I'm banned from Wikipedia, but I wish to sue them as the ban is unfair.

Edited out of context...

 

No it is not a good case, you have not been damaged in any way. Nobody has to let you edit their website.

p.s. I went to see what this thread was about but you must be like one of 3 people I have on ignore. I had to take you off to see your old posts and see why I would have done that.

Now that I have, I remember you seem to have mental issues and pick fights on every forum or website that you participate in and have, not surprisingly, had problems on all of them. This appears to be more of the same. With your repeated history of being a trouble maker on web sites, even if you were to sue, you would get destroyed in a deposition for your history and pattern of abusing members of other websites and getting banned for what looks like good cause. I would suggest taking up smoking pot and chilling out - a lot, you seem way too wound up.

 

OMG browntwn you are so harsh.
@OP
No point in picking up fights on the internet. Real world is really messed up and full of hate and all sorts of bad things happening. Atleast we can pretend to be nice on the internet.

 

So the OP is
[h=1]Grace Saunders?[/h]

 

Seriously, on topic this time...

They did say I was unbanned (in May this year, otherwise I could not have been editing). Then they banned me again for blanking a page about myself. Also, you cannot deny that if a ED member says I did something wrong (after 4 or 5 years of having not done anything wrong on Wikipedia) then it's about them 95% lying, 5% covering their backs.

 

Did I miss something here? Is wiki pedia a government agency, or some public entity that has to allow anyone to be a member or are they a private non-profit group that can do pretty much whatever they want...

Those were rhetorical questions btw.

 

I don't know, mate. They all seem to be tar with the same brush anyway.

That ain't making much sense, so let me explain: If you've been blocked (regardless of why you've gotten blocked) and the mod who originally banned you isn't around to block you again during their rounds, they all just check for new edits from some sort of active feed, see what you've said or done, and then they go to your account or IP address page and block you again, simply because they have the ability to do so. Not because you've did anything to merit being banned.

Unless you make a huge fuss over it and attempt to challenge these lies or accusatons, the fact that you've been unjustly banned would never be noticed, so essentially, they would get away with what they're doing to you (in my case, being banned unfairly from editing with an anon IP dotted-decimal, intended to be anonymous and separate from a registered alias).

They say if you need assisted with anything, you're to leave a message on their Help Desk, but when I tried that before, they reverted my words and tagged my IP address page as a suspected "sock puppet" of Grace Saunders (which was created by myself in 2005 and never really used). I believe this was done on purpose, because they didn't seem to want to hear my version of the story (when I said I was being cyber bullied on the Internet by mods from both Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia). This is why I feel that filing a lawsuit is the only thing left to try (other than giving up the net completely, but that's a bit extreme and not very fair on myself). I do believe I'm the victim in this situation. They appeared to want to gloat about it on their own talk pages after it was first announced I was banned (this happened close to the date of 25 May, 2010). So that was over 15 months ago now...

 

So in other words you are Grace Saunders.

 

anyway... you cannot sue someone into allowing them in their own site. Its the site owners choice to allow who he/she would like.

On top of that, you are not missing much. Wikipedia is a giant mess of horrible content.

 

Yes. I am Grace Saunders. I don't really need to take the time to verify that I am Grace Saunders either, as it should be clear from the links in the first post that I am who I say I am.

I can't do anything about ED. You should be made aware that, up until April this year, Encyclopedia Dramatica was being hosted by Reflected, which is an American company. Many people who were being harassed on ED then found a way to file a DMCA complaint in regards to their abusive articles (America has strict rules about publicly posting copyrighted materials without permission). All you needed to do was check who their host was and send off a complaint to their abuse department.

I also signed up various email addresses and impersonated several ED "victims" like Mike Roach from Last.fm and Casey Serin, and I gave Reflected personnel a false address and location for each person, in order to try to get every article they had up there totally deleted for the good of mankind (no one should have to face up to such filthy, worthless scum). For a while, it was working because they only asked for DMCA documentations which were obviously made up by me, but then Ryan Cleary got arrested in Essex and they jumped ship. The real ED was sold and replaced by something else, so Ryan had started up a mirror version.

Having now moved to a host in Sweden, ED is using CloudFlare in the United States as a super duper free cloud server to not only reduce their bandwidth traffic, but to disguise who their real host is. So from the info gathered on Daniel's blog, they're using two, maybe three $25 a month proxy servers so no one can find their actual hosting provider(s) right now and sue them for creating all those nasty articles about everyone who has disagreed with their antics over the years.

I'm not so certain that Sweden has to follow similar laws to that of American customers. Therefore, I believe it is unlikely that without being granted a personal court order first and formost, my page will not get taken down using kindness.

 

Ok, then the answer to why you are banned should be pretty clear.

And you did not need to verify it. We know, and so does Wiki. You've made that much abundantly clear.

So what are you complaining about? The ban at wiki, or the fact that someone posted a hate page about you somewhere else because of what you did on wiki?

Seems to me your energy might be better spent doing something a little more positive.

Until you posted here, I doubt anyone knew who you were or even cared for that matter.

 

I also don't appreciate ED putting up a picture of Danny, my budgie. Danny passed away in May this year. Not that that has anything to do with this topic, but it just goes to show what insane, heartless zealots the ED "people" have become (by always making light of everybody else's misfortunes online when they should address their own). I mean, all I did was join some stupid forums to talk about a bloody game, way back in 2003. And this crap on forums has been prolonged, for several years!

Time to grow up, eh? They think that because they're behind a screen, they don't have to pay the price when they break the laws put in place to protect society. I can only guess that they must of had very sad childhoods to be as sick headed as they are. Very sad.

I guess this is what happens when you're not from the '50s, the '60s, the '90s... I think I should build a time machine and go back to the '80s in adult form. I'd love that...

 

I gotta say, this is some funny shit.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what's the age range of the members here?

Not trying to sound insulting. I just need to know that I didn't waste more of my damned time making thread #6267 about cyber bullying just to let it go unnoticed.

 

I think the 85% or so category of 12 or under fit your demographic.

And you're wasting my time, not yours.

The amusement I've gained from reading the ED page has compensated any time lost, so I guess we're even.

 

@ OP

You can't sue someone because they won't let you edit their website. I don't know how you decided that this was possible.

To be honest, I'm assuming you're a bit of a twit - but I figure we're just as bad for taking the time to reply to your post...

Anyway - I didn't bother reading your links because I can be bored senseless in many other ways which take less effort. For example, whilst I' typing this I'm not looking at the screen, I'm instead trying to see if I can see the minute hand on my clock move (as it doesn't have a second hand). I think I just saw it move very slightly and wow, it was more interesting than anything you have said.

Please don't misunderstand my statement and take it as cyberbullying, because it's not, and again, that would take more effort than I'm willing to spend.

Byesies!

 

OK. Enjoy the water games with the other kids at your local swimming pool then mate. They usually have a big clock on the wall there in plain sight. You couldn't possibly fail to see the minute hand.

Idiot.

 

Nice to see you finally ad your signature to your post.

 

People should always listen to Google. And Pedro, too.

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=ps....,cf.osb&fp=57ddf2fd784f0440&biw=1280&bih=687

http://www.lightningshock.com/2008/04/20/a-digital-point-discussion/

That surprise you at all?

 

I can't swim so I tend to avoid swimming pools. I also try to avoid kids in swimming costumes, because I'm an adult and it would look a little weird if I hung around such a crowd.

The issue with the clock isn't that I can't see it that well, it just wasn't made with a second hand. I can see the minute hand - that's not a problem. It goes round and round and round...