On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:06:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
You are welcome to this opinion. In truth I could have got all the accounts from a CheckUser anyway.
No one in this thread have suggested the actual block is incorrect. I for example do not know enough (anything) to say. What I'm and Ec is saying is that in our opinion, violating ones confidence is violating ones confidence no matter the method you choose to employ it.
And what I'm saying is that I'd have blocked him anyway, but I felt it was wise to ask a few trusted friends first. I did so in a way that kept to an absolute minimum the number of individuals who saw the name of the original account (the sole piece of private information not achievable from checkuser). And I did this *despite* the fact that I could not actually find the RWI from the account name.
If you genuinely think this was wrong, then you will have to take it to the arbitrators, I'm afraid. I made the most limited use I could of the private information and took great care to ensure that it did not result in embarrassment for the individual concerned.
Had I blocked without asking first, I would have been subject to multiple requests for the information. Actually, I was - and I emailed it to arbcom-l.
In my view, PM is getting some credit for being honest, as he was, and for avoiding the temptation to attack people. He is likely to be subject to an editing restriction and a short ban; other users of multiple sockpuppets have been simply shown the door. We will wait and see what happens when PM returns.
Guy (JzG)