[WikiEN-l] RE: what you wrote on wikipedia blocks

-----Original Message----- From: megaknee(a)btopenworld.com [mailto:megaknee@btopenworld.com] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:48 PM To: Poor, Edmund W Subject: what you wrote on wikipedia blocks "Anyone who has 'trouble' following the rules should get a standard time-out for each violation, until they either 1. Get a clue, or 2. Choose to be elsewhere" I saw this.It's not what happened to me, in getting permanently kicked out on the argument that to claim to be entitled to any standards of fairness instead of always being a beggar for them as discretionary, constituted "legal threats"! And this was done near the expiry of a 2-day block for accused "link spam" that was flagrantly biased because it wasn't put on the other side of the argument concerned who were repeatedly reinstating their link while I was trying to achieve a neutral balance with it. Both blocks had the effect of preventing me taking the issue to RfC, or nominating a relevant VfD, after I had been bullied by a group with personal attacks started out of nowhere, sourced from a feud outside Wikipedia, and an attitude that to call them unfair proved them right! As can be read at talk:Asperger's Syndrome, Aug 18-27. Unless the blocks don't prevent there existing a contest proceeding exists against them where this evidence of bias can be presented and answered, that evidences to the world that Wikipedia is corrupt. That is not a "legal threat" because Wikipedia can't opt out of the world! so has definite responsibilities never to side with group bullying or stalking of any user, no matter if it would be cynically expedient to. Have you any user instructions on how, when thwarted by exactly the indefinite block whose abusiveness on bullies's side I'm seeking to challenge, and whose open purpose is already to prevent me making other challenges - how I can convey this challenge on an official basis to the highest levels of Wikipedia in the terms shown in this email. If not, shouldn't you abandon Wikipedia, concluding it does not match your own stated standards of fairness and is corrupt? I have set out all this both in Wikien-l and on my user page. It's as simple as this: The only way the NPOV policy genuinely exists and is not a public lie, is if unconditionally anyone who falls victim to crowd psychology can lay claim to by right, not have to beg for by favour, any measure that prevents a force of group numbers keeping a bullying bias in place. Now, "laying claim to" anything, inherently means being entitled to anything. This is actually a case-study in how society emerged from the Middle Ages. To have any credible claim to work by any principles, a society must show they operate reliably fairly, and to do that means that people are entitled to it. No way out of that. Hence, as soon as any group tries to follow any policy code like neutral POV, immediately people are entitled to things and all things are not dependent on favour. So, it stands absolutely logically proved: either * it's wrong to say to any user ever "you're not entitled to anything", or * it's wrong to say to the public that Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that works. They can't both be right because anyone can see they contradict each other head-on. At least one must be wrong. Which is it? What this means is perfectly clear. Unless Wikipedia can answer that, then Wikipedia is illegal and I have uncovered the point where its present structure makes it so. ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com