On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:12:35 +1100, "private musings"
<thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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'.
You've managed to break the attribution sufficiently that I do not
know the context for this statement.
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.
So you keep saying. That's a bit like telling a cop that you are a
bank robber and asking him to keep it to himself.
"The evidence shows that Privatemusings has operated a total of
eight accounts ([2]), well outside of policy and established norms."
You don't seem to have taken that on board.
Note that my communication with others was sufficiently well-judged
that none of those others has shared the private information you
sent me, despite the fact that Googling the account you claim ties
to RWI does not make the link. Even though it's not apparent,
people have respected your privacy.
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?
Durova's case was very different. For a start, I made sure that you
(the individual) were able to keep editing, just not using multiple
accounts.
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.
"The evidence shows that Privatemusings has operated a total of
eight accounts ([2]), well outside of policy and established norms."
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.
"The evidence shows that Privatemusings has operated a total of
eight accounts ([2]), well outside of policy and established norms."
You shouldn't have shared private information that
was submitted to you in
trust.
And you should not have used sockpuppets and made careless edits to
biographies of living individuals. Sanity checking a block
beforehand is not forbidden by policy, sockpuppetry and careless
edits to BLPs *are* forbidden by policy.
Please consider the self-evident truth of that
statement.
It's not self-evident, because it's not evident to me.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG