[WikiEN-l] RE: Demonstrable Abuse of Admin powers

Mon Jul 11 17:31:44 UTC 2005

On 11/07/05, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
>I must stress this point. Zero connection.
>Zero communication. Not a sockpuppet, not a friend, not anything at
>all.

I must say, you really can't blame anyone for being suspicious given
your intimation that you would indeed use "a different IP address every
day" and find "some other editor(s) to present the same facts." I
certainly believe those comments to be more than mere braggadocio.

>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 think it's plainly obvious to you what is going on, and your
involvement is not something that can be ruled out just because you say
so. However, I do believe Jtdirl may have unintentionally jumped the
gun. On the face of it, I suspect that because Jtdirl joined the
discussion after the obvious sock puppetry of one "Kangaroopedia", he
mistook both Kangaroopedia and Pwqn to be incontestable sock puppets,
not knowing of Pwqn's history. I don't believe Pwqn is a sock puppet.
Nevertheless, I do find it entirely strange that s/he would just,
completely out-of-the-blue, and in contrast to prior edits, edit an
obscure topic on Australian government and rehash the same flawed
understanding as Skyring. We can all draw conclusions, but I don't
suppose there is anyway prove such duplicity. It is good that Pwqn has
been unblocked, and s/he does deserve an apology of sorts from Jtdirl.
Skyring doesn't.

>I see his intemperate and abusive blocking of a good faith
>editor as something warranting discussion.

I encourage everyone to recognise the emotiveness of this seemingly
irrelevant issue.  The harassment Jtdirl was subjected to should be
considered, and he ought to be given a little bit of leeway. If Pwqn and
Kangaroopedia are in some way linked to Skyring, then his actions would
be perfectly justifiable. As it is, such a link may not exist or may and
not be proven. But let's be clear, there was no abusiveness here and it
is bad faith to assume bad faith. 

Cyberjunkie