One final update: Yamla, who I note has a long history of rubber-stamping
abusive blocks, has done so on my request for unblock.
I must consider this systematic abuse by administrators at this point.
I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
them any more.
"Thank you" for nothing but abuse. It has really shown me what Wikipedia is
about and how worthless it is.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
The bad "discussion closed" code has now been placed around the new
discussion: one ReyBrujo "restored" the template to the wrong discussion
thread due to the hyperactive bot which removed still-ongoing threads from
the page.
This is a big problem, people trying to close off discussions relevant to
Wikipedia and to the actions of Wikipedian editors and administrators
without answering the concerns being addressed.
I have no idea whether my questions are actually reaching the list, either.
This is most disconcerting.
I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
false accusations are being denied me.
Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
it in this missive any more.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
This has also had the unintended effect of SERIOUSLY messing up the page, as
it appears every thread below it is "archived" due to the bad coding left
behind on the out-of-process closed discussion from earlier as well.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Additional issue:
It appears someone's bot is doing damage, removing threads that are not
remotely irrelevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I am filing one more update. I do not know if any of these will get through,
but I am trying my best.
I have filed a request for Unblock as noted in the blocking notes page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&…
I also must note that, now that I am blocked, there is constant posting of
libelous statements about me to the earlier discussions. It seems that now
that JKelly has abusively blocked me, a large number of people wish to
ingratiate themselves somehow by piling on.
It saddens me that this is the atmosphere of wikipedia. I may very well
simply leave, for this is showing me a bad side I had not seen before, and
Wikipedia is fast becoming something I do not wish to be a part of if this
is the true feeling and mentality of the editors here.
In sincerity,
Thank you for your time.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I wish to update my earlier message; the two users who filed this CheckUser
request are now spending quite a bit of time making false charges at me at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…,
and a third has jumped in who is just making accusations over and
over.
I find this highly unfair, as I have no relation to any of this or the pages
in question beyond my stated opinion that administrator and editor
misbehavior has occurred and that the case's resolution was not conducted in
proper respect for policy and civility.
User JKelly has now acted on these false accusations and banned me from
editing, as well as defacing my user page with a Scarlet Letter harassment
token.
You can see my edit history for yourself. I have not done anything bad to
warrant this kind of abuse, yet I have received it from multiple users and
at least one trigger-happy administrator now, as well as one administrator
willing to completely misrepresent CheckUser results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountPointercount
This comment was left, but I'm now unable to respond in my own defense
thanks to the abuse by JKelly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…
This is blatantly unfair practice. Since JKelly and other abusive
administrators and editors are more than willing to behave in this manner, I
have no choice but to come here for redress.
Thank you for your time.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hello,
I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, but decided to make an
account recently and signed up. I continued my normal editing (mostly typo
and fixes on random articles, which seems to be a way to find a lot of your
mistakes) but noticed a problem on the Administrators' Noticeboard and left
my opinion there.
A user included me in a CheckUser for speaking up on the issue. They accused
the user PSPMario, who seems to have edited only on the Playstation 3 and
Playstation Portable articles, of being a sockpuppet of someone after he
reported two users he suspected of being a sockpuppet.
I find it a very bad precedent to immediately accuse someone of being a
sockpuppet, for trying to report a potential problem themselves. I find this
equally problematic to say that "identical additions of info" happen when we
give users the tools in difference comparison to easily copy content from an
earlier edit to a later edit. PSPMario says he was replacing something he
saw that was missing when he returned to the page, and I believe him,
because there is no reason for me not to believe him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedCho…
I am not sure what this means. I know I am no sockpuppet, and given the
writing style of PSPMario, I am reasonably certain he is not a sockpuppet
either.
I do not know when we started using weasel words for CheckUser, which ought
to be a yes or no answer, but this sets a very bad precedent for abuse of
the CheckUser system. Additionally, we have users trying to get everyone
they can blocked, no matter what their edits or edit history, based on the
results of weasel-worded RFCU postings.
This situation is a detriment to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time.