I hope I'm posting the right way; this is my first attempt. All those messages with long quotes from someone who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else are hurting my eyes, so I'm not going to start with
this and
this and
this etc.
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
I won't comment on the actual use of open proxies, as I don't fully understand what it all means, but, as I've suggested on the RfA page, if she had a really good reason to violate this policy, the best thing would have been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand. The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows: "Yes, I have a valid reason, but because of privacy issues, I'd rather not discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on the RfA page or talk page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation.
Also, why are people asking again and again why the checkuser who discovered this didn't block Charlotte when he discovered the use of open proxies, when he has stated at least twice that he blocked the IPs? Blocks are preventative and not punitive, and a blocked illegitimate IP presumably leaves a good faith editor free to edit from a legitimate one. That seems a completely different issue from that of becoming an administrator while every edit she makes violates an official policy. However, a statement from an ArbCom member or a bureaucrat that Charlotte had disclosed her reasons by private email and that they were found to be acceptable would probably have swayed many of the opposers, some of whom opposed because of the defensive reaction.
Finally, it's also being insinuated that the checkuser admin did this for political reasons or in order to ruin Charlotte's RfA. Had they had any prior encounter? Had they been in some content dispute? Of course I'm open to the possibility, if someone can show me some evidence, but I can't see any evidence of it myself. Since Charlotte's article work seems to have been mainly reverting vandalism and adding or removing categories, it seems unlikely.
ElinorD
On 6/17/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
I took a quick look at the RfA and I didn't see anything about the policy beyond the fact that TOR IP addresses are routinely blocked. In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes it seems to me that anyone reading that page would assume that there is a clear consensus that there is *not* a policy banning people from editing using TOR. Armedblowfish came right out and said that ey intended to do it, and 55 people unanimously agreed that it was an acceptable thing to do. Seems to me like a clear consensus that it's perfectly OK to edit Wikipedia using TOR.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes
I misread the RfA, of course. At the time of the vote there were most likely both support and oppose votes.
So there wasn't a consensus against this policy. But there clearly wasn't a consensus in favor of it either. Whether or not Charlotte read anything stating that there was a written policy against editing using TOR is a) not at all clear; and b) quite irrelevant anyway, as true Wikipedia policies are based on consensus, not what happens to be written on a policy page.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes
I misread the RfA, of course. At the time of the vote there were most likely both support and oppose votes.
So there wasn't a consensus against this policy. But there clearly wasn't a consensus in favor of it either.
Actually there is; the consensus is that they are blocked, which is why they are blocked.
Whether or not Charlotte read anything stating that there was a written policy against editing using TOR is a) not at all clear; and b) quite irrelevant anyway, as true Wikipedia policies are based on consensus, not what happens to be written on a policy page.
The whole AFD was specifically because Armedblowfish wanted to become an admin because he was *using TOR proxies and TOR proxies are blocked by policy*. It couldn't be more clear. Please stop wikilawyering.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes
I misread the RfA, of course. At the time of the vote there were most likely both support and oppose votes.
So there wasn't a consensus against this policy. But there clearly wasn't a consensus in favor of it either.
Actually there is; the consensus is that they are blocked, which is why they are blocked.
Yes, there is consensus that the IP addresses should be blocked, but that's about it.
Whether or not Charlotte read anything stating that there was a written policy against editing using TOR is a) not at all clear; and b) quite irrelevant anyway, as true Wikipedia policies are based on consensus, not what happens to be written on a policy page.
The whole AFD was specifically because Armedblowfish wanted to become an admin because he was *using TOR proxies and TOR proxies are blocked by policy*. It couldn't be more clear. Please stop wikilawyering.
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.
The Armedblowfish RFA show that many people supported *Armedblowfish* using TOR proxies. Nothing more.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
Danny used to edit using AOL, and he would quite often run into blocked IP addresses when doing so. So, no, I don't think running into blocked IP addresses implies that you yourself are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think the block message specifically says that your IP address is blocked and *that doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong*.
This is not wikilawyering at all. It's common sense.
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.
The Armedblowfish RFA show that many people supported *Armedblowfish* using TOR proxies. Nothing more.
I disagree. The support for Armedblowfish editing through TOR was not anything specific to that individual. Rather, the argument was that this individual wanted to use TOR, and was making good edits, therefore it was OK.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
Danny used to edit using AOL, and he would quite often run into blocked IP addresses when doing so. So, no, I don't think running into blocked IP addresses implies that you yourself are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think the block message specifically says that your IP address is blocked and *that doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong*.
But when Danny would run into a blocked IP, the blocking editor's comment would be "vandalism" or something like that. When CW ran into a blocked TOR proxy, the comment was usually "TOR proxy" or "open proxy". That's quite different.
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.
The Armedblowfish RFA show that many people supported *Armedblowfish* using TOR proxies. Nothing more.
I disagree. The support for Armedblowfish editing through TOR was not anything specific to that individual. Rather, the argument was that this individual wanted to use TOR, and was making good edits, therefore it was OK.
I think it was specifically about Armedblowfish himself, and can't be generalized.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
Danny used to edit using AOL, and he would quite often run into blocked IP addresses when doing so. So, no, I don't think running into blocked IP addresses implies that you yourself are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think the block message specifically says that your IP address is blocked and *that doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong*.
But when Danny would run into a blocked IP, the blocking editor's comment would be "vandalism" or something like that. When CW ran into a blocked TOR proxy, the comment was usually "TOR proxy" or "open proxy". That's quite different.
You don't think the comment was ever "AOL address"? I'm sure it was.
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.
The Armedblowfish RFA show that many people supported *Armedblowfish* using TOR proxies. Nothing more.
I disagree. The support for Armedblowfish editing through TOR was not anything specific to that individual. Rather, the argument was that this individual wanted to use TOR, and was making good edits, therefore it was OK.
I think it was specifically about Armedblowfish himself, and can't be generalized.
I think that's ridiculous.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
Danny used to edit using AOL, and he would quite often run into blocked IP addresses when doing so. So, no, I don't think running into blocked IP addresses implies that you yourself are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think the block message specifically says that your IP address is blocked and *that doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong*.
But when Danny would run into a blocked IP, the blocking editor's comment would be "vandalism" or something like that. When CW ran into a blocked TOR proxy, the comment was usually "TOR proxy" or "open proxy". That's quite different.
You don't think the comment was ever "AOL address"? I'm sure it was.
I'd be highly surprised. I've never seen anyone block AOL IPs with that rationale.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems like more wikilawyering. She kept running into blocked TOR proxies, she had seen the Armedblowfish RFA, but she wasn't aware that it was "wrong" to use them anyway?
Danny used to edit using AOL, and he would quite often run into blocked IP addresses when doing so. So, no, I don't think running into blocked IP addresses implies that you yourself are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think the block message specifically says that your IP address is blocked and *that doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong*.
But when Danny would run into a blocked IP, the blocking editor's comment would be "vandalism" or something like that. When CW ran into a blocked TOR proxy, the comment was usually "TOR proxy" or "open proxy". That's quite different.
You don't think the comment was ever "AOL address"? I'm sure it was.
I'd be highly surprised. I've never seen anyone block AOL IPs with that rationale.
"Blocked AOL users in the above ranges will see the template {{AOLblock}} as their block reason." - [[Wikipedia:Dealing_with_AOL_vandals]]
Anthony wrote:
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
Depends. If I had permission from the owner to enter the building, for instance if I was supposed to feed her cat, then I'd assume that the other windows were barred to keep out burglers, and not me.
On 6/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
Depends. If I had permission from the owner to enter the building, for instance if I was supposed to feed her cat, then I'd assume that the other windows were barred to keep out burglars, and not me.
Especially if the sign said "To prevent burglary, entering the building through windows is forbidden!"
On 6/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
Depends. If I had permission from the owner to enter the building, for instance if I was supposed to feed her cat, then I'd assume that the other windows were barred to keep out burglars, and not me.
Especially if the sign said "To prevent burglary, entering the building through windows is forbidden!"
Let's extend the analogy further. Let's say my friend who owns the house, call her Wikipe-tan, gave you permission to spy on people entering her house. As it turns out I entered through Tan's window on a regular basis, fed her cat, and left, and you watched me do it and kept mental notes of this fact. You didn't tell Wikipe-tan what I was doing, and you didn't tell me that you knew what I was doing. You didn't call the police, you didn't try to make a citizen's arrest. All you did was bar up another window whenever you saw me entering through one.
Then I run for mayor of the town, and during the mayorial debate you, as a member of the audience, ask me why I've been entering houses through people's windows, in violation of the statutes against breaking and entering.
Aren't analogies fun?
Anthony wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one
tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
Depends. If I had permission from the owner to enter the building, for instance if I was supposed to feed her cat, then I'd assume that the other windows were barred to keep out burglers, and not me.
The problem with Ilmari's example is that it puts the issue into a black and white perspective that ignores other possibilities. A simple one: It is an apartment building and the open window leads to a different apartment.
Yhe sign says that entry is prohibited, but you know that that's untrue, and the sign was unauthorized.
If you want to make love privately at a special place in a city park you could put a sign at either end of the path that goes by that special place. The sign would say, "Danger! Path closed by order of the City Parks Department." Under those circumstances who would dare invade your privacy? :-)
Ec
On 17/06/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
Thank you.
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
Thank you.
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so. After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
Adminship is political at Wikipedia--it's voted on, for all it not being called a vote, requires a candidacy and platform and public questioning.
It seems unlikely had she actually looked at this she would have been so stunned at being asked it in her own RfA.
KP
On 18/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so. After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
I must say that, as a non-fan of open proxies who blocks them whenever he sees them, I was unaware it was specifically an offence to edit through them at all (rather than being behaviour that we had no obligation to make easier, which is a different matter). This thread was the first I'd heard of it.
- d.
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from real IPs
It seems unlikely had she actually looked at this she would have been so stunned at being asked it in her own RfA.
No, what seems unlikely are the increasingly fabulous tales being advanced here regarding CW's complete ignorance of this policy, and the inappropriateness of using proxies.
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
I managed to miss it as well and if you'd asked me if it was a policy not to edit through open proxies, I'd say "uh, what on earth?" Speaking as someone who blocks them whenever he spots one.
- d.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
I managed to miss it as well and if you'd asked me if it was a policy not to edit through open proxies, I'd say "uh, what on earth?" Speaking as someone who blocks them whenever he spots one.
Er, yes, same here. I don't buy the argument that jay set out to torpedo the RfA, or that he did it in bad faith. It just seems to have been a badly timed and perhaps poorly worded question. Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There seems to be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Johnleemk
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Er, yes, same here. I don't buy the argument that jay set out to torpedo the RfA, or that he did it in bad faith.
Thank you.
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There seems to be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There seems to be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
- d.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Me too. If I'd considered it an offense per se CW would have been blocked months ago (and lots of other otherwise good editors). I've always erred on the side of "no harm no foul" rather than automatic invocation of rules, given that the rules are to prevent vandalism and disruption rather than to prevent the specific behavior; on frequent occasions, I made the judgment call that even though I'd found an open proxy due to a checkuser request, if the list of users on that open proxy was overwhelmingly legit uses, I wouldn't block the proxy. CW was almost invariably one of the legit users that would lead me to this decision; I did not understand this usage, but in the absence of abuse (or in the case of a single instance of abuse), I felt no call for action. It's possible this selective enforcement of the rules sent the wrong message, at least by default.
On 6/18/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Me too. If I'd considered it an offense per se CW would have been blocked months ago (and lots of other otherwise good editors). I've always erred on the side of "no harm no foul" rather than automatic invocation of rules, given that the rules are to prevent vandalism and disruption rather than to prevent the specific behavior; on frequent occasions, I made the judgment call that even though I'd found an open proxy due to a checkuser request, if the list of users on that open proxy was overwhelmingly legit uses, I wouldn't block the proxy. CW was almost invariably one of the legit users that would lead me to this decision; I did not understand this usage, but in the absence of abuse (or in the case of a single instance of abuse), I felt no call for action. It's possible this selective enforcement of the rules sent the wrong message, at least by default.
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
Yes, coupled with the timing of the release of the information, it is possible that wrong messages have been sent all over Wikipedia.
KP
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There
seems to
be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Precisely. The policy is to block open proxies on sight, but not to block those using them just because they were using an open proxy.
Johnleemk
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There
seems to
be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Precisely. The policy is to block open proxies on sight, but not to block those using them just because they were using an open proxy.
And since no-one was actually blocked for using open proxies....
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There
seems to
be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Precisely. The policy is to block open proxies on sight, but not to block those using them just because they were using an open proxy.
And since no-one was actually blocked for using open proxies....
...there must not be a policy against using open proxies.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies. There seems to be evidence that there isn't a consensus.
Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.
Yes, but are good edits through an open proxy an offense per se? That is the one that's a new one to me.
Well, *I* certainly don't revert them, nor do I block otherwise good editors if they are using proxies. I, like most everyone else, just block the proxies and move on. That said, the vast majority of editors using proxies (though certainly not 100%) are using them for nasty reasons.
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation. In fact, I'd support making everyone who provides their real identity to the foundation an admin, at least unless they prove to be unworthy of such a position.
I don't think there's a consensus support for either, though.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation. In fact, I'd support making everyone who provides their real identity to the foundation an admin, at least unless they prove to be unworthy of such a position.
Oh yeah, and I'd also support adding anyone who has verified their identity to the foundation to the ipblock-exempt list, regardless of whether or not they're an admin.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID. And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID. And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
So long as usernames, passwords, e-mail addresses, HTTP headers, and other cybernetic elements are involved, you'll be surprised (or, possibly, not surprised) about the shockingly unscrupulous things that some people can do. Make sockpuppets, leak information, make themselves popular, play around with social structure. Things that can harm a community.
However, once such elements as phones and mail become involved, most 20-somethings living in their parents' basement *will* back off, even if they can handle faking an identity and getting away with it. Ethics can be more "cleanly" violated with a temporal stream of bytes than with pen, paper, and a voice. The law does not cover leaking admin-only-available information to rival websites. As far as I am aware, it does cover identify theft and pretending to be someone that you are not, _in real life_.
By seamlessly moving admin actions to a higher (and more much real) jurisdiction than that of the Foundation, by requiring personal information, we can preventatively protect Wikipedia against those that would seek to harm it. Just my opinion, though.
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID. And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
So long as usernames, passwords, e-mail addresses, HTTP headers, and other cybernetic elements are involved, you'll be surprised (or, possibly, not surprised) about the shockingly unscrupulous things that some people can do. Make sockpuppets, leak information, make themselves popular, play around with social structure. Things that can harm a community.
However, once such elements as phones and mail become involved, most 20-somethings living in their parents' basement *will* back off, even if they can handle faking an identity and getting away with it. Ethics can be more "cleanly" violated with a temporal stream of bytes than with pen, paper, and a voice. The law does not cover leaking admin-only-available information to rival websites. As far as I am aware, it does cover identify theft and pretending to be someone that you are not, _in real life_.
By seamlessly moving admin actions to a higher (and more much real) jurisdiction than that of the Foundation, by requiring personal information, we can preventatively protect Wikipedia against those that would seek to harm it. Just my opinion, though.
I wouldn't be opposed in principle to having admins identify themselves to the Foundation, so long as there were safeguards in place about how the information would be handled e.g. that it wouldn't be left on a computer that anyone had access to; wouldn't be left in an unlocked filing cabinet, and so on -- and the thing about this being a largely volunteer organization is that I'm not sure we could ever get convincing enough assurances about that.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID.
How does it currently work for checkusers and others that have to verify their identity? In the US notary publics are available to verify the identity of a signature on a document. Surely something like this is available in most other countries where en-wikipedia admins are located, right? Maybe you could have the person send in a photo of themselves holding up a sign with their username on it. I don't know, I'm open for suggestions. You seem to want accountability from admins - the way you get that is by having admins provide their identity.
And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
No, it doesn't. Of course, *nothing* is going to tell us that unless you intend to get every *user* to verify their identity.
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
I think it's far too late for that, and that the only solution is to embrace the "it's no big deal" mentality. Any information which is a [[clear and present danger]] should be oversighted and taken away from the view of even the admins.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID.
How does it currently work for checkusers and others that have to verify their identity? In the US notary publics are available to verify the identity of a signature on a document. Surely something like this is available in most other countries where en-wikipedia admins are located, right? Maybe you could have the person send in a photo of themselves holding up a sign with their username on it. I don't know, I'm open for suggestions. You seem to want accountability from admins - the way you get that is by having admins provide their identity.
And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
No, it doesn't. Of course, *nothing* is going to tell us that unless you intend to get every *user* to verify their identity.
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
I think it's far too late for that, and that the only solution is to embrace the "it's no big deal" mentality. Any information which is a [[clear and present danger]] should be oversighted and taken away from the view of even the admins.
Then you have to trust the oversighters.
Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than adminship.
But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem to be very bad at doing that.
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
I think it's far too late for that, and that the only solution is to embrace the "it's no big deal" mentality. Any information which is a [[clear and present danger]] should be oversighted and taken away from the view of even the admins.
Then you have to trust the oversighters.
Sure, but you don't need as many oversighters as you do admins. The vast majority of deletions and undeletions aren't of materials that pose a clear and present danger. Plus deletion isn't the only task which requires adminship to perform.
Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than adminship.
But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem to be very bad at doing that.
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
I think if you do put a stop to that, Wikipedia won't have enough admins to handle the tasks at hand.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way. And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
I think it's far too late for that, and that the only solution is to embrace the "it's no big deal" mentality. Any information which is a [[clear and present danger]] should be oversighted and taken away from the view of even the admins.
Then you have to trust the oversighters.
Sure, but you don't need as many oversighters as you do admins. The vast majority of deletions and undeletions aren't of materials that pose a clear and present danger. Plus deletion isn't the only task which requires adminship to perform.
Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than adminship.
But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem to be very bad at doing that.
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
I think if you do put a stop to that, Wikipedia won't have enough admins to handle the tasks at hand.
We already have too many admins. Every time this has been looked into, we find that's it a relatively small number of admins who are active. If we want to keep on promoting others, especially in such large numbers, we should start desyopping the inactive ones.
But that doesn't touch on the main issue: that we're promoting accounts who've done little or nothing but spend months reverting.
An analogy to the situation we're in is an airline acknowledging that 100 percent security is impossible, and therefore they might as well get rid of all security measures. It's an irrational position.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
I think if you do put a stop to that, Wikipedia won't have enough admins to handle the tasks at hand.
We already have too many admins. Every time this has been looked into, we find that's it a relatively small number of admins who are active. If we want to keep on promoting others, especially in such large numbers, we should start desyopping the inactive ones.
The admin backlogs seem to me to be long enough to indicate that there aren't enough active admins. And the recent discussion over speedy deletions indicates to me that admins could use more time to perform their current actions already. Maybe there are too many inactive admins, but that's a problem which can't really be solved by not promoting accounts who do nothing other than reverting.
But that doesn't touch on the main issue: that we're promoting accounts who've done little or nothing but spend months reverting.
I really don't see how that's a main issue. It could be argued to lead to certain problems, but so far I haven't been convinced of that argument.
An analogy to the situation we're in is an airline acknowledging that 100 percent security is impossible, and therefore they might as well get rid of all security measures. It's an irrational position.
I don't think that's a particularly appropriate analogy, because Wikipedia has not gotten rid of all security measures. Rather, Wikipedia has recognized that it will always be possible for bad people to become admins, therefore Wikipedia has created a system where the damage which can be inflicted by admins is quite minimal.
Even with regard to the ability to view deleted pages it's unlikely that having a few or even many rogue admins will cause any real harm which wouldn't be possible already anyway. Anyone who wants can download the entire history dumps, and anyone evil enough to post private information on Wikipedia could just as easily post that private information on some rogue site directly.
On 18/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We already have too many admins. Every time this has been looked into, we find that's it a relatively small number of admins who are active.
I do not see how second statement follows from the first.
If we want to keep on promoting others, especially in such large numbers, we should start desyopping the inactive ones.
What harm does having inactive admins do?
If there aren't enough active admins, promote more users to admin. Simple, really, is it not?
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Then you have to trust the oversighters.
Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than adminship.
But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem to be very bad at doing that.
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
Far more good has come out of the "no big deal" idea. Let's not let a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that has brought Wikipedia so much good.
Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people. It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But "no big deal" is the best system we have.
Suppose that blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made. But thankfully, that's not the case. Our blocking policy is simplified, and made much fairer, by effecting questions like these: "Can I prevent this person from making personal attacks by blocking him/her, and thus protect other Wikipedians, assuming that he/she knows not to do this and has been given fair warning?" "To what extent will blocking this vandal stop vandalism but ensure reasonable compliance with assuming good faith and the 'anyone can edit' attitude?"
Suppose that adminship was considered a big deal. Then everyone would have different standards for what would make someone "worthy" enough to be an admin, and everyone exercising those standards at once will make it impossible for anyone to pass an RfA. Some would value a contributor based upon his/her article edits; others, upon his/ her technical work; others, upon his/her interaction with the community; others, upon his/her work in reverting vandals. All these valuings going on at once could make any contributor seem like he/she has no worth to the community. So here's my opinion: discard these stupid value systems.
In fact, this is what RfA is turning into: enforcing personal standards and expectations and demanding all sorts of shrubbery. People have agreed that RfA needs reform. The "no big deal" attitude constitutes the direction we *want* to be going in. If someone can possibly benefit from the tools, give them to him/her. If they abuse the tools, take them away. If you can't track abuse, create a technical means to track it (this last part is particularly relevant to your concerns). This is a volunteer project. Everyone will find a constructive niche, and looking down on one because it doesn't match your favorite niche is not going to help anyone.
Look, abuse happens. It is naive to expect that Wikipedia can grow to the extent it has without abuse happening often (all sorts). Spend a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to prevent it, but making adminship considered a big deal is too damaging a prospect.
--Gracenotes
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Then you have to trust the oversighters.
Look, Wikitruth was able to evolve because we regarded adminship as "no big deal" while giving admins access to deleted material. That meant we regarded undeleting deleted material as "no big deal." When it started happening, we realized that in fact it was biggish, and we developed oversight, which is restricted to fewer people than adminship.
But the people with oversight are selected by the community (most of whom are unknown) from the set of current admins (most of whom are unknown). So in fact, nothing has changed.
All that has to happen now is for Wikitruth (or anyone else interested in causing trouble) to get someone on the ArbCom so they have access to oversight. It's only a matter of time before it happens.
This is the rule of evolution. Niches will be filled. The only way to thwart it is to anticipate and fill the niches ahead of time. We seem to be very bad at doing that.
What I am arguing here and elsewhere is that one of the very obvious niches is that people can get to be admins by hitting revert for a few months. I think we need to put a stop to that.
Far more good has come out of the "no big deal" idea. Let's not let a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that has brought Wikipedia so much good.
Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people. It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But "no big deal" is the best system we have.
You have to *show* how that's the case, not just keep saying it.
Suppose that blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made. But thankfully, that's not the case.
Of course it's the case. That's exactly what currently happens every day. The "blocking is never punitive" mantra is another piece of pure ideology similar to "adminship is no big deal." Both are prescriptive, not descriptive.
Our blocking policy is simplified, and made much fairer, by effecting questions like these: "Can I prevent this person from making personal attacks by blocking him/her, and thus protect other Wikipedians, assuming that he/she knows not to do this and has been given fair warning?" "To what extent will blocking this vandal stop vandalism but ensure reasonable compliance with assuming good faith and the 'anyone can edit' attitude?"
Suppose that adminship was considered a big deal. Then everyone would have different standards for what would make someone "worthy" enough to be an admin, and everyone exercising those standards at once will make it impossible for anyone to pass an RfA. Some would value a contributor based upon his/her article edits; others, upon his/ her technical work; others, upon his/her interaction with the community; others, upon his/her work in reverting vandals. All these valuings going on at once could make any contributor seem like he/she has no worth to the community. So here's my opinion: discard these stupid value systems.
In fact, this is what RfA is turning into: enforcing personal standards and expectations and demanding all sorts of shrubbery. People have agreed that RfA needs reform. The "no big deal" attitude constitutes the direction we *want* to be going in. If someone can possibly benefit from the tools, give them to him/her. If they abuse the tools, take them away. If you can't track abuse, create a technical means to track it (this last part is particularly relevant to your concerns). This is a volunteer project. Everyone will find a constructive niche, and looking down on one because it doesn't match your favorite niche is not going to help anyone.
Look, abuse happens. It is naive to expect that Wikipedia can grow to the extent it has without abuse happening often (all sorts). Spend a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to prevent it, but making adminship considered a big deal is too damaging a prospect.
The scenario you paint about different people having different standards is what happens currently. The only problem is that there's no culture that opposes promoting accounts who have only reverted articles or voted in AfDs. I am proposing that we develop that culture for all the reasons I've outlined.
I agree that abuse happens, and that we don't want 100 percent security, and anyway it's impossible, and all the other cliches. The question remains: do we care if one person is running six admin accounts? Do we care if that person gets a place on ArbCom? Gracenotes, do you care about these things?
If the answer is no, fine, let's carry on as before. If we do care, what can reasonably be done to make it harder for someone to do that?
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Far more good has come out of the "no big deal" idea. Let's not let a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that has brought Wikipedia so much good.
Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people. It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But "no big deal" is the best system we have.
You have to *show* how that's the case, not just keep saying it.
You remind me of my English teacher, who took off points from my paper because I made an "unasserted statement" in the introduction. There is a point to introductions, I'll tell ya... ;)
Suppose that blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made. But thankfully, that's not the case.
Of course it's the case. That's exactly what currently happens every day. The "blocking is never punitive" mantra is another piece of pure ideology similar to "adminship is no big deal." Both are prescriptive, not descriptive.
Yes, of course any block can be actually considered punitive in retrospect. But it is incorrect to view nlocks as punitive while making them. Prescription is not all bad if it makes human beings behave in a way that is kinder (AGF), more respectful (CIV), and more conducive to making a free content encyclopedia.
The scenario you paint about different people having different standards is what happens currently. The only problem is that there's no culture that opposes promoting accounts who have only reverted articles or voted in AfDs. I am proposing that we develop that culture for all the reasons I've outlined.
If you can point to an account whose edits can only be classified as *either* reverting vandalism or voting in AFDs, I would oppose them on an RfA. However, no such accounts exist. Admins editing articles and interacting on article talk are great. But if we try to selectively channel all incoming admins into that group, other areas will be neglected, and those that work in there (with increasing thanklessness, a result of this "culture" that you may not realize) with become burnt out.
I agree that abuse happens, and that we don't want 100 percent security, and anyway it's impossible, and all the other cliches. The question remains: do we care if one person is running six admin accounts? Do we care if that person gets a place on ArbCom? Gracenotes, do you care about these things?
If the answer is no, fine, let's carry on as before. If we do care, what can reasonably be done to make it harder for someone to do that?
Yes, I'm concerned about those things. If you draft a solution, however, please make sure that it doesn't spill over into other parts of Wikipedia and needlessly alter them, especially when that alteration can damage good-faith editors. The real-life-identity solutions sounds reasonable, although it would require some infrastructure changes. Maybe not doing anything is the best route, because what we have now is the best equilibrium between stopping abusive accounts and promoting editors who will use the tools well.
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Far more good has come out of the "no big deal" idea. Let's not let a couple of bad apples spoil the atmosphere that makes Wikipedia fun to work in. Yes, they happen to be influential apples, but there are other solutions to this problem than crushing the attitude that has brought Wikipedia so much good.
Consider the attitude we're supposed to hold about blocking people. It's preventative, right? In theory, at least. However, blocking almost always has a punitive effect, even though we are told to ignore that aspect and only consider it a preventative tool. Same with the "no big deal" attitude. Often, admins can make waves with controversial deletions, discussion closings, and blockings; that's true. But "no big deal" is the best system we have.
You have to *show* how that's the case, not just keep saying it.
You remind me of my English teacher, who took off points from my paper because I made an "unasserted statement" in the introduction. There is a point to introductions, I'll tell ya... ;)
Suppose that blocking was considered punitive. Then we would have to determine how long a vandal should sit in a corner until he learns his lesson, or examine how many personal attacks an edit warrior made. But thankfully, that's not the case.
Of course it's the case. That's exactly what currently happens every day. The "blocking is never punitive" mantra is another piece of pure ideology similar to "adminship is no big deal." Both are prescriptive, not descriptive.
Yes, of course any block can be actually considered punitive in retrospect. But it is incorrect to view nlocks as punitive while making them.
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
Prescription is not all bad if it makes human beings behave in a way that is kinder (AGF), more respectful (CIV), and more conducive to making a free content encyclopedia.
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive. The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point. (Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense. If we're going to write an encyclopedia, let's get to it, right? No, not exactly. Assuming good faith is a way of looking at things that all Wikipedians should consider when, well, looking at things. It's a prescriptive guideline, and if it didn't exist, it certainly would not be widely practiced.
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
(Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Hm. On the other hand, banning could be considered preventative in that it is meant to prevent disruption. But that's a different story, and a bit of a red herring in this case.
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive.
Okay, but now you're very much into wild speculation, because neither of us has access to the mental states of the blocker.
The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point.
You just keep repeating what the ideology is. If the block log shows otherwise, you say "that doesn't count, because they're actions"?
(Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
It's not just a separate policy, and that's not why it's separate. It's a different concept.
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense.
I disagree. They make a lot of sense, and are far from unrealistic. You do the first two many times every single day in real life.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive.
Okay, but now you're very much into wild speculation, because neither of us has access to the mental states of the blocker.
The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point.
You just keep repeating what the ideology is. If the block log shows otherwise, you say "that doesn't count, because they're actions"?
(Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
It's not just a separate policy, and that's not why it's separate. It's a different concept.
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense.
I disagree. They make a lot of sense, and are far from unrealistic. You do the first two many times every single day in real life.
Eh, this is getting a bit off-topic. If you think it's a bad illustration, then, ignore it. I stand by my point about a need for diversity in types of admins we have, and not being biased against a certain type. Discernment can be applied on a case-by-case basis, certainly; I'm not against that.
Mmm, I think the civility thing directly helps us work on the encyclopaedia. It was made so that when you disputed what another person put in the encyclopaedia that you did not shout "YOU ABUSIVE F***ER, THATS SO TOTALLY WRONG" or some other random very insulting language. Civility is just how to get along with one another.
The principle of assuming good faith generally is linked to helping people remain civil. If I assume that you too are trying to help the encyclopaedia (and not maliciously hurt it through the insertion of false information), then its very likely that I will treat the person in which I'm working with to build the encyclopaedia in a more helpful manner, and work with him to figure out if what was being added should stay added. At least that is how things look from this guy :)
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive. The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point. (Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense. If we're going to write an encyclopedia, let's get to it, right? No, not exactly. Assuming good faith is a way of looking at things that all Wikipedians should consider when, well, looking at things. It's a prescriptive guideline, and if it didn't exist, it certainly would not be widely practiced. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/19/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm, I think the civility thing directly helps us work on the encyclopaedia. It was made so that when you disputed what another person put in the encyclopaedia that you did not shout "YOU ABUSIVE F***ER, THATS SO TOTALLY WRONG" or some other random very insulting language. Civility is just how to get along with one another.
The principle of assuming good faith generally is linked to helping people remain civil. If I assume that you too are trying to help the encyclopaedia (and not maliciously hurt it through the insertion of false information), then its very likely that I will treat the person in which I'm working with to build the encyclopaedia in a more helpful manner, and work with him to figure out if what was being added should stay added. At least that is how things look from this guy :)
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are punitive, whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive. The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point. (Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological baggage that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense. If we're going to write an encyclopedia, let's get to it, right? No, not exactly. Assuming good faith is a way of looking at things that all Wikipedians should consider when, well, looking at things. It's a prescriptive guideline, and if it didn't exist, it certainly would not be widely practiced.
Yes, you're right, both civility and assuming good faith are definitely good for the encyclopedia. However, given the way some people act, I think we need being civil as a prescriptive policy. Otherwise, some people might find it more effective to bully other Wikipedians in getting what they want, rather than working with them calmly. Bullying certainly happens, but we shouldn't delete [[WP:CIVIL]] because of it (well, there was one time someone tried to do that, but it was a [WP:POINT]]...) Sometimes, prescription can be a good idea if it can be demonstrated that having a certain attitude is good for the encyclopedia, even if we can't see what good it might bring from where we are, right now.
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
2007/6/19, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com:
On 6/19/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Mmm, I think the civility thing directly helps us work on the encyclopaedia. It was made so that when you disputed what another person put in the encyclopaedia that you did not shout "YOU ABUSIVE F***ER, THATS SO TOTALLY WRONG" or some other random very insulting language. Civility is just
how
to get along with one another.
The principle of assuming good faith generally is linked to helping
people
remain civil. If I assume that you too are trying to help the encyclopaedia (and not maliciously hurt it through the insertion of false
information),
then its very likely that I will treat the person in which I'm working with to build the encyclopaedia in a more helpful manner, and work with him
to
figure out if what was being added should stay added. At least that is
how
things look from this guy :)
On 6/18/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There you go again: assertions with no evidence. It's a demonstrable fact that many non-vandalism blocks, and possibly most, are
punitive,
whatever happier word we prefer to describe them as. Spend a day checking out the block log and you'll see it for yourself. The argument goes that punishment is part of prevention, and that's true to an extent, but it doesn't make the blocks any less punitive.
The most important part is not that the blocks actually are preventative, but the thought process that goes into making them considers the preventative, not punitive. The ideology that produces the action, not the action itself. That is my point. (Banning is an exception to this rule, but that's why it's a separate policy.)
Prescription is bad when it's based on unrealistic ideological
baggage
that gets in the way of common sense.
Civility, assuming good faith, and ignoring all rules are all part of unrealistic ideological baggage that baffle common sense. If we're going to write an encyclopedia, let's get to it, right? No, not
exactly.
Assuming good faith is a way of looking at things that all Wikipedians should consider when, well, looking at things. It's a prescriptive guideline, and if it didn't exist, it certainly would not be widely practiced.
Yes, you're right, both civility and assuming good faith are definitely good for the encyclopedia. However, given the way some people act, I think we need being civil as a prescriptive policy. Otherwise, some people might find it more effective to bully other Wikipedians in getting what they want, rather than working with them calmly. Bullying certainly happens, but we shouldn't delete [[WP:CIVIL]] because of it (well, there was one time someone tried to do that, but it was a [WP:POINT]]...) Sometimes, prescription can be a good idea if it can be demonstrated that having a certain attitude is good for the encyclopedia, even if we can't see what good it might bring from where we are, right now. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
I don't believe this to be a strong argument. Perhaps there is a better one that I am unaware of.
-Rich
On 6/20/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
I don't believe this to be a strong argument. Perhaps there is a better one that I am unaware of.
-Rich
It's a very simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies are allowed. The second you create one you are "logged in" with it.
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/20/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in?
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
It's a very simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies are allowed. The second you create one you are "logged in" with it.
Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but it's an equally simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies is not allowed.
On 6/20/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/20/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in?
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
It's a very simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies are allowed. The second you create one you are "logged in" with it.
Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but it's an equally simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies is not allowed.
Sockpuppets created with open proxies are not traceable to the sockpuppeteer.
On 20/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Pardon me for stating the very obvious, but it's an equally simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies is not allowed.
Sockpuppets created with open proxies are not traceable to the sockpuppeteer.
Not traceable by technical means, at least. They can still be identified by the good old "if it looks and smells like one..." approach...
But, if memory serves, the no-open-proxies rule predates the widespread use of checkuser for handling sockpuppetry - so.this must be an beneficial side-effect of the rule, not the original aim of it?
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
I don't believe this to be a strong argument. Perhaps there is a better one that I am unaware of.
-Rich
It's a very simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies are allowed. The second you create one you are "logged in" with it.
But...sockpuppets aren't prohibited either.
On 6/20/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Skander - wrote:
Can anyone tell me why the policy prohibits editing via an open proxy whilst logged in? I can see nothing abusive in that apart from protecting one's own privacy. One cannot avoid blocks or bans that way.
- Salaskan
As I understand it, presumably because the account could be or have sockpuppets without being detectable.
I don't believe this to be a strong argument. Perhaps there is a better one that I am unaware of.
-Rich
It's a very simple matter to create and use sockpuppets if editing with open proxies are allowed. The second you create one you are "logged in" with it.
But...sockpuppets aren't prohibited either.
Sockpuppets are discouraged because they are typically used to violate policy.
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Sockpuppets are discouraged because they are typically used to violate policy.
They are neither discouraged or encouraged. We simply list the times when they are legit and when they are not.
On 20/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Sockpuppets are discouraged because they are typically used to violate policy.
They are neither discouraged or encouraged. We simply list the times when they are legit and when they are not.
Um, they are discouraged.
- d.
On 6/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Sockpuppets are discouraged because they are typically used to violate
policy.
They are neither discouraged or encouraged. We simply list the times when they are legit and when they are not.
Um, they are discouraged.
From [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]]:
"Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases."
-- Jonel
On 6/20/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
From [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]]:
"Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases."
-- Jonel
But not in all. Running a bot on your main account is not popular.
On 6/20/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/20/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
From [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]]:
"Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases."
-- Jonel
But not in all. Running a bot on your main account is not popular.
Precisely. The policy is nuanced.
-- Jonel
On 6/20/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Sockpuppets are discouraged because they are typically used to violate policy.
The fact that they are called "sockpuppets" at all presumes that their expected use is for various elements of wikidrama. But they aren't prohibited; the policy spells out what *acts* are prohibited, but also suggests some situations in which their use is appropriate.
Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm not sure that would help, unless we're willing to employ
investigators to make sure people have faxed the Foundation the right ID. And knowing that Admin A is called Bill Smith in real life doesn't tell us whether he's a banned or malicious user.
Agreed.
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way.
Getting rid of the RfA question about what people are doing to revert vandals might help with this.
And we need to ditch the "it's no big deal" thing. It's not for us to decide that it's "no big deal" when hurtful material deleted from Wikipedia ends up on Wikitruth, just because the material's not about us. The existence of Wikitruth is a direct consequence of the "it's no big deal" mentality.
What they do on their website is their business.
Ec
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help...
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way.
Absolutely. If we're concerned about rogue (not rouge) admins, we've got to make some serious attempts at fixing RfA. We shouldn't waste time mucking around with halfhearted semitechnical "fixes" such as banning the use of proxies (which wouldn't slow a determined "stealth" editor-cum-admin down at all, but would inconvenience lots of bona-fide editors.)
If RfA could somehow focus more on personal issues like trust and reputation, and less on gauntlet-running and hoop-jumping, we could solve a whole bunch of problems at once.
On 6/18/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
I'd support requiring admins to provide their real identity to the foundation.
I'm not sure that would help...
As I see it, what we need to start doing as a minimum, is stop promoting people who've spent a few months hitting revert every few seconds. That kind of profile tells us nothing about the person, and it's too easy to build up several accounts that way.
Absolutely. If we're concerned about rogue (not rouge) admins, we've got to make some serious attempts at fixing RfA. We shouldn't waste time mucking around with halfhearted semitechnical "fixes" such as banning the use of proxies (which wouldn't slow a determined "stealth" editor-cum-admin down at all, but would inconvenience lots of bona-fide editors.)
My locking my car door wouldn't slow down a determined car thief, but it would still be foolish to leave it open.
If RfA could somehow focus more on personal issues like trust and reputation, and less on gauntlet-running and hoop-jumping, we could solve a whole bunch of problems at once.
I agree. It's a lot harder to get to adminship via creating articles, good editing, lots of talk page interaction, involvement in policy development. People can fight vandalism and create templates too, but when that's all they've done, I find it worrying. I also think we should be doing random IP checks on admins, or at least making it clear that we might do them, but I know I'm in a minority there.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
Accountability is definitely an issue, but once accountability requires identity, it really requires identity. IP addresses aren't identity; they are, however, a useful expedient for blocking, which seems to be the real intent here anyway.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
You don't know her reasons for using a TOR, so it' a bit rich to elaborate on the unknown to such a degree.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
You don't know her reasons for using a TOR, so it' a bit rich to elaborate on the unknown to such a degree.
You're trying to stir up trouble with practically every single e-mail you send. I'm trying to find whether anything constructive can come of this thread, and I'm not talking about any individual case. If you have something to contribute to the issue of adminship and accountability, please do. If not, just leave it, but this endless sniping is helping no one.
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
You don't know her reasons for using a TOR, so it' a bit rich to elaborate on the unknown to such a degree.
You're trying to stir up trouble with practically every single e-mail you send. I'm trying to find whether anything constructive can come of this thread, and I'm not talking about any individual case. If you have something to contribute to the issue of adminship and accountability, please do. If not, just leave it, but this endless sniping is helping no one.
Endless sniping, stir up trouble? Such accusations, and so many against me from both you and Jay. But, if you don't like my responses, you're free to not read them, and free to not ask me questions.
KP
You're trying to stir up trouble with practically every single e-mail you send. I'm trying to find whether anything constructive can come of this thread, and I'm not talking about any individual case. If you have something to contribute to the issue of adminship and accountability, please do. If not, just leave it, but this endless ? sniping is helping no one.
Endless sniping, stir up trouble? Such accusations, and so many against me
from both you and Jay. But, if you don't like my responses, >you're free to not read them, and free to not ask me questions.
KP
_______________________________________________
That's fine I guess, but it's filling up my Wiki-inbox....I'm not even that interested in this subject but it's filling up pages and pages going round and round. Maybe it's time to give it a rest? Or something...anything but continuing to reply to each and every response. Thanks....
On 6/18/07, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
You're trying to stir up trouble with practically every single e-mail you send. I'm trying to find whether anything constructive can come of this thread, and I'm not talking about any individual case. If you have something to contribute to the issue of adminship and accountability, please do. If not, just leave it, but this endless ? sniping is helping no one.
Endless sniping, stir up trouble? Such accusations, and so many against me
from both you and Jay. But, if you don't like my responses, >you're free to not read them, and free to not ask me questions.
KP
That's fine I guess, but it's filling up my Wiki-inbox....I'm not even that interested in this subject but it's filling up pages and pages going round and round. Maybe it's time to give it a rest? Or something...anything but continuing to reply to each and every response. Thanks....
You really don't even have to open them. Isn't that how people discuss things on list, repsonding to each other? And, no, I'm not replying to each and every response. I'm not even reading all of them.
But if you send one to me, I might respond to you. Think about it.
Kp
That's fine I guess, but it's filling up my Wiki-inbox....I'm not even that interested in this subject but it's filling up pages and pages going round and round. Maybe it's time to give it a rest? Or something...anything but continuing to reply to each and every response.
Thanks....
You really don't even have to open them. Isn't that how people discuss
things on list, repsonding to each other? And, no, I'm not replying to each and every response. I'm not even reading all of them.
But if you send one to me, I might respond to you. Think about it.
Kp
Discuss yes, obsess no.....
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, the pertinent issue is whether it is against policy to edit through open proxies.
I think the most pressing issue is not the policy thing, but that someone who wanted adminship was very keen to ensure that no one, not even the Foundation, could find out anything about them. Not even the location s/he edits from, or the ISP.
Now you're imputing motives.
Perhaps we should focus on that question: do we want any kind of minimum accountability from admins, or do we not care who they are, or that one person might easily be controlling multiple admin accounts?
If we do want minimum accountability, how do we get it? If we don't want minimum accountability, are we willing to accept the consequences e.g. that it's currently easy for a banned or malicious user to get adminship, not just once, but multiple times?
Perhaps it would be better to develop a consensus about what accountability is instead of having individuals enforce their own idiosyncratic interpretations.
Ec
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
This isn't a fanciful tale supposing CW's ignorance of the "no open proxies" policy. What it is a comment about her expectations or not of being allowed to use it. Why wouldn't she know that they would show up in check user? It's one of the few things even, I, a web idiot can figure out, that other editors using the same IP will show up in check user checks.
So, yes, in all likelihood she knew that her TOR showed up in check user requests, if she knew they were banned, and knew that hers had been seen and was not banned.
There's nothing fanciful here at all, or fabulous.
After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from real IPs
Yes, it does logically follow that she has been allowed to use them, so she might not expect to be torpedoes for using them. I saw the question about the open proxies but didn't follow the result that blowfish was told he couldn't use them. Still, CW was allowed to edit from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
It seems unlikely had she actually looked at this she would have been so stunned at being asked it in her own RfA.
No, what seems unlikely are the increasingly fabulous tales being advanced here regarding CW's complete ignorance of this policy, and the inappropriateness of using proxies.
"Fabulous tales" etc., etc.
Open proxies apparently aren't all the inappropriate as registered users in good standing are allowed to use them.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
This isn't a fanciful tale supposing CW's ignorance of the "no open proxies" policy. What it is a comment about her expectations or not of being allowed to use it.
She knew Armedblowfish wasn't being given a "pass" on this; why would she expect that she would be?
After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from real IPs
Yes, it does logically follow that she has been allowed to use them, so she might not expect to be torpedoes for using them.
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her. Or, if CW had said "I wasn't aware that this was forbidden, but I'll make sure not to do that from now on", I'm sure the response would have been positive.
Still, CW was allowed to edit from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against blocked TOR proxies all the time.
"Fabulous tales" etc., etc.
Yes, of which you are one of the primary authors.
Open proxies apparently aren't all the inappropriate as registered users in good standing are allowed to use them.
No, they're not, which is why admins keep blocking them when they find them. But if you truly believe what you're saying, then asking that question could not possibly have "torpedoed" CW's arbcom nomination, since everyone would just look at it and shrug and say "Well, no problem there, registered users in good standing are allowed to use them."
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her.
So, people support letting people's location remain private, as long as they reveal their location.
That makes a lot of sense.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her.
So, people support letting people's location remain private, as long as they reveal their location.
That makes a lot of sense.
China's a huge place, almost the same size as the U.S. and over a billion people. And she could have said "I have a good reason, and will share it with you (or the ArbCom) privately". There were many, many potential responses to that question that would have had a positive outcome.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her.
So, people support letting people's location remain private, as long as they reveal their location.
That makes a lot of sense.
China's a huge place, almost the same size as the U.S. and over a billion people. And she could have said "I have a good reason, and will share it with you (or the ArbCom) privately". There were many, many potential responses to that question that would have had a positive outcome.
Admitting to committing a crime against the Chinese government, while living in China, is a pretty serious thing. I'm wouldn't fault anyone who chose not to offer up such information voluntarily. Not that this is necessarily this case here, but maintaining anonymity is a difficult thing, and if you want to do it you should give out as little information as possible.
Could she have told you, privately, what her real reason was? Sure, but she had no obligation to do so. Could she have told the ArbCom? Sure, but against, she had no obligation to. And maybe she did.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her.
So, people support letting people's location remain private, as long as they reveal their location.
That makes a lot of sense.
China's a huge place, almost the same size as the U.S. and over a billion people. And she could have said "I have a good reason, and will share it with you (or the ArbCom) privately". There were many, many potential responses to that question that would have had a positive outcome.
Admitting to committing a crime against the Chinese government, while living in China, is a pretty serious thing. I'm wouldn't fault anyone who chose not to offer up such information voluntarily. Not that this is necessarily this case here,
In fact, CW has stated that it is not the case here.
but maintaining anonymity is a difficult thing, and if you want to do it you should give out as little information as possible.
Could she have told you, privately, what her real reason was? Sure, but she had no obligation to do so. Could she have told the ArbCom? Sure, but against, she had no obligation to. And maybe she did.
I'm aware of situations where editors have shared with the Jimbo or the ArbCom the fact that they are doing something against policy, but that they have good reasons, which they explain. In almost every case the response is "thanks for telling us, happy editing".
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
This isn't a fanciful tale supposing CW's ignorance of the "no open proxies" policy. What it is a comment about her expectations or not of being allowed to use it.
She knew Armedblowfish wasn't being given a "pass" on this; why would she expect that she would be?
After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from real IPs
Yes, it does logically follow that she has been allowed to use them, so she might not expect to be torpedoes for using them.
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her. Or, if CW had said "I wasn't aware that this was forbidden, but I'll make sure not to do that from now on", I'm sure the response would have been positive.
Still, CW was allowed to edit from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against blocked TOR proxies all the time.
"Fabulous tales" etc., etc.
Yes, of which you are one of the primary authors.
Open proxies apparently aren't all the inappropriate as registered users in good standing are allowed to use them.
No, they're not, which is why admins keep blocking them when they find them. But if you truly believe what you're saying, then asking that question could not possibly have "torpedoed" CW's arbcom nomination, since everyone would just look at it and shrug and say "Well, no problem there, registered users in good standing are allowed to use them."
No, you never blocked HER. And, that is how it should be handled if htey are somehow the threat to Wikipedia that Slim makes them out to be. You should block the sign-ins of all editors using TORs.
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
KP
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do so.
As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
This isn't a fanciful tale supposing CW's ignorance of the "no open proxies" policy. What it is a comment about her expectations or not of being allowed to use it.
She knew Armedblowfish wasn't being given a "pass" on this; why would she expect that she would be?
After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has not been banned or told not to use them.
That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from real IPs
Yes, it does logically follow that she has been allowed to use them, so she might not expect to be torpedoes for using them.
But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of support *for* her. Or, if CW had said "I wasn't aware that this was forbidden, but I'll make sure not to do that from now on", I'm sure the response would have been positive.
Still, CW was allowed to edit from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against blocked TOR proxies all the time.
"Fabulous tales" etc., etc.
Yes, of which you are one of the primary authors.
Open proxies apparently aren't all the inappropriate as registered users in good standing are allowed to use them.
No, they're not, which is why admins keep blocking them when they find them. But if you truly believe what you're saying, then asking that question could not possibly have "torpedoed" CW's arbcom nomination, since everyone would just look at it and shrug and say "Well, no problem there, registered users in good standing are allowed to use them."
No, you never blocked HER. And, that is how it should be handled if htey are somehow the threat to Wikipedia that Slim makes them out to be. You should block the sign-ins of all editors using TORs.
I don't know if CW is a threat to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why I should block all editors using TOR proxies; I'd rather just block all TOR proxy IPs.
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information; in fact, I had no private information to reveal, so I couldn't have done so even if I had wanted to. I recommend reading Mackensen's "vote" on the CW RFAR; it's currently Oppose number 47, or here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship...
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: > On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > > But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. > > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies > > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up. > > The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive". > More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
So, what other information about users can only users entrusted with check user tools gain access to? If it's not private information, that she's editing through a tor, how come I didn't know it (assuming I knew what a tor was)? How come only people with access to check user tools, or Charlotte herself, or people those two classes informee knew about it? It is private information, it has limited access " confined to particular persons or groups or providing privacy."
It is private information in the normal sense of the meaning, limited access. So, it's private. I had no access to this information. Only people with access to check user tools had access to it.
Now, what other private information, information with limited access, with access limited to those with check user tools, what other information of this nature do folks with check user tools have access to that they are allowed to reveal?
What exactly does the privacy issue mean?
It appears to only apply to folks who have been checked, not the drive by acquisitions of information, anyhow. So, what else is open to revelation that I have not been informed? What else about me or anyone else on Wikipedia can be gained only through check user tools and can be revealed because it is not considered "private" by those who have access to it?
KP
On 6/19/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: > On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > > But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for
adminship.
> > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish
(redundancies
> > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you
brought it up.
> > The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but
"defensive".
> More like outraged. You were trusted with private information
and you
abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
Perhaps this is a misconception, but I was under the impression that generally the means of maintaining one's anonymity (beyond the blatantly obvious, e.g. using a pseudonym) are not public information.
Johnleemk
I think that in the end it will be up to the ombudsmen anyway. They will determine if doing what Jayjg did was an appropraite use of checkuser..
Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote: > On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: > > But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for
adminship.
> > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish
(redundancies
> > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you
brought it up.
> > The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but
"defensive".
> More like outraged. You were trusted with private information
and you
abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality, native language? Please give me some piece of information about this person so I can know who you are talking about.
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
Charlotte is editing through TOR. Just because you don't know the name Charlotte's parents gave to her doesn't mean you can't reveal private information about her.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
You are clearly within the letter of the meta privacy policy and probably within the letter of the CU privacy policy.
The spirit of the policies is the open question.
George Herbert wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
You are clearly within the letter of the meta privacy policy and probably within the letter of the CU privacy policy.
The spirit of the policies is the open question.
A person who believes in the letter of a policy will look at a list of things that are forbidden and adhere strictly to the list. Something that is not on the list is equally strictly treated as allowable.
A person who believes in the spirit of the policy will consider the possible effects of his actions even when they are not strictly forbidden.
Ec
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wrote:
AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was editing through TOR.
Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
Ec
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
It doesn't make jayjg's statement any less true, however. Regardless of whether he should have acted as he did, there is no breach of privacy involved, unless you extend the definition of privacy to go beyond real-world identities, which I think is a bit of a stretch.
-Matt
On 6/18/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
It doesn't make jayjg's statement any less true, however. Regardless of whether he should have acted as he did, there is no breach of privacy involved, unless you extend the definition of privacy to go beyond real-world identities, which I think is a bit of a stretch.
If I could be convinced that there's no possibility that anyone knows or will ever find out anything about CW outside of her interaction with Wikipedia, I suppose I'd agree with that. But that's far too much speculation for me.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
It doesn't make jayjg's statement any less true, however. Regardless of whether he should have acted as he did, there is no breach of privacy involved, unless you extend the definition of privacy to go beyond real-world identities, which I think is a bit of a stretch.
If I could be convinced that there's no possibility that anyone knows or will ever find out anything about CW outside of her interaction with Wikipedia, I suppose I'd agree with that. But that's far too much speculation for me.
Well, I doubt even more that I can be convinced of this. I'm pretty sure I just figured out this person's full name.
On 6/18/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
It doesn't make jayjg's statement any less true, however. Regardless of whether he should have acted as he did, there is no breach of privacy involved, unless you extend the definition of privacy to go beyond real-world identities, which I think is a bit of a stretch.
It's information which, though not specifically protected by WP privacy policy (either meta or en-specific), obviously a wide variety of people are upset to have widely disseminated.
Again: I think the info release met the letter of the current CU and general privacy policies. The gap is that the spirit of those policies and community expectations are stricter than that.
If the new expectation going forwards from this is that everything not specifically and explicitly protected by WP privacy policy is free game for people to reveal on a whim, then there's a serious problem on several levels.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This shows an astonishing ignorance of the effects that a person's comments can have on another.
It doesn't make jayjg's statement any less true, however. Regardless of whether he should have acted as he did, there is no breach of privacy involved, unless you extend the definition of privacy to go beyond real-world identities, which I think is a bit of a stretch.
If you define "privacy" narrowly enough, no, I suppose you could argue there was no "breach". But there certainly *was* a breach of confidentiality.
It's simple: checkuser is a special tool, that most people don't have access to, that reveals information otherwise secret. Those with checkuser ability should not be revealing that information -- any of it -- willy-nilly.
The piece of information "User:CharlotteWebb has edited using TOR" was formerly secret. Revealing it was clearly -- as the length of this mailing list thread shows! -- not an innocuous act. You could claim without too much exaggeration that it's done as much damage to CharlotteWebb's persona as do the vicious "outing" practices of those other Wikipedia satellite websites we don't mention.
Don't say, "Revealing that CharlotteWebb used TOR reveals nothing about her real identity". Don't say, "Revealing that she used TOR is okay since it's not a damaging revelation." Those statements are both quite beside the point. Pledging not to reveal confidential information means that you won't reveal the confidential information, period. It does not mean that you'll selectively reveal bits of it if you can concoct an argument saying it's "okay".
(Finally, don't say "Revealing the information wouldn't have been so damaging if only CharlotteWebb had reacted differently". That's blaming the victim.)
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information; in fact, I had no private information to reveal, so I couldn't have done so even if I had wanted to. I recommend reading Mackensen's "vote" on the CW RFAR; it's currently Oppose number 47, or here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship...
Both you and Mackensen are confusing *private* information with information that reveals identity. They are not identical.
As an example, if some user reveals to me in a private email that they had, at one time, been convicted of some crime, and I in turn reveal that information publicly (say, on this list, or on Wikipedia), then I have absolutely violated that persons privacy. I have not revealed their identity.
You had privileged information about CW -- available to only a handful of people, and entrusted to those people to handle within careful guidelines and with good judgment. You revealed that private and privileged information, contrary to the guidelines and (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others) with poor judgment.
You violated CW's privacy. And you refuse to admit any responsibility or accountability.
There's a lot of discussion about being able to hold admins accountable. But there seems to be a definite lack of accountability in the use of CU tools.
-Rich
On 6/19/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
But you don't. You just bring it up when they apply for adminship. It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
More like outraged. You were trusted with private information and you abused that trust.
Again, I didn't reveal any private information; in fact, I had no private information to reveal, so I couldn't have done so even if I had wanted to. I recommend reading Mackensen's "vote" on the CW RFAR; it's currently Oppose number 47, or here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship...
Both you and Mackensen are confusing *private* information with information that reveals identity. They are not identical.
As an example, if some user reveals to me in a private email that they had, at one time, been convicted of some crime, and I in turn reveal that information publicly (say, on this list, or on Wikipedia), then I have absolutely violated that persons privacy. I have not revealed their identity.
You had privileged information about CW -- available to only a handful of people, and entrusted to those people to handle within careful guidelines and with good judgment. You revealed that private and privileged information, contrary to the guidelines and (in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others) with poor judgment.
The lack of good judgment is, in my mind, the bigger problem than any violation of the guidelines. It's not that he revealed the information at all, as I'm sure he is going to argue that his doing so was for the sake of stopping harm to the project, but that he did so publicly, only after Charlotte ran for admin, apparently without even confronting Charlotte about it beforehand. And it was done passive-aggressively on top of that, phrasing this revelation as though it was a question.
As someone who has often used Tor while editing Wikipedia I was personally completely unaware of the supposed policy against it. I'm not the only one, either. There are a number of admins and even board members who have disagreed with or admitted to violating this supposed policy. I'd go so far as to say that this supposed policy is not an actual policy, as it does not enjoy consensus support and violation of it does not in any way harm the encyclopedia.
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Still, CW was allowed to edit from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against blocked TOR proxies all the time.
Personally I have written a script which checks the list of blocked IPs against the list of TOR exit node IPs and automatically adds the blocked IPs to the list of excluded exit nodes. So it's quite possible to avoid running against the blocked proxies, actually.
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
Thank you.
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
I sent you an e-mail on this very list a day ago pointing out that CW must have known about the issue, since CW voted in the Armedblowfish RFA. I'm surprised you don't remember that, considering that you responded to the e-mail.
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
I sent you an e-mail on this very list a day ago pointing out that CW must have known about the issue, since CW voted in the Armedblowfish RFA. I'm surprised you don't remember that, considering that you responded to the e-mail.
Looking back, that was a good 100+ mails into the discussion, so I wouldn't exactly call that "at the beginning". As you'll note, I responded to that email, but not to that paragraph, as the "it seems clear" on the surface is nothing but supposition.
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
I sent you an e-mail on this very list a day ago pointing out that CW must have known about the issue, since CW voted in the Armedblowfish RFA. I'm surprised you don't remember that, considering that you responded to the e-mail.
Looking back, that was a good 100+ mails into the discussion, so I wouldn't exactly call that "at the beginning". As you'll note, I responded to that email, but not to that paragraph, as the "it seems clear" on the surface is nothing but supposition.
So did you see that when I said it a day ago, or not?
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't Jayjg have said that at the beginning and saved us all a load of hassle?
I sent you an e-mail on this very list a day ago pointing out that CW must have known about the issue, since CW voted in the Armedblowfish RFA. I'm surprised you don't remember that, considering that you responded to the e-mail.
Looking back, that was a good 100+ mails into the discussion, so I wouldn't exactly call that "at the beginning". As you'll note, I responded to that email, but not to that paragraph, as the "it seems clear" on the surface is nothing but supposition.
So did you see that when I said it a day ago, or not?
I read it, without necessarily thinking through the implications, as there were several things more urgent in the same email to reply to. And you didn't provide an actual URL, so I didn't go off chasing through Wikipedia to try to find what you were referring to.
ElinorD wrote:
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact
that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
Absolutely. How much time can a person be expected to spend reading these often lengthy comment. If her support was number 56 there were already 55 before her. Are you seriously suggesting that reading through all that will change anybody's mind who has already decided her vote, perhaps from already knowing the candidate.
I won't comment on the actual use of open proxies, as I don't fully understand what it all means, but, as I've suggested on the RfA page, if she had a really good reason to violate this policy, the best thing would have been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand.
You are making the presumption that she violated policy. Part of the argument that has followed has focussed on whether this really is policy.
The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows: "Yes, I have a valid reason, but because of privacy issues, I'd rather not discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on the RfA page or talk page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation.
Why would she need to explain herself if she believes she did nothing wrong? Would it make any sense to ask you why you beat up your spouse when you never did any such thing in the first page. If she could have answered quietly, she could have been asked quietly.
Also, why are people asking again and again why the checkuser who discovered this didn't block Charlotte when he discovered the use of open proxies, when he has stated at least twice that he blocked the IPs? Blocks are preventative and not punitive, and a blocked illegitimate IP presumably leaves a good faith editor free to edit from a legitimate one.
One still needs to distinguish between blocking the proxy IP and blocking the person. There doesn't appear to be many complaints against blocking the IP. Acting against Charlotte's admin request is what tnterprets the policy as punitive rather than preventative.
That seems a completely different issue from that of becoming an administrator while every edit she makes violates an official policy.
There is no such "official" policy. What makes it "official"?
However, a statement from an ArbCom member or a bureaucrat that Charlotte had disclosed her reasons by private email and that they were found to be acceptable would probably have swayed many of the opposers, some of whom opposed because of the defensive reaction.
What's wrong with the presumption that a person does have valid reasons as long as there is no evidence that she has used it for harmful activities.
Finally, it's also being insinuated that the checkuser admin did this for political reasons or in order to ruin Charlotte's RfA. Had they had any prior encounter? Had they been in some content dispute? Of course I'm open to the possibility, if someone can show me some evidence, but I can't see any evidence of it myself.
I've encountered her on this list, and have seen no reason to be concerned about her.
Since Charlotte's article work seems to have been mainly reverting vandalism and adding or removing categories, it seems unlikely.
There's an irony here. The RfA page strongly endorses that an admin candidate must waste a certain amount of time reverting vandalism. Thus recently participating in that kind of activity should not be taken as evidence of her intentions or capabilities beyond fulfilling those requirements.
Ec