User talk:PoolGuy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:40, 25 June 2006

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See the block log.

It is odd to think this is an appropriate way to treat a user. A small volume editor who nonetheless makes positive contributions to the community does something a couple Admins don't like. A block occurs. The user clearly demonstrates that their action was not only, not a policy violation, but was stipulated in policy as an action to take. Rather than admit they were wrong and fix the administrative error, the user is pursued and numerous other violations are fabricated. After finally being vindicated by ArbCom that the policy violation did not occur as the user originally postulated, he seeks the administrative action finally undone in accord with Wikipedia procedure. The iron fist Admins are joined by a new iron fist Admin who claim the user is now disrupting the project. They block him.

How is this treatment supposed to encourage that small volume positive contributor to become a more productive member of the community? Why are they so against helping users? Why must they pursue, attack, lie, block, and everything else they do? It appears that some do not know how to appropriately use the authority they are afforded. How disappointing. PoolGuy 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 {{{nosubst|{{#if:{{{history|}}}|[[Category:Wikipedia indefinitely blocked users with a significant edit history|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in June 2006]]}}}}}
 {{{nosubst|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk| |</div>}}}}}<!-- Template:Indefblockeduser -->
+::It is odd to think this is an appropriate way to treat a user.  A small volume editor who nonetheless makes positive contributions to the community does something a couple Admins don't like.  A block occurs.  The user clearly demonstrates that their action was not only, not a policy violation, but was stipulated in policy as an action to take.  Rather than admit they were wrong and fix the administrative error, the user is pursued and numerous other violations are fabricated. After finally being vindicated by ArbCom that the policy violation did not occur as the user originally postulated, he seeks the administrative action finally undone in accord with Wikipedia procedure.  The iron fist Admins are joined by a new iron fist Admin who claim the user is now disrupting the project. They block him.
+::How is this treatment supposed to encourage that small volume positive contributor to become a more productive member of the community? Why are they so against helping users? Why must they pursue, attack, lie, block, and everything else they do?  It appears that some do not know how to appropriately use the authority they are afforded.  How disappointing.  [[User:PoolGuy|PoolGuy]] 18:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)