To Guy - but really addressing my views on the core of the current painful split,
I feel that your responses typify the core of the problem - not just between you and I, but between what could sadly be described as the 'two camps'.
When I sent you private information, asked you honestly and politely not to share it - what you failed to respect was *my* trust in you. The rights and wrongs and subsequent findings of fact do not alter the fact that you behaved unethically in breaching that trust. The ends do not justify the means.
Durova has fallen foul of this also - of course a 75 minute block hasn't harmed anyone's actual editing, but it does enormous harm to the culture and atmosphere of all editing to think that a 'trusted' admin is prepared to write and distribute such material. Enourmous harm, Guy - surely you can see that, befuddled as you may be by it?
In actual fact, you move a step beyond befuddlement, I kinda sense a righteous indignation which again is entirely misplaced, devoid as it is of any reflection, or true self-awareness.
I am not questioning your sanity, character, good faith or editing - I'm questioning your approach to an issue you care deeply about - harassment of others - because I sincerely believe that you are doing more harm than good.
You shouldn't have shared private information that was submitted to you in trust.
Please consider the self-evident truth of that statement.
take care, PM.
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)
--
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: