Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Henry[edit]

You are the subject of a RfC. The recommended course of action is a permanent block on all your accounts. --Gorgonzilla 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major/minor edits[edit]

Please do not mark major changes as minor edits. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Abramoff[edit]

Jack Abramoff is not a candidate for speedy deletion, please stop marking it as such. If you feel it should be deleted, take it to WP:CP or WP:AfD. --fvw * 04:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read thhe discussion. I've already proven it is. --John Henry 04:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; if you add the tag again you will be blocked (and for the record, I am an administrator). --fvw * 04:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that he was also doing this on the related Reed-Abramoff Indian Gambling Scandal article, I have blocked him for an hour. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, you have not cited any valid CSD. You have also broken the WP:3RR - inserting an invalid {{db}} tag does not allow you be break the 3RR. At least 3 admins have removed the tag because it is invalid. Guettarda 05:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be happy to know you have convinced me to report Gorgonzilla's crime to the image's owner. He is an embarrassment to all Wikipedia, wikipedians and producers of intellectual property everywhere. Why are you trying to cover for his criminality? --John Henry 05:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I have added a report of your covering for Gorgonzilla's criminality to the images owner. I can't imagine Wikipedia will approve of that, can you? --John Henry 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phrased like this, it amounts to a legal threat, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Please refrain from legal threats against Wikipedia or Wikipedians. Since there are no images in this article at present, and since the image itself is not in the page history, I don't understand what the rationale is. Can you explain how your actions are in the best interests of Wikipedia? Guettarda 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are wrong. I made no legal threat. I have no power to act on Gorgonzilla's crimes. I reported a crime and coverup, as is my civic duty, to the images owners. They are the only ones who can take action. If any threats are to be made they will be made by the images' owners. I believe the statute of limitations is 5 years. If you don't hear from them by then you should be home free. --John Henry 05:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat odd that someone who has claimed to be a lawyer would make such an incautious series of defamatory statements. If there was any copyright violation it would be a civil tort, not a criminal offense. False allegations of criminal behavior are defamatory. In this particular case the article was created from material which had separately been edited on the Reed, Norquist and Abramoff pages. The images were copied across with the rest of the content before any copyright notice appeared on their pages.

The initial copyright violation notice was posted less than 2 minutes after the content was moved from the Reed page. The content has since been entirely rewritten.

A 'speedy delete' is advice, not a right. An administrator can dispose of a speedy delete request with a speedy keep. This is exactly what has happened here. Two administrators have told you that the tag use is inappropriate. A CFP has been filed against you. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Henry

It is somewhat odd that you would lie like that. I never claimed to be a lawyer and I challenge you to prove me wrong. A lie about someone in print exposes people to a "civil tort." Especially a malicious lie like even suggesting they might be a lawyer. See that it does not happen again. --John Henry 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm staying neutral in this discussion, but I am an attorney, and I'd like to point out that under our common law, the only false statements that are deemed per se malicious are:

claims that an individual has engaged in criminal conduct
claims that an individual is incompetent or untrustworthy in the conduct of their trade, business, or profession
claims that an individual is carrying a loathsome disease
claims of unchastity in a woman

Claiming that someone is a lawyer is still not considered malicious, as being admitted to the practice of law is a privilege and an honor (and I'm quite sure that Jack Abramoff would agree with me on that point, as would many other solid conservatives such as John Ashcroft, Antonin Scalia, Orrin Hatch, and Anne Coulter, all proud lawyers). For false statements that are not per se malicious, the burden is on the plaintiff in a civil case that they suffered actual damage, i.e. they must present evidence that the statement caused them to lose business or inflicted some similar pecuniary damage. Cheers! BD2412 ^talk 21:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming someone is a lawyer is clearly malicious as it diminishes their character. There are way way too many lawyers who are cheats, ambulance chasers, liars, and general malcontents among the "profession" for it to be considered otherwise. Why else would there be so many lawyer jokes? Even Shakespere advised (paraphrasing) 'the first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers.' I'm apolitical moderate so your nonsense about how many right wing lawyers there are means little to me. A pox on all your houses. --John Henry 21:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have that opinion of the legal profession, as I know of very few lawyers who really fit a negative description. In any event, I'm not expressing my opinion of what consitutes a malicious claim, merely pointing out the law as applied by the 44 states that recognize defamation per se. You can see the list here. BD2412 ^talk 22:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Hubble, Spiro Agnew, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Jim Wright, Daniel Rostenkowski, nearly the entire cast of the House Banking Scandal, nearly the entire cast of the House Post Office scandal, need I continue with examples? I indict the rest of your "profession" even if they were not involved as so many among them defended each and every one of these clowns and still defend many of them to this day. When you choose to pal with liars or extremists it reflects upon you, not them. You choose your friends. Lawyers have never chosen wisely. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. --John Henry 00:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I remind you again that the object of your editing attention, Jack Abramoff, is a member of that illustrious club of "liars or extremists". But then, so were John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, some of our worst presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant and Herbert Hoover, had no legal training. The number of scandalous figures with no law degree is beyond count. But ultimately, a legal education is a tool, a connection to a collection of information that enables individuals to pursue desires that would otherwise be outside of their ability to achieve. Some are empowered to greatly improve the lives of millions; others surrender to their basest greed for money, power, or glory. Those that falter (or succeed) are not representative of lawyers, but of humans since time immemorial in a position of power relative to their peers. BD2412 ^talk 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I need to remind you that I have not written anything laudatory about Abramhoff. I have instead tried to put some sanity and honesty in an article filled with lunatic LW conspiracy theories, LW blog material, unsupported innuendo and guilt by association claims. No judge would allow such nonsense to stand in court there is clearly no reason to let it stand on Wikipedia. The Abramoff article is among the worst articles on Wikipedia for that reason. --John Henry 06:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User:172.197.10.43 on Ronnie Earle, the prose style closely matches the style of earlier LJS posts and is clearly continuing the same argument. --Gorgonzilla 04:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be foolish. Think of how many misguided posters agree with your LW extremism. How many do you converse with at MoveOn.Org, anyway? I'm sure there are a few posters here and there that agree with me also. --John Henry 04:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Earle[edit]

Please do not mark you (RW) historical revisionism as restoration of "text deleted by a LW extremist". These kinds of comments are incendiary and do not lend well to your credibility.

So far, this first line has been changed back and forth by a series of wikipedians. All this results in is strife and misunderstandings, and eventually a ban. We need your help. Don't do this.

The big picture is that that part of the article did not read well.

I have made a few changes that should put an end to this POV RW/LW war. The point is that Earle indicted Murray in 1996 and then she was mishandled. The charges of racism happened much later. The introductory statement was needed to tie the case to the overall story of who Ronnie Earle is.

Let me know if this helps. kgrr ^talk 13:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]