On 9/14/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp(a)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(a)yahoo.com)
(432) 224-6991
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.