On 6/17/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:29:00 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi" szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the
methods
of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia?
Yes, if they are using TOR. TOR is verboten, for good reason.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com to English show details 8:52 am (3 hours ago)
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
If the TOR was forbidden for good reasons, Charlotte should have simply been asked, long before the RfA, to stop using it. I have no doubt she would have complied with a request. There was no need for a revelation of information gained through use of check user tools to sink her RfA.
That is the real Occam's razor coupled with AGF in this incident: ask her to stop, when you first find out, explaining it is verboten, for good reason.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Asking someone first is indeed a good first step, but I fail to see what the "good reason" for forbidding it would be. As long as the user isn't hiding behind the proxy to get away with edit warring and such there's no reason we should disallow it. (Is there evidence of any editing abuse?)
If anonymity services are really that much of a problem we should've blocked AOL ages ago (we know it is possible). It is offering more or less the same functionality.