"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. 

"