I'm wondering why, if it is a violation of Wikipedia policy, this wasn't brought up to CharlotteWebb some other time than when he/she ran for Admin?
This is exactly what this seems like, a violation of privacy for political gain, namely to sink Charlotte's RfA. If the policy is enforcable, it should have been enforced the first time it was discovered that Charlotte uses a TOR, not when Charlotte ran for adminship. That's what is meant by the accusation that it is political, sinking Charlotte's RfA with the information, rather than having contacted Charlotte about it when first discovered. The latter would have been appropriate if TORs are against policy, the former will be seen as a political move by many people.
I don't really know what a TOR is, or how this affects policy, or whether this is really bad or inoccuous, but I'm concerned with how this was done, namely, used to impact an RfA. If it's bad for Wikipedia, isn't it bad for editors, not just admins? After all, it's just a mop and a bucket, and it's not big deal. If it is only bad for admins, then is it enforced only for admins and sock puppets?
I thought that having access to information about people through check user required a certain level of trust in the person using check user not to use it other than for what it is explicitly designed for. When information that is not directly related to a check user request is revealed, information that can only be gained by having check user tools, it seems to me that revealing this information is in violation of being given the check user tools. I am concerned about the interpretation of the privacy policy--which explicitly states it is of prime importance on Wikipedia--which leads to it being seen as second to concerns about revealing information gained about a non-target user on a check user request.
I think that the policy should be changed to explicitly prohibit revealing information from a check user request in this manner--when the user hasn't been the target of the request, when the information gained shows another user was in violation of a policy, and when the release of the information is used to impact an internal wikipedia political matter, namely RfA.
KP