Jay, I will answer your other direct questions tomorrow from the other email. I'm short on time tonight.
1. If proxy usage by admins is "extra" wrong as you contend — and I agree, I really do — shall we check every single existing admin or higher account for them, to see if anyone is breaking this cardinal rule that is already in power? Yes or no? If no, why not?
2. If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of all extra-special access for violating Foundation policy, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. Clearly, as indicated by Slim and Jay on Charlotte's RFA, such peoople have *NO* business with the tools. Yes or no? If no, why not?
3. Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering, reviewed by multiple other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not?
Given the nasty ruckus you initiated--and I was only one of the first to draw attention to it; others were already after your actions on-Wiki--this demands clear non-evasive answers from both of you to all three very easy and clear questions. I am assuming you will both answer in Good Faith, as you both on-Wiki stand by the No Open Proxies ideal very firmly. I support this policy as well.
Will you stand by your convictions? Failing to answer is an option, but it would cast a serious pall if you were unwilling to obey and endorse the same rules, policies, and end results you have wrought on others.
Others may feel free to answer, or offer to be checked if they are admins, of course.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
I'm not sure where you're going with this. This is the third time (at least) I've seen you ask this. I've seen no evidence that either of them are using or have used proxies. There is no reason for you to be targetting them specifically, unless you know something all of us else don't.
On 17/06/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
- Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering, reviewed by multiple
other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not?
On 6/17/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. This is the third time (at least) I've seen you ask this. I've seen no evidence that either of them are using or have used proxies. There is no reason for you to be targetting them specifically, unless you know something all of us else don't.
I am not targetting them simply as they are the ones--Slim and Jay--that are keen to roil RFA to make it much harder for "new" admins to come in, yet there is no talk of ensuring/enforcing such things to all admins--new and old. I know nothing of secret information here, on this case, yet, that others do not. I am not going to ask again for the questions, but the general evasiveness and deflection of answers has been problematic here. However, there is NO reason what's good for the RFA goose isn't good for the established gander.
They feel that "new" admins shouldn't get the bit if they use/have used TOR or open proxies in the past. I can agree with this. The question is, will they assert to stand by those convictions and have themselves be tested. They need not reply to *this* email, as it is preferred they give answers to the three simple questions.
Short: all we hear is ensuring new admins this, and that. No where do we see talk of pursuing/checking old admins for such things. Why is that? I wish to AGF, but it seems quite plainly like a further attempt to ensure that established "core community" are more special than everyone else.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
It's a fair request. If new admins get auto-checked, existing admins that never were should be auto-checked. Why would they care? After all, they're all admins rigorously following policy. Correct? Therefore, this just shows the community their willingness to apply policy equally to all editors. Unless, of course, that's just hypocrisy and policy gets applied more equally to some editors.
So there's no confusion or topic changing attempts, I fully support the no proxy policy. I'm simply stating that those who have not been checked deserve to have the rules applied consistently to them.
--- "NSLE (Wikipedia)" nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure where you're going with this. This is the third time (at least) I've seen you ask this. I've seen no evidence that either of them are using or have used proxies. There is no reason for you to be targetting them specifically, unless you know something all of us else don't.
On 17/06/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
- Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering,
reviewed by multiple other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
I don't know, it seems to me this "open proxy" thing is just a chimera.
Right now, as I write this, I have my choice of 5 different IPs I could be posting under - seems my neighbours aren't quite as current in keeping their LANs secure as I am. For all I know, one or more of them could be TORs or other open proxies. Sometimes, when my own LAN is acting up, I'll wind up on my alternate LAN - two doors down - without even trying. For that matter, most people working on LANs depend on their system admin to set up the internet connections - and would have no way of knowing that they were accessing the web through an open proxy. And of course there are the signal stealers - endemic here; the hotspot users; those who use publicly accessible internet connections (Internet cafes, libraries, etc); and some cities are already offering internet access just by sitting in the local park. My usual ISP never gives my city of residence; and if it was traced back, it could show up as any one of five cities - and I use one of the biggest ISPs in my country. The IP from which someone edits doesn't tell anything about who they are, where they are, or do anything to provide any kind of unique "fingerprint." I really don't see the point.
Risker
On 6/17/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, as I write this, I have my choice of 5 different IPs I could
be
posting under - seems my neighbours aren't quite as current in keeping
their
LANs secure as I am. For all I know, one or more of them could be TORs
or
other open proxies. Sometimes, when my own LAN is acting up, I'll wind
up on
my alternate LAN - two doors down - without even trying. For that
matter,
most people working on LANs depend on their system admin to set up the internet connections - and would have no way of knowing that they were accessing the web through an open proxy. And of course there are the
signal
stealers - endemic here; the hotspot users; those who use publicly accessible internet connections (Internet cafes, libraries, etc); and
some
cities are already offering internet access just by sitting in the local park. My usual ISP never gives my city of residence; and if it was
traced
back, it could show up as any one of five cities - and I use one of the biggest ISPs in my country. The IP from which someone edits doesn't
tell
anything about who they are, where they are, or do anything to provide
any
kind of unique "fingerprint." I really don't see the point.
Exactly again. IPs in themselves for people with 1/4 of a technical brain are pointless. I have two at home. One I can change in about 30 seconds to a pool that I suppose runs in the thousands; I've never seen a duplicate when futzing with my router, that I know of. One takes about an hour. I have in my apartment block alone four hotspots accessible. Nearby, *nine* that I can connect to. I have three networks at the offices I usually work at. Six IPs. In my 29 floor building, that I can reach? Fourteen open hotspots. I have a 9 floor office on one side, and an 18 floor condo tower on the other. I know for a fact one runs TOR, because I've chatted with the people that did it from my building and they invited me to try it. In the neighborhood itself for that building alone? Dozens. Maybe 1/4 of all these are the main known "local" ISPs, at best. Local being Comcast, Speakeasy, etc. If someone has half a brain to change their "voice", and lives in a city--mind you, I'm not even in like Los Angeles, Chicago, or NYC--they can be anyone indefinitely and rack up a stack of admin accounts undetected with hardly any work and without touching TOR intentionally.
All you have to do is be barely carefuly. Or, you know, get AOL.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
One I can change in about 30 seconds to a pool that I suppose runs in the thousands
Those thousands are all in the same range though - a competent checkuser wouldn't be fooled by that. (It might turn a "confirmed" into a "likely", but that's all.) The problem with open proxies is that there is no connection between the different addresses. When you can access lots of WLANs there are all within 100m of eachother, or whatever - a checkuser would probably be able to tell they were in the same city.
On 6/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
One I can change in about 30 seconds to a pool that I suppose runs in the thousands
Those thousands are all in the same range though - a competent checkuser wouldn't be fooled by that. (It might turn a "confirmed" into a "likely", but that's all.) The problem with open proxies is that there is no connection between the different addresses. When you can access lots of WLANs there are all within 100m of eachother, or whatever - a checkuser would probably be able to tell they were in the same city.
True; you're right.
Still, the real question of this thread is that we need affirmation that the same checks and balances will be applied and enforced with the same level of disclosure to purported "core community" and senior people as new admins.
No one is to be more special than anyone else.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
No one is to be more special than anyone else.
I don't know about that. It would seem fair to give good contributors the benefit of the doubt more than we would for vandals. The real issue arises when there is very little doubt - in such cases we have to take action, otherwise no-one can trust our policies and we become useless.
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
All you have to do is be barely carefuly. Or, you know, get AOL.
Actually, as AOL runs an open proxy, using AOL to edit Wikipedia is apparently a breach of policy.
On 6/17/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
All you have to do is be barely carefuly. Or, you know, get AOL.
Actually, as AOL runs an open proxy, using AOL to edit Wikipedia is apparently a breach of policy.
AOL sends XFF headers, so this does not apply.
-Matt
On 6/17/07, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Why would they care? After all, they're all admins rigorously following policy. Correct? Therefore, this just shows the community their willingness to apply policy equally to all editors. Unless, of course, that's just hypocrisy and policy gets applied more equally to some editors.
Ding. No admin is above the law. Not the new new guy, not the new guy, not the ex-arbiter checkuser, not the admin who's been around since 2003.
If this is truly policy, then anyone using open proxies needs to be held accountable on it; if its an extra-access account, the *public* community needs to know as demonstrated by Jay himself. The same standard applies to Jay and Slim. I am calling on them to endorse their own standards on themselves fully.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com