> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:16:51 -0500
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 33
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4cc603b0807201616x5697bcc0i5ae6103b4308f302(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 7/20/08, Larry Pieniazek <lar(a)miltontrainworks.com> wrote:
> For the record, from time to time I do discuss matters
> related to WMF wiki
> affairs with my wife, if there is a past history of her
> involvement. (which
> there was in this particular case, with the editor whose
> sock I first
> checked) . . . . Her [Lar's wife's] role was only
> that of advise and counsel to both me and the other
> editor whose sock I
> first checked, based on the history of communication that
> we already had
> with that editor, and on the statements that editor had
> made to us. ...
>
> Lar, this is the kind of spinning that occurs throughout your
> correspondence about this, and it worries me and others more
> than the original check. You give the impression above (and
> you have given the same impression elsewhere in connection
> with this) that Wiktumnus and your wife know each other. They
> do not. They have had zero contact.
> Your wife is not someone Wikitumnus would have divulged his
> identity and accounts to. Your wife has not "counseled"
> Wikitumnus. There is no "history of communication" between
> Wikitumnus and your wife. There is no "past history of ...
> involvement."
>
> Sarah
One of the things I find most frustrating in this whole matter, especially
when brought here to a public mailing list, is that you, SlimVirgin, can
make any allegations you want, but for me to refute them would require
breaching privacy. You've done that with just about every aspect of this and
I find it to be tiresome, and dirty pool to boot. Perhaps you should
consider why so many users are somewhat frustrated with your approach to
dispute resolution... you've been called on this particular thing over and
over.
To your proximate point:
> Your wife has not "counseled" Wikitumnus. There is no "history of
communication" between Wikitumnus and your wife.
> There is no "past history of ... involvement."
... you are incorrect. The editor behind the WikiTumnus sock was well aware,
well before this episode, that I had discussed that editors situation with
my wife, and the editor behind the WikiTumnus sock had not indicated an
issue with it.
I went into my email archive and I am looking at an email right now from the
editor behind WikiTumnus and the IDs before it that includes phrases like
"your wife is right..." in direct response to my statement "My wife and I
talked about this matter a bit and she does not understand why you don't
just quit WP completely"...
I've got the email. It's right in front of me. It's from DECEMBER 2007. I
have older ones too. They prove you are the one spinning things here.
But of course, it's my word against yours. Because while I HAVE the email, I
can't release it, because to do so would be a privacy violation. I have high
ethics. My word is good, regardless of how you and your allies attack me. So
you get to malign me over and over and I can't prove you wrong without
violating the trust placed in me.
Nifty, isn't it. What an awesome tactic.
But see, SlimVirgin, the thing is... in the final analysis, it's my word
against yours. My word is good. Yours... not so much. More and more people
realise that, as you try this trick on more and more innocent victims, so
this tactic of yours will work less and less well.
Drop this. You come off the worse, and the more you dig into this, the
deeper you dig your own hole.
Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com