On 6/15/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
> On 6/15/07, geni <geniice(a)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.