On 6/19/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg 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; in fact, I had no private information to reveal, so I couldn't have done so even if I had wanted to. I recommend reading Mackensen's "vote" on the CW RFAR; it's currently Oppose number 47, or here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship...
Both you and Mackensen are confusing *private* information with information that reveals identity. They are not identical.
As an example, if some user reveals to me in a private email that they had, at one time, been convicted of some crime, and I in turn reveal that information publicly (say, on this list, or on Wikipedia), then I have absolutely violated that persons privacy. I have not revealed their identity.
You had privileged information about CW -- available to only a handful of people, and entrusted to those people to handle within careful guidelines and with good judgment. You revealed that private and privileged information, contrary to the guidelines and (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others) with poor judgment.
The lack of good judgment is, in my mind, the bigger problem than any violation of the guidelines. It's not that he revealed the information at all, as I'm sure he is going to argue that his doing so was for the sake of stopping harm to the project, but that he did so publicly, only after Charlotte ran for admin, apparently without even confronting Charlotte about it beforehand. And it was done passive-aggressively on top of that, phrasing this revelation as though it was a question.
As someone who has often used Tor while editing Wikipedia I was personally completely unaware of the supposed policy against it. I'm not the only one, either. There are a number of admins and even board members who have disagreed with or admitted to violating this supposed policy. I'd go so far as to say that this supposed policy is not an actual policy, as it does not enjoy consensus support and violation of it does not in any way harm the encyclopedia.