Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop

message: Greetings. I have an idea for a proposed remedy, but I'm not sure how best to word it. The idea behind it is, we don't want anyone's privacy violated, but on the other hand, it's good for the community to know if an admin candidate is violating policy or not. My idea is that one of the standard questions for admin candidates would be something like "Do you use TORs, and do you give a checkuser permission to state whether or not you use them?", worded generically enough to cover all bases and to avoid WP:BEANS, but specifically enough to avoid confusion. The admin candidate would, of course, not be required to answer this question, or could answer "I value my privacy and decline to authorize a needless checkuser search on me." If (s)he did, however, answer that (s)he did not use TORs and did authorize a checkuser to be performed on h(im|er), then it would be acceptable if someone with checkuser permissions state whether or not (s)he uses TORs. 
I'm not writing this on the main page here, for two reasons. One, I'm unclear how best to word it. Two, I'm not sure whether ArbCom will end up stating what is appropriate checkuser conduct or not. (I or anyone else could, right now, ask this question of all admin candidates.) So I guess I'm looking for community input as well. Is there anything wrong with me asking a person with checkuser permissions to check whether I use TORs or not, and to state publicly whether I do or not? (Obviously I don't think anyone should feel pressured to ask for this.) It seems clear it doesn't violate my privacy if I'm the one who asks for this. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure, but I think that asking for checkuser to be carried out on yourself is considered an inappropriate use of checkuser. I can't remember the exact argument, but I think that it is essentially that checkuser can only be used to indicate guilt, not prove innocence, if that makes sense. In any case, TOR use can occur before, during and after RfAs, so focusing on that point doesn't really solve anything. Carcharoth 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's inappropriate if the community deems in inappropriate, and it's acceptable if the community deems it acceptable. I also don't see the argument that "the nominee could start using TORs later" as a good reason to discard the idea. I still think it would be useful. – Quadell (talk) (random) 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carcharoth, what you were thinking of is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser in the "Does your request belong here?" table. (Situation) Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence". (Solution) Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask. Vassyana 11:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Under the new OP policy, this seems unnecessary. One point of argument of this arb case is that Charlotte's tor-using acts was revealed just before the policy was rewritten. Before the rewrite, her acts are illegal, while afterwards they are totally legitimate. --Deryck C. 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed remedy

message: My thoughts on this subject are not at all clear as to the underlying issues of policy and implementation of policy.  With one exception.  Jayjg absolutely posted his question to CW with the intention of disrupting or killing her Rfadmin.  Jayjg is far to experienced a wikipedian to have not understood what would happen.  That seems to be against the policies regarding the use of the checkuser function.  --Rocksanddirt 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Sure About this and where to put it 

message: To avoid going back and forth on the workshop page on multiple proposals, I'll simply offer my further thoughts here.  1. The reason asking first in a situation like this (where no public request has been made) is important is mostly to give the person some chance to explain the situation privately, or to discreetly stop using Tor or not to pursue an RfA.  This may or may not resolve the issue.  Jay having stated on the mailing list that he knows of others who use Tor for what he considers legitimate reasons, this is also the oddity of his decision here: how, then, did he overlook this?  Still, this doesn't necessarily resolve whether the information should ultimately be released, and is also sensitive to the extent it raises issues of applying private pressure.  In that regard, 2. I think there is still a real question as to whether general character evidence should be released into an RfA that wouldn't otherwise be released, per the limitation on use of the tool for "political control."  A couple of questions: If an issue wouldn't be enough to desysop somebody, should it be released into their RfA?  If an issue wouldn't be enough to block somebody, should it be released at all? I can understand if arbcom doesn't want to set checkuser limitations in stone, but I hope these are at least considered before endorsing this approach for the future. Mackan79 07:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts