On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I
was
investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up
on
the
list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's
mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail system to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
Hopefully anyone's ethics-meter would go off there. Not to say anything about the ethics involved in stopping an otherwise adept and dedicated contributor from gaining the adminship, starting a moral panic by baselessly associating the contributor with malicious sockpuppets, and another item that I won't mention because it would mean assuming bad faith and possibly poisoning the well.
I certainly follow the policy, but it's not my favorite one.