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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has now decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&...
This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I am receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.
"Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden..., 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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.
Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much, consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than a power of 2?
Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between uses and abuses of email.
"Samuel L Bronkowitz" countpointercount@gmail.com writes:
One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has now decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&...
This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I am receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.
"Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden... 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/18/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much, consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than a power of 2?
Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between uses and abuses of email.
He was on moderation (and still is). I let the 8 messages through on the basis that none is particularly uncivil, and people are entitled to one rant here. I advise him to calm down now though.
Steve
I did not send "8 messages in a row." I sent updates, when new developments happened.
I see that the "moderation" system put them in all at once, and I got eight "your comment is being moderated" notices at once.
Since you obviously do not care about systemic abuse, feel free to just not read my emails.
On 2/17/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much, consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than a power of 2?
Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between uses and abuses of email.
"Samuel L Bronkowitz" countpointercount@gmail.com writes:
One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has
now
decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&...
This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I
am
receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.
"Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
JPGordon
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
JPGordon
To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
JPGordon
To: wikien-l@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_noti...
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
JPGordon
To: wikien-l@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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden... 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_noti...
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@gmail.com> Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon To: wikien-l@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/Inciden...
The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...
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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi, Samuel. Good pseudonym choice, by the way; I loved that movie.
Samuel L Bronkowitz wrote:
I did not send "8 messages in a row." I sent updates, when new developments happened.
I see that the "moderation" system put them in all at once, and I got eight "your comment is being moderated" notices at once.
Since you obviously do not care about systemic abuse, feel free to just not read my emails.
People here do care a lot about systemic abuse.
I think the problem you're running into is that a lot of people who end up on the unhappy end of some administrative action feel they are being abused, so we don't see a lot of correlation between accusations of abuse and actual abuse. That doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean you probably won't get the instant and vigorous reaction you were hoping for.
Further, you sent a lot of long messages in a short span of time, without waiting for a reaction. When writing to a large mailing list, anything you send takes up a lot of human time. I'm sure you didn't mean to give this impression, but demanding that people pay attention to that kind of volume doesn't demonstrate much respect for their time. A better approach would be to write one short, clear email and then wait for somebody to ask you for more details.
And lastly, your messages came across to me as strident and demanding, messages from somebody who felt slighted and upset. I'm sorry you felt that way, but expressing that so strongly in your emails doesn't help your cause. The people here see a lot of drama, most of it unnecessary, and all of it wearying. There's also a negative correlation between the amount of strong negative emotion in a message and its utility. So in the future you're probably better off waiting until you cool down some.
Does that help?
Regards,
William
On 2/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote: Hi, Samuel. Good pseudonym choice, by the way; I loved that movie.
It's my favorite movie. Until I was falsely railroaded by your abusive admins, my userpage had a reference to it.
People here do care a lot about systemic abuse.
They have a very "unique" way of showing it.
I think the problem you're running into is that a lot of people who end
up on the unhappy end of some administrative action feel they are being abused, so we don't see a lot of correlation between accusations of abuse and actual abuse. That doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean you probably won't get the instant and vigorous reaction you were hoping for.
So far, the reaction hasn't been just to me. Multiple users on your administrators noticeboard have raised questions on this ongoing issue and not one of them have received any sort of reply.
Responses from administrators have uniformly been attempts to squelch any and all investigation or complaint, from FayssalF's making of comments saying it is a "waste of time" to Asterion and others' premature "closing" of threads, to bots and administrators alike deliberately "archiving" threads to hide them, to bbatsell's nonsensical attack claiming that complaints over the threads being prematurely archived and the behavior of the admins are on the "wrong place" when filed to the administrator noticeboard.
There has been NO reasonable response at all. Even on this list, instead of a response, I'm seeing messages written to attack me.
Further, you sent a lot of long messages in a short span of time,
without waiting for a reaction.
I had no idea it was a "moderated" list, because the moderation notices did not arrive until well after I sent the final message. I did not feel that filing an update to an ongoing situation was an abuse. I think it looks more like complaints about this are simply reaching for one more excuse to try to excuse systemic abuses or ignore that they are occurring.
When writing to a large mailing list,
anything you send takes up a lot of human time. I'm sure you didn't mean to give this impression, but demanding that people pay attention to that kind of volume doesn't demonstrate much respect for their time. A better approach would be to write one short, clear email and then wait for somebody to ask you for more details.
Nobody has done so. On the administrators noticeboard, all they did was make attack and falsehood repeatedly.
And lastly, your messages came across to me as strident and demanding,
messages from somebody who felt slighted and upset.
I felt slighted and upset. Yes, I did. I was systematically abused by a number of both users and administrators, and nothing was done, and the response so far has looked more like a coverup than anything else.
I'm sorry you felt
that way, but expressing that so strongly in your emails doesn't help your cause. The people here see a lot of drama, most of it unnecessary, and all of it wearying. There's also a negative correlation between the amount of strong negative emotion in a message and its utility. So in the future you're probably better off waiting until you cool down some.
Does that help?
Has anything been done yet, at all? No? Then it doesn't help.
I am concerned that there has not been a single response beyond this to the aggrieved user's post yet.
Parker
On 2/18/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Hi, Samuel. Good pseudonym choice, by the way; I loved that movie.
Samuel L Bronkowitz wrote:
I did not send "8 messages in a row." I sent updates, when new
developments
happened.
I see that the "moderation" system put them in all at once, and I got
eight
"your comment is being moderated" notices at once.
Since you obviously do not care about systemic abuse, feel free to just
not
read my emails.
People here do care a lot about systemic abuse.
I think the problem you're running into is that a lot of people who end up on the unhappy end of some administrative action feel they are being abused, so we don't see a lot of correlation between accusations of abuse and actual abuse. That doesn't mean we don't care, but it does mean you probably won't get the instant and vigorous reaction you were hoping for.
Further, you sent a lot of long messages in a short span of time, without waiting for a reaction. When writing to a large mailing list, anything you send takes up a lot of human time. I'm sure you didn't mean to give this impression, but demanding that people pay attention to that kind of volume doesn't demonstrate much respect for their time. A better approach would be to write one short, clear email and then wait for somebody to ask you for more details.
And lastly, your messages came across to me as strident and demanding, messages from somebody who felt slighted and upset. I'm sorry you felt that way, but expressing that so strongly in your emails doesn't help your cause. The people here see a lot of drama, most of it unnecessary, and all of it wearying. There's also a negative correlation between the amount of strong negative emotion in a message and its utility. So in the future you're probably better off waiting until you cool down some.
Does that help?
Regards,
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am concerned that there has not been a single response beyond this to the aggrieved user's post yet.
Perhaps that has something to do with wikien-l not being part of the dispute resolution procedure?
On 2/20/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned that there has not been a single response beyond this to
the
aggrieved user's post yet.
Perhaps that has something to do with wikien-l not being part of the dispute resolution procedure?
It appears as though attempts to have any resolution or investigation are being stonewalled, the user is being deliberately kept from their rightful dispute resolution process, and that there is a severe systematic attempt to block complaints because they relate to "high-ranking" administrators.
Your response is just one more example of same.
Parker
It appears as though attempts to have any resolution or investigation are being stonewalled, the user is being deliberately kept from their rightful dispute resolution process, and that there is a severe systematic attempt to block complaints because they relate to "high-ranking" administrators.
Your response is just one more example of same.
Has anyone approached ArbCom? I believe they accept cases from banned users via email.
On 2/21/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It appears as though attempts to have any resolution or investigation
are
being stonewalled, the user is being deliberately kept from their
rightful
dispute resolution process, and that there is a severe systematic
attempt to
block complaints because they relate to "high-ranking" administrators.
Your response is just one more example of same.
Has anyone approached ArbCom? I believe they accept cases from banned users via email.
I have CC'ed an arbcom member with regard to this, as well as sending private emails urging him to get into contact with the user in question, repeatedly.
No response to those CC's and no email from said Arbcom member has been forthcoming.
I wonder if this is the first anyone has actually mentioned this to the user of even having such an option. Likely so, given the conduct of administrators in this case and in general; there seems to be a concerted effort to keep users who are being abused away from the dispute resolution process at all costs.
I'd also like to say, I have never seen an arbitration committee case actually be accepted from email, save from "Nathanrdotcom" (which then turned into a closed, "secret evidence" case vaguely reminiscent of something "The Party" in Soviet Russia would hold). It seems to be a "policy" that exists largely to be ignored.\
Then again, our dispute resolution process is so byzantine that it seems designed to deliberately stop anyone who's not wikilawyering from successfully navigating it, whereupon they can be accused of wikilawyering and/or trolling for even getting that far.
Parker
I have CC'ed an arbcom member with regard to this, as well as sending private emails urging him to get into contact with the user in question, repeatedly.
That's the wrong way round. The user in question should get in contact with the ArbCom member. I'm sure if the user in question emails a member of ArbCom and specifically says they wish to request arbitration, their case would be considered as any other.
Given that The_Epopt/Sean Barrett is an arbcom member? Not bloody likely.
Parker
On 2/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have CC'ed an arbcom member with regard to this, as well as sending private emails urging him to get into contact with the user in question, repeatedly.
That's the wrong way round. The user in question should get in contact with the ArbCom member. I'm sure if the user in question emails a member of ArbCom and specifically says they wish to request arbitration, their case would be considered as any other.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Parker Peters stated for the record:
Given that The_Epopt/Sean Barrett is an arbcom member? Not bloody likely.
Parker
Wrong. I am /not/ a member of the ArbComm. Given this rather fundamental error, what else are you wrong about?
- -- Sean Barrett | A thunder of jets in an open sky, sean@epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!" | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb, | And once again you know it's time....
Ok fine, who is the arbcom and I'll email to demand the case.
On 2/22/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I have CC'ed an arbcom member with regard to this, as well as sending private emails urging him to get into contact with the user in question, repeatedly.
That's the wrong way round. The user in question should get in contact with the ArbCom member. I'm sure if the user in question emails a member of ArbCom and specifically says they wish to request arbitration, their case would be considered as any other.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/02/07, Samuel L Bronkowitz countpointercount@gmail.com wrote:
Ok fine, who is the arbcom and I'll email to demand the case.
You could look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]], or, if that's too much bother, you could just e-mail me directly.
Yours,
Ok fine, who is the arbcom and I'll email to demand the case.
You can't demand a case. The ArbCom decide which cases they hear and which they don't. You can request one, and if the ArbCom think there is anything to discuss, they will open the case.