On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why even mention that, Greg? It was long before the
checkuser we're
talking about, and therefore obviously not connected to it. It looks
like an attempt to get yet another swipe in.
I didn't say anything attacking you here, I'm pointing out that fact
that reliably searching through your history is effectively impossible
because of the uncertainty created by oversight. It's a statement of
fact, not an allegation and not a reason to fault you.
It's one of several unfortunate side-effects on the use of
checkuser... and one which is irritating here because you're making
claims here which, as far as I can tell are highly revisionist
compared to my recollection of the history... but it's not even worth
my time to perform the searches or dig up the diffs because there is
no way I could tell if they were oversighted or not. The reason I
brought up SBW was not because I was accusing you of misdoing, but
rather pointing out that we know oversights have had a side effect of
also hiding material which was not especially relevant in hiding your
identity but which was relevant in understanding the history of your
interactions.
I have no clue if this was the diff that caught Kelly's attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_not…
but I'd certainly describe it as atypical and out of character.
If, indeed, WR was hunting your identity at that time I'm sure someone
can provide a link.
Nowhere in the 5000 edits made by either you or Kelly Martin prior to
the time her CU was performed was an edit by either of you the other's
talk page. The only connecting point I see is Kelly *defending* you
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly_Martin&diff=p…)
None of my extensive IRC logs indicate that she had any major dislike
of you.
Can you show me any evidence prior to May 31 2006 that would allow me
to see why you would have any justified reason to think that Kelly
Martin might have some grudge against you?
Many of the arguments you've been making here are spurious at best:
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.
Lar posts to WR, but most of the time he's arguing against the
attacks, trying (perhaps hopelessly) to keep things a little more sane
.. and not endorsing the attacks. That you'd even try to attack
Lar's character in this way is breathtaking. Your past attempts to
assert that anyone that can be connected to WR is evil has been
resoundingly rejected.
By the same logic I could argue that WR mostly discusses wikipedia
drama, and that you are a favourite point of discussion, therefore you
are a major cause of drama and should be blocked.
Why are you continuing to make these arguments here rather than making
them on the arb case? It make it seem to me like you're more
interested in smearing people's names than actually achieving the
justice that you claim to be demanding.
As far as I can tell in both past cases and in the current case you
retroactively saw a dispute in the past which did not exist when you
looked through eyes biased by the knowledge of a check being
performed. I can't see myself adopting a different position without
some decent evidence supporting all allegations you've made here.
I think some people deserve apologies from you. I don't think the
community should tolerated these sort of character attacks from within
our own.