On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 05:06:34 +0000, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG