Atlasia v. Antonio V

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just saying: if anyone wish to fill a complain regarding a case of wiki vandalizm, just let me know.

Otherwise, this is a trail of Antonio regarding a specific situation.

[Oakvale]

Mr. Justice, you've heard the argument from myself, and the welcome contribution of former President alfeitch, on why Antonio V is innocent of this charge.

He made a mistake, perhaps, but a well-intentioned one, there was no malice intended.

I rest my case.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

Since people are intruding to make false claims, allow me to set the set the record straight here. 50C878 is not an "interpretation of emerald'". It IS emerald.

50C878 is the hex code given for Emerald on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_green#Emerald


Do a Google search for 50C878. The first result that comes up:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/50C878/Emerald

It's Emerald. "Paris Green" is just another name for Emerald.


http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/emerald.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, I guess with technical informations provided by both Libertas and Afleitch, as well as prosecution and defense briefs, court have enough informations to make a judgement.

[afleitch]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

Since people are intruding to make false claims, allow me to set the set the record straight here. 50C878 is not an "interpretation of emerald'". It IS emerald.

50C878 is the hex code given for Emerald on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_green#Emerald


Do a Google search for 50C878. The first result that comes up:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/50C878/Emerald

It's Emerald. "Paris Green" is just another name for Emerald.


http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/emerald.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paris Green is the name given to the chemically produced colour 'Pigment Green 21' which has been 'coverted' into 50C878. Despite what it is named (and you also point out the various names given to that colour) it will always remain a derivative of copper.

It is by no means the definative 'emerald'

There is also; 2C8139 - Emerald Green, for example.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I really do hate to intrude in an ongoing legal case... But if that colour is not emerald, than Libertas is guilty of vandalizing the wiki as well, no?

Since people are intruding to make false claims, allow me to set the set the record straight here. 50C878 is not an "interpretation of emerald'". It IS emerald.

50C878 is the hex code given for Emerald on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variations_of_green#Emerald


Do a Google search for 50C878. The first result that comes up:

http://www.colourlovers.com/color/50C878/Emerald

It's Emerald. "Paris Green" is just another name for Emerald.


http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/overview/emerald.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Paris Green is the name given to the chemically produced colour 'Pigment Green 21' which has been 'coverted' into 50C878. Despite what it is named (and you also point out the various names given to that colour) it will always remain a derivative of copper.

It is by no means the definative 'emerald'

There is also; 2C8139 - Emerald Green, for example.

C'mon you're really splitting hairs here. The fact that it was derived from copper means absolutely nothing. "Emerald" is simply an alternative name given to that color. The color adopted by our party was plain old Emerald, as found on Wikipedia under "Variations of Green", not any other varied shade of it. Paris Green = Emerald

It was not Antonio's prerogative to decide to change our party's color even to a different variance of emerald, especially after he was asked to stop by members of our party.

But that is all irrelevant. Antonio didn't even change it to something that could possibly be considered emerald. He changed it to an unnamed shade of blue, 00CCCB, described as "strong cyan". It's vandalism.

There's really no valid defense for Antonio's actions.


If I kept changing the JCP's color repeatedly, even after being asked to stop by members of their party, the excuse that I was "re-interpreting" their color for them would be laughed at as the joke that it is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honorable Justices,

Since I have been granted wiki access, more than one year ago, I think my committment to the quality of the wiki has been proven plenty of times. A quick look to my contributions would be enough to demonstrate it. But if you are not convinced, you could also have a look at what the page "Senate History" was before I started to work on it and what it has become when the work was finished. A fair number of election pages were updated or even created by me. I regularly update the page of parties and that of regions. If you still aren't convinced, have a look at my own page, which I almost entirely did.

Every single edit I have made on the wiki, honorable Justices, had one single intent : improving its quality, by making it more complete, more clear, or better looking. My modification of the Populares' color is not an exception. The edit for which I am incriminated wasn't more "malicious" than any other of my edits. The Supreme Court has the right to state that the Populares color is "legitimate content" and must not be edited. If the court rules so, despite my personal disagreement, I will accept the verdict and cease to edit the wiki page. But prior to a court's decision, the "legitimacy" of the Populares' color isn't established, and thus my edit isn't reprehensible.

Whatever will be your decision, I will accept it with the serenity of an innocent man. I have the certitude to have always done what is right for Atlasia, and I will keep doing what I consider to be the right thing.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Honorable Justices,

Since I have been granted wiki access, more than one year ago, I think my committment to the quality of the wiki has been proven plenty of times. A quick look to my contributions would be enough to demonstrate it. But if you are not convinced, you could also have a look at what the page "Senate History" was before I started to work on it and what it has become when the work was finished. A fair number of election pages were updated or even created by me. I regularly update the page of parties and that of regions. If you still aren't convinced, have a look at my own page, which I almost entirely did.

Every single edit I have made on the wiki, honorable Justices, had one single intent : improving its quality, by making it more complete, more clear, or better looking. My modification of the Populares' color is not an exception. The edit for which I am incriminated wasn't more "malicious" than any other of my edits. The Supreme Court has the right to state that the Populares color is "legitimate content" and must not be edited. If the court rules so, despite my personal disagreement, I will accept the verdict and cease to edit the wiki page. But prior to a court's decision, the "legitimacy" of the Populares' color isn't established, and thus my edit isn't reprehensible.

Whatever will be your decision, I will accept it with the serenity of an innocent man. I have the certitude to have always done what is right for Atlasia, and I will keep doing what I consider to be the right thing.

It became malicious when you were repeatedly asked to stop and went ahead and did it anyway.

In fact, in one of your edits, after I said to stop it, you included a mocking wink.

Anyone can go to the history page and scroll down to 10:10, 24 October 2010, where Antonio included a wink smilie in his edit after I told him to go away from our page: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Template:Atlasian_Political_Party/party_colors/POP&action=history




Clearly you knew what you were doing was mischievous and malicious.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the Court would permit me to speak:

Libertas, I hardly think that proves something "malicious." That's a rather serious term. In fact, what you leave out shortly before the bottom of that photo you snipped is this:



Antonio felt he had valid reasons for editing the color, and his clear intent was to make the color distinctive for wiki editing purposes, and the clearing up any confusion that people may have when reading the wiki.

Antonio then went on your Wiki user page and commented repeatedly to try and get your attention on July 17th, July 21st, and August 6th to try and discuss the issue, and you did not respond to him in any way:



Wiktionary defines "malicious" as being "deliberately harmful." Tell me, does someone who is clearly trying to reach out to explain his reasoning and explain his actions in a way that shows he is trying to help distinguish the Populares color from other colors on the wiki demonstrate someone who is trying to be "deliberately harmful"?

The Wiki is used for organizational purposes, and when parties use similar (or exactly the same) colors, it makes it very difficult to distinguish between different parties for the purposes of wiki work. Antonio was not only trying to distinguish your party from other parties for your own sake, but also trying to reduce confusion in wiki organization the best he could by very slightly altering the color, a color that is already vague enough as it is.

Antonio very clearly was not on a crusade to pester the Populares and his actions can't possibly be labeled "deliberately harmful" in spirit. If anything, Libertas and the Populares exacerbated this issue by refusing to discuss the issue with him in any way and choosing a color change several months back that, in my opinion, was basically chosen just to irritate the JCP anyway, but that's neither here nor there. Antonio has a history of good wiki work, and his actions here are in no way "malicious."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Um, I responded to Antonio V on his own page...what did you think he was responding to with those messages?



It's amazing the dishonesty and twisting of facts that is going on here in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Antonio V was asked repeatedly to stop vandalizing our party's page. He refused, and apparently thought he was being funny trying to annoy me by forcing me to check and fix my party's Wiki page every day. Even if he thought he had a valid reason the first time, he clearly carried on with a Wiki edit war- after being asked to stop multiple times- with intent to cause mischief.


If there shoe were on the other foot, there's no way in hell the JCP would have ever put up with the nonsense I've been dealing with since July. If a POPer was going to the JCP page and editing the JCP color every day, I highly doubt bgwah would have been as patient as I have been, giving Antonio the benefit of the doubt for five months hoping he would stop before finally out of desperation bringing it to the attention of law enforcement.

And no JCPer would have excused me for repeatedly vandalizing their page just because I claimed to have a valid reason for it.


But instead of an apology, I'm being made subject to lies and excuses so bad that they are genuinely insulting.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You have yet to prove how anything he did here is actively malicious. He listed his reasons rather clearly. Someone trying to cause chaos doesn't explain their reasons perfectly rationally. "Malicious" is not at all present in his actions. Maybe he was wrong to keep editing them, and maybe he should be prevented from editing party colors in the future. However, there was no malice here that I see and I believe people will be smart enough to see that.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You have yet to prove how anything he did here is actively malicious. He listed his reasons rather clearly. Someone trying to cause chaos doesn't explain their reasons perfectly rationally. "Malicious" is not at all present in his actions. Maybe he was wrong to keep editing them, and maybe he should be prevented from editing party colors in the future. However, there was no malice here that I see and I believe people will be smart enough to see that.

Repeatedly editing the article of an opposing party after being asked to stop by said party is in and of itself malicious. He might have thought he was right the 1st time, but there was no excuse for the other 12 times.

His little wink he left there only made it all the more apparent that it had become a game to him to try to cause grief for me.

But whatever, he's a JCPer, red avatar, social democrat, so you people will defend him no matter how clearly he was in the wrong here.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

The point is: we had an edition war and the defendant was a side that initiated it, and this law is about preventing such things. He was removing a legitimate content.

[Ebowed]

Jury selection is presently in the process of recruiting.  The plaintiff should feel free to bring in any witnesses, assuming they have not already spoken.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I've tried to restrain myself from commenting but I'm seeing others do so, so I will.

1 - I did not want to myself point out that Emerald and Paris are the same Green, but knew someone would. I present:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_(color)#Emerald

Both being listed as the easiest-to-find colour being "#50C878" Thus it is reasonable to presume that Libertas and other agents of POP could rationally presume that "#50C878" is the colour of Emerald.

2 - Wikipedia has a policy against edit wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
Which clearly shows both users are in the "wrong" in this case by constantly reverting one another's work without so much as a peep from anyone else.

3 - I myself noticed this while creating election pages. Is there a duty to report this? If so I am guilty.

4 - I also present that a party has no business and no right to chose it's own colour. As evidence I present this: http://www.democrats.org/ this: http://www.gop.com/index.php/ and this: https://uselectionatlas.org/ that clearly shows that parties do not get the chose their own colours, and since we do not have said right enshrined in law, we should rely on this precedent.

[Ebowed]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

I would advise against suggesting this as a potential precedent, because yes; anyone can claim a lack of malicious intent.  In order to analyze this case properly we must consider not only the defendant's claim but any facts that might corroborate his assertion.  If we are to find that he is not guilty, that does not necessarily indicate that anyone can just claim to be innocent and then be acquitted.  This being said, there are legitimate reasons to consider the argument you are providing as being contrary to the spirit of the statute that has enabled this lawsuit.  The hinging clause clearly restricts itself to decidedly malicious behavior, and whether the defendant's actions were truly malicious is not as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.

Mr. Attorney General, do you believe that the defendant's actions can be accurately described as malicious in light of the steps he took to communicate with his adversary?  Would you go so far as to say that these public records enhance the strength of your case?

I will have some questions for the defendant soon also.

[Torie]

I was PM'ed to say that I have been randomly selected to serve on a jury, linking this thread, and asking if I would go to this thread, and indicate whether or not I will serve.  I agree to serve. I have zero knowledge about the subject case, and have not read this thread.

Torie

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

4 - I also present that a party has no business and no right to chose it's own colour. As evidence I present this: http://www.democrats.org/ this: http://www.gop.com/index.php/ and this: https://uselectionatlas.org/ that clearly shows that parties do not get the chose their own colours, and since we do not have said right enshrined in law, we should rely on this precedent.

What do links to the Democrats and GOP websites have to do with Atlasia?

Parties have no business choosing our own colors? Of course parties have the right to choose their own colors. It's part of the fun. You know, name, logo, slogan, motto, platform, colors; it's what gives a virtual party an identity.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

I would advise against suggesting this as a potential precedent, because yes; anyone can claim a lack of malicious intent.  In order to analyze this case properly we must consider not only the defendant's claim but any facts that might corroborate his assertion.  If we are to find that he is not guilty, that does not necessarily indicate that anyone can just claim to be innocent and then be acquitted.  This being said, there are legitimate reasons to consider the argument you are providing as being contrary to the spirit of the statute that has enabled this lawsuit.  The hinging clause clearly restricts itself to decidedly malicious behavior, and whether the defendant's actions were truly malicious is not as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.

Mr. Attorney General, do you believe that the defendant's actions can be accurately described as malicious in light of the steps he took to communicate with his adversary?  Would you go so far as to say that these public records enhance the strength of your case?

I will have some questions for the defendant soon also.

Your honor.

I believe this case may become precedental for simple reasons: the issue was never brought to the court, we have a lot of problems defining a status of party colours and, last but not least, this is the first prosecution under a section regarding wiki vandalization.

Also, I have a firm beflief that intentions are not important here. The results are.

The prosecution would like to call Tmthforu94 as a witness.

[Ebowed]

I believe this case may become precedental for simple reasons: the issue was never brought to the court, we have a lot of problems defining a status of party colours and, last but not least, this is the first prosecution under a section regarding wiki vandalization.

The manner in which the law is applied, and the narrowness of the lens with through it is interpreted, may indeed be affected by the outcome of this case.  Your allegation, however, that someone could simply claim that they were not malicious and then subsequently be let off the hook has no basis in reality.

Now, while you may not value the intent of the defendant, but rather the result of his actions, my understanding of the law that you are requiring us to consider is that the behavior be decidedly malicious -- so once again, I ask, and this time I certainly expect an actual response, do you feel as though Antonio V was committing an act of malice in light of his publicly available efforts to negotiate with Libertas?  If not, what about his actions point specifically towards malicious intent?

[Ebowed]

Of course parties have the right to choose their own colors. It's part of the fun. You know, name, logo, slogan, motto, platform, colors; it's what gives a virtual party an identity.

I am absolutely inclined to agree with you that parties have a moral right to choose their own color and other related efforts to control their cosmetic representation on the Wiki or on the forum.  I am also sympathetic to your claim of suffering continual harassment, or the perception thereof.  I am curious as to whether you made any attempt on the forum to address the issue publicly?  Opening this thread was the first I had heard of this series of events, and I am wondering whether non-legal avenues of persuasion were tried first.  I am minded to believe that a potential response from the defendant to such a public opinion piece would provide serious insight as to what motivation possessed him to repeatedly make these Wiki edits.

[Badger]

This is a case brought before the courts? Disposition of what constitutes "emerald green"??

So glad there's not a potential economic crisis looming or anything. Wouldn't want to be distracted from such heady matters of state....

[MaxQue]

I received a PM saying me than I was randomly selected as a jury for this case, than I never heard about before receiving that PM.
I'm able to consider this case.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course parties have the right to choose their own colors. It's part of the fun. You know, name, logo, slogan, motto, platform, colors; it's what gives a virtual party an identity.

I am absolutely inclined to agree with you that parties have a moral right to choose their own color and other related efforts to control their cosmetic representation on the Wiki or on the forum.  I am also sympathetic to your claim of suffering continual harassment, or the perception thereof.  I am curious as to whether you made any attempt on the forum to address the issue publicly?  Opening this thread was the first I had heard of this series of events, and I am wondering whether non-legal avenues of persuasion were tried first.  I am minded to believe that a potential response from the defendant to such a public opinion piece would provide serious insight as to what motivation possessed him to repeatedly make these Wiki edits.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the situation a few times on the forum during Populares conventions, but my dialogue with Antonio V has been limited to what was said on the Wiki. I attempted to persuade him by pointing out that emerald was our official color as voted on at our convention, to no avail.

Whether he had good intentions at first or not, somewhere between July 18 and October 29 it became clear that this was just a game for him. He wanted to "win" the Wiki edit war that he started.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obviously, Libertas decided to use a legal way only after his tried to convinve the defendent to cease his activities failed. I think it was appropriate from his side to first try to resolve this on wiki talks.