from wp ani hi all now that i know that this discussion exists i'd like to contribute i'll say three things briefly then answer any questions first i have no intention of making any phone calls in the future second i am absolutely certain that my actions in no way threatened the privacy of any editors and therefore was not an example of wp out third please note the context of this accusation ok here's the context your supporters feel that the phone call to someone's place of business does not belong in the rfc fine then based on the section of wp npa that i have quoted both in our discussion on my talkpage and i believe i left it in the rfc this is an issue that requires immediate intervention if there is indeed action to be taken indeed when i became aware of the situation in the rfc i should have brought it here myself you have had about a full day since the end of the interactions on my talkpage to reflect based on the above i'm not sure you used the time wisely talk track a couple of weeks ago i voluntarily revealed the fact that i did this research while carefully avoiding any revelation of private information my motivation was to demonstrate that yet another checkuser conviction was mistaken weeks passes without a whisper until the now departed user paularblaster digs it up to try to add substance to an unpersuasive rfc cu that he and schrandit launched there was no haste or cause for it just an ax to grind now i said outright that i won't be doing this again and whether or not you agree with the action there was never any potential to harm anyone much less an intent to do so all this talk about a chilling effect is well meaning but simply mistaken no matter how you add it up the situation is one that requires calm reflection not urgent action because there's a risk of knee jerk reaction without actually understanding what happened now i'm going to ask you bwilkins the question you refused to answer before and which you deleted from your talk page bwilkins how could my phone call have caused anyone to lose their job carolinewh do you understand why we would be concerned with your off wiki sleuthing and how that could have a chilling effect in other areas it would be bad enough but considering that you are editing abortion related articles some of which likely document the murders or stalking of abortion providers makes it more so if there was ever any risk of private information being revealed then i'd agree but there wasn't so no there is no chilling effect as for abortion it's a red herring as the two editors i researched had nothing to do with the issue i would add that this is not a matter of stalking someone i disagree with but confirming that they were innocent of sockpuppetry ec it was uncalled for sleuthing you clearly indicate investigating the workplace of either spotfixer or phil specter even if it eventually didn't turn out to be their workplace had it happened to me i would consider such intrusive investigations into my private life just to one up me in a content dispute harassment despite saying you won't make such phone calls in the future i see no indication that you understand how serious and inappropriate it was if i had determined that either of them were spotfixer i'd have bit my tongue to protect their privacy and allow rfcu to properly convinct them the scenario you described would indeed be chilling but it has nothing to do with the reality of what i did again unless you can show how my actions were even potentially harmful it's hard for me to consider them either serious or inappropriate i agreed not to do it again but that doesn't mean that what i did was wrong the i have no intention phrase is what sports coaches famously say when asked about their interest in another coaching position the day before the big announcement that they're changing jobs ta