On 6/19/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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_adminshi…
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.