[WikiEN-l] Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?

[Gracenotes]

On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have some details for most admins, if only the IP address if it's
> needed. That allows checkusers to look for sockpuppetry, and it allows
> the Foundation to respond to a request from a court for the admin's
> details in case of libel, for example. It's minimal accountability,
> and to take even that away would mean that someone who was permabanned
> could easily be up and running several admin accounts a few months
> later, and could cause a lot of trouble, with almost no way of getting
> caught. Look at Wikitruth, for example, and the reposting of possibly
> libelous or distressing material. Look at the trouble caused by people
> posting IRC logs from the admins channel.
>
> I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit
> with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become
> an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while
> violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to
> change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.


Well, thank goodness rules are not set in stone. Policies *should* be
ignored if there is good reason to do so, and there appears to be good
reason here: that a dedicated contributor should be become an admin
when it will benefit the project, and that she needs to use TOR for some
reason, which I do not doubt is an appropriate use (otherwise she
would not use it).

Although you have not yet, please don't claim that many current opposes
have to do with anything other than the TOR issue. Others refer to a moment
of justifiable indignation caused by a civil form of mud-slinging. I don't
care if the mud is policy; email was clearly the more appropriate route
here (exhibiting greater judgment and empathy).