Might I respond?
The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the nature of your unethical behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose any prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s who have already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your block, to then 'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case? - that's a real triple whammy.)
Previous responses have been moderated on some grounds - please allow this to post.
Many thanks,
PM. http://just-some-privatemusings.blogspot.com/
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:59:36 +1100, "private musings"
thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
Personal information which I had submitted privately to Guy, with a
request for that privacy to be respected, was shared by him.
With a very small number of people, for purposes of sanity checking.
They agreed with me. So does the Arbitration Committee, by the looks of things.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the nature of your unethical behaviour.
No, my behaviour was ethical. I asked a few trusted friends for advice before blocking one of your accounts. That is a sane and reasonable thing to do.
Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose any prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s who have already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your block, to then 'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case? - that's a real triple whammy.)
No such declaration is necessary. I asked a simple question: in your opinion, is this valid use of an alternate account? Having ventured an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table.
You seem to think that restricting someone who has used multiple accounts disruptively and made careless and controversial edits to sensitive articles in some way damages the arbitration committee's credibility. I would argue that the opposite is true: failure to do so would damage their credibility.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 29, 2007 4:08 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the
nature
of your unethical behaviour.
No, my behaviour was ethical. I asked a few trusted friends for advice before blocking one of your accounts. That is a sane and reasonable thing to do.
Guy, I think I see where both of you are coming from, but I'd like to interrupt here with a few questions. As I understand it, Private Musings shared information about his prior accounts with you, one of which had direct ties to his real-life identity, is this correct? Is it also correct that he gave you no indication (or you had no indication) _at the time_ that one of those accounts was tied to his real identity?
I ask, because, to me, discussing PM's accounts with trusted friends is different to me than discussing someone's real life identity. The first, PM needs to understand, is about protecting the encyclopedia. And when we say, "JzG is a trusted member" that's what we mean. We trust him to do what's in the encyclopedia's best interests. They're janitors, not priests. If you tell them in confidence you plan to break into the school, they'll act on it. I'm rather glad Guy would discuss things with others before acting...it's an entirely calm and rational thing to do.
At the same time, we trust that no one need 'sacrifice' an individual's privacy for the project, which is why Checkuser is such a special and restricted role. Guy, if you knew you were in possession of PM's real-life identity and were sharing that with others, then I'm afraid I would find that "unethical" for a Wikipedia admin. For a Checkuser, that sort of thing would result in an Ombudsman investigation and likely lead to a revocation of their rights.
I haven't been following too closely, but the impression I got from the AN/I threads was that it wasn't too clear which of PM's previous accounts related to his real-life identity (or how). I honestly don't think Guy knew at the time, and probably didn't care. Because his concern wasn't about someone's real life identity but their accounts on Wikipedia and what it was doing to the project.
Makes me wonder if there's anything about anonymity and choosing account names on-wiki anywhere. Could be a good idea for a useful guideline/essay.
InkSplotch
On 29/11/2007, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't been following too closely, but the impression I got from the AN/I threads was that it wasn't too clear which of PM's previous accounts related to his real-life identity (or how). I honestly don't think Guy knew at the time, and probably didn't care. Because his concern wasn't about someone's real life identity but their accounts on Wikipedia and what it was doing to the project.
I suspect the solution to this may well lie in the direction of not sockpuppeting furiously with one of your account names being based on your real name or whatever.
- d.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:03:10 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the solution to this may well lie in the direction of not sockpuppeting furiously with one of your account names being based on your real name or whatever.
A much under-rated approach :-)
Guy (JzG)
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:58:58 -0600, InkSplotch inkblot14@gmail.com wrote:
Guy, I think I see where both of you are coming from, but I'd like to interrupt here with a few questions. As I understand it, Private Musings shared information about his prior accounts with you, one of which had direct ties to his real-life identity, is this correct? Is it also correct that he gave you no indication (or you had no indication) _at the time_ that one of those accounts was tied to his real identity?
No, he told me that one of them was traceable to RWI, which is why I could not discuss it on IRC or the admin noticeboard which is where I would normally have discussed it.
But none of the accounts *is* RWI, and a Google search does not make the connection at all obviously.
I ask, because, to me, discussing PM's accounts with trusted friends is different to me than discussing someone's real life identity. The first, PM needs to understand, is about protecting the encyclopedia. And when we say, "JzG is a trusted member" that's what we mean. We trust him to do what's in the encyclopedia's best interests. They're janitors, not priests. If you tell them in confidence you plan to break into the school, they'll act on it. I'm rather glad Guy would discuss things with others before acting...it's an entirely calm and rational thing to do.
Thank you. And to be clear, it was not a mailing list, private or otherwise, it was a few individually and carefully selected people whose judgment I trust. And the reason I'm not naming them is precisely because of the witch-hunt we're seeing above. It makes no difference who they are because there is no evidence they passed the information any further, and the block was mine and mine alone.
At the same time, we trust that no one need 'sacrifice' an individual's privacy for the project, which is why Checkuser is such a special and restricted role. Guy, if you knew you were in possession of PM's real-life identity and were sharing that with others, then I'm afraid I would find that "unethical" for a Wikipedia admin. For a Checkuser, that sort of thing would result in an Ombudsman investigation and likely lead to a revocation of their rights.
No, the main account was only revealed by David Gerard in what I would bet money was a copy-paste direct from CheckUser output; it's not obvious, looking at the account, that it would be traceable to RWI, and it's not obvious, looking at the account name, what the RWI is. I only have PM's word for it that it is, in fact, traceable.
I haven't been following too closely, but the impression I got from the AN/I threads was that it wasn't too clear which of PM's previous accounts related to his real-life identity (or how). I honestly don't think Guy knew at the time, and probably didn't care. Because his concern wasn't about someone's real life identity but their accounts on Wikipedia and what it was doing to the project.
None listed on the ArbCom. It's an earlier account.
Makes me wonder if there's anything about anonymity and choosing account names on-wiki anywhere. Could be a good idea for a useful guideline/essay.
I'm sure there's something.
Truthfully, though, it's a red herring. The problem was serial abuse of alternate accounts.
Guy (JzG)