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

[Poor, Edmund W]

We are all beggars. No one can insist on a standard of fairness when
editing articles. You and I can only make a good faith edit and explain
it on the article's discussion page. If others aren't convinced, there's
little you or I can do about it.

While your account is blocked you can make editorial suggestions on your
user talk page. Please tell me your Wikipedia username, and I'll
dialogue further with you there.

(If you choose to reply only by private email, please use my Yahoo
address.

Ed Poor
Wikipedia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: megaknee at btopenworld.com [mailto:megaknee at 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
>