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.