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

[Richard MacMahon]

On 6/15/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at 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
-- 
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"