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.