On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
Actually, it's a question of whether Jay publically dropping an atom bomb with this information on the RFA is a violation of the trust mistakenly given him by the community. It's no accident that half the CheckUser rumors and allegations of abuse swirl about Jay. But you defend him--just like, how did you know that Kelly Martin had checkusered YOU that time? Unless someone told you info on who ran what Checkuser, but you aren't supposed to have checkuser info like that, are you, Sarah? Or if no one told you, how did Kelly happen to get reported to the Ombudsman, for checks that supposedly are a dime a dozen?
The real issue here isn't proxies. Ban them all quietly as found, and then done deal. Dropping this on an RFA to sink it is WRONG. If proxies on admins are such a big pet issue with you, Sarah, why not have compulsory checkusers on ALL standing admins? If one is using open proxies, let's tell the whole community. Like Jay himself did to poor Charlotte. If they are--they lose their bits. Immediately. That includes admins, b'cats, stewards, anyone. Would that be acceptable? If not, why not? I would like to see whether you stand by what you have been advocating.
If we're going to humiliate people on the premise of zero tolerance, let's hold admins already in place to the same standards.
Would you yourself, Slim--and Jay, too--agree to an immediate CheckUsering, and if you are using proxies or alternate accounts, they are disclosed, and if you used proxies, you lose your bits (all of them)?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com