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.