[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[John Lee]

On 6/19/07, 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.


Perhaps this is a misconception, but I was under the impression that
generally the means of maintaining one's anonymity (beyond the blatantly
obvious, e.g. using a pseudonym) are not public information.

Johnleemk