| Revision as of 00:08, 27 June 2007 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits agreed← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:32, 27 June 2007 edit undoChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits Some suggestions on issues to be addressedNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :I agree that would be helpful. The privacy policy wasn't breached, because no identifying information was revealed; in fact, all that was revealed is that the person behind the account had gone to certain lengths to prevent identifying information from becoming known. Nothing was known about the person behind the account before the RfA, and nothing is known about that person now. In any event, the privacy policy does allow the ISP and the country of origin to be revealed, so revealing that Tor was being used would be covered by that. It's therefore unclear to me what this case is about. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | :I agree that would be helpful. The privacy policy wasn't breached, because no identifying information was revealed; in fact, all that was revealed is that the person behind the account had gone to certain lengths to prevent identifying information from becoming known. Nothing was known about the person behind the account before the RfA, and nothing is known about that person now. In any event, the privacy policy does allow the ISP and the country of origin to be revealed, so revealing that Tor was being used would be covered by that. It's therefore unclear to me what this case is about. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't think it's advisable to sweep this under the carpet. CharlotteWebb's IP address(es) were subsequently ''publicly'' revealed by another administrator and CheckUser (who I won't name here - yet) in the course of an indiscriminate block of every IP address that she'd used, including non-Tor IPs, even though the account itself was (and is) not blocked. The IPs are viewable in the logs. That will certainly merit some scrutiny. There's also a case to be made (per Seraphimblade) that Jayjg's public disclosure of the Tor usage was a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the CheckUser policy. A number of issues concerning Jay's timing and the purpose of his use of CheckUser privileges have also been raised by users. There's no doubt that the affair has caused a good deal of ill-feeling among the community and, I would say, a significant (further) loss of trust in Jayjg's judgment. | |||
| ::I'd suggest the following key issues need to be addressed: | |||
| ::1) Use of Tor proxies for non-abusive purposes. If there is no evidence that CharlotteWebb was editing abusively, was any harm caused? | |||
| ::2) Appropriateness of Jayjg disclosing CharlotteWebb's use of Tor proxies in the middle of an RFA, and Jay's actions beforehand (specifically the context of his use of CheckUser privileges in the first place). | |||
| ::3) Appropriateness of indiscriminate block and ''de facto'' public disclosure of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses by another admin. -- ] 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:32, 27 June 2007
Greetings. This case promises to produce a great deal of verbiage. It might help to reduce this if we could see, clearly, what the scope of this case is. One of the accepting ArbCom members said "Ombudsman action is limited to breach of the Foundation's privacy policy, which appears to have not occurred, and requires the affected user to complain. Checkuser policy outside of the Foundation's privacy policy is under the purview of the arbcom." I would assume this means that discussion of whether or how the Foundations privacy policy was breeched would not be helpful, right? It would seem to me that the Foundation's privacy policy is outside the scope of this case (except as a finding of fact, perhaps). Am I correct in this? Are there other aspects which this case explicitly does/does not cover? For example, one could comment on CharlotteWebb's behavior, advocating censure. Is this covered by the case? A statement by the ArbCom of the limits of this case's scope could help reduce much metaphorical ink from being needlessly wasted in these pages. All the best, – Quadell 00:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that would be helpful. The privacy policy wasn't breached, because no identifying information was revealed; in fact, all that was revealed is that the person behind the account had gone to certain lengths to prevent identifying information from becoming known. Nothing was known about the person behind the account before the RfA, and nothing is known about that person now. In any event, the privacy policy does allow the ISP and the country of origin to be revealed, so revealing that Tor was being used would be covered by that. It's therefore unclear to me what this case is about. SlimVirgin 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's advisable to sweep this under the carpet. CharlotteWebb's IP address(es) were subsequently publicly revealed by another administrator and CheckUser (who I won't name here - yet) in the course of an indiscriminate block of every IP address that she'd used, including non-Tor IPs, even though the account itself was (and is) not blocked. The IPs are viewable in the logs. That will certainly merit some scrutiny. There's also a case to be made (per Seraphimblade) that Jayjg's public disclosure of the Tor usage was a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the CheckUser policy. A number of issues concerning Jay's timing and the purpose of his use of CheckUser privileges have also been raised by users. There's no doubt that the affair has caused a good deal of ill-feeling among the community and, I would say, a significant (further) loss of trust in Jayjg's judgment.
- I'd suggest the following key issues need to be addressed:
- 1) Use of Tor proxies for non-abusive purposes. If there is no evidence that CharlotteWebb was editing abusively, was any harm caused?
- 2) Appropriateness of Jayjg disclosing CharlotteWebb's use of Tor proxies in the middle of an RFA, and Jay's actions beforehand (specifically the context of his use of CheckUser privileges in the first place).
- 3) Appropriateness of indiscriminate block and de facto public disclosure of CharlotteWebb's IP addresses by another admin. -- ChrisO 01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)