jayjg wrote:
On 6/16/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
How long ago did you know of her open proxy use, and why did you not bring it up before the RFA?
This last question is important. I urge jayjg to answer it.
Why is it important?
Because you are in a position of enhanced authority, you are therefore in a position of enhanced responsibility and accountability.
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
Regardless of the merits of the RFA in question, your use of Checkuser has been brought into question. Since you seem quite reluctant to answer the specific question, let's make it general:
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
-Rich