As this is an IP user is this even necessary, can't he or she simply be blocked?AndyL 19:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this whole page is really unnecessary now. I think the IP in question should let bygones be bygones, if everything is as cleared up as he or she purports, and just continue editing. I know I don't have any hard feelings, so neither should he/she. Mike H 00:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Look, Mike, I've NEVER had any hard feelings and I've been TRYING to get that point across to you from day one. Regardless, whatever I said to try to clear up misconceptions; explain my point of view; explain my reasons for writing stuff which, to you, seemed biased; apologize; what have you, you seemed to become more and more hellbent on escalating this conflict and blowing things out of proportion! Even what you wrote above, about ME needing to "let bygones be bygones" is offensive, as I've been the one trying to do just that from the start. Meanwhile, you're thwarting my every effort to contact Hyacinth about something UNRELATED to what you and I were discussing, even after I offered SEVERAL explanations as to why I was trying to contact him (as if I owed you one). You're filing formal complaints against me, you're getting your friends to ban my cable I.P. address, causing a slew of extra pain-in-the-ass issues for me with AOL. You're purposely exaggerating and lying that I'm HARASSING Hyacinth when all I ever did to him was ask him a simple question (once HE gave me attitude, I gave it to him back, but he seems to have gotten nicer recently and has even offered me helpful information about certain things). At every turn, it was YOU who seemed to want to create a conflict with me, and the last straw was when you and your three friends literally FABRICATED "attack" claims against me in order to create trouble.

I was, and am, fully prepared to take legal action, as what I see is my last option, but I thoroughly do not want to do so. When you're involved in law, you're probably even less likely than others to want to be directly involved in court cases. But, I know my legal rights and was (am) prepared to do what I must if people on the net (anywhere, not just here) insist on victimizing people and breaking other laws just because they feel the net is not under jurisdiction of law (most definitely not true).

OF COURSE I find the whole banning and filing of complaints unnecessary and ridiculous, and would love to get back to my normal Wikipedia activities. But, what am I in a position to do right now save defend myself from ludicrous accusations? It's the four of you who are continuing and creating hostilities where they don't/didn't even exist. "Neutrality" (a prime example of irony if I ever saw one) and Guanaco are two people with whom I'd never exchanged a single word, and all of a sudden they're making libelous accusations against me? If you can't understand why I'd be just a bit pissed at all four of you, regardless of anything that happened involving Missy Elliott, you're really not looking at the situation neutrally.

But, I've said my piece. I hope you don't choose to over-analyze everything I've said respond with something hostile. Why you'd think I WOULDN'T want this situation to end is something I haven't understood from the start. I would, however, like to see an apology from the one who's banned me and an explanation for his actions. Regardless of this whole situation, his overall behavior as a person with banning privileges suggests that he should not have such privileges.68.36.175.254 16:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Check the page history. I did not file the complaint against you. In fact, I was asked to and I refused. I merely signed it and said that was how the encounter went. It was how it went. I am really not out to get you. I promise. I think I should make that clear. Mike H 16:56, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. It seemed that Hyacinth had no problems with me since he told me how to do: "68.36.175.254 05:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)". And, because he spoke of himself in the third person, I immediately assumed you must have been the one to create the page, especially since he seemed to be making the same misguided accusation (personal attacks) that you had made. I assumed he had understood the reason why I needed to get into contact with him, but I guess he didn't. IMO, he probably referred to himself in the third person when filing the "attack" charge in order to make you look like the one who was doing it. Again, I'm sorry...but once again I'm in the position where it doesn't really matter what you or I think of this situation. If the other four are hellbent on having me banned from Wikipedia, I'm going to have to do whatever I have to do to defend myself. I see that Guanaco hasn't reinstated my banning, whic suggests that he at least knows what he did was wrong. For the time being, I'm able to defend myself through this site, fortunately, but the other four of them don't seem to have answers to any of my questions. Instead, they blank out whatever they don't agree with. Interesting...68.36.175.254 05:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wrote in the third person as indicated by the instructions and previous examples from "Wikipedia:Requests for comment", "To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

/Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts; do not sign entry.}" (bolding mine, italics in original)

I definitely have problems with your behaviour, especially towards me, thus my request for a comment. I have not "blanked" any of your messages on talk pages. If, by your "blanked" "questions" you mean your postings on pages and spaces not intended for discussion, which may have been removed by other editors or administrators, by all means feel free to re-enter any text you feel was blanked in the appropriate places in a polite manner.

Hyacinth 06:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FIRST OFF, I don't have to be "polite" to ANYONE who is going out of their way to ruin my reputation (GOOD THING all I've got is an I.P. address--what fucking sane person would want their real-name known by a bunch of sociopaths like you and your friends?), file fraudulent charges against me (when *I* should be the one filing against YOU, but I've thus far been kind enough not to press anything, at Wikipedia or otherwise), and try to get me removed from this site, after I've likely been here longer and contributed more than ANY of you upstarts. You've been here three months?! WOW!! I've been here since February-ish of LAST YEAR! I never ran into any serious problems with ANYONE here in all that time, until I came across you! So, tell me, WHO'S the one with the issues--me or you?

Secondly, I post my questions in response to whatever the closest loon is claiming about me! Fuck that having to go to a different page--I DON'T follow your self-imposed rules! I communicate on these pages as if I'm responding to an email or a newsgroup post. This way, you can't claim to have not seen my comments. Still, you somehow TRY to do that. It ain't working!

If you wouldn't mind posting all questions which you have posed to me and I have left unanswered here, I will answer presently (for others, I consider a week a timely response online).

Hyacinth 06:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A week? I don't think so. What--are you going to call in your lawyer or something? It's pointless...whoever you might have to defend you, he cannot win. You've got no ground, legal or even Wiki-custom, to stand on whatsoever!

What does it matter how long either of us has been here?

Hyacinth 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You and your friends, who are racist against Wikipedi members who are identified only by I.P. address, have claimed time and again that I don't know what I'm doing and that I am new here. Mike, who's been here a frigging MONTH, originally lectured me on how I "SHOULD" know MORE about the Wikipedia if I've "REALLY" been here as long as I "CLAIM" to have been. There's something to be said for the fact that I've been writing articles here for EIGHTEEN months, and I've had NO serious problems with anyone until I met you! In all likelihood, I should be the one censoring you five's comments not only because they are lies, but also because I have seniority over you. PERSONALLY, I don't think seniority, knowledge, experience, date of firs contribution, profession, age, point of view, or ANYTHING else should dictate who can control what "can" and "can't" be said and how a person "can" and "can't" go about saying it. To suggest that certain people, such as yourself, Mike, or Guanaco, are somehow "better" than others is nothing more than racism against a certain group of people (in this case, most notably those of us who use I.P. addresses), and racism against ANY people is not something I tolerate!152.163.252.100 19:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was asking you to give me at least a week to respond before you being to SHOUT that I was ignoring you.

Hyacinth 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't care. Take your time to respond, by all means. Theoretically, my quotes SHOULD remain here, at MY page, indefinitely, as I see fit to keep there here. I'd leave my questions here for months if that's the time it took for them to be answered. I am a patient man. However, patience, here, in a place where dictators feel that have the right to censor others (including, most notably, legitimate arguments which call into question their corrupt policies), is not a virtue. If I wait a week, your hope is that by that point I will have forgotten my questions or have been permanently banned and therfore unable to ask my questions; while at the same time, your abusive friend Guanaco is removing my valid comments and questions, in hopes that I am never able to ask them again and that he will never be forced to give an answer to something that he CAN'T truthfully answer without incriminating himself!152.163.252.100 19:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I am unable to find questions you posed to me which I left unanswered.

Hyacinth 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As am I. I'd assume this was Guanaco's goal. For the time being, it's worked. His multiple attempts at banning me before I'd get the chance to remember the questions, however, have not!152.163.252.100 19:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To use wikipedia one must follow wikipedia policy, which requires you to be polite, and to post messages in the correct places.

Hyacinth 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I had always done until I realized that there are a corrupt lot of people who'd abuse their powers, falsify and exaggerate claims, and single-handedly act to prevent people from exercising their WIKI rights and their legal American rights. Guanaco owes me, and others an apology, and MUST abdicate his position.152.163.252.100 19:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You could simply check the edit histories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:68.36.175.254, for instance) of the pages on which you posed questions to me, then repost them on my talk page: User talk:Hyacinth. The detailed edit history, along with the rememberance of your own actions, should make it a breeze for you to find them. I will notice them right away and respond on your talk page. Hyacinth 19:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of taking actions and actions against you which I have not. Hyacinth 19:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IPs

So we blocked 68.36.175.254 for a day.

Try three different days. "Yous" did nothing. One of you, Guanaco, did something of his own volition--I had no say in the matter! Thanks to you people, my holiday was spent in the courthouse, instead of at the BBQ I had planned to attend!205.188.116.11 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now Anon is back and up to the same old tricks. As promised, it appears Anon has been using other IPs: User:152.163.253.98, User:148.136.141.172,

Yes, and yes, I have.205.188.116.11 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

and User:RulerRuler

Not me; don't act like I'm the only one you've harassed and given reason to harass you back..205.188.116.11 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

have all vandalized my user page today. I assume that at least one of them is also our Anon, though they may simply be friends.

I don't use my friends to fight my battles.205.188.116.11 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do we deal with this? Hyacinth 19:16, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apologize? Call for Guanaco's resignation? Admit you were wrong? Remove this page?205.188.116.11 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anon IP's response

I am moving this to the talk page. It's a rebuttal of sorts, but I did not read it all the way through so I did not feel like moving it to response. If anyone wishes, they can move it to response for me/him.

(User:68.36.175.254 | talk | contributions)

As this is my page, I am placing this important information where I want to place it, so that people cannot make excuses about not having seen it. Things I've written here that have been censored:

In response to Guanaco: I put the comments where they're most likely to be seen. If someone says something asinine, I'm going to rebut the ludicrous statement directly underneath it, so that all those who are supporting me against this barbarism can read what I have to say in context, such that it appears logically, in its place, and that my words cannot again be taken out of context by fascists with an agenda!

In the above, I basically state what I've already stated above. It is appalling that I am in a situation where I am being forced to justify why I place comments where I choose to place them. I could ask the same fucking thing to any of you! Methinks you'd have no legitimate answer. Hell, Guanaco couldn't even resond to my above explanation; instead he and his agents chose to remove it as if it had never existsed...INTERESTING!

From Guanaco: "Guanaco (rv - Put comments in the proper sections and stop the legal threats.)"

So, that's his response, I guess? He cannot answer my questions because my comments are not "in the proper sections". Curious! Surely a man so convinced of his righteousness as Guanaco is would not have to resort to an ad hominem argument...or would he? My coworkers, like me, are similarly disgusted by Guanaco's belief that there's something bad or "wrong" with a Wiki member's taking full advantage of our services (see his sarcastic comment above about my profession!)! When people's American rights are trampled (this is an American website and it is therefore subject to American Constitutional law, including the individual's right to file legal charges against those who would victimize him! As I pointed out to one of Guanaco's agents, it would be considered an act of treason for Wikipedia to remove its members' rights as, first and foremost, American citizens; people endorsing such an action cold be convicted of treason, not to mention extortion, in a court of law!

As has been blanked out several time at this very page:

"This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

Description:

Anonymous has twice questioned Hyacinth on his user page. Reasons given are Hyacinth's edits to Missy Elliott.

The above is no reason to ban someone!

I replied: "The question has been answered...where's the dispute? Go ahead, tell me...where is it?"

AND ALSO: "Question that remains to be answered: so, questioning someone to RESOLVE a problem is now considered a "dispute"?!"

I got no answer, from any of yous!

Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

User talk:Hyacinth, moved to User talk:Hyacinth/Words of wisdom from someone who's actually SANE

Talk:Main Page#Porno

I replied, "I said it, I said it! Telling it like it is! Self-defense from harassment and libel--nothing wrong with any of that from a legal standpoint."

Which is all the truth. I had no reason to attack anyone, until I was attacked, and subsequently censored first!

I went on to say:

Applicable policies:

68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)What these policies have to do with me, and how I violated any of them remains a mystery. SOMEONE please explain--don't just sit there! I want answers! If there's been such obvious violations that they warrant repeat blockings of my I.P. address, there must have been legitimate violations of SOME rule. As can be shown, there was no violation of EITHER of the following two policies, let alone a violation of both. READ:

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

I violated the above policy in self-defense. Those who have come under personal attack from me first instigated personal attacks ON me. It is acceptable Wikipedia policy to do to others what they do to you, so I have broken no Wiki rules! If this frivilous, libelous, and fraudulent accusation is NOT dropped, I will be forced to submit a Wiki complaint against the four people on this page, for personally attacking ME, prior to ANY of my attacks on them, in addition to the charges I'm planning to file against them in my county---since UPGRADED TO STATE---court of law.68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User page

INAPPLICABLE!! There is NOTHING on that page that I am in violationm of. READ IT! It details what is acceptable and what is not acceptable ON a member's Wikipedia USER PAGE. As Mike himself pointed out to me, I have no User Page. The above link is completely irrelevant--it's just more evidence that the fraudulent accusers are grasping at straws in order to quiet certain voices. I violated NOTHING listed at the above link, since I do not even have a User Page on which to violate any of the listed rules. This is not so for the four members who have filed the complaint against me, however, all of whom currently break the standards of acceptable use of User Pages several times over. These people who are arbitrarily filing charges against anyone and everyone with whom they disagree have the same level of legal understanding as do the lawyers who are futilely attempting to defend Saddam Hussein!68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, all of you, comment on the above three paragraphs, why don't you? What did you do instead? You deleted them. I rebutted both of your ludicrous claims against me. The ball's in your court now!

Also, answer the following:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

User talk:68.36.175.254 The "dispute" has already been resolved, as Hyacinth (FINALLY) explained what "Back In The Day" means. It's information about a Missy Elliott song title of the same name. Hence, it belongs on the Missy Elliott page!

PRAY TELL: If it was not Mike H who filed these ludicrous accusations against me, why are you quoting a conversation I had with him on *MY* user page as part of the "trying to resolute the 'dispute' (that doesn't exist) with Hyacinth?68.36.175.254 05:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And, to the three interlopers:

Other users who endorse this summary (sign with 152.163.253.33 19:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)):

Guanaco 17:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) A request for comment doesn't seem necessary for this kind of behavior. I have blocked the IP for 24 hours.

Neutrality 01:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cyrius|✎ 18:46, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) -- Anon is extremely combative and is now threatening lawsuits against those who question his behavior.

Do I know you? Have we met? Have I ever said a single word to you? Maybe our previous encounter somehow escapes me. As for "combative", tell your friends Hyacinth and Vuanaco to look in the mirror! The same questions above could be asked of "Neutrality"; Guanaco is horribly biased and therefore his comments are irrelevant!

MORONS who don't know their heads from their arseholes! (People who signed above--people who know nothing about me or this fabricated 'dispute')

Comment, please. I dare you! I double dare you. Tell me what I did wrong. Or are we playing 20 Questions now? This whole ordeal and the way you folks are going about it make Michael Jackson look sane by comparison!

The above few paragraphs are merely the tip of the iceberg. In filing my own, legitimate complaints against Guanaco and the rest of you, I will have to compile the above and all the rest of the evidence. Your blankings and revertings of the evidence has concealed nothing--it just causes me extra frustration and aggravation; it also makes your guilt look all the more certain because it makes you look all the more suspicious. Innocent, noble people, such as myself, have nothing to hide and are never ashamed of their comments--we can always back our statements up with reasons and facts. Guanaco can't now and can't ever. I will work on compiling the master file on his, including his hostile, unilateral aggression against me and dozens of others at this site. I've formed allegiances with others who've been unfairly harassed by Guanaco. His apology and resignation, or his appearance before a Newark Court of Law, is a certainty.152.163.253.33 19:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Harassment of My Profession

If you actually had any "lawyer friends" you had talked to, they would have told you that this is a private site and is not under any constitutional obligations to allow you to edit.

My "lawyer friends" are beside the point, since I myself am a prominent lawyer in my county. I consulted my coworkers, as well as friends and relatives with whom I attended law school, merely to offer myself some fresh perspective on the issue and ensure that my understanding of your crimes was sound and unbiased by my anger at you. My understanding was just peachy! You gotta know: it's a rarity, even for those of us in law, that one sees an organization that uses extortion to prevent people from exercising their rights. Your knowledge of law and/or your comprehension of my legal complaint against Guanaco is severely flawed. Could I press charges against a private site for blocking my ability to edit? Nope. But, is it a crime against our nation's integrity for any organization, even a "private" one, to prevent (by way of extortion) people from exercising their right to file suit against other individual for libel or slander? You bet! Those of you who did not attend law school probably do not understand these subtle differences. Basically, in laymen's terms: I AM NOT filing suit against Wikipedia for not allowing me to edit. I am filing suit against an individual for harassing me and justifying HIS personal not allowing me to edit by claiming that I'm "not allowed to 'threaten' a lawsuit" against his person. If indeed this were Wikipedia's policy, I could charge them criminally with treason, in violating the American Constitution, and with "extortion" (*). If this policy is not Wiki's policy, then I could charge Guanaco with fraud, and a slew of other criminal charges. Either way, someone broke a law.

(*) A legal term that basically means when an "authority figure" uses manipulatative tactics and/or threats [in this case, revoking one's ability to edit pages] in order to strip a "subordinate" of their rights [in this case, my right to defend my person in court]. If a powerful businessman threatens to fire his secretary unless she has sex with him, this is extortion. The woman is put into a position where she can either stand up for herself and be fired (thus, the threat of her being sent into financial instability is realized) or be extorted into screwing her boss (thus, she's stripped of her right not to be raped). In my situation, Guanaco didn't say, "give up your legal right not to be raped, or else lose your job", but he said, "give up your legal right to defend yourself, or else lose your ability to contribute". You're comparing the incongruent pieces of the syllogism if you think, "give up your legal right not to be raped, or else lose your job" would translate into "give up your legal right to contribute to Wikipedia or file charges against us". You're right...that would be ludicrous. I don't have the automatic legal "right" to contribute to this page, as the rape victim does not have the automatic legal "right" to work at her job. In extortion, a private organization threatens a public right! Thus, if Guanaco's statement that "exercising one's right to defend himself in a court of law is taken away if one wants to contribute here" is true, Wikipedia is as guilty of extortion for revoking our rights to defend ourselves as a private employer is guilty of revoking a woman's right not to be raped! Your understanding of the law sucks, in the vernacular!

They also would have told you that your belief that it is "an act of treason for Wikipedia to remove its members' rights as, first and foremost, American citizens", is utterly ludicrous and you would be laughed out of court.

Oh yeah? So Wikipedia can demand that all those who post here must invalidate the Constitution and all its rights (including the right to defend oneself publicly)? If so, extortion! My "treason" comment came from extrapolating as per recent "War On Terrorism" events and the ramifications that they've had on American law. Disregard for the Constitution is usually labelled "treason" these days because no private organization has the right to violate the Constitution! If I ran a business, I could not legally force anyone at my business not to say whatever the hell they want! If one of my employees were to tell a customer of mine, "fuck off!", I could fire the disruptive employee, if I so chose, but I could not press any kind of legal charge against him. So, Wikipedia may force any of its members away for any reason. But, like I said, a "law" preventing us from being able to exercise our Constitutional rights, by using extortion, is not Constitutional and is therfore illegal. My problem is not with Wikipedia--I've not threatened the organization, as I do not have a problem with it or its founders. I have civil problems with some of its members, who are my equals, who have used extortion in Wikipedia's name--and have used their extortive actions to justify their blocking of me. Again, this is similar to a woman having her right not to be raped revoked by her employer--not legal. The employer could fire the secretary for whatever reason he wanted to--but, extortion is not justifiable! Simple as that really!

Most importantly, you would have been informed that if you were really planning to file suit, you would be better off not continuing to shoot your mouth off. Your "I DON'T follow your self-imposed rules!" statement and the behavior associated with it would go a long way if we were to file to have you legally blocked from editing our site. Funny how that works. --

You said it yourself--you can't legally block someone from editing a frigging website! You cannot use my statements against me because expressing oneself is not illegal. Extortion is. Fraudulent, slanderous charges against someone are grounds to file a civil suit. Please, don't presume to lecture me in the field I have studied in school for the past five years and have practiced during the past three.172.132.1.86

Cyrius|✎ 17:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Harassment of My Person

Grow up, anonymous. You wrote:

Do I notice a "personal attack" above? Grow a dick, "Poor Ed" or whatever the fuck you call yourself! How's that for "grown up" and polite all in one?!205.188.116.11 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're purposely exaggerating and lying that I'm HARASSING Hyacinth when all I ever did to him was ask him a simple question (once HE gave me attitude, I gave it to him back, but he seems to have gotten nicer recently and has even offered me helpful information about certain things.

But if you admit "giving him attitude", then you know that you're in violation of site guidelines. Just be nice, and we can drop this. Otherwise, be elsewhere.

I have one word for you: fungula! How the fuck dare you expect me to "be nice" when you clearly acknolwedge the fact that Hyacinth initiated this conflict (well, technically Mike H did, but there will be a raft of Hell waiting for them both in Newark!), and you have presumably read (if you know to, that is) my comment above that I gave Hyacinth attitude after he did me?! Where the fuck is his "blocking", you bised old rug-mucher? There is nothing for me to drop: unless you folks call off your witchhunt against me and others, which is only made in vain attempts to get your fat asses promoted on this useless website (get real jobs, you pathetic rent-a-cops!), I will see you all in a Newark court of law starting next November! As I've said, the ball's in your court! Did mommy and daddy never teach you spoiled, white, rural hicks how to admit your mistakes and move on?! The Southern redneck with no sense of sarcasm, Mike, obviously does not know the meaning of the word apology! Neither does the hick Hyacinth who, because he's from KKK-central Montana, thinks everyone who says something with which he disagrees is a homophobic white-supremacist! You people and your world views are irrelevant; Hyacinth was correct: you people are uncultured, ignorant, and classless! Now go play with your guns. You like your guns? Newark has the highest per capita rate of gun murder in the nation. So, you see, we like our guns here too205.188.116.11 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On a broader note, I'm seeing far too much "Are too - am not!" bickering around here these past couple of months. Admins, please mentor our newbies so that things don't get out of hand like this. And if you need help, ask us old farts. :-) --Uncle Ed 01:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If the "admins" were not so corrupt, perhaps this would be possible! They're all in bed with each other for political gain around here. It makes sense, in a way, that those who will never make anything out of their lives in the "real world" (there is a world outside your mother's house, you know, that is accessable without the net--I know it's a shocker) must corrupt online organizations like Wikipedia. It's the only chance they'll ever get at being "powerful", I suppose....

Ed, call off your minions or you shall all appear before me in a court of law!205.188.116.11 17:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

205.188.116.11 has been blocked for 24 hours for serious violations of the no personal attacks policy. As to your lawsuit threats, it's time for you to put up or shut up. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You attacked me first, honey! I would haved banned your donkey-fucking dicklet ages ago; but that I am not, as an I.P. address, entitled to such privileges. Make your decision, you terror to end terrors, continue your aggression against me--or else face the consequences!149.174.164.7 19:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User proceeded to replace my user talk page with "I'll see you in Trenton next November, pal!" using the address 205.188.116.12, and blanked my user page using 205.188.116.210. Both addresses have been blocked for vandalism. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:19, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My pals in the capital have scheduled your arraingment there then. You will be formally charged shortly. You can expect your buddies Guanaco, Hyacinth, and Mike to join you--and all others who have contributed to this discussion will be subpoenaed to testify against you, you weak and pathetic interloper! You should have minded your own business, you fuckup!149.174.164.7 19:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User has blanked my user page again, and has replaced my talk page with " Ban me again, and risk losing more than just money!". User also added my name to Recent Deaths using 172.140.154.253. I am requesting an immediate hard ban on this user for making death threats. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Predicting your suicide after your foolish actions lead you to lose everything in your possession, including your freedom, is not a "death threat", dearie! Go take a course in law! My little cousins know more about our country's legal system than you do! And, I'm almost positive you'd rather kill yourself than spending even a night in either the Newark or the Trenton state prisons!149.174.164.7 19:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, do go ahead and press charges. Will this be in the state courts, or federal? -- Cyrius|✎ 19:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LEARN TO READ--I don't do federal law. I will begin with my civil suit against you, which will take place in Newark. Take a guess in which type of court you'll be charged in Trenton!149.174.164.7 20:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The imaginary kind? Well, good luck, and I hope the people in the New Jersey judiciary don't laugh at you too much. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A civil suit that'll end up with Cyrius in jail? Impressive. Snowspinner 21:07, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

No, you stunod. I said I would be nice and begin with the civil suit to reclaim my money lost having to pay for AOL dial-up cost! He's got plenty of criminal charges coming against him, namely fraud in misrepresenting a charitable organization, such as Wikipedia, who has no banning policy due to "personal attack", and definitely does not have one for differening opinions!172.132.53.15 21:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia most certainly does have a policy of no personal attacks, even allowing for bans. You committed every one of the five types of personal attack justifying a ban in the post about Ed Poor that I blocked you for.

Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.
'Did mommy and daddy never teach you spoiled, white, rural hicks how to admit your mistakes and move on?!'

'The Southern redneck with no sense of sarcasm, Mike, obviously does not know the meaning of the word apology!'
Political affiliation attacks (often, calling someone a Nazi)
'Neither does the hick Hyacinth who, because he's from KKK-central Montana, thinks everyone who says something with which he disagrees is a homophobic white-supremacist!'
Profanity directed against another contributor.
'How the fuck dare you expect me to "be nice'
Threats of legal action
'I will see you all in a Newark court of law starting next November!'
Death threats.
'Newark has the highest per capita rate of gun murder in the nation. So, you see, we like our guns here too'

I assume you already knew about this policy because a person who is probably you posted to that policy's talk page. I'm going to ignore you now, because it has become clear to me that you cannot be reasoned with. All further comments on your part should be addressed to the arbitration committee. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

205.188.116.84 is Mr. Treason

I believe User:Mr. Treason is also 205.188.116.84.. He/she vandalized WhisperToMe's talk page [1]. I'm new at this so I have only blocked the IP for 24 hours, please feel free to extend it in accordance with the ban of Mr. Treason if you agree with my actions.

-JCarriker 05:18, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)