The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 05:29 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?
Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the methods of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia? Here, Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWeb edited from Tor previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/C...
":'''6''' Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"
How is he allowed to make such a public disclosure to sink an RFA? Any question of whether Jay's actions are inappropriate (if not a violation of the Foundation Privacy Policy?) are deflected by SlimVirgin.
Is Jayjg in violation of the Wikipedia Privacy Policy by disclosing this to affect a Requests for Adminship? He also implies he has similar data on others, yet has not acted on them. Sitting on them for the political winds to be right?
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
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
It would probably be a better practice for such concerns to be raised with the editor privately before being brought up on-wiki, especially in the context of an RfA. However, it may be that this was already done.
Newyorkbrad
On 6/15/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Szilagyi [mailto:szilagyi@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 05:29 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?
Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the
methods
of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia? Here, Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWeb edited from Tor previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/C...
":'''6''' Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies?
[[User:Jayjg|Jayjg
]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:04,
15
June 2007 (UTC)"
How is he allowed to make such a public disclosure to sink an RFA? Any question of whether Jay's actions are inappropriate (if not a violation
of
the Foundation Privacy Policy?) are deflected by SlimVirgin.
Is Jayjg in violation of the Wikipedia Privacy Policy by disclosing this
to
affect a Requests for Adminship? He also implies he has similar data on others, yet has not acted on them. Sitting on them for the political
winds
to be right?
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
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 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
It would probably be a better practice for such concerns to be raised with the editor privately before being brought up on-wiki, especially in the context of an RfA. However, it may be that this was already done.
The problem with bringing it up privately first is that the nom had opened, and people were already commenting. The onus is really on candidates to make sure they're not violating policies.
The problem with bringing it up privately first is that the nom had opened, and people were already commenting. The onus is really on candidates to make sure they're not violating policies.
Indeed. Listing yourself on RFA basically waives any rights to be approached quietly about things like this.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
It would probably be a better practice for such concerns to be raised with the editor privately before being brought up on-wiki, especially in the context of an RfA. However, it may be that this was already done.
The problem with bringing it up privately first is that the nom had opened, and people were already commenting. The onus is really on candidates to make sure they're not violating policies.
IIRC Jayjg also stated that he knew of others who were using such proxies without otherwise causing problems. It would appear that he already knew about Charlotte doing this for some time. It just seems that the circumstance were too convenient for making a public disclosure. The onus on prospective admins is to act reasonably, not living up to arcane minutiae of dubious policy.
Ec
On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
This is a point worth re-iterating. I haven't revealed anything about "CharlotteWebb". "CharlotteWebb" is a pseudonym, obviously based on the book "Charlotte's Webb". I cannot reveal anything personal about the person who is using the CharlotteWebb account because I don't know anything about them. Nothing. I don't know their name, age, gender, location, height, weight, shoe size, nationality, religion, native language, even their IP address. I know *nothing* about them, and I cannot reveal what I do not know.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
This is a point worth re-iterating. I haven't revealed anything about "CharlotteWebb". "CharlotteWebb" is a pseudonym, obviously based on the book "Charlotte's Webb". I cannot reveal anything personal about the person who is using the CharlotteWebb account because I don't know anything about them. Nothing. I don't know their name, age, gender, location, height, weight, shoe size, nationality, religion, native language, even their IP address. I know *nothing* about them, and I cannot reveal what I do not know.
The type of data involved is triggering a lot of people's "This smells like personal data" senses today, though.
If they'd been using something other than a Tor node, and you revealed (for example) that the user in question logged in from Earthlink all the time, that would probably be clearly over the line, even though it's still relatively harmless in the greater scheme of things.
IMHO, we shouldn't ban Tor without blocking them completely. Making it against policy but not actively aggressively enforcing that allows grey areas like this, where a user is using and not abusing the service and sees nothing wrong with what they're doing, and then is put in a position of defending themselves.
As Tony's said on-wiki (in Jeff's RFAR), policy is what works, not what's written down. What works, right now, is using Tor non-abusively. The written policy therefore is wrong. Vetoing CaroletteWebb's RFA on the ground that s/he violated a written but grossly unenforced policy is bad for the project.
If the current set of abuse problems is significant enough, particularly admin accounts being subverted, we should just permablock all the Tor exit points and be done with it.
On 6/15/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
No privacy violation is involved because mentioning that an individual edits through proxies does not reveal anything about the person's real-life identity or location nor even link the person with other Wikipedia accounts.
This is a point worth re-iterating. I haven't revealed anything about "CharlotteWebb". "CharlotteWebb" is a pseudonym, obviously based on the
book
"Charlotte's Webb". I cannot reveal anything personal about the person
who
is using the CharlotteWebb account because I don't know anything about
them.
Nothing. I don't know their name, age, gender, location, height, weight, shoe size, nationality, religion, native language, even their IP
address. I
know *nothing* about them, and I cannot reveal what I do not know.
The type of data involved is triggering a lot of people's "This smells like personal data" senses today, though.
If they'd been using something other than a Tor node, and you revealed (for example) that the user in question logged in from Earthlink all the time, that would probably be clearly over the line, even though it's still relatively harmless in the greater scheme of things.
IMHO, we shouldn't ban Tor without blocking them completely. Making it against policy but not actively aggressively enforcing that allows grey areas like this, where a user is using and not abusing the service and sees nothing wrong with what they're doing, and then is put in a position of defending themselves.
As I understand it, technical solutions for banning TOR proxies were tried in the past, but weren't effective. I'd certainly be much happier with a technical solution that banned all open proxies. And, quite frankly, we often have no idea whether or not people using TOR proxies are abusing Wikipedia policy - it's only when they do something obvious like vandalism that it's clear.
As Tony's said on-wiki (in Jeff's RFAR), policy is what works, not
what's written down. What works, right now, is using Tor non-abusively.
No, it doesn't. Again, the Runcorn situation is a perfect example of that.
The written policy therefore is wrong.
No, it's not. Legitimate explanations as to the need for the use of open proxies in this case have yet to be forthcoming - despite, I might add, promises that they would be.
Vetoing
CaroletteWebb's RFA on the ground that s/he violated a written but grossly unenforced policy is bad for the project.
The policy, like all policies, is enforced when it is brought to admin attention. I certainly block all open proxies that I am aware of.
If the current set of abuse problems is significant enough,
particularly admin accounts being subverted, we should just permablock all the Tor exit points and be done with it.
Yes, we should.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The written policy therefore is wrong.
No, it's not. Legitimate explanations as to the need for the use of open proxies in this case have yet to be forthcoming - despite, I might add, promises that they would be.
It's not wrong in the sense of "we shouldn't have a Tor block policy". It's wrong in the sense of "blaming people who use Tor nodes for violating policy is wrong".
It's both ok to permablock the exit points and ok for CharoletteWebb to have been using it (and therefore wrong to block the RFA on those grounds).
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The type of data involved is triggering a lot of people's "This smells like personal data" senses today, though.
If they'd been using something other than a Tor node, and you revealed (for example) that the user in question logged in from Earthlink all the time, that would probably be clearly over the line, even though it's still relatively harmless in the greater scheme of things.
Actually policy specifically allows that.
If you are coming from say a uni IP however it would be more of an issue.
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The type of data involved is triggering a lot of people's "This smells like personal data" senses today, though.
If they'd been using something other than a Tor node, and you revealed (for example) that the user in question logged in from Earthlink all the time, that would probably be clearly over the line, even though it's still relatively harmless in the greater scheme of things.
Actually policy specifically allows that.
If you are coming from say a uni IP however it would be more of an issue.
It's not personally identifying info, but the CU policy on Meta doesn't just ban the release of personally identifying CU info: ===== Use of the tool
The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects.
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position). =====
The functional end result effect of this discussion was to apply pressure on an editor and as a threat in an administrative process, though I AGF regarding Jay's intentions here.
I don't think Jay Done Evil, but perhaps wrong in the "let's talk about this and not do it again" sense.
On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
It would probably be a better practice for such concerns to be raised with the editor privately before being brought up on-wiki, especially in the context of an RfA. However, it may be that this was already done.
Based on Charlotte's reaction I should say it wasn't. Why not just block the Tor proxies as found? It would be a non-issue then, and compliant with policy.
Using secret information in such a public manner is not appropriate.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/16/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Fred
That would depend on how it was being used when the information was found:
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects."
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Fred
That would depend on how it was being used when the information was found:
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects."
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As Jay said on the nom, a few times when he checked out vandals and sockpuppet accounts, and found they were editing from open proxies, the CharlotteWebb account was another one that showed up using them too.
Sarah
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor
proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Fred
That would depend on how it was being used when the information was found:
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects."
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I was investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up on the list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved. I'm certainly not the only CheckUser who has noticed this - far from it.
Jay.
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I was investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up on the list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I was investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up on
the
list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's
mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail system to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project...
I'm not going to get into a side debate about this, but there's a reason real courts distinguish between admissible and inadmissible evidence.
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project...
I'm not going to get into a side debate about this, but there's a reason real courts distinguish between admissible and inadmissible evidence.
Wikipedia isn't a whole bunch of things, including a court of law. Not even the ArbCom.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I
was
investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up
on
the
list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's
mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail system to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
Hopefully anyone's ethics-meter would go off there. Not to say anything about the ethics involved in stopping an otherwise adept and dedicated contributor from gaining the adminship, starting a moral panic by baselessly associating the contributor with malicious sockpuppets, and another item that I won't mention because it would mean assuming bad faith and possibly poisoning the well.
I certainly follow the policy, but it's not my favorite one.
On 6/15/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I
was
investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up
on
the
list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project.
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's
mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail system to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
Hopefully anyone's ethics-meter would go off there. Not to say anything about the ethics involved in stopping an otherwise adept and dedicated contributor from gaining the adminship, starting a moral panic by baselessly associating the contributor with malicious sockpuppets, and another item that I won't mention because it would mean assuming bad faith and possibly poisoning the well.
If there's any "moral panic" here, it's in your post. I simply asked why the editor was using TOR proxies, which, as we all know, is a *violation of policy*. That's it. When he/she insisted on knowing why I "invaded her privacy", I explained how I had initially come across the information. I didn't stop him/her from gaining adminship, nor did I associate him/her with malicious sockpuppets, nor any other such nonsense. From what I can tell, many of the "oppose" votes were in reaction to over-the-top statements like yours. And if there's an "ethics-meter" issue, it is about how people like Joe and you are now framing this.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's mailbox, for example, and while investigating some mailbox corruption I happen to notice a confidential email indicating that an acquaintance of mine is screwing his sister-in-law, I'm really supposed to keep that to myself.
And what if you happen to notice that someone is using the e-mail
system
to send the blueprints of your latest product to your competitor? Are you supposed to keep that to yourself as well?
Hopefully anyone's ethics-meter would go off there. Not to say anything about the ethics involved in stopping an otherwise adept and dedicated contributor from gaining the adminship, starting a moral panic by baselessly associating the contributor with malicious sockpuppets, and another item that I won't mention because it would mean assuming bad faith and
possibly
poisoning the well.
If there's any "moral panic" here, it's in your post. I simply asked why the editor was using TOR proxies, which, as we all know, is a *violation of policy*. That's it. When he/she insisted on knowing why I "invaded her privacy", I explained how I had initially come across the information. I didn't stop him/her from gaining adminship, nor did I associate him/her with malicious sockpuppets, nor any other such nonsense. From what I can tell, many of the "oppose" votes were in reaction to over-the-top statements like yours. And if there's an "ethics-meter" issue, it is about how people like Joe and you are now framing this.
No, I did not say that you associated her with malicious sockpuppets; others did the courtesy of that. You have to be relatively unaware of current events to wade into an RfA and say, "Oh hello there, I noticed you were editing from an open proxy, mind explaining?" and expect it to pass. Yes, maybe you were assuming the benefit of the doubt. But, as was brought up in my RfA, these kind of sensitive interactions that can ruin someone's reputation on Wikipedia are better brought up in an email. Some cited a failure to do so as indicative of lack of empathy and judgment. (Before someone starts drafting a thesis explaining why the RfAs are different, making special reference to the fact that NOP is policy, please note that the purpose of analogies is to illustrate, not prove.)
There is the possibility that I am framing it reasonably. There is the possibility that I'm not, and you are. I think that it is an issue of ethics; no one is claiming that you were not in violation of policy. In fact, policy is a cushion for your actions. Not to say that it's making a couple of people nervous and depressed.
Once again, no violation of policy. You did nothing wrong. I am just saddened by the course of events here, since in RfA, it is trite to be *disturbed* by a course of events.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If there's any "moral panic" here, it's in your post. I simply asked why the editor was using TOR proxies, which, as we all know, is a *violation of policy*. That's it. When he/she insisted on knowing why I "invaded her privacy", I explained how I had initially come across the information. I didn't stop him/her from gaining adminship, nor did I associate him/her with malicious sockpuppets, nor any other such nonsense. From what I can tell, many of the "oppose" votes were in reaction to over-the-top statements like yours. And if there's an "ethics-meter" issue, it is about how people like Joe and you are now framing this. _______________________________________________
Jayjg, if I may say something here...I'm pretty uninvolved here, methinks, but I think I can see where people are coming from. I was just looking over the Checkuser policy at meta, and it's a fairly brief policy (my favorite kind). If we set the strict question of privacy aside (because if you look at it, no privacy is really being violated), I think the bit most people are hinging around is this phrase: The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.
Now, strictly speaking this isn't, of course, a content dispute. The spirt, if you're willing to allow a bit of leeway, is that Checkuser shouldn't be used to gain an unfair advantage against someone. I think some people feel your question was a loaded one, intended to alter the course of Charlotte's RFA. Personally, I see no evidence for this, and on the face of things I accept that you were just asking a question. But regardless of your intent, it may have still been a loaded weapon.
My question on the ethics of Checkuser, for anyone here, is this: if a Checkuser discovers a policy violation (whether it's a direct investigation, or indirect one), what choice should they have in enforcement? Jayjg hasn't mentioned how long he's know Charlotte edits through TOR proxies (that I'm aware of), or if he's taken any other steps about it. Did he block those TOR IPs? Did he ever contact Charlotte about this before?
I can see why it may seem unfair to bring it up during an RFA...I might even agree about with that. I'm not sure I'd agree it's an ethical violation, though. As a Checkuser, and (I assume), an admin I think Jayjg should use his judgement in enforcing policy to protect the project. Strict enforcement of the NOP doesn't seem to be de riguir right now. I would question if the risk of TOR proxies is more serious for a potential admin versus a regular editor, but that's a different sort of discussion for elsewhere...perhaps not on her RFA, but definitely the main RFA talk page perhaps.
So, anyway, I think the ethical question is this: Is Jayjg using his knowledge from Checkuser in this RFA to move discussion for his own benefit? That's a serious charge, in my eyes, and would need some solid evidence. Because I think it's more likely, and in good faith, to think he's simply using his knowledge to better the project. My apologies if I've rambled too far...
InkSplotch
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I was investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up on the list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
There's no reason something that's noticed accidentally should be any different from something that's looked for specifically.
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
On 6/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
As explained on the RFA, CharlotteWebb came to my attention while I was investigating other abuses and abusers. His/her name kept showing up on the list of editors every time a TOR proxy was involved...
Okay, but part of the trust that's involved in a tool like checkuser is *not* paying attention to (let alone revealing) stuff you accidentally notice while investigating something else.
There's no reason something that's noticed accidentally should be any different from something that's looked for specifically.
I disagree with this. People have expectations of privacy in certain things; if the person hasn't been found to be abusing Wikipedia, then CU and other vandal-fighting info shouldn't be in the public domain.
Modify that by "Perhaps all Tor accounts are vulnerable to hijack in a way which means that we shouldn't let any admin use Tor at all", but applying that selectively to CharoletteWebb and not everyone else is unfair.
That would depend on how it was being used when the information was found:
"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects."
This policy would not allow a checkuser on CharlotteWebb
I would guess it was done to check for sockpuppet abuse. Your quote doesn't say there has to be a reason to suspect something before checking. The damage admin sockpuppets can do is quite significant, so it is understandable that someone might like to check.
On 6/15/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The inquiry does not seem to involve disclosure of identity. As to Tor proxies, their use is a continuing mystery. Perhaps the answer will reveal a legitimate non-abusive use.
Certainly not, Fred. But Jay clearly used an ultra-hot-button issue with priviledged information that should have been privately handled to drop an atom bomb on an RFA. Abuse of priviledge.
Why didn't he just block the Tor proxy he found? Done and done.
Are CheckUsers not automatically blocking them all if use is forbidden? I question why not, if they aren't.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com