[WikiEN-l] False accusations of Sock Puppetry by Ambi, David Gerard etc

[Steve Bennett]

Hi Darren,
  I'd sort of wondered when you'd show up on this list. Welcome!


> Yesterday, I was blocked from using Wikipedia on the grounds that I am a
> sockpuppet master of two accounts, 2006BC and AChan.
>
> There is a big problem with this. They are two living, breathing people who
> had previously already identified themselves on their user page and
> elswehere.

I note that in DG's block report, he actually says "Darren Ray is
User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed
different people, although they appear to have edited from each
others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks'
accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks."

So, what's your point?

> They have both already complained about this separately although Ambi, her
> friend David Gerard and others are sticking to their guns despite the
> absurdity of their position being pointed out. Ambi is a former member of
> the Arbitration Committee, and her friend David Gerard seems enjoy a similar
> high position. Has anyone else had experience of dealing with these people?

Yes, David Gerard is a nice, extremely fair and respected senior admin.

> I don't know what to do other than to request to be unblocked but it seems
> that there is little likelihood of justice being done.

Well, let's see. You've been editing a range of Wikipedia articles for
a long time to attempt to discredit an auditor, clean your name,
remove references to the name of the property deal you signed, and
make allegations of conflicts of interest against returning officers
at the Melbourne University Student Union. Not only that, you've been
editing under a number of different accounts, feigning consensus with
two close friends and accusing everyone who tries to work on the same
articles of hiding behind a "pseudonymous/anonymous" cloak, defaming
you, or being politically motivated. And now, after a huge number of
warnings, you've been blocked. If there is an injustice here, you'll
have to point it out to me.

> Ambi had previously filed a Request for Arbitration against me and I was
> going to respond with one relating to her abusive conduct and POV editing.

That's not like you to hold back. Not unwelcome, but not like you either.

> I would appreciate any ideas people had about what to do. My knowledge of
> Wikipedia policies is pretty good in theory but has clearly come up short in
> practice as I have been completely banned for no good reason.

In your "pretty good" knowledge of Wikipedia policies, you obviously
missed this one (from [[WP:NOT]]:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and
advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

   1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can
report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to
approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or
start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your
favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic
point of view" for every article.
   2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17,
2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about
themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is
difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly
abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to
articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly
unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.

You could probably also brush up on [[WP:CIVIL]], and even
[[Wikipedia:Talk pages]]. Remember:

Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would
be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In
the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this
can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.
Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a
joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message),
except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when
both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However,
reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a
block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without
answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially
true for vandalism warnings.

...

Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism
or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk
page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to
remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid.


There are plenty of people here who will be more than happy to point
out more policies or guidelines that may be relevant.

Steve