On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, David Katz
<dkatz2001(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You've also, again, completely evaded your
responsibility with Sweet Water Blue. That was an abusive sockpuppet
which you used in content disputes and to enable you to vote twice.
Can you give some sort of explanation for that sock as well as Jayjg's
attempt to cover up its existence by using oversight?
SWB is old news and boring at this point. Water under the bridge, if
you will. It may well be that Sarah did something evil and stupid
then, but she's not the same person today that she was then.
People would be more willing to accept that if 1) she'd take
responsibility and admit it 2) she'd apologize for it.
Isn't that the minimum Wikipedia usually expects from people who've
transgressed? Why is Sarah the exception, particularly when she's
demanded the same from others for the exact same transgression?
DK