On 7/12/05, Cyberjunkie <swatso(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On 11/07/05, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:>I must stress this point.
Zero connection.
Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a
friend, not anything at
all.
I must say, you really can't blame anyone for being suspicious given your
intimation that you would indeed use "a different IP address every day" and
find "some other editor(s) to present the same facts." I certainly believe
those comments to be more than mere braggadocio.
Sheer fantasy, more like. Where did I say I *would* do this?
But you raise an interesting point. Do you personally see anything
wrong with asking another editor to act on your behalf? If you
yourself were asked by another editor to (say) vote a certain way in a
VfD for an article you had never heard of previously, what would you
do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vica…
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 think it's plainly obvious to you what is going on,
Indeed it is. I have stated it here quite plainly.
and your involvement
is not something that can be ruled out just because you say so.
I have asked for those with access to "sockpuppet-detection" tools to
use them. May I suggest that you calm down, read what has been written
and stick to the facts?
The reason why I would like IP addresses, ISPs etc compared is because
I am quite certain of the outcome. I can say this because I know the
result with a certainty that you cannot have. It's plain common sense
that I MUST know if another account is a sockpuppet of mine or not. I
MUST know if I've communicated with another editor or not. I know the
answer, and I'd like to make it as plain as possible.
However, I
do believe Jtdirl may have unintentionally jumped the gun.
He blocks a legitimate editor for a month and it's "unintentional"!
You astonish me, brother!
The user page where he announces his blocking contained several
existing comments, yours among them, where doubt of sockpuppetry is
strongly expressed. If jtdirl took action unintentionally, then he
must have failed to read the existing discussion. If on the other
hand, his action was intentional, then he must have disregarded your
advice. How do you feel about this?
He's a party to the dispute, he's in the habit of reverting without
discussion (or thought in some cases, as noted by the ArbCom), he
blocks a legitimate user for a month and you are trying to defend him?
On the face of
it, I suspect that because Jtdirl joined the discussion after the obvious
sock puppetry of one "Kangaroopedia", he mistook both Kangaroopedia and Pwqn
to be incontestable sock puppets, not knowing of Pwqn's history.
He BLOCKED a legitimate user for a MONTH without doing the most basic
of checks. A single mouseclick on "contribs" would have sufficed. How
on earth can you defend this?
More to the point, you are completely wrong. Jtdirl blocked Pwqn over
a day before Kangaroopedia showed up. I quoted from the list of
blocked IP addresses previously, but perhaps if you look at the
sequence of events it will be clear to you what happened:
"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.)"
08:07, 11 July 2005 Kangaroopedia (an obvious sockpuppet) makes his
one and only appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=…
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)
I don't
believe Pwqn is a sock puppet. Nevertheless, I do find it entirely strange
that s/he would just, completely out-of-the-blue, and in contrast to prior
edits, edit an obscure topic on Australian government and rehash the same
flawed understanding as Skyring. We can all draw conclusions, but I don't
suppose there is anyway prove such duplicity.
Where someone comes out of the blue to edit on a matter widely
discussed here and on WP, I don't think there is much of a mystery.
Pqwn makes the same point that I do - the article is POV on the head
of state issue.
It is good that Pwqn has been
unblocked, and s/he does deserve an apology of sorts from Jtdirl. Skyring
doesn't.
Do you support personal abuse? Jtdirl made some very offensive
comments to me. How do you think I feel after reading his little
provocations?
I see his
intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith
editor as something warranting discussion.
I encourage everyone to recognise the emotiveness of this seemingly
irrelevant issue. The harassment Jtdirl was subjected to should be
considered, and he ought to be given a little bit of leeway.
Cripes. And what about the vitriol that came my way? Even the Arbcom
made the observation that it was a bit one-sided.
If Pwqn and
Kangaroopedia are in some way linked to Skyring, then his actions would be
perfectly justifiable.
Would they? I disagree. An editor is responsible for his or her own
edits. I repeat that I have had no contact or communication with Pwqn,
but even if I had dictated his precise edits verbatim, it's still up
to him as to whether he makes them or not.
Besides which, he's merely correcting a POV statement in the article.
His edits are plain common sense, are well backed up with verifiable
sources, and are completely in line with wikipolicy.
As it is, such a link may not exist or may and not be
proven. But let's be clear, there was no abusiveness here and it is bad
faith to assume bad faith.
The facts speak for themselves. Jtdirl blocked a legitimate editor for
a month without making the most basic of checks, he did so over an
issue in which he has a long history of revert-warring and abusive
discussion, and he took the opportunity to take a few more personal
abuse shots at me.
I think that it is a clear abuse of admin powers, and it is hard to
see any evidence of good faith on jtdirls's part. I'd like to see him
explain his actions, admit his errors and apologise to those he has
wronged.
--
Peter in Canberra