I just got my first block, Bet you can't guess why Options

There is now a source which undoubtedly qualifies ED for inclusion

I suspect you know the "sources" aren't the real reason the article is not permitted (or, indeed, any reason under any of WP's fake policies).

I cannot recreate the article because the foolish actions taken by Pussy Galore

Nope, that's not the reason, either.

The real reason, according to inside information from KillerChihuahua, is that you have no interest in writing an encyclopedia. Neener.

There is now a source which undoubtedly qualifies ED for inclusion, but I cannot recreate the article because the foolish actions taken by Pussy Galore would make it a too-soon "bad faith" recreation which would poison the well further. In other words, my honest effort to get a decent article was fucked up by someone who was apparently trolling for a block. In order to have a coherent discussion with Sceptre and those other dudes I will have to wait at least four months.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249

Do NOT recreate the article based on this source alone. Wikipedia is irrational-- humans behave irrationally. If we give the subject some time to cool off there is a better chance we will get a good article in the future with fewer grudges held.

Shii

A little bit too late for that. Some ED idiot created a single purpose account and started another DRV. Oh well, we'll just have to see how it goes.

Blow me, at the moment it looks like this attempt will be successful, don't know how far through the process it is for most people to have given their view.

Some people can't stand those who speak truth to power.

Oftentimes those in power find such persons irksome.

Especially when they are trying hard to hide that truth.

Reciprocity is by mutual consent. Retribution is not.

I disagree. Retribution can indeed be reciprocal. Or rather, reciprocity can involve retribution.

I need to get back to work.

It's the outing they don't like. Rightly or wrongly, they consider Brandt's outing of them "harassment", and as he posts here and sometimes mentions names or clues to them here (though less so these days) they consider it a site that harasses wikipedians.

They claimed the same thing about Don Murphy's website.

Well, to be fair, lots of the people on his page have never done anything to him, and they are unfairly caught up in his revenge.

I honestly think he would have put away that page by now, since his page (the page that WP used to torture him with) is pretty much done and closed. I guess he wants to keep the fight going, but how exhausting. But then, hes an activist, and Im not, so there you have it.

Reciprocity is by mutual consent. Retribution is not.

I disagree. Retribution can indeed be reciprocal. Or rather, reciprocity can involve retribution.

Tit-for-tat?

Blow me, at the moment it looks like this attempt will be successful, don't know how far through the process it is for most people to have given their view.

A lovely surprise, and a rare instance of Wikipedia working properly. It seems the mailing list cabal is shying away from a full force attack here.