User talk:CharlotteWebb

	This user is under the microscope of the cabal. For more information, try joining some mailing lists.	Drama portal
F	This user has been rated as F-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Archive	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My E-mail.

Thanks, I've replied back. Acalamari 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination.

{{helpme}}! — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha! GDonato (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tor proxies and your RfA

If you want to give a good argument for why Tor proxies are good in general, go ahead. You may well convince some people. Personally, I didn't know much about them or think much of them one way or the other, before your RfA. I suspect the same is true of lots of people.

If you want to explain why you personally need them, or use them, that's great, that's what the question was about. But if you keep avoiding the question and instead try to turn this into an attack on Jayjg, you will turn a lot of people against you.

Think of how Acalamari nominated you. "CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that." Keeping your cool is an important part of being an admin, which is why Acalamari emphasized it so much. You're not doing that.

Think of what you, yourself wrote: "Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it?" That could have been phrased a lot better, but in any case, Jayjg has now explained. Your turn. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, but as it turns out there is more to this story, see below. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage

Hello, I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here [4] Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Incidental" information is not anybody's business, and I do hope nobody takes seriously any suggestion to reveal it by default. Checkuser is not for fishing. If something is snagged by accident, please see catch and release. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On your RFA, I assumed that you would have no problem soft-blocking TOR nodes (thus enforcing policy). If I am wrong, please indicate that somewhere, and I shall strike my comments. Gracenotes^T § 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Life can be one compromise after another. If that is the best way to control the amount of abuse while still allowing good-faith users to edit, I would not object to it, so yes, you are correct. If there are other alternatives, they should also be considered. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A word of thanks

Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network. For obvious reasons it would be foolish of me to say which is which, though I don't doubt everything about me will be revealed soon enough. It's so refreshing to know that my privacy is in such safe, competent hands!

This looks and smells like an unannounced de facto ban from the English Wikipedia (one having nothing to do with my behavior). Because of the heightened level of surveillance I'm under, any further edits I make from this account will only have a denial-of-service effect on myself and any other legitimate users of the Tor network. So, all I can say is I hope to meet you all again in the future when I feel safer.

If anybody's wondering, no, I'm not in China. I don't speak Chinese, though I do have some Asian-American ancestry. I've never set foot in China. I see no point in lying about this, but as far as I'm concerned, the thought that a potential stalker might embark on a wild goose chase through the PRC amuses me to no end.

I would like to thank everyone who voiced their support for me, especially those who did so even amid the fear, uncertainty, and doubt raised by the opposers.

I'd like to express specific gratitude to the supporters whom I admire the most for their tireless contributions to Wikipedia and their firmer grasp of our project's basic goals (to build a vast, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not to play politics in a virtual fish tank), those who less frequently bother to even participate in RFAs, those from whom I least expected to hear a vote of confidence, those who may be controversial in their own right, those willing to risk their own credibility in an effort to salvage mine, those whose sentiments most closely mirror my own:

• Everyking (awesome editor, I don't care what anybody says)
• Rory096 (I'll miss you, a lot)
• Carnildo (always looking at the big picture)
• BigDT (it means a lot coming from you too)
• rspeer (comparing me to Zoe, what? I wish I was that good!)

I don't have any hope that it will pass but I see no reason to close it early, considering the gravity of the underlying issues. Thank you and may God bless all. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on this. Could you say more about why you wer using Tor, and whether or not you were aware of the policy against using it? Thanks, William Pietri 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte, several of us are looking into this business of all of your IP addresses being blocked indiscriminately. Could you possibly let me know who blocked your IPs (use my e-mail if you wish to remain anonymous) and we'll get to the bottom of this - hopefully by unblocking the non-Tor IPs. -- ChrisO 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] Notification of request for arbitration

I have initiated a request for arbitration here. Your input is appreciated. Kamryn Matika 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the input she would already have given had she not just been BANNED BY A CHECKUSER? – Gurch 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up

I think the RfA has a chance of passing. And while I don't agree with anonymity by administrators, if it does pass you could work toward allowing anonymity in some circumstances. As far as explaining the use of proxies, I think the people who are demanding it don't understand that the explanation itself might be to revealing - you might say something to that effect. Anyway, good luck. Fourdee 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Don't give up"? Did you even READ what she wrote above? A checkuser has BANNED her from the project without discussion. She can't edit from home at all; I assume she found a public computer to make the above edit – Gurch 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Can you edit at all now? Voice-of-All 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

I did some follow up on your statement above that someone went on a spree and blocked all of your IPs, even non-Tor ones. (Note - this required me to run a checkuser on you) Long story short - you are right that someone did indeed go on a spree. I think, though, given the sheer number of IPs you've used (over 400) the non-TOR ones were accidental. If you email me a list of Non-TOR Ips you've used, I'll see to it that they are unblocked (and if you don't want me to do it, I can privately ask another admin to do it quietly). Raul654 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)