On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
One thing I expect is to know when checkuser is run against me. I expect to know about this before it happens, and I expect a chance to argue against it happening.
But, even if this were fixed I still doubt I'd feel comfortable with the system. I think I'd have to vote for abandoning the tool completely.
Anthony, When you were caught using a sock the folks who investigated the sock decided to extend you an assumption of good faith and took your claim, that you didn't intend the negative outcome which followed from, at face value. Your actions were not publicly disclosed in that case, even though only your reputation would have been hurt and not your privacy.
Wow, there is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.
To start with, use of a sockpuppet is not a violation of policy, and the sockpuppet I was using did not violate any policy. So there was absolutely no valid reason to make that check in the first place. Secondly, the fact that my actions were not disclosed to the public is irrelevant, as what I have a problem with is the fact that the checkuser was made in the first place. Thirdly, revelation of the matter would not have hurt my reputation. I have made no attempt to hide the fact that I often edit Wikipedia using pseudonyms. And fourthly, my privacy would have been violated by your revelation of the identity of an edit which was made under a pseudonym. You might not call that a violation of privacy, but it is.
I think it is sad that you are, apparently, so unwilling to extend trust to others even after benefiting from it yourself. I assume you know what they say about people who live in glass houses?
I don't understand whose trust you're claiming that I have benefited from. Yes, you didn't reveal private information about me to the public. That's great, you're not supposed to do that. Doing one right thing in one particular situation isn't enough to earn my trust.