Class action suit - Revision history

142.177.109.161: revert attempt to trivialize: the GFDL contributors do not "feel" they are deprived, they can PROVE this, and there are MANY cases of alleged and collective identity and libel re: WM

2004-09-09T17:43:47Z

revert attempt to trivialize: the GFDL contributors do not "feel" they are deprived, they can PROVE this, and there are MANY cases of alleged and collective identity and libel re: WM

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 9 September 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.		*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.

	*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s ~~who feel that they are deprived~~ of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license)		*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s cheated of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license), or otherwise by an unaccountable group of people who have seized effective control of the [[GFDL corpus]] and chosen to deliberately censor materially they dislike on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the [[GFDL]].

	*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], ~~e.g. in the form~~ of "[[outing]]" ~~the real life~~ identity ~~of an individual otherwise known as~~ [[~~142.177.X.X~~]]~~, an alleged major troll~~ on ~~Wikipedia~~.		*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], which has taken no steps at all to prevent use of names of uninvolved or involutarily named parties ("[[outing]]") in connection with [[false and unsubstantiated claims]] regarding [[alleged and collective identity]] or [[spun death threat\|death threat]]s or [[conspiracy]] or other claims published on its [[vile mailing list]].

	Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]].		Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]].

62.214.139.33: de-rant

2004-09-09T17:36:15Z

de-rant

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 9 September 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.		*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.

	*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s ~~cheated~~ of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license), or otherwise by an unaccountable group of people who have seized effective control of the [[GFDL corpus]] and chosen to deliberately censor materially they dislike on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the [[GFDL]].		*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s who feel that they are deprived of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license)

	*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], ~~which has taken no steps at all to prevent use~~ of ~~names of uninvolved or involutarily named parties (~~"[[outing]]"~~) in connection with~~ [[~~false and unsubstantiated claims~~]] ~~regarding [[~~alleged ~~and collective identity]] or [[spun death threat\|death threat]]s or [[conspiracy]] or other claims published~~ on ~~its [[vile mailing list]]~~.		*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], e.g. in the form of "[[outing]]" the real life identity of an individual otherwise known as [[142.177.X.X]], an alleged major troll on Wikipedia.

	Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]].		Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]].

142.177.109.161: grounds for such suits, which now seem inevitable

2004-09-09T17:23:18Z

grounds for such suits, which now seem inevitable

New page

A '''class action suit''' is a [[lawsuit]] in which an entire group or '''class''' of people claims a similar harm has been done to them by the same party or parties. For example:

*The claim that [[pollution]] released upstream does harm to people downstream could be advanced by a group of people seeking compensation for health harms.

*The claim that [[Wikipedia violates GFDL]] could be advanced by a large group of [[GFDL contributor]]s cheated of [[attribution]], [[access to improvement]]s (as required by [[GFDL]] or indeed any [[sharealike]] license), or otherwise by an unaccountable group of people who have seized effective control of the [[GFDL corpus]] and chosen to deliberately censor materially they dislike on political grounds - which have no status and are no excuse under the [[GFDL]].

*The claim that [[libel]] is propagated in the forums of [[Wikimedia]], which has taken no steps at all to prevent use of names of uninvolved or involutarily named parties ("[[outing]]") in connection with [[false and unsubstantiated claims]] regarding [[alleged and collective identity]] or [[spun death threat|death threat]]s or [[conspiracy]] or other claims published on its [[vile mailing list]].

Rules for filing such suits vary by jurisdiction. In general the [[United States]] makes it relatively easy to file such suits. However, even where they are harder to file, such as in [[India]] or [[Ontario]], there are sometimes rules favourable to [[plaintiff]]s: In [[Ontario]], plaintiffs can sell shares in the eventual judgement damages, to finance the case itself; In a famous case against broker [[w:Nesbitt Burns]], there were literally people lined up around the block to buy shares in the lawsuit against this infamous company which sold shares in [[w:Bre-X]]. Ontario also has quite lax [[libel]] and [[slander]] laws under which one can sue even when true things are being said - if they are out of context to the discussion or discourse and not relevant to the decisions being made. Which is the case for [[Wikipedia mailing list]] in most or all cases, it is simply a hate forum for the [[sysop power structure]].