Meta-Thread On Fascism, The Essence Of Injustice Options

[Jonny Cache]

Resource Thread

I will use this thread to collect previous posts and relevant resources on Fascism and its kindred species of Polis State Kraft.

Jon Awbrey

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[Saltimbanco]

Oh, sweet Jesus.

Wikipedia is a project. It is not the government. Aside from the matter of individual articles defaming people (something that any media that carries information on people has the potential to do), everyone is free to avoid the damn thing.

By way of illustration, let's consider a fascistic organization that most of us are familiar with: the corporation. Corporations are extremely fascistic. If you belong to (i.e., are an employee of) a corporation, you have (at least under US law) essentially zero rights with regard to the corporation. About the only right you have is not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. Beyond that, if the control apparatus of the corporation does not find that you contribute to its mission, you're out.

And shouldn't Wikipedia be this way? If we believed that Wikipedia's control apparatus accurately promoted the quality of the encyclopedia (it doesn't, but play along with me for a moment ...), then should it have any qualms about not being "fair" to particular editors whom it finds not to contribute?

This is not to say that Wikipedia's workings should not be subject to law. Wikipedia cannot kill someone for the good of the project. But it can, and it should be able to, deny all access to someone, just as any private corporation can fire an employee and bar him from its property.

[AB]

This is not to say that Wikipedia's workings should not be subject to law. Wikipedia cannot kill someone for the good of the project. But it can, and it should be able to, deny all access to someone, just as any private corporation can fire an employee and bar him from its property.

If denying access was all they did to people, it wouldn't be a problem.

However, they have threatened physical violence. They have defamed
people, on top of Google. They have dragged people's names through
the dirt on top of Google and prohibited them from responding. They
have violated people's privacy.

Additionally, I've never heard of anyone getting fired after they have
already quit. WP bans people all the time after they have already left.

[Saltimbanco]

If denying access was all they did to people, it wouldn't be a problem.

However, they have threatened physical violence. They have defamed
people, on top of Google. They have dragged people's names through
the dirt on top of Google and prohibited them from responding. They
have violated people's privacy.

Additionally, I've never heard of anyone getting fired after they have
already quit. WP bans people all the time after they have already left.

Threatening physical violence is a crime, namely assault. If a crime has been committed against you, I suggest that you file a police complaint. If it was on Wikipedia, probably some jurisdiction in Florida is the appropriate authority, but in any case it should be easy enough to find out.

If you were naive enough to participate on Wikipedia non-anonymously, such that there was a reasonable expectation that someone making physical threats against you might be able to follow through on them, I expect that you will be taken seriously when you file your complaint. Probably no charges will ever be filed, but I bet Jimbo would spill his coffee if he got a certified letter from a police department asking him for identifying information on someone who has used his project in the commission of a crime. WR-ers might recall that that a**hole Phil Sandifer got to chat with the po-lice about some stupid psychotic fiction that he had posted online; I think if they get their knickers in a wad about something like that, they ought to take an interest in a case where the victim is actually an identifiable person.

[AB]

If denying access was all they did to people, it wouldn't be a problem.

However, they have threatened physical violence. They have defamed
people, on top of Google. They have dragged people's names through
the dirt on top of Google and prohibited them from responding. They
have violated people's privacy.

Additionally, I've never heard of anyone getting fired after they have
already quit. WP bans people all the time after they have already left.

Threatening physical violence is a crime, namely assault. If a crime has been committed against you, I suggest that you file a police complaint. If it was on Wikipedia, probably some jurisdiction in Florida is the appropriate authority, but in any case it should be easy enough to find out.

Well, let's see. There are a number of people who have committed
actual violence against me, not just threatened it. If I were going
to go to court, it would make sense to start with them. I tried that
once, against someone who had violently molested me. I wasn't
trying to prosecute him or sue him, I just wanted to be protected
from having to see him again. I lost even that.

In other words, just because something is a crime doesn't mean
the police or the courts will give a damn. All-in-all, it's easier to just
get out of town. Which still costs money, but is easier than taking
loans from a credit card company to pay a lawyer who doesn't even
do a half-way decent job fighting for you.

Additionally, the person was using Tor and a throw-away Gmail
account. We don't actually know what the person's WP account
is, but the person claimed to be acting 'for the good of Wikipedia'.

If you were naive enough to participate on Wikipedia non-anonymously, such that there was a reasonable expectation that someone making physical threats against you might be able to follow through on them, I expect that you will be taken seriously when you file your complaint. Probably no charges will ever be filed, but I bet Jimbo would spill his coffee if he got a certified letter from a police department asking him for identifying information on someone who has used his project in the commission of a crime. WR-ers might recall that that a**hole Phil Sandifer got to chat with the po-lice about some stupid psychotic fiction that he had posted online; I think if they get their knickers in a wad about something like that, they ought to take an interest in a case where the victim is actually an identifiable person.

This is where it gets complicated.

1. I participated on WP pseudonymously. Using Tor. They banned
me because of that.
2. WP outed me. The actual person who did this did so by accident.
Note that this was a hint as to my identity, not my actual identity.
3. I tried to get the information removed.
4. An arbitrator publicly attacked me just for asking the material to
be blanked by an OTRS member.
5. The ArbCom ignored my request for help in getting the material
removed.
6. AW found the material, and started threatening to use it to find
me, make me pay, turn me black and blue, etc., if Somey and I did
not comply with certain demands. (I was demanded to stop
contributing to WR and delete all my postings here. Somey was
demanded to delete the Editors forum.)
7. AW came close to discovering my identity, but ultimately failed,
though maybe he is still trying.

This post has been edited by AB: