User talk:98.178.191.34

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 09:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I got the wrong user in this edit summary, but legal threats are still unacceptable here. Graham87 09:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.178.191.34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No threats were made. Stating that a law enforcment agency has been notified or that a complaint has been filed (noting the past tense), especially in situations like this where there are mandatory reporting considerations for people of certain lines of employment, is NOT a threat by definition. A complaint made to law enforcement where required by mandatory reporting as to HIPAA does not mean law enforcement action will necessarily be taken, though retaliation is a special factor that makes it more likely the government will choose to take action. This is to say that Wikipedia policy should be interpreted mindfully of 18 U.S.C. 1512, 18 USC 1513, etc. which are serious federal crimes (Read: violent criminal acts) that no Wikipedia policy will save one from the potential criminal prosecution. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia policy disagrees with your interpretation. "FBI has been notified via complaint through IC3.gov for criminal enforcement purposes" constitutes taking legal action as far as WP:NLT is concerned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.178.191.34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First of all, that policy is void under the circumstances because mandatory reporting laws require that the individuals against whom a report concerning HIPAA has been made must be notified that the report has been made by the person making the report. So unless you want to make the argument that Wikipedia has the right to require individuals to break the law, your arguments about so-called Wikipedia policy once again quickly run out of gas, and are flagrantly frivolous on their face. Then we have the fact, once again, that it is not "legal action" under a reasonable interpretation of the terminology combined with what applicable criminal law to which Wikipedia is subject to prosecution for, makes clear that Wikipedia does not have a legal right to do in any event. There is no private right to law enforcement action under applicable law. It therefore follows that Private individuals do not control whether or not the FBI takes action, they merely report to the FBI. The FBI itself chooses whether or not action is taken. Now, if I had said something about civil litigation, that might be legal action / a legal threat given the purpose of the involved Wikipedia policy, what it's there for, and what it hints at, when read in conjunction with what federal law says is a criminal act that Wikipedia in no event has a right to do. It follows that mere Notification that a report was made to a federal law enforcement officer, n no way implies that legal action necessarily can or will be taken, but it is a federal felony under 18 USC 1512(d) to take any action which "harasses another person with the intent to hinder, delay, prevent, or dissuade any person from reporting a crime to a federal law enforcement officer". So then, if follows that Wikipedia policy in the way you're trying to read it constitutes a felony under federal law, making that policy null and void for all legal intents and purposes under contract law, or any other guise of Wikipedia's rights or lawful authority. Therefore, having demonstrated that the blocking of this IP in fact constitutes a criminal act under the laws of the country in which Wikipedia's servers are located, We can start considering the notion of ISPs being notified to start suspending domains, server access, etc. by virtue of Wikipedia having violated the applicable TOS with their ISP as well as the domain registrar. There's no threat to it - Either the block will be removed or appropriate enforcement action will be taken, which could result in serious felony charges which are eligible for extradition being filed. simple as that. I'm trying to work with you people, but if you don't want to work with me and comply with the law, the only other option is to take enforcement action, because this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated from anyone. Regardless of what Wikipedia policy says, be assured that the applicable law will be enforced to it's full extent. So its really up to Wikipedia what it wants to do, because I'd rather not escalate this to a criminal complaint or escalate this to involve Wikipedia's ISPs, but that absolutely will happen (read: 100 percent chance in the forecast) if necessary. Rather, once again, I seriously recommend you do not subject the servers to the possibility of government forfeiture on the grounds of having been used to commit a felony. The continued block of this IP address therefore seriously endangers the continued existence of Wikipedia. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm fairly sure you do not get to unilaterally declare any particular policy on this global website null and void under any circumstances. Since you are doubling and tripling down on your legal threats, I am declining your request and removing talk page access. Please see WP:LEGAL. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Once your legal action is concluded or the threats withdrawn, you may use WP:UTRS for further appeals. If you abuse that access, it can be withdrawn as well. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Wikipedia didn't upload the image, a user did. That means that liability would have to be discussed with the user, not the page: how is that not obvious is unbelievable to me. If HIPAA is the soap box, HIPAA relates to healthcare industries, which Wikipedia clearly is not. Good for the blocking! Bobjgalindo (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

---