In answer to the point of no legal threats - The legal reference was to the fact that I was being threatened with various forms of complaint that would need defending against, by the AFF couple, at the same time as the block began, thus obstructing my actions. I don't see that as a legal threat to sue anyone. The point is one should not have personal feuds from outside Wikipedia brought into it, and if any harrassment that would be a wrong in the world outside Wikipedia had been effected during the block which it had blocked me responding to, then that clearly would have been a legal wrong, because Wikipedia can'topt out of the world. It is not isolated from the existence of those factors in society as a whole. e.g.in the argument about Nazism that's going on here, you are taking a position against having Nazis' target groups put in danger, and you are doing that because it's an outside world legal issue. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" needs quite a sharp answer given to it. For the reason of keeping itself in passably right relationship with the outside world, i.e.readers, Wikipedia holds a policy on neutrality of content. But the only way this policy genuinely exists and is not a lie to readers, 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 without having to find NPOV ground. 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? ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l