committee will take your case - I think it is quite likely that they won't as it seems clear to me that your behaviour warrants the ban.


 * Under whose law? You cannot state that my legitimate disgust with the initial unwarranted, illegal bans, and my justifiable aggressive actions against an unjust abuse of Wiki law, warrant a subsequent banning.  It's tantamount to America's "Double Jeopardy" law--a law that, if I'm not mistaken, exists on your side of the pond as well.  You cannot be charged with the same crime twice.  If I were made to "serve time", if you will, for a crime I did not commit, I cannot be penalized for committing said crime at a later date.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * On being a lawyer: your profession is not an issue here.  We have some highly respected lawyers as community members who have provided excellent contributions both in edits and in legal advice.  The issue is your use of your stated profession to threaten others. 


 * I have done nothing of the sort. Rather, as stated above, I have explained that I will not sit idly while abuses of the law are not only taking place, but also are not being rectified.  If no one wishes to see to it that justice is done, I will make use of whatever other avenues I need to.  Informing others of that, and hoping they would subsequently choose other, more peaceful and conducive courses of action, is what I have done.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, I cannot describe your words in any way other than as explicit threats to cause harm. 


 * Why should people have anything to fear from law? All I wish is for justice to be done.  If the individuals are guilty of nothing, then they should wish to be exonerated of the accusations that I have made against them.  A courtroom is not a place that should instill fear in people.  The truth will, invariably, reveal itself, and the use of the American justice system should be looked on by the public as an opportunity to bring the truth of a matter forward.  This is what I intend to do because honesty and integrity are obviously not vitures shared by all, or even most, at the Wikipedia.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you need to notify users of legal actions, I'm sure you are aware that there are proper procedures to do so, and proper language to use. Informing them on Wikipedia talk pages in abusive language is not legally, socially or practically appropriate.


 * I defy the stereotypes, in case you haven't already noticed. And I've earned myself more respect for it.  In regard to proper procedure, I had hope that things would have resolved themselves prior to my having to implement direct action.  As I have discussed the issue with colleagues, in various locations and during several different levels of seriousness in the course of this dispute, I feel that I was giving my abusers ample time to change their minds and reverse their fates.  I was, in short, being kind to my enemies.  However, it appears that my noble deeds only compounded my issue by offering them more chance to throw their fabricated, exaggerated, miscontrued, one-sided, and racist accusations in my face.  This is something Wikipedia must remedy, as Wikipedia's disrespect for the American justice system grants administrators the unquestionable authority to do what they did to me to anyone whom they have personal disagreement with.  And, should the unknowing victim merely attempt to exercise his or her legal American rights, as his last viable option against an enemy devised with the explicit purpose of bringing him down, the poor soul unwittingly "proves" his harassers' allegations against him and seals his fate!  Wikipedia's policy is unjust, and is nothing more than an attempt to give its administrators totalitarian authority over whoever they should choose to make an example out of!  This is barbarous!  This is reminiscent of South African Aparteid, Saddam's Sunni elite, big corporate America, and every other corrupt entity that is permitted to remain above the law, with its dictatorial right to oppress all who should oppose it!  On Wikipedia, the new person and the infrequent contributor cannot come out ahead!  Tyranny!205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You may not have direct access to Wikipedians outside of these pages, but I'm sure you are aware of the proper procedures to take to notify anonymous Internet users of legal summons and so on. Wikipedia talk pages are not part of that process.


 * Of course not. But, it would have been laudable of the aggressors if they had chosen to quit while they were ahead.  Unfortnately for them, they are ahead of me for the last time.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It is quite possible to take the proper steps without making threats on these pages, or even editing Wikipedia at all. (That should not be taken, by the way, as any indication that I believe legal proceedings are proper in this case.  They most certainly are not).


 * But, of course they are--if for no other purpose than to reveal the truth to all and to reclaim my money lost as direct result of my illegal bannings. It would be treacherous action that one "take proper [legal] steps" without first informing the defendant and at least offering a chance for reconciliation.  I would not do so against my worst enemy.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You said: "There are too many busybodies at this site who believe they must "police" others' personal pages". That is the nature of Wikipedia, and its strength.  We all look after various articles and user pages. 


 * Who is to say that my questions on Hyacinth's user page were not supposed to be there? Perhaps he is a friend of mine who asked that I edit his page for him.  Unless you are psychic, you are not aware of what, exactly, motivates the changing of a user page.  User pages are, indeed, alterable, which suggests there is a reason why, on certain occassions, it would be permissible that one modify another's page.  "Looking after" articles and assessing what information is legit and what is "vandalism" is a valid use of our time.  Looking after non-encyclopediac, waste-of-space entries, which may be used to communicate with other members, however, is not.  User pages and their content are meant to be under the jurisdiction of one person only--the one to whom the page belongs.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My own user pages has been blanked and vandalised in the past, other users kindly noticed this and fixed it. I have done the same for others.  This is not interfering, it's part of the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia.  All conversations are public and open for other contributors to join (provided they do so in a non-abusive way) just as I welcomed Bcorr's comments above.


 * I would consider Mike H's repeated reversion of my conversation with Hyacinth to be "abusive", however. "Vandalism", as I have already told you, is the "malicious destruction or defacement of property".  To Hyacinth, I did nothing of the sort.  I was not malicious, as the true Wikipedia vandals, the ones against whom bans are warranted, are; and I neither "destroyed" nor "defaced" a thing.  Did I temporarily remove some stuff?  Yes.  But, as it was only temporary and the previous information was most retrievable, I committed acts of neither defacement nor destruction.  Regardless of that situation, Mike H appeared to have decided to move on after it--though he offered me no real apology for his actions and purposeful misinterpretation of my comments--and I agreed that it had been, mainly, a misunderstanding of his that then led to a misunderstanding of mine, which had perpetrated the conflict between the two of us.  However, Hyacinth made a decision to be an asshole and to take aggressive action against my person, labelling my modification of his page as a "personal attack".  It might have been Mike H who lit the match, but it was Hyacinth who started the fire.  Needless to say, his accusation was utterly ludicrous and suggests that he was looking for a conflict, perhaps with any arbitrary member, but likely specifically with me.  He appears to be a hate-filled individual!205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * On e-mail: I understand your reluctance to reveal your address. I feel this restricts our conversation, as we have noted talk pages have their limitations, 


 * Don't worry. As I've said, I will do my best to remember to check this page, so long as my comments are not removed by people who feel they're "being collaborative".205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * but respect your choice. But I would like to assure you that, should you change your mind at any point, I would not reveal your address to anyone.


 * OK, that is good to know. Thank you.  But, would my email not be filtered out as spam?  I would likely have to reveal it here so that you'd know which address to look for, right?  Or, are you very careful about checking all your email?205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * For the rest of your message, it seems clear to me that our perception of the events here and of the justification for your responses are simply too far apart for reasonable communication. Your description of the actions of logged in users as "crimes against humanity" and your thoughts on how I would react to being raped are examples of the extreme slant you have put on events here, something I am at a loss to understand.


 * If you were being raped, you would hopefully fight back with all your might. Silencing of specific voices and opinions, sanctioned by citizens of two countries that are supposed to be among the freeest on earth, especially when the silencing and the assault is committed solely against one race of people (the so-called "anons"), is, as far as the civilized world is concerned, a crime against humanity.  It is internet genocide.  How is there "slant" in what I say?  I am making use of analogy and metaphor.  I am not biased; I am simply putting my (to date, unheard) side of the story out there.  The conflict is absurd, I know.  But, it's true nonetheless.  Last month, I don't think I could have imagined a situation like this happening here if I wanted to.  As I said, prior to this my interaction with other Wiki members, though very limited, was almost entirely pleasant and constructive.  Occassional arguments with fringists in reagard to what violates NPOV aside, I never had any problems at this site.  Even the NPOV fringe members would hear me out though, at least until Mike H and Hyacinth came along.205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I find these comments offensive and an excessive over-reaction. To equate keeping polite during discussions on Wikipedia with talking to someone raping me at gunpoint is frankly ludicrous.


 * But it is not. It is the same principle.  It is about fighting for something you believe in or cherish.


 * I'm sorry to say that in these circumstances I can't help. The only advice I can give you now is to leave Wikipedia.  After all, Wikipedia is a small part of the on-line world, and a smaller part of the world in general.  It would be no great thing for you to you to simply leave and find other places to spend your time.  I'm aware that you are unlikely to take this advice.


 * Why should I leave? I have done no wrong.  Maybe I think you should leave, though I would not be so rude as to say so!  And, if you think I am "unlikely" to take such "advice", why would you offer it?  I think you have been coerced by external forces into being biased, or, perhaps you have been biased directly from the start!  More evidence of the smear campaign that was created in order to drive me out, I suspect?  My aggressors would be fools not to attempt to make peace with me while they can!205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your attempts to respond politely here, and for your agreement to do so elsewhere. Regards -- sannse (talk) 09:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What good is my "politness" if you have been sent to interfere in this conflict for the sole purpose of forcing me off of this site?! This is scandalous!  Is no one here rational or sane?!205.188.116.10 01:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment About Dobermanns

You wrote about Dobermanns: "I can't really get a good image layout here because there is so little text for an article with a table and two other images. What we really need is more text for balance - any volunteers? ;) In particular we need information on cropped ears - we have two images but no explanation. This is not a subject I am likely to give a NPOV on, but I'll put it on my to-do-list anyway. If someone with more knowledge and some neutral views on the subject can get there before me that would be great"

I can do this. I have a Doberman (WITHOUT cropped ears), and also have strong opinions about that issue. However, just because we have opinions doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to write an article that doesn't violate the NPOV thing. Your above comment was made last August--it's almost a year later, and so much info on Dobies in missing.205.188.116.208 02:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Anon.


 * So, given that you now understand the use of talk pages, and that adding questions to user pages is considered bad etiquette, why did you choose to do so on my user page? I don't think you can claim ignorance now, it seems to me that the most likely reason is that you wished to either annoy me, or to provoke someone else into reverting your edit.  I sincerely hope that this isn't so.  I have moved your question to this page.  My answer: I am not going to encourage you to edit any page on Wikipedia.


 * There are, quite deliberately, advantages to logging in and differences in the way we deal with anons and logged in users. There are two reasons for this in my understanding.  Firstly, most of our vandalism and other problem edits come from anons.  This is not to say that we don't also get very good edits from anons of course, but we also get a high proportion of bad edits.  So, naturally, we look at those edits with more care.  Secondly, logging in allows the development of recognition and reputation.  I don't need check every edit of a user I recognise and trust, I know from their prior work that they are editing in good faith.  In the same way I trust long-term friends off-line more deeply than a stranger.  I have past experience and recognition to help me.  I always try to assume good faith with new and anon users of course, but when that assumption is backed up by good experience then I trust it more and more.  It's not possible to do this without a constant identity.


 * I said: "it seems clear to me that your behaviour warrants the ban", you replied: "Under whose law?" - under the policies of Wikipedia, as I have explained. Of course you can express your unhappiness if you feel an action is unjustified - how you do that is important.  You did so in an inappropriate and out-of-proportion way.  That is unacceptable.


 * You said: "Who is to say that my questions on Hyacinth's user page were not supposed to be there? Perhaps he is a friend of mine who asked that I edit his page for him".  That was clearly not so.  There was no doubt in my mind on that, from the style and content of the message, and Mike H's knowledge of Hyacinth as a fellow Wikipedian would also have led him to understand this.  Looking after name-space pages, including user pages is valued, as is watching article pages.  User pages are primarily the responsibility of the user in question, but minor edits (such as spelling fixes) are usually considered OK, as is fixing vandalism.  User pages that have content outside that permitted by our policies are also sometimes edited or deleted.  The general content of user pages is decided by the user in question (unless, as I've said, it is outside that permitted by our policies) and any changes to that are likely to be reverted by anyone noticing.


 * You asked: "But, would my email not be filtered out as spam?". No, I currently do not filter my e-mail, I check it carefully each day.  This would only change if the amount of spam I started receiving becomes unmanageable.


 * You said: "What good is my "politness" if you have been sent to interfere in this conflict for the sole purpose of forcing me off of this site?!".


 * I have not been sent here in any way. Like the others involved, the situation caught my eye and I hoped I would have something helpful to contribute to the discussion.  That hope is now fading.  It seems nothing will be achieved here except disappointment and frustration for us both.  I believe that the quickest and more effective solution to this dispute at this point would be for you to leave.  But that is not an order or any kind, merely my opinion and my advice to you.   Perhaps it is foolish to give advice that is unlikely to be taken, but I give it anyway in the spirit of good faith and optimism.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 11:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So, given that you now understand the use of talk pages, and that adding questions to user pages is considered bad etiquette, why did you choose to do so on my user page? I don't think you can claim ignorance now, 


 * Of course I can't "claim" ignorance. The reason I posted to your user page is because it was from your user page that I found out about your interest in dog breeds, and managed to get to the page on Doberman Pinschers.  Also, what I wrote about the dogs, clearly, has nothing to do with what we were discussing on your "talk" page.  It was a wholly unrelated comment, regarding the encyclopedia itself rather than juvenility.  As such, it warranted posting on a page which is more relevant to the encyclopedia, rather than be tagged onto the bottom of some asinine conversation that has nothing to do with the content of an encyclopedia.152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * it seems to me that the most likely reason is that you wished to either annoy me, or to provoke someone else into reverting your edit. 


 * If that would be the kind of thing to annoy you, damn, I would hate to see how you'd react to being raped! You probably become feral!  I needn't "provoke" anyone to do anything.  As we both are aware, you saw my comments, you responded to them, and now your precious page is as pure as ever (and, you've got your Doberman expansion, as you desired).  Or, do you want me to keep posting the "Doberman" comment there over & over, just to give you valid reason to demonstrate aggression toward me?152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope that this isn't so. I have moved your question to this page.  My answer: I am not going to encourage you to edit any page on Wikipedia.


 * And who the fuck are you to "encourage" me on what to do? Is this yet another example of Wiki censorship?152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There are, quite deliberately, advantages to logging in and differences in the way we deal with anons and logged in users. There are two reasons for this in my understanding.  Firstly, most of our vandalism and other problem edits come from anons.  


 * If it were found that most crime comes from black people, this would not justify an employer's decision not to hire any blacks.152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not to say that we don't also get very good edits from anons of course, but we also get a high proportion of bad edits. 


 * This is not to day that there aren't good black people, but there is a high proportion of bad ones.152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So, naturally, we look at those edits with more care. Secondly, logging in allows the development of recognition and reputation.  I don't need check every edit of a user I recognise and trust, I know from their prior work that they are editing in good faith.  


 * Bull! As I've stated, I've been here longer than the ones lobbying the accusations against me, likely including you as well.  I offered you the chance to see all my past contributions, but you appear to have declined my offer.  You made no mention of my suggestions, which, to me, implies that you don't want the truth to come out!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In the same way I trust long-term friends off-line more deeply than a stranger. I have past experience and recognition to help me.


 * This is a "community"! No one has the right to dictate who's trustworthy and who's not.  If you see a stranger on the street who's attending to his duty, are you to automatically assume that he must be doing it "wrong" because he is someone that you happen not to know?!  Who says you and your belief system are so "qualified" to pass judgment?!  Your comments reek of bias and grant you and your friends the automatic ability to censor those whom you do not like!  That's all that has happened here with me, and we all know it.  Some of us just will not admit it!  I'm sure there are others who have come to respect me and my integrity deeply, either at this I.P. address or any of my countless others.152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I always try to assume good faith 


 * "Try"? Is that your scapegoat?  You "tried" it with me, and it just didn't work?  You've been biased towards me from the start--my efforts to be peaceful towards you got me nowhere!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * with new and anon users of course, but when that assumption is backed up by good experience then I trust it more and more. It's not possible to do this without a constant identity.


 * My current static I.P. address' contribution history prior to last week alone proves that I am dedicated to furthering and expanding this project! Oddly enough, no one, save me, makes mention of it.  Wouldn't want people to have good reason to want to keep me around, would ya?!  As stated earlier, I offered to expose myself by revealing all my contributions from early 2003 till present.  You ignored my diplomacy, as usual!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I said: "it seems clear to me that your behaviour warrants the ban", you replied: "Under whose law?" - under the policies of Wikipedia, as I have explained.


 * Policies which have been written and dictated by those of you in power! As I have stated, Jimbo Wales does not allow for "blocking" of people based on disagreement, conflict, or a difference of opinion, inlcluding what some pussies may consider "attacks" (fuck...when I rape your mother, then you can tell me I've "attacked" someone!); the only legitimate useage of blocking is to prevent bot vandlism and trolling.  I read it here with my own eyes!  Aggression and "attacking", while discouraged, can only be expected from those who've been attacked.  It is a shame, however, next time I will know to file charges against people here the moment they say or so something that offends me.  Had I known this, and had I filed a complaint against Mike H from the moment he questioned my neutrality, this issue would have been settled honestly!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course you can express your unhappiness if you feel an action is unjustified - how you do that is important. You did so in an inappropriate and out-of-proportion way.  That is unacceptable.


 * Did not! Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck!  Fuck you, fuck yo' momma, and fuck your little dog too!  Is this "inappropriate?  I sure as hell don't think so.  Don't like the word "fuck", remove this: fuck!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You said: "Who is to say that my questions on Hyacinth's user page were not supposed to be there? Perhaps he is a friend of mine who asked that I edit his page for him".  That was clearly not so.  


 * "Clearly"? How could one whose mind is as cloudy as yours be "clear" of anything?!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There was no doubt in my mind on that, from the style and content of the message, and Mike H's knowledge of Hyacinth as a fellow Wikipedian would also have led him to understand this.


 * Mike H is infallable, huh?152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking after name-space pages, including user pages is valued, as is watching article pages. User pages are primarily the responsibility of the user in question, but minor edits (such as spelling fixes) are usually considered OK, as is fixing vandalism. 


 * "Usually considered"? What's that mean?  Many would likely "usually consider" asking a person a question on what's defined as his page to be alright, too!  Maybe it's not the most "standard" way that some of you choose to do things, but there ain't shit wrong with it in my eyes!  Dubbing me a "vandal" and an "attacker" for it is out of line!  You Montanas seriously need to get your heads out of the clouds and join the "real world"!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * User pages that have content outside that permitted by our policies are also sometimes edited or deleted. The general content of user pages is decided by the user in question (unless, as I've said, it is outside that permitted by our policies) and any changes to that are likely to be reverted by anyone noticing.


 * That is atrocious! The user should at least be allowed to justify himself!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You asked: "But, would my email not be filtered out as spam?". No, I currently do not filter my e-mail, I check it carefully each day.  This would only change if the amount of spam I started receiving becomes unmanageable.


 * Why, pray tell, would you think I'd want to email you? So you could further harass me?!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You said: "What good is my "politness" if you have been sent to interfere in this conflict for the sole purpose of forcing me off of this site?!". 


 * I have not been sent here in any way. Like the others involved, the situation caught my eye and I hoped I would have something helpful to contribute to the discussion.


 * You "discuss" nothing. You demand, you dictate, and you bring partiality to the table!  You yourself said that you could not neutrally update an article about the Doberman.  This is clear evidence that you are a heavily biased individual.  I myself own a Doberman and strongly believe that the ear-cropping and tail-cutting should be a criminal offense in all nations, however I was more than able to update the article without brining bias to it!  Though, one such as yourself would likely try to claim that I did not highlight the negatives of the cropping enough, or whatever else, in order to put your own spin into the article, as Mike H has attempted to do!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That hope is now fading. It seems nothing will be achieved here except disappointment and frustration for us both.


 * "Both"? You just want to banish me from this site that I used to thoroughly enjoy!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe that the quickest and more effective solution to this dispute at this point would be for you to leave. 


 * Well, I believe the most effective solution would be for all whose bias clouds their neutrality, such as yourself, Hyacinth, and Mike H, leave! I did nothing wrong, but I have been victimized each and every step of the way, while the true criminals walk free without so much as a scolding by their "peers" (read, the ones they're in bed with in order to further their own greedy and biased agendas!)!!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * But that is not an order or any kind, merely my opinion and my advice to you.  Perhaps it is foolish to give advice that is unlikely to be taken, but I give it anyway in the spirit of good faith and optimism. 


 * "Optimism"? Is that what you call it when you help to "solve" a problem!152.163.252.100 18:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I see no point in responding, this discussion is over. -- sannse (talk) 19:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You're in an uncomfortable position: you know I'm right, but admitting so would mean contradicting and screwing over your friends. Whatever!  Peer pressure!  It was never something I've understood.  But, I guess I'll just have to learn to live in a world where I'm one of a select few who don't fall victim to it.  Maybe, one day, when you're old and skanky, you won't care what others think of you and you'll be able to stand up for what's right.  But, in the meantime, I will not be holding my breath!205.188.116.10 02:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well obviously we are going to have a different perception of this. The reason I have drawn this to a close is not because I agree with you, but because I see no prospect of reasonable discussion with you.  If you wish to believe otherwise, so be it. -- sannse (talk) 16:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Whatever! I remain one of the few reasonable regular contributors to this project.  Your claim that I'm not reasonable is merely your scapegoat.  We both know I'm right and we both know that we both know I'm right.  Deny it all you want, in a futile attempt to save face with your friends, but you're the one who has to live with yourself and your dishonesty every day.  I'm not losing sleep over any thing.  I'm just saddened for those of you who felt the need to blow things out of proportion.205.188.116.10 22:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Anon, if you were offended, you could have just discussed it with me. I have edited Ambivalenthysteria's (rather mild) comment. -- sannse (talk) 21:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought you're not game to discuss things anymore. I wasn't offended, just as I haven't been offended by anyone here. I was pissed at the hypocrisy, as usual. It's like something's an "attack" only if the corrupt cabal of people who are here 24/7 and force their wills on everyone else says it's an attack. That person could have called me a "fucker", or anything else, and something tells me no one would have cared to delete it.64.12.116.11 23:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, it is not a "mild" comment for her to accuse a prominent attorney and law-abiding American citizen of having committed treason. These vandals are now spreading word that I have broken the most serious of my country's laws. Again, not that I care, but let's at least practise some equality here. Why should some people be allowed to say whatever the hell they want and others not? They can call me anything they want. They're not offending me, they're not ruining my reputation, online or off-, so I don't care. They can hit me with all they've got. But, I become pissed off when the playing field is heavily skewed in one direction! If this is something you cannot understand, you're just exhibiting your bias, yet again.64.12.116.11 00:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right. I do decline any further discussion with you.  Enough is enough.  Your recent edits to my user page and your inability to see the difference between your messages on this page and Ambivalenthysteria's are really enough to convince me of the futility of this.  If you want to discuss any aspect of your ban I suggest you try the arbitration committee (with a new request, not a replacement of an old one) or a direct e-mail to Jimbo (You could use a disposable Yahoo account if you wish to keep your primary address private).


 * I will add three things for the record - firstly I have not removed attacks from you on this page other than the last extreme and obscene message. For example you called Guanaco an "evil, power-mad pyschophant" and I did not remove this - hardly evidence of double standards.  And, although I'm sure you understand this anyway, the name "Mr Treason" refers to allegations you made against others and is not an allegation against you.  Finally, and again for the record, I'm female and so do not have a dick.  -- sannse (talk) 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right.


 * Thank you, as we've all known all along.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I do decline any further discussion with you. Enough is enough.  Your recent edits to my user page 


 * Someone blocked my ability to edit your discussion page, so I had to reinstate my comments to your user page. Take it up with the banners!205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * and your inability to see the difference between your messages on this page and Ambivalenthysteria's 


 * No difference. An attack is an attack.  I've been banned several times over for far milder offenses.  It's quite ludicrous that having a difference of opinion with someone and calling them every 4-letter word in the book merits the same punishment.  I'm punished for doing nothing, so why not at least have some fun with it? :)  Wiki justice is nonexistent, but fighting for the Wiki rights of others who've been oppressed will satisfy me, whilst all the legal mumbo-jumbo is going through its processing.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * are really enough to convince me of the futility of this.


 * Believe what you want to believe and say what you want to say. The only thing futile about this site is the expectation of justice from it.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss any aspect of your ban 


 * "Ban"? I didn't realize that it only happened once.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest you try the arbitration committee (with a new request, not a replacement of an old one) or a direct e-mail to Jimbo (You could use a disposable Yahoo account if you wish to keep your primary address private).


 * They're all biased, as I have made attempts to bring my issues to all of them. The arbitration committee evidently does not know the meaning of the word "threat", as does nary a soul who posts to this site with exception of me.  And, I've concluded, this site's president is not here to allieviate issues of racism and intolerance present here; rather, he is the root cause of all that is injust and biased at this site.  Also, he does not know the meaning of the term "Marxism", and his only manner of responding to a critical message is an ad hominem argument (an "attack" in layman's terms, so that you cannot pretend not to understand me).  In fact, the ad hominem response seems all that any of you are capable of.  I'd love to, just once, see any of you say something logical or rational!  I don't think it's all that likely, but I'd not be wasting my time with you if I thought it could not happen!205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I will add three things for the record - firstly I have not removed attacks from you on this page other than the last extreme and obscene message. 


 * Yup, but so what? I was not complaining about your removal of anything but that remark.  I directed an assaulting comment at an idiot who was audacious enough to attack me first.  An eye for an eye, let's remember, lest justice not be served otherwise (which, here, it is not).205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * For example you called Guanaco an "evil, power-mad pyschophant" 


 * A factual statement, not an attack. He contributes to this site for attention, for a sense of self-worth, and because it gives him what's likely his only chance to attain a position of power in life.  That, by definition, is evil, power-hungry, and sycophantic.  Since his mental facilities are apparently unable to comprehend why and how that which he does is immoral, he's therefore also pyschotic.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * and I did not remove this - hardly evidence of double standards.


 * Well, I was banned for doing nothing other than stating the truth about him. He's called me far worse on his own page.  Again, I do not believe in censorship of any kind, so I would never delete negative comments about me; instead, I would (and do) refute them.  If you don't like what someone's saying, prove them wrong!  Don't bitch and moan about it!  However, whenever I said something that he disliked, it ended with my being banned.  If you do not agree that this is "evidence of double standards", you are an irrational person.  Am I now attacking you?  Nope.  I'm stating a fact: if you can't comprehend the logical thought process, then you are, by definition, irrational.  As I have stated, I don't care who says what about me--but remove my ability to rebutt and disprove falsifications, and you're going to piss me off.  Simple logic, once again.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * And, although I'm sure you understand this anyway, the name "Mr Treason" refers to allegations you made against others 


 * Of course I understand that, however...205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * and is not an allegation against you. 


 * ...with my ability to defend myself stripped from me, how can I be so sure that others understand that? For the umpteenth time: they can say any damn thing they want.  I'm not here to censor anyone, and I do not support the censorship of any comment, no matter how "offensive" some individual, over-sensitive prude might find it.  But, if anything goes, then anything goes.  If they can dub me "Treason", then I obviously am entitled my legal right to argue against such a name; I am entitled to use technical legal terms in expressing myself; and I am entitled to say whatever I bloody please about anyone else here.  Remove my liberties, and, hell yes, I will make sure to screw with theirs.  Frankly, I'd prefer to see you replace both my and her "offensive" comments, and we can let logic and justice dictate what happens from there.  However, knowing what I know about this place's injustice system, it is most reasonable to assume that only one of the two parties would be permitted their complete freedoms.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Finally, and again for the record, I'm female 


 * Of course you are. You're the woman who would not struggle and fight against a rapist or a murderer.  How could I forget that example of lunacy?205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * and so do not have a dick. -- sannse (talk) 19:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you've got a dildo somewhere.205.188.116.10 01:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-

READ THIS
Look at your User Page history and then get back to me with your "justification" of your friends' latest travesty to this project!172.163.151.39 01:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As I've said to you on several occasions (presuming you are the same Anon) my user page is not the right place to contact me. I will not respond in any way to messages left there and thank all those that have kindly reverted you on that page. -- sannse (talk) 16:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[Comments removed]


 * No, that's because it's my User page. You are fully aware that blanking user pages and replacing the contents with your comments is considered vandalism.  And you are fully capable of using talk pages.  Of course, I am quickly being reminded of the futility of any discussion with you.  I was intending to ask others not to remove your comments from this page, but I will not respond to threats such as those in your last edit comment.  From now on you are not welcome to edit this page and any editor is more than welcome to remove any comments you leave here.  Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)