Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 22 June 2007

CharlotteWebb's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC):

run at Thu Jun 14 18:57:15 2007 GMT
Category talk: 98  
Category: 562  
Help talk: 1  
Help: 3  
Image talk: 2  
Image: 85  
Mainspace 8544  
Portal talk: 2  
Portal: 14  
Talk: 1009  
Template talk: 62  
Template: 314  
User talk: 667  
User: 197  
Misplaced Pages talk: 100  
Misplaced Pages: 1320  
avg edits per page 1.29  
earliest 07:57, 29 May 2006  
number of unique pages 10076  
total 12980  
2006/5  39   
2006/6  170   
2006/7  147   
2006/8  505   
2006/9  1252   
2006/10  1090   
2006/11  2743   
2006/12  2077   
2007/1  1134   
2007/2  1001   
2007/3  449   
2007/4  858   
2007/5  670   
2007/6  845
Mainspace  
20 Dave Grohl  
15 Jay Rabinowitz  
13 Bono  
12 Good Charlotte  
12 Jake Gyllenhaal  
12 2007 NBA Finals  
11 Christopher Columbus  
11 Avril Lavigne  
10 Michael Jordan  
9 Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center  
9 Aaron Carter  
8 Salvador Dalí  
8 Alaska  
7 Salesian High School (Richmond, California)  
7 Id, ego, and super-ego  
Talk:  
12 Yahoo!  
9 Main Page  
7 Derek (name)  
6 Yoghurt  
5 Orbit  
5 List of male performers in gay porn films  
4 Lacrosse  
4 Grammatical gender  
4 Nenana, Alaska  
4 James R. Jordan, Sr.  
3 AC/DC in popular culture  
3 Gay parenting  
3 New England  
3 List of numbered highways in Ohio  
3 Laughter  
Category talk:  
8 Protected deleted categories  
2 Operas by Kurt Weill  
2 Bible  
2 Singer-drummers  
2 Fictional British people  
2 English-speaking countries and territories  
2 Political office-holders in Sweden  
2 Surnames  
Category:  
4 Michael Jordan  
3 Football in Azerbaijan  
3 Football in Russia  
3 MIT images  
2 CONCACAF  
2 WikiProject Georgia (country) unassessed articles  
2 Football in the Soviet Union  
2 Football in Cyprus  
2 Football in Kazakhstan  
2 Football in Armenia  
2 Jazz tubists  
2 Tubists  
2 Public domain images  
2 Sri Lankan people stubs  
2 Major League Baseball pitchers who have pitched a perfect game  
Help:  
3 Merging and moving pages  
Image:  
3 Jay A. Rabinowitz.jpg  
3 Electric Landlady.jpg  
2 Mj1971-got-to-be-there.jpg  
2 The pillows logo.png  
2 SIng.jpg  
2 Titanic Days.jpg  
2 Wenford Bridge.JPG  
2 Byron Johnson.jpg  
Portal:  
3 History/Featured article/December, 2006  
Template:  
6 Judaism  
5 Relist  
5 Jordan-bio-stub  
4 People.com  
4 Ana Johnsson  
4 UK-struct-stub  
3 Criticism-section  
3 Infobox Education  
3 Amfoot-bio-stub  
3 Boston Celtics  
3 Female adult bio  
3 Db-talk  
3 Rating-10  
3 Infobox NBA Player  
3 Heart  
Template talk:  
7 Criticism-section  
6 Cleanup  
6 Oldafdfull  
5 Hoops team player  
3 Otheruses  
2 Infobox Politician  
2 Db-move  
2 Seinfeld  
2 Current  
2 Orphan  
2 Afd2  
User:  
56 CharlotteWebb/monobook.js  
45 CharlotteWebb  
7 Vox Humana 8'/Redundant  
6 CharlotteWebb/cat.js  
4 AntiVandalBot  
3 SPUI  
3 Ned Scott  
3 CharlotteWebb/gallery.js  
2 Radiant!  
2 Jannizz/SKN  
2 CharlotteWebb/monobook.css  
2 Pixel ;-)  
2 DREMA  
2 SuggestBot/Requests  
User talk:  
155 CharlotteWebb  
8 Cartiod  
8 CharlotteWebb/Archive  
7 CharlotteWebb/Archive/002  
5 Shqiponjë  
4 Quadzilla99  
4 Aldux  
4 Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 4  
4 CharlotteWebb/Archive/003  
4 Wizardman  
4 66.171.52.83  
4 Ernst Stavro Blofeld  
4 CharlotteWebb/Archive/001  
3 3arabia  
3 198.207.168.65  
Misplaced Pages:  
79 Administrator intervention against vandalism  
49 Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop  
40 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  
34 Administrators' noticeboard  
20 Sandbox  
14 Requests for page protection  
13 Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop  
12 Village pump (technical)  
10 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 23  
10 Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18  
9 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR  
8 Requests for adminship/Wrp103  
8 Cut and paste move repair holding pen  
8 Requests for adminship/Wikiwoohoo 3  
7 Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 11  
Misplaced Pages talk:  
14 Criteria for speedy deletion  
8 Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop  
7 Notability (music)  
5 Articles for deletion  
4 Text of the GNU Free Documentation License  
4 Redirects for discussion  
4 WikiProject National Basketball Association  
4 Proposed deletion  
3 Categorization  
3 Biographies of living persons  
3 Be bold  
2 Administrator intervention against vandalism  
2 WikiProject College Basketball  
2 Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions  
2 Arguments to use in deletion discussions  
Based directly on these URLs: , , 

Acalamari 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Proxies

Is there a status on Jimbo's suggestion that WP:NOP be amended to softblock rather than hardblock open proxies? This seems to suggest that use while signed in wouldn't be a violation.

Either way, I find the revelation here rather concerning. Has the proper approach to this been considered elsewhere? My questions: 1.) Should checkusers be revealing checkuser results without request, but simply on their own initiative? (Maybe this is normal, but it would seem problematic.) 2.) If the idea here is to strictly enforce policy, should this information not be revealed on any editor -- admin or otherwise -- immediately upon being found to be using an open proxy? 3.) If that answer is no, is it not then a problem to enforce this policy unevenly? 4.) If there may be appropriate uses for open proxies, should the question then not be presented first privately for response? (I don't know if that happened here.)

These strike me as fairly serious issues, which don't appear to have been addressed thus far. Mackan79 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First, there are strict rules according for checkuser. Have you checked out (pun not intended) WP:CHECK? --Evilclown93_(talk) 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers are allowed to reveal some identifying information (country, ISP) in order to protect the project, but nothing identifying has actually been revealed in this case: just the use of open proxies. Yes, of course, checkusers may act with or without a request. Not sure I understand point 2 — there's no evidence that checkusers know of other admins who use proxies, but have chosen not to reveal it, so there's no lack of evenhandedness. As for asking the question privately first, there presumably wasn't time; the candidate went ahead with the nom without informing anyone of the proxies issue, and people had already started to add comments. SlimVirgin 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing identifying has actually been revealed" -- nothing at all, other than a damaging revelation which will almost certainly torpedo this RfA, and/or turn it in to a sideshow of a proxy debate on the NOP policy. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator, I do feel somewhat resposible here for all this. Should I have asked CharlotteWebb if she was on an open proxy or not? Acalamari 22:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. You had no reason to believe it needed to be asked. SlimVirgin 22:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think so; I wouldn't be assuming good faith or trusting my candidate if I did. Acalamari 23:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no direct evidence, but Jayjg did suggest he had the information for some time without bringing it forward. I believe a similar RfA came up recently, which suggests there may be numerous other cases, no? It seems fair to surmise that the checkusers aren't automatically bringing this information forward. Mackan79 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I don't have any problem with a legitimate editor using proxies non-abusively; actually, I think it's a reasonable thing to do for an editor concerned about his/her own privacy. People get logged out and accidentally reveal information; it happens. I use TOR myself on other sites; I'd use it more often if I didn't get frustrated with how slow it is.

Yeah, so "no open proxies" became policy, because they're a favorite of vandals and trolls also, and it makes them difficult to track. But... I can't get worked up about this. I don't think CW was doing anything wrong, in substance. We don't collect identifying information about anyone, and I'm assuming that if CW did do something where checkuser investigation might be warranted that we'd block the crap out of the account, having no reason to assume we should do otherwise. And I think some collateral damage to legit users who use anonymising services is acceptable, one of the tradeoffs you have to make. (I note that it's not as though someone couldn't run a nest of sockpuppets through different IP addresses without using open proxies should they wish.)

Perhaps on balance the proxies are too much of a negative for the positive uses, but I think ultimately it would be nice to have a better system for users who legitimately want to protect their identities against accidental revelation. As far as I can tell—and I don't know CW—it seems like it's being used by a legit user with a consistent identity who otherwise would have been considered enough of an asset to the project to be made an admin, and while it may violate the letter of a policy, doesn't violate the spirit of it.

I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been an RfA issue fairly recently although at the moment I can't remember the candidate. The situation is pretty straight-forward in that at the moment editing via these Tor proxies is a violation. Now, it may be that the policy needs adjusting. In fact, I sense there would probably be a consensus for relaxing it somewhat. Nevertheless the candidate really torpedoed themselves here. The nominator, so far as I am concerned, is uninvolved. I think the community is going to have to come to terms with Tor and anonimity soon or this will happen again and again. JodyB _talk 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think most users would be strongly opposed to allowing admins to edit via open proxies. There's precious little accountability as it is. SlimVirgin 02:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, not "most users", but if I trust someone (as I do CharlotteWeb and ArmedBlowfish) enough to support their adminship, I have no problems with their choice to edit from open proxies.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's policy. An admin is being trusted to enforce policy. You can try to change if you disagree with it, but to pick and choose which policies you follow sets a terrible example. It would be pretty hypocritical to block someone else for policy violation when you personally violate policy on a continuous basis. However, that's not why I voted against this individual. I voted against CharlotteWebb because of the inadequate and antagonistic responses to questions. That's now how an admin should handle things. Doczilla 03:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are valid cases to edit from the open proxies. The main one is for the editors from China (there wikiediting is forbidden, AFAIK) or other totalitarian states. If she have stated that she edits from China and a quick chat would show she has a native level of Chinese language everybody should agree to not keep it against it. There might be other valid reasons to keep special level of privacy. But she failed to point out ones. Instead she started attacks on JayJG. It is an absolutely wrong behavior for an admin. On the other hand Tor editing may indicate that she is a sock of a banned user, desysopped admin or something. If it is true she should reveal her identity Alex Bakharev 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a completely different point of view. The project has rules to protect it, some have to be hard and in stone, and some are soft and require judgement to manage. CharlotteWebb intentionally or unintentionally violated one of the hard rules, because the vast majority of users from TOR have been vandals, trolls, or worse. Just because we think CW may have a reason for doing so (and frankly has refused to state a reason) that does not mean that CW has a one-person right to violate a critical rule--that causes anarchy. Yes, there might be a valid reason for using it, but that should have been brought forward upfront. I'm not an expert on all of the arcane rules of Misplaced Pages, but the open proxies is one of the important ones, that I understood from the beginning. Maybe understanding NPOV is difficult, but open proxies aren't. It's a black/white issue, in that the project chose to protect itself against the open proxies. Once again, maybe CW has a legitimate reason, but that reason needs to be brought forward publicly. If CW shown poor judgement with a clear issue such as open proxies, then how can we trust them with more subtle judgement calls such as NPOV of civility. I didn't think that ArmedBlowFish deserved the admin nor do I CW, both for the same reasons. Furthermore, their responses to the accusations told more about their character than the use of open proxy themselves. Isn't that interesting? Orangemarlin 07:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree with your last thought; I don't know CW, but I think she has some reason to be upset. From various comments from checkusers etc., it appears pretty clear that practice is to allow editors to use TOR's unless some issue arises, as further exhibited by Jay's decision not to do anything about this sooner. If someone had presented this to CW earlier and told her it would be raised in an RfA, she would have known not to run. If it had been presented privately even at the time, she would have had the chance to withdraw. The way it happened, CW has been singled out and widely chastized for something that it appears Misplaced Pages had specifically decided to let her do. I personally tend to agree that someone editing from an open proxy probably shouldn't be admin; that's separate from whether she had reason to be upset about the way it was brought forward, though, which it seems to me she did. Mackan79 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOP plainly states: "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies". For someone to blatantly violate this policy, or any policy, and then have the audacity to stand for adminship, and expect that these violations will be somehow swept under the rug, is simply incomprehensible to me. Is it that some of our clear policies can now be violated with a wink and a shrug? The day that our policies are followed and enforced on a selective basis, is the day that this project will grind to a halt. Crum375 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why WP:IAR doesn't apply here? Gracenotes § 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR applies when we are faced with a brand new, unexpected situation, that the current rules don't cover. In that case, we rely on the spirit of Misplaced Pages and do the right thing. In this case, there is a clear, plain and simple policy. Some may disagree with it, but some disagree with any policy. An editor who knowingly violates policies is essentially telling us that rules are for everyone else, not for him/her, and that s/he can violate any rule s/he doesn't agree with. To stand for adminship with this attitude is not a good way to garner support votes. Crum375 19:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlike, say, an admin who disseminates information from Checkuser for the political purpose of affecting the outcome of an RfA debate, despite this being against at least the spirit of the Checkuser rules (though arguably not the letter given that the fact of use of a proxy isn't technically "personally identifying information")? *Dan T.* 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the concept of WP:IAR which some are wishing to apply here is incorrect. As Crum says there is a place for it, put probably not here. In fact, if we grant IAR to CW then why can we not also apply it to Jayjg and drop the discussion about what he did? What we actually have is an opportunity to fix three important issues that the community feels passionate about.

1. The question of soft blocks vs. open blocks on Tor exit nodes,
2. The question of Checkuser propriety and the limits of the checkusers, and
3. The whole issue of RfA which so many believe is broken.

I know everyone is raw right now, but there is a place to move head on all fronts if we can get people to focus their passions in productive ways. JodyB _talk 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a license for anarchy. That's the creed of POV warriors who believe they can change articles to fit their belief set. To Jody's points--open proxies are a problem with vandals and other nefarious individuals. I don't know if there's a questions. Checkusers are valuable, and I do not believe anything bad happened in this RfA--if Jayig had stated that my IP address pointed to this company on Monday's through Fridays, and my home somewhere else on Weekends, I'd be ticked--what he did was right. On your last point, probably, but this isn't the place to work it out. Orangemarlin 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem you're considering the problem of checkusers using that information in any way they please. The current limitations on checkuser fishing suggest that privacy isn't the only concern, but that we also need to ensure that checkusers don't use that information for "political" purposes. Misplaced Pages can't allow a small number of people secret information which they are then free to use to knock down RfA's or whatever other situation arises. Jay's intentions may have been perfect, but that's what he did here, and it's a problem. Selective rule enforcement is one thing if you're talking about 3RR or civility or whatever else, but if you're talking about checkuser information, I think it's a very different story. Misplaced Pages clearly intends to have very strict guidelines for how that is approached; I think it should be clear those guidelines weren't effective here. Mackan79 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkusering of RfAs

It is a perennial proposal, but maybe it is a time to checkuser all the admin candidates? Abnormalities: like using open proxies, sockpuppeting, etc. should be known. Alex Bakharev 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but why not admins as well? Mackan79 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The precious few checkusers probably will not be looking forward to the day they have to run checkusers on all 1,200 or so admins. Not only do they have to do the checkuser on everybody, if they get a hit, they have to investigate it, looking for double voting or other types of abuse. If they find IPs, they must check and make sure they aren't TOR exit nodes or open proxies. Sounds like a major, major pain. Sean William @ 04:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with random checkusering of admins. Total checkusering of all 1200+ admin accounts would be a waste of our precious checkuser resources. Lets think about sports. We admire our sportspeople as heroes. Still it requires drug tests for all record holders, championship winners and random checking of all the competitors. That is life Alex Bakharev 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sports heroes is a bad analogy (and rather amusingly inaccurate). No, a much better analogy is random drug testing of office workers, which is a much more controversial practice, and is hated in many circles. I frankly find it ridiculous, and won't ever work at a place that requires drug testing, not because I do drugs myself, but just that I find it absurd on its face that the company would trust me so little that I'd have to regularly pee in a cup for them. Talk about an invasion of privacy for no justifiable rewards. If someone's drug use is impeding someone's ability to do work, that will become patently obvious. If it's not an issue at all and it comes up solely because the company stuck its nose where it doesn't belong, it shouldn't be any of the company's business. --Cyde Weys 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser for all admin candidates makes sense. Although non-malicious sockpuppets not used to create illusion of consensus are not forbidden, valuable information could be obtained through checkuser. Doczilla 08:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better of on the main RfA talk? --Evilclown93_(talk) 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct place to propose it would be at m:Talk:CheckUser policy. It, in fact, has already been proposed, with no consensus as a result. Gracenotes § 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

CheckUsers against admins

Would I be correct in my understanding that all existing admins are going to be scrutinized as to the means in which they are editing? Will this information be revealed to the general public, possibly exposing people without their consent? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, isn't this against the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, which we prominently display down the bottom of the page? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy on release of data derived from page logs

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement
2. With permission of the affected user
3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints.
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.
5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ta bu shi da yu (talk • contribs)

That raises two questions, firstly whether any personally identifiable data was disclosed, and secondly whether editing from an open or anonymous proxy counts as behaving in a disruptive way. --bainer (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of hard for someone willfully violating the no-Tor policy (and defiantly failing to answer questions about that) to sound convincing when complaining about how anyone else may have used or misused policy when it went against her. Doczilla 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• You say that, but no evidence has yet been provided that CharlotteWebb wilfully violated NOP. I have two questions for Jayjg: (a) how long ago did you know about CharlotteWebb's use of Tor, and (b) once you knew about her use of Tor, did you inform her that she was violating policy? Js farrar 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal about Tor?

What's the big deal about Tor? I really don't see it. Whether it's protecting my identity when browsing certain anti-Misplaced Pages sites (I want to keep up with what's going on there but I don't want to be tracked) or getting around stupid "glitches" with my ISP (certain YouTube servers seem to be conveniently blocked by my ISP, which runs a competing Video on Demand service), I use Tor pretty regularly. And I have Tor set up as a middle node (but not as an exit node) because I like to give back to those who are helping me — it's the same kind of principle as seeding a torrent after downloading it until you reach at least a 1.00 share ratio. And, guess what, sometimes when I come to Misplaced Pages, Tor is still running, and I end up editing through it. So what's the big deal? We already know that some of the people using CheckUser are untrustworthy, so I really don't have a problem with people wanting to preserve their privacy. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'big deal' is that we unfortunately have an infestation of Trojan and sock admin and would-be-admin accounts, and they typically rely on open proxy to carry out their schemes. Therefore we forbid open proxy editing, to try to force the real rogues out into the open. Any 'innocent' editor who by ignorance or otherwise uses open proxies, is not only violating policy, but is actually interfering with our ability to nail the real bad guys. Crum375 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What a load of empty rhetoric. How is my use of Tor "interfering with our ability to nail the real bad guys"? Don't forget that Tor isn't just used by the "bad guys", it's also used by people who are avoiding the bad guys (e.g. Chinese governmental censorship). And Misplaced Pages isn't strictly dictated by process or policy — it's really just about using common sense. For something to be bad, it must actually be bad, not just be against some arbitrary policy that someone at some point made up. And you really are using the same kind of language as the Bush administration here, equating this situation with criminality. The standards of discourse here are higher than in American politics. --Cyde Weys 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into politics, American or otherwise. If you care about Misplaced Pages, then your primary goal is the same as mine - its preservation. I am sure you can appreciate that if there are Trojan sock admin accounts who naturally rely on open proxy to further their plans, it becomes harder to focus on these (real) rogue accounts if there are other users using open proxy. I would also caution you to assume good faith and maintain civility. Qualifying my message as "a load of empty rhetoric", even if you truly feel that way, is counterproductive. Crum375 18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't go citing WP:AGF at me. My point is that you are trying to classify the use of proxies as evil 100% of the time when this is clearly not the case. I've pointed out situations in which proxies are used legitimately. The argument that "Because some people use X for bad things, all X should be outlawed" is absurd on its face, and I don't think it's inaccurate to call that empty rhetoric. By that logic we should outlaw all automobiles, knives, and over-the-counter drugs. Zero tolerance policies are absurd, as schools are finding out when they have no option other than to expel a student for sharing his asthma inhaler with a friend who forget his and is suffering an asthma attack. We must evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis. --Cyde Weys 18:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As of now, all uses of open proxy are prohibited. If all uses of automobiles, or knives, were prohibited, you'd have a case here. We have policies here for a reason - to follow and enforce them. Otherwise, we might as well have pure IAR-based anarchy and toss away all our rules. Crum375 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, you wouldn't argue that we should approach the fair-use policy on a case-by-case basis, and that sometimes it's okay to violate it. Or the copyright policy. Or BLP. And you probably wouldn't support someone for adminship if they repeatedly and deliberately flouted those policies. The argument is the same here. SlimVirgin 18:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

With one difference: the interpretation that the no open proxies policy prohibits users to use anonymizers is a new one, up to now this policy was just used to block open proxies. And how are you going to enforce compliance with your new interpretation of this policy? By routinely breaking checkuser policy? If you have to break one policy to enforce the other, there might be something wrong with the concept... --Elian 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That policy wording has been on meta for some time so far as I know. SlimVirgin 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

copied in may 2006 by Pathoschild from english wikipedia with no Wikimedia wide approval process whatsoever. --Elian 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's been there for over a year, that counts as approval, Elian. SlimVirgin 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Approval of the descriptive part - this is the first time now that the policy is interpreted as prescriptive (until recently we even had the practice to lift hard blocks for logged in chinese tor users while it suddenly it is interpreted here as forbidden to use tor or anonymizers at all). --Elian 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say "this is the first time now that the policy is interpreted as prescriptive," I'm not sure what you mean. Open proxies are not allowed and are blocked on sight. It's both descriptive and prescriptive, and it's been the case ever since I started editing in 2004, to the best of my knowledge; certainly it's been that way since I've been an admin. SlimVirgin 20:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's been part of policy for quite a while. But I think that Elian is talking about the "editors are prohibited from using them" part, which is the issue in this RfA. Especially since anon-only blocks were introduced, the policy could take two routes: 1. the proxies should be soft-blocked so that editors may use them or 2. they should be hard-blocked, so that no one may use them at all. The former is practice (for example, the mass open-proxy-blocking several weeks ago, or the way we block AOL IPs), and in conjunction with the not-so-hasty removal of the hastily added prohibition clause, this logically makes it acceptable for a logged-in user to edit via an open proxy. Gracenotes § 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And I see that an edit-war has happened today in Meta over this policy's wording, until an admin over there protected it (on the version that merely blocks open policies rather than banning the users who use them, incidentally). The people opposing this change were saying "don't change policy without consensus", but when was there ever any demonstration of consensus to enact the punitive version of the wording in the first place? Apparently, policies get enacted by immaculate conception, then require a strong showing of consensus to ever change them. The style of argumentation is familiar to anybody who's been involved in the BADSITES wars, unsurprisingly since it's the same group of The Usual Suspects doing both. *Dan T.* 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: then why have people claimed that it carries greater weight because it's Foundation-wide, as if the Wikimedia Foundation (or consensus, even, a nice place to start) had anything to do with deciding it? It carries no more weight than if I copied and pasted George W. Bush into WP:NPOV; of course, Pathoschild's actions were less noticeable (and in good faith). Even given the benefit of the doubt that it could be good policy: as we practice it more and more, we find that, despite the abuse that comes from open proxies, it may not be such a good clause as we first followed it. (By the way, I am referring to the "prohibited" section, not the entire policy.) Gracenotes § 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, of course. The claimed that because they were unaware of the policy's history. I shouldn't have assumed disingenuous intent there; sorry. Gracenotes § 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"We have policies here for a reason - to follow and enforce them." That's exactly the wrong approach. Yes, we have policies for a reason - to build a 💕. I still don't see why using an anonymizer for protecting my privacy and otherwise doing nothing wrong should harm Misplaced Pages. --Elian 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The empty threats of "Troyan sock admins", whatever the hell that is look suspiciously like some sort of witch hunting. I don't use Tor, but I can see a lot of valid reasons why a person can choose to use it.  Grue  18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that we have banned users currently active as admins, there is no mass infestation of Trojan and sock admin and would-be-admin accounts preparing to strike. That is a ridiculous straw man, besides Tor isn't necessary at all for that, and using open proxies actually makes detection more likely. Anybody with a computer at work, school, or a library can do , anybody with two different isps can do it, anybody with a car can do it as Cplot showed. Socks coming out of the walls is just an absurd fear tactic. --MichaelLinnear 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Too be fair, socks coming out of the walls could make an awfully good episode of Doctor Who (hey, it worked with slugs). --Cyde Weys 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about an ass-load of users not knowing why we have a policy on not using open proxies. Open proxy connections are not actually "bad", and the only reason we don't allow them is to prevent abuse. There have actually been proposals to enable TOR connections via an admin bot (for blocking and unblocking) to allow non-abusive connections (the proposal lost support due to the issue of giving a bot admin controls). Really, people, get your heads out of your asses. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Meta

• Comment As I've noted below, the policy about editing from open proxies has had its wording revised in such a way that it may (or may not) impact the discussion within this RFA. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 06:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin reverted the changes. So in case the new wording had an impact on this discussion, that should be reverted too, although it may be unreverted as soon as SlimVirgin's policy reversion is reverted. Stammer 09:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's revert was reverted and then the page was fully protected. FunPika 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs) now appears to have announced his intention to leave the project, but does not wish for this RfA to be closed early. ➪HiDrNick! 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like an announcement of inability to edit: all TOR exit nodes and other proxies that CharlotteWebb has been using have been blocked. --Carnildo 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Or more accurately, she's been bullied into inactivity by those that would use her as a tool to find and block open proxies. Gracenotes § 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from project page) m:Meta:No open proxies is a Foundation-wide policy. Administrators are, of course, never obliged to take any administrative actions, but would you be willing to enforce this policy as an administrator? --bainer (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved from project page) Sorry to interfer here, but it is not. It was copied in May 2006 from the english Misplaced Pages and never approved in any way by the Wikimedia wide community. Because it largely corresponds to actual practice in most projects (i.e. "Open proxies will be blocked") it was never questioned. And the new interpretation dominant in this discussion here "Users are not allowed to use open proxies or anonymizers" couldn't be enforced by an administrator anyway. To discover if a user is using open proxies you would have to be checkuser. --Elian 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is a huge difference between "open proxies will be blocked" and "editors in good standing will be punished for using open proxies". The first has been standard operating procedure since forever; the latter has not ever been established as standard procedure, and shouldn't be. There are plenty of valid reasons a good-faith editor would want to use anonymizing proxies, including but not limited to avoiding government censorship and oppression and preventing outage by CheckUser abuse — which this whole circumstance clearly shows exists. --Cyde Weys 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, stop claiming that anyone has been "outed." Nothing is known about CW and nothing was "outed." SlimVirgin 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that she has been outed. Information has been revealed about her that has damaged her Misplaced Pages reputation, personal or not. Gracenotes § 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Confidential information has been improperly released and used for character assassination. If CharlotteWebb was a vandal, then yes, I would say go ahead and reveal that she was editing from Tor. But she was a user in good standing and did not deserve this kind of treatment. --Cyde Weys 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Trojan horse admins and deception

• Comment - Tor, "trojan horse" admins, deception? I think this situation presents some interesting problems from a game-theory standpoint.
  • First, I'm skeptical that CharlotteWebb is a genuine trojan horse in the sense implied below. The edits look reasonable, and her statements look like someone who perhaps has a political interest in the legalization of marijuana. On the whole it's not well-orchestrated or sneaky enough - a real "secret agent" would probably be better at having answers to the proxy use, etc., not apparently get a bit emotional about it. Of course that could be another feint. My guess is the reason for tor use could be something more like: this is a person with some kind of distantly public exposure, etc. - something pretty harmless.
  • I do think we should know the real names of any administrator. It's an extremely powerful position (wikipedia is becoming the central source of knowledge on the internet). It'd cut down on a lot of these games if all admins were known entities. That said, since that is not the case I don't think it should count against CharlotteWebb that she wants to hide her identity like most other admins do.
  • It assumes a great deal of energy invested over a long period of time, therefore assumes some substantial benefit, to believe that someone would create an account and edit for months contrary to their true beliefs, or with some ulterior motive. That speaks to the perceptions of the accusers.
  • Suspicion in my experience is usually a sort of projection. We are suspicious of things we think we would do in the same situation. That's not to say there are not good cues for when someone is deceiving, bluffing, feinting etc., but suspicion usually occurs, I think, when the particular deception is already on one's mind.
  • If the question is "trojan horse" admins (raised below), who among us is really free from suspicion, whether or not we appear to be a unique identity? Also, if one perceived an advantage in gaining adminship through some feint or deception, why would one stop it until the self-perceived critical moment? Could last for years conceivably. This devolves pretty rapidly into witch hunts and finger pointing.
  • If everyone may be feinting (bluffing), how do you separate out which is which? This is a pretty new area of research in game theory, but I did find one interesting conclusion from Håkan J. Holm of the Lund University. He finds that we are better able to detect truths than lies, and that "In this equilibrium, the better a player is to detect lies the more often will the opponent player lie. This counter-intuitive result could be used in hidden information problems."

Fourdee 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin promptly (immediately after the edit) removed the above from the RfA page and put it here on the talk page. Did I violate some policy or customary use of the RfA by placing the above in the discussion section? Why are some comments allowed at the top of the discussion section and others relegated to the talk page? Fourdee 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it to the project page. There is already a bunch of commentary and discussion, don't see any reason for the selective removal of some of it. Those comments are on topic. Fourdee 01:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. You're pontificating. This is the place to do that. SlimVirgin 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The comments have been added again by another editor; your comment-threading practices appear to be inconsistent with consensus, and with others' analysis of Fourdee's comments. I kindly ask that you do not remove them without prior discussion again. If you have any further issues with the location of the comments, it is my hope that you address them on Fourdee's talk page. Cheers, Gracenotes § 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a note linking to this section, which I hope can be done in the future, since it more effectively communicates that the person removing the comments acted in good faith. This is not worth edit warring over, even to reflect consensus. Gracenotes § 04:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are some comments allowed at the top of the discussion section and others relegated to the talk page? It largely depends whether SlimVirgin approves of them or not – Gurch 21:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More likely SlimVirgin moved some of them because they were better off being discussed on the talk page than on the project page itself. Acalamari 21:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That judgment is given to the person who posts the comment, not to a self-elected comment manager. Let's show a bit more caution in refactoring comments, please. Gracenotes § 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quit the personal attacks. We are all self-elected comments managers and editors here, you included. SlimVirgin 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

May I please request that comments are left on the same page where their original poster placed them, unless they are inappropriate there (see

I was pretty miffed too when I found my comment relegated to the talk page here, but found that when I went to put it back, someone else had already said pretty much the same thing. Of course, I'm not opposed to refactoring someone else's comments in all cases; I just took out someone else's font size=5 tags from this RfA myself. I suppose it's a matter of degree. ➪HiDrNick! 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with TOR

The problem with TOR, as I understand it, is that there is a lack of accountability. It is easier for someone to have sockpuppets undetected, and one's password can be stolen at the exit node point. (Please correct me if I've misunderstood this issue). Therefore, it is probably a bad idea for an admin to edit through TOR, and I can accept that.

However, I think there is flawed reasoning involved in the way the policy is enforced, specifically as discussed in this RFA, which is why I very much believe this discussion belongs here, as well as the policy's talk page. Here's my point: aside from password stealing, and accountability, there really isn't a good reason not to allow TOR edits. For anonymous users who may be vandals, those are good reasons. And for admins, the password-stealing creates great damage potential: also a good reason. However, for those that see a normal editor using TOR as a scary violation of policy, I assert that these are not good reasons to think an editor is doing something wrong.

One's password can be stolen in other ways, and in any case there is not the same damage potential with non-admins as there is with admins. Further, the accountability issue breaks down like this: nothing stops an editor from using a NORMAL ip to edit under their user name, and THEN create socks using TOR, or a similar open proxy. In this way, only the socks would be subject to the accountability-loss of TOR use, and indeed the nodes would often be blocked. BUT, because of this scenario, NOT using TOR to make one's normal edits ought not add any acountability to the editor himself! This point is especially significant, and bears restating: Any user could ALSO be editing, via socks, with TOR, and the fact that he or she does not use TOR for their normal account, does NOTHING to decrease the possibilty. Or, put another way: all users, TOR or otherwise, can create an army of hard-to-trace TOR-using socks.

The salient point is this: since no editor is any more likely to be creating TOR-enabled sock armies than another based on TOR use, I do not think it is correct to assume CharlotteWebb was "doing anything wrong" before this RFA. A violation of policy, perhaps, but then a policy that fails to correctly assess the situation at hand, as I hope I have shown above. Though this is not enough reason to Support, if a TOR-using admin worries you (as it worries me), but I think the tone of some of the opposes in this RFA have been leaning toward "oppose because you are a BAD person who violates SACRED WP rules!" (Please note that this is hyperbole: I'm not accusing anyone of having this view, just having a view closer to it than makes me comfortable.)

Apparently, CharlotteWeb is no longer practically able to edit Misplaced Pages, as all of the ip's associated with the account, (TOR or not, allegedly), have been blocked, according to her talk page. This fact, and this fact alone worries me about the "checkuser abuse" allegations that have been cropping up in and around this RFA. If this is actually the case, that non-TOR ip's are being blocked for no other reason than that a TOR-using editor once edited from them, then I think something has gone seriously wrong with the system. CharlotteWeb has implied that she would not want the non-TOR ip's distinguished from the others, as this further erodes the privacy protection she evidently wanted in the first place, but I still think that this is a serious issue that merits a further look.

I hope that we can learn from this RFA, and use what we learn to improve Misplaced Pages. I think we should start by taking a VERY careful look at the policies we employ to stop certain people from editing: we need to make certain that they say exactly what the community consensus wants them to say, and the community needs to realize that the wording of these policies IS in fact very important. Congrats if you made it all the way through this comment, by the way, but now I am done. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what if this person were trying to edit from China, North Korea or a muslim country, for example? Jimbo has already gone on record saying he does not support banning editors who use tor, and that there should be some leeway in the policy to allow for people who have legitimate reasons to use it. This is all way out of hand. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CW already said she is not from China, etc. Doczilla 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I really hope we can learn from this too. TOR is a technical block due to likely abuse. You make a very good point about how we really don't have any more accountability with normal IPs than with TOR, although accountability wasn't the reason we block open proxies. Jimbo Wales himself has expressed the need to find ways to allow non-abusive TOR editors, while still blocking out the bad ones. (See Misplaced Pages talk:No open proxies#A general statement). TOR has nothing to do with behavior or trust, it's simply a technical issue. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Transmitting an administrator password in plain-text over random networks, has nothing to do with trust, you say? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Main_Page But oh, I guess you didn't think of that, did you. -- Ned Scott 18:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, yes I did. Since CW has never used https, and has never said that she intends to, her password would be transmitted in the clear on a hostile, disruptive network. Again, that underscores the fact that CW is not worthy of my trust. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Trusting random networks?

I am very disturbed by the prevalent misinformation spouted in numerous ways by CW's supporters. If people truly believe that "sysop is no big deal", then why have RfA?

It is all about trust.

When someone is trusted to act as an administrator, they are inherently expected not to conduct themselves recklessly.

When you transmit your authentication information on unknown networks, you are behaving recklessly.

For every TOR exit point, there is a great deal that is unknown. Given the enormous amount of abusive behavior that originates from TOR endpoints, it is hardly a leap of faith to claim that black-hat hackers thrive on the TOR network. How many tor endpoints reside on essentially wide-open networks? How many endpoints are sniffed? While I'd be hard pressed to say that all of them are, it is painfully obvious that at least some are. Since the TOR endpoint varies so regularly, it really doesn't matter which ones do or don't.

The issue here is not whether someone can contribute or not. Certainly regular edits can happen for registered users arriving via the TOR network. But should one be trusted with the ability to unblock all open proxies, if they exclusively use a network where their username and password is treated as public information available to all?

I'm sorry, but I see a tremendous difference between allowing someone to add "JOSH IS GAY" to an entry, vs. allowing someone to delete the main page and open up hundreds or thousands of open proxies, so entire networks (4chan?) can turn around an add "JOSH IS GAY" to over a million random articles simultaneously.

Transmitting your username/password in plain-text (MD5 hash) is bad enough. Randomly announcing that plain-text username-password to multiple "hostile networks" is beyond irresponsible.

A vote of "support" for CW's RfA is not vote of "trust" of CW; instead it is saying that you "trust" every black-hat hacker on all networks with a TOR endpoint. That is inexcusable.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You make an excellent case for that, however CharlotteWebb was never given (that I saw) the chance to 1) agree not to use tor anymore or 2) explain why she had done so - because apparently she was blocked from editing entirely, tor and non-tor, in the middle of all this. Also, let's suppose she did have some good reason for using tor, per Jimbo Wales's suggestion - how can she really say anything about it without betraying what that reason is? The fact of prior tor use should in no way disqualify her from being admin, although the continued use of it would certainly raise the issues you mention (unless we can get some kind of https access going which there should probably be anyway). Most of the comments seemed to be along the lines of "she violated policy, she can't be an admin" when it's not so clear the policy was really meant to be interpreted like that, or that there ever was a consensus about the policy. I just think she should've been given more of a chance and maybe a bit more patience and understanding. The issue could've been raised in a more diplomatic manner, as should've the matter of "trojan horses". Does seem to be a moot point now, unfortunately. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but could she not have posted a message asking for an admin to unblock her, or at least posted a request for someone from ArbCom to contact her regarding her reasoning for using TOR? Granted, i don't think she should have been blocked until we received at least some heads-up as to why she did something so open to misinterpretation,b ut someone acted a bit too proactively. Admins unblock those blocked by others all the time; why didn;t Charlotte simply post her reasoning on her User Talk page? Her willingness to defensively attack anyone questioning her was the real reason to oppose her adminship. Well, that and the whole incivility thing. - Arcayne () 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 posted a message on her talk page saying that he had checked and had found it was true that someone had blocked the non-tor IPs, but that since she had used so many IPs, he thought that it was probably an accident. He said that she could contact him privately, and he'd see to it that the non-tor IPs were unblocked, and that if for privacy reasons she didn't want him to do it, he'd ask another admin discreetly to do it. ElinorD (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And Raul is awesome for offering to do so. However, we know the pace at which life moves here in WP. Had you or I been unfairly blocked, we would not sit on our hands waiting for the matter to resolve itself. We would act swiftly, moving up the food chain until we were unblocked or had sufficient reason as to why we were blocked. For all we know, this latter has happened I don't know what's going on with Char, but as a neutral observer, I have to say that the silence from her seems to speak volumes. - Arcayne () 14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a simpler feeling here. If we really felt that security of logons was of critical imporance, the logon page would have a url beginning https, and actually be a secure login page. Since it doesn't, Misplaced Pages has already declared that it doesn't care about security of logins. We have effectively chosen to trust all networks everywhere, whether they are TOR, your local ISP, a university network, etc... Worrying about TOR logins is ridiculous when the main login page is insecure. An MD5 hash is, whatever it's failings, better than plain text. GRBerry 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not follow. U/P information is sent on a lot more pages than just userlogin. Access is open to all networks (until blocked) for anonymous access; that does not imply that admins are to be encouraged to share their authentication freely. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is all this stuff

about "passwords in plain text"? Does the secure server not work with Tor or something? – Gurch 15:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would identify edits as originating from the secure server, not TOR nodes. (Disclaimer: I am not a CU on Misplaced Pages, only on Wiktionary, and have not seen any of the relevant data. I have not reviewed the CU logs since learning of this matter.) Obviously there was no intent to use the (slower) secure server for all (nor even part of) her traffic. This would have the same effect as never using https at all. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you missed the point. Using secure server would protect passwords, etc. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone who used the secure server over Tor wouldn't be "revealing their password as plain text", thus nullifying most of the arguments against use of Tor by any established contributor in the above two sections – Gurch 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but no, you both missed the relevant detail. If CW had ever used https, it would show up differently on a CU scan, and certainly never would have be "collateral" in the first place. This very clearly shows that CW has no intention of behaving responsibly, at any time, with the administrator flag. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And how the hell do you know that CW would not have used the secure server when she got the admin bit? It's a bit pointless to do it as a normal user, as a normal user doesn't have any powers or abilities. How many admins don't use the secure server via college networks that don't use encryption, or via unencrypted wireless connections in public places? There are tons of higher risk situations that we do nothing about. At this point, you're just reaching. Your concern about password access has been blown out of the water. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, xe isn't; and administrators who do the things that you mention should be directed to read m:don't leave your fly open. Uncle G 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd start with a simpler question. How many admins don't even know about the secure server. You can pretty much assume that only admins that know about it use it. Count me in the group that had no idea it existed. GRBerry 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An unusual suggestion for the Bureaucrats

I propose that all oppose votes based on TOR usage be set aside. --Random832 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The RfA would be then (90/4/0) according to my count, which is 96%. Evilclown93_(talk) 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Several of the opposes that mention Tor do so in the context of the answers (or lack thereof) to the questions. I don't see that it would be possible to separate the issue of Tor from this RFA, as it has overshadowed the conversation since the beginning. Note that neither I nor (I believe) Random832 has registered an opinion at the RFA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Such an action would ignore the people who made brief comments, without going on at length about why they feel that overlooking valid-seeming edits from a TOR user, are quite different from an administrator broadcasting their username and password on insecure (known bad) networks. In particular, it ignore the fact that if CW had ever used https, her edits would never shown up as "collateral." Since CW clearly never uses https, one must assume that her password will be "in the clear" on those networks. But even somehow twisting logic around that fact, your "proposed remedy" would also reject many people's votes who simply feel that it is not a good example, or those who feel using TOR with an administrator flag exhibits very poor judgement. Or even those votes that were cast, that feel it is simply irresponsible. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A better solution, would be to throw out votes of "moral support" or votes that refer to "witch hunts" etc., since they are so misplaced and don't understand that no personally identifiable information was revealed, yet CW most certainly was in violation of policy. Recounting that way would be (5/66/19) by my estimate. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that most of the opposers have thought the issue through as well as you have. They may have no idea why they're opposing other than "against policy", a policy some may not really understand. By the way, your internal estimator is rather off. We shouldn't count any votes that refer to the TOR issue, both supports and opposes, as a compromise. :) Gracenotes § 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have an unusual definition of assuming good faith, because that assumes no good faith at all. Apparently, we are all idiots, because we all didn't understand what we are doing with regards to the TOR issue. Thanks. Of course, I contend those who chose to ignore the TOR issue (along with the lack of civility by CW in answering the questions) must have no idea why they voted that way. So lets delete everyone's vote. Orangemarlin 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that last solution :) then we'll get 0/0/0, and the Misplaced Pages will explode from <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">indeterminacy. Then no one would have to argue anymore. Yay.

But more seriously, you also seem to have an unusual definition of assuming good faith. Do I believe that the oppose voters are malicious? No. Do I believe that they voted with good intentions? Yes. Speaking further of assuming good faith, my comment was not a veiled way of saying what you just did. I said nothing more than what I meant. (One piece of disambiguation: "understand" refers to the why, not the what, of the policy.) Gracenotes § 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the suggestions above are unnecessary. Please, if we trust the bureaucrats to do their job, then just allow them to do their job in interpreting the RFA without implied "favored interpretations" that merely discount opinions you disagree with. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GN, I think my idea of good faith is that you assume that we have good and valid reasons for opposing CW based on the TOR issue. For example for me, it's a firm rule (not one of those hard to interpret ones like WP:AGF)). I don't like open proxies because they are abused more often than they are used for good. I do not believe the oppose voters were malicious, and I certainly wasn't. As for the "why" of the policy. That is an argument that needs to be resolved elsewhere. Orangemarlin 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a firm rule--that's the problem. Jayig noted that he knew Charlotte was editing under a proxy earlier and did nothing about it--he only raised the issue when it came time for an Rfa which, in my mind is a problem. The policy is a changing policy--the hard blocking rule is recent and a lot of people think it's a bad idea (Jimbo included). We need to figure out how to handle proxies, whether we're going to let them edit as IPs or named editors, if so, what additional security provisions we're going to want. We need to decide as a community whether or not it's ok to have TOR admins, and if so, what additional security provisions we require. But that's not a decision that should be made on any individual user's Rfa. People were voting based on how they felt about policy that has yet to fully come into being. That doesn't make sense to me. Vote on whether or not your think the user would make a good admin. If we come to a consensus that TOR users are ok with certain provisions, but admins aren't--then we de-sysop unless and until she was able to contribute another way. If we come to a consensus that no TOR editing is ok--Charlotte would be de-sysoped and wouldn't edit unless and until she was able to contribute another way. If we came to the conclusion that TOR was ok following certain provisions--we'd make sure that they'd be followed. But fighting out what our policy should be on a user's Rfa doesn't make sense to me. I believe that the users had good faith--they didn't want a TOR admin, they saw a security risk, but IMO that's something to be decided elsewhere. It's all mute now, but good faith doesn't mean that you're answering the right question. That's all. Miss Mondegreen talk  05:05, June 22 2007 (UTC)

'Firm rule'. Ha! It's a 'firm rule' which has no stated penalty, which has never been cited before this incident, and which several other users, including current admins, do not follow. That's not a 'firm rule'. That's an entirely new 'policy' which simply did not exist as a practice anywhere in Wikimedia until it was introduced to torpedo this RfA. Suddenly it's a 'firm rule' and the fact that she didn't follow this previously non-existent 'policy' is 'evidence' that she doesn't respect the rules. Nonsense... start to finish. Show me one other positive contributor who has been blocked simply for using TOR. Ever. --CBD 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)