User:HereToCleanup

Hi, I am HereToCleanup. My mission is to comply with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, despite efforts by other users to prevent that.

Believe me, I don't understand why some users don't want me to comply with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, however, I will ensure that I do. Even if they do not follow Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines to try and stop my compliance, I will find a way to be a good Wikipedian.

OK, here is what I am trying to do. According to this guideline after a user cross-posts messages to other users in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc. The posting user should clean up their mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, they should remove those cross-posts after the election is complete.

Well, that is why I am here. The action regarding my posts is now complete, so I am HereToCleanup. You may be wondering why my puppeteer is not completing the cleanup. Simply because my pupeteer was blocked for simply being a Sockpuppet.

I know what you are thinking, there is nothing wrong with either being a Sockpuppet or being a Sockpuppeteer, so why would you be blocked?

Well, unfortunately there are some users out there in Wikipedia that hate Sockpuppets. Even if the Sockpuppets follow Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, these users work to expose the sockpuppets and then block them just for being a sockpuppet. It doesn't seem fair, and it isn't. Especially when some of the users are Admins, and they use their special powers to block users and protect their User Page and User Talk Page to prevent the sockpuppet from completing their jobs, and also from exposing their hatred of sockpuppets.

These users claim that I am a bad Wikipedian, and that is why I was blocked. The only action of my puppeteer followed this guideline to the letter. Following a guideline can't possibly be the action of a bad Wikipedian, could it? No, certainly not in a rational Wikipedia world.

The only other activity of my puppeteer was to call attention to the fact that his account was being attacked by other users, despite there being no violation of any Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Because of this, the sockpuppeteer was exposed, blocked, ignored, and and had its User Page and User Talk Page protected to prevent editing and calling attention to the injustice.


 * When the Admin completing the CheckUser fails to first establish a policy violation, they persecuted the Sockpuppet.


 * When an Admin read the CheckUser, they failed to note a policy violation, instead they cited that the Sockpuppet appeared in the  CheckUser.


 * When the sockpuppet emailed the blocking Admin, the email was never returned.


 * Posts to the User Page and User Talk Page were not responded to.


 * A new sockpuppet had to be created as the only outlet to bring attention to the injustice.


 * In response, the new Sockpuppets were blocked.


 * In response the User Page and User Talk Pages were protected from editing.

This is pure craziness. I don't get it. No one has ever cited a policy violation. Instead the sockpuppet was attacked, over and over again. An average user does not have recourse with admins that fail to follow Wikipedia policy.

If this message inspires you, please let me know what you think.

Thanks. HereToCleanup 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)