COPY OF MAIL JUST SENT TO THE WIKIEN I LIST 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 t opt 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 renot 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 end of copy Right what this means is perfectly clear Unless Wikipedia can answer the question I put there which is it then Wikipedia is illegal It s as simple as that and I m immediately posting so in every single aspie forum I belong to I will also be asking real life organisations to file details on it as being part of a hate campaign The illegality is shared by every person who does not leave Wikipedia Unless there is an unless unless the question is answerable There are only 2 answers if it s the second answer no neutrality policy then Wikipedia would stand obliged by its own public admission to shut down while if it s the first answer the mob is not in charge and people are entitled to things then this block ends It s as simple as that Now I have a right to challenge the block and this has been the challenge The block forms part of a group bullying hate campaign to establish that the mob is in charge and if that is not the case Wikipedia has absolutely firmly no other choice than to admit that people are entitled to things and that inherently means it is not a legal threat to say so That means being entitled to challenge any admin who claims it is Now people outside Wikipedia are going to see whether this has been passed on to every place for challenging blocks and then what answers it gets