No contract exists between Wikipedia and any user towards whom it has taken admin decisions without the user having any defence process before the whole community, and without dispute resolution being tried. In trying to prove me wrong you've shown why I'm right: any rules of license or contract that were published to users were alongside rules on how users and the community relate to each other. The admin decisions without a defence process have been defended on grounds that "You are not entitled to anything" and that there aren't any rules any more consistently than when it suits the community to apply them. All statements of that nature have broken the terms on which you received any contributed words, and hence any license or contract.
In answer to Geni: back a week ago when she wrote "Am I coreect in thinking you are User:Tern" I answered her with an email asking to be informed of how to access dispute resolution and VfC while under a block. She ignored it. So by her own hand she is in no position to claim I have no case.
Direct intervention to remove words is not "an eye for an eye" at all. It's the same as directly taking back stolen property when its ownership is traceable.
In answer to Sean: it's awareness of an illegality, rather than necessarily a crime, because I wouldn't be clear whether it's criminal or civil. For the FBI to have a claim to prosecute internet users in other countries would be an interesting one, at least giving it clearer responsibilities in return over activities in your country that affect folk elsewhere.
___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com