[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[Rich Holton]

jayjg wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But you don't.  You just bring it up when they apply for adminship.
>>>> It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies
>>>> abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
>>> The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
>>>
>> More like outraged.  You were trusted with private information and you
>> abused that trust.
> 
> Again, I didn't reveal any private information; in fact, I had no
> private information to reveal, so I couldn't have done so even if I
> had wanted to. I recommend reading Mackensen's "vote" on the CW RFAR;
> it's currently Oppose number 47, or here's a link:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FCharlotteWebb&diff=138920067&oldid=138914612
> 

Both you and Mackensen are confusing *private* information with 
information that reveals identity. They are not identical.

As an example, if some user reveals to me in a private email that they 
had, at one time, been convicted of some crime, and I in turn reveal 
that information publicly (say, on this list, or on Wikipedia), then I 
have absolutely violated that persons privacy. I have not revealed their 
identity.

You had privileged information about CW -- available to only a handful 
of people, and entrusted to those people to handle within careful 
guidelines and with good judgment. You revealed that private and 
privileged information, contrary to the guidelines and (in my opinion, 
and in the opinion of many others) with poor judgment.

You violated CW's privacy. And you refuse to admit any responsibility or 
accountability.

There's a lot of discussion about being able to hold admins accountable. 
But there seems to be a definite lack of accountability in the use of CU 
tools.

-Rich