jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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_adminshi…
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