Claims of corruption: Difference between revisions

Line 35:

::An accusation made with no back up links has no validity and cannot be questionned. It consequently constitute defaming. "As per usual" is a fallacious argument as well, with no source.

:::[[Trolls]] will provide evidence to the state of Florida on this issue, not to you. We are not going to do your own due diligence for you unless we are directly paid by you to [[audit]] your organization's complaince with the law. You have guaranteed that this complaint will be made with your attitude. If we were to provide "back up links" you would simply censor the evidence itself. We are by no means intimidated by your use of the word "defaming", as you are yourselves liars who defame constantly.

:::[[Trolls]] will provide evidence to the state of Florida on this issue, not to you. We are not going to do your own due diligence for you unless we are directly paid by you to [[audit]] your organization's complaince with the law. You have guaranteed that this complaint will be made with your attitude. If we were to provide "back up links" it is likely that you would simply censor the evidence itself as a typical cover-up. We are by no means intimidated by your use of the word "defaming", as you are yourselves liars who defame constantly. In a fair court process, we are confident that our friends will prevail against your friends, since our friends do not solicit donations for charitable reasons and then spend them publishing [[libel]].

*''Allegation:'' [[outing]] and concomitant [[libel]] based on [[echo chamber]] claims

Line 132:

''official response from [[Wikimedia]]:''

I suggest that all unsupported arguments given as proof are removed. Some of your claims may be right (though, I am not really certain which are), and if so, I think your feedback is interesting, but all the other ones loosen the credibility of those which may be correct.

I suggest that all unsupported arguments given as proof are removed.

:Here is the deal: the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] agrees to take legal action against all who publish [[libel]] via its media, or who have done so, starting with [[Erik Moeller]] and [[Daniel Mayer]] who should recieve stern official warning letters from you immediately. They are removed from all positions of [[authority]] and publicly shamed. Wales apologizes to various people he has intimidated. All remaining developers and sysops swear in writing that they had nothing to do with [[vandalbot]] or [[denial of service attack]]s or the [[vandalism]] of [[troll-friendly]] wikis unfriendly to [[Wikimedia]] including [[Consumerium]] and [[Recyclopedia]]. These are collected in writing and the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] states as policy that no one who engages in any kind of [[technological escalation]] against [[Wikimedia]] critics is sanctioned by it or will ever receive any support from it. THEN we will bother listing all the claims, as we will be reasonably sure that they will stand without attacks nor censorship. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE? Complaints directly to Florida regulators. The choice is yours. This is the only deal anyone will offer you.

Some of your claims may be right (though, I am not really certain which are), and if so, I think your feedback is interesting, but all the other ones loosen the credibility of those which may be correct.

:We have not had the luxury of documenting them all without harassment and censorship. When we do, the final and fully documented version will go straight to Washington DC to prevent or end any federal [[charitable status]] for [[Wikimedia]]. We will not be consulting with those who harass us, since we have been harassed enough to require there be [[no cooperation with authority]].

Besides, keeping unsupported, or even defaming claims in this page, and in others, is threatening Juxo project credibility and viability. I recommand that you consider this issue with due respect.

Line 139:

Line 145:

:The threats come from an unaccountable organization that covers up its own behaviour. A bad example. To assert that there are "Threats" to "credibility" is simply to assert that you will use [[Wikipedia]] to continue to spread lies and [[libel]] about those who expose [[Wikimedia]] for what it is, a false front. To assert that its "viability" is at stake is to assert that you are going to pressure [[MediaWiki]] developers or others to stop supporting it.

:[[Trolls]] suggest that you, Anthere, as an honourable person defending a dishonourable group, RESIGN, and cite the failure of [[Wikimedia]] to deal with its various corruption and accountability problems as the reason for doing so.