[WikiEN-l] re:Indefinite bans with no oversight

Thu Sep 15 13:34:58 UTC 2005

On 9/14/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote: 

>Proof of your sockpuppets absolutely doesn't exist?
>Hmm...I must have misread this then: 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Sockpuppet_check_request 
>Carbonite

Mr. Gerard's statements could not be considered proof, evidence, or even supported conjecture.  If Mr. Gerard did IP lookups for these editors, is there any reason why he can't post the results so that we can see the similarities (if any)?  Is there any reason why he can't show us the output of a proxycheck instead of alluding to open proxies?

I can think of one reason: total disclosure would not be loyal to the cause.  The faithfulness I see amongst administrators is important to the smooth operation of an association.  Yet historically, it has also been the breeding ground for corruption.  Exclusion is a sure warning sign that methods of punishment are forming and malfeasance is creeping into the system.  When it gets to the point that administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin don't even try to tie punishment back to any rule or standard of Wikipedia, we can know for certain that their actions are driving off good editors and contributors to this work.

At some point, the corruption becomes so blatant that it is impossible to get much of anything productive accomplished.  At that point, the system fails.  I hope you will not wait that long.  When there is ample evidence of two of your administrators using their power to bias the content of articles, it is time for them to relinquish that power.  Loyalty can include all Wikipedia editors when our editing power is equal.

Thank you for your consideration,
Zephram Stark (zephramstark at yahoo.com)
(432) 224-6991

---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. 