On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@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%27_notice... 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=pr...) 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.