[WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks

[Philippe Beaudette]

You know.... I, for one, am so incredibly frustrated with this whole  
discussion.

OK: you think there are CU issues, fine.  Propose a policy.  Let the  
community give it an up or down.

For the love of G-d, if you think there are issues, FILE A REQUEST FOR  
ARB (or better yet, comment on the one that someone else filed)... but  
let's not let this damned thing fester.

It's a scab, it's getting picked at, and frankly, it's getting infected.

_____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Tulsa, OK
philippebeaudette at gmail.com




On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:04 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:

> On 7/22/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:31 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at 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'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=55692340
>>  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_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=55692340 
> .
>  ... 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l