In Response

Dear “Lessheard vanU” and to Wikipedia including all editors and administrators & Mr. Wales:   This is a very serious issue.  We contributing writers have attempted to follow wikipedia written polices in contributing and adding to an existing article or creating one.  Yet there are double standards beings upheld by wikipedia’s own editors and administrators.  As with Blackpearl14, who clearly believes that wikipedias polices don’t apply to her, and with other editors who uphold double standards.   Then when challenged to the double standards, including Blackpearl14's violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and reckless authoritarian rule and control, other wikipedia editors and administrators then support each other when one of them continues to violate wikipedia’s own written polices.    “Lessheard vanU” had then wrongly and deliberately calls the contributing people who writes back and flags the issue at hand a “harassing the editor”, outright agreeing with Blackpearl14.  Then in addition to IP address being blocked, all “talk & discussion” are deleted  leaving only one sided bias and reckless claims against the contributing writers.  Even though wrongly deleted by wikipedia editors & administrators, all of this has been recorded, including that Blackpearl14 having repeatedly writing in both correspondence and her bio page (copies have been secure)  that the articles belong to her and they will continue to be own and controlled by her.  These statements alone proves that she is in violation of wikipedia’s own written polices and purpose.  Yet you have ignored that.

As previously written in discussion, per wikipedia’s own written polices, but immediately deleted by Blackpearl14 and then sanctioned by  “Lessheard vanU”, Blackpearll4 - calls herself evidently Mrs. Johnny Depp and Pirate lord-ess and such.  She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia.   Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages, and then recklessly calls anyone who doesn’t follow her bias views vandals, attackers and such.   Has her judgement become impaired?   Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear.  That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral and is against wikipedia’s own written polices.  Sorry, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest.   As recorded, Blackpearl14's pages regarding this issue are one sided, not neutral, are bias, in conflict of interest and are all promotional tools promoting the causes and products of the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean.   Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean and similar wikipedia articles are not neutral, they are a series of one sided promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company.   Following wikipedia’s own written “neutral” policy, entire articles would have to be deleted.    Yet Blackpearl14 continues to violate Wikipedia polices and purpose.  

Then with IP’s being deliberately blocked and contributing writers having been wrongly accused and falsely called various things, if anyone then attempts to generate a new article related to Pirates of the Caribbean following wikipedia’s own written polices, editors and administrators gang up and generate false reason upon reason, to delete those articles and ban the IP user.   They use a countless list of double standards and twisted logic to justify their reckless acts.   It’s a total lock out by the editors and administrators, abusing their trust tools, acting like a private monarchy.   To date, Blackpearl14's has proven she has ultimate control, has repeatedly stated that is her purpose, and had even sought to have the articles locked.    Then you “Lessheard vanU” wrote that you don’t want to lock these articles, stating it goes against company policy, but yet you added that you are preparing to possibly lock the articles in some capacity and do other acts against those who have been falsely branded and wrongly labeled as “vandals” and “harassing the editors” etc...

Other editors and administrators who have proven their practice of bias and manipulative and outright double standards practices include “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and “Chris Mann”.   We have documented that they say one thing, yet practice another.   We have documented that they enforce one set of wikipedia polices yet discard and ignore those same policies when it applies to themselves or their selective circle of peers.   We contributing writers also wonder just how many editors and admin