On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
Assuming your conclusions are accurate, this sort of behaviour can only harm the project, as it will put off people from running the RFA gauntlet.
I'm forced to wonder if that is the point.
I don't know, but it seems to me lately that a lot is done on Wikipedia with ulterior motives. It also seems that if the concern really is for TOR accounts, then good contributors in good standing should be called on it before they run for adminship.
I think that administratorship and positions of extra responsibility should come with a rule or guideline that those entrusted with extra powers should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Or don't do something in a way that could call attention to your motives, like saving up a revealing piece of information about someone for when they run for adminship. Something you learned when put in a position where you have access to information about users that Wikipedia's policy claims it maintains privately.
If there is an issue with Trojan admins using TOR accounts, and using TOR accounts (orwhatever they are called, I'm rather clueless here) is bad for Wikipedia, AND against policy, the time to raise the issue is when it is first discovered that an editor in good standing is using a TOR account. Raise the issue via e-mail, not via public revelation on a RfA.
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
I think that if this information was available only to users with check user permission, and it was revealed to Wikipedia in general, then Wikipedia failed to maintain privacy in this instance. This concerns me.
KP