Attention other admins please. Foul play needing an emergency response. (Asperger's Syndrome article.)
mailed to Redwolf: "I demand that you put up a vote for deletion of the Aspies For Freedom article, on my behalf, now, without waiting 48 hours, in the category that it is a Vanity Article promoting its own writers' business and is a totally personally biased view of themselves. Unless you do this without claiming to even have even in theory a shred of discretion not to, I challenge your admin position as abused on biased behalf of Wikipedia's name. Also that you post the reply to Amy I just sent you, and relabel the Asperger's article as neutrality disputed. I'm going to copy this message onto wikien-l."
I have not broken 3RR, yet admin Redwolf has blocked me for "user spam" for reinserting a link that has been discussed in the talk page and that vandals keep deleting. I reinstate it only because it is needed for balance against another link, Aspies For Freedom, that others keep reinstating and I had been seen as censoring for trying the option of removing it. This proves that this block on me, the second in 3 days, is blatantly biased and bullying.
The opposing side of this argument have not been blocked, yet they are elements associated with a commmunity outside Wikipedia that has socially hurt many people and that I had shown evidence of following peopleto other forums to harrass them. The picture is now strongly circumstantial that the entire crisis at the Asperger's Syndrome article since Aug 18 has been another case of this, in which case I am being stalked. Now that's very serious. Stalked. With this block forming part of it.
Blocking me in the stalkers' favour prevents me answering on talk page some serious accusations that a character called Amy from this group made against me there 2 hours ago, and Redwolf has not put it there for me. Aspies For Freedom also has its own Wiki article. Its leader Gareth has threatened me with "filing a DMCA notice to the Wikimedia foundation", just before a block on me begins whose timing prevents me acting to oppose this - except by posting here.
On the evidence of this campaign and the disruption of Wikipedia by it, I propose the Aspies For Freedom article for deletion as a Vanity Article, + in these circumstances of foul play I must be legally entitled to have this proposal filed right now, not with a 48 hour wait.
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
That is NOT a valid reason to delete a page. Try filing an RFC for it when your block expires..
On 8/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I am correct in thinking you are [[User:Tern]]?
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 05:59 PM, geni wrote:
I am correct in thinking you are [[User:Tern]]?
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027715.html
And please remember [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]. I believe that would apply here. This matter, IMO, requires a close look. [[User:Bratsche|Ben]]
heh, i just noticed the "legally" part. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] a democracy.
On 8/25/05, Ben E. bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
And please remember [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]. I believe that would apply here. This matter, IMO, requires a close look. [[User:Bratsche|Ben]]
-- Bratsche-It means "viola!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MAURICE FRANK stated for the record:
I must be legally entitled to have this proposal filed right now, not with a 48 hour wait.
You're not /entitled/ to anything.
On 8/26/05, MAURICE FRANK megaknee@btopenworld.com wrote:
On the evidence of this campaign and the disruption of Wikipedia by it, I propose the Aspies For Freedom article for deletion as a Vanity Article, + in these circumstances of foul play I must be legally entitled to have this proposal filed right now, not with a 48 hour wait.
I am not making a judgement on the other matters concerned here, but to claim you have some legal basis grounded in "foul play" to have the artice deleted is laughable. Unless you are referring to a remedy based in defamation, I am unsure of what you are saying. As Phroziac said, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is a service provided by a private organisation, and as such there is no constitutional right to free speech applying to Wikipedia.
~Mark Ryan