[WikiEN-l] SHOWCASING Abuses of Admin Power

[A. Nony Mouse]

> > Kurita77 actually sent emails from MANY IP addresses in his block.
>
>One overlapping IP is all we need for near certainty.

When DHCP is involved, no, I don't think so.

> > I checked the record. Enviroknot's edits and emails to this list do not
> > contain a single swear word, anywhere.
>
>So? anyone can change their writing style.

Anyone "can" change their writing style... in the same way that people can 
change their handwriting or their hair color.

Very, very rarely can someone hold such subterfuge for that long. Somewhere, 
IF Enviroknot were also KaintheScion/ElKabong, there should have been a 
slip-up somewhere. SOME swear. Especially with the number of people here and 
on Wikipedia who were spending much time personally attacking and harassing 
Enviroknot.

> > Kurita77, on his initial 25 edits, made only one set that were on the 
>same
> > subject as Enviroknot. But we have policy on Wikipedia about that. 
>Merely
> > editing on the same subject or sharing similar opinions is NOT an 
>indication
> > of sockpuppetry.
>
>It's not. When combined with the overlapping IPs, however, it is very
>difficult to dispute.

Again, when DHCP is involved, I don't think so. What would you do if it were 
an AOL subscriber who happened to get the IP of another blocked AOL 
subscriber and edited on the same topic?

> > Kurita77 was an example of a bunch of Inquisitionists running around 
>needing
> > someone else to persecute, and biting the newbies. There was no good 
>faith
> > involved in dealing with him.
>
>Perhaps it could have been handled better initially, I haven't looked
>but I'd be surprised if I hadn't posted saying that.

If you did, you didn't spend much time on it. In fact, YOU were the one who 
sent the little "gem" telling him that the only way he'd get his account 
back would be to hunt down Enviroknot wherever he was and force him to move 
out of the area.

No. You crossed the line, you purposely agitated Kurita77 rather than 
dealing in good faith.

> > Instead, the Kurita77 case has proven a few things about the bad faith
> > inherent in the behavior of editors/admins like YOU:
>
>I have assigned no bad faith to Kurita77, I have only stated that
>obvious that his equivalence with enviroknott is nearly beyond
>reasonable dispute.

And I state for the record that any such assertion is roughly the equivalent 
of what I remove from my horses' stalls in the morning.


> > 1 - You believe that no editor is smart enough to read the rules and
> > tutorials before posting, and that (therefore) any editor who comes in 
>and
> > doesn't sound like a l33t skr1pt k1dd13z poster is guilty of being a
> > sockpuppet.
>
>I have *never* made this claim, and I disagree strongly with anyone
>who makes it and I have done so publicly on the list.

Yet that is PRECISELY the claim made time and again as evidence - that 
Kurita77 "had" to be a sockpuppet because he "knew too much" about 
formatting edits on Wikipedia. This despite the fact that he had to go 
asking another editor for help in formatting his signature, and proceeded to 
get it wrong multiple times.

That's not the act of an experienced editor, it's the act of a newbie.

> > We should not bite the newbies for actually paying attention.
>
>agreed.

At least you agree on that. Too bad you fail to practice it.

> > 2 - You believe that quoting someone (which is as simple as copying and
> > pasting their edit) is evidence of sockpuppetry. Again, this CANNOT be
> > allowed to be the case.
> > The case of Kurita77's quote - which you call "complete support" - is 
>YOU
> > misrepresenting the event, nothing more. His actual behavior was to take 
>a
> > small paragraph from out between the bickering between Zeno of Elea and
> > BrandonYusufToropov/Anonymous Editor, because it held a valuable 
>suggestion
> > - a suggestion that BrandonYusufToropov even agreed was a good one, 
>though
> > the suggestion itself stirred up the usual hornets' nest of Islamic
> > detractors and defenders pushing alternate readings of the Koran.
>
>I said,  "Furthermore Kurita77 initial edits were on the same subjects
>and enviroknott, and even came out in support of enviroknott.". Please
>get your quotes right. He did edit in support of enviroknott, this is
>not by itself evidence of anything. When you combine it with the other
>evidence.. the likelihood is overwhelming.

Hardly.

"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start 
participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, __particularly in 
controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle 
East__, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Some have suggested 
applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that 
all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, __such 
beliefs have been shown not to be well founded__."

How much clearer do I need to be? I tried to bold it but the list doesn't 
allow Rich-Text Emails (can the admins check on why this is?).

There is not "overwhelming" evidence of anything - there is the assertion 
that because he:
- edited the same article,
- and cut-and-pasted a valid point which was being overlooked under the 
usual holy-warrior garbage that goes on every time editors like 
BrandonYusufToropov and Zeno of Elea get together,
- and happened to live somewhere inside the Houston city limits (gee, not 
like it's not the fourth largest city in the US or anything),
that somehow he "must" be a sockpuppet even though his other edits don't 
match up and neither does his language.

I don't buy it. This is a case of admins on a power trip biting the newbies 
and refusing to admit they were wrong to do so, which was made worse by 
admins like YOU who saw an opportunity to jump in and cause a personal 
attack free-for-all on the innocent newbie.

NEVER the way you should treat new users. But you and every other admin who 
jumped in to start attacking Kurita77 (I think I only saw ONE mail that was 
even close to being in good faith) showed what you were made of. It wasn't 
pretty.

What's even sadder is that I see this kind of stuff all the time on 
Wikipedia. The inner clique of Adminship has become a license to make up 
rules as you go along and break the existing rules with impunity, rather 
than a trust to enforce them and stay within them. Calling it a "despotism" 
isn't far off from the reality.

>I realize you are trying to defend the wronged here... but there are a
>lot of wronged people who would make a better case for your
>assistance.

We'll start with this one, thank you very much. Now address the points.

A. Nony Mouse

_________________________________________________________________
Upgrade to Messenger 7.0 - more fun features, still totally FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.co.uk