[WikiEN-l] Missed Opportunities to have avoided the Durova Case

[private musings]

To Guy - but really addressing my views on the core of the current painful
split,

I feel that your responses typify the core of the problem - not just between
you and I, but between what could sadly be described as the 'two camps'.

When I sent you private information, asked you honestly and politely not to
share it - what you failed to respect was *my* trust in you. The rights and
wrongs and subsequent findings of fact do not alter the fact that you
behaved unethically in breaching that trust. The ends do not justify the
means.

Durova has fallen foul of this also - of course a 75 minute block hasn't
harmed anyone's actual editing, but it does enormous harm to the culture and
atmosphere of all editing to think that a 'trusted' admin is prepared to
write and distribute such material. Enourmous harm, Guy - surely you can see
that, befuddled as you may be by it?

In actual fact, you move a step beyond befuddlement, I kinda sense a
righteous indignation which again is entirely misplaced, devoid as it is of
any reflection, or true self-awareness.

I am not questioning your sanity, character, good faith or editing - I'm
questioning your approach to an issue you care deeply about - harassment of
others - because I sincerely believe that you are doing more harm than good.

You shouldn't have shared private information that was submitted to you in
trust.

Please consider the self-evident truth of that statement.

take care,
PM.


On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings"

<thepmaccount at gmail.com> wrote:



>The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the

>nature of your unethical behaviour.



No, my behaviour was ethical.  I asked a few trusted friends for advice
before blocking one of your accounts.  That is a sane and reasonable thing
to do.



>Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose

>any prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s

>who have already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your

>block, to then 'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case?

>- that's a real triple whammy.)



No such declaration is necessary. I asked a simple question: in your
opinion, is this valid use of an alternate account?  Having ventured an
opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again,
especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table.



You seem to think that restricting someone who has used multiple accounts
disruptively and made careless and controversial edits to sensitive articles
in some way damages the arbitration committee's credibility.  I would argue
that the opposite is true: failure to do so would damage their credibility.



Guy (JzG)

--

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG





_______________________________________________

WikiEN-l mailing list

WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l