[WikiEN-l] Blocked user report

Mon Apr 11 04:13:47 UTC 2005

To whom it may concern,
Please see below, an email I sent to Jimbo Wales on 04.09.05
This email may also interest various Wiki Admins.
Any help I can receive with this will be appreciated
++++++++++++++++++++

04.09.05

Greetings:

I am Wiki user 216.153.214.94.

Last year, until I lost interest in logging-in, I edited as Rex071404.
For most Admins I've communicated with though,  it's common knowledge that 216.153.214.94 is Rex071404.

Recently, on 04.07.05, I was blocked by IP indefinitely by Neutrality.
Being unable to log in or edit from that IP, I left a message on Meelar's talk page (for reasons that would be made clear if the post were read) from a secondary IP address of 216.153.214.93.

Though I have access to many IP addresses, I have refrained from attempting to use any because, ruckus raising or evasion is not my intent. Rather, my intent has been (albeit poorly executed) to oppose/balance out what I see is a serious imbalance of POV in various USA politics related articles. And, while doing that, I have from time to time added some thoughtful talk page comments and started a few worthwhile pages.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts about some of the brouhahas I have been involved in might be.
In particular, for an example, please take a close look at the "Killian documents" article or "John Kerry" and tell me if you would, are you in agreement that each and every edit I've tried to make there since basically forever ought to have been reverted (as they have been)? I simply cannot fathom where the depth of opposition is coming from. 

Here's a case in point: On the "John Kerry" page, there is a link to the wiki-page of the 'pro-Kerry' documentary of "Going Upriver", but no matter how you try to insert it, a link to the wiki-page of the 'anti-Kerry'  "Stolen Honor" documentary gets deleted. 

Frankly, I fail to see why the wiki doesn't simply delete "Stolen Honor" if it's not going to be allowed to be incorporated by link reference into articles which pertain to the main subject matter of the documentary itself. Also, take notice that it was me, editing as Rex071404 who started the Stolen Honor page (and defended it from relentless revert and debasement attack).

At this point, I am not sure what to think about your otherwise noble goal of a free encyclopedia. How can an information source be considered valid if opposing views are simply shooed away?

Take a look at some of the talk page dialogs I have engaged in at:
"Lawrence v. Texas"
"Monty Hall Problem"
"Dedham Massachusetts"
"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
"Killian Documents"
"Axis of Evil", etc.

You may have to look at some last fall entries to get a clear picture. One thing you will notice is that I've never, not once, ever quit a dialog on a talk page with open questions or comments directed at me going unanswered. But, you'll also notice that my opponents such as JamesMLane, Neutrality, Gamaliel and Antaeus Feldspar simply quit trains of dialog when they are boxed in. 

For example, it's been almost a year, but JamesMLane has NEVER answered the question which I posed to him on at least 10 occasions; yes or no, is it true that John Kerry's first wound was "minor"? The amount of fighting I was forced to endure trying to get and answer to that (or alternatively, get that word into the article) was enormous. Frankly, I don't see how one can care about all the irrelevant minutiae which is included in the Kerry article, but still be so opposed to allowing the word "minor" in to describe an injury which required no stitches and caused no loss of duty. How much less consequential of an injury can one get?

As another example, at Killian documents, there is no coherent explanation of even the undisputed facts concerning the "provenance" of the so-called documents. Indeed, even getting the word "provenance" into the article required a major fight.

Personally, I feel that on politically related articles, there is too much of a left-wing bias and the "mob-rule" plan of "consensus" gives only the entrenched side with more votes a voice - everyone else is silenced. Certainly, some of the recent comments by users such as Cecropia and 172 cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Jim, I've looked into some of your background edits on the Wiki, you seem to be a very smart guy. But, I am puzzled that you don't seem to have noticed the political bias issue on the Wiki.

I have 3 questions:

1) Have you noticed that political related articles are a bone of contention?
2) Have you lost any editors from the WIki (who you consider good editors) that have cited anything akin to "mob-rule" problems as a reason for leaving.
3) And if yes to #2, are you open to dialoging with me via email various things related to what I have commented on above (or anything else you might feel is germane)?

Please advise.

Warmest Regards,
216.153.214.94
-------------- next part --------------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005