On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
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 is not a statement of fact. It's nonsense. Some of my earlier edits were oversighted. The period you are looking for was long after that.
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.
Brought up SBW? I don't know what you mean. You are just going for maximum smear, Greg, and while that kind of thing used to bother me a lot, I have to tell you that it's water off a duck's back now. One favor Wikipedia Review has done me has been to thicken my skin considerably, so pray continue.
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.
LOL!! Kelly wrote to me today citing that exact diff, so what you do mean you have no cluse whether it's the one? Kelly now says (this is the third reason she's offered) that she checkusered me because I had posted that I was leaving, and that I might go rogue. She wrote:
"Upon review of the evidence, including evidence which I failed to find when responding to the original complaint, I find that my original response was not entirely correct. My decision to checkuser her was related to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notice.... ... In any case, at the time it was my evaluation that she was at risk to [sic] going "rogue" and might come back using sockpuppets abusively, given her apparent state of mind and recent behavior at the time. I captured and held her IP address against the possibility of her doing so. The checkuser also served to confirm that her account had not been compromised, which was another concern I had at the time."
The cited diff shows that, directly above my post implying that I might leave, FloNight also indicated that she would be leaving. Did Kelly Martin also checkuser FloNight, in case she went rogue? No, she did not, because Wikipedia Review had expressed no interest in FloNight's whereabouts.
I doubt very much if an admin (other than me by Kelly) has ever been checkusered just because they said they might be leaving, lest they go rogue. :-)
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?
I will look for evidence if I have time, though I wonder what the point of convincing you would be.
Sarah