Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlotteWebb (talk | contribs) at 02:28, 5 June 2007 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Armedblowfish

Voice your opinion (52/31/3); Scheduled to end 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish (talk · contribs) - Armed Blowfish has been a Wikipedian since April 2006. For those interested in the numbers, AB has made nearly 6000 edits to the project, with about 2500 of those being to the mainspace. AB has been a member of Wikipedia's Mediation Committee since July 2006. Armed Blowfish's mediation experience provides particularly suitability to adminship. As a formal Mediator, AB continually demonstrated unerring caring and patience along with the ability to deal with some of our most problematic disputes.

Armed Blowfish has shown strong familiarity with Wikipedia policies beyond that mediation experience. AB has been a frequent contributor to numerous policy pages and the discussions on their respective talkpages. When AB contributes to deletion discussions, it is to make comments that are thought out and go beyond merely expressing an opinion as to outcomes. AB provides new information [1] and counsels that discussions not conclude rashly [2]. Armed Blowfish has contributed valuable encyclopedic content to the mainspace, including progressing Gunston Hall from a stub to a Good Article.

There is however a special reason why Armed Blowfish asks to be trusted with adminship. AB edits Wikipedia from a Tor proxy and is therefore at present IPblocked. This confines AB indefinitely (or certainly for 2 years) to editing AB's talkpage. In my opinion the encyclopedia is the poorer for lack of AB's contributions and AB's ability to be an effective mediator is heavily curtailed. The IPblock is the explanation for the lack of recent edits, although Armedblowfish has continued to follow on-Wiki activities and to contribute on the MedCom lists and at the Private Mediation Wiki. This RfA thus also doubles as an unblock request. Admin accounts are not affected by blocks to the IPs those accounts edit from - as an admin AB would be able to edit free from the IP block, whilst the proxy can remain blocked (thereby preventing vandalism from it). The choice is rather stark, Armed Blowfish can either contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator or will not be able to contribute at all.

Ultimately there is only one question here. Do you trust Armed Blowfish to be an administrator? In my opinion AB has demonstrated the necessary knowledge of Wikipedia policies and is one of the most trustworthy editors here. I hope you will be able to support this request. WjBscribe 08:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Given the IPblock that prevents Armed Blowfish editing this page, acceptance and answers to questions are being transcluded from AB's talkpage. If you wish to ask questions, you will be asking them on that talkpage although they (and the answers) will appear here. WjBscribe 09:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by ^demon In my time at Wikipedia, I have seen many an editor. Some I work hard with to do the mundane, like clear an image backlog, or tweak a regex for our bots. Sometimes I will work with editors discussing deletion discussions, or a better way to do this that or the other. However, a focus of my work here at Wikipedia has been with the Mediation Committee. Since my joining, the Committee has seen an entirely new set of faces. One that I have been very pleased to work with has been Armedblowfish. He is absolutely dedicated to the MedCom, and that dedication has shown itself brilliantly. Right from the start, he took what was potentially one of our hardest cases ever, that of Falun Gong. He made that case his case, in that he never stopped dedicating time to working with those editors to reach a solution that they could all live and be happy with. He is absolutely committed to working on the English Wikipedia to make it a peaceful and productive place, which is why when he became hard blocked, he was devastated. I trust this user wholeheartedly, and I understand his justification for wishing to remain anonymous behind a proxy. Giving him the admin tools so he can return to being a productive member of our community is the least we can do, given his dedication to the project. ^demon[omg plz] 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

User talk:Armedblowfish

General comments


Regarding Q5 from HiDrNick, Armedblowfish is of course free to answer that question without my advice, but I regard the request as seriously misguided. This nomination is not just about a trusted user and Tor. The candidate wishes to help with RFPP as well, and is willing to help us keep an eye on our unwatched pages (all of which are extremely boring, by the way). The candidate is willing to take up other unspecified tasks if called upon to do so, and as an admin, will inevitably be called upon to do so. I cannot seriously imagine a situation in which, months or years from now, ipblock-exempt is extended to normal trusted users and Armedblowfish has never used the other admin tools to help the project. Other work done as an admin should stand on its own; if one of the reasons for adminship becomes moot, the others will still be valid. ··coelacan 18:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Armedblowfish before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support unhesitantly (and as nom). Armedblowfish has the necessary experience of Wikipedia policy and is undoubtedly trustworthy. I can even forgive the length of answers above :-). Congrats to those who've made it this far down... WjBscribe 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The strongest support I've given to any candidate this year. I have now worked with Armed Blowfish for four months as members of the Mediation Committee, including in one case where we are mediating together. Armed Blowfish is extremely courteous and forethoughtful, two excellent traits in an administrator candidate. He displays good discretion and understands how to best achieve a resolution out of basically any situation, as proven by his track record (totalling nearly a year) at the Mediation Committee. Armed Blowfish is articulate and expresses himself well, and has never been incivil or anything close, and always displays the utmost respect for users he comes across (especially in his mediation). Despite the recent lack of edits (see above, in the nomination, for reasons), I can assure you that he is still mediating privately through this time, has been extremely active on our private mailing list (especially helping out our new mediators), and is always willing (and wanting) to have a chat about Wikipedia. Put frankly, one of the best candidate I've seen in yonks. Daniel 09:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I've thought over this one for quite some time as I knew it would eventually be listed here. It's unorthodox in the extreme but this guy definitely gets my support - Alison ☺ 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - knows policy, knows how to keep his head, has an extremely demonstrable need for the tools, and will most certainly not abuse them. Martinp23 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Seen him doing good work with MedCom and elsewhere. Cool head, civil, intelligent, and would definitely not abuse the bit. Riana ⁂ 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Ignoring all the excellent contributions, this RfA summarises a need for the tools and work around for the IP issue. IMHO We would do well to remember that adminship is not a promotion but a method of allowing editors to continue their work effectively and efficently. Pedro |  Chat  10:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - No problems, experienced editor, clear need for the tools. Although I'm not involved with mediation and haven't encountered this user, anyone supported by Riana is probably OK. :-) WaltonAssistance! 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Majorly (talk | meet) 11:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Level-headed, open-minded, intelligent editor who would be even more helpful with the tools. Dekimasuよ! 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - as per nom :) ..--Cometstyles 11:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Sound like AB's ok, and will use the tools effectively. Stwalkerster talk review 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Arm this blowfish with the buttons. --Infrangible 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support There are good reasons for making this user an admin, and after a brief look through hir early edits, I find nothing questionable — Ksero 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support-I remember hearing about his whole problem with Tor, and how he could get around it, on his talk page a long time ago. You should've done it sooner :). Good user-unblock should of course be granted in this special way. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. A clear need for the tools and I trust Armedblowfish with them. Will (aka Wimt) 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Go. --ST47Talk 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom. Ganfon 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. support While I disagree with ABF's opinions and edits regarding the guidelines for dealing with suicidal individuals (and this issue has been brought up by Moreschi in his oppose vote) I do not see how this disagreement is at all relevant for the user to properly use the admin tools. JoshuaZ 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had to deal with this sort of things a handful of times. Both times we've been trolled and the users in question have been blocked. And if Armedblowfish had wheel warred to reverse the blocks, believing them harmful? Moreschi Talk 15:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have complete and utter faith that ABF, in his never-ending desire to minimise conflict, would never wheel war. In a conflict, he would follow the established practice of firstly contacting the admin responsible, and if necessary taking it to AN(I). I think one would have to make quite a leap of assumptions, and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary, to presume that ABF would ever wheel war. Martinp23 15:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still unconvinced, judging by the edits to the rejected guidelines. People can do odd things when they consider the lives of others to be at risk, as he clearly did during the PatPeter saga, when all the evidence pointed the other way. His criticism of Durova's block left me concerned. Moreschi Talk 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No harms yet, and nothing to lose. This guy kept on with the mediation at Goguryeo even though everybody lost interest. (Wikimachine 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  22. Strong Nominator Support ^demon[omg plz] 16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Neil ╦ 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support... rather unusual case, and seems privacy-conscious to the possible point of paranoia (though I have no clue what his personal situation might be, and I'm not one of those cyberstalkers / "outers" who pry into that)... but also seems to be a productive and reasonable editor when he's allowed to be, and there's no reason he can't be allowed to have the ability to continue editing. Personally, I wish the autoblock on proxy IPs could be waived in the case of known "good users" without requiring the drastic step of giving them admin privileges, but I see no harm in letting this editor have them. *Dan T.* 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Looks good to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support- Great editor. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I've interacted with Armed Blowfish in the past, and found him to be an extremely judicious person. The business with the Tor proxies is something I know little about. But I did look at the fragment of our PHP code that regulates IPblocks, and it is clear the code is currently written so that only administrators can be IPblock-exempt. EdJohnston 17:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, my experience with Armedblowfish has been positive. · jersyko talk 17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC) changed to neutral · jersyko talk 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Very impressed with Armedblowfish. TimidGuy 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. I was going to co-nom, but someone beat me to it and I see little point in piling on. Irrespective of the IP issue, I would not hesitate to offer ABF the tools. My major interaction with him recently was at WP:SUICIDE, where we had very different views of the merits of such a proposition. Nevertheless, his careful and considered discussion impressed me immensely. I believe we don't need for our Admins to have the same beliefs and interpretations as ourselves, we need admins who will make their position clear in the proper manner, then accept and enforce the decision of the community, whether they agree with it or not. My experience with ABF suggests he is one of those. The fact that a toolbelt is the only way he can currently continue his excellent work here simply adds weight to my support. Rockpocket 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Great user who could use the admin tools.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Been here long enough to know policy, fair amount of edits (2500 mainspace good). And an awesome name :) Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Appears to have a good command of policy, etc. Carom 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Mediation work shows a willingness and level of skill in collaboration, and the open proxy issue, in this case, is a good application of Ignore All Rules. There is no reason why, if we make an exception for this editor, that we would have to do that for every editor. I think this editor has already proven themselves to be trustworthy.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support all interactions have been positive. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. My understanding is that WP:NOP is a policy because of the fear that Tor proxies will be abused on Wikipedia. There's no evidence Armedblowfish has ever abused Wikipedia. Editor looks like a good contributor. Assuming good faith, I would trust this user, and would like to see him be able to edit the encyclopedia. BTW, the NOP policy does seem to conflict with the Pillar ideal that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, and Mainland Chinese Wikipedians may only edit through Tor (the status of this advice is apparently unknown). Firsfron of Ronchester 06:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support First, we need him, both as an editor and as an admin, and there is not the slightest thing in his history on WP or in his answers to give any reason to think he will use the tools wrongly. It is appropriate to make limited special-case exemptions from security policies in order to get around software quirks. This sort of thing is fairly routine. That the developers hadn't mentioned it is because they didn't think the admin part would ever become a problem, and it never has. This is a technical solution to a technical problem. I think Armedblowfish and Coelacan understand the security issues involved. I am not convinced that those voting to oppose understand them. DGG 08:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support would benefit project and per [3]. Catchpole 09:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support This is really silly, he is a trusted editor, and I'm glad he is upfront about the tor exit node, and I'm glad that he is willing to make his IP open for use of those that need it. Good people use tor. A second note, how do we know that our other 1000+ admins don't use tor? Heck Jimbo questions the blocking tor on the talk page of the open proxy policy. —— Eagle101Need help? 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per eagle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs)
  40. Support I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this application, have seen his work and deletion discussion contributions before and have been suitably impressed by the work he puts in. I think the issue of where he edits from is irrelevant so long as his account cannot be compromised, and the fact it has not been as an editor as well as the arguments above convince me that that is not likely to be a problem. Orderinchaos 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Arguments regarding "paranoia" etc. are ridiculous when they come from a bunch of people who oppose another user's RfA because he is not one hundred percent against ever linking to any non-attacking subpages of websites which also contain attacks on other subpages. That's hypocritical and Wikipedia deserves better. I'm also inclined to call Armedblowfish ArmedGlowfish, so that I can appropriately abbreviate his username AGF. —AldeBaer 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. To say that Armedblowfish is violating policy is to ignore the spirit of the policy for the letter. I do not think it is the belief of the community that Tor is bad; it is our belief that we must, unfortunately, block it to prevent abuse. But Armedblowfish is not an abuser, so that rationale doesn't apply. Chick Bowen 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. -- Avi 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At its heart, a request for Adminship or Bureucratship is community referendum on the judgement of a user, and whether we, as the community, would trust that user's judgement to be excercised rationally and fairly in difficult situations, even were we to disagree. My first communication with user:Armedblowfish was in his contribution, and eventual opposition to my own RfA. The user was eloquent and thoughtful, and made a valid case as to his opinion there. I have come across him time and again, and have most always come away with a good impression of his judgement and ability. I had been contemplating nominating the user for adminship completely independant from his proxy issues.
    Regarding the said proxy issue, I understand the user's "paranoia", as should many, many people here who have been targeted by on-line, and off-line stalkers. Our policy is such that we do not allow editing from open proxies to prevent vandalism. Since it is impossible to contact the originating IP's abuse center due to the proxy, we, as a rule, slam the lid down on the proxy. Be that as it may, user:Armedblowfish is not currently editing through an open proxy; he is blocked. English wikipedia does have the loophole that allows admins to edit behind open proxies, as I believe it should, as these are users whom have demonstrated good judgement and trustworthiness that mitigates the proxy issue.
    Thus, in a nutshell, I believe this user, although not perfect (hey, he opposed moi ) to be someone whose judgement as an admin would benefit the project, notwithstanding proxy issues, and support his candidacy. That this will allow him to return as a full-time editor is just icing on the cake. -- Avi 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I see nothing wrong here. Looks like a good candidate and I would have supported him even if he was not autoblocked. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support the user has proven we can trust them on the project, and while he's overly paranoid about his privacy, that's not our concern to judge. -N 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support we disallow open proxies to stop vandals, not legit editors like ABF. Anyway, he certainly has the policy knowledge to make a fine admin, regardless of his current position. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. I would definitely trust this user with the tools. Abeg92contribs 20:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Per Ryan Postlethwaite. --Mschel 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per reasons set forth on my userpage. Edivorce 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Having had my concerns answered (off this page) I am now happy to accept that this is a good user who will contribute positively.--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I believe he's trustworthy and should not be denied adminship on a technicality. Frise 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support; not only is the ruleslawyering in the Oppose section completely unconvincing to me, I find no evidence that this user will misuse or abuse the sysop tools in their editing, and believe they will prove an asset to Wikipedia in their enhanced role, whatever the original motivation for the nomination. -- nae'blis 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. The mediation experience should be invaluable for an administrator. I'm surprised he wasn't nominated for admin earlier. CLA 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, a very positive contributor to the Wikipedia community. Would have supported regardless of the IP issue. -- Visviva 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Good contributor. I support the use of proxies, given the common abuse and lack of transparency of CheckUser and other issues with privacy on this site. Grace Note 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. The circumstances surrounding this nomination border on being silly, but I believe the candidate himself is experienced, competent, mature, and unlikely to "abuse the tools". I do disagree with his views on the need for a suicide guideline. Compassion can't be taught. If somebody has enough of it to counsel a completely stranger on the Internet, they will, guideline or no guideline. Otherwise they won't. I realize the page was created in good faith by somebody who obviously has strong feelings about suicide, maybe due to the tragic decision of a loved one. I'm not going to ask that question or look to see if he's answered it already (not really any of my business) but if it is true, just know that I understand your feelings completely. But the proposal, as we can now see, failed to gain any significant support and has been marked as rejected, and since then Armedblowfish has been willing to let the issue rest. Moral support. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. No. Not after the edits to Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals and Wikipedia:Helping suicidal individuals, which show a complete lack of understanding as to what Wikipedia is here for and a striking lack of common sense. I am not at all comfortable with this editor having admin buttons. Moreschi Talk 12:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For instance, condoning this is just completely missing the point, and this - are we not meant to be writing an encyclopedia? Moreschi Talk 13:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem. How is standardizing an appropriate response to potentially suicidal individuals preventing anyone from writing an encyclopedia? I'd rather see discussion than a template for an established user, but Armedblowfish is entitled to an opinion. What relevance does this have to the appropriate stewardship of admin tools? MoodyGroove 16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
    Seems like a good-faith (though ultimately rejected) attempt to deal sensitively with something that actually has come up as an issue occasionally. Why is it a problem, absent any attempt to agitate in a disruptive manner for revival of the proposal once it failed? *Dan T.* 17:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine the argument would be that one who would seek to advance the views Armedblowfish did so misunderstands the purpose of the project and is possessed of such poor judgment as never (not now, at least, I'd guess) to be able to convince one of his fitness for adminship. Similar propositions have been advanced on other RfAs (e.g., on Gracenotes', where some objections were not over the prospect of GN's using the tools in a fashion inconsistent with policy but simply over his having put forth suggestions that were understood by some as reflecting quite badly on his overall competence. I'm not certain that either argument is persuasive, but I don't think it entirely unreasonable to suggest that a user who, in good faith, non-disruptively, and exclusively discursively, makes a suggestion that is ultimately rejected and perceived by some in the community as rather misguided might have his judgment called into question, even as it might not be generally appropriate for one to drawn conclusions over good-faith, non-disruptive contributions. Joe 23:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're the sort to impose political litmus tests on admin nominations, yes... that sort of thing seems to be going on way too much these days. *Dan T.* 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. I'll support anyone. I just don't back this fellow's judgment. That's all. Moreschi Talk 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. An edit such as this (very recent) doesn't accomplish anything other than increasing the drama. Admins should always attempt to reduce the tension in disputes instead of making impulsive decisions that violate WP:POINT. ChazBeckett 20:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I'm opposing for two reasons, one of which is the use of open proxies. I asked about this above, and ABF replied it's because crackers could obtain his ISP bill via his IP address. But how would they obtain his IP address from the Foundation? Open proxies are largely used for abuse and by sockpuppets, and I believe the Foundation, at least, needs to be able to see where the project's admins are located. There are legal reasons that people might need to be traceable by the Foundation or the courts e.g. if they post libel. We also need to be reasonably sure this isn't a sockpuppet admin account or a previously banned user. The other reason I'm opposing is because of ABF's behavior during the WP:ATT poll. I don't have diffs at the moment, and I can barely remember the details, but at times it almost amounted to trolling (repeated reverting over tags, and such like). I'll supply some diffs later. I'm very glad to see ABF's work with the mediation committee, but I'd like to see a bit more experience before promoting, and a resolution of the open-proxy situation (either by using his regular ISP instead of proxies, or by passing his details to a checkuser or bureaucrat). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall that Armedblowfish answered "why", in a discussion closely related to problems you've experienced, SlimVirgin. The assumption that "there are legal reasons that people might need to be traceable by the Foundation or the courts" is quite false. There is no legal requirement upon the Foundation be able to identify a user's identity, only that the Foundation would, under subpoena, hand over the IP that accessed Wikipedia. It is law enforcement's job to trace the user after that; whether or not they can dig through Tor is their concern, not the Foundation's. There is nothing illegal about Tor; the US Navy would not have released it to the public if it was illegal. A subpoena only requires that the Foundation release the known information, which in this case would be the Tor exit nodes used. Demanding a new level of disclosure to trace IP to individual, as you desire, would require a rewriting of the privacy policy.
    As has been pointed out already, CheckUser is no cure,[4] [5] but there are potential changes to RFA culture that could minimize the possibility of admin socks ever passing, and would be much more effective than CheckUser.[6] [7] ··coelacan 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Neutral While I'm sure the user would be a fine admin, we don't allow editing from open proxies. I don't care if you run the exit node on your own box- no open proxies. To allow you to be an admin from the blocked proxy IP is moot because you are still editing from an open proxy. I give a hearty no to that. I can appreciate the desire for anonymity, we go to great lengths to preserve as much privacy as the user desires. That strikes at the heart of what SlimVirgin said in her opposition: there is no check or balance to your account as long as you use an open proxy. Yes, there are sock admin accounts beyond Runcorn. They edit every day. It would take a fool to believe that there is not at least one person tapping behind the screens that have two admin accounts as well as other socks. While violating policy, they cannot be caught until given away. Once outed, we need a way to check the account. The open proxy fools checkuser. Sorry, but I can't bite this hook no matter how tempting the lure. Keegantalk 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We already block socks who aren't confirmed by CheckUser. We do not need CheckUser to desysop an abusive admin; we only need diffs. ··coelacan 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I have a problem with someone who apparently flouts policy and edits from an Open Proxy becoming an admin. His nom says "AB edits Wikipedia from a Tor proxy". If that's true, are we now saying that someone can ignore our policies and still become an admin? If so, why should anyone respect any policy if admins don't? How can the admin enforce policies if he himself ignores them? And I thought that the Open Proxy policy is designed to help protect us from sockpuppets, vandals and trolls – wouldn't having admins using such accounts greatly weaken that protection? Crum375 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We block proxies to avoid vandalism. Do you believe Armed Blowfish will vandalise Wikipedia? Reading Jimbo's comment about Tor referenced from AB's answer to Q.4 do you believe we would hardblock Tor proxies were it not for the vandalism that results from them? This will not help us combat sockpuppets. Any admin can use a proxy post-RfA. People can split their contribs between work and home IPs or use internet cafes. Many people can reset their IPs at will. All that will be achieved here is that we will lose a good contributor. I don't see what Wikipedia will gain. WjBscribe 01:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is above the law, including admins. All admins should respect and abide by our policies – otherwise why have any policies? And specifically, I have no way of knowing if any given admin will or will not create socks. It is very possible for someone to cultivate multiple well-behaving accounts and get them to adminship. We have the Wikipedia:No open proxies policy in place to protect us against all comers - sock admins as well as editors. Are we now saying that our policies can just be ignored? Crum375 01:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like more of the "zero-tolerance, absolutist, the-law-is-the-law, regardless-of-context" stuff like we saw in the whole "attack sites" debate... and with a few of the same people taking that position. Ironically, in the "attack sites" issue, the absolutism was in defense of protecting against those who "out" users and violate their privacy, while in this issue the absolutism is in favor of users not being allowed to take technological means to preserve their privacy against those who would "out" them. *Dan T.* 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You call it "zero-tolerance", I call it "slippery slope". We start selectively ignoring our policies, and soon we have none. An admin has to be above and beyond in his adherence to policies, otherwise he'd be hard pressed to enforce them, or to get editors to respect him. We have policies for all of us, not for some of us. Crum375 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ever read WP:FIVE and WP:TRIFECTA right, the spirit and purpose of our policies is to build a collaborative encyclopedia. Please, show how the user has harmed that encyclopedia, and if you can't, explain why this policy is nevertheless one that is exempt from WP:IAR. ··coelacan 01:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying he has harmed it, although since he edited from Open Proxy his edit audit trail would likely be harder to trace than the average user. But I am very concerned that by promoting to adminship someone who openly flouts policy, we are effectively saying that policies don't amount to much – we can always just IAR them when they get in our way. The Wikipedia:No open proxies policy was made for a reason - to protect us from socks, vandals and trolls. If others see that someone who habitually violates an important protection policy is rewarded by being promoted, and once promoted he is home free to continue using Open Proxy, this can create serious damage to our respect and credibility and make our security even weaker. Crum375 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct about IAR; we can always ignore policies when they get in our way. That is the point of IAR, and that is why it is policy. The important point about IAR is that it is employed and judged on a case by case basis, and always has been. If something done under IAR goes contrary to consensus, then we don't let it stand. But if we decide, hey that's a positive result, then we let it stand. And that's why we're here now: to decide whether Armedblowfish is a positive user and whether his application of IAR is a benefit to the encyclopedia overall. It wouldn't be a first. Wikimedia Foundation board members have used anonymizing proxies. The point of the policy is indeed to protect us from socks, vandals and trolls, and Armedblowfish shows no sign of being any of those things. You are wrong that there is any slippery slope that can damage our security, though. Open proxies are hardblocked. Normal users cannot use them. Only editors who have been vetted for trust, through an RFA, can use them. The technical restriction in the software stops anyone else from doing so. I am not sure you understand the software restriction, if you are actually worried that this will result in more abuse of open proxies. The effective reason why open proxies cannot be used is that they are blocked by the software from doing so, whenever an admin identifies a proxy and blocks it. And all Tor exit nodes are publicly advertised; they are not difficult to identify. The software does not have a slippery slope. ··coelacan 04:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We ignore policy when it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia. As far as I understand this candidate has no restrictions on editing the encyclopedia that effectively the entire remainder of the editing population has not accepted. Let's not act as if we are hampering him when he has willfully chosen not to edit outside his talk page. All in all I don't find this a very compelling argument. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We block proxies to avoid abusive sockpuppetry as well as vandalism. You're right that any admin could start using proxies post-RfA, but we're being asked here to endorse admins using open proxies, which means we're being asked to endorse anyone using them. That would be a fundamental change of practice and policy, and it would mean we'd have no grounds in future to desysop someone if we suspected them of running two admin accounts and found they were editing from proxies. There's no reason for us to lose a good contributor. All ABF has to do is start using his regular ISP. No one from the Foundation is going to pass his IP address to a cracker, as he implies above. Caution is a good thing in an admin, paranoia not. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Caution is a good thing in an admin, paranoia not" - are you sure that its the former you are demonstrating here and not the latter? WjBscribe 01:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ABF has admitted that he's paranoid; this is not a good thing in an admin. I'm also concerned about this RfA being used as a back-door to change a policy (Wikipedia:No open proxies). It's a bit like nominating someone for adminship whose platform is that he'll ignore NPOV from now on. If you want to change policy go to that policy talk page; it shouldn't be done by changing the RfA standards. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Privacy is a human right. You are asking a person to trust people he or she does not know (those with CheckUser access), who make "informal" IP checks "off the record" regularly upon request. Your or my own personal lack of need for this kind of privacy does not give us the right to take it away from others. People have their reasons.[8] This is not going to mean that every user can use Tor, because the current practice on Tor is to leave it hardblocked and I don't see that changing. This is only going to mean that one user is approved for ipblock-exempt, an ability that every admin already has. ··coelacan 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia...." Failure to adhere to any particular rule is not a reason to oppose an RFA unless you can demonstrate harm that the user has caused. SlimVirgin says she has diffs of annoying behavior during the WP:ATT poll; those diffs would be welcome. But the simple fact of IAR, which Armedblowfish has disclosed, is not enough. Please show the damage that this Wikipedian has caused or is likely to cause. Please show us why this user should not have the tools, not why some hypothetical shadow admin should not have the tools. The hypothetical shadow admin is not up for RFA today. From what I've seen thus far, Armedblowfish is a widely trusted and constructive user who shows only dedication to this project. ··coelacan 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just about this editor. If this RfA passes, every single editor and admin will be able to post using open proxies, which is currently against policy. It would be farcical. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is quite false. This RFA has no effect on the hardblocking of Tor, and any admin who wants to can already use open proxies. Call for the desysopping of any admin who does, if you want, let's see how far the ArbCom actually bothers to run with that ball. ··coelacan 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how IAR applies here. The rules themselves are not preventing ArmedBlowfish from editing, the user is not behind the Great Firewall. The user's own personal feeling on the internet is what is prohibiting editing. There is no need for an anonymizer to IAR. I certainly see how SlimVirgin and my own opinions are fleshed out as to why we cannot establish trust in the account. We may all have to agree to disagree on this issue, but suggesting that SlimVirgin is the paranoid one as WjBScribe did is entirely unfair. It was the disclosure of her personal information that led to a desysopping last year. So let's not go questioning the integrity of opinions and how to evaluate trust. Keegantalk 01:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall some of the fallout quite well. In fact, in a Brandt/Slimvirgin discussion, Armedblowfish laid out the rationale for Tor, for the very kind of privacy that anyone else might need to avoid the harassment that SlimVirgin experienced. It is my empathy for SlimVirgin then that leads me to disagree with her here. We cannot decide whether a person has a right to privacy or not. We can decide whether the user is a valuable contributor to our encyclopedia who would benefit from use of the tools.
    Using a proxy does strike me as a manner of attempting to achieve privacy that has more chance of success than does getting "outed" by an "attack site" and then frantically trying to get Wikipedia to suppress links to it. *Dan T.* 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't understand is how he could edit as an admin despite the block, but not with a regular account. Could someone explain, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, users with the sysop flag are immune to underlying IP blocks. I only found this out last week! - Alison ☺ 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) There is a feature in the software called "ipblock-exempt". It is a user access level, one of the permissions that is attached to +sysop status. Anyone who has this software permission is not affected by IP blocks or autoblocks. So, the only way to block you is to block the account User:SlimVirgin. If someone blocks your IP, you will not experience an autoblock, and if a family member at your house gets their own account blocked, you will not experience an autoblock. Armedblowfish's IP is hardblocked, directly, so the account is autoblocked. But it would not be autoblocked if the account was sysopped. Other non-admin users trying to come out of Armedblowfish's Tor exit node would still be autoblocked, since no change will be made to the IP's block. ··coelacan 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What it means is that we effectively allow admins to use Open Proxies. I only understood that when this RfA opened. Is there a link to this admin exemption policy somewhere? Where is it discussed? Crum375 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a policy thing, it's a software thing. ^demon[omg plz] 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought we design the software to follow policy. Are we now saying that we decide policy (e.g. allowing admins to edit from Open Proxy) by software, with no community discussion? Crum375 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (A) The community is free to consult the developers on software changes but they basically do their own thing; (B) the point of this software feature is to prevent administrator autoblocks (e.g. for admins who use AOL). The fact that it allows editing from open proxies is a coincidence and not the purpose of the feature. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the feature was designed to protect admins from autoblock. But per current policy: "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies". That includes admins, too. Yet we are being told that this nominee intends to violate this policy as soon as he can, just as he has before. This simply doesn't make any sense. Crum375 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a functional difference between AOL or any dynamic ISP and an open proxy, for our purposes? Results from CheckUser are inconclusive either way. There are changes we can make at RFA, though, that would reduce the risk of "bad admins" passing RFA, even in the cases where CheckUser would make no difference.[9] [10] ··coelacan 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent) You seem to be missing the point, coelacan. I am not talking about 'functional differences' or esoteric software features. I am talking about an admin candidate who is telling us he has continuously violated our policy, is currently blocked for violating it, and wants to get promoted to admin, so he can get magically unblocked (due to a software limitation) and then continue to violate the same policy. Once an admin, he'll supposedly censure and block editors for violating policies, and expect them to respect him. Do you see why this sounds absurd? Crum375 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose user is in clear violation of No Open Proxies. How can one flout policy and enforce it at the same time? Black Harry 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can demonstrate the harm this user is causing to the encyclopedia, I'll be glad to listen. If we're just going play with platitudes, though, I'll be happy to respond that the user will "use common sense." ··coelacan 02:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Paranoia is not a good thing in an admin, even if admitted, and ArmedBlowfish needs to put Wikipedia policy ahead of his desire to use TOR proxies. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on why paranoia is a bad thing in an admin? What exactly do you mean by that, and what damage has been done by paranoid admins? ··coelacan 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose As much as I respect your Mediation Committee work, I have to oppose for 2 reasons. First and foremost would be the fact that you would set the committee (which you are already on) ahead of the mop and broom, as you said in Q1. The second would be the use of Tor. I really can't seem to accept paranoia as a reason for using Tor on Wikipedia. Tor is generally used for hacking, and if the hacking is not approved, then it is malicious. I am not saying that you are necessarily using Tor for malicious purposes, but there really is no reason for using Tor at all here. So, I really have to oppose. Besides, although the Mediation Committee might need some pages deleted, there are a couple of admins there (methinks ^demon is an admin) that can do that, and there really is no backlog to that. Diez2 02:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people expect admins to put article writing ahead of admin tools. I can't see why a predilection for mediation is a problem if article writing is not. The user did say they would be willing to use the tools for other things when called upon: "I can use the administrator tools for other purposes if I believe the community wants me to when I have time". What on earth is wrong with that? As to Tor, you have no evidence of what Tor is "generally used for", nor any evidence that this user is that sort of person. (And you mean "cracking", not "hacking".) On what grounds do you decide who does and does not have reason or right to exert the human right to privacy? ··coelacan 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I have doubts based on AB's use of open proxies and must reluctantly oppose for now. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help the rest of us if you would discuss those doubts? ··coelacan 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Coelacan, please don't respond to everyone who opposes. People have a right to respond to doubts already expressed, rather than having to repeat them every time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm fairly sure I have a right to ask people to actually engage in discussion. There have been good faith attempts to respond to the issues you've raised, and I believe these deserve a hearing rather than being glossed over and ignored. I'm not asking that anything be repeated, but while there are open questions on the table, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that people actually take up those questions. To be sure, if everyone here wants to say "if Armedblowfish is going to be an admin or no editor at all, I prefer no editor", that is surely the opposers' prerogative. I'd like to see the case actually made, though. Hell, SlimVirgin, I have not supported the candidate. I might oppose, or go neutral. But I can't make up my mind if the issues I raise go unanswered. It would be brilliant if this area of the page, labelled "Discussion", were actually a discussion. ··coelacan 04:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is a vote, you can respond to every opposer you want. However unless you get one or more to change their minds, doing so has no effect. However it a little annoying that you are carrying out a war by proxy for a user blocked for a clear violation of Wikipedia Policy. Black Harry 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I eventually go neutral, I am honored to advocate for a good faith user who has a clear need for the tools. If you believe that the rules come before people here, or that the rules come before the encyclopedia, you are wrong. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. This user has improved the encyclopedia in many ways and put in many hours to resolve conflicts as part of the mediation committee. I would ask you to read the nomination, and look at Armedblowfish's contributions. The issue on Wikipedia is never "the rules must be obeyed!" The particular issue in this case is whether this particular user's breach of this particular rule is in any way damaging to the encyclopedia. That is a question that will be decided by consensus, not rulebooks. ··coelacan 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. My frustration and insistence with this discussion has given me a headache, and I'm probably not my only victim. My apologies to anyone who's felt censured by me. My goal here has been to give a fair shake, but not a shakedown. Sometimes it's hard to find that middle ground. I'm going to bow out for a couple of days at least. Cheers, =) ··coelacan 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoo hay, Coelacan, this is an interesting discussion and it should be taken up on the talk page for this RfA. I agree that querying every opposition isn't the way to go, OTOH we should have moved this elsewhere a while back. Keegantalk 04:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per SlimVirgin, and that the rules apply to everyone, sorry. --MichaelLinnear 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The proxy issuse, this and the other previously listed comments are enough. FeloniousMonk 05:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The prohibition on open proxies has been in force the entire time you've been on Wikipedia; given that you have ignored project-wide policy from the very beginning of your time here, I have difficulty believing that you could enforce it effectively. To be more specific, I think it would be difficult for you to explain to problem editors why they are obligated to follow our policies when your reaction to our policies is to request a special exemption from them, for no reason of great substance that I can detect. Unfortunately, if the level of privacy that is accorded basically every other editor is insufficient for you, you may need to choose between your privacy and editing Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Wikipedia:No open proxies is policy, and should be treated as such. We don't get to pick and choose what policies we follow. If you would stop using Tor, I'd support. Sean William @ 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose. Proxies are prohibited for a reason. And requesting adminshp to bypass WP:NOP is unacceptably ridiculous. Admins are expected to be model wikipedians, not elite caste allowed to violate the policies. MaxSem 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose He wants to become an admin to evade a clear rule which applies to everyone else on Wikipedia? And not because he's editing from China but because of vague 'security' fears which somehow don't worry or apply to anyone else here? What an excellent precedent that would set if this goes through. Nick mallory 12:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, don't use RfA as unblock request. That admins can edit through Tor proxies is more a bug than a feature anyway. Will reconsider once the user starts to edit from a non-blocked IP or once the "admins can edit through blocked proxies" bug is fixed. Kusma (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, per 'No open proxies'. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that even jimbo questions its application on tor. —— Eagle101Need help? 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for now. My principal reason is that I just don't see that the candidate has any real need for the tools. He mentions in passes that he might help out here and there, but I don't see any "extremely demonstrable need" as Martinp23 said in the Support section. Subverting a policy (even a misguided one) is not a valid reason to obtain the tools. I'd rather the candidate direct his energies toward changing the policy. --Spike Wilbury 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - "Being paranoid" is not an excuse to violate policy. An admin cannot be editing behind a Tor exit node. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose First, ABF says it himself on his talk page: "Everything except letting someone nominate me for adminship, which doesn't feel right since a) Requests for Adminship is not meant for unblock requests, and b) aside from ipblock-exempt, I don't need the permissions. But who knows, perhaps the developers will add the feature sooner than I think.'" Second, this is a policy issue. If the policy is bad -- and frankly it may need a bit if tweaking -- then it should be changed. I do not believe ABF to be a vandal but let's do this right, not in some round about way. Sorry. JodyB talk 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a link for this or a dif? Miranda 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Try here [11]. JodyB talk 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People have every right to change their minds, of course -- Avi 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose based on open proxy issue. Sorry. --A. B. (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you want to put this here or should it be a bit higher up? Just to clarify if you are oppose or neutral. Pedro |  Chat  16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for moving this out of the "neutral" section -- my mistake. --A. B. (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, If I read this correctly this request is being made so that an editor (and it should be mentioned an editor in good standing) can run a Tor exit node and still edit Wikipedia regardless of WP:OP. To me, that isn't a good justification for getting a mop and bucket. I'd prefer to see other avenues explored for Armed Blowfish to continue editing. Sorry, I can't support at this time, though I note that per Fire Star (talk · contribs) this has probably spurred a useful conversation.--Isotope23 17:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose We have a rule against open proxies for a reason, paranoia is not a good enough reason to overrule that. --Tango 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, circumventing the m:No open proxies policy. Prodego talk 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose As much as I would love to support him/her I can't. RuneWiki777 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I have no opinion on the merits of Armedblowfish, but RfA should not be used to avoid Wikipedia policy on open proxies.-gadfium 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - I think that the policy should be changed, rather than using a loophole to circumvent it.--Danaman5 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose as long as the user uses open proxies, barring, of course, an exemption from Jimbo or the Foundation. Perhaps the policy should be changed. OK. Then we should go through the proper channels to change it, not circumvent it through an RFA. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. RfA is not the place to try to change longstanding policy, and I would expect an adminship candidate to know that already. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not at all a fair statement. Tor has long been softblocked to allow registered accounts to edit through it. Only very recently, after this discussion, did hardblocking begin. The practice before that was consistently to allow registered users to use Tor. And Armedblowfish didn't self-nominate, WBJscribe and ^demon, already admins, made the nomination; you cannot chastise Armedblowfish for this or hold the nomination against him like he should have "known better". We all know what the policy is, and we also know that consensus can change, and offering an exemption to any trusted user for any rule is within the scope of any discussion at any place: since we're not a bureaucracy we can discuss this right here and there's nothing wrong with that. ··coelacan 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I am quite certain that this user would under no circumstance vandalise the encyclopedia. But, as I understand it, while knowing that it is against wiki policy to edit from open proxies, he has chosen to do so; and the only given reason for achieving admin status is so that he can bypass his IP-block. As far as I can see, he could edit by ordinary - i.e. non-Tor means - if he chose to. If I am wrong, please tell me, and I will change to support. But as it stands, I feel that an admin should support, not circumvent, wiki policy. Changed to Support--Anthony.bradbury 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Admins are supposed to be just like anybody else, and anybody else would be blocked for using an open proxy. Why is Armedblowfish not blocked already? The use of proxies is forbidden by policy. Get the policy changed first. Corvus cornix 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose When a admin violates policy knowingly and blatantly, the reasons that he or she should have adminship are in question. Captain panda 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose I suspect I'll be shot for saying this but here goes anyways. One thing we don't need is paranoid admins. They tend to have a bunker mentality which is not healthy for the project. And although I'm sure admins who have been the subject of off-wiki harassment would strongly object to this, I see no valid reason for anybody to bypass the very reasonable policy about open proxies. Most certainly the candidate's stated request of adminship mainly to avoid autoblock is in my mind unacceptable. Pascal.Tesson 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

Neutral for now. I'd like to know why Armedblowfish is editing with open proxies. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought these were prohibited? Wikipedia:No open proxies is still a policy, right? Neil ╦ 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This also concerns me, especially in light of our recent admin-hacking troubles. I look forward to hearing an explanation for this.--Alabamaboy 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll up then, to where Slim asked the question, and where Armed answered :-). The crux of the issue is that privacy is more important for some, and that only a tiny proportion of Tor users are abusive on Wikipedia. As far as I know (and I'm happy to be corrected on this matter), there was no evidence that our friendly admin hacker used Tor. Martinp23 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still undecided, but it seems to me that if all admins used Tor or other proxies to edit, we'd have no way to check them for sockpuppetry, thereby allowing for a crop of sock admins. What am I missing? Crum375 22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sock admins are going to exist whether they use open proxies or not. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing them to use open proxies makes it too easy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, do you think there are sockpuppet administrators in existence? Majorly (talk | meet) 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean running them concurrently or consecutively? --MichaelLinnear 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Change to neutral from oppose. I believe the user would make good use of the tools. I do not trust or approve of the user's method of editing Wikipedia. I feel it unfair to weight this against reasons to support, so I move to neutral. Keegantalk 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changed from support. The comments by those opposed are a cause for concern. · jersyko talk 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not sure if this is relevant to this issue (since I can barely understand any of the discussion regarding open proxies), but thought that this recent comment may be relevant. FNMF 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read his next post though, where he confirms that he still stands by his previous position. [12] The link is to an email exchange, where Tim Starling asked: "Would there be any objections to systematically blocking all anonymous proxies on a site-wide basis?" And Jimbo replied: "There are absolutely no objections from me. I'm all for it. In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." [13] SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but he recommends soft blocks, and that's a significant point. That, and his overall softening towards proxies. My point is that it's not as cut-and-dried as it appears. There are such thing as constructive use of proxies, as Jimbo himself points out; "I would like this policy to be [...] revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do" - Alison ☺ 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alison, stop quoting selectively. Jimbo wrote that it can be a valid thing to do for "people who have special circumstances." [14] Armedblowfish has said there are no special circumstances; he simply wants absolute privacy from the Wikimedia Foundation and its checkusers, but he hasn't said why. If he can have it without special circumstances, then so can every other editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    note - rather than have SlimVirgin revert my comments here again, please direct any further replies to the talk page. Thanks - Alison ☺ 05:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Technology and policies evolve, and without otherwise commenting (still weighing the arguments of both sides) I will say that this RfA has spurred a valuable privacy vs. potential abuse issues debate. Generally a good editor, I will be happy to reconsider ABF's adminship in future. --Fire Star 火星 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish&oldid=135948709"