On 6/15/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

Slim Virgin wrote: 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, jayjg <jayjg99(a)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. 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 6/15/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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). -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 6/15/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 6/15/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

On 6/15/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Except when it might become relevant to the protection of the project. If I'm a system administrator who has access to everyone's 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?

On 6/15/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Wikipedia isn't a whole bunch of things, including a court of law. Not even the ArbCom.

On 6/15/07, Gracenotes <wikigracenotes(a)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.

On 6/15/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 -- "Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"

On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com