On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 3:53 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Ant, the name of the checkuser is important. In two of
the cases where
I've been checked, it was by checkusers who had personal issues with
me. The first was Kelly Martin in 2005, at the height of Wikipedia
Review trying to find out where I live. She had always disliked me,
and she checkusered me, for no reason that she was ever able to give.
The second was Lar, someone who posts regularly to Wikipedia Review,
which frequently publishes false and very damaging allegations about
me, not just criticism of me as a Wikipedian.
[snip]
At the time Kelly was a widely respected and trusted user. Her check
of you *was* explained many times and supported by other people. You
made a post to your talk page which looked completely out of character
(which I believe has since been oversighted along with other large
chunks of your history, so I can't point to it), so she check to see
if there was any evidence that your account had been compromised.
Nothing came out of the check, and no harm was done.
The only harm here comes from people who consider that the mere fact
that a check was performed to be some scathing indictment. It's not.
Get over it. If you're so worried about being checked then you need
to quit editing, because sometimes checks will happen.
(for example, anyone could create an imitation SV sock account and
the correct and expected thing to do would be to perform a complete
set of checks. It's nothing personal. Yet we can all see exactly the
sort of trouble some people will cause when they know they've been
checked)