Off of Valleywag,

Click the above to see the actual court order with "outing" information about the WP editor in question.

Who is this WP guy, anyway?

And, for yet moar Dramaz, the Violet Blue (author) article is up for deletion on WP....

It's leaning towards "no consensus" right now....

It seems that this has already been up for discussion on ANI...

And Violet Blue's boyfriend's WP account has been blocked in order to enforce "No Legal threats"....

Benburch has retired, saying "I'll be damned if this is worth doing if I'm going to face legal action for it. "

No restraining order has been issued yet. But a hearing on the matter has been set. I emailed Ms. Colette Vogele, the attorney for Violet Blue and invited her to participate in this thread..

Resigning from Wikipedia is not an appropriate nor sufficient response when being sued.

The Wikipedia user who brought the subject article up for Deletion is, to me, so obviously a troll, it's not even funny.

Of course, he's not even been blocked -- just questioned on his talk page by Sarah.

They save the insta-blocks for really diabolical trolls such as myself or Jon Awbrey.

Resigning from Wikipedia is not an appropriate nor sufficient response when being sued.

Could you please change the heading to reflect the fact that this is a summons, not a restraining order?



You spoke too soon, Greg...he's been blocked as a sock of "JeanLatore"....whoever that is...

You spoke too soon, Greg...he's been blocked as a sock of "JeanLatore"....whoever that is...

this is not a lawsuit. it is a summons for hearing for a restraining order for harassment. I highly recommend that you also run the rest of the documents in this packet, which show that the harassment extends to other sites and personal threats via email. it's all in the court documents, the above of which are only the first few pages. as you know, the Court will review the evidence from both parties, and decide.

That's the first thing I'd do - I'd cease editing immediately, there is no way I'd continue to provide material that could be used against me regardless of the merits of the claim.

It seems entirely appropriate.

C'mon, that was EIGHT MINUTES ago! Obviously, my words here are very powerful there.

Violet Blue has left a very telling comment on the Valleywag story. She says that this person's harassment of her wasn't limited to Wikipedia, but extended to other websites and correspondence.

Hey, I thought the SUBJECTS of Wikipedia articles are supposed to stalk and harass the EDITORS, not the other way around?!

Also I wonder about this "archeopteyx" named as an alias in the petition. (see Valleywag article). This does not appear to be a WP username. Maybe this guy has a wider internet persona?

Blue alleges that:

I hope that VB does show up, because she might be interested in hearing quite a few other stories....

I don't know her, I don't know the editor in question - so why people are leaping to certain conclusions about those allegations is beyond me.

They could all be true, they call all be false - we are always ragging on Wikipedia to be fair to living figures, shouldn't we practice what we preach?

Have you been stalked by a WP editor? Until you have, you can't understand why this might be so distressing. And when it goes off of WP, there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't blame her at all. Hopefully this will show people that you can't just post stuff like this on the web and get away with it: especially when your real name, address and place of employment are known....

I've been stalked and physically attacked by my stalker if that's any help - but thanks for entirely missing my point.

I didn't miss your point: you missed mine. Hopefully the court will get hers.

I don't know her, I don't know the editor in question - so why people are leaping to certain conclusions about those allegations is beyond me.

They could all be true, they call all be false - we are always ragging on Wikipedia to be fair to living figures, shouldn't we practice what we preach?

Which is what?

This is why you've missed my point, you've leaped to the conclusion that those allegations are true - I don't see that smoking gun in any of the links provided here or anything of the sort.


This place gets attacked as a bad site and one of the standard defences is that we (generally) offer rational and reasonable critique of wikipedian practices and editors. Leaping to the conclusion that the guy must be guilt of stalking just because a) he's a wikipedia editor and because a claim has been made - to my mind is really not the way that we should be looking at the matter.

If that's what we want to do - well then we are an attack site.


If this is all true, then it's legitimate to look at the editor, the processes that enable him and say "what is wikipedia going to do". I'm not however going to assume that someone is guilt before we know all of the facts.

We have a court summons. We have a deletion discussion. We have an ANI discussion and the retirement notice of the editor in question.

we can discuss this based on the evidence.

I will state categorically that anybody who claims that WP editors don't stalk people, here and else where, hasn't been paying attention.

Which is evidence of a court summons and an editor retiring because of a court summons.



We have no evidence at all - we have some claims - simply filing doesn't make something true - lots of frivolous lawsuits are filed every day. She could have the most fantastic damning evidence existing, she might have nothing. I doubt we will know if and when it gets to court.



Which is a straw man because nobody is making that claim, it's like saying "some black people are criminals, therefore all black people must be criminals".

This guy could me knocking one off into her letterbox or he might be entirely innocent - I have no idea but I'm deeply uncomfortable with a line of conversation that just assumes that he must be guilty because an allegation has been made.

Long time troll and gameplayer if it's the guy I think it is - likes to fuck around and add nonsense to articles and make creepy remarks to female editors.

Well, the court will decide this time around. Hopefully other editors will get the message.

Which is a straw man because nobody is making that claim, it's like saying "some black people are criminals, therefore all black people must be criminals".

This guy could me knocking one off into her letterbox or he might be entirely innocent - I have no idea but I'm deeply uncomfortable with a line of conversation that just assumes that he must be guilty because an allegation has been made.

Wikipedia's policies are biased in the case of legal action. The person bringing the legal action gets blocked, but the subject of the legal action receives no penalties. Furthermore, nothing is done about the content on Wikipedia which is the subject of the legal action.

TFA is coming from her own set of experiences being targeted on Wikipedia by a prominent editor. This does mean that we don't need to exam the facts. But her experiences are also valid. In the end, as Gomi says, this is for the court to sort out. That does not mean that we should not explore the issues involved nor try to develop our understanding of the matter. You seem more intent on shutting down discussion on some basis akin to WP:NLT. Not here please.

I don't need no PMs about the my gender assumptions please.

What message? you've already decided he's guilty and he hasn't even been to court yet!

Because of Section 230, the WMF not only will not do anything to protect you, the WMF cannot do anything to protect you.

I'm not interesting in shutting down discussion - all I'm saying is "let's not leap to any conclusions".

I've already clarified that above, but this merits repeating:

It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. Actually, it's easier for the WMF if he is, because then they can say "it was all his fault".

But they cannot defend him, if they want to keep their Section 230 immunity.

This is why no one should ever edit on WP. You are ultimately responsible for everything that you say there.

When you repeat that so often that you drown out others or make it appear to be the purpose of the thread you shutdown discussion .

Indeed - moreover, many people think they are protected because they are in a different country from the article subject matter - but that doesn't hold up at all. For example, you can have a judgement held against you - as an American citizen if it can proven that someone in England has read the libel - even if the subject of the article is also an American and lives in the states! They get a judgement in the UK and then collect on it in the US.

Now, that "summons" does not look very professional at all, but I would imagine that there must be "other documents". Perhaps Seth F. or Cade at the Register might know something?

It would probably be best to avoid jumping to prejudiced conclusions about who's right or wrong in this before both sides have actually presented their case before a judge.

I've already clarified that above, but this merits repeating:

Indeed. If anything it would be most appropriate for Wikipedia to block both parties pending resolution of the dispute. Blocking only the alleged victim is probably the worst of all possible outcomes.

Why does it merit repeating? It's not even true.

==Aftermath==

As those of you attending to this issue know, on July 30, 2008 I won the lawsuit brought against me by the writer who calls herself Violet Blue.

===The Lawsuit===

"Violet Blue" was seeking a restraining order to prevent me from ever editing her wikipedia entry again (or causing others to do so). She also sought an order that I could not "harass, attack, strike, threaten, assualt (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, [or] stalk [her or her partner Jonathan Moore], destroy [their] personal property, keep [them] under surveillance, block [their] movements, [or] contact [them]." She asked the court to order me to stay away from them, their home, their workplaces, and their motor vehicles. She also sought to prohibit me from owning firearms. She lost on all counts.

Incredibly, in the lawsuit, "Violet Blue" accused me under oath of stalking her and said her request was "based on a credible threat of violence"! This, even though I live 2000 miles away. This, even though she was quoted four weeks ago in a police report as saying she didn't fear me because I live in Illinois, but she just didn't want me to "taint her name." (She went back to the police a second time on Tuesday to change her story to say she really did fear me.) Why would she accuse me of stalking her when I've never met the woman and haven't been to San Francisco since the 1990's? Let me put it this way, the court does not charge ordinary court filing fees to people who legitimately fear violence or stalking. And I find her abuse of the court system disgusting: "Violet Blue" used a provision in the law designed to protect victims of domestic violence and, I believe, she lied to the court under oath because she didn't want to pay an ordinary filing fee that everyone, except these real victims, has to pay. It seems clear to me she cheated California taxpayers to file her frivolous suit.

===The Outcome===

"Violet Blue" first asked the court for a temporary restraining order "ex parte" (without my being represented). The court denied her request but granted her a hearing with my lawyer Mark Levine present (telephonically) on July 30. That day, the court threw out her suit and denied everything she had requested. While the court did not give the reasoning behind its ruling, it was clearly based on the facts and the law.

===The Facts===

I have never threatened any kind of violence to anyone, much less "Violet Blue." Her claimed fear of violence was, at best, delusional and, at worst, a lie to avoid paying a filing fee.

===The Law===

"Violet Blue" sought the most severe and unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment rights that exists in American law: a prior restraint on my free speech. She sought to muzzle me: to prevent me from ever criticizing her or posting truthful information on her wikipedia page or anywhere on the Internet as a whole. But the law is clear on this. For over a century, the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot censor someone and prevent them from speaking out, except in extremely rare cases of national security. Even then, as in the case of The Pentagon Papers Case, the courts usually find that prior restraint is unconstitutional. This is a core principle of our Constitutional system, a core principle of freedom of the press and not one to be abused to suppress true information that a petty public figure wishes was kept secret. It is astonishing to me that someone who writes in the press, and claims to be an advocate of freedom, could be so opposed to this most basic of First Amendment freedoms for the press.

===The Truth===

I have real and substantial reasons based on diligent research for believing that "Violet Blue" was not born Violet Blue. And yet "Violet Blue" told a court, through her attorney, that she had never changed her name. I have no doubt this misrepresentation helped her in her ongoing trademark litigation against the adult film actress who has also been using the name Violet Blue since at least the year 2000.

Now it is possible that I am wrong. I don't think so, based on my substantial research, but it is possible. So I will here repeat part of my formal reply to her lawsuit. This is a direct quote except where I have redacted her birth name due to Wikipedia policy:

"I have zero desire to say anything that is untrue. For example, if Plaintiff will disclose her birth certificate with the original name 'Violet Blue,' I will apologize publicly for saying - based on substantial research - that she had changed her name from [redacted - Wiki policy], a name change that, I believe (among other things), made Plaintiff's lawsuit against actress Violet Blue frivolous."

I sincerely doubt that "Violet Blue" will ever take me up on my offer to apologize. Because I will only apologize if she can show me I'm wrong. And I'm virtually certain I'm right. But the ball's in her court. Unless she shows me otherwise, I feel strongly in my contention that "Violet Blue" abused the legal process by lying to a court of law at least twice, both in her case against the actress Violet Blue and in her case against me.

===A Final Comment===

I find the actions of "Violet Blue" in this case to be shameful and reprehensible and to show a profound lack of respect for the freedoms we inherited by the blood of our forefathers. I hope that all those who deal with this person now and in the future will remember this case and reflect upon how it reveals her character.

Having said this, I find it unlikely that I will return to editing Wikipedia. I will maintain this account in case anybody needs to communicate with me, and check it from time to time. Good luck to you all, and remember that you don't have to lay down and take it when somebody challenges your Rights.

This case will, I hope, set a precedent for Wikipedians in years to come. No one can stop us from saying truthful information about public figures based on substantial research, even if that person does not want the truth to come out. Feel free to copy this message and post anywhere you like.

Ben Burch

Ben Burch won the suit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenBurch In case it gets deleted...

Good catch. It's already been deleted from his page. I'd say he's being somewhat restrained in not suing her for abuse of process or defamation.

Good catch. It's already been deleted from his page. I'd say he's being somewhat restrained in not suing her for abuse of process or defamation.

I have reverted the removal as vandalism. He has every right to publish the fact that he was vindicated and I will not allow idiot WP:BLP extremists to bury the truth. Violet, as you pointed out earlier, was just being a media-whore. I'm pleased to see that the legal system gave her the rightly deserved smackdown.

In January of 1996, I provided my services as a machine artist for a Survival Research Laboratories (“SRL”) robotics and machine art show. ... (An example of this genre of art is the “Robot Wars” television program became popular in the 1990s.) The January 1996 event was filmed for SRL’s product line, and is available for purchase for $25 to this day from the SRL website at http://srl.org/shows/phoenix/video_release.html. ... This January 1996 experience as a machine artist for SRL is the earliest date that I can recall, at this time, having provided my branded services and publicly appeared on a commercially available work. It represents, in my mind, the beginning of my work in the field of machine art/robotics, which later lead to my working as a writer and journalist. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the cover of the videotape recording of this event, and also a single image from the videotape showing my name in the credits as having worked as a machine artist.

Establishing the trademark ownership is necessary if you want to usurp a domain via WIPO. I suspect that is what the author is trying to do. Also, people who were born with a given name and are semi-notable are often given higher precedent in WIPO domain suits.

I think you are referring to using a trademark to require someone to give up a domain name. This is something I don't know much about but it is of interest. Could you explain the mechanics of this?

I've heard stories of people who grabbed up names like pepsi.com and then made a lot of money from the company. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not.

A bill was passed in 1998 or 1999 which forbid the practice of cyber-squatting on domains and holding them for ransom. Prior to that, McDonald's and some others had paid millions to get the domain names from these squatters (not an urban legend).

That's an exaggeration; the McDonald's domain was actually registered by a journalist as a prank, and he never demanded any large amount for it.

More info on the history of domain conflicts is in my site, http://domains.dan.info/ .