I think that in the end it will be up to the ombudsmen anyway. They will determine if doing what Jayjg did was an appropraite use of checkuser..
Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: > On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > > But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for
adminship.
> > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish
(redundancies
> > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you
brought it up.
> > The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but
"defensive".
> More like outraged. You were trusted with private information
and you
abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l