On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:58:58 -0600, InkSplotch <inkblot14(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG