`  ==Stone Censors== I don’t know that I’m wrong; in fact, I’m quite certain that you and AuburnPilot are in the wrong. You can censor me and block me all you want – you’ve got the power – but you can’t make me confess to wrongs of which I am innocent. Not yet, anyway. And you can’t make me say that you’re right, when you are as wrong as hell. It’s about time somebody talked back to you.  “If you were to discuss your edits, you won't [sic] be in this position right now.” (Since I had already discussed my edits, physicq’s statement above is a case of “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”)  That’s funny peculiar, because wikicensors with the correct politics somehow never have to “discuss” their “edits.” They just go and censor people with whom they disagree, and then demand that the censees justify the worth of the censored passages or links or footnotes. And guess what? The censees’ explanations, no matter how well-founded and eloquent, are never sufficient to make the censors change their minds. Once an editor realizes that nothing he says will have any positive effect on the censors (or should I say, ``commissars``?), he would be a fool to waste his time and energy trying to change that which cannot be changed. That the censors continue demanding such arguments is because they have a sadistic glee for wasting other people’s precious time and energy.  In case an open-minded (but perhaps less experienced) reader should suspect that I am just engaging in bluster, I had already made my argument in my previous entry on this page (which AuburnPilot has archived in a handsome tan box at the bottom of  under the uncivil category, “spam”) for why the footnotes and links I inserted were legitimate, but physicq aka physicq210 derided those arguments as a “polemic, complete with fallacious personal attacks,” and mocked my criticism of his abuse of authority as “whining.” In one case, I pointed out that the external link that AuburnPilot defamed as “spam” and censored, was a classic magazine article related to the  Racial Profiling Hoax.  (Speaking of which, Wikipedia's Racial profiling article is hopelessly POV through the censors’ deleting of links to articles debunking the hoax, and inserting of links to fraudulent “literature” such as thoroughly debunked work by the ACLU.)  In the case of a footnote that AuburnPilot also defamed as “spam” and censored, he cut the longest, most thorough exposé yet published on the  Duke Rape Hoax, which was published by the most brilliant, reliable magazine on the Web, VDARE.  BTW, AuburnPilot asserts that the sources in question are not “reliable” or “verifiable,” and do not maintain “neutrality.” Aside from the fact that thousands of Wikipedia articles are transparent political propaganda, or no more than love or hate letters to certain public figures (particularly entertainers or athletes), AuburnPilot has misrepresented the Wikipedia rule on neutrality. There is no requirement that every source be neutral (as opposed to reliable and verifiable), only that every Wikipedia article be neutral.  WP:NPOV  “All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.”  As for “verifiablilty,” the VDARE source has over 100 hyperlinks to supporting documentation from newspapers, magazines, TV and radio news organizations, and legal filings; if that isn’t “verifiable,” then nothing is.  Now, I ask you. If I have already made my best argument for including the aforementioned links and footnotes, and physicq aka physicq210 responds by misrepresenting what I said, claiming that I have made no attempt at supporting my position, and referring to my defense as “whining,” what possible reason could I have for continuing such a charade?  Plus, why should I be on the defensive? If I were dealing with fair, reasonable people, that might make sense. But fair, reasonable people would not do as AuburnPilot did, and first censor my edits, and then demand I justify their value on the talk pages. (And physicq would not have responded to an edit war by throwing in with AuburnPilot, immediately blocking me, and charging me with “disruptive edits.” That alone is proof of physicq’s unfitness as an administrator.) No, AuburnPilot would not have censored my work, but would have asked me on the talk page why I thought it belonged. No, strike that. He would have hit the links and read the articles in question. If the articles in question cannot justify themselves in the reading, then nothing I can say can justify them. (What am I supposed to do, write a 20,000-word article justifying why I should be permitted to insert one lousy footnote to a 10,500-word exposé, which in turn is linked to supporting material that totals over 100,000 words?!)   ==The Importance of being Ignorant== Did AuburnPilot or physicq take the trouble to read the articles in question, before censoring them and blocking me? That’s highly unlikely. And if they claim otherwise, and you believe them, I’ve got a great deal for you on a slightly used bridge. Because had they read the sources, they would have had specific criticisms of them. But they didn’t, and that was because their minds were closed from the get-go, and they never bothered to read the sources. (Actually reading sources would also require w-o-r-k.) They are like the preacher who supported banning James Joyce’s Ulysses without having read it, who said, “I don’t need to read it!”  ==POV== Two of the most common ploys used by wikicensors are to claim that material lacks “NPOV” (i.e., “is POV”) or that it is “spam.” All that means is that the material does not conform to their POV. And their POV is leftwing. I’m not a lefty, or I wouldn’t be having this problem.  If you look at the attacks on me by AuburnPilot and physicq, you’ll see references to WP:SPAM, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ATTACK. But they never justify their charges. They don’t understand that simply charging someone with something is not the same as showing that he is guilty of said infraction. Rather, they throw up some links to the wikirules they’ve misrepresented, and act as though the mere indictment is the same as a guilty verdict. That’s not giving reasons; that’s the Wiki equivalent of a show trial (or to be more current, “Nifonging”). If you read the sources to which I linked, you’ll see, I believe, just how ludicrous the charges of “spam” are. As for “attack,” I only responded to their attacks. I had never heard of either of them before they began attacking me, in particular, until AuburnPilot began stalking me, and censoring my work. (Just go to my user page, check the last few articles I worked on, and hit the links. Then, at each article’s “history” page, look for AuburnPilot’s entries after mine. Tell me that’s not stalking behavior.)   As for “civil,” that’s just another dodge. According to the censors, anything they do is “civil,” and any criticism the people they’ve done it to make against them is “uncivil.” Thus, they use “civil” in the same way that university Stalinists use “collegiality” – to make it impossible for those who disagree with them to work in higher ed. Who is “civil,” and who “collegial”? Their comrades, no matter how vicious they are. (AuburnPilot’s m.o., which is supposed to show how “civil” he is, is to vandalize an editor’s work, demand that the censored editor justify the work that he has already censored, and then say “Thanks!” That’s like the highway patrolman who ruins your day, writes you a ticket, and then says, as he leaves, “Have a nice day.”)  I’ve had this same problem with other wikicensors, who would demand that I “discuss” my edits and gain their permission, after they had censored them. (At one point, I got those censors to admit that there was nothing I could say that would change their minds, though they later engaged in revisionism, and denied that they had ever made any such admissions. Just like the professors at Duke!) But nowhere in the wiki rules does it say that certain editors are the elect, and not only get to unilaterally vandalize other people’s work, but that the people whose work has thus been vandalized must then beg for the vandals’ permission to do any work. I guess Wikipedia’s rules are just for “the little people.”  Any honest person who spends any amount of time reading and trying to edit controversial Wikipedia articles (or any that touch in any way on race) will know that there are political enforcers here who censor facts and sources that they do not want the public to know about, and that they then stalk editors who have inserted such facts and links, continuously vandalizing their work. (Since bad faith is involved, if this isn’t vandalism, nothing is.) I’d list some of the political enforcers, but physicq and AuburnPilot would just use that as a pretext for banning me again.  Censorship and vandalism may not be as satisfying as shooting dissenters in the back of the head, but they’re working on it.  Physciq: I wrote the following words today, before reading your latest attempt at rationalizing your misconduct.  An encyclopedist who would permit himself to be humbled and intimidated would be as worthless as those who, while pretending to be encyclopedists, work through humbling and intimidating others.NEW