SlimVirgin wrote:
On 7/19/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/19 SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com:
There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that Lar
checked.
Your accounts? Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser. (I ask this while reminding all here that several admins have been caught severely sockpuppeting and then deadminned.)
I don't feel I'm immune, but I do feel there should be a presumption against long-term contributors being checked, unless there are serious grounds to suspect abuse.
As somebody completely outside of this whole conflict, and with not even a remote understanding of the whole backround, let me just say that whatever the issues and or facts may be otherwise, this statement is very very deeply offensive, though I have to confess that it is quite easy to fall into this mindset, through error.
It is the newcomers and or limelight avoiding editors of occasional contribution, who should not be peremptorily considered targets which are soft enough to bully through intimations of suspicion of sockpuppetry.
There has to be proximate cause for a sockpuppet investigation, certes. But that falls far short of saying there should be a "presumption against" doing one on anyone.
The result is that Wikitumnus felt they had to abandon their account. I recall an absolute storm when Durova blocked !!, an established editor who had abandoned his original account, but who felt his identity was compromised by the block. That is exactly the situation we have here -- an established editor with a new account is checked for no reason, and as a result feels unable to continue with the account in case their identity leaks out.
Your account otherwise is quite interesting and may have merit, but your use of the word "exactly" here is fairly comical.
!! was blocked. If Wikitumnuses situation had been "exactly" the same, he would have been blocked. Was Wikitumnus blocked? I submit not.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen