[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[K P]

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 6/18/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > But you don't.  You just bring it up when they apply for adminship.
> > > > > > > > It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies
> > > > > > > > abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The word you are looking for is not "suprised", but "defensive".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > More like outraged.  You were trusted with private information and you
> > > > > > abused that trust.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I didn't reveal any private information;
> > > >
> > > > You revealed the fact that she was editing through TOR.
> > >
> > > Who is editing with TOR? What is their name? Where do they live? Are
> > > they male of female? What is their ethnicity, religion, nationality,
> > > native language? Please give me some piece of information about this
> > > person so I can know who you are talking about.
> > >
> > AFAIK the only private information you revealed was that she was
> > editing through TOR.
>
> Who is editing through TOR? Private information has a meaning; if you
> "reveal" that an anonymous pseudonym is editing via TOR proxies you
> have revealed *no* private information whatsoever.
>

So, what other information about users can only users entrusted with
check user tools gain access to?  If it's not private information,
that she's editing through a tor, how come I didn't know it (assuming
I knew what a tor was)?  How come only people with access to check
user tools, or Charlotte herself, or people those two classes informee
knew about it?  It is private information, it has limited access "
confined to particular persons or groups or providing privacy."

It is private information in the normal sense of the meaning, limited
access.  So, it's private.  I had no access to this information. Only
people with access to check user tools had access to it.

Now, what other private information, information with limited access,
with access limited to those with check user tools, what other
information of this nature do folks with check user tools have access
to that they are allowed to reveal?

What exactly does the privacy issue mean?

It appears to only apply to folks who have been checked, not the drive
by acquisitions of information, anyhow.  So, what else is open to
revelation that I have not been informed?  What else about me or
anyone else on Wikipedia can be gained only through check user tools
and can be revealed because it is not considered "private" by those
who have access to it?

KP