[WikiEN-l] admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a

[MAURICE FRANK]

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