On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If open proxies are bad, editors should be stopped when it is first
discovered they are using them--registered editors. And, they should
not be selectively revealed in political circumstances.
"In political circumstances" is a meaningless phrase attempting to
somehow tie this incident to both Wikipedia policy, and to various
absurd conspiracy theories. *Every* circumstance on Wikipedia is
"political" when you view it through the lens of conspiracy and cabal.
But I don't view it through the lens of conspiracy and cabal. I think
most peopls are far too lazy and interested only in themselves to
effectively secure a cabal in the first place.
And, adminship is a more powerful position on Wikipedia, it requires
candidacy, community approval, questioning and voting:it's more
political than regular editing. Regulara editing requires nothing
much at all.
Also, if this is being revealed under these circumstance, when
Charlotte was never investigated for sock puppetry as a check user,
what other information about other users is subject to being revealed
when it is obtained by those with check user powers?
Well, I've actually quite often seen CheckUsers mention the ISP an
editor is using, which is something that I, of course, have not done
here. Revealing *actual* information about editors is covered by the
CheckUser policy.
Oh, and is this not allowed to be given, ISPs? And did you confront
the person revealing the ISP in those circumstances? IS this supposed
to make me feel safer? It seems like a morras of irresponsibility.
KP