I'm wondering why, if it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, this wasn't brought up to CharlotteWebb some other time than when he/she ran for Admin?
This is exactly what this seems like, a violation of privacy for political gain, namely to sink Charlotte's RfA. If the policy is enforcable, it should have been enforced the first time it was discovered that Charlotte uses a TOR, not when Charlotte ran for adminship. That's what is meant by the accusation that it is political, sinking Charlotte's RfA with the information, rather than having contacted Charlotte about it when first discovered. The latter would have been appropriate if TORs are against policy, the former will be seen as a political move by many people.
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
I thought that having access to information about people through check user required a certain level of trust in the person using check user not to use it other than for what it is explicitly designed for. When information that is not directly related to a check user request is revealed, information that can only be gained by having check user tools, it seems to me that revealing this information is in violation of being given the check user tools. I am concerned about the interpretation of the privacy policy--which explicitly states it is of prime importance on Wikipedia--which leads to it being seen as second to concerns about revealing information gained about a non-target user on a check user request.
I think that the policy should be changed to explicitly prohibit revealing information from a check user request in this manner--when the user hasn't been the target of the request, when the information gained shows another user was in violation of a policy, and when the release of the information is used to impact an internal wikipedia political matter, namely RfA.
KP
On 16/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
Assuming your conclusions are accurate, this sort of behaviour can only harm the project, as it will put off people from running the RFA gauntlet.
I'm forced to wonder if that is the point.
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies? And if proxy editing is against policy we should block AOL too as it is basically an open proxy to with all the IP switching going on.
I think blocking so many editors when their editing isn't necessarily problematic is a VERY bad idea.
Mgm
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
Assuming your conclusions are accurate, this sort of behaviour can only harm the project, as it will put off people from running the RFA gauntlet.
I'm forced to wonder if that is the point.
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 6/16/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:27 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies?
We are...
See [[WP:PROXY]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies]]
They why didn't Jay simply block the Tor nodes in question that Charlotte was using WHEN they were found, rather than wait to drop this on her during the RFA process?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
They why didn't Jay simply block the Tor nodes in question that Charlotte was using WHEN they were found, rather than wait to drop this on her during the RFA process?
From what he wrote on this list, I got the impression that he did. Of course, new Tor exit nodes appear all the time, and some of the existing ones may change addresses.
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:27 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies?
We are...
See [[WP:PROXY]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies]]
They why didn't Jay simply block the Tor nodes in question that Charlotte was using WHEN they were found, rather than wait to drop this on her during the RFA process?
He probably did, but he or she went on to use other ones.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:27 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies?
We are... See [[WP:PROXY]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies]]
They why didn't Jay simply block the Tor nodes in question that Charlotte was using WHEN they were found, rather than wait to drop this on her during the RFA process?
He probably did, but he or she went on to use other ones.
So why did he then wait until the RFA to "drop the bomb"?
Also, if the CheckUser logs are visible to all the people with CheckUser privileges, then presumably all those oher people also saw CW's name on those logs. Why did none of them think it necessary to query that before?
On 6/17/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2007, at 12:27 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies?
We are... See [[WP:PROXY]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies]]
They why didn't Jay simply block the Tor nodes in question that Charlotte was using WHEN they were found, rather than wait to drop this on her during the RFA process?
He probably did, but he or she went on to use other ones.
So why did he then wait until the RFA to "drop the bomb"?
Editing via proxies is a violation of policy; adminship is a position of trust, and admins are charged with supporting policy.
Also, if the CheckUser logs are visible to all the people with CheckUser privileges, then presumably all those oher people also saw CW's name on those logs. Why did none of them think it necessary to query that before?
You should probably ask them.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies?
We are, but the problem is that new ones keep popping up all the time. Still, it *should* be possible to automatically block editing from *most* Tor exit nodes; if Torstatus can keep up with them, we should be able to do the same. A few nodes would probably be missed because they're multihomed or behind transparent proxies, but I don't believe those are all that common.
Of course, that would only solve the problem for Tor, not for the countless zombie computers and misconfigured proxies that make up the majority of the proxy-blocking workload. So I suppose preemptively blocking Tor may not be seen as a major priority from that perspective.
And if proxy editing is against policy we should block AOL too as it is basically an open proxy to with all the IP switching going on.
IIRC, we did, the moment AOL started allowing people other than their direct customers to use their proxies. There were calls for blocking them, at least anon-only, even before that, but for various reasons -- including the number of AOL customers that would've been hit as well as vague promises from AOL that something would be done about it real soon now -- it never got done back then. (Not here, anyway; the German Wikipedia, at least, did block them.)
The issue was finally resolved when AOL eventually got their proxies configured to send us proper X-Forwarded-For headers and we added them to the list of trusted proxies from which we accept such headers. Thus, users editing now via AOL's proxies have their edits assigned to their actual IP address rather than that of the proxy.
(Needless to say, that won't happen with Tor; their very purpose is to make it impossible to determine the real IP addresses of their users.)
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
If it is against policy then why aren't we blocking those proxies? And if proxy editing is against policy we should block AOL too as it is basically an open proxy to with all the IP switching going on.
I think blocking so many editors when their editing isn't necessarily problematic is a VERY bad idea.
Mgm
As I understand it, connections through AOL proxies that do not support X-Forwarded-For have been blocked for some time now.
-- Neil
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/06/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
Assuming your conclusions are accurate, this sort of behaviour can only harm the project, as it will put off people from running the RFA gauntlet.
I'm forced to wonder if that is the point.
I don't know, but it seems to me lately that a lot is done on Wikipedia with ulterior motives. It also seems that if the concern really is for TOR accounts, then good contributors in good standing should be called on it before they run for adminship.
I think that administratorship and positions of extra responsibility should come with a rule or guideline that those entrusted with extra powers should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Or don't do something in a way that could call attention to your motives, like saving up a revealing piece of information about someone for when they run for adminship. Something you learned when put in a position where you have access to information about users that Wikipedia's policy claims it maintains privately.
If there is an issue with Trojan admins using TOR accounts, and using TOR accounts (orwhatever they are called, I'm rather clueless here) is bad for Wikipedia, AND against policy, the time to raise the issue is when it is first discovered that an editor in good standing is using a TOR account. Raise the issue via e-mail, not via public revelation on a RfA.
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
I think that if this information was available only to users with check user permission, and it was revealed to Wikipedia in general, then Wikipedia failed to maintain privacy in this instance. This concerns me.
KP
On 6/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
There's a lot of unclear thinking about this issue. The people raising a lot of the objections to Tor being banned are the same ones who regularly complain about admin abuse, but suddenly they don't care about electing an admin who wants to make sure that no one -- including the Foundation -- is able to find out anything about them. Why would an admin want to hide their identity even from the Foundation?
You have to ask yourself whether you care if (a) one person is running four admin accounts that are being used to back each other up; (b) that person manages to get one or more of them elected to ArbCom; (c) that person is copying deleted material and posting it on other websites; (d) that person gets access to checkuser and oversight, meaning they can see where other editors are posting from, and can read even the most sensitive deleted material.
If you don't care about any of the above, by all means allow admins to use open proxies. All they currently have to do is fax a copy of their drivers license to the Foundation if elected to ArbCom and given access to check user, but it's a trivial matter to fax a friend's ID instead, so that's no security at all.
The one solid thing the Foundation has is the ability to at least see where an admin is posting from, and their ISP, and in the event of serious abuse, it can act on the basis of that information.
Without that, for all we know, we could have 100 admins with 1200 accounts administering this website. The only question that matters here is: do you care about that?
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
There's a lot of unclear thinking about this issue. The people raising a lot of the objections to Tor being banned are the same ones who regularly complain about admin abuse, but suddenly they don't care about electing an admin who wants to make sure that no one -- including the Foundation -- is able to find out anything about them. Why would an admin want to hide their identity even from the Foundation?
You have to ask yourself whether you care if (a) one person is running four admin accounts that are being used to back each other up; (b) that person manages to get one or more of them elected to ArbCom; (c) that person is copying deleted material and posting it on other websites; (d) that person gets access to checkuser and oversight, meaning they can see where other editors are posting from, and can read even the most sensitive deleted material.
If you don't care about any of the above, by all means allow admins to use open proxies. All they currently have to do is fax a copy of their drivers license to the Foundation if elected to ArbCom and given access to check user, but it's a trivial matter to fax a friend's ID instead, so that's no security at all.
The one solid thing the Foundation has is the ability to at least see where an admin is posting from, and their ISP, and in the event of serious abuse, it can act on the basis of that information.
Without that, for all we know, we could have 100 admins with 1200 accounts administering this website. The only question that matters here is: do you care about that?
ZOMGZ BECAUSE ANYONE USING TOR MUST BE A VANDAL WHO COOPERATES WITH WIKITRUTH.
Please. Yes, theoretically, it's possible for someone to run multiple accounts. However, this is possible even without open proxies, and it's really not particularly difficult to tell that someone has sockpuppets if all of their accounts use open proxies, they all have the same voice, and they all do suspicious things together. Using open proxies doesn't block checkusers from finding sockpuppets, and it doesn't mean that the user's account will magically become compromised.
Rory
On 6/16/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Please. Yes, theoretically, it's possible for someone to run multiple accounts. However, this is possible even without open proxies, and it's really not particularly difficult to tell that someone has sockpuppets if all of their accounts use open proxies, they all have the same voice, and they all do suspicious things together. Using open proxies doesn't block checkusers from finding sockpuppets, and it doesn't mean that the user's account will magically become compromised.
Sure it does. Editing through an open proxy exposes a user's account to compromise in the exact same way that editing on a public computer does. More so, in fact, because, while it's possible to do a cursory check for keyloggers on a library computer (for example), it's impossible to verify the security of a Tor exit node or an open proxy. Blocking open proxies from editing is as much for the security of the editors as it is for the security of the project.
I'm inclined to vote against Charlotte's RfA for on the grounds that that giving admin access to a user who logs in through Tor or any other type of open proxy is a serious liability to the project.
On 6/16/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Please. Yes, theoretically, it's possible for someone to run multiple accounts. However, this is possible even without open proxies, and it's really not particularly difficult to tell that someone has sockpuppets if all of their accounts use open proxies, they all have the same voice, and they all do suspicious things together. Using open proxies doesn't block checkusers from finding sockpuppets, and it doesn't mean that the user's account will magically become compromised.
Sure it does. Editing through an open proxy exposes a user's account to compromise in the exact same way that editing on a public computer does.
Not if they use https. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Please. Yes, theoretically, it's possible for someone to run multiple accounts. However, this is possible even without open proxies, and it's really not particularly difficult to tell that someone has sockpuppets if all of their accounts use open proxies, they all have the same voice, and they all do suspicious things together. Using open proxies doesn't block checkusers from finding sockpuppets, and it doesn't mean that the user's account will magically become compromised.
Sure it does. Editing through an open proxy exposes a user's account to compromise in the exact same way that editing on a public computer does.
Not if they use https. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page
Most open web proxies don't support https. TOR does, but that still doesn't obviate the risk that the server could be spoofed by an exit node. The Wikimedia secure server is using a CACert key; on most web browsers, this generates a warning which is indistinguishable from the warning generated by an endpoint that's performing a man-in-the-middle attack.
To be sure, this is a problem that could theoretically be solved (by getting a proper certificate for the secure server). However, it remains the case that editing Wikipedia through an untrusted connection is unsafe, especially for an admin.
On 6/16/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
Please. Yes, theoretically, it's possible for someone to run multiple accounts. However, this is possible even without open proxies, and it's really not particularly difficult to tell that someone has sockpuppets if all of their accounts use open proxies, they all have the same voice, and they all do suspicious things together. Using open proxies doesn't block checkusers from finding sockpuppets, and it doesn't mean that the user's account will magically become compromised.
Sure it does. Editing through an open proxy exposes a user's account to compromise in the exact same way that editing on a public computer does.
Not if they use https. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page
Most open web proxies don't support https. TOR does, but that still doesn't obviate the risk that the server could be spoofed by an exit node. The Wikimedia secure server is using a CACert key; on most web browsers, this generates a warning which is indistinguishable from the warning generated by an endpoint that's performing a man-in-the-middle attack.
I was thinking specifically of TOR, and the CACert root certificate can be downloaded and installed so as to not generate the warning (and to remove the man-in-the-middle attack).
zetawoof wrote:
Most open web proxies don't support https. TOR does, but that still doesn't obviate the risk that the server could be spoofed by an exit node. The Wikimedia secure server is using a CACert key; on most web browsers, this generates a warning which is indistinguishable from the warning generated by an endpoint that's performing a man-in-the-middle attack.
That's a pretty well-disguised insult there. (I'm assuming you did not mean it as such.)
If someone knows how to use Tor, I would think they at least have a clue how to verify a certificate. The warning is only indistinguishable if you either ignore it or are incredibly dense. Your argument defeats itself.
To be sure, this is a problem that could theoretically be solved (by getting a proper certificate for the secure server). However, it remains the case that editing Wikipedia through an untrusted connection is unsafe, especially for an admin.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how asymmetric cryptography works.
On 6/18/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
zetawoof wrote:
Most open web proxies don't support https. TOR does, but that still doesn't obviate the risk that the server could be spoofed by an exit node. The Wikimedia secure server is using a CACert key; on most web browsers, this generates a warning which is indistinguishable from the warning generated by an endpoint that's performing a man-in-the-middle attack.
That's a pretty well-disguised insult there. (I'm assuming you did not mean it as such.)
Entirely unintentional.
If someone knows how to use Tor, I would think they at least have a clue how to verify a certificate. The warning is only indistinguishable if you either ignore it or are incredibly dense.  Your argument defeats itself.
There's been enough development work on TOR lately - especially on all-in-one packages like XeroBank (formerly TorPark) which make TOR accessible without any significant technical knowledge.
This entire discussion also assumes that any user of TOR would also know about the secure server - which is hardly a given. Indeed, the secure server is hardly documented
To be sure, this is a problem that could theoretically be solved (by getting a proper certificate for the secure server). However, it remains the case that editing Wikipedia through an untrusted connection is unsafe, especially for an admin.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how asymmetric cryptography works.
I'm quite familiar with the processes involved. To be sure, I did misconstrue the nature of the secure server's key - I was thinking of it as a self-signed certificate for some reason, which *would* be extremely easy to spoof. (One self-signed certificate is indistinguishable from another unless you carefully examine its fingerprint every time you connect.)
The attack model I'm concerned about is a malicious user (call him Mallory) whose TOR exit node is configured to redirect all traffic destined for the Wikipedia secure server to a local copy of stunnel configured with a self-signed or CACert certificate and pointed at the secure server. The client negotiates an SSL connection with Mallory's stunnel, which in turn negotiates with the secure server. As long as the substituted certificate isn't noticed by the client, Mallory can read "secure" server traffic undetected.
On 6/19/07, zetawoof zetawoof@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Chris Howie cdhowie@nerdshack.com wrote:
zetawoof wrote: If someone knows how to use Tor, I would think they at least have a clue how to verify a certificate. The warning is only indistinguishable if you either ignore it or are incredibly dense.  Your argument defeats itself.
There's been enough development work on TOR lately - especially on all-in-one packages like XeroBank (formerly TorPark) which make TOR accessible without any significant technical knowledge.
This entire discussion also assumes that any user of TOR would also know about the secure server - which is hardly a given. Indeed, the secure server is hardly documented
Well, no, the comment I was responding to was one that admins shouldn't ever use TOR because they'd be exposing their password. My response was that they shouldn't use TOR unless they are using the secure server. I'll add in that they should download the CACert root certificate too, directly from the CACert site.
Of course, getting a certificate which is signed by someone who *does* include their root certificate in the major browsers is something the devs should do, in my opinion. There are other things too - a full security audit from a specialized expert would be appropriate.
To be sure, this is a problem that could theoretically be solved (by getting a proper certificate for the secure server). However, it remains the case that editing Wikipedia through an untrusted connection is unsafe, especially for an admin.
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how asymmetric cryptography works.
I'm quite familiar with the processes involved. To be sure, I did misconstrue the nature of the secure server's key - I was thinking of it as a self-signed certificate for some reason, which *would* be extremely easy to spoof. (One self-signed certificate is indistinguishable from another unless you carefully examine its fingerprint every time you connect.)
The attack model I'm concerned about is a malicious user (call him Mallory) whose TOR exit node is configured to redirect all traffic destined for the Wikipedia secure server to a local copy of stunnel configured with a self-signed or CACert certificate and pointed at the secure server. The client negotiates an SSL connection with Mallory's stunnel, which in turn negotiates with the secure server. As long as the substituted certificate isn't noticed by the client, Mallory can read "secure" server traffic undetected.
Yes, the way around this is to first download the CACert root certificate. If you do so using a different TOR exit node or using no TOR exit node at all then the attacker would have to be able to hijack both differing methods; and you'd still receive an error as soon as you came across a TOR exit node which wasn't hijacked. If you're feeling really paranoid you could check the fingerprint, from multiple different connections which couldn't possibly be controlled by the same people, making sure they all match.
Class 3 PKI Key Fingerprint SHA1: DB:4C:42:69:07:3F:E9:C2:A3:7D:89:0A:5C:1B:18:C4:18:4E:2A:2D Fingerprint MD5: 73:3F:35:54:1D:44:C9:E9:5A:4A:EF:51:AD:03:06:B6
There, now you've got another place to check. I'll check the validity of this e-mail from another internet connection to make sure it makes it to the archives unaltered :). Isn't this fun? It's kind of like playing "spread the illegal number", except it's "spread the legal number".
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
There's a lot of unclear thinking about this issue. The people raising a lot of the objections to Tor being banned are the same ones who regularly complain about admin abuse, but suddenly they don't care about electing an admin who wants to make sure that no one -- including the Foundation -- is able to find out anything about them. Why would an admin want to hide their identity even from the Foundation?
You have to ask yourself whether you care if (a) one person is running four admin accounts that are being used to back each other up; (b) that person manages to get one or more of them elected to ArbCom; (c) that person is copying deleted material and posting it on other websites; (d) that person gets access to checkuser and oversight, meaning they can see where other editors are posting from, and can read even the most sensitive deleted material.
If you don't care about any of the above, by all means allow admins to use open proxies. All they currently have to do is fax a copy of their drivers license to the Foundation if elected to ArbCom and given access to check user, but it's a trivial matter to fax a friend's ID instead, so that's no security at all.
The one solid thing the Foundation has is the ability to at least see where an admin is posting from, and their ISP, and in the event of serious abuse, it can act on the basis of that information.
Without that, for all we know, we could have 100 admins with 1200 accounts administering this website. The only question that matters here is: do you care about that?
It's one thing to say that we should block Tor, particularly not having admins coming in that way. I don't disagree with that statement.
Using that to torpedo someone's RFA is a very different thing. Prior use of Tor does not an abuser make.
We clearly don't have a policy of blocking everyone who's found to have arrived at Wikipedia via a Tor IP at some point.
CharoletteWebb is being guilted by association.
I don't know if (presumably she) is really a known abuser in disguise. Any of you who use pseudonyms could be (and any of us using real names could be, too, though some of us are easier to find documented real world info on if anyone cares). I AGF.
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
I think it's probably important enough that we should not allow active admins to use anonymizers, but that's different than blocking someone from becoming an admin because they have previously used one.
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
An admin who is doing nothing wrong wound have nothing to hide from the Foundation. If they're editing from a situation however, where they shouldn't be--say, work conflict of interest, personal risk, extreme concerns for privacy--they they perhaps shouldn't be admins.
This is a fantastic suggestion, and to protect the Foundation from liability from people acting as it's agents, likely very overdue.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
This is a fantastic suggestion, and to protect the Foundation from liability from people acting as it's agents, likely very overdue.
I don't think regular admins are acting as agents of the Foundation, and I suspect that both admins and Foundation would strenuously deny that that is the case.
-Matt
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
An admin who is doing nothing wrong wound have nothing to hide from the Foundation. If they're editing from a situation however, where they shouldn't be--say, work conflict of interest, personal risk, extreme concerns for privacy--they they perhaps shouldn't be admins.
This is a fantastic suggestion, and to protect the Foundation from liability from people acting as it's agents, likely very overdue.
By what stretch of the imagination do you determine that a person acting as an admin on a project is acting as an agent of the Foundation. A very important distinction has always been made between the role of the Foundation and the role of the projects. Whatever the operating rules of RfA, and whether or not one agrees with those rules, the fact remains that admin appointments are made from the particular community, and not by the Foundation. Also becoming a sysop in any one community does not yet imply the right to be a sysop in any other of our several hundred communities.
Ec
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
An admin who is doing nothing wrong wound have nothing to hide from the Foundation. If they're editing from a situation however, where they shouldn't be--say, work conflict of interest, personal risk, extreme concerns for privacy--they they perhaps shouldn't be admins.
It's one thing to show your ID to "the foundation", and quite another to give it to all of the members of the foundation who have access to these logs. The very fact that someone obtained and then revealed this information about CW without permission is enough of a reason to be concerned about one's privacy, in my opinion.
FWIW, I don't think editing using a proxy *is* against policy. In fact, I seem to remember a prominent Wikipedian saying that the reason TOR IPs commonly get blocked is due to the fact that they are commonly used for abuse, and not simply because they were proxies. But that was a couple years ago.
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
An admin who is doing nothing wrong wound have nothing to hide from the Foundation. If they're editing from a situation however, where they shouldn't be--say, work conflict of interest, personal risk, extreme concerns for privacy--they they perhaps shouldn't be admins.
It's one thing to show your ID to "the foundation", and quite another to give it to all of the members of the foundation who have access to these logs. The very fact that someone obtained and then revealed this information about CW without permission is enough of a reason to be concerned about one's privacy, in my opinion.
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin candidate (or anyone else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
FWIW, I don't think editing using a proxy *is* against policy.
Yes, it is. See [[WP:PROXY]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROXY
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin candidate (or anyone else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
The fact that it was announced (not discovered) at the single most inconvenient time -- you surely can't be claiming that as a coincidence, can you?
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin candidate (or anyone else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
The fact that it was announced (not discovered) at the single most inconvenient time -- you surely can't be claiming that as a coincidence, can you?
I didn't say it was. It was raised at that time, obviously, because the account wanted adminship, but had made no mention of the use of open proxies on his/her nom. S/he also didn't respond when asked why; an e-mail would probably have sufficed but that didn't happen either, so far as I know.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin candidate (or anyone else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
The fact that it was announced (not discovered) at the single most inconvenient time -- you surely can't be claiming that as a coincidence, can you?
I didn't say it was. It was raised at that time, obviously, because the account wanted adminship, but had made no mention of the use of open proxies on his/her nom. S/he also didn't respond when asked why; an e-mail would probably have sufficed but that didn't happen either, so far as I know.
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
It's kind of odd to attack someone for asking, during your RfA, why you're violating policy every single time you make an edit, yet want to be in a position where you can block others for policy violations. It's hypocrisy. If you want to change policy, argue for that change openly and honestly; don't sneak around in the night.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
Evidence?
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
All you're doing is defending Jay to the core without even accepting what he did could be even *seen* as being highly inappropriate, and it does raise questions (as it has in the past). Without insinuating anything further, I think you might want to step back just ever-so-slightly and re-look the case over.
On the matter itself I think that the concerns that this was aimed at sinking the RFA are founded. However, I think it would be a fair assumption of good faith to say that Jay probably wasn't thinking of sinking the RFA when he posted that question. However, the question could certainly have been asked by email, instead of throwing the dirty laundry out into public. It probably wouldn't be enough, but a simple "I shouldn't have done that" (use the RFA to ask it) from Jay would probably satisfy most people that he made an error in judgement.
Just my two cents.
On 17/06/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
Evidence?
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 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
CW was asked during the RfA for a reason, and declined to give one. S/he could have offered a reason by e-mail if it was a sensitive thing. Instead, s/he stonewalled. It was that response as much as anything that caused the problem.
All you're doing is defending Jay to the core without even accepting what he did could be even *seen* as being highly inappropriate, and it does raise questions (as it has in the past). Without insinuating anything further, I think you might want to step back just ever-so-slightly and re-look the case over.
The position I take (and this is regardless of whether it involves Jay or anyone else) is that candidates for adminship have to be open and honest, and they ought not to be in violation of policies themselves, at least not deliberately. If they're not open and honest and at least making an effort to understand and follow policy, it's likely to come out at some point, and it's better that it comes out before they get the tools. This strikes me as so obvious, I'm struggling to understand why anyone would disagree with it.
On the matter itself I think that the concerns that this was aimed at sinking the RFA are founded. However, I think it would be a fair assumption of good faith to say that Jay probably wasn't thinking of sinking the RFA when he posted that question. However, the question could certainly have been asked by email, instead of throwing the dirty laundry out into public.
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
In which case, it's reasonable to assume that she was unaware that it might be considered a problem, and hence unreasonable to drop it on her in RFA when the dropper knew about it some time ago.
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting the nom???
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
In which case, it's reasonable to assume that she was unaware that it might be considered a problem, and hence unreasonable to drop it on her in RFA when the dropper knew about it some time ago.
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting the nom???
How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies, James?
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
In which case, it's reasonable to assume that she was unaware that it might be considered a problem, and hence unreasonable to drop it on her in RFA when the dropper knew about it some time ago.
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting the nom???
How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies, James?
Do you have any evidence that she was aware that she was using open proxies *in violation of Wikipedia policy*, Slim? If you do, please provide it.
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting the nom???
How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies, James?
Do you have any evidence that she was aware that she was using open proxies *in violation of Wikipedia policy*, Slim? If you do, please provide it.
I think the policy is fairly well known, and if it wasn't, all CW had to do was explain that when asked about it. But instead, there was no explanation at all.
This is getting a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize then stop commenting unless there's a new point:
CW could have made arrangements with the ArbCom or Jimbo before the nom to edit with open proxies if there were special circumstances. S/he didn't. S/he could have mentioned them when accepting the nom. S/he didn't. S/he could have explained on the RfA page when asked about them. S/he didn't. S/he could have e-mailed Jayjg to explain privately. So far as we know, s/he didn't. So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting the nom???
How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies, James?
Do you have any evidence that she was aware that she was using open proxies *in violation of Wikipedia policy*, Slim? If you do, please provide it.
I think the policy is fairly well known, and if it wasn't, all CW had to do was explain that when asked about it. But instead, there was no explanation at all.
This is getting a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize then stop commenting unless there's a new point:
CW could have made arrangements with the ArbCom or Jimbo before the nom to edit with open proxies if there were special circumstances. S/he didn't. S/he could have mentioned them when accepting the nom. S/he didn't. S/he could have explained on the RfA page when asked about them. S/he didn't. S/he could have e-mailed Jayjg to explain privately. So far as we know, s/he didn't. So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
I conclude from your failure to answer three calls for evidence to back up your point that you have none.
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and
people
had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an
correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before*
accepting
the nom.
How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting
the nom???
How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies,
James?
Do you have any evidence that she was aware that she was using open proxies *in violation of Wikipedia policy*, Slim? If you do, please provide it.
I think the policy is fairly well known, and if it wasn't, all CW had to do was explain that when asked about it. But instead, there was no explanation at all.
This is getting a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize then stop commenting unless there's a new point:
CW could have made arrangements with the ArbCom or Jimbo before the nom to edit with open proxies if there were special circumstances. S/he didn't. S/he could have mentioned them when accepting the nom. S/he didn't. S/he could have explained on the RfA page when asked about them. S/he didn't. S/he could have e-mailed Jayjg to explain privately. So far as we know, s/he didn't. So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
I conclude from your failure to answer three calls for evidence to back up your point that you have none.
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
How long ago did you know of her open proxy use, and why did you not bring it up before the RFA?
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
That's the name I use on Wikipedia.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went
and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
That's the name I use on Wikipedia.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went
and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
Actually, it's fairly simple. Jay.
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with
that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
That's the name I use on Wikipedia.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went
and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
Actually, it's fairly simple. Jay.
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies was against policy.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies was against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any evidence whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present much simpler ones.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any evidence whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present much simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it. That you fail to do so weighs against you.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
Because otherwise, it makes it look like you are trying to systematically reduce the number of RFAs. If you have answered it before, please kindly do so again for our benefit. Thank you. ~~~~
On 6/17/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
Because otherwise, it makes it look like you are trying to systematically reduce the number of RFAs.
Trying to "systematically reduce the number of RFAs"? Because I asked a question on one RFA out of literally hundreds per year? Frankly, I think even proponents of these absurd conspiracy theories would start to feel a little embarrassed by their farfetched nature. James Farrar, why aren't you challenging this bizarre theory with incessant repetitions of "Evidence?"
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
> Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was > against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
Because otherwise, it makes it look like you are trying to systematically reduce the number of RFAs.
Trying to "systematically reduce the number of RFAs"? Because I asked a question on one RFA out of literally hundreds per year? Frankly, I think even proponents of these absurd conspiracy theories would start to feel a little embarrassed by their farfetched nature. James Farrar, why aren't you challenging this bizarre theory with incessant repetitions of "Evidence?"
Don't forget the Gracenotes BADSITES thing. I'm not sure if there are any other examples, but I can't think of them right now. ~~~~
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
proxies
was
against policy.
Once again: Evidence?
James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
evidence
whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
much
simpler ones.
Jay:
Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor judgement.
And ignorance. It's convoluted.
If I am ignorant of the evidence, it's not for want of asking for it!
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
You have a theory now, or so it seems: that CharlotteWebb knowingly violated WP:NOP.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
Sure I am, when forming my personal opinion of your conduct.
That doesn't mean that my opinion has any bearing on anything, of course.
And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP. How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it matter?
Not in this thread, as far as I can see. Could you clarify where you answered it? A URL would be helpful.
I note that you persist in refusing to answer the first question.
It matters because I'm trying to analyse your motives in this, to understand your enforcement of NOP. Refusing to answer questions really doesn't make you look good, though of course you may not care.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.
You have a theory now, or so it seems: that CharlotteWebb knowingly violated WP:NOP.
No, I have no theory, I simply pointed out that it was a simpler theory than your own.
That you fail to do so weighs against you.
You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.
Sure I am, when forming my personal opinion of your conduct.
"Forming"? LOL!
It matters because I'm trying to analyse your motives in this, to understand your enforcement of NOP.
Rather than setting yourself up as judge and jury, apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Refusing to answer questions
really doesn't make you look good, though of course you may not care.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of responsibility.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP, then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
As for the rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my message is quite instructive.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged. And you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant to anything at all.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of responsibility.
Hmm. I think the phrase "double standard" is more appropriate.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
As for the rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my
message is quite instructive.
Only to a conspiracy theorist. See also "double standard" above.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged. And you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant to anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of responsibility.
Hmm. I think the phrase "double standard" is more appropriate.
It presumably seems that way to you because you have the higher authority of CheckUser but have not yet accepted that with authority must come responsibility.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP, then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
As for the rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my message is quite instructive.
Only to a conspiracy theorist. See also "double standard" above.
Conspiracy theorist. That's a joke.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
Strange how you view the implications "refusing to answer questions" so
differently when it comes to CharlotteWeb versus me.
I hold you to a higher standard, since you hold a higher position of responsibility.
Hmm. I think the phrase "double standard" is more appropriate.
It presumably seems that way to you because you have the higher authority of CheckUser but have not yet accepted that with authority must come responsibility.
Your false presumptions are quite in line with your double standard.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
As for the rest of your post, your snipping of certain parts of my
message is quite instructive.
Only to a conspiracy theorist. See also "double standard" above.
Conspiracy theorist. That's a joke.
A sad one.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
And did you also inform her of the violation?
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
"she knew editing from proxies was against policy."
Actually, I withdraw the word "innuendo". That is a flat accusation, still without any evidence provided.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
And did you also inform her of the violation?
You seem to keep mistaking yourself for some sort of prosecutor and judge. Of what relevance is your current line of interrogation?
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
"she knew editing from proxies was against policy."
Actually, I withdraw the word "innuendo". That is a flat accusation, still without any evidence provided.
How delightfully dishonest of you, James - you didn't even bother to include the entire sentence, much less the context. The context, of course, was that you were proposing a very convoluted explanation of CW's failure to explain why he/she was using TOR proxies. I then noted that your theory wasn't nearly as simple as some other rather obvious ones. Here's the more complete conversation:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
Actually, it's fairly simple. Jay.
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies was against policy.
The conversation is also a nice little segment because it shows yet again the lengths you will go to AGF of others, in stark contrast to your treatment of me.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
> apply the same principles you applied to CharlotteWebb, including
AGF.
Very difficult, when you won't tell me when you knew she was violating NOP, nor why you did not bring it to her attention before her RFA.
It should be easy, though; you had no trouble applying AGF when CharlotteWebb refused to answer the simple question as to why he/she was using TOR proxies, even after he/she promised to do so but then reneged.
And
you still haven't made it at all clear why your questions are relevant
to
anything at all.
There are plausible explanations for why she should not have (although you will of course dismiss them, as everything else, as "conspiracy theories"). I cannot see a plausible reason why you would not have acted on her violation of NOP as soon as you discovered it.
I did. Whenever I find an open proxy I block it.
And did you also inform her of the violation?
You seem to keep mistaking yourself for some sort of prosecutor and judge. Of what relevance is your current line of interrogation?
I'm just trying to get a straight answer to a straight question, in order to determine whether it was a fair tactic to discredit a candidate for Administrator by dropping NOP violation into an RFA.
Your refusal to say whether you did or not leads me to believe that in all probability you did not, since you know that, had you done so, it would not have been an unfair tactic. Provide me with evidence that you informed her before the RFA, and I will shut up.
If you provide evidence that CharlotteWebb has knowingly broken NOP,
then I shall view her actions accordingly; so far, all I see -- despite repeated requests for evidence -- is innuendo.
From whom?
You and SlimVirgin, principally.
What specific innuendo from me?
"she knew editing from proxies was against policy."
Actually, I withdraw the word "innuendo". That is a flat accusation, still without any evidence provided.
How delightfully dishonest of you, James - you didn't even bother to include the entire sentence, much less the context. The context, of course, was that you were proposing a very convoluted explanation of CW's failure to explain why he/she was using TOR proxies. I then noted that your theory wasn't nearly as simple as some other rather obvious ones. Here's the more complete conversation:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
That's a pretty far-fetched explanation. Occam's razor, James.
Actually, it's fairly simple. Jay.
Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from proxies was against policy.
Yes, that is you providing a theory for her explanation; that is to say, an accusation.
The conversation is also a nice little segment because it shows yet again the lengths you will go to AGF of others, in stark contrast to your treatment of me.
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to keep mistaking yourself for some sort of prosecutor and judge. Of what relevance is your current line of interrogation?
I'm just trying to get a straight answer to a straight question, in order to determine whether it was a fair tactic to discredit a candidate for Administrator by dropping NOP violation into an RFA.
Your refusal to say whether you did or not leads me to believe that in all probability you did not, since you know that, had you done so, it would not have been an unfair tactic. Provide me with evidence that you informed her before the RFA, and I will shut up.
I don't see why this should be such a difficult question to answer.
CharlotteWeb did something she shouldn't have done. At least one CheckUser noticed this.
Did they contact CW and tell him/her they were violating WP:NOP? If not, why not? And why wait until the RfA?
Michel
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that is you providing a theory for her explanation; that is to say, an accusation.
Alternative theories which are simpler than your own are just that, theories, not accusations.
The conversation is also a nice little segment because it shows yet again the lengths you will go to AGF of others, in stark contrast to your treatment of me.
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't".
Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question from me with a straight answer.
I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't".
Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question from me with a straight answer.
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions, and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't".
Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question from me with a straight answer.
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
Which straight questions from me has she not answered?
I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
I asked you for a link to that, since it wasn't answered in this thread. You didn't answer that, either.
and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge.
When did I say I was?
There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
Seriously: I *want* you to tell me that you informed her of her policy violation, and that she continued to violate policy. If you do that, *then* I will support you, and oppose her nomination. But you *haven't*; conspicuously so. If at the start of this, you had simply given me a date when you did so, then you wouldn't have been bombarded with a dozen or more unnecessary emails from me.
If my questioning is hostile, it is because your answers, such as they are, leave a great deal to be desired.
Answer the questions. Please.
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
Which straight questions from me has she not answered?
She never really answered Jay's original question of why she'd been using a TOR proxy, of course.
On 17/06/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
Which straight questions from me has she not answered?
She never really answered Jay's original question of why she'd been using a TOR proxy, of course.
True enough; however, that wasn't a question from me, as you yourself noted.
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't".
Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question from me with a straight answer.
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
Which straight questions from me has she not answered?
CW hasn't answered straight questions from me, but you have continually excused that, and come up with all sorts of farfetched reasons why she might not do so. Remember? That's the good faith you extended to CW but refused to extend to me.
I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
I asked you for a link to that, since it wasn't answered in this thread. You didn't answer that, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#TOR_proxy_users
and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge.
When did I say I was?
You didn't state it, you just took on the role.
There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
Seriously: I *want* you to tell me that you informed her of her policy violation, and that she continued to violate policy. If you do that, *then* I will support you, and oppose her nomination. But you *haven't*; conspicuously so. If at the start of this, you had simply given me a date when you did so, then you wouldn't have been bombarded with a dozen or more unnecessary emails from me.
A number of CheckUsers were aware of CW's use of TOR proxies; I don't know if any of them notified her that it was a policy violation. I did not contact her about it. By the way, I know of one other regular editor who uses TOR proxies, but in the case of that person, it is obvious to me why they do so, and the reason is understandable. However, in the case of CW, it is unclear why he/she uses proxies, which is why I asked.
It seems clear that CW was aware it was a policy, at least when CW voted on the ArmedBlowfish RFA, which was exactly about editing using TOR proxies.
If my questioning is hostile, it is because your answers, such as they are, leave a great deal to be desired.
The entire tone of your e-mails have been hostile from the start, and have shown a rather absurd double standard which you have yet to acknowledge. Think about that.
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't".
Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question from me with a straight answer.
As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
Which straight questions from me has she not answered?
CW hasn't answered straight questions from me, but you have continually excused that, and come up with all sorts of farfetched reasons why she might not do so. Remember? That's the good faith you extended to CW but refused to extend to me.
If you had simply answered two straight questions from me, then I would consider the implications of CW's failure to answer a straight question of yours.
I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
I asked you for a link to that, since it wasn't answered in this thread. You didn't answer that, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#TOR_proxy_users
That doesn't answer the question; you refer to the public naming of Tor users, whereas I was asking about the private communication with them.
A number of CheckUsers were aware of CW's use of TOR proxies; I don't know if any of them notified her that it was a policy violation. I did not contact her about it.
Ah, at last. Thank you.
So presumably you only consider it a problem that Admins/candidates follow (this particular) policy, not that ordinary users do?
The entire tone of your e-mails have been hostile from the start, and have shown a rather absurd double standard which you have yet to acknowledge.
False. I have already explained why I hold you, as a CU, to a higher standard than "ordinary" editors - you have additional powers and, hence, additional responsibilities.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions, and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
You never answer direct questions, Jay, as it would put you on the hook. ;) But that is how you win the game so well...
Do YOU use TOR or open proxies on Wikipedia? Have YOU ever? Let's get to the point. Do the same standards and policies apply to you as Charlotte? Are you willing to have it disclosed if you are?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/17/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions, and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident from the very start.
You never answer direct questions, Jay, as it would put you on the hook. ;) But that is how you win the game so well...
Joe, I don't take your questions seriously because you are a banned troll who has done nothing on wikien-l but rant about conspiracies and attack and threaten me (among others) - that is, when you're not doing the same on WR.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it.
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it.
Huh? Is this some sort of Zen koan?
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it.
Huh? Is this some sort of Zen koan?
When a salesman says "Trust me," do you trust him?
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it.
Huh? Is this some sort of Zen koan?
When a salesman says "Trust me," do you trust him?
Another Zen koan?
On 0, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com scribbled:
On 6/18/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that it now "shouldn't". That, again, is where the "double standard" comes in.
If you have to demand good faith for yourself, then you don't get it.
Huh? Is this some sort of Zen koan?
If it is, you can add it to [[WP:ZEN]]. :)
-- gwern mjtf hrt srt hostages munitions weapons TNT rdx amfo hmtd picric acid silver
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
You fire a torpedo, you're likely to get a few ashcans dumped on your head, even if the ship is dead in the water.
If civility was an issue, that would show up anyway. Bringing this up with no prior warning was severely below the belt, and the originating CU and everyone backing his tactics should be ashamed of themselves. All that this will achieve, as I mentioned in the RFA, is to reduce, yet again, the number of users willing to go through the nightmare that is RFA. Was that the plan?
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
If his/her "instinctive thing" when asked a question by a fellow admin is to "shoot back," s/he ought not be an admin. Whichever way you look at it, the response was not good, and quite a few people opposed on that basis alone.
You fire a torpedo, you're likely to get a few ashcans dumped on your head, even if the ship is dead in the water.
If civility was an issue, that would show up anyway. Bringing this up with no prior warning was severely below the belt, and the originating CU and everyone backing his tactics should be ashamed of themselves. All that this will achieve, as I mentioned in the RFA, is to reduce, yet again, the number of users willing to go through the nightmare that is RFA. Was that the plan?
Is there no end to these bizarre conspiracy theories? There is no lack of candidates for what you term "the nightmare of RFA", but which is for most, in fact, a cake-walk. Currently there are 12 candidates, nine of which look likely to succeed, and this is a typical week in that respect. The process produces at least one new admin/day, and most pass with well over 80% support.
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
How long ago did you know of her open proxy use, and why did you not bring it up before the RFA?
This last question is important. I urge jayjg to answer it.
On 6/16/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
How long ago did you know of her open proxy use, and why did you not bring it up before the RFA?
This last question is important. I urge jayjg to answer it.
Why is it important?
On one level I'm not that interested in getting into the whole proxy thing. As far as I, an ordinary editor, is concerned, there's no difference between an admin using one and an admin not using one. There may be for someone else, but for me that are both people who are fairly immune to discipline.
What strikes me the most, hoever, is how this fits into an incresing effort by current admins to apply litmus tests against candidates. This is politics, especially seeing as how the group doing the testing is certainly a single party.
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
What strikes me the most, hoever, is how this fits into an incresing effort by current admins to apply litmus tests against candidates.
There have always been "litmus tests" applied to candidates, typically revolving around how many edits they've made, how much vandal reverting they do, etc. There are also some standard questions that are now asked, as another litmus test.
This is politics, especially seeing as how the group doing the testing
is certainly a single party.
Which group is doing what testing where? And where is that party, and do they have good music and cold drinks?
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
What strikes me the most, hoever, is how this fits into an incresing effort by current admins to apply litmus tests against candidates.
There have always been "litmus tests" applied to candidates, typically revolving around how many edits they've made, how much vandal reverting they do, etc. There are also some standard questions that are now asked, as another litmus test.
Vandal fighting is only one thing that admins can do. Some people would want to be admins for completely different reasons. Demanding vandal fighting experience only helps to guarantee that combative people will get the privilege.
Ec
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
What strikes me the most, hoever, is how this fits into an incresing effort by current admins to apply litmus tests against candidates.
There have always been "litmus tests" applied to candidates, typically revolving around how many edits they've made, how much vandal reverting
they
do, etc. There are also some standard questions that are now asked, as another litmus test.
Vandal fighting is only one thing that admins can do. Some people would want to be admins for completely different reasons. Demanding vandal fighting experience only helps to guarantee that combative people will get the privilege.
Yes, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? People apply various litmus tests to admin candidates, including vandal fighting. I happen to think that's a bad test, but others disagree.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe wrote:
What strikes me the most, hoever, is how this fits into an incresing effort by current admins to apply litmus tests against candidates.
There have always been "litmus tests" applied to candidates, typically revolving around how many edits they've made, how much vandal reverting they
do, etc. There are also some standard questions that are now asked, as another litmus test.
Vandal fighting is only one thing that admins can do. Some people would want to be admins for completely different reasons. Demanding vandal fighting experience only helps to guarantee that combative people will get the privilege.
Yes, but what exactly does that have to do with anything? People apply various litmus tests to admin candidates, including vandal fighting. I happen to think that's a bad test, but others disagree.
I'm glad to read that we agree on something.
Well, if we are going to apply litmus tests, we can certainly expect admins to forego editing and blocking in the same subject areas.
On 6/17/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if we are going to apply litmus tests, we can certainly expect admins to forego editing and blocking in the same subject areas.
No, actually, we can't because "subject area" is astonishingly broad, and this is not a standard any admin has ever been expected to adhere to. "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute." Period. That's policy.
On 18/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if we are going to apply litmus tests, we can certainly expect admins to forego editing and blocking in the same subject areas.
Same page? Sure. Same parties as a dispute you're having elsewhere? Sure.
...same topic? I can see this proving problematic unless we define it to an ungameable extent.
"Abuse! Abuse! He blocked me and yet he edits science pages himself all the time!"
On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if we are going to apply litmus tests, we can certainly expect admins to forego editing and blocking in the same subject areas.
Same page? Sure. Same parties as a dispute you're having elsewhere? Sure.
...same topic? I can see this proving problematic unless we define it to an ungameable extent.
"Abuse! Abuse! He blocked me and yet he edits science pages himself all the time!"
I'm not thinking about this in terms of wikilaws per se. But if we want to talk about gaming, it's obvious under the present regime that an admin with an interest in a controversial subject has a substantial advantage in making sure that those with opposing views are severely hampered by unopposable reversions, blocks, and bans. It's easy to put those opponents in the position of having to act out or just give up, especially where there is a group of admins with shared interests. Even when they are on the right side of the issue (no irony intended there) it creates a bad impression. When the controversy is less clearly right and wrong, it sets off battles like this one.
This particular dispute fits into the "admins as overall editors" issue, which it seems to me is disrupting the "anyone can edit" mission in a big way. If that mission needs to be refined, it needs to be addressed directly, instead of being picked at in a series of maybe/maybe-not lesser policy disputes. What it looks like to me now is that we're being driven into a POV capture by admins (and projects too) that is establishing Wikipedia as having definite political and social views to express.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/16/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 17/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that,
is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.
Jay (I'll have to assume that's your first name),
Probably because as soon as you fired the torpedo at her RFA, she went and looked it up and realised it was against policy. So she naturally did the instinctive thing when under attack, which is to shoot back.
How long ago did you know of her open proxy use, and why did you not bring it up before the RFA?
This last question is important. I urge jayjg to answer it.
Why is it important?
Because you are in a position of enhanced authority, you are therefore in a position of enhanced responsibility and accountability.
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
Regardless of the merits of the RFA in question, your use of Checkuser has been brought into question. Since you seem quite reluctant to answer the specific question, let's make it general:
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
-Rich
On 6/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
I have no idea what the policy or practice is; it has certainly never been written up.
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
It depends entirely upon the situation. If they're obvious vandals or the like, then I block them as well as blocking the proxy.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
I have no idea what the policy or practice is; it has certainly never been written up.
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
It depends entirely upon the situation. If they're obvious vandals or the like, then I block them as well as blocking the proxy.
So, you trust non-problematic users to use open proxies, but not admins to? (This is a valid stance; I'm just trying to clarify.) ~~~~
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
I have no idea what the policy or practice is; it has certainly never been written up.
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
It depends entirely upon the situation. If they're obvious vandals or the like, then I block them as well as blocking the proxy.
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here: Your judgment that led you to publicly reveal the use of TOR by a user in good standing (evidently, since you say that you never took any steps with CW beyond blocking the OP) at the time it would have the worst possible effect on that user in good standing.
Against policy? Probably not. Good judgment on your part. Absolutely not.
I honestly think that you should consider resigning your CU status. Accept responsibility for your own actions. At the very minimum, you should admit an error in judgment.
-Rich
On 6/18/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The underlying question here is, if someone with checkuser repeatedly sees the same user editing from open proxies, is there any responsibility for the checkuser to notify the user that they are in violation of policy? Or is it acceptable to simply block the proxy and allow the user to continue? And for how long? At what point should seeing a user repeatedly violating policy provoke a response from someone with checkuser status?
I have no idea what the policy or practice is; it has certainly never been written up.
If you see via the Checkuser facility that someone is repeatedly violating NOP, do you *ever* do anything more than block the proxy? If so, what? and when?
It depends entirely upon the situation. If they're obvious vandals or the like, then I block them as well as blocking the proxy.
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here:
You have made a logical error; just because you have questioned my judgement, it doesn't mean my judgement is in question.
Against policy? Probably not. Good judgment on your part. Absolutely not.
In your opinion.
I honestly think that you should consider resigning your CU status. Accept responsibility for your own actions. At the very minimum, you should admit an error in judgment.
That's great Rich. You know what? Some people feel the exact opposite. And some people feel that the entire atmosphere on this subject has been poisoned by some WR trolls. It's nice that the wikien-l list can accommodate such a wide spectrum of views.
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here:
You have made a logical error; just because you have questioned my judgement, it doesn't mean my judgement is in question.
With the best will in the world, I concur with him. Dropping it into the RFA was really not a very good way of going about it; there are more tactful ways of doing things that *don't* immediately spark a polarised, angry, lengthy debate, and make both sides look foolish.
But, no, we got Drama instead. Well, that was a productive use of the past couple of days for all concerned.
I honestly think that you should consider resigning your CU status. Accept responsibility for your own actions. At the very minimum, you should admit an error in judgment.
That's great Rich. You know what? Some people feel the exact opposite. And some people feel that the entire atmosphere on this subject has been poisoned by some WR trolls. It's nice that the wikien-l list can accommodate such a wide spectrum of views.
Way to go. Anyone who doesn't feel you did the right thing is now, we are assured, Doing The Work Of The Evil That May Not Be Named. Please.
And you wonder why people get twitchy?
On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here:
You have made a logical error; just because you have questioned my judgement, it doesn't mean my judgement is in question.
With the best will in the world, I concur with him. Dropping it into the RFA was really not a very good way of going about it; there are more tactful ways of doing things that *don't* immediately spark a polarised, angry, lengthy debate, and make both sides look foolish.
But, no, we got Drama instead. Well, that was a productive use of the past couple of days for all concerned.
I agree. Jay has asked before why Charlotte didn't explain her actions privately. But the flip-side of this is the question of why didn't Jay point out the alleged policy violations privately?
If you really think the encyclopedia is harmed by someone's actions, making a mental note of those actions and then only mentioning them when the person runs for adminship does not seem at all like the proper thing to do.
Of course, the notion that the encyclopedia is harmed by Charlotte's use of proxies is silly in itself. As was mentioned previously, there are admins who have edited Wikipedia using open proxies, and at least one board member who has done so on occasion.
On 6/18/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, you use your judgment to make these decisions. That's valid and expected. CU status is given to those we assume to have good judgment on these sort of issues.
But it is exactly your judgment that is in question here:
You have made a logical error; just because you have questioned my judgement, it doesn't mean my judgement is in question.
With the best will in the world, I concur with him. Dropping it into the RFA was really not a very good way of going about it; there are more tactful ways of doing things that *don't* immediately spark a polarised, angry, lengthy debate, and make both sides look foolish.
But, no, we got Drama instead. Well, that was a productive use of the past couple of days for all concerned.
I honestly think that you should consider resigning your CU status. Accept responsibility for your own actions. At the very minimum, you should admit an error in judgment.
That's great Rich. You know what? Some people feel the exact opposite. And some people feel that the entire atmosphere on this subject has been poisoned by some WR trolls. It's nice that the wikien-l list can accommodate such a wide spectrum of views.
Way to go. Anyone who doesn't feel you did the right thing is now, we are assured, Doing The Work Of The Evil That May Not Be Named. Please.
And you wonder why people get twitchy?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
What are "WR" trolls by the way? What is "WR?"
KP
On 6/18/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
K P schreef:
What are "WR" trolls by the way? What is "WR?"
Answering that question would be against policy. Sorry.
Eugene
Ah, but mentioning WR isn't. Got it.
KP
Just google Wikipedia Review. It will show up. :), basically the site has been used to launch some attacks at wikipedia members. Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
K P schreef:
What are "WR" trolls by theTeh way? What is "WR?"
Answering that question would be against policy. Sorry.
Eugene
Ah, but mentioning WR isn't. Got it.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/18/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
Just google Wikipedia Review. It will show up. :), basically the site has been used to launch some attacks at wikipedia members. Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
K P schreef:
What are "WR" trolls by theTeh way? What is "WR?"
Answering that question would be against policy. Sorry.
Eugene
Ah, but mentioning WR isn't. Got it.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, I looked at it when someone first mentioned it. It's not a paritcularly compelling site.
KP
On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
That's great Rich. You know what? Some people feel the exact opposite. And some people feel that the entire atmosphere on this subject has been poisoned by some WR trolls. It's nice that the wikien-l list can accommodate such a wide spectrum of views.
The source of distress is the evident campaign to make sure that the administrator community-- or at least the end of it involved in policy and its enforcement-- DOESN'T reflect such a spectrum of views. It's not just your favorite whipping boys at work (though I see you have sent them a new recruit).
The open proxy issue makes me uncomfortable, as it fies in the face of the emphasis of anonymity. You're taking the position that you and other admins can be trusted on this; but leaving aside my personal dislike for you, it isn't unreasonable for someone to take an extremely hard line on this. That's particularly so when the image of the admins is not the monolithic clique/cabal/whatever organization, but a bunch of not all that organized indepdent agents. The same mistrust about admins being able to get past sockpuppet checks applies far more strongly to admin powers being applied to other editors.
You may call what I wrote a Zen koan, but your reaction to it indicates to me that you have not acheived enlightenment.
jayjg wrote:
I honestly think that you should consider resigning your CU status. Accept responsibility for your own actions. At the very minimum, you should admit an error in judgment.
That's great Rich. You know what? Some people feel the exact opposite. And some people feel that the entire atmosphere on this subject has been poisoned by some WR trolls. It's nice that the wikien-l list can accommodate such a wide spectrum of views.
I may have visited WR once or twice, but only long enough to figure out that it didn't interest me. It is offensive for you to associate those of us who express our honest opinions with "WR trolls". There may very well be such people present, but if I am foolish enough to confront you rest assured that I am also foolish enough to confront WR trolls.
Ec
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
Actually, it's a question of whether Jay publically dropping an atom bomb with this information on the RFA is a violation of the trust mistakenly given him by the community. It's no accident that half the CheckUser rumors and allegations of abuse swirl about Jay. But you defend him--just like, how did you know that Kelly Martin had checkusered YOU that time? Unless someone told you info on who ran what Checkuser, but you aren't supposed to have checkuser info like that, are you, Sarah? Or if no one told you, how did Kelly happen to get reported to the Ombudsman, for checks that supposedly are a dime a dozen?
The real issue here isn't proxies. Ban them all quietly as found, and then done deal. Dropping this on an RFA to sink it is WRONG. If proxies on admins are such a big pet issue with you, Sarah, why not have compulsory checkusers on ALL standing admins? If one is using open proxies, let's tell the whole community. Like Jay himself did to poor Charlotte. If they are--they lose their bits. Immediately. That includes admins, b'cats, stewards, anyone. Would that be acceptable? If not, why not? I would like to see whether you stand by what you have been advocating.
If we're going to humiliate people on the premise of zero tolerance, let's hold admins already in place to the same standards.
Would you yourself, Slim--and Jay, too--agree to an immediate CheckUsering, and if you are using proxies or alternate accounts, they are disclosed, and if you used proxies, you lose your bits (all of them)?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
Actually, it's a question of whether Jay publically dropping an atom bomb with this information on the RFA is a violation of the trust mistakenly given him by the community. It's no accident that half the CheckUser rumors and allegations of abuse swirl about Jay. But you defend him--just like, how did you know that Kelly Martin had checkusered YOU that time?
The person who told me gave me permission to name him/her, and it wasn't Jay. I won't repeat the name here because I don't want to get into it, but it was known at the time. Don't jump to conclusions, Joe.
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The person who told me gave me permission to name him/her, and it wasn't Jay. I won't repeat the name here because I don't want to get into it, but it was known at the time. Don't jump to conclusions, Joe.
My apologies, Sarah; I'll drop that topic completely. However, are you willing to follow your point that you've been making to it's logical conclusion? NO admin is to use proxies. You didn't reply to my second question. I'll repost it for you and everyone in condensed form.
If proxy usage by admins is wrong--and I agree, I really do--why not check every single admin or higher account for them? If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of extra-special access, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. If not, why not?
Will you and Jay agree to immediate CheckUsering, and if you are using proxies or extra accounts that are outside of acceptable sock usage, you lose all bits immediately?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, Sarah; I'll drop that topic completely. However, are you willing to follow your point that you've been making to it's logical conclusion? NO admin is to use proxies. You didn't reply to my second question. I'll repost it for you and everyone in condensed form.
I personally would not want to see any admins editing from open proxies. Admins can currently use the IP-block exemption thing to get round the blocks of open proxies, and I also think that should be removed.
If proxy usage by admins is wrong--and I agree, I really do--why not check every single admin or higher account for them?
I wouldn't be opposed to that.
If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of extra-special access, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. If not, why not?
Will you and Jay agree to immediate CheckUsering, and if you are using proxies or extra accounts that are outside of acceptable sock usage, you lose all bits immediately?
As I said, I wouldn't be opposed to all admins being checked, or being checked at random, but there's currently no consensus for it.
I see the "it's no big deal" school of thought as underestimating the amount of damage admins can do -- e.g. undeleting material that needs to stay deleted, copying and posting it elsewhere (as with Wikitruth), unblocking abusive users, starting rows on AN/I, and so on. So I'm all for more admin accountability. I also think we should stop promoting people who've done nothing but make minor edits, because it's way too easy to build up an admin account that way. But this is currently a minority position.
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
So it's a question of poor judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
Actually, it's a question of whether Jay publically dropping an atom bomb with this information on the RFA is a violation of the trust mistakenly given him by the community. It's no accident that half the CheckUser rumors and allegations of abuse swirl about Jay. But you defend him--just like, how did you know that Kelly Martin had checkusered YOU that time? Unless someone told you info on who ran what Checkuser, but you aren't supposed to have checkuser info like that, are you, Sarah? Or if no one told you, how did Kelly happen to get reported to the Ombudsman, for checks that supposedly are a dime a dozen?
Frankly, Joe, the reason for these rumors is that banned editors like you like to spread them, particularly in that cesspool of paranoia and illogic you currently frequent, when you're not spewing them all over Wikien-l threads. Again, what exactly was the political goal I had in mind in raising this issue? Please be very specific.
Slim Virgin wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now. [[Robert Bork]] lost it over "adult" video rentals, although the Senate realized in hindsight that this was too powerful a weapon and hastily passed a special law making video rental information private. [[Zoe Baird]] lost it over an unpaid nanny, and now we all have to fill out a few new questions on our tax forms about any household helpers we've employed.
Steve Summit wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
If you're going to go there the Scooter Libby situation could be more analogous.
Ec
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
If you're going to go there the Scooter Libby situation could be more analogous.
A convicted felon? This rhetoric is becoming increasingly absurd.
jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
If you're going to go there the Scooter Libby situation could be more analogous.
A convicted felon? This rhetoric is becoming increasingly absurd.
It's only an analogy , which in some ways may fit better than what Steve was suggesting. Remember too that Libby was not convicted for outing the CIA agent, but something completely different. Carrying the analogy a little further: spying may be viewed asbeing as much against the rules as editing through an open proxy.
Ec
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
Since when did CharlotteWebb become part of "the other party", and what is the platform of the "stonewalling party"?
jayjg wrote:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
Since when did CharlotteWebb become part of "the other party", and what is the platform of the "stonewalling party"?
It wasn't an exact analogy; I was just musing.
But if pressed: the "other party" is anyone who runs for RfA, and the "stonewalling party" is that group of RfA regulars who (AIUI) keep inventing new litmus tests and hoops to jump through. (Their platform would be, "keep raising the bar".)
FWIW, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being a stonewaller, or even an RfA regular. (I don't follow RfA; I don't know who the players are.) But, whatever your motives were or weren't, it's a safe bet that "Do you now or have you ever used an open proxy?" is going to be a new stock question going forward.
On 6/17/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
Since when did CharlotteWebb become part of "the other party", and what is the platform of the "stonewalling party"?
It wasn't an exact analogy; I was just musing.
But if pressed: the "other party" is anyone who runs for RfA, and the "stonewalling party" is that group of RfA regulars who (AIUI) keep inventing new litmus tests and hoops to jump through. (Their platform would be, "keep raising the bar".)
FWIW, I wasn't trying to accuse you of being a stonewaller, or even an RfA regular. (I don't follow RfA; I don't know who the players are.)
For the record, while I am not a RFA "regular", I have certainly voted in many dozens of RFAs over the 3 years I have been on Wikipedia. And also, for the record, I almost always Support adminship candidates; I probably Support over 90% of the candidacies on which I have commented.
But, whatever your motives were or weren't, it's a safe bet that "Do you now or have you ever used an open proxy?" is going to be a new stock question going forward.
Anything is possible, but I think that's unlikely.
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
Why is the policy that way? Is it perhaps because it's OK to use a proxy as long as you are doing so for a legitimate purpose?
This is the part of what you're saying that doesn't make sense. If it's such a terrible thing to use an open proxy to edit Wikipedia, then why not block the people who actually do so?
For example... [[Wikipedia:Libel]] says that libel should be removed from Wikipedia. It doesn't say that the person adding the libel should be blocked. Would you take this to mean that someone can't be blocked for adding libel to the encyclopedia?
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many
people
are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb
was
first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as
you
claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked
for
using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
Why is the policy that way? Is it perhaps because it's OK to use a proxy as long as you are doing so for a legitimate purpose?
Except that policy actually says the opposite.
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
By the way, while we're mentioning things that aren't in the policy, the policy does not allow for declining of the RFA request of accounts that use the proxies either.
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many
people
are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb
was
first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as
you
claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked
for
using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
By the way, while we're mentioning things that aren't in the policy, the policy does not allow for declining of the RFA request of accounts that use the proxies either.
"Policy doesn't allow" for that? Can you quote the sections of policy you are thinking of?
On 6/16/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many
people
are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb
was
first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as
you
claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked
for
using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
By the way, while we're mentioning things that aren't in the policy, the policy does not allow for declining of the RFA request of accounts that use the proxies either.
"Policy doesn't allow" for that? Can you quote the sections of policy you are thinking of?
I am using the phrase "policy doesn't allow" in the same way as Sarah. Policy does not explicitly allow or deny such a thing.
If I'm mistaken in what Sarah is saying, then can someone quote the sections of the OP policy which specifically disallow blocking of users who blatantly "violate it"?
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
It's kind of odd to attack someone for asking, during your RfA, why you're violating policy every single time you make an edit, yet want to be in a position where you can block others for policy violations. It's hypocrisy. If you want to change policy, argue for that change openly and honestly; don't sneak around in the night.
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others. OTOH, it is hypocrisy to pretend that you believe in a rule but let people get away with breaking it without trying to do anything about it.
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
It's kind of odd to attack someone for asking, during your RfA, why you're violating policy every single time you make an edit, yet want to be in a position where you can block others for policy violations. It's hypocrisy. If you want to change policy, argue for that change openly and honestly; don't sneak around in the night.
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
OTOH, it is hypocrisy to pretend that you believe in a rule but let people get away with breaking it without trying to do anything about it.
The policy says users shouldn't edit from open proxies. It doesn't say they can be blocked, only that the IPs can. So far as we know, in this case the IPs were blocked, but the user kept on finding others. Therefore, there was nothing that could be done. However, when that person stood for adminship and didn't reveal it, it became something that people commenting had a right to know about.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
Did Charlotte say that one of her priorities, if approved as an admin, was going to be vigorous enforcement of WP:NOP? I must have missed that.
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
Did Charlotte say that one of her priorities, if approved as an admin, was going to be vigorous enforcement of WP:NOP? I must have missed that.
Admins are meant to uphold policies. Therefore, we shouldn't go around violating them deliberately and sneakily. If people want to change policy, go for it. All I'm arguing for here is honesty.
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
Did Charlotte say that one of her priorities, if approved as an admin, was going to be vigorous enforcement of WP:NOP? I must have missed that.
Admins are meant to uphold policies. Therefore, we shouldn't go around violating them deliberately and sneakily. I
Evidence?
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
Did Charlotte say that one of her priorities, if approved as an admin, was going to be vigorous enforcement of WP:NOP? I must have missed that.
Admins are meant to uphold policies. Therefore, we shouldn't go around violating them deliberately and sneakily.
"Ignore all rules" means that you are not required to learn the rules before editing. "Ignore all rules" means that one shouldn't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, one should consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged. "Ignore all rules" means that everything is considered on a case-by-case basis. "Ignore all rules" means that guidelines derive their power to compel, not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline", but from the consensus support that they enjoy. A consensus for a general rule is assumed to apply to a specific case, until it is clear that the consensus does not apply to the specific case. Wikipedia guidelines are not suicide pacts "Ignore all rules" means that Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is neither moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. "Ignore all rules" means that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tend to be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, and that they sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy)
If people want to change policy, go for it. All I'm arguing for here is honesty.
The policy itself is what is not honest, because there seems to be no intention whatsoever of enforcing it upon individuals who are not otherwise doing something wrong.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
It's kind of odd to attack someone for asking, during your RfA, why you're violating policy every single time you make an edit, yet want to be in a position where you can block others for policy violations. It's hypocrisy. If you want to change policy, argue for that change openly and honestly; don't sneak around in the night.
Speaking of "sneaking around in the night", I'm having a hard time finding if there was any kind of vote to adopt this "policy"
Ec
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that it was announced (not discovered) at the single most inconvenient time -- you surely can't be claiming that as a coincidence, can you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_tar#The_Pine_Tar_Incident
George Brett should run for admin.
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
An admin who is doing nothing wrong wound have nothing to hide from the Foundation. If they're editing from a situation however, where they shouldn't be--say, work conflict of interest, personal risk, extreme concerns for privacy--they they perhaps shouldn't be admins.
It's one thing to show your ID to "the foundation", and quite another to give it to all of the members of the foundation who have access to these logs. The very fact that someone obtained and then revealed this information about CW without permission is enough of a reason to be concerned about one's privacy, in my opinion.
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin candidate (or anyone else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
Well, in this case they were "found out" long ago, which suggests to me that the person who "found out" didn't consider this to be a policy worthy of enforcement.
FWIW, I don't think editing using a proxy *is* against policy.
Yes, it is. See [[WP:PROXY]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PROXY
Fair enough.
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's one thing to say that we should block Tor, particularly not having admins coming in that way. I don't disagree with that statement.
Using that to torpedo someone's RFA is a very different thing. Prior use of Tor does not an abuser make.
All any admin candidate has to do is either make prior arrangements (e.g. disclose his IP/location to the ArbCom, explain the special circumstances), or answer any question that arises during the RfA, even if only by e-mail. The latest candidate did neither.
If people edit in violation of policies, they have to anticipate getting found out, and they can't insist it be done at their convenience.
We clearly don't have a policy of blocking everyone who's found to have arrived at Wikipedia via a Tor IP at some point.
The IPs are blocked.
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
As I said earlier, that provides no security because anyone could fax a copy of a friend's ID instead. The only thing that tends to pin someone down is their IP address. There are ways around that, to be sure, for the technically savvy. But most people aren't.
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We clearly don't have a policy of blocking everyone who's found to have arrived at Wikipedia via a Tor IP at some point.
The IPs are blocked.
So are AOL IPs. Is there also a policy of blocking anyone who has ever used AOL?
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
As I said earlier, that provides no security because anyone could fax a copy of a friend's ID instead. The only thing that tends to pin someone down is their IP address. There are ways around that, to be sure, for the technically savvy. But most people aren't.
Wouldn't you put someone using TOR to hide their IPs into the technically savvy group, though?
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We clearly don't have a policy of blocking everyone who's found to have arrived at Wikipedia via a Tor IP at some point.
The IPs are blocked.
So are AOL IPs. Is there also a policy of blocking anyone who has ever used AOL?
It's not quite the same thing. It's usually possible to work out a person's location from AOL, and even when it isn't, people in the same location tend to use the same range, and that helps to pin things down. With open proxies, the IPs could resolve to anywhere in the world.
If being able to identify admins is that important, we should consider if the OTRS show-the-foundation-your-ID should be extended to normal admins.
As I said earlier, that provides no security because anyone could fax a copy of a friend's ID instead. The only thing that tends to pin someone down is their IP address. There are ways around that, to be sure, for the technically savvy. But most people aren't.
Wouldn't you put someone using TOR to hide their IPs into the technically savvy group, though?
Not necessarily, no. I don't know how widespread knowledge of Tor is.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/16/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew more about it. But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.
There's a lot of unclear thinking about this issue. The people raising a lot of the objections to Tor being banned are the same ones who regularly complain about admin abuse, but suddenly they don't care about electing an admin who wants to make sure that no one -- including the Foundation -- is able to find out anything about them. Why would an admin want to hide their identity even from the Foundation?
I suppose that if the Foundation has the need to know this about any particular user (including admins) the starting place would be to simply ask. Apart from that there appears to be very little need for such information to be known. The onus is upon those seeking that information to show a need. It doesn't surprise me that those who regularly complain about admin abuse would be the ones objecting in this issue; I guess it also correlates with perceptiveness. Those who by innuendo suggest that any proxy user necessarily does so to harm the project are indeed guilty of unclear thinking.
You have to ask yourself whether you care if (a) one person is running four admin accounts that are being used to back each other up;
Did CW do this?
(b) that person manages to get one or more of them elected to ArbCom;
Did CW do this?
(c) that person is copying deleted material and posting it on other websites;
Did CW do this?
(d) that person gets access to checkuser and oversight, meaning they can see where other editors are posting from, and can read even the most sensitive deleted material.
I thought that CW was only seeking to be an admin. When did checkuser and oversight become tools that are available to all admins?
If you don't care about any of the above, by all means allow admins to use open proxies. All they currently have to do is fax a copy of their drivers license to the Foundation if elected to ArbCom and given access to check user,
I'm sure that if CW wants these privileges she will take that into account.
but it's a trivial matter to fax a friend's ID instead, so that's no security at all.
Do you have any statistics to show how many people have done this?
The one solid thing the Foundation has is the ability to at least see where an admin is posting from, and their ISP, and in the event of serious abuse, it can act on the basis of that information.
What kind of abuse are you talking about? An admin who abuses that privilege can be desysopped. What more is needed? Similarly a person whos abuses checkuser privileges by improperly revealing information should have that privilege withdrawn. The higher the privileges a person has, the more serious a breach of those privileges. Failing to act when a high profile person has done so only diminishes the respect for that position.
Without that, for all we know, we could have 100 admins with 1200 accounts administering this website. The only question that matters here is: do you care about that?
I would care about it if there was a reasonable apprehension that it was happening. Are you seriously suggesting that we are anywhere near to having only 100 admins doing all this? Or even only 1000? Who even has the time to maintain so many accounts? Do you honestly think that such a state of things could happen without being noticed? Please avoid substituting your paranoia for facts.
Ec