[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[K P]

On 6/16/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Assuming your conclusions are accurate, this sort of behaviour can
> only harm the project, as it will put off people from running the RFA
> gauntlet.
>
> I'm forced to wonder if that is the point.
>

I don't know, but it seems to me lately that a lot is done on
Wikipedia with ulterior motives.  It also seems that if the concern
really is for TOR accounts, then good contributors in good standing
should be called on it before they run for adminship.

I think that administratorship and positions of extra responsibility
should come with a rule or guideline that those entrusted with extra
powers should always try to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Or
don't do something in a way that could call attention to your motives,
like saving up a revealing piece of information about someone for when
they run for adminship.  Something you learned when put in a position
where you have access to information about users that Wikipedia's
policy claims it maintains privately.

If there is an issue with Trojan admins using TOR accounts, and using
TOR accounts (orwhatever they are called, I'm rather clueless here) is
bad for Wikipedia, AND against policy, the time to raise the issue is
when it is first discovered that an editor in good standing is using a
TOR account.  Raise the issue via e-mail, not via public revelation on
a RfA.

Possibly I would be more concerned about the TOR account if I knew
more about it.  But I can't be too concerned about them when Charlotte
was allowed to edit with it for the many times it was seen by numerous
people with check user powers that Charlotte had one.

I think that if this information was available only to users with
check user permission, and it was revealed to Wikipedia in general,
then Wikipedia failed to maintain privacy in this instance.  This
concerns me.

KP