19 hours ago, according to GMail, I sent identical emails to several different regulars here, asking them to keep "a careful pair of eyes" on the situation in [[Government of Australia]] where an editor with no connection to me whatsoever had highlighted the same error that I had six months previously. I must stress this point. Zero connection. Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a friend, not anything at all.
Can I ask that those people take a look at the ongoing situation, summarised below. If they have access to "sockpuppet-detection" tools, I ask that they use them. I would like to know what is going on, because it looks to me like an editor in good faith has been treated very poorly indeed, and that both he and I deserve apologies, especially from the admin who blocked him.
I make the point that my last edit to the GofA article was 17:08, 24 May 2005, when I corrected a typo, and to the discussion page on 31 May 2005, shortly before the ArbCom case began at which time I voluntarily ceased making edits to either page.
Peter
==Summary==
23:39, 9 July 2005 User:Pwqn edits [[Government of Australia]] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_Australia&diff=1...
23:50, 9 July 2005 User:cyberjunkie reverts User:Pwqn and makes a note on the talk page to this effect, mentioning "the same ridiculousness" and stating that the editor "has a long edit history so I don't think s/he is a sockpuppet" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&...
00:08, 10 July 2005 User:cyberjunkie says: "I don't want to see a return to the frustrations and viciousness that this issue has caused". I can heartily echo this, having been on the receiving end of most of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
04:17, 10 July 2005 User:Pwqn makes a statement, concisely summarising his case and presenting a list of sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
20:49, 10 July 2005 Adam Carr states (inter alia): "I will assume for the moment that Pwqn is a good-faith editor" but "there is '''absolutely no way''' this question can be re-opened and re-debated because a new editor has come along and wants to reopen the whole process". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
20:53, 10 July 2005 Adam Carr moves a lot of the discussion (including ongoing material) to archives. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
08:07, 11 July 2005 User:Kangaroopedia (who looks very much like a sockpuppet of someone's) makes an edit entitled "Showcasing Adam Carr's Doublethink". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
09:08, 11 July 2005 User:Lacrimosus makes a comment entitled: "showcasing the Skyringers' stupidity" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
Current revision (as at 10:08 11 July 2005) User:jtdirl states: "You can usually tell Skyring's clones by their ignorance of constitutional law and legal principles" and "He really must think we are a shower of fools not to spot his little games." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
04:52, 10 July 2005, Jtdirl blocked Pwqn (expires 04:52, 10 August 2005) (contribs) (sockpuppet of suspended Skyring, or one of the 'people' he threatened to unlease to continue doctoring articles if he was banned.) 08:20, 11 July 2005, Jtdirl blocked Kangaroopedia (expires 08:20, 11 August 2005) (contribs) (sockpuppet of Skyring or one of those he promised to unleash to push his agenda when banned from certain pages) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
User:jtdirl is an admin whose contributions to the article and discussion page are many and lengthy, extending to many thousands of words. He is directly involved in this discussion, and at the very least, I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith editor as something warranting discussion.