"
I know allegations of admin abuse require clear proof, but it may be below. See, I wouldn't mind so much if I knew what bad behavior I was doing. I have in good faith begged and pleaded for anyone, anyone with expertise or experience to explain what was blockable; please take the time to review considerately. At virtually every turn, when I requested a policy clarification as a 2-month user, if I even got a cite, it was only to a whole policy page, and never with a diff to my alleged offense. This behavior is so consistent from so many users that it is hard to explain, much less to provide sources for this possibly exceptional claim. But let's please start with what points I do get, and the questions I need answered first by you, the reviewer:
(N.b. I wrote this the first hour of block. I trustingly clicked Save and did not realize that there would be an edit conflict due to the edit warrior (below) closely following me and stating her block agreement ""sadly"" (huh?) and giving nuanced advice and compliments (unhelpful). This minor frustration can be gotten past, but of course this request is now many hours late. PLEASE at least quickly indicate willingness to answer.)
See whole discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:POINT is intended to refer to my politely proposing a change to WP:V (my first policy suggestion) and disclosing what I regarded as an edit war about the issue. Instead of any comments on the merits (except one positive one), I received consistent criticism about my poor formatting followed by refusal to address the merits because (apparently) it was obviously unnecessary to answer. Q. When one has made a policy suggestion in good faith and one receives zero discussion on its negatives and significant negative discussion on one's person and presentation, is one refusing to get the point if one continues politely requesting the specific demerits of the proposal that would indicate nonconsensus on its merits?
See whole user discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:HAR (first I've heard of this charge against me) is intended to refer to my appropriate-level user warnings in response to an editor using obscenity and assuming bad faith this is only the most reasonable guess, of course. After he stated he was entitled to assume bad faith, he changed up and claimed facetiously he really was assuming good faith. My links there indicate specifically what behavior I referred to. I know of no other case which might come near to harassment. Q. When one uses edit warnings in full compliance with policy and is met with continuing bad faith, is one harassing?
See whole COI discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:DE is intended to refer primarily to my first extended correction of a user charging me with COI, along with a suggestion that the accusing user may also have COI. Certainly I might have been overstrong in that edit (I recognize not noticing the 200-word limit, but I adverted that myself). But again, there was no indication of why a donor to a political candidate has the sort of close relationship envisioned by COI. There was one attempt at googling me (and I'm not looking up the personal details policy right now) which turned up nothing undisclosed besides my blog comments but this was described as ""considerable involvement of ... promotional activities"". Recall there are about 60,000 Ron Paul Meetup volunteers, and nearly that many donors. If I worked for a 60,000-member workplace there might be a bit more point, but even that would be debatable in good faith. Q. Is every political donor or Meetup member forbidden from editing candidate-related articles neutrally, or only those who willingly disclose the relationship?
As near as I can tell, there is a further potential application of WP:POINT (which by the way is an application of the rule, convenient to the generic, that a generic warning is fungible with any warning). Apparently I don't realize that, in some sense, these users are every one justified in refusing to explain specifically any of their adverse actions against me, and that I am being disruptively pointed if I explain specific charges against them, citing policy and diffs. And there I do admit not understanding. The policies are no Procrustean bed, but very specific. I am completely unfamiliar with operating in such an environment other than to do one's best to WP:AGF, to complain properly and carefully, and to accept potential suffering for it. However I'm essentially barred by generic threats (yes) from complaining specifically, and I'm completely certain that a generic, unsourced complaint from me (as appears to be the