[WikiEN-l] JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp

[Phil Nash]

Soxred93 wrote:
>> Maybe we can set it for only 1 day, but use a JS hack to say that
>> it's indefinite. That might get the word out to them. :)
>>
>> X!

What might be better is to email their abuse@ first saying that on a certain 
date, none of their customers will be able to edit anonymously, and that 
this will continue, with the blocking period doubling, until they do 
something about *their* customer. I don't know if they have support 
newsgroups, but info to this effect into those NGs will concentrate the 
minds of those affected customers such that they will act in their own 
interests, but ultimately to ours too.

As far as I can see, there is nothing unlawful in this, and it doesn't 
amount to blackmail, because it's not an "unwarranted demand"- it's a simple 
declaration of intent; and it's not "with menaces", because restricting 
access to an essentially private website can be done for whatever reason at 
all, capricious or not. Neither is it "with a view to gain or with intent to 
cause loss", because that clause specifically directs to economic 
consequences, which would not follow to Verizon should we choose to block 
their anon customers en bloc for temporary periods.

All in all, it's *our* website, and we hold all the cards.