On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, there is consensus that the IP addresses should be blocked, but that's about it. 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: You don't think the comment was ever "AOL address"? I'm sure it was. I think that's ridiculous.

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Blocked AOL users in the above ranges will see the template {{AOLblock}} as their block reason." - [[Wikipedia:Dealing_with_AOL_vandals]]

On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen <nospam(a)vyznev.net> wrote: 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(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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?

On 18/06/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 18/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thank you. Except for the fact that admins and CheckUsers keep blocking them as soon as they come across them.

On 6/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 ∇∆∇∆

On 6/18/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...there must not be a policy against using open proxies.

On 6/18/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. No, it doesn't. Of course, *nothing* is going to tell us that unless you intend to get every *user* to verify their identity. 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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. 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 6/18/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)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. 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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... ;) 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. 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. 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.) 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: Okay, but now you're very much into wild speculation, because neither of us has access to the mental states of the blocker. You just keep repeating what the ideology is. If the block log shows otherwise, you say "that doesn't count, because they're actions"? It's not just a separate policy, and that's not why it's separate. It's a different concept. 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.

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(a)gmail.com> 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 2007/6/19, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 6/20/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 6/20/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Sockpuppets created with open proxies are not traceable to the sockpuppeteer.

On 6/20/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: But...sockpuppets aren't prohibited either.

On 6/20/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: They are neither discouraged or encouraged. We simply list the times when they are legit and when they are not. -- geni

On 6/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases." -- Jonel

On 6/20/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Precisely. The policy is nuanced. -- Jonel

Slim Virgin wrote: Agreed. Getting rid of the RfA question about what people are doing to revert vandals might help with this. What they do on their website is their business. Ec

On 6/18/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: My locking my car door wouldn't slow down a determined car thief, but it would still be foolish to leave it open. 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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 6/18/07, Brian Haws <brian(a)bhaws.com> wrote: 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

Slim Virgin wrote: Now you're imputing motives. 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, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: She knew Armedblowfish wasn't being given a "pass" on this; why would she expect that she would be? 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. Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against blocked TOR proxies all the time. Yes, of which you are one of the primary authors. 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, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: In fact, CW has stated that it is not the case here. 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, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".

On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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_adminshi…

On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> 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.

On 6/19/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

George Herbert wrote: 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

On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: 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, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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.

Matthew Brown wrote: 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.)

On 6/19/07, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 6/18/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote: So did you see that when I said it a day ago, or not?