[WikiEN-l] Demonstrable Abuse of Admin powers

Mon Jul 11 00:22:35 UTC 2005

19 hours ago, according to GMail, I sent identical emails to several
different regulars here, asking them to keep "a careful pair of eyes"
on the situation in [[Government of Australia]] where an editor with
no connection to me whatsoever had highlighted the same error that I
had six months previously. I must stress this point. Zero connection.
Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a friend, not anything at
all.

Can I ask that those people take a look at the ongoing situation,
summarised below. If they have access to "sockpuppet-detection" tools,
I ask that they use them. 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 make the point that my last edit to the GofA article was 17:08, 24
May 2005, when I corrected a typo, and to the discussion page on 31
May 2005, shortly before the ArbCom case began at which time I
voluntarily ceased making edits to either page.

Peter

==Summary==

23:39, 9 July 2005
User:Pwqn edits [[Government of Australia]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Government_of_Australia&diff=18462085&oldid=18243028

23:50, 9 July 2005
User:cyberjunkie reverts User:Pwqn and makes a note on the talk page
to this effect, mentioning "the same ridiculousness" and stating that
the editor "has a long edit history so I don't think s/he is a
sockpuppet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGovernment_of_Australia&diff=18462460&oldid=16971907

00:08, 10 July 2005
User:cyberjunkie says: "I don't want to see a return to the
frustrations and viciousness that this issue has caused". I can
heartily echo this, having been on the receiving end of most of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18462460

04:17, 10 July 2005
User:Pwqn makes a statement, concisely summarising his case and
presenting a list of sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18471827

20:49, 10 July 2005
Adam Carr states (inter alia): "I will assume for the moment that Pwqn
is a good-faith editor" but "there is '''absolutely no way''' this
question can be re-opened and re-debated because a new editor has come
along and wants to reopen the whole process".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18519767

20:53, 10 July 2005
Adam Carr moves a lot of the discussion (including ongoing material)
to archives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18520525

08:07, 11 July 2005
User:Kangaroopedia (who looks very much like a sockpuppet of
someone's) makes an edit entitled "Showcasing Adam Carr's
Doublethink".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18520654

09:08, 11 July 2005
User:Lacrimosus makes a comment entitled: "showcasing the Skyringers' stupidity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18553262

Current revision (as at 10:08 11 July 2005)
User:jtdirl states: "You can usually tell Skyring's clones by their
ignorance of constitutional law and legal principles" and "He really
must think we are a shower of fools not to spot his little games."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=18556618

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.)
08:20, 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist

User:jtdirl is an admin whose contributions to the article and
discussion page are many and lengthy, extending to many thousands of
words. He is directly involved in this discussion, and at the very
least, I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith
editor as something warranting discussion.

-- 
Peter in Canberra