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

[Phroziac]

by the way, please try not to break threads by changing the subject
line, if you can.

On 8/27/05, MAURICE FRANK <megaknee at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


-- 
signature