On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:12:35 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@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)