We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:59 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Question for Jay and Slim: Checking EXISTING admins for open proxy use
Jay, I will answer your other direct questions tomorrow from the other email. I'm short on time tonight.
- If proxy usage by admins is "extra" wrong as you contend — and I agree, I
really do — shall we check every single existing admin or higher account for them, to see if anyone is breaking this cardinal rule that is already in power? Yes or no? If no, why not?
- If one is using proxies, immediate revocation of all extra-special access
for violating Foundation policy, admin or higher. Admin. B'cat. Checkuser. Steward. Clearly, as indicated by Slim and Jay on Charlotte's RFA, such peoople have *NO* business with the tools. Yes or no? If no, why not?
- Will both of you agree to immediate CheckUsering, reviewed by multiple
other checkusers/Foundation staff, and if you are found to be using proxies, this is disclosed on-Wiki? Yes or no. If no, why not?
Given the nasty ruckus you initiated--and I was only one of the first to draw attention to it; others were already after your actions on-Wiki--this demands clear non-evasive answers from both of you to all three very easy and clear questions. I am assuming you will both answer in Good Faith, as you both on-Wiki stand by the No Open Proxies ideal very firmly. I support this policy as well.
Will you stand by your convictions? Failing to answer is an option, but it would cast a serious pall if you were unwilling to obey and endorse the same rules, policies, and end results you have wrought on others.
Others may feel free to answer, or offer to be checked if they are admins, of course.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ 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 6/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior.
Fred, is enforcing policy with the EXACT same standards to ALL members harassment? Why would we enforce to one degree vs. CharlotteWeb, a valued member of the community, but to a lesser degree vs. Jayjg or Slim Virgin.
If you yourself were violating a policy, for example, you need to suffer the same consequences as another would. Be it No Open Proxies, NPA, etc. Or are you endorsing the idea that some users are more special than others?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 17/06/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior.
Confirming that someone isn't breaking the rules isn't harassment - it doesn't affect the user at all (unless they actually are breaking the rules, in which case them being a valued contributor isn't a good excuse).
You seem to be proposing some kind of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" policy in order to avoid having to do something about valued contributors who violate policy.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Confirming that someone isn't breaking the rules isn't harassment - it doesn't affect the user at all (unless they actually are breaking the rules, in which case them being a valued contributor isn't a good excuse).
Well, it's more complicated than that, of course. If in real life the police came down the street each night, knocking on each door to see that (say) there was nobody smoking a joint inside, I think we'd hear some complaints.
If we don't need to check all existing admins to see if they're using open proxies (as I'm inclined to think we don't), then this indicates that violation of NOP is not such a mortal sin, after all, meaning it maybe shouldn't be held against CharlotteWebb as strongly as it's being held against her at RfA. (But of course it's too late to do anything about that now...)
On 6/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior.
Confirming that someone isn't breaking the rules isn't harassment - it doesn't affect the user at all (unless they actually are breaking the rules, in which case them being a valued contributor isn't a good excuse).
That happens by way of CheckUser though, and there wouldn't be grounds to run CheckUsers on all admin accounts. Don't forget that whatever you think of the disclosure, CharlotteWebb's use of Tor was discovered incidentally when the username kept appearing in checks of other accounts who turned out to be using Tor.
I for one wouldn't mind anyone CheckUsering me to check for open proxy use, but I doubt you'll get everyone to agree.
On 6/17/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Confirming that someone isn't breaking the rules isn't harassment - it doesn't affect the user at all (unless they actually are breaking the rules, in which case them being a valued contributor isn't a good excuse).
That happens by way of CheckUser though, and there wouldn't be grounds to run CheckUsers on all admin accounts.
Actually, there wouldn't be a need to run CheckUser on any user accounts. You could just run CheckUser on the open proxy IP addresses, and block and/or deadmin anyone whose name shows up (maybe give them a warning the first time, since the policy is certainly non-obvious).
Fred Bader wrote:
We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors.
Not to join in the call for all existing admins to sign a new loyalty oath, but of course the issue here is that, by one interpretation, the whipping out of the question about TOR proxies, at the least opportune moment, was itself a form of harassment against a valued contributor.
Fred Bauder wrote:
We do not engage, as an organization, in the harassment of valued contributors. Thus whether administrators are using open proxies is not an appropriate subject for investigation. In addition, the focus of attention on Jayjg and Slim Virgin is wholly inappropriate. If they have overstepped with respect to this issue, they can be depended on to adjust their behavior.
In all fairness Slim has vocally supported Jayjg in this issue, but it has not been her action that has been brought into question. I strongly disagree with her opinions in the matter, but she is entitled to them without fear of disciplinary action. She should take the discussion quietly under advisement, and let it guide her future actions. She does not need to announce that plan to the world.
A little more should be expected from Jayjg. It was his action that triggered the dispute, and some "no" voters have based their vote primarily on what he said. Since then, by all appearances, he has been completely unrepentant and unwilling to admit that there was any trace of error in what he did. In a collaborative community an admission of some degree of error is more productive that a stubborn defence of every aspect of one's actions..
What I would like to see is an admission from him on the RfA page that his interpretation of the rule and its application was unduly harsh (or something to that effec), and the the opposition votes that were based solely on that position be held in abeyance until the voter has had a chance to reconsider.
Ec