Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hugh_McBryde#Your_message_about_YFZ_Ranch
I don't want to lose editing privileges at Wikipedia, just when I seem to be getting the hang of it, but I wouldn't be getting the hang of it any time soon, had I not gotten embroiled in this business. Read all about it:
"In short, my edits, which started as a simple edit declaring that the evidence had been suppressed in Arizona, have been scrupulously true and unbiased. The motion granted termed the raid, in the Arizona Court's official legal opinion, as 'Unlawful.' They did this by ADOPTING the motion of 9/3/2008 by means of accepting the agreement of both defense and prosecution in the form of a stipulation. Those who are also engaged in reverting and editing the YFZ Ranch page have striven to alter it's content to show that a stipulation only was signed, and have elsewhere striven to equivocate the rejected offering or attempt at a unilateral stipulation on the part of the defense at an earlier date as being the one accepted. The 'war' started when persons having an agenda, and having a 'Single Interest' tried to obscure the little known fact (nevertheless a fact) that the evidence was genuinely suppressed in Arizona while using the terms 'unlawful' and in fact countenancing defense terminology in the process using the word 'illegal.'Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
'BlueSooner' is almost certainly 'TxBluesMan' who has written an advertisement for his Blog 'Coram Non Judice' on Wikipedia. A check of the authorship and edits shows that 'Bluesooner' and 'Natalie Malonis' (a single interest source opposed to the FLDS) authored the 'Coram' page. 'RonLawHouston' is almost certainly 'RonInHouston' who also posts on the same blogs and sites that 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' posts at. Both are virulently anti FLDS and are engaged in self promotion. They almost certainly confer offsite, and make coordinated edits. The likelihood that 'Hope4Kids' who honestly declares bias is also acting in coordination with 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' and 'RonLawHouston/RonInHouston' is extremely high. There are perhaps other contributing editors who also act in conjunction with these three. This is, as I understand it, by Wikipedia definition 'Meat Puppetry.' It may also be 'Sock Puppetry' but this is difficult to prove. The likelihood that these posters have other Wikipedia editor identities is high. There is considerable evidence from the 'Coram Non Judice' blog 'promotion/advertising' page that 'BlueSooner' shares editing identity with "Natalie Malonis" and may (long shot) even BE the same person. There is no assurance that these editors are even separate at all though it is likely that there is more than one real person behind them all.
These persons are fervently interested in suppressing the simple legal fact that there was a relatively unknown but nonetheless real setback for those prosecuting the various FLDS cases and defendants in Arizona. They have an agenda. They are certainly single interest, they have a high conflict of interest. They haven't even been here at Wikipedia as long as I have. I joined without any intent to promote or discuss FLDS issues as can be proved by my join date. These other editors, from what I can tell, joined after the raid commenced.
As a final offering, I am a real person, I have a name, I have no other identities. I post under the same name on my driver's licence and birth certificate. All of my qualifications, biases and interests can easily be researched and evaluated." Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)--Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Sphere: Related Content
2 comments:
Well, fwiw, I make no bones about Ron-in-Houston and RonLawHouston being related handles. Usually I use one when spaces are permitted and one when no spaces are allowed.
What amazes me about you is how you just don't "get it." See despite how much you think Wikipedia is about "perception," they go to great lengths to stop people using it for those purposes.
You got banned because you came trying to control "perception."
I can't speak for Wikipedia but given your public blog posts and the way you approached editing Wikipedia, I highly doubt you'll ever get editing privledges back.
Ron,
Perception not then, consensus yes. At present the YFZ page is sporting this banner:
"This page is currently protected from editing until April 17, 2010 or until disputes have been resolved.
This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected."
Excuse me then, I'll go back to the word "perception."
While I do not support an "evolving" view of the "truth," I recognize that it is the way most people view things. Put your finger in the air, see which way the wind blows, and then stake our your territory.
The facts are that I was banned from editing in partial support by Wikipedia administration of three editors who cannot, at this time, even be proven to be separate entities.
Because there isn't much popular identifiable support for the notion that the evidence was suppressed by the passage of a motion in Arizona that used the word "UNLAWFUL" (one of the recent defense motions even used the word "ILLEGAL"), the fact is it was.
You bluster a lot, and so does BlueSooner (who is TxBluesMan) and misdirect by pointing to the fact that the judge adopted a stipulation. You ignore the clear language that the stipulation was passed in "all it's terms" and that one of the terms of the stipulation was to adopt an order, that order being: "MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN UNLAWFUL SEARCHS OF FLDS PROPERTY"
This is NOT, as you repeatedly LIE, "My Opinion." It is the "Consensus" or "Perception" of those who have not bothered to follow the links back to the Mohave County Court Site and read, even superficially, the motions, orders, notices, offerings, and filings to which I have pointed. If this is not the case, it is sadly the truth that those parties have gone back, have read, and in full understanding, offer a "version" of the truth that isn't even remotely true.
You have posted long strings of document links to do what is known as "dump" and obscure simple facts.
The public need not read every filing at Mohave County, they need only know which motion was adopted, and I have identified it. Your only retort is gainsaying.
Put up or shut up Ron. Show me which motion was passed, and don't say "A stipulation," since the stipulation passed asks for the adoption of another motion. You need to tell me, by name and date of filing at Mohave County, which motion(s) the stipulation asks the court to adopt.
Post a Comment