I would like to request your assistance in a dispute involving myself ([[user:68.50.103.212 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:68.50.103.212 ]]), user [[User:Kim Bruning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning ]] and administrator [[User:Demi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi ]].

Context:

This concerns the article [[Wikipedia:Requests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_C ongress for comment/United States Congress]], within the subsection "The established conduct methods have not been used." This section erroneously states "Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter." (only members of the respective body can refer matters to the ethics committee)

Background:

I possibly erroneously removed this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress&diff=37784818&oldid=37784402 &diff=37784818&oldid=37784402]. [[User:Kim Bruning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning ]] reverted my changes reminding me not to delete comments from an RFC[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment /United_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress&diff=37788703&oldid=37787526 &diff=37788703&oldid=37787526]. I then corrected myself moving the erroneous text to the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress&diff=37797772&oldid=37793404 &diff=37797772&oldid=37793404], explaining "Comments are misguided and statements are blatantly false, moved to talk." [[User:Kim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kim_Bruning Bruning]] immediately reverted my changes, ignoring my comment and saying "RV political vandalism. Please watch, block"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comm ent/United_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress&diff=37827895&oldid=37813686 &diff=37827895&oldid=37813686] I later reminded Kim that this was not vandalism and again moved the erroneous material to the discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Un ited_States_Congress&diff=37898657&oldid=37855853 &diff=37898657&oldid=37855853], and explained "These comments are in the talk area and contain factually incorrect accusations. please do not revert again (3RR)."

Blocked:

Administrator [[User:Demi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi ]] then unilaterally intervened and blocked me for 12 hours with the brief explanation of "Repeatedly removing valid comments from RFC." I believed this was an abuse of administrative privileges. I do not see how was in violation of <b>any</b> Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article for blocking policy under the category "Excessive Reverts"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Excessive_re verts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy%23Excessive_reverts ], links to the Three-Revert Rule. ("The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.") which as you can see I am not in violation of.

Follow-up:

I have twice emailed [[User:Demi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi ]] asking for an explanation, arbitration, or leniency for the excessive 12 hour block.

As explained in these emails to Demi, I am one of the primary contributors to the article in question. I am the original author and primary contributor to the related article [[Wikipedia:Congressional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_Staffer_Edits Staffer Edits]]. I also was the user who originally uncovered the extent of the abuses by the Congressional IP address beyond Congressman Meehan. I have repeatedly worked to revert vandalism in Wikipedia as represented by my contributions. All of my edits have been in good faith. I believe this absolutely falls under the Wikipedia:Blocking <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Controversial_blocks

policy for Controversial Blocks.

Plee:

I do not ask that you remove or shorten my blocking. I do ask that some form of arbitration be introduced to this situation. I still protest that my edits were correct and leaving factually incorrect information in the RFC degrades the credibility of the RFC and Wikipedia as a whole.

Furthermore is you have a review process for administrators I would recommend it for administrator [[User:Demi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi ]] as I was blocked with no warning from any administrator, no arbitration was offered. Demi posted on my user discussion page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.50.103.212] but gave no explanation of my block other than he "disagree[s] with your description of the situation." Admin [[User:Commander Keane| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Commander_Keane ] added to the discussion that "This isn't a democracy, we don't have to present you with laws (policies) that you violated . You did the wrong thing."

Questions:

I ask the Wikipedia Community, are there no rules or regulations for administrators? Can administrators make unilateral decisions as to that what is "wrong or right?" How can any user know what is wrong or right? Were the actions of [[User:Demi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demi ] correct?

Can any user post false declarations in an RFC?

Thank you for your time,

[[user:68.50.103.212 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.50.103.212 ]]