WikiEN-l June 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

163 participants
295 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies
by ElinorD 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

Anthony wrote: > > I took a quick look at the RfA and I didn't see anything about the > policy beyond the fact that TOR IP addresses are routinely blocked. > In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes it > seems to me that anyone reading that page would assume that there is a > clear consensus that there is *not* a policy banning people from > editing using TOR. Armedblowfish came right out and said that ey > intended to do it, and 55 people unanimously agreed that it was an > acceptable thing to do. Seems to me like a clear consensus that it's > perfectly OK to edit Wikipedia using TOR. > The first 55 votes were not all support votes. At the time that she voted, there had been 55 support votes and 31 oppose votes. So we certainly didn't have anything like unanimous agreement that it was acceptable. This is the URL for the page version at the time that she supported Armedblowfish http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/… Take a look at oppose votes numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (and the threaded discussion) from the page at the time that Charlotte posted there. They are the votes that explicitly mentioned the fact that the use of open proxies was a violation of policy. There were other oppose votes that mentioned the open proxy issue without stating that it was a violation of policy. There had even been some support votes and some neutral votes that mentioned the policy. Now, I don't use open proxies. If I skimmed through a page prior to voting, and saw some oppositions based on the use of open proxies, I might not be sufficiently interested to stop in my tracks and investigate what was being said, and follow the link to read the policy page. But if I were using them, even innocently and in complete ignorance of the policy, and I skimmed through that page, it's inconceivable that I wouldn't want to find out more. So unless Charlotte supported an RfA without even glancing at the previous comments, nine days before accepting her own admin nomination, it's most unlikely that she didn't know that there was some kind of problem with regard to a violation of policy here. Elinor

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Policy adoption (was Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser ...)
by Daniel R. Tobias 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

On 18 Jun 2007 at 01:54:36 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > The entire policy adoption process is remarkably fucked up. It favours > the policy wonks with private agendas who have the time and tenacity to > ensure that their favorite views will prevail. The corpus of our > policies (including guidlines and other pseudo policies) is so huge that > it becomes easy for anyone to plant a policy virus whose infective > nature will not be noticed until much later. At that point the > supporters of a change can offer nothing but a glib response to the > effect that you should have said something about it earlier, because now > that it has been here so long it can only be changed if a consensusto > change is first achieved. If it can then be transferred to meta ... "You hadn't actually gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." "But the plans were on display..." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a flashlight." "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But, look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

2 1

(offlist) Re: Editing with open proxies
by Slim Virgin 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/18/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 6/17/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that > > > it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes > > > in. > > > > If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it. > > Huh? Is this some sort of Zen koan? LOL!! You're on a roll this evening. ;-D

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
by Fred Bauder 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

A major issue, yes. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 02:58 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room > >On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> Suspect everyone is the road to real trouble. A rogue Arbitrator would not get far. > >I agree with the first, but there really aren't many who fit the >description. A rogue Arbitrator could do a lot of damage with >oversight, for example, by copying and reposting sensitive deletions >on other websites (e.g. Wikitruth), and would also have access to the >ArbCom mailing list. I think it would be a major issue if a banned >user, or someone out to cause trouble, got elected to ArbCom with a >second or third admin account. > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] Question for Jay and Slim: Checking EXISTING admins for open proxy use
by Fred Bauder 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:59 AM >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Question for Jay and Slim: Checking EXISTING admins for open proxy use > >Jay, I will answer your other direct questions tomorrow from the other >email. I'm short on time tonight. > >1. If proxy usage by admins is "extra" wrong as you contend — and I agree, I >really do — shall we check every single existing admin or higher account for >them, to see if anyone is breaking this cardinal rule that is already in >power? Yes or no? If no, why not? > >2. If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of all extra-special access >for violating Foundation policy, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. >Steward. Clearly, as indicated by Slim and Jay on Charlotte's RFA, such >peoople have *NO* business with the tools. Yes or no? If no, why not? > >3. Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering, reviewed by multiple >other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, >this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not? > >Given the nasty ruckus you initiated--and I was only one of the first to >draw attention to it; others were already after your actions on-Wiki--this >demands clear non-evasive answers from both of you to all three very easy >and clear questions. I am assuming you will both answer in Good Faith, as >you both on-Wiki stand by the No Open Proxies ideal very firmly. I support >this policy as well. > >Will you stand by your convictions? Failing to answer is an option, but it >would cast a serious pall if you were unwilling to obey and endorse the same >rules, policies, and end results you have wrought on others. > >Others may feel free to answer, or offer to be checked if they are admins, >of course. > >Regards, >Joe >http://www.joeszilagyi.com >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

7 7

the elephant in the room
by Joe Szilagyi 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

This entire inappropriate disclosure in RFA by Jayjg of CheckUser/TOR information has exposed the biggest question that people keep missing in this. Admins are bound to enforce existing, accepted policy. Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to enforce it less stringently towards admins? This is what Fred Bauder himself said here on this very list this morning. Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or the old timer that thinks he's something special. Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com

5 13

Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
by Fred Bauder 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

Suspect everyone is the road to real trouble. A rogue Arbitrator would not get far. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 02:21 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room > >On 6/17/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> The problem is that Wikipedia, for better or worse, has an inquisitorial system, with all the dangers such a system presents. We need to limit our investigations to harmful activities. Harmful activities cause harm, observable trouble. An administrator who uses open proxies but does not engage in vandalism or sockpuppetry is not producing observable trouble. >> >> Fred > >Fred, a banned user could cause a lot of trouble if he got elected to >ArbCom using open proxies and a concocted admin account, built up >easily by doing lots of vandalism reverting. There has to be some >minimal accountability with admins, in part because they can be >elected to these positions, and in part because they can cause big >problems even without these extra powers. > >The concern with CW was in part the use of proxies, in part the low >level of content contribution, and in part his/her unwillingness to >explain, even by e-mail, why s/he was using open proxies. It's this >last point that has attracted a lot of the opposition on the RfA. All >in all, it added up to a worrying picture. > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

2 1

Question for Jay and Slim: Checking EXISTING admins for open proxy use
by Joe Szilagyi 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

Jay, I will answer your other direct questions tomorrow from the other email. I'm short on time tonight. 1. If proxy usage by admins is "extra" wrong as you contend — and I agree, I really do — shall we check every single existing admin or higher account for them, to see if anyone is breaking this cardinal rule that is already in power? Yes or no? If no, why not? 2. If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of all extra-special access for violating Foundation policy, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. Clearly, as indicated by Slim and Jay on Charlotte's RFA, such peoople have *NO* business with the tools. Yes or no? If no, why not? 3. Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering, reviewed by multiple other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not? Given the nasty ruckus you initiated--and I was only one of the first to draw attention to it; others were already after your actions on-Wiki--this demands clear non-evasive answers from both of you to all three very easy and clear questions. I am assuming you will both answer in Good Faith, as you both on-Wiki stand by the No Open Proxies ideal very firmly. I support this policy as well. Will you stand by your convictions? Failing to answer is an option, but it would cast a serious pall if you were unwilling to obey and endorse the same rules, policies, and end results you have wrought on others. Others may feel free to answer, or offer to be checked if they are admins, of course. Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com

7 11

Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
by Fred Bauder 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

What I said is that all productive and trusted users are exempt from inquisition, witch hunts, to put it bluntly. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 10:17 AM >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >Subject: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room > >This entire inappropriate disclosure in RFA by Jayjg of CheckUser/TOR >information has exposed the biggest question that people keep missing in >this. Admins are bound to enforce existing, accepted policy. > >Is it acceptable to consider some admins exempt from certain policy, or to >enforce it less stringently towards admins? This is what Fred Bauder himself >said here on this very list this morning. > >Is this acceptable? Is this right? Perhaps it's seem to firmly say to >everyone that no one is exempt from any policy, be it the man on Day 1 or >the old timer that thinks he's something special. > >Regards, >Joe >http://www.joeszilagyi.com >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room
by Fred Bauder 17 Jun '07

17 Jun '07

No, they are not. That falls into making trouble. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:41 AM >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] the elephant in the room > >On 17 Jun 2007 at 16:38:43 +0000, "Fred Bauder" ><fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: > >> What I said is that all productive and trusted users are exempt >> from inquisition, witch hunts, to put it bluntly. > >...but they're free to *start* inquisitions and witch-hunts against >whomever they choose. > > >-- >== Dan == >Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ >Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ >Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ > > > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >

1 0

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
30
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l June 2007