Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BB69

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• (BB69 | talk | contributions)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

This one should be fairly simple and obvious, but the behavior's got to stop and I thought there's a chance this would be easier that a direct block, considering I've gotten myself involved and the behavior doesn't clearly meet any other blocking criteria except disruption. Also a 24hr break from BB69's disruptive behavior only to continue again is wasted effort. The behavior needs to stop.

BB69 has been adding various nonsensical or obviously false material on tax related articles and citing or quoting only tangentially related sources that don't back up his claim. He of course thinks or claims to think they do, but it's fairly obvious that is wrong. His posts lacka rudimentary understanding of argumentative structure to the point it's hard to believe he even believes what he's typing. Instead it appears he's just having fun at our expense.

BB69's refrain is that he "cites sources". However, his citations amount to verbal gematria - taking individual words from statutes or other sources of law, picking out definitions of those words from cases that have nothing to do with the point at hand, and then citing those definitions as Gospel to demonstrate that the words of the Constitution and the tax code mean something other than the obvious meaning which the courts have discerned. Where authoritative citations disagree with his own incorrect statements, he treats those authroties as mere opinions, and removes them as a response to the removal of his own nonsense arguments. Finally, of particular concern, BB69's statements amount to an endorsement of acts that violate U.S. tax law. Specifically, he has repeatedly inserted into articles claims that wages need not be reported as income, and that taxes need not be paid on income.

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

The behavior goes back farther, but obvious enough examples from recent edits include this edit adding original research that includes mostly irrelevant citations that don't back up the added material. BB69 then proceeds to replace the materia after it has been removed and remove other actually cited material. And again removing properly cited material. BB69 then proceeds to replace his own material several times [1] [2] and is reverted by at least three separate editors. The real problem is that BB69's edits are not actually backed up by any sources, and the ones he does cite don't support his claims. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here, BB69 removes citations to legal authority, claiming in the edit summary that they do not stand for the proposition that he claims must be proven - this is premised on a nonsense argument about pocket commissions which does not reflect anything required by law. In this edit, BB69 adds a dangerously inaccurate statement that "taxpayers do not have to pay these fines and the IRS has been shown to not have jurisdiction to even assess these fines", and adds a bevy of linkspam to the page. I corrected this statement by introducing NPOV language indicating that this was merely a tax protester belief (and that people who refuse to pay fines can be jailed for it); BB69 then reverted my corrections without explanation. BD2412 T 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this is correct way to do this, but here goes. This insert is placed here to illustrate how BB69 views Wikipedia. BB69's comments about his motivations for his tactics are illuminating. The following was originally inserted by Famspear on Thurs Dec 8, 2005 about 10:15 pm Central Time USA, at BB69 User talk page. BB69 had responded to a message from me, and I added my counter-responses. I have also added bolding for emphasis in some of BB69's comments.]

[from BB69 to Famspear:]

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied.

[Famspear responds]

“Trying to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” is not appropriate in the Wikipedia article on the income tax. This is an encyclopedia, and the main articles area is not a discussion forum or a place to “try to show people” something like that. Regardless of whether you call it an attempt to "persuade people” or “trying to show people,” it’s not appropriate in the main articles area.

[BB69 says:] Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate [separate] page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

[Famspear responds:]

Again, the articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to “assert your points.” You are inappropriately trying to use Wikipedia as a cyberspace soapbox to “try to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” as you put it. The “idea” is not supposed to be that when someone puts in “Income Tax”, etc., they “get your information.”

[BB69 says:] I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show [shown] the defects in your arguments to mine.

[Famspear responds:]

No, sorry, I did not see any “defects” in my “argument.”

[BB69 continues:] Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule.

[Famspear responds:]

The articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you “take the chance” to “convince” other users that what you are “showing” will “lead them to the answer.” Trying to “convince” other users is the same as trying to persuade them that your belief about the income tax is correct, which is the same as “trying to show people” that the income tax is “misapplied.” This is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

[BB69 continues:] So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion.

[Famspear responds:]

Sorry, but I doubt if any users or editors lend any credibility at all to your material. Virtually everything you have said about the income tax has been “defeated,” and this will “continue to be so” since your materials are not “law” but only your own opinion.

[BB69 says:] I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop.

[Famspear responds:]

No, but I understand that you “feel” that you have been “misled.” In psychology, there is a term called “transference.” One working definition of transference is “the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in the subject’s past.” I invite you to do some reading on the term “transference.” Also, you certainly have been misled by the tax protester nonsense you have been reading.

[BB69 writes:] Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

[Famspear responds:]

The point is that it’s inappropriate for you to be trying to use Wikipedia to have “someone get to” your “information” about the income tax. You can certainly set up your own web site for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not the place to do that.

[BB69 says:] You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.

[Famspear responds:]

Wikipedia articles are not the appropriate place to put information to help people try to “defeat the US Income tax system” as you put it. And nobody is doing it legally – not in the ways you are thinking. If you think you are doing it legally, why not contact the local office of the Internal Revenue Service, ask for the Special Agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation unit, and give him or her all the facts of your case?

[BB69 says:] Again, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that your belief is that Income Taxes are applied correctly. I am only posting from what I read and from what I read it is very clear that my position is correct.

[Famspear responds:]

Aren't you pleased we're able to perform this exercise without getting into a “back and forth” argument about the defects or lack of defects in your arguments? This discussion was about the fact that you are using the wrong "forum" to make your arguments. By the way, whatever it is you've been reading, you might want to consider throwing it away. Famspear 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider my response this:

Thank you for writing back. I look forward to viewing the brackets you have placed to make it easy to see responses. If found valuable, I may want to do that to my own page.

To cover your assertion that my point is to persuade people that the Income Tax law is invalid, that is incorrect. I am showing people the that Income Tax law as written is correct, but that it is misapplied.

[Famspear responds]

“Trying to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” is not appropriate in the Wikipedia article on the income tax. This is an encyclopedia, and the main articles area is not a discussion forum or a place to “try to show people” something like that. Regardless of whether you call it an attempt to "persuade people” or “trying to show people,” it’s not appropriate in the main articles area. [BB69 responds] What do you think the Wikipedia article on income tax is? It is trying to show people that it is applied correctly. So, your statement would also apply that the article is the incorrect forum as well. You asked what my point was and I told you. As far as the right forum, the Article is the best forum to put in the facts and cases, which is what I have done and my addition.

[BB69 says:] Unless you can show me differently, I don't see how creating a seperate [separate] page on Income tax to assert my points would be of much use since the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" or "Income Tax in the United States" that they get my information, unless I can re-direct people from the current article using those same keywords.

[Famspear responds:]

Again, the articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to “assert your points.” You are inappropriately trying to use Wikipedia as a cyberspace soapbox to “try to show people” that the income tax law is “misapplied” as you put it. The “idea” is not supposed to be that when someone puts in “Income Tax”, etc., they “get your information.” [BB69 response:] Again, the articles area of the Wikipedia is the appropriate place to put in facts. It is not about asserting points, unless you think the whole article is asserting a point. All articles would be called a soapbox by your definition because they all assert a point. Yes, the idea is that when someone puts in "Income Tax" they get my article because I am publishing it just like any other article.

[BB69 says:] I understand what you mean about trying to show defects in my argument in your response. That is how I expect discussions to go. As you saw, (on your talk page)I have show [shown] the defects in your arguments to mine.

[Famspear responds:]

No, sorry, I did not see any “defects” in my “argument.” [BB69 responds:] Ok, they had defects.

[BB69 continues:] Again, I agree, this is not about BB69 being right and Famspear being wrong, but merely stating the facts and showing sources. I'm going to take the chance that I can convince other Wikipedia users that what I am showing will lead them to the answer that the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule.

[Famspear responds:]

The articles area of Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you “take the chance” to “convince” other users that what you are “showing” will “lead them to the answer.” Trying to “convince” other users is the same as trying to persuade them that your belief about the income tax is correct, which is the same as “trying to show people” that the income tax is “misapplied.” This is not appropriate in Wikipedia. [BB69 responds] Again, this is not about the article, but about answering your question. The article is still the right place to make additions, just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them wrong. Stop trying to place your opinion over the facts.

[BB69 continues:] So far, there have been no users who have been able to defeat me in any of my material and I suspect it will continue to be so since the material I am citing is law, not opinion.

[Famspear responds:]

Sorry, but I doubt if any users or editors lend any credibility at all to your material. Virtually everything you have said about the income tax has been “defeated,” and this will “continue to be so” since your materials are not “law” but only your own opinion. [BB69 responds] Yes, that is true. None of the editors or users have been able to lend credibility at all yet. None of anything I have said about the income tax has been defeated and it will continue to be that way since all my materials are law and yours are your opinion.

[BB69 says:] I am sure, once the users get over their feeling of being mis-led all these years, that they will admit to it. The bottom line is that we all see this and do something about it. I hope that many people will and some attorneys will as well. It has already started and it's not going to stop.

[Famspear responds:]

No, but I understand that you “feel” that you have been “misled.” In psychology, there is a term called “transference.” One working definition of transference is “the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in the subject’s past.” I invite you to do some reading on the term “transference.” Also, you certainly have been misled by the tax protester nonsense you have been reading. [BB69 responds] I understand you trying to sluff your ignorance off as the transference of mine. I can clearly see you are still in denial. Look that up. I am the one paying attention to the law. It is now you who have been shown and refuse to believe and even want to be unconstitutional and for that you should feel bad about yourself.

[BB69 writes:] Again, putting up my own user page with my information misses the point of having someone get to it who is curious about "Income Tax" and "Income Tax in the United States" when it doesn't get to my page.

[Famspear responds:]

The point is that it’s inappropriate for you to be trying to use Wikipedia to have “someone get to” your “information” about the income tax. You can certainly set up your own web site for this kind of thing. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. [BB69 responds] Again, it's not inappropriate to publish facts in an article. It's the point.

[BB69 says:] You can defeat the US Income tax system using the information I post as a start and I have done it myself for five years. I am only one of thousands that are already doing this legally.

[Famspear responds:]

Wikipedia articles are not the appropriate place to put information to help people try to “defeat the US Income tax system” as you put it. And nobody is doing it legally – not in the ways you are thinking. If you think you are doing it legally, why not contact the local office of the Internal Revenue Service, ask for the Special Agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation unit, and give him or her all the facts of your case? [BB69 responds] Again, this is not about the article, this is about answering your question as to the information I have published not being able to help anyone defeat the IRS and that is incorrect. Yes, Famspear, everyone is doing it legally, because that is the law. I have already contacted the IRS and told them what I am doing and to show me the law that makes me liable and know what? They haven't written me back in 5 years and shown me the law. Know why? Because it doesn't exist, my friend. If the IRS can't show me where it is, what chance is there of you or any of your cohorts being able to do so? Get it?

[BB69 says:] Again, I'm going to go out on a limb and suspect that your belief is that Income Taxes are applied correctly. I am only posting from what I read and from what I read it is very clear that my position is correct.

[Famspear responds:]

Aren't you pleased we're able to perform this exercise without getting into a “back and forth” argument about the defects or lack of defects in your arguments? This discussion was about the fact that you are using the wrong "forum" to make your arguments. By the way, whatever it is you've been reading, you might want to consider throwing it away. Famspear 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC) [BB69 response]

[BB69 responds] This has been fine to discuss and not base it on your lack of facts and defects in your argument. I have answered your assumptions about it being the wrong forum. I'm glad I could show you that it is the correct forum. You might want to start paying attention the constitution and everything I'm making available to you and stop living in denial

BB69 also twice added the following material to Income tax in the United States diff, diff:

"Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation." Conner v US 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

I looked up the case cited and read it from end to end, and can confidently attest to the fact that the long quote does not exist anywhere in that case. I do not know if BB69 is making this up, or has simply blindly copied it from someone else's website, but the quote does not exist in the case. Furthermore, although the short qoute at the beginning of the paragraph does appear in the case, here it is taken completely out of context. The court was not discussing "compensation" meaning wages, but was quite explicitly discussing "compensation" meaning money paid by an insurance company to compensate a homeowner for having to stay in a hotel after the house burned down. The court placed no emphasis on the word "income", and in any event was not distinguishing income from wages (which are not discussed in the case at all), but rather was distinguishing income from reimbursement for a accidental loss. Again, I do not know if BB69 is intentionally presenting false information by claiming that this case refers to wages, or whether he has been hoodwinked. However, in neither case can he be permitted to continue adding clearly false information to tax articles. BD2412 T 03:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I am not intentionally presenting false information. I am taking information from sources that have provided me with other corrrect information. I apologize if the quotes were not in the court cases. I had no reason to believe they weren't. In fact, if you can show me how I can read a whole court case, I can assure that wouldn't happen again. Thank you for your cooperation. BB69 ^Talk 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I have posted the entire text of that opinion on this RfC's talk page. I suggest that you reconsider the reliability of the sources from which you are receiving this information - this is not the first case you have cited that stands for propositions that are either irrelevent to or the opposite of what you claim (and, in fact, this case was reversed in part on appeal, Conner v. United States, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971), and the taxpayer was required to pay tax on part of the insurance reimbursement at issue). I would also stress that, even if you had not posted the non-existent quote, this case is typical of your arguments in that it claims that a court made a statement on the applicability of the income tax to wages, when in fact wages are simply not mentioned at all, except as something which can be taxed as income. BD2412 T 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to be cooperative and show me how to look up cases because I have many. Do you want to look them all up and post them for me?BB69 ^Talk 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

It is not a matter of being cooperative - all published cases are available on Lexis and Westlaw, but these are expensive pay-sites, with law schools, law firms, and government agencies having most of the subscriptions. You can find all United States Supreme Court cases for free on Findlaw, if you know the citation number - just be careful to seperate the text of the case itself from headnotes or summaries. I understand that some of the federal circuits also post their recent cases on their own websites. These materials are also available in the printed case reporters which can be found in most law libraries - although some law libraries are stingy about admitting non-students or non-lawyers.

I do not want to look up and post every case that you cite. You can look up the Supreme Court cases on Findlaw, and the Supreme Court has the final word on the meaning of the law, so lower court opinions are simply not going to be that significant. Also, as I've mentioned before, many of the cases you cite are obsolete or over-ruled, so posting the text of the case itself would be meaningless without also posting all the cases that render them obsolete or that reverse them. BD2412 T 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being cooperative and showing me how I can improve my actions. I still don't see where they are obsolete or over ruled, so I will look for that, or ask you to show me where it says that while I do my research. Thanks BB69 ^Talk 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Verifiability
2. WP:NPOV

(provide diffs and links)

Note it may be easier to read the two talk pages in question first, and then review the diffs if necessary. See the permanent links to my talk page and BB69's containing the discussion. --I think the two talk pages easily and clearly demonstrate the problem to someone that doesn't know the relevant tax laws.

I attempted heading it off the pass with a message on his talk page, and he responds with this that doesn't address the issue, this that misses the point. After discussing with BD2412, an attorney, I decided to try once more to reason with BB69, and left this comment. His responses repeated the pattern of parroting back my words and generally don't have a logical structure. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. BD2412 T 20:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. DS1953 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Famspear 20:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Macrakis 21:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Olorin28 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. J E Bailey 13:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. 172 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Robert McClenon 20:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. — mark ✎ 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Block this user for disruption if his behaviour doesn't improve. No well-meaning editors should be wasting their time on sorry things like this.[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} I have sourced all my material in both article and discussions with all of these users. All of it is either sourced from Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution, and Internal Revenue Code Book. They all refuse to believe the facts that lie in front of them and continue to remove all of my well sourced documentation. Wikipedia is NOT a popularity contest, it is the posting of both sides of information. Just because one doesn't agree and can't back it up, doesn't mean that said information should be removed. I have tried discussing this with them all and they continue to vandalise. This behavior needs to stop and is juvenile. Every time they have removed my information, I put mine back with reasons supplied and sources backing it up and they still continue to remove it. Some of their information is incorrect and it's obvious they can't back it up. bb69 21:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Jbamb 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "the posting of both sides of information", and posting nonsense in the guise of information. Your arguments are the equivalent of pointing to a court case where the court notes that a piece of ground was flat and using that to claim that the law says the entire Earth is flat, and Earth article should say that so people will no longer be fooled into thinking it is a sphere - except that your arguments are more dangerous. First people don't go to jail for acting as though the Earth were flat (but they do go to jail for believing that they don't have to pay income tax ), and second because the average person does not have access to case reporters or even know enough about legal precedent to know exactly why the claims your raise are frivolous, which is what the courts in every U.S. Circuit have determined. For example, you use language from decisions of state courts interepreting state law (which has no relevance to federal income tax), language from old decisions that have long since been over-ruled or distinguished, language from cases that are simply not about the taxation of income, and language from cases which have an outcome that contradicts the phrase or the paragraph for which you cite the case. Most importantly, you claim that "the Income tax is misapplied no matter what some Judges rule", ignoring the fact that the application of the income tax to wages is recognized as the correct interpretation of law by all judges throughout the federal system, and that Congress knows how the judges are interpreting the law and takes no action to suggest that this interpretation is incorrect. In short, you are posting a side of the information that does not exist, and that endangers any person who believes it. BD2412 T 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference. My arguments point to a part in a case that says income is not wages and that means income isn't wages ever. That still applies. First of all there is no law that makes someone liable for income taxes and no one has been able to point to a law enacted by congress that does. That can be verified. Any lay person can ask someone at their tax office to show them and they won't be able to. Once they determine that, they will see that anyone who has gone to jail over it has done so illegally. State law goes by Federal law in the case of income tax and that's why it applies and has relevance. The cases that talk about income in them don't have to be specifically about them. If we had a conversation about money and we veered into income taxes, the income tax portion would still apply. It is correct to state that Income tax is misapplied no matter what some judges rule. You ignore the fact of what the Constitution says that there are to be "no direct taxes" and that's exactly what a tax on your wages is. That arms any person with correct information in deciding what anything else says. User:BB69 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Regarding an unattributed quote from a court decision added by BB69 and removed by Famspear, Famspear wrote to BB69 as an explanation:

This quote is apparently from Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 859 (1955). This case is cited over and over by tax protesters on the internet. Unfortunately, this is not even a Federal income tax case. The issue of taxability of wages for Federal income tax purposes was neither presented to the court nor decided by the court. This was a Virginia Supreme Court decision. “The law” in question was not even a tax law. It was the Virginia nonprofit corporation law. Famspear 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was BB69's response as he re-inserted the material into the article:

It doesn't matter, it still applies even if that's not what the case was based on. User:BB69 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

BB69 wants to continue to edit Wikipedia - with more of the same. Famspear 02:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the consensus above, BB69's actions are against Wikipedia policy and are damaging to the project. Continuing to add material that is not faithful to the sources and that doesn't back up the point made is dangerous. Therefore simply revert him. There are enough examples where BB69's additions are incorrect that he should not be allowed to add them. If the material checks out it can be added by another editor, so it would be better if BB69 add them to the talk page instead. Then we can proceed to arbcom if he continues adding them dirrectly to articles. - Taxman ^Talk 14:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on BB69's actions, they are not against Wikipedia policy and no one has cited that policy. They are found not to be damaging to the project. If anyone continues to add material that is not faithful to its sources and doesn't back up the point that is made, it can be reverted and discussed in the talk/discuss pages. We can't just have BB69's information alone only being added once it checks out on the talk page. If ANY information is to be added it should go to the talk page, since there is enough examples where everyone else's additions are incorrect as well. If there is no dispute or other editor can not prove it shouldn't be added, then it can be added by the same author, including BB69. Arbcom will also continue if others add their articles directly to the page without being mentioned on the talk page first. [BB69]] (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Incorrect. In this case it's been demonstrated you have violated several policies and good faith is no longer a proper assumption for you. Therefore changes in what edits you are allowed is appropriate. No one else in this case has done the same, so different treatment for you is warranted. You've been warned and had several opportunities to change your actions and have not. - Taxman ^Talk 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrrect. It has NOT been demonstrated that I have violated ANY policies and good faith is still the proper assumption for me. Therefore, changes in what I edit are allowed unless can be proven wrong. Many people in this case have done the same, so no different treatment is warranted. Everyone else has been warned as well and had several opportunities to change their actions and have not. What has been demonstrated is that I have acquiesced and let some changes stay based on the level headedness and logic of some posters at some times. My changes have been left for their logic as well. As you can see from all the talk and discussion pages, I have kept a level head, logic and have carried out the discussion as long as anyone felt they wanted. If they left it with my comment last, it was assumed it was fine. If it wasn't, it needs to be communicated. As you can see, I can be cooperative. BB69 ^Talk 16:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

You can parrot back a response without thinking as many times as you want but it doesn't change the facts. - Taxman ^Talk 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, because you have still committed all the things I have mentioned. That hasn't changedBB69 ^Talk 16:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I am a small fish in a very big pond called Wikipedia, and I'm new to this pond. I obviously agree with Taxman and the other community members who have posted here regarding BB69's behavior. This comment is not just about the fact that BB69's edits are spurious attempts by an obviously untutored person to mislead others about the nature of U.S. income tax law; it is also about (1) BB69's unwillingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines when posting (specifically neutral point of view and verifiability), (2) BB69's unwillingness or inability to engage in a meaningfully logical and mature level of discourse when he or she is "called" on blatant mis-statements, (3) BB69's apparent inability to recognize the absence of his or her knowledge about a mind-numbingly technical subject in which he or she obviously has no expertise, and (4) BB69's obdurate recalcitrance when presented with the evidence of his or her error and the totally reasonable concomitant protest by Wikipedia users. Forget about the tax law for a moment, and consider any area of law. If a first year law student were to throw BB69's brand of "reasoning" into a Socratic discourse with a professor or into a law school exam on any subject (property, contract, torts, whatever), he or she would deserve all the scorn that would surely be served, as well as the attendant embarrassment and academic failure. I am a tax lawyer and I work for taxpayers. I have studied the law for many years. I do not represent the Internal Revenue Service. I have no bias in favor of the tax collector. I recognize that the law, like engineering or medicine or architecture, is a relatively complex body of knowledge. I also recognize, for example, that for me to contend with a heart surgeon about the intricacies of heart surgery would make about as much sense as BB69's misguided attempts to write or edit a coherent encyclopedia article on tax law. A mature individual recognizes when that individual is out of his or her league, and BB69 has evidenced no such insight on these pages. Wikipedia is a noble experiment and its proponents readily recognize its inherent weaknesses. I do respect BB69's tenacity and his or her right to hold an opinion about tax law or anything else that engages his or her interest, and to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, its community and the general public using Wikipedia are ill served, however, by the pseudo-knowledge and procedural abuse heretofore foisted on us by BB69. Famspear 18:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. All of my statements have been made by educating myself on the obvious truth in the matter, which now I can see why you are in denial about since you work as a tax lawyer, and the very idea of the income tax being applied illegally threatens your career. I would say you are too close to the issue to comment unbiasedly. Anyone who can think for themself can see that I'm pointing out U.S. Income tax law and am leading people to the correct nature of the law, opposite to what you are doing, and might I say, helping the IRS steal from people as well. Let's explore each of your points. (1) I have posted neutral points and they are not point of view, so that doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies. (2) I have engaged in meaningful logical mature discussions for as long as people want to thave them. If they stop the conversation, I can only assume that they can not refute my last idea and it is therefore correct. Your so called "calling" on "blatant mis-statements" is only your disagreement with my facts. And in fact, if I wanted to, I could call all my statement against yours "calling you out on YOUR mis-statements".(3) Apparently, you can not even defend your own career properly. I'm assuming that's because you were taught incorrectly in the first place. Don't let that stand in your way. Look at the simple information I am presenting to you and try to analyze and discuss it rationally. One does not have to be an expert in order to read and understand. I take great offense at your uppityness at looking down on the common lay people not being able to understand your area when you can't even answer the easiest of questions. (4) When I am presented with the evidence of my error I will own up to it. Apparently, none of you are able to do it.

You are a tax lawyer and you work against tax payers. You are a disgrace to taxpayers, the U.S. and the Constitution. If you had any shred of self respect you would either start working for the people who are trying to go against the IRS or leave your profession like Joe Bannister, former IRS Agent did after doing all the research for himself and finding out that there was no law that made anyone liable to pay an income tax and started helping out people who had problems with the IRS.

Wikipedia is a great place and thankfully a resource allows people to read correct statements to be input by the likes of myself to correct people like Famspear, who is obviously in denial about any of his wrong doings and swayed by his very career. I do respect the people who have written and approached me in a respectful manner and appealed to me with logic. BB69 ^Talk 16:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Dear BB69: The rest of us are not here to "defend our careers." The rest of the world does not owe you an explanation about the tax law. You post false information on Wikipedia about the tax law. Other users -- who have studied the actual statutes, regulations, and cases, not merely the materials you read -- point out your falsehoods.

The rest of us are not under an obligation to you to defend ourselves or our careers. You say in reference to me, that "the very idea of the income tax being applied illegally threatens your career." That's it? That's your answer?

Now, at this late stage in your game, you appear to be asking BD2412 for "cooperation" -- assistance in learning how to read case law. Considering your behavior, he is more than generous to the extent he provides you any assistance at all. Ask yourself this question: As you are asking for assistance on so basic a point of legal research, why have you been posting all the "quotes" from those cases and acting like you are some sort of expert on them -- and claiming that you are right and we are wrong? You cannot have even read many of those cases. You have been copying and pasting summaries and quotes from other web sites.

You continue to mis-represent yourself as having some sort of "correct" knowledge of the tax law, and your posts and your commentary illustrate otherwise. You abuse me and others because we point out your errors. You say that I am "in denial." You say I am a "disgrace" to taxpayers, etc., and you imply that I have no "shred of self respect." Yet you are, after all this, actually asking BD2412 for help in learning how to find and read court cases -- as you continue to lecture and berate us.

The only thing I have said about you that is really personal is that you are obviously an untutored person with respect to the tax law, which is a true statement and is not denotatively pejorative. That statement is not an ad hominen attack on you. It is relevant in the context of your behavior (which is what this page is about), because you incorrectly hold yourself out as having "correct" knowledge of taxation and you do not follow Wikipedia's rules.

You say that one does not have to be an expert to read and understand the tax law. To a certain extent that is correct. However, several other Wikipedia editors in this area are also non-lawyers and they provide consistently accurate edits about the tax law -- while you do not. This page is here because of your wrongdoings, not ours. I and the other editors are not "looking down" on "the common lay people."

Furthermore, society has literally granted me (and every other person with a Juris Doctor degree) the authority to pontificate about the law. When I pontificate about tax law, I am not being uppity. I know whereof I speak -- in a way that you, as an untutored person cannot know. (Perhaps there is a subject about which you have much more extensive knowledge than I and, if provided with reasonable assurance of your knowledge, I probably would not presume to lecture you on that subject.) Lawyers know the law in a way that you will probably never know it, because we have studied it in a way that you will probably never study it. I have published many articles nationally on tax law matters. I speak from a position of authority -- and it is not an authority I granted to myself on the pages of Wikipedia. The designation of "expert" is not something something I "claim" for myself; the status of "expert" is granted by other people learned and knowledgeable in the field, and it granted after being earned. I have been formally granted that status by society because of my accomplishments. You are not a legal authority. Studying the materials you study in the way you study them will not grant you expertise or authority. When you, without expertise in law, presume to pontificate about tax law to the rest of us, it is you who are being "uppity."

And the rest of us are not here to answer your "easiest of questions" about the tax law. I am not here to answer your questions to your satisfaction or persuade you; I am here to lay down the law -- literally. The rest of us are not here to prove ourselves. You are the one in trouble here, not the rest of us. Do not insult people who are trying to help you, and to protect and improve Wikipedia. Your request for help from BD2412 evinces, I hope, a glimmer of a change in your attitude. But you are not going to get anywhere in these Wikipedia pages until and unless you stop writing things like "my statements have been made by educating myself on the obvious truth in the matter," stop saying things like others are "in denial," and admit to yourself what everyone else here knows.

Good luck, Yours, Famspear 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not here to defend your career, why do you hold it out there? Why is that I owe you an explanation of the law but none of you owe me or the other Wikipedia readers and explanation? That seems biased. I post true information about Tax law on Wikopedia, you post incorrect and incomplete information. Apparently, the rest of the readers need to study what I have read. It's surprising that they don't know the statutes and tax law as well, but that is to be expected in a government education. I have posted the many legal materials I have studied in the discussion areas and am not sure if you have had a chance to look them over or not, but if you haven't, I recommend you do. The cases that I have quoted are the only thing that have been correct in pointing out. The rest is correct.

Lets say you find out that the income tax is being applied illegally. What does that do to your career? If it ends it or changes anything that you have done in the past, does that not affect your reputation? It seems to me that you upholding everything you believe in and not looking at anything contrary to it would threaten your very stance. That could be everything in this case.

Me asking for help how to find a case, not read it, is not a bad idea based on what has been pointed out to me. You could stand to learn a thing or two from BD2412 in how to conduct yourself. You might find that people would be less abrasive towards you. People treat you how you treat them. BD2412 is helpful with me because I have been decent with him. Unlike you have been with me. Famspear, you will find in life that you get treated the way you treat others.

As I mentioned before, I posted those quotes in faith that they were correct and applied. The rest of the information I have posted is correct and you have yet to dismantle that.If any abuse is occuring, it would be from your side. Remember you are the one that started by telling me that I am using "transference". That is a character slander and ad hominem. For that, you got "denial". Don't try using my responses to your bad treatment as a way to show my supposed abuse.

Again, the rest of the information shows I am correct and it doesn't seem as though you've read the rest of it. I would be glad to point you in the direction of that information and more so you can further think about what you are doing as a career. I believe this will help you out. \

I have still not been shown where I haven't followed Wikopedia's rules. You just keep saying that I have. Well, sir, that will not become any more truer based on the amount of times you say it until you point out specifics first and then we will discuss it.

It is correct that you do not have to be an expert in this area to understand it. As I have posted correct information, others have posted incorrect and incomplete. Correction, this page is here because of my "alleged" wrong doings, which have not been proven as of yet. It is put up to be looked at and so far, we have uncovered the information about the cases so far, which is correct. There is still a host of other information that has not been proven. On this page, is a space for my response, and I have responded on yours and others wrong doings. This page is just as much about your wrong doings as the ones you accuse me of.

Sir, just because you have studied the law, doesn't mean that you know all of it. As you may have been pointed out in some part of your career. This is one of those points and until you can prove it wrong, you stand corrected. I am not trying to claim to be the expert or the authority on these matters. However, I am entitled to be correct when I point out something that is correct that you have overlooked, expert or not.

You and the others actually ARE here to answer my and any one else's "easiest of questions"about the tax law. You can not expect to be able to just post information without answering questions when challenged. You have not see me do that and you are just as responsible. That is the only way for us to determine the validity of your statement, sir. If you believe yourself to be here to lay down the law, I believe myself to be here for the same reason. I believe you and all the others are also the ones in trouble here since you have not disproven much of what I have posted and have in fact dropped off on conversations. This would show me that you can not prove it incorrect, so that it must be correct. If you feel insulted by what I have printed, it is only because you have insulted me. I will treat you as you treat me. Let that be a lesson to you. Take note from BD2412 and try to conduct yourself in similar manner and you may actually get somewhere. I am here to help, improve and protect Wikipedia. If you don't like statements like "I have educated myself on these matters" then you can stop printing "I am tax lawyer, and I have the authority to pontificate as I wish". It sounds pompous sir, whether it be true or not and you do not see anyone else writing things like that. Try to conduct yourself in similar manner. And also stop saying things like "transference" and admit that you have a thing or two to learn. BB69 ^Talk 16:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

BB69 may or may not be right in some private ideal world. However, in this shared world of ours, laws in general and tax laws in particular mean what they mean not because of some tendentious reading of isolated passages of laws and court rulings (even if correctly quoted), but because of the entire system around them, including the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches. BB69, if you're "gonna raise a fuss / ...gonna raise a holler...", could you please do the Wikipedia a favor, and follow the song's advice to "take [your] problem / to the United Nations" instead of wasting our time here? --Macrakis 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BB69, in the only case that someone qualified has done the proper legal research on it has come out that not only do you not have even a basic rudimentary understanding of proper legal research, but that you quoted the case and it's outcome entirely incorrectly. That is intellectual dishonesty and violates Wikipedia's NPOV and Verifiability policies. It casts a doubt over whether any of your other edits will be correct. If you don't even know how to check your facts and have added blatantly incorrect ones, what's to stop you from doing it again? The answer is that you have an extra level of burden of proof placed on you to justify your edits, and that is how it should be. Worse is that you claim to have some mystery source that you got your information from, but you have failed to identify that. You never even had the source in front of you (the actual case) that you claimed to be citing. That is also intellectual dishonesty. And no, people are not here to answer your questions, we are here to create an encyclopedia. If you have any facts to add, learn how to properly research and cite them. - Taxman ^Talk 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman, incorrect. Intellectual dishonesty would be doing it on purpose, which I did not, so that does not violate Wikipedia's NPOV and verifiability policies. I can understand, however, the doubt, but I have also quoated verifiable sources like The Constitution and Internal Revenue Code Book. Other people's edits have not been justified and they have not listed the reason for the edits, hence, they will also be responsible for justifying with discussion. I have never said I had a mystery source which I got my information from. No one has asked me identify it and I never felt dishonest in not identifying it because it was court cases that are in the public. With your logic, I should ask everyone else where they got the idea to quote their court cases and that they didn't would make them dishonest. I am here to create an encyclopedia as well and if you are not going to answer any questions, then I don't see why I should be beholden to answer any either. BB69 ^Talk 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Dear BB69: You say you are not doing it "on purpose." Yet you asked BD2412 how to read a "whole" court case, or words to that effect. You say: "I am taking information from sources that have provided me with other corrrect [sic] information. I apologize if the quotes were not in the court cases. I had no reason to believe they weren't." That is not an acceptable answer. You are supposed to be reading what you cite. Did you actually read the FULL TEXT of the ACTUAL court decision of EVERY SINGLE CASE you posted on Wikipedia -- PRIOR to posting the case? If so, then why all the errors? If not, then why did you post them? Do you claim to know the general principles of law relating to analysis and briefing of court decisions? Have you actually briefed a case before? Do you know the difference between and among (1) a formal brief filed with the court, and (2) a brief prepared for internal use in a law firm, and (3) a "book brief" by a law student? Can you explain the differences to us right now? Can you tell us how one determines which part of a court's opinion is the binding part and which part is not? (I am deliberately NOT using the legal terms for all this, because I want to see if you can say something that shows us that you know what you're talking about.) Do you know -- RIGHT NOW -- how to determine whether a given court decision has been affirmed, reversed, overruled, distinguished, or limited? Do you know what those terms mean? You still cannot answer these questions right now, which means you are not being honest with us, because you are saying you have quoted verifiable sources that you do not even KNOW HOW to verify. And I am just scratching the surface here. Saying that you had no way of knowing that a given source was inaccurate when you posted it is simply unacceptable. When a lawyer cites a case, it is presumed that he has read the actual case. You hold yourself out as having better knowledge than all the legislators, lawyers, professors, and judges with whom you obviously disagree. Therefore, you are held to the same research standard as all those experts. I'm sorry. If you post a quote from a case, you are PRESUMED to have read the actual text of the actual case, not someone else's phony "quote" from or summary of the case. You are still falsely holding yourself out to Wikipedia users as having correct knowledge of the tax law. We aren't buying it. Famspear 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Still no response from BB69. He hasn't read the cases. He does not know how to brief a case. He doesn't know how to tell whether a case has been affirmed, reversed, etc. What a surprise. Famspear 15:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I have read the above dispute and in my opinion, it appears that BB69 should create another wiki entry on US tax code disputes if there isn't one already, and not be editing the main entry(/ies) on US Tax codes. --Censorwolf 16:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Censorwolf, what do you base that claim on specifically and why do you think I would benefit from being off the main page when being on the main page is the point. Thank you, respectully--BB69 ^Talk 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I base my opinion on my understanding of the Wikipedia policy of "neutral point of view". I would think that a reference from the main page on US Tax code to a page showing the disputes regarding the US Tax code would cover this fairly, since this opinion is not at all in the mainstream, regardless of whether it has merit or not. --Censorwolf 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that there is already a tax protester article which covers the various arguments raised - and which BB69 has also edited extensively, adding the same kinds of incorrect statements of law, stating tax protester theories as fact,[3], and posting legal arguments based on obsolete or irrelevant cases, quotes taken out of context, and assertions that the courts are wrong - including this enormous text dump, which, from a legal standpoint, is gibberish (in one part, it actually contends that the Sixteenth Amendment only empowers the government to tax itself, based on a misconstruction of a speech made by the President, who has no part in the Amendment process anyway). BD2412 T 18:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the page showing disputes regarding the US Tax code does not cover this fairly and is biased. The information covered may not be the mainstream yet, but it is well documented. I would also like to point out that BD2412 is known to not be able to prove some of the information that I have posted as incorrect and as one example of this is his link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_protester&diff=prev&oldid=28048941 here. I will continue to add the same kind of correct statements of tax law, and stating tax protestor facts that people like BD2412 disagree with. While they are free to have the PoV to disagree, the facts remain the same, even for example that the Sixteenth Amendment was created to bypass the Constitution on direct taxes, plainly incorrect, since Congress sets law and the President in question, also was part of the reason for the 16th Amendent, has a very big part. By the way, this example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_protester&diff=28041738&oldid=28041194 shows no proof of theory, that is a fact. 69.109.249.54 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Now I see that the entire section you dumped in on that second edit is a Copyright violation from this anti-tax website, which is itself original research and not a theory accepted by anyone who knows anything about the tax law. Have you researched the sources you use? President Taft never said what you claim about the Sixteenth Amendment, but about other tax provisions that he hoped Congress would pass - the quotes you added to the article were cobbled together out of context from different parts of a speech that covered multiple topics. BD2412 T 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it! RFCs are not supposed to be about the details of article content, but about user behavior. The problem with BB69 is not that he's wrong (which I agree he is), but that he refuses to engage with other editors cooperatively, and continues to re-insert material that has previously been rejected by all other editors without presenting new arguments on Talk and having them accepted. He does not appear to evaluate his sources critically (despite much helpful coaching by other editors); he does not acknowledge that the tax protester position is marginal but nonetheless covered in Wikipedia in its own article; and he explicitly states that he wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. All of this is contrary to explicit Wikipedia policy. --Macrakis 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've just determined that there are copyvios in BB69's text dumps, that goes to user behavior as well - but it is also significant that said copyvios are from sources that are flatly incorrect on the law. BD2412 T 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors: Speaking of "behavior," I am just curious as to whether BB69 is responsible for the revision at Talk:Income tax as of 22:17 on 3 November 2005 under the address of "216.27.181.235" [4]? I know that this was on a talk page, not an actual article. But I have a reason for asking. And I'm just curious as to whether BB69 will tell us whether he or she did that one. Famspear 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]