[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[Ray Saintonge]

ElinorD wrote:

> Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a 
> fact
>
>that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for
>adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is
>demanding evidence that she knew it.
>
>Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
>
>a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole
>issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She
>accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely
>that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous
>comments?
>
Absolutely.  How much time can a person be expected to spend reading 
these often lengthy comment.  If her support was number 56 there were 
already 55 before her.  Are you seriously suggesting that reading 
through all that will change anybody's mind who has already decided her 
vote, perhaps from already knowing the candidate.

>I won't comment on the actual use of open proxies, as I don't fully
>understand what it all means, but, as I've suggested on the RfA page, if she
>had a really good reason to violate this policy, the best thing would have
>been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand.
>
You are making the presumption that she violated policy.  Part of the 
argument that has followed has focussed on whether this really is policy.

>The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows:
>"Yes, I have a valid reason, but because of privacy issues, I'd rather not
>discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the
>ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on the RfA
>page or talk page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that
>they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation.
>
Why would she need to explain herself if she believes she did nothing 
wrong?  Would it make any sense to ask you why you beat up your spouse 
when you never did any such thing in the first page.  If she could have 
answered quietly, she could have been asked quietly.

>Also, why are people asking again and again why the checkuser who discovered
>this didn't block Charlotte when he discovered the use of open proxies, when
>he has stated at least twice that he blocked the IPs? Blocks are
>preventative and not punitive, and a blocked illegitimate IP presumably
>leaves a good faith editor free to edit from a legitimate one.  
>
One still needs to distinguish between blocking the proxy IP and 
blocking the person.  There doesn't appear to be many complaints against 
blocking the IP.  Acting against Charlotte's admin request is what 
tnterprets the policy as punitive rather than preventative.

>That seems a
>completely different issue from that of becoming an administrator while
>every edit she makes violates an official policy. 
>
There is no such "official" policy.  What makes it "official"?

>However, a statement from
>an ArbCom member or a bureaucrat that Charlotte had disclosed her reasons by
>private email and that they were found to be acceptable would probably have
>swayed many of the opposers, some of whom opposed because of the defensive
>reaction.
>
What's wrong with the presumption that a person does have valid reasons 
as long as there is no evidence that she has used it for harmful activities.

>Finally, it's also being insinuated that the checkuser admin did this for
>political reasons or in order to ruin Charlotte's RfA. Had they had any
>prior encounter? Had they been in some content dispute? Of course I'm open
>to the possibility, if someone can show me some evidence, but I can't see
>any evidence of it myself. 
>
I've encountered her on this list, and have seen no reason to be 
concerned about her.

>Since Charlotte's article work seems to have been
>mainly reverting vandalism and adding or removing categories, it seems
>unlikely.
>
There's an irony here.  The RfA page strongly endorses that an admin 
candidate must waste a certain amount of time reverting vandalism.  Thus 
recently participating in that kind of activity should not be taken as 
evidence of her intentions or capabilities beyond fulfilling those 
requirements.

Ec