User talk:Blechnic/Archive1

Punitively and permanently blocked for discussing edits on the talk page, edits that other editors agree with, or edits that etablished editors could offer no contraindicating evidence for not allowing.

Because the polices can be used against me, and I am not allowed to edit by policy, this block is not just punitive, but permanent. A user cannot be expected to know which policies apply and which don't, but since this is required on Wikipedia it effectively means that it can be used against any new editors that one disagrees with simply by getting a like-minded gang of editors to do the same thing.

But what's accuracy, when someone can show that what they think "looks" okay is better than what the Wikipedia community decided is policy? What's accuracy, when you can be blocked by an administrator for questioning something that goes against Wikipedia policy?

The administrator who blocked me did so because he was supporting the editors who did not have any policy matters to quote or any reliable sources to use for the article. While I was discussing why the source was unreliable, my arguments were being met with comments like, "Let it go." Clearly, with these editors having no reliable sources, and being unable to come up with any, and unable to read the German source (which doesn't quite agree with the article), the administrator had to block me to support his established Wikipedia editors.

I was blocked because I could discuss my edits, but no one else could.

And that is not just punitive, but petty, and against policy.

And now the blocking administrator is sorry he dragged an established editor into this mess and has apologized to the editor who was edit warring and reverting me.

Not suprised by that, though.