On 6/15/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I
was
investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up
on
the
list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's
mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail system to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
Hopefully anyone's ethics-meter would go off there. Not to say anything about the ethics involved in stopping an otherwise adept and dedicated contributor from gaining the adminship, starting a moral panic by baselessly associating the contributor with malicious sockpuppets, and another item that I won't mention because it would mean assuming bad faith and possibly poisoning the well.
If there's any "moral panic" here, it's in your post. I simply asked why the editor was using TOR proxies, which, as we all know, is a *violation of policy*. That's it. When he/she insisted on knowing why I "invaded her privacy", I explained how I had initially come across the information. I didn't stop him/her from gaining adminship, nor did I associate him/her with malicious sockpuppets, nor any other such nonsense. From what I can tell, many of the "oppose" votes were in reaction to over-the-top statements like yours. And if there's an "ethics-meter" issue, it is about how people like Joe and you are now framing this.