Ken I don't find your paraphrase of what the underlying issue is to be
accurately reflective of the argument's so far in-world.
Rather it would seem that there are several differing arguments for the
spelling used currently, and several for the alternate view.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:04:06 -0500
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <4cc603b0807191404v7bd5c55amc70a6b7c05c705a1(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sarah:
I've been mostly staying out of addressing your allegations because I rather
hoped that, given the amount of discussion and investigation there was about
the whole thing, that this matter had been settled some time ago. I also
refrained from giving detail in order to preserve the privacy of all
involved as much as possible. I intend to hew to that and not give detail
here either. However I just cannot allow this canard of yours to stand
without correction.
> There was no reason at all to check the first account(s) that
> Lar checked. If you know some of the details of the case, and
> I assume you do (though I also know you don't know all of
> them), you'll know that he had no grounds *whatsoever* to
> perform the first check,
Patently false, and repeating it won't make it true. There was a very good
reason for the initial check. I performed the initial check based on my
judgement that a good and valid request for a check had been presented to
me. An ombudsman reviewed the request I was given and agreed with me that I
had good reason to run the check. You conveniently fail to mention that.
> or the second
As every good checkuser does, I follow checks where they lead. And when they
lead to surprising results, as this one did, I don't go public without close
consultation with my colleagues. Which is what happened in this case. After
consultation, there was no need to make the results public or act further on
them, and every good reason to not do so. You conveniently fail to mention
that as well.
> but it was assumed and hoped that both checks might lead to me.
You assume too much, I think. Unless of course your real reason for raising
this is to try to damage my reputation in order to win unrelated disputes, a
tactic that I think will increasingly fail you going forward, as more people
realise you do so.
> He performed the check upon the private request of a troublemaker who has
been harassing me for over a year.
I think you overplay the harassment card sometimes. This is one of those
times.
Others have advised you that this matter is settled. Let it be. Stop trying
to smear people.
Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
We danced around this on checkuser-L for a week without really
discussing the precise details; we are certainly not going into detail
here on whether or not the request to compare user A and user B was
valid. I really think it is time for Slim to put up or shut up. Ask
Arbcom to review Lar's trustworthiness and judgement to use the tool,
or don't, but please quit bringing it up on wiki. Smearing Lar's
character when only about 6 people know the details, and those who do
can't discuss it publicly, is unacceptable.
Thatcher
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:16:14 +0100
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140807191716t858fc35mde137361a43c1c59(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2008/7/19 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)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 find your attitude worrying. The Ombudsman committee cannot hear the
>> case because they don't cover checkuser misuse. And you say the ArbCom
>> *should* not hear it.
>
>
> That someone looked? Please detail why you feel you are immune to checkuser.
>
>
>>So there is nothing left to curb this kind of
>> behavior, despite this person's involvement with Wikipedia Review.
>
>
> I suggest you contact the Foundation with this as a reason to take it
> away. Let me know how that works out for you.
>
>
> - d.
>
Actually Ken I didn't say "you need a source to show it's a mistake", but
others have.
What I said was, originally, that you didn't cite any source for any part of
your complaint.
Of course now you've cited a table.
However, reviewing the talk log you pointed at, I see that some editors
believe there is an issue with the transliteration. That is, there are people,
using the transliteration-table, who are on the exact opposite side of the
question. It's not quite so cut-and-dry as you first made it appear.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/14/2008 1:53:47 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
I thought it became much more convincing about the time that the chart
was introduced. Your apparent reaction suggested that the elementary
process of applying an unambiguous function is not sufficient, which
boggles my mind.>>
---------------------------------------
If you review once more what I actually said, and to what I was actually
responding you might reap another reward.
In the remark to which you refer, I was not addressing the introduction of
the chart at all. Rather I was pointing out that asking for a source (and
then receiving one) is not pedantic, abstruse, irresponsible or cloying. It is
rather, the way in which we normally work. I don't think that, whether or
not there is an unambiguous way in which to transliterate Japanese, is such
common knowledge, that it can pass, while in the heat of argument, without a
source.
Perhaps I should have said something like "thank you for the chart, but I
don't thank you for the manner in which you deliver as well a back-handed slap
along with it". That isn't appropriate.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
While I was researching *why* New York Brad was "forced to resign", since no
one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real name and
the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html_
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html)
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com issue and related
topics.
I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually is.... but
wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the
issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks at WR respond
in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail. Like that
one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole
Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own name, and
have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Well Howie see I think your argument misses a very crucial fork in this
thread.
I was never arguing about what the page should be or shouldn't be named.
My point was specifically that, an argument stating, here, "My view is right
because I say so" is not a very convincing argument.
So as you can see, the rest of your witty rejoinder is meaningless :)
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
In a message dated 7/14/2008 12:21:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cdhowie(a)gmail.com writes:
In any case your involvement in this discussion thus far has been very
POINTy. >>
-----------------
Please address the argument, not the person.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
In a message dated 7/14/2008 7:19:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
-- It's ridiculous to say that a source must be given for anything
challenged, rather than for anything sincerely challenged. >>
--------------------
How do you propose to fix the line between these two cases?
If you check our page on reliable sources I think it was (I worked on these
quite a while ago, can't quite remember where it was put), it already states
that we don't have to source things that are trivial, common knowledge, etc.
The problem is how to determine whether knowing how to use a particular
look-up table is really trivial, or should at the *minimum* be linked.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)