We have a situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic

eboard/Incidents#Existentializer.2C_suspected_sock_of_E> nviroknot

As far as I can tell, this is pure bullshit. Tony Sidaway has taken a cherry-picked list of edits out of a long list, and is using them to "prove" a point which cannot be made.

Analysis of Tony Sidaway's "Proof":

[snip]

I don't think this kind of thing is an appropriate topic for the mailing list. Any user whose account has been improperly blocked can discuss the block on their talk page. That's what Tim Starling's new feature is specifically for.

In a parallel vein, if complaints such as this are only arguing about whether "rules were followed properly" in blocking their account, then it is doubly off-topic. All such complaints should include a list of contributions the user plans to make to the encyclopedia.

The idea that Anyone Has A Right To Edit is not true, and has never been true. Rather, it is,

* "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right."

We assume good faith, but if an Administrator feels you have violated policy, the burden falls on you to prove otherwise.

Ed Poor "Bureaucrat"