Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

CharlotteWebb

Closed as consensus not reached by Cecropia 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) at (93/68/19); Scheduled end time 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs) - My fellow Wikipedians, I give you, CharlotteWebb, as a candidate for administratorship.

Since May 29th, 2006, CharlotteWebb has been continually improving the encyclopedia with her great work. In that time, she has amassed about 13,000 edits, and of those 13,000; she has over 8,500 to the Mainspace; over 1,300 to Project-space, with activity at AIV, AN, AN/I, and other RfA's; nearly 900 to the Category and Template spaces; and over 80 to Images. However, it should be noted that CharlotteWebb's edits are high in quality as well as quantity, as she helps reference articles and make sure they are up to the standards. When it comes to communicating, she is very honest and direct, but at the same time, CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that. I personally think she will make an excellent administrator, hence my nomination for her. Acalamari 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Alright, let's do this thing. — CharlotteWebb 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: In addition to continuing to do what I have been doing, closing AFDs, CFDs, and RFDs here and there, as well as transferring free images (of credible origin) to the Wikimedia Commons, I would like to take an active role in deleting copyright infringements, protecting heavily vandalized pages, unprotecting pages which have been protected for too long, making edits to protected templates as needed, and blocking persistent and/or blatant vandals. I would also like to help maintain deletion review, which (more than any other wiki-process) I feel could benefit from a greater level of diversity.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I do not consider myself a great or prolific writer, though I do try. I'd say the article to which I have made the most significant contribution is that of the great Jewish-American Chief Justice Jay Rabinowitz of the Alaska Supreme Court (no longer a stub [1]). I have created countless disambiguation pages such as [2] [3] [4], but I have not bothered to maintain a complete list. Recently I got hooked watching NBA games this season and have developed a strange fascination with basketball, creating articles like [5], [6], and maybe others I've forgotten. I've also written a few a few album and film stubs here and there [7] [8], and helped keep current event articles current, such as [9].

However... my proudest contributions to Wikipedia have been the photography I have been able to locate and upload to the Wikimedia Commons to help illustrate articles. A small selection of articles containing my uploads: [10] [11] [12] [13]. While not my own (I'm not photographer) they have all been free to anyone to use under Creative Commons licenses, and have in many cases replaced previously standing "fair use" images, which by their nature should probably not have been uploaded in the first place [14] [15] [16].

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Mmmm, conflicts. Well I do remember my slightly perturbed response to one user about his poor taste rhetoric/humor in an unfunny AFD nomination about an executed convict [17] [18], though he later apologized (to me for some reason). There was also a short little edit war on Dave Grohl where a user continued to put his "fair use" image back in the infobox even after I'd found a free replacement [19] [20] [21] [22] because he felt that the photo I uploaded was a "piece of garbage" [23]. In the end this was peacefully resolved when he himself found another free photo that he was happy with. I also had grievances with HagermanBot from time to time [24], and I also found myself in the middle of a WP:LAME edit war on Wikipedia:Be bold [25]. I have explained my reasoning both on the talk page and the mailing list. I think I've remained pretty calm through all of these issues, though not to the point where I would let anything unacceptable pass without comment.

4. (self-question actually) Do you have any comment on "the Phaedriel thing"?

I first became aware of the situation when I got this message from Phaedriel on my talk page. I had previously been participating in a mailing list thread where User:SPUI raised concerns about "fair use" of song lyrics for wiki-fun purposes. Specifically he was referring to a parody of Hotel California which can be found on meta [26]. I replied to SPUI's comment on May 4 saying that I had seen a similar Wikipedia-related parody of a classic rock song here, which I thought would also be of concern to SPUI due to his interest in roads and the way the song parody even mentions him by name. On May 8 I got the happy day message from Phaedriel and I honestly did not know what to think about it. So I looked more closely and saw that it too was part of a series of song lyrics and poetry, much of which is still protected by copyright, so I assumed that an implicit "fair use" claim was being made, and I posted a link to it in my second reply to the mailing list thread on May 9, because I felt it was a relevant example for the ongoing discussion.

The complete mailing list thread can be found at the following links (chronological order): [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Only two of the postings are by me. One linking to the song parody by User:Rschen7754, the other linking to Phaedriel's collection.

I had no ulterior motive for doing posting these messages. I did not harass anyone or express any desire to have anybody blocked or anybody's userspace pages deleted, nor was I uncivil in handling this matter. I was just asking a couple of simple questions regarding examples very similar to the one originally given by SPUI. I have explained this to several people who led me to believe they were satisfied with my response, however I still do not see how or why this got blown so far out of proportion. — CharlotteWebb 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's my duty to comment on this as well, as I'm being mentioned here regarding an event that directly involves me. While at first I was taken aback for not being approached directly to solve this matter, CharlotteWeb thoroughly commented her decision with me and expressed her apologies, and even admitted openly her move wasn't the best approach. Such an act of contrition and the way in which she subsequently behaved, discussing the issue openly and friendly, speak volumes in my eyes; it shows a clear will to both admit her mistakes and to engage in dialog in order to solve disputes.

The whole matter is solved, forgotten and forgiven on my part, largely because neither Charlotte nor I wished to dwell on such a trivial subject, and we friendly agreed and learned from our mistakes (on my side, using fair use quotes until that moment; on her side, not approaching me directly after getting her gift) and chose to move on. Like MONGO perfectly put it back then, this was just a whole bunch of nothing, and we all mess up monumentally more often than we'd like - who doesn't? I consider this event completely closed, and tho I thank those who still remember it and holds concerns about it for me, I beg you to reconsider on my behalf. Love, Phaedriel - 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

5. (Optional Question) Do you believe vandalism fighting is more important, or page creation? RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well either activity would be pointless without the other, unless nobody ever vandalized anything. If everybody kept to their own articles the project would be unmaintainable, because nobody is active 24 hours a day, and some people are not even active more than a few times a month, so their articles would turn to crap due to lack of attention, unless everybody was an constructive good faith user (which is too much to ask for). On the other hand if everybody began to only patrol existing articles for vandalism, there would be no growth within the project, or even within articles. If we protect the articles extended periods of time, we will also shut out users who are trying to improve them, and very little progress can be made at all. So it's a delicate balance, and I've always tried to do a little bit of both. If I can't think of anything to write at the moment, I might try instead to keep the vandals from wrecking your articles, even if I know very little about the topics. Then when I'm busy writing articles or doing something in real life, somebody else will always be keeping an eye on the pages I've created or taken an interest in editing. It's really a supply and demand relationship between the two pastimes. And as good as "vandal-whacking" might be for cheap entertainment, we must not lose sight of our basic goal, which is to create a free encyclopedia, the sum of human knowledge. — CharlotteWebb 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? What sort of a question is this?!? Jay, why are you revealing CheckUser information!!!! Isn't this against our privacy policy?!?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ta bu shi da yu has retracted the above and apologized. [35] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it? Have I anything to deserve that? — CharlotteWebb 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing from an open proxy, including Tor, violates policy. If you are violating policy, how can you be expected as an admin to admonish and block users who violate policy? And how is attacking someone who wants to protect Wikipedia from a potential admin who circumvents policies a defense? Crum375 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we'd better go and delete our recommendations about the best way to use TOR then, had we not? See Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall. I should point out, for those quoting Wikimedia:No open proxies that this is linked to in Wikimedia:No open proxies, and therefore sanctioned by, of all things, Wikimedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A policy is something we abide by. Anyone can write an essay about anything, just about. Crum375 08:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really. You can write an essay Wikipedia:Vandalism competition and encourage everyone to vandalise their favourite article to see how long it takes before the vandalism is picked up! However, I might have been a bit hasty on this one. I'm always concerned about privacy, but after talking to a number of people (many of whom I respect a great deal), I can see that saying that the editor was using Tor wasn't going to reveal much. I hereby apologise to Jayjg unreservedly for any grief I might have caused him. I've added an apology on his talk page also. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had to check lots of vandals and sockpuppets. Every time I discovered they were using TOR proxies, your userid showed up as well. I didn't bother mentioning it before, but adminship is a position of trust. Editing using proxies is against policy. Now I'd appreciate a response. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay, How is it possible that all vandals and sockpuppets that use Tor used the same Tor exit nodes that CharlotteWebb used? Uncle uncle uncle 23:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It would only have to be one, Uncle. When checkusers look up an IP address, they can see who else has used it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're advocating cutting off Wikipedia access to the thousands of users who have to use TOR now, are you. This stupid enforcement of TOR has only come about since it was revealed a TOR node was involved in an admin account being hijacked. The only problem is hardblocking TOR exit nodes doesn't stop hijacked admin accounts due to the IPexempt feature (if an admins IP is blocked, they aren't caught by the block unlike normal users) - I see nothing wrong with permitting registered users to continue using TOR until a more satisfactory solution can be found to circumvent censorship and privacy concerns for a large portion of our users. The ideal solution to keep TOR users under control would actually be to promote more administrators who can deal with TOR exit nodes, soft blocking IPs and hardblocking abusive accounts as necessary - over zealous enforcement of TOR isn't helping anybody. Nick 10:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone's advocating anything other than questioning why a potential administrator would violate an official policy and react in such a manner when asked to explain why. The Rambling Man 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine the frankly unacceptable behaviour of Jayjg might have something to do with it. If it bothers him so much, why hasn't he raised his concerns in private with the candidate instead of using it as a silver bullet to shoot down a perfectly decent candidate who looked like passing their RfA. NOP is a ridiculous policy - we've got idiots running around trying to discover identities of editors and admins, we've got countries censoring free speech and instead of trying to find a happy medium, we've gone all out against TOR. Again. This hard line stance of TOR is a useless knee-jerk reaction. Using TOR in no way impacts on this candidates ability to administer Wikipedia and to suggest otherwise is foolish. Nick 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect there is unnecessary worry of another Runcorn incident. Majorly (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick, my man, you are out of line. Open proxies, TOR or not, are blocked on sight by administrators. Just about every vandal IP I come across I do a proxy check. It is expected of administrators. This is not a witch hunt against CharlotteWebb. There are actual, valid reasons for prohibiting open proxies. If Jayg has seen the user's ID pop up while running a checkuser on an open proxy, that means we have no way of knowing if it was the user vandalizing or a million other people. Open proxies do not allow for accountability, which is necessary to enforce the GFDL. Get a breath of fresh air. Keegan^talk 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an administrator with regular experience of dealing with users who are unable to edit because of censorship. Hardblocking TOR is more harmful to the project than softblocking in my opinion. We're perfectly able to deal with account creating requests and any subsequent abusive accounts. Blindly following policy when it's blocking thousands of editors is wrong. GFDL issue is a red herring. TOR along with AOL and any other ISPs or entities using proxy servers leaves us with the same problem. Back to this case, I would prefer if Charlotte would explain the need to use a proxy server, but that's an explanation she should have been and should continue to be in a position to make in private. If Charlotte has a good reason for TOR, such as a need for privacy and to never be identifiable, asking them on Wikipedia and pursuing them for an answer is wrong. Nick 22:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd think "checkuser" is a greater position of trust, Jayjg, one which I feel you've betrayed. There's no basis on which to reveal anything about my editing other than what appears in the page history. My edits should speak for themselves, if you think they are of poor quality, you should say so, revert them if meeded, amd block me if I'm creating a problem. Aside from that you might as well be asking why I or for how long I have been smoking pot. That wouldn't be any more of an irrelevant character attack, coupled with the assumption that I'm guilty of other crimes too. If you sincerely believe I am (or anyone else is) an eminent threat to the project, you should say so, or present the matter for arbcom to decide. — CharlotteWebb 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

These attacks are inappropriate, rather than just answering the question. You're asking to be placed in a position of trust, yet you've been editing in violation of policy. A better approach would have been an e-mail to the ArbCom or checkusers in advance of the nom to say "You guys have probably noticed by now that I edit with open proxies; here's the reason; here's my real IP; any objection if I stand for adminship?" (Better still would be not to use open proxies, of course.) Instead, you attack the person who raises the issue and decline to say why you use them. It's not a betrayal of your trust to have raised it; once a nom has opened, it's important to make the facts known so people can make an informed decision. It would arguably be a betrayal of other people's trust not to say anything. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above that it "would arguably be a betrayal of other people's trust not to say anything". Where will Jayjg be publishing the complete list of all editors who are using Tor proxies? Uncle uncle uncle 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no attack anywhere in what CharlotteWebb has written immediately above. Uncle G 12:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously not the place to debate that policy, but I would have thought that the prohibition on editing via open proxies would apply only to editing anonymously via those proxies. I may be missing something, but I see no harm to the project if a registered user uses a proxy to log in via their own username. I see no reason to hold this against CharlotteWebb. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One reason would be that it foils checkusering to determine sockpuppetry. We've had problems with admin accounts of vandal sockpuppets. Phil Sandifer 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have entered a discussion on this policy of selectively revealing Tor usage here. Uncle uncle uncle 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In reponse to Jayjg's question, your first word is "yes". But you have at no time actually answered his question, and it is a very simple question, on which the whole issue of your elevation to adminship clearly depends. So quite straightforwardly, why do you edit through a TOR proxy?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll bet you'll feel bad when they say "I'm editing from TOR because I'm trying to make sure that I don't get thrown into a Chinese jail as a dissident." - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've said this often enough now, asking someone in public why they are anonymous and then berating a lack of a response is utterly wrong. Take it to Charlotte via e-mail. Nick 12:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about what open proxy actually means (perhaps someone would like to rewrite the article to make it comprehensible to those who don't already know what it is?), but if there's a really valid reason for Charlotte to violate this policy, the best thing would have been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand. The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows: "Yes, I have a valid reason, but for privacy reasons, I'd rather not discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on this page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation. ElinorD (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A very important note: the policy mentioned above states that "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." CharlotteWebb did not violate any policy here. So one cannot use the usage of an open proxy as a reason for opposing, as she didn't abuse it for vandalism or sockpuppetry.
Also, CheckUsering needs permission. The privacy of this editor has been unnecessarily violated, as she showed not a single sign of vandalism or sockpuppetry. And when you want to talk about this, why not mail her or contact her in another way instead of stabbing her in the back at an RFA!?
I'll take a little break to keep a cool head before I become uncivil, which is gonna happen very soon. SalaSkan 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That was only added a few hours ago. Now to update WP:NOP (the change this user is referring to is on the meta page but our version was not updated). FunPika 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These changes have been added recently, presumably in response to the noise that this RfA has caused. The official policy page for English Wikipedia at the time that Charlotte accepted her nomination looked like this; the page at meta looked like this. Both pages began with the words "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." It's one thing to argue that the policy is bad and should be changed. It's quite another for people to turn up at the policy page and start editing it to completely change its meaning, and then argue that someone didn't violate policy. In fairness, Salaskan, who makes the claim that Charlotte did not violate policy, is not one of the people who tried to change the policy page, and may not even have been aware that this had happened. ElinorD (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is a very weird case indeed... Someone linked to the policy, and I didn't look at the history, so I just thought that the policy said just that. Obviously, it sounded very unfair to me that a user gets involved in much controversy and perhaps even fails an RfA for using a proxy when the policy said it was okay. Obviously, I'd have acted more civil when this would have been clear to me (although I stand by my point that the revealing of checkuser information was inappropriate). Sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps it's a good idea to protect the policy page for the time being? SalaSkan 12:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is protected already if you are referring to the meta-wiki page. FunPika 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I don't see how the meaning is any different. If we were targeting individual legit editors we probably would have snowballed this RFA and slapped an indef block on Charlotte for TOR use. FunPika 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

7. My by now stock standard question: under what circumstances should one ignore a rule? --bainer (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

8. 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)

General comments

• See CharlotteWebb's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for CharlotteWebb: CharlotteWebb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Well, it looks like she has left the project decided to go out and get another account rahter than answer any questions whatsoever or go to ArbCom and let them know why she was editing through proxies, so they could evaluate her reasoniong and post their approval of that reasoning here, removing any of that from the considerations. I fuess the RfA is hereby moot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Comment Reagrding the opposes below. A fair while back I initiated this thread about User:Zoe (who has now regretfully left the project), who I felt was brusk to the point of incivilty in her dealings with me. The result of the discussion was pretty much overwhelming support for her, and In retrospect rightly so. At the time it was commented that she was considered "forceful" but that didn't stop her being an incredibly well respected and accomplished admin. I look back on raising the complaint with slightly red cheeks now, and my attitude has changed (or I've beome thicker skinned!). Although WP:CIVIL is vital, we shouldn't assume that shortness and brevity are the same as incivility. This is only a comment, and as I say slightly embarasing for me, but it does show that the community has accepted, indeed embraced, a brusque admin before now, and therefore I felt it right to mention it here; in light of the comments in oppose from editors I respect deeply. Pedro |  Chat  20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to ask Charlotte to be less tough on RfA candidates. Adminship is no big deal, and some of her opposition to various candidates has been very strong (and she sometimes doesn't give much or any reasoning) - these candidates end up passing and going on to be good admins, and she is often in a minority viewpoint. I've already told her, but I'll say it again: there's really nothing to worry about when supporting, and there is really no need to be so tough. Majorly (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish - the exact same issue came up about open proxies in this RfA, which failed. Corvus cornix 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Here is a simple question to the experts in the community, not about this nomination, but somehow related to the issues that have been raised in this discussion. An editor or, god forbid (as s/he repeatedly did not), an admin editing through TOR proxies and engaging in sockpuppeting would be quite difficult to identify, right? Next to impossible? Could someone provide an executive summary of the relevant issues? I am aware that this may not be the most appropriate forum, but the issue appears relevant. Stammer 15:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  Erm, no. Checkusers can still identify sockpuppets because they'd both be using tor or other open proxies (obviously it wouldn't as definite as two users having the same IP, but an admin sockpuppeteer wouldn't be that stupid), and they could tell that people had the same voice or were causing controversy together. It might be slightly more difficult for checkusers, but it could still certainly be done. People say CharlotteWebb's account would be more likely to be compromised and taken over, but there's no reason why she wouldn't just say her account was compromised, and it would be desysopped and blocked until she could regain control, just like any other compromised account. --Rory096 05:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting feedback. CBM kindly addresses my question here. Stammer 06:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Important Note: It appears that Charlotte will no longer be able to comment or respond to questions on this RFA. See her talk page for details. JavaTenor 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be specific, this diff. ➪HiDrNick! 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fourdee has made an interesting point about the actual probability that CharlotteWebb is a trojan admin account, but his comments have been removed three times from this page to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb#Trojan horse admins and deception. Gracenotes^T § 04:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus not numbers: I don't think we can know anything about an editor who uses a Tor proxy. As Mackensen says below: "There is no accountability when someone edits from open proxies. There is no identification; no recourse." For this reason I suggest that we reject this application for adminship. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo Wales[36]:

"I think this policy is currently overbroad, in that it does not appear to take proper recognition of the incredible good we can do by working within reason to allow and encourage people who have special circumstances to be able to edit using anonymizing tools such as Tor. As I am told, we have recently switched from soft blocking Tor exit nodes (something I approve of, due to the incredible firehose of vandalism they can be otherwise) to hard blocking Tor exit nodes (something I do not approve of, since this totally forbids Tor users from editing Wikipedia at all, rather than merely imposing a 4 day waiting period on them)."

"I would like this policy to be (thoughtfully, slowly, and with due consideration for all valid viewpoints) revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do."

Something doesn't make sense to me here, and it's not Jimbo's statements. Personally, I think we should know all admins (not editors) by their real name. Since that's not the case, it's absurd to pick out one kind of anonymity as inherently more problematic than another. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat the Nom Support Charlotte knows what's she doing. She understands an admins tasks, and has a need for the tools. Therefore, I say give them to her. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Second beat the nom Support Very well balanced contributions and I've seen here before around and I'm surprised she's at RfA... You know the cliche. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support as the nominator and my reasoning. For once, I am not late to support a candidate I've nominated. :) Acalamari 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per nom and answers. I entirely trust the candidate's judgement. Peacent 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support Previous observation has left a positive impression. Remember, we're choosing sysops, not RFA voters.--Chaser - T 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Withdrawn pending A6.--Chaser - T 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   I won't participate further in this RFA. Editor has indicated she's left this account. This RFA has become a referendum on the TOR issue, which would be better handled through discussion at another venue.--Chaser - T 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Support Demonstrates that tools will be used well - the diffs provided by User:Ryan Postlethwaite aren't all that convincing to me - saying oppose without much of an explanation might not be the most constructive, but I wouldn't call it uncivil, either. PGWG 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Support. Maybe she comes across a little gruff in a few RfA's but I'm not sure I'd classify it as incivility. User has good contributions and seems to have a good understanding of policy. I can offer my support. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Support Was neutral Changed my mind. GDonato (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Good-faith user, has the experience. Not perfect, but then again no one is. The opposes are completely unconvincing (and in the case of The Sunshine Man, just vindictive), and I sometimes forget that not everyone reads the mailing list, as well. Not a bad user. This business of Phaedriel etc was blown sky-high out of proportion. She gave me a good going-over at my RfA, with reasoned argument instead of YOUREADELETIONISTBASTARD. That was impressive, and certainly not incivil. Moreschi ^Talk 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not only do I not think she is incivil, or even brusque, but in all honesty, on some RfAs, what is there to say other than "No. Just, no."? Comments of this type should not be taken as evidence of incivility, or even of sharpness. Moreschi ^Talk 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Well Said, give yourself a pat on the back. That's two Tommy Points BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   There's always something to say beyond "No, just no." Even the worst RFA candidate deserves better than that. I'm not opposing CharlotteWebb for making those comments months ago, but it's not that cumbersome to take a few seconds to type out a reason for an oppose. --JayHenry 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

8. support per nom and Moreschi. JoshuaZ 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Posting a too brief or overzealous oppose, in the middle of a sea of opposes, is hardly gross incivility. I respect both editors posting oppose votes, but am going to support. User seems quite experienced and good faith, if not a bit brusque/overzealous. I doubt that user will be a problem admin or abuse the admin tools. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Civility is important, but I don't see a problematic pattern. I do see a user who's been helping all over the place for many months. YechielMan 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. I see nothing wrong with this user, and I've seen her around on RC patrol before and she's always seemed sensible. - Zeibura ^Talk 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Itsy bitsy support. See my comment above. Love, Phaedriel - 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I really don't see any major issues in the opposition. Charlotte does quite a bit of AIV reporting and page protection requests, so I believe that this user has the experience needed for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support I think I can trust Charlotte with admin tools. I've come to the conclusion that at least the first two opposers are just a bit... spiteful... that's my opinion, especially the Sunshine Man. Not sure what you were thinking there, mate. Majorly (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support Opposes are unconvincing and a quick check of contribs shows lots of good work and plenty of use for the sysop bit. Eluchil404 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    I am reconsidering my opinion in light of revelations about proxy use. Eluchil404 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

15. Support After thinking long and hard. But please can you try and up your use of edit summaries. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support Looks okay. --W.marsh 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

16. Support Seems cool to me. Addendum re: Open proxies, I would think security-minded people would use open proxies for the same purposes as registering a user account, for "masking" the originary IP. While any action of "exposing" a user's IP, on whatever pretext, would qualify as a violation of privacy, I don't believe that this has happened in CharlotteWeb's case, as only her act of using proxies has been broached, rather than her actual IP. Still, in its own way, the policy against using open IPs seems as misguided as WP:BADSITES, so I wouldn't hold it against her for taking extra security precautions above what others deem "permissible." Rather, I commend her.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support, excellent member of the community. Corvus cornix 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

17. Support. I'm a bit concerned about the mailing list thing about Phaedriel, but is she's forgiven her, I see no reason to oppose. Will ^(talk) 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support Despite the concerns raised by the opposers, personally I've always found this user very civil and her work quite commendable.--Húsönd 23:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Switched to neutral, sorry.--Húsönd 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    SupportFrequent interaction. A seriously competent editor with good, all-round knowledge of wiki-policy. I would be very comfortable with her as an admin. Changed to oppose due to violation of wiki policy--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

18. Support I agree with the nominater. He is ready. He is a good competent editor, and as stated above, knows wiki-policy!Politics rule 23:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just so you know, CharlotteWebb is actually a "she" and not a "he". :) Acalamari 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

19. Support. A good user, and demonstrates a need for the tools with her tireless work. Regarding the oppose arguments, it looks like she can be blunt at times, but not incivil. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. The oppose on Chacor's RfA is entirely understandable. Personally, I think he would once again make a great admin, but I can absolutly understand why someone would be strident in their comment. I'm finding the Oppose comments below exceptionally far fetched and a worrying development that threatens to damage RfA further. Editors should be judged on their merits, not on their opinions or the way they express these opinions on any RfA. RfA is sort of exempted from assume good faith and civility for a good reason, it prevents editors from providing good honest appraisals of candidates. It badly needs to stay that way, obviously being constructive, but if you just don't trust the user because of the very obvious issue then you simply don't trust them, no point in raising the same issue as the other x number of Opposers. I've seen nothing but excellent work from Charlotte and she's a user who would benefit from having the tools, and indeed the project would benefit from her promotion. As a quick comment in response to Neil, I don't generally warn users for vandalism the first few times I come across their accounts, I silently revert. This fanatical every vandalism revert should be accompanied by a warning idea is, for me anyway, greatly worrying, what if it's not vandalism, what if it's an edit gone wrong or someone just playing about. Revert and move on. If I think I'm going to have to block someone, I'll warn once and once only, but if I feel they're not going to keep making damaging edits, I'll not bother creating some work of art vandalism portfolio for school kids to brag about, so needless to say, I don't find a lack of vandalism warnings a bar to promotion either and it's something I look upon positively. I know I'm not at all alone on that either. Nick 23:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Support - devoted editors make good admins, also I am astonished by a few oppose votes: since then "Oppose per above" vote considered incivility that should be taken against the voter Alex Bakharev 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

    Switched to Neutral while the editing from Tor is not explained Alex Bakharev 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

21. Support- She might look uncivil but I believe she knows whats right and will get the job done better if she was given the tools....--Cometstyles 23:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support per all. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Opposes are incredibly vacuous! -- Y not? 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Just to clarify, that referred to Opposes 1-4 only. I am not sure how I feel about the TOR stuff. -- Y not? 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Switch to Oppose -- Y not? 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

23. Support Sometimes what appears to be incivility is actually quite the opposite. I trust this user to be responsible with the tools, and an asset to the project in other ways. Diversity in administrators is a positive thing.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support based on contributions. I found a ton of vandal fighting, some work in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: space to clarify WP policies, and some nice contributions of free images. One complaint: please use more edit summaries. (And I don't think you were entirely wrong to start that thread about Zoe -- though I can't find what you actually said there. It's important to question admins, particularly long-standing and well-respected ones, if you think they're losing sight of Wikipedia's pillars.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    To clarify it was me that started that thread back in January, not the RfA candidate. Pedro |  Chat  08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    I reaffirm my support now that the TOR issue has taken over this RfA. TOR is a good thing, and the sudden backlash against people who use it is a misguided, policy-wonking witch hunt. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

25. Support -- Support, per Acalamari (talk · contribs)'s points in the nomination, especially the last sentence of the nomination. Smee 05:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
26. Support, I've seen nothing but good from her. Everyking 07:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
28. For an extremely ROUGE chick, who seems to be obsessed about me ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Moral support. —AldeBaer 09:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Weak support Terence 12:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. The TOR thing would disturb me a bit, and it would be serious if Charlotte was using it in an abusive manner (that is, in order to create harm and disruption). I see no evidence of that. Yes, it is a breach of policy, but not one done in bad faith, and if it were a really serious issue, it w(sh)ould have been brought up with her in private (user talk-page or even by e-mail) before the RFA, as there may be issues of privacy which explain this. Charlotte's contribution to the encyclopedia and community has on the whole been positive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
32. Support — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Support per Phaedriel's observation - the nominee has the guts to do the right thing, which is a rare quality. Being mealy-mouthed is not so rare. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per Sjakkale. The opposition over TOR strikes me as particularly odd on the part of editors who are spending much of their time defending sweeping measures to defend the privacy of article subjects. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Support per reasons set forth on my userpage and favorable interactions. Edivorce 23:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Support As the late great Grace Note said, "I support the use of proxies, given the common abuse and lack of transparency of CheckUser and other issues with privacy on this site." --MichaelLinnear 00:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ryan, I think you meant to address that to the support below me. --MichaelLinnear 06:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Would you care to elaborate why it's pointy? Don't forget, open proxies aren't allow per policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

37. Support per answers. The TOR remark smacks of WP:POINT. Mvuijlst 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Some concerns but the majority of this user's work is good, and since Phaedriel herself has forgiven the other issue... --Dark Falls ^talk 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. Here's yet another RfA of a perfectly good user being torpedoed by the same clique that has messed up other RfAs by demanding adherence to a paradoxical combination of views -- support for the silly no-link-to-attack-sites policy out of supposed concern for user privacy, but also support for the no-edits-from-proxies policy which restricts privacy in favor of supposed accountability. Both policies are expected to be enforced in a robotic, "suppress on sight" manner without any common sense. *Dan T.* 01:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Dan T, you are always on point. The question between these two issues does seem to be a more basic one of privacy and what some may claim as a "right" to surveillance. Do we have the right to resist disclosing our own IPs to edit here, as much as some would claim the right to ban links to sites dedicated to "outing" them? If you are really concerned about privacy, for whatever reason, using proxy IPs would seem to make sense, and would not in itself imply malicious intent without some evidence in the user's contribution history to that effect. On the other hand, aggressive efforts to ban links to "attack sites" seem explicitly designed to draw more attention to them... so much so that it doesn't look like the motivating concern is anyone's actual security... So the effective practice is banned outright, while the ineffective to the point of self-destructive one is still being earnestly proposed at NPA.—AL ^FOCUS! 02:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

40. Support - I don't see how it is relevant to discuss Tor here. I also support the removal of checkuser rights of Jayjg for abuse of tools and unfair attempt to derail this RfA. May I suggest someone who's following this more closely file WP:RfAr?--Konstable 01:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    You see no problem with an admin who violates policy with every edit she makes? Corvus cornix 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Talking about violating policies when a good editor has only improved Wikipedia is wiki-bureaucracy. How is it that after using Tor CharlotteWebb is no longer a worthy janitor? Tell me that without mentioning bureaucratic terms such as "policy" (please see the much more important policy that half of the people here are violating)--Konstable 06:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

41. Support. I trust this user not to screw up with the tools. She is a fine editor and an asset to the project. —CComMack (t–c) 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Strong support. This is a perfectly good user who will not abuse or misuse the tools. It's that simple. No, I don't see a problem with an admin who "violates policy with every edit she makes," because, for one, it's an unreasonable policy that is rarely enforced, and that probably shouldn't be policy at all (remember that policy describes current practice, it does not tell us what to do), and there is no indication that the candidate will do anything with the tools that would damage the encyclopedia. Promoting the candidate will help us, and won't hurt us, so we should do it. --Rory096 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Support, I feel she can be trusted with the tools. The examples of incivility raised seem insignificant. Use of Tor may violate policy as currently written, but it doesn't cause any problems and is inline with Jimbo's recent comments. the wub "?!" 09:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Support - Rightfully strong response to question six, which is totally irrelevant to adminship credentials. Tor proxies are softblocked on the english Wikipedia, editing through them with a username legitimate behaviour. - hahnchen 09:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Strong support excellent user. Also, I hope Jayjg's horrible violation of CheckUser usage wouldn't go unpunished.  Grue  11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Support frankly I don't care if you use TOR and clearly you are a valued contributor. Kamryn Matika 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    As for the civility issues, I'd be pretty pissed if Jayjg came out and sunk my RfA like that without contacting me first, too. Kamryn Matika 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

47. Support - trusted user who would benefit the project with access to the tools. I'n not worried about obscure proxy policies. Catchpole 12:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Support per Kamryn Matika's point above. Riana ⁂ 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Support She seems like a reasonable and productive editor and doesn't seem as if she'd abuse the tools. I can say from my own experience that sometimes it's necessary to use unusual means to protect one's privacy on the Internet, but we're not talking about a vandal. Besides, all administrators are anonymous anyway, so it seems like a very unimportant detail, given the editor's history of productive edits. Gretab 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Oppose votes are worrying, but an rfa is a look at the candidate. The candidate is certianly admin material.--Wizardman 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Protest Support - revealing checkuser data in this fashion is a gross violation of privacy. --BigDT 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Support The anti-proxy robots need to be offset in the interest of justice. Eclecticology 16:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Weak Support This user is in violation of policy, but frankly, I think that policy should be changed. No other problems with this candidate (except the fact that the candidate appears to be pissed off because a checkuser revealed data that he most likely knew would result in this RFA's downfall). Now we should actually have a major discussion on this matter (this should be done on meta) to determine consensus and a possible policy change. Funpika 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Switching to a full support as per Visviva. FunPika 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

54. If Phaedriel supports you, you must be good. Support--trey 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC) change to Strong Support Proposed a change to the shit-hole battle ground that is the main Wikipedia IRC channel.--trey 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. I offered to nominate this candidate for adminship way back when, so I'm very happy to see her standing for adminship. I strongly support CharlotteWebb in this effort. Agent 86 22:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Support - since the Tor problem has only just come up now she has an RFA, I am forced to wonder why it was only brought up now, and not dealt with in a proper way. If this RFA is torpedoed, it's going to decrease -- again -- the number of users willing to go through RFA. I conclude that this is not unintended by the CU who started it. Js farrar 23:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. There is nothing wrong with good-faith editing via TOR, or via any other open proxy. --Carnildo 03:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Support. Quality work, and doesn't seem especially likely to abuse the tools. --Gwern (contribs) 04:14 17 June 2007 (GMT)
59. Support. Nobody is perfect. Should be a great admin. Seems to me like the TOR use was blown way out of proportion. Also: one must look at the intent of policy (against abuse) rather than at the strictest black/white interpretation of it --VivaVictoria 10:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Support. No issues here. It seems to me that the proxy policy is being seriously misinterpreted here, due to the very unfortunate current wording of that policy, as I have expressed on m:Talk:No open proxies. -- Visviva 12:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Support. --Hansele 15:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Support per my reasoning in the ArmedBlowfish RFA; no actual abuse has been documented in the opposes, merely a mindless subservience to the recently-adopted strategy of hardblocking all proxy nodes. -- nae'blis 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
63. Strong Support CharlotteWebb seems pretty harmless on the face of things. The campaign against her presents some very interesting problems which I outlined above (and which User:SlimVirgin immediately removed to the talk page). My conclusion is that if this is a trojan horse, it's just as likely one on behalf of some of the admins who oppose or accuse her, and moreover this user is probably just what she appears to be. At any rate, I'd like to see what happens. Good luck CharlotteWebb. Fourdee 00:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Support Charlotte generally shows a lot of common sense and doesn't back down just because things get heated, but manages not to further antagonize already overheated participants--her willingness to enter the fire would be an asset to an admin. If the tor was so bad, it would have been important enough to bring it up to Charlotte long before she was RfA. That didn't happen, so I can't consider it so bad, her editing from it. KP Botany 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
65. Weak Support Adminship is no big deal, and this user needs to realize that when giving there input at Rfas. However I think this user gets policies well enough, and would be a fine admin. ~ Wikihermit 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Weak support. Meh, looks OK, I don't see an inherent issue with TOR if it is from an established user. Voice-of-All 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Moral support An established, respected editor, who appears to have real (but unstated) reasons for taking more than the usual steps to preserve privacy. The meta policy on open proxies appears to be evolving to make it clear that her use of the proxies was not a violation of policy, but this RfA will close before that discussion does. However, apaprently some individual has blocked every IP this user recently used, whether or not they were open proxies, causing the editor to depart. Sigh. I'd rather have this user as an admin using open proxies than not have them around. GRBerry 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
68. Strongest support possible - good editor and I feel deeply deeply sorry for the way Jay stabbed you in the back. SalaSkan 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
69. Support I do not regard the TOR problem as significant in this instance--it's an honest attempt to cope with technical limitations. DGG 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
70. Support - Have seen good things and no problems. To all the people freaking out about Tor... 'Oh my god, she uses Tor... she could be a vandal! She could be a spammer! She could be doing anything and we wouldn't know!'. Guess what? You could say exactly the same thing about every single user on Wikipedia. Any of us COULD be using Tor (or whatever) to 'do bad things'. The fact that CharlotteWebb uses Tor to do regular Wikipedian contributions doesn't logically make her any more or less likely to be using it abusively with other accounts. See WP:AGF. --CBD 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
71. Support. Was opposing, but SlimVirgin removed my vote, so I must have been commenting in the wrong section. Will come up with a reason later – Gurch 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
72. SUPPORT. This tor thing is waaaay overblown, and Jayjg violated the WMF privacy policy as well as checkuser policy egergiously. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
73. Support - This user is a good Wikipedian. Jet123 (Talk) 00:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
74. Moral support, though it would appear at this point it would mean little, I do feel compelled to speak in any case. Obviously, CharlotteWebb is concerned about (presumably her) privacy for some reason. I don't believe that the reason for such concern is to perpetrate abuse, vandalism, or sockpuppetry, and while Jayjg may have been acting in good faith, the situation was handled very poorly. Whether calculated or not, the manner, timing, and venue of the question inflamed the situation. I'm certainly sorry to see this have gotten to the point of driving a good editor away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
75. Support I trust this user with admin tools. Editing via TOR does not change that, nor does it endanger the project in any way, shape, or form. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
76. Strongest support even though she has already left the project. When a policy drives away editors like CharlotteWebb, then something is wrong with the policy. I'm not suggesting that we allow everyone to edit from open proxies, but I think technical accomodations can and should be made for individual cases. Charlotte, I hope you'll somehow be able to return. In case you don't, godspeed and know that you'll be missed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
77. Support. Sigh - I'm starting to wonder what we are afraid of here. Is it necessary to see trolls and socks in every shadow? When someone has dedicated vast amounts of time to this project and been reliable and deligent in their wish to held build a free conent encyclopedia, is that not a basis for trust? Allowing single trustworthy accounts to edit from proxies risks little damage to Wikipedia - to loose another valued user in so short a time over the over-rigid application of NOP saddens me more than I can say. Policy is not a suicide pact. Do it trust CharlotteWebb? Yes I do. WjBscribe 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    IT isn't so much a grand fear of Char being a puppetmaster; it's that she didn't follow the rules, and got all dramatic when someone asked her to explain her use of the proxy. She could have quite simply explained to someone higher up in the food chain what the reason was and that person could have let us know whether the reason was good enough or not, She chose not to do that. She chose to withdraw completely from the project. Frankly, someone who caves that quickly has no business being an admin, considering the nonsense they sometimes have to put up with. As well, people had issues with her civility. Maybe the TOR policy needs revision. However, it is the rule currently in place, and an RfA isn't the appropriate springboard for the topic. We simply don't need any more admins with the embarrassing habit of breaking the rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    "We simply don't need any more admins with the embarrassing habit of breaking the rules." Do we have these now? If so who are they? I seem to be blissfully unaware of them. Besides one of our cornerstones policies is WP:IAR - admins are expected to know when to ignore rules (or specific applications of them) which hamper the growth of Wikipedia. Instead we seem to have developped a rule (m:NOP) which is apparently absolute. That troubles me - especially when it costs us good and dedicated contributors. Is it unexpected that someone would be upset by what they regard as private details being unexpectedly released on-Wiki? Yes. Was Charlotte's reaction regretable? Maybe, yes. Is it forgivable? Yes, absolutely. WjBscribe 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Of course we have admins like that, and have had admins like that. This isn't the place to go into it, but there have been pretty clear (and in one case pretty public) instances wherein admins shattered the rules like a pane of glass. WP:IAR is not a license to screw others over, or to avoid responsibility, WJB. It has been pointed out (to me, at least) that admins aren't chosen for their great, Solomon-like wisdom, but rahter because they know hoiw to work the wiki system well enough to keep the trains running on time. Again, this isn't the time or the place to discuss what an admin should be, but rather to discuss whether Char should sysopped. She broke the rules. Had she bothered to explain to anyone what her reasoning for utilizing open proxies, she might have been fine (despite some rather disturbing and consistent concerns over civility). However, she chose to break this rule, and to not bother explaining herself when someone was observant enough to point it out. Admins are to be held to a higher standard, and she cannot be allowed to chastise others for that which she chooses to do herself. Whether the open proxy rule is due for overhaul is - once again - not a subject for debate here. The rule was in place when she chose to break it, and again, she has never bother to explain her reasoning for doing so (nor related it to someone higher up to 'yea' or 'nay' her reasoning). I don't even know this candidate, but from the comments here, her past and current behavior here comes across like arrogance, especially when coupled with the allegations of incivility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Arcayne, she did not choose to withdraw from the project. Please refer to [37].--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Oops, I stand corrected, as I misread Pedro's post (it was Zoe who withdrew). My apologies. I will strike-thru this and another place whenrein I mentioned this erroneous bit However, I still oppose for my stated reasons- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

78. Weak support - I've no issues with this candidate, though have seen issues around civility in the past - Alison ☺ 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
79. Support Sounds convincing to me -Flubeca (t) 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
80. Moral support. Putting myself back into the support category here in protest against the "OMG TOR" issue. No, I do not like Charlotte's reaction to the question posed to her, but at the same time I do not like the crucifying of a candidate for using TOR. Her contributions to the project are valuable and demonstrate a dedication to Wikipedia. We should assume good faith and not get worked up over the infinitesmal possibility that she's some kind of rogue sleeper troll just waiting for the mop. Running a perfectly good contributor out of the project on such paranoid suspicions is positively contrary to the collaborative nature that Wikipedia is built on. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    You know, I opposed based on those two things mentioned in the opening there. And you know what? It's not "OMG TOR" and the "The user was incivil!!" I have rational, valid reasoning in my opposition as to giving this user a position of trust. I would like that, and the other oppose opinions, credited instead of played off as hysterics by this and other supports. The same goes for the opposers attacking supporters. This RfA has devolved and sunk not because of Jayj or CharlotteWeb. This hellhole comes out of the lack of respect for others' opinions from all sides. We should be ashamed of ourselves. This isn't aimed at you, Arkyan. It just got me thinking. Keegan^talk 01:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Er, were you referring to me or the other guy? Apparently, our handles are similar enough that I should ask. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

81. Moral support. SakotGrimshine 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
82. Support great contributor, Tor use is questionable but ok since user has proven self. -N 02:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
83. Support ditto what Alison said. I was intending to be neutral based on the past civility issues, but reading that someone has blocked every IP address Charlotte has used over the last three months, including non-Tor ones, stinks and tips me into supporting. Sarah 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
84. Support per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
85. Support. This may be academic at this point but I would have thought that people of good will could sort out the Tor issue and we could promote this candidate on her merits. Haukur 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
86. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
87. Support. Despite the TOR use, there is no reason to think that this experienced and dedicated editor will abuse the extra buttons. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
88. Support - Seems like a good editor, would be a useful admin. Regarding the entire Tor debacle, I think this is a major red herring which is being taken far to seriously when taken into account the editor as a whole. Our policy regarding proxies specifically mentions Tor and links to a page that at one point described how to get round the chinese firewall. Then add in Jimbo's comments about it being too strict and it all adds up to people getting upset over something which they shouldn't be.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
89. Support Seems a good hard-working editor. Editing via TOR does not change that, and I find accusations of "incivility" or "arrogance" to be completely unfounded. Jgui 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
90. Moral support. Those involved with this witch hunt should be ashamed of themselves, this is no way to treat such a valuable contributor to the project. How sad. Burntsauce 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
91. Support Good editor who has handled this situation with grace.

    Editors are allowed to edit anonymously, and Charlotte had already had part of that anonymity stripped away. Don't want to answer the question--don't. Charlotte very wisely avoided the issue and didn't respond, but comments kept escalating anyway "why won't you, why won't you?" Charlotte has behaved better then most editors or admins would (or have in similar circumstances) over the past few days, and that's something I want in an admin. Unfortunately, I can't say that of everyone commenting here.

    In re the rest of the reaction that has people upset:

    Regardless of the policy on TOR, if CharlotteWebb had come up in a checkuser and a problem had been noticed and it was determined that CharlotteWebb was a distruption to Wikipedia (problematic), this should have been handled then. As this issue wasn't raised, I can only assume that Jayig didn't find CharlotteWebb a distruption to Wikipedia, didn't find this editor to be a problem and did nothing because no action needed to be taken. To bring this up now is, in fact, an abuse of the checkuser tool. Charlotte saying that was not out of line--and it was raised by several other people.

    I also have a real problem with all of the votes against based on the use of TOR. The policy is under review, as in under re-construction, and it's been changing--Wikipedia hasn't hardblocked users for a significant length of time. And, it's not the only Wiki policy. There's IAR, which is also policy, and here's a pretty good reason why. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia... Well this would be the one wouldn't it? CharlotteWebb is a good editor and should be having a normal Rfa--not having to start over with a new account just to retain the privelege of contributing to Wikipedia. And, even if eventually WP, as a community decides to ban all TOR accounts--well, that's a seperate issue. An RFA is for deciding the following: Is CharlotteWebb a good editor? Would CharlotteWebb make a good admin?

    Not

    • should TOR IP editing be allowed?
    • should TOR account editing be allowed?
    • with what provisions?
    • should TOR accounts be allowed to be admins?
    • with what provisions?

    That's a question that should be discussed elsewhere and decided elsewhere, not at WP:RFA/CharlotteWebb. Would that decision affect Charlotte's accout? By all means. Maybe there would be new policy and all TOR admins would be summarily desysopped depding provisions, or not pending. Maybe they'd all be indef-blocked. But whatever happens with TOR accounts will affect the account anyway--whether Charlotte is functioning as an editor, admin, is inactive or a little blue alien. So can people vote on the issue at hand here? Just vote how you'd have voted before (unless some behavior or edits in the meantime affect your decision) and say that your vote isn't a comment on TOR, but the editor. How hard is that? Miss Mondegreen talk  09:41, June 21 2007 (UTC)

    I am sorry, Mondegreen, but that is part of the point. An admin needs to be able to follow the rules in order to be able to serve as an example by which she can enforce the rules with others. Whether the TOR policy is being revieweed, seems unfair, or was invented as an Illuminati plot specifically to ensnare Char, it is currently the policy. She broke the rules. If she didn't like the rules, she should have worked to change the rules before accepting nomination. Frankly, very little else matters in this argument; not the notable incivility nor the other pecadilloes of this particular candidate. If an admin refuses to follow the rules, then they shouldn't be admins. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    It is rude to interrupt someone in mid discussion like this. I have relocated your response as appropriate. Burntsauce 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

92. Support So many people are supporting this they've already named all the good stuff...--LtWinters 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
93. Support. Tor usage does not upset me in the least, and I think people need to get that stick out of their ass. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - sorry Acalamari, but CharlotteWebb isn't polite and friendly. Users that make incivil comments in others RfA's such as this and this shouldn't be admins. Also, when you have to run to the WikiEN-l mailing list instead of approaching Phaedriel about her Wikipedian of the day, I sense an admin that would go behind others back. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   OK, Phaedriel and charlotte combined have claried things regarding the mailing list, so I have stricken it. My point about incivility still stands. I'm very conserned about the opposes below me regarding TOR editing, if the user is doing a good job whilst editing on TOR, then I don't see how it matters. Why isn't her IP blocked? We don't allow TOR edits to protect against vandals - not to block users such as charlotte. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

   Ryan; your two RfA diffs were in March, a full three months ago. I doubt she'll do things like that if she became an admin. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Civilities important to wikipedia, she'd had enough experience then to know what she was doing. Secondally, the Phaedriel thing was little over a month ago. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Could you please point out which part of the cited RfA comments is uncivil? Thanks Peacent 19:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Maybe it's the fact that she said "Absolutely not" and "Oppose" with no reason. Maybe. I, myself am not too sure either. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Exactly what Evilclown says, at the top of each RfA it clearly states "Please keep criticism constructive and polite," how are comments such as "absolutely not" constructive and polite? Quite simply, they're not. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   I just think it's a too small reason to oppose, about a few bad comments in RfA's 3 months ago. But, I'll probably leave it at that. Evilclown93_(talk) 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Well with all due respect, this is my comment, and I personally don't think it is, that's not all the incivil RfA comments, I just haven't got time to go fishing for the rest of them at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   (outdent for sanity purposes) Ryan, I respect your opinion very much. I hope you haven't taken me badly. Cheers! Evilclown93_(talk) 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose(edit conflict) Sorry but I completely agree with Ryan, Charlotte although a good editor is not friendly not polite, comments like this seem to show that you expect large amounts of experience for RfA candidates, many users have passed RfA with slighlty over or less than that amount of experience, for example Sr13, Majorly (under previous username). The Sunshine Man 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see a comment on that diff. regarding incivility. Miranda 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   So you're arguing that because she sets high standards of experience for other users when it comes to becoming an admin, she shouldn't be one. Shouldn't an admin be someone who respects the position enough to set high standards? BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sunshine Man; I'm concerned by your diff; CharloteWebb was opposing one of your RfA's (as Tellyaddict). Wouldn't that make you much more critical of here? Evilclown93_(talk) 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sunshine Man, opposing because she opposed your RfA (under a different name) falls under what I would consider conflict of interest. You should have disclosed that it was RfA when you voted. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yes it may affect me commenting but I've seen here on other RfA's being uncivil, however Miranda I didn't mention the user had been uncivil. The Sunshine Man 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Your RfA is the only one you are explicity commenting on. That is why it's a COI. You don't like here high standrads in RfA's (you were involved directly) and now you are opposing her explicity for that aforementioned reason. --Evilclown93_(talk) 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sunshine Man, could you please explain why that is uncivil, and why exactly is it relevant to being an administrator? Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   This is borderline abusive sockpuppetry. You're using your new account in a way that is expressely prohibited by our WP:SOCK policy. Again. If you are going to continue using your new account, you need to make it abundantly clear that you also edited as Tellyaddict. I'm failing to understand why someone commenting that you've only been here 6 months is a reason to Oppose on their RfA and I wouldn't mind seeing diffs (other than Ryan's) which show a catalogue of incivility. I'm also failing to understand why you changed accounts. Is this incivil ? Nick 00:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Excuse me Nick, this is not abusive sockpuppetry, if you're going to question my intentions then carry on, if you had taken them time to see my userpage as Tellyaddict it explains everything, I also previously had information on my userpage with this account saying that I edited as Tellyaddct, so I suggest you read WP:SOCK and think before you go jumping accusing others of having abusive sockpuppets, I dont like Charlottes attitude like this comment which is basically insulting every contributor to CfD, although not required she opposed a user up for RfA here without explaining which I find uncivil. I am extremely displeased with Charlottes attitude, normally I'd try to remain as polite as possible but this is just stupidity. The Sunshine Man 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Whoa. I think both of you could use a moment to disengage and "chill out". Let's not escalate this to a level beyond what needs to be. - jc37 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   I agree with Jc37 and would request that you both step back, especially you, Nick. Tellyaddict had the Right to vanish. He can establish a new account with absolutely no transparency for the previous account. As long as it is not used abusively, that's just fine. The Sunshine Man has every right to voice an opinion; the comment was not "Oppose because the user opposed me". The Sunshine Man is perfectly withing his rights to comment on this RfA without mentioning the Tellyaddict account. Keegan^talk 19:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose What Ryan and the guy above me said. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   That is not, categorically not, what she did. She left a neutral comment on the mailing list, citing this as a potential problem. #::So, she forgot that not everyone reads the mailing list. Minor slip-up. Not a big deal. This is getting farcical. Moreschi ^Talk 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oh thats what happened. My bad. I still don't get it........... But ok! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runewiki777 (talk • contribs)

   And for the record, the guy above you (sunshine man) voted with conflicted interest as the candidate had opposed his RfA while he was editing under another account name. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Who was accusing who of what after what friendly comment? I get the feeling that there is a whole wikiworld of users on mailing lists and IRC chats sometimes...I'm confused why this oppose vote is here. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Well, if you don't get it, then why comment at all? If this is to remain an oppose, I hope the closing crat will discount it as blatantly faking the record. Oh, and the mailing list is official (IRC is not). Moreschi ^Talk 21:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Runewiki, please sign your comments. Also, please don't remove text from your message after you post. If you wish to retract, then strike it. Otherwise its hard to tell what people are talking about. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose. Nothing to do with the above reasons - I see a lot of automated non-vandalism reverts here (contribs), and not one subsequent edit made to the user's talk page to explain why their edit was reverted (or to warn if it was vandalism). I also see a lot of non vandalism reverts with no explanation (edit summary or elsewhere). I am not sure Charlotte could (at this time) be trusted not to bite newcomers. Neil ╦ 22:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   I also don't like the userbox with the sneaky link to WP:DICK. Neil ╦ 22:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Now strong oppose following the snarky response to Jayjg's question. Note I wouldn't really care if you're editing from Tor, although using it will always hint at being a Trojan account (and given the nature of the account's editing history - solely reverts and category changes with virtually no real content added, you never know). Neil ╦ 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose There appears to be an increase lately in Trojan admin and would-be admin accounts, which are gradually eroding the integrity of the project, and this candidate seems to fit the pattern. Using Tor to edit violates policy, and is strongly correlated to Trojan accounts. To stand for adminship after editing illegally is the height of hypocrisy, because as an admin this user will then be expected to admonish and block other users for violating policies. The sneaky link to WP:DICK in the user box, mentioned by User:Neil above, also does not sound like something a bona fide admin candidate, who is effectively sworn to uphold our guidelines and policies, including WP:CIVIL, would do. Crum375 03:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose as per Crum375. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose Moral support and will change to support if you edit from a non-TOR for 2-4 weeks (unless you have a special reason, such as editing from the People's Republic of China or Zimbabwe or similar). TOR use is against policy, opposed by Jimbo Wales, and is subject to abuse. Last week, there was an RFA for a user who used TOR proxies. It failed. UTAFA 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose I do not condone administrators using open proxies. There's nothing I can do about current administrators, but this is my sole steadfast criterion. Revealing the use of open proxies is not a privacy violation and does not violate CheckUser trust. I had typed out a whole support message despite my judgment of gruffness, but that spat at Jayg was distasteful to myself. Keegan^talk 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose for now. Sorry CW. I rarely if ever oppose anyone on RFA, but the TOR thing bothers me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral. In hindsight, publically outing an anonymous user bothers me more. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose because of the use of open proxies, and for the response to the question about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Besides the other several concerning things I'm reading on this page, I was simply stunned at the tone used in response to User:Jayjg. A refresher of WP:EQ might be in order? - jc37 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose per jc37, the tone of this discussion is concerning. The Rambling Man 07:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
12. OpposePer Slimvirgin and Crum above.AKAF 07:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose for disturbing responses. It does not appear that this individual would be a tactful admin. Doczilla 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Per Slimvirgin and Crum. Вasil | talk 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Turn off the TOR node, and you'd get my support. (Unless there are some sort of extenuating circumstances, which can be e-mailed.) Sean William @ 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose because of use of open proxies. Corvus cornix 17:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Evilclown93, I've had experience as well. Ganfon 17:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, Evilclown93 is supporting ... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose - I don't know anything about open proxies but the response to Jayjg does not show good faith in a question bringing up a potential concern. Surely it could have been handled better. Rigadoun (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose per the TOR issue. -- Y not? 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose - The TOR issue (including the responses) and the WP:DICK sneak link bothers me. --健次(derumi)^talk 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose (switched from support). The combative responce to the proxy issue is deeply inapropriate. Editing from open proxies is a violation of policy and it is not a violation of trust to point that out (no personally identifiable information has been revealed). Eluchil404 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose You edit from an open TOR proxy and you failed to reveal it? No. As I have said before when discussing TOR's, if you want the policy changed, change the policy. At this moment it is improper. JodyB _talk 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Sorry, CW, but the TOR thing really does cast a long shadow, and that shadow is over your great edits. Although I believe that you'd be a great admin (as I have "bumped" into you once or twice), I must oppose this RfA. If there is a reason that you're using TOR and it was explained to me, I will change to a strong support. - NDCompuGeek 01:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    How does using Tor change the fact that CW would make an excellent admin who would do a lot of very useful work for Wikipedia? --Rory096 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Using Tor or and other open proxy violates a clear policy. As an admin, this candidate would have to admonish and block users for violating policies. It would be extremely hypocritical for an admin to do this to someone, while they themselves flout the policies, and would undermine our entire system of admin trust. Crum375 03:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    When you block a TOR node, you do not block a person; it is impossible to admonish a TOR node, or tell it that it should stop vandalizing. You block a physical means of accessing Wikipedia, and WP:NOP as a directive has no implications beyond that. Gracenotes^T § 03:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    You are not following, Gracenotes. The point is that if I admonish you and/or block you for violating policy A, I would be a hypocrite to do so while violating policy B myself. In fact, you would tell me that you decided to violate policy A, because you personally disagree with it and don't think it's important, just like I violate policy B. Can't you see how that would undermine our entire ability to enforce our policies? Crum375 04:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    CharlotteWebb could still soft-block Tor proxies, and even the one that she is using; that's not hypocrisy. The nature of this policy makes it a bit difficult for it to be A or B. Vandalism leads to being blocked; reverting three times on one article leads to being blocked; ownership of an article can lead to admonishment. However, editing with Tor does not lead to being blocked, and in fact has no direct consequences.

    It is merely "prohibited"; if the community chooses to not admonish CharlotteWebb for disobeying a directive that has no direct consequences, that is fine with me. Blocking Tor nodes is not a result of specific use, but instead a general rule. In a non-Godking comment, Jimbo suggested that he has little problem with soft-blocks, and that WP:NOP should possibly reflect that; I say only this to illustrate that some people who are experienced with Wikipedia on a broader scale support a bit of leeway here. Gracenotes^T § 04:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Gracenotes, you are still not getting it. Our official Wikipedia policy says: Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies. If an admin violates a policy, any policy, s/he cannot then admonish or block other users for violating policies without being hypocritical. It's that simple – the specific technicalities of Tor or other open proxies have nothing to do with it. Crum375 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Crum, you and Gracenotes are arguing at cross-purposes. You don't "get it" just as much as you claim Gracenotes doesn't. Gracenotes has a more "flexible" attitude towards Wikipedia rule enforcement than you do, that's all. (This isn't necessarily hypocritical, either.) —Steve Summit (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    To summarize: "You make interesting points, but I am going to ignore them, and repeat what I said in the last post." :( This policy has two parts: first, that users are prohibited from editing by Tor (which Mindspillage, Jimbo, ^demon, and several other editors, are dubious about), and second, that open proxies should be blocked (the policy does not say autoblocked). If we use common sense, we can see that having CharlotteWebb ignore the former may be good for the project, and that there should no problem with having her enforce the latter (assuming the blocks are soft). This assumption need not be made, for we shall see what CharlotteWebb herself says (Q8). Gracenotes^T § 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Regarding the admin issue specifically, we allow editors to edit via Tor (this is practice), and expecting different of an admin is exalting the position far higher than it is meant to. An admin is never required to say "Editing via TOR is prohibited"; he/she must say "You are a TOR node, and I am blocking you". Charlotte can do this without being hypocritical. Gracenotes^T § 15:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    (outdent) Gracenotes, I am assuming you are not trolling, because if so I would just be feeding you. Please read the following words slowly and carefully: "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." Do you see something there about special exclusions for admins? or that "an admin is never required to say 'Editing via TOR is prohibited'", even though the policy clearly and plainly says exactly that? Or that this policy is one that only needs to be enforced or followed on Tuesday afternoons in countries that start with even country codes? Or do you think that in general, when we don't like some policy or personally disagree with it, we may just ignore it? Is that your perception of the way we should run this place? Do you think such attitude will help us attract users, fight our adversaries and succeed? I suggest that instead of rushing to post another quick response, you take your time to reflect on these issues, and think long and hard before you answer. Thank you. Crum375 05:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    All right, Crum, here's the problem. Do we block registered editors who use open proxies for editing? No. Do we stop them from making featured articles? No. Do we prohibit them from completing the Less-Than-Holy tasks that make Wikipedia feel like an encyclopedia? No. Do we torpedo their RfAs? Yes. What is appalling to me here is not the policy, but the way in which it has been so-called "enforced", and that we can pretend that it is for the good of the encyclopedia. It is furthermore the kind of attitude that you hold that makes adminship into a big deal; into a bundle of rods and an axe rather than a mop and a bucket. I'm sorry if I took out my resentment about the issue on you, but this collaborative and gregarious "culture" we have (or once had) is rapidly becoming a piece of shit. The internets are serious business, k? I am done commenting in this RfA. Have a nice day, Gracenotes^T § 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, the precise statement of the policy has changed in a way that may bear on this discussion (both directly above, and in the RFA in general). Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 06:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Back to the original question to me from Rory096: "How does using Tor change the fact that CW would make an excellent admin who would do a lot of very useful work for Wikipedia?" Simple. She would be an admin entrusted with special tools required to do extra duties. Part of these duties are to enforce the rules / guidelines / policy of Wikipedia / WikiMedia / Wikia. Part of these rules is the ban of editing through open proxies (WP:NOP) - not a guideline but official policy. Therefore, she must, as her first act, block herself until such a time as she is not editing through The Onion Router system. As such (being blocked and all), I can not see her being very effective. Sorry, it's just a logical progression of events in order for her to be a good admin. - NDCompuGeek 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Luckily, those with the sysop bit are also granted the ipblock-exempt permission, which means she could still edit even if the proxy's IP was blocked. As for blocking her own name, this is discouraged. Hope that helps put you at ease. -- nae'blis 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

24. Oppose - per Ryan. - Philippe | Talk 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Oppose - per question 4...and question 6 Modernist 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose - Open Proxies alone probably would've pushed me into neutral (or not commenting). Combined with the hostile reaction to Jayjg's very reasonable question, and concerns about civility (which are demonstrated well in the above reaction, I believe) I'm sadly forced to oppose. WilyD 04:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong Oppose Not using open proxies is one of those broad rules around here that isn't subject to interpretation, as opposed to WP:NPOV or something similar. And I agree with Wily D, the applicants reaction to Jayig wasn't appropriate. He released nothing personal other than the use of TOR, and the applicant has never explained why they use it. Orangemarlin 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    After reading Crum's comments, I'm now even more strongly opposed (I try to not read the opposes and supports until I make my own decision). And Neil's comments give me further qualms about this candidate. Orangemarlin 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

28. TOR, civility. Sorry, not this time. MaxSem 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose per user's abject refusal to actually answer question six. ➪HiDrNick! 05:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I rarely vote in these, and I don't think I've ever opposed but it seems I must here. CharlotteWebb would like everyone to focus on his/her edit history, but scanning through it, I find precious little amongst the many rollbacks and minor edits to make a determination of what kind of admin s/he would be. On the other hand, what I see on this RFA discussion page is rather disturbing. I would like to know why CharlotteWebb is being so evasive about the TOR issue. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose This user appears wholly suitable for adminship. But unless Wikipedia policy changes, she is in open violation of it by editing through a TOR proxy; I do not feel comfortable asking a user to support policy if they themseves violate it.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    STRONG Oppose As per above. I am incapable of supporting someone who VIOLATES one of our foundation wide policies. Funpika 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Changing to Weak support. Funpika 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

32. Oppose. Not so much due to the use of TOR, for which there may be legitimate extenuating circumstances despite the Mediawiki-wide policy contravening their use, but for the responses to Q6. Everyone, at some point or another, will probably violate some policy or guideline. My greater concern is that, when the violation was questioned, the response was vitriolic, unrepentant, and to a large degree non-responsive. Do I think this candidate is a carefully crafted sleeper account attempting to acquire the admin bit in an effort to facilitate disruption? No. But do I trust the candidate to respond in a thoughtful and tempered manner to criticisms of potential actions? Also no. Serpent's Choice 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
33. Serpent's Choice's statement says it better than I could. When asked a legitimate question, the answer should never be to argue angrily or change the subject. Ral315 » 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, there's considerable debate as to whether Q6 is legitimate and, well, even a question. Nick 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    "Can you explain why you edit using Tor proxies?" ... looks like a question to me. It has a question mark and everything. Neil ╦ 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    So does Have you stopped beating your wife? Asking was legitimate; not taking "None of your business" for an answer was incivility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    It's a valid question. And so far an un-answered one.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    I find that "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a perfectly valid question, albeit one that isn't always on-topic. What's often more important than an answer to a question is the way the answer is phrased. I probably would have seriously had to consider supporting if CharlotteWebb had said "Yes, I do, and here's why..." Ral315 » 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose per Crum. The first few oppose votes were based on some rather meaningless diffs, but Crum has a valid point. Perspicacite 17:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose. Using open proxies is banned, for very good reasons. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose Great vandal whacker, not only Charlotte but also the Wiki would benefit from this user's gaining of the mop. The use of TOR doesn't bother me all that much especially if it is being used for legitimate reasons, which have already been mentioned on this RfA. I am opposing based on civility concerns, and a complete lack of a response on this page to question 6. KOS | talk 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    I would like to use that to supplement my oppose. I had written a weak support based on the user's less than approachable attitude, but the proxy use killed that support. The reply to Jayg was what killed it for me. Those edits came as I was writing my support nomination; I saw them on subsequent previews. The ability to communicate appropriately in a place where the only interaction is written is a must in what I I look for as the final tally in trust. All open proxies aside, I agree with Knowledge of Self. Keegan^talk 06:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

37. Oppose Editing from open proxies is bad enough, failing to disclose it prior to the start of an RFA bid is a violation of the community's trust and a deal breaker. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
38. Oppose The open proxy concerns are the reason for my opposition. Captain panda 04:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose - Open proxy in itself doesn't worry too much, but her response to the question does. Surely we have emailing here for a reason? Secondly, I don't particularly like the usage of a userbox linking to m:dick on her userpage, nor do I like the one that says "Redirects (and merges) are cheap, fun, and a great way to inflate your edit count." An admin candidate who is concerned only in edit count, but doesn't warn most of the vandals they revert (noted above by Neil) is not someone who I feel I can trust with the tools. Finally, a minor thing, the use of a stub template on the userpage is just silly, and could potentially confuse an annoy someone who decided to work on an arachnid stub. -- G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 06:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose That fact that you expressly violate a forbidden policy, a controversial policy, but a policy nonetheless is enough to cause me to oppose. Adminship is a position of trust, and if you so blatantly violate a policy, I don’t know how I can trust you. Coupled with the incivility here and in various diffs I do not feel you are a good candidate for adminship. Alcemáe T • C 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
41. Using an open proxy would make this for me, at best, a neutral. Using an open proxy and blowing smoke about when discovered? Strong oppose. --Calton | Talk 09:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Calton --Skenmy^(t•c•n) 16:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
43. Oppose. Many admin tasks are drudgery, but some apparently trivial tasks can become contentious, and an admin frequently needs to clam aggrieved or fractious users. This requires a thick skin and plenty of diplomacy; but CharlotteWebb's responses to the TOR question above show a rather thin skin, and her RFA votes have been too terse to be civil. I wouldn't rule out supporting a future nomination, but I can't support CharlotteWebb at this time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
44. Oppose- per Calton. Eddie 19:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose. I feel the proxy concerns are valid, especially Charlotte's failure to mention she contributes through Tor. She is clearly well aware of the fact that the use of open proxies is prohibited on Wikipedia, which means she made a conscious decision not to tell us.--Atlan (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
46. Oppose. I don't really edit any more, but I find it necessary to clarify a matter over which there is inordinate confusion. Editing from open proxies is prohibited. That some open proxies are not yet blocked reflects a technical limitation; it does not imply flexibility in policy. There is no accountability when someone edits from open proxies. There is no identification; no recourse. I cannot personally trust an administrator who chooses to edit from open proxies. That some may have rational reasons for doing so is their own concern; Wikipedia has administrators for its own benefit and Wikipedia's concerns simply must take precedence over personal circumstance when the two irretrievably conflict. Tor is not welcome; I personally blocked hundreds of Tor nodes over the last few months and I stand by these actions. To allege that it is Checkuser abuse to reveal that someone edits from Tor is ridiculous--it reveals no private information; on the contrary it reveals a complete absence of private information. Tor nodes are public information; I could reveal a complete list and not advance your knowledge of CharlotteWebb one iota. All Checkusers have a good idea of long-standing editors who used Tor because they always turned up during vandal/sock checks. Always. I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not start closing off those proxies. I see a lot of talk about this being political. I have to believe much of this comes from the personalities involved. I don't much care for that. If I was still active I would have raised the same concern for substantially the same reasons. My approach would have been different but the substance of my concern would be the same. Anyone who denies the possibility of long-time users turning out to be socks should think long and hard about Runcorn, to cite a recent example. Open proxies make identification of discrete users extremely difficult. I don't know CharlotteWebb personally, and I grant full faith to those who do and vouch for her character. I regret, however, that I simply cannot trust someone with admin tools when her provenance is completely and utterly unknowable. Mackensen (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
47. Johnny-come-late Oppose as per Mackensen and Serpent's Choice a.o.. The fact that Charlotte is getting majority support is, from my perspective, mind-bogging, so I kept wondering whether I was missing something basic. I'm done now. Stammer 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
48. Oppose Too many concerns overall.--MONGO 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose. Mackensen has expressed it very well on the Open Proxies issues. I don't fully understand the technical details, but share some of the concerns about lack of accountability. I also consider that Support Vote No. 56 in this RfA is strong evidence that Charlotte was aware that she was violating policy before her RfA began. Her edit history consists mainly of such things as vandalism reverting and adding or removing categories. While this is useful, it is really through the addition of content that an understanding of policy can be gained and displayed. Additional reasons for concern are the defensive reaction to Jayjg's question, and the Phaedriel issue. Concerning the defensive reaction, I would have had no problem if she had said, "Yes, I have a good reason, but would rather keep it private. I'm happy to discuss it by email with any member of the ArbCom", and if an ArbCom member had subsequently stated that the reasons were found to be satisfactory. (Ideally, she should have herself taken the initiative to discuss this privately with an ArbCom member before she was asked about it.) People hoping for support votes are likely to behave better than normal during an RfA, so the way she lashed out gives concern for future behaviour if promoted, as there would be no motive for remaining civil. Finally, while I appreciate that the Phaedriel issue has been resolved (and applaud Charlotte for her respect for copyright policy), I feel that that says more about Phaedriel's own graciousness than about Charlotte's ability to behave with sensitivity and discretion. (A few weeks ago, I noticed an image policy violation from an administrator, and felt positive that it was just an oversight. So I sent a discreet email, and within ten minutes, the innocent violation had been corrected.) I'm not comfortable that Charlotte would enforce policy without causing unnecessary embarrassment or humiliation. ElinorD (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
50. Oppose. In one of the answers given above, Charlotte says she "found herself in the middle of a WP:LAME edit war on Wikipedia:Be bold". It would be more correct to say that her actions were to a large extent responsible for starting an WP:LAME edit war by making a substantial change to a longstanding guideline without checking first on the talk page. As a result, a page which had up until then been very stable became very heated indeed (the page is still protected as a result). This is not the sort of action I would wish for from someone wishing to become an admin, and it certainly isn't a good recommendation. Couple that with the TOR concerns and other concerns mentioned above about civility (though I will add that she remained civil during the WP:BOLD fuss), and support isn't really an option. Grutness...wha? 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose I'm afraid I've been disappointed by the personal nature of some of the oppose votes from this candidate in others' RfAs, and the responses to the open proxy issue clinched it for me. Xiner (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose per Slim and Crum - the answers to question 6 were not convincing. --tickle me 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
53. Oppose I think that the whole TOR issue could have been handled very differently. The lack of cool discussion certainly didn't help me, though I suppose that if the issues are resolved, I could support in the future. Tewfik^Talk 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose Would-be admins should be like Caesar's wife, only nicer. --Mantanmoreland 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    If only the same could be true of actual admins ;) Gracenotes^T § 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

55. Oppose per Mantamoreland et al. I am not particularly worked up about the TOR issue but the candidates antagonistic response is troubling. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose in agreement with Mackensen, editing from open proxies is prohibited. Good editor, but the lack of accountability and a less than civil reaction to being questioned about it forces me to oppose.--Sandahl 04:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
57. Oppose Violates policy with no obvious good reasons. People who are extremely concerned with their privacy should not apply for public jobs where accountability is much more important than privacy. — ^PDD 07:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
58. Strongly Oppose As per Crum375, SlimVirgin and Ryan. When you accept nomination for adminship, you are also accepting that your editing life is going to be scrutinized. Char was asked a question which she passive-aggressively avoided answering, and posted comments on her Talk page to the effect that she felt she was being attacked. She never answered the question, and she chose not to head this issue off at the pass by letting The Powers That Be™ know of the proxy account, so that someone from there could allow for her reasoning. Its a firm Wiki policy that people don't have accountability when they edit via proxies and therefore prohibit such, and she flouted policy to do so. There may very well be current admins who do so, but I am strongly in favor of admins who act transparently before they were admins. That she has chosen to apply this policy while simultaneously violating it herself is deeply disturbing; it implies that the rules that apply to the rest of us do not apply to her. Char simply has not acted transparently, and the proxy thing alone is enough to kill the RfA. Also, her demeanor whilst editing has come into question during this RfA, and I am sick to death of the realization that an increasing number of admins are not polite or civil, and are clearly not up to snuff when it comes to being helpful. I will not support what has been shown to be a disturbingly flawed candidate recieve those tools that would allow those flaws to affect others by an order of magnitude. Here was have a candidate who violates wiki policy without apology, reacts negatively when called on it and has a history of poor commentary judgment? Not only no, but hell no. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
59. Oppose - even if there is some reason to use the proxy, a legitimate question about it was handled poorly. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
60. Oppose because I feel uncomfortable with the wholoe Jayjg and proxy issue and Charlotte's reaction to it, SqueakBox 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
61. Oppose I have considered setting up a TOR exit point of my own for quite some time. It is delightful to know that with a simple 'tcpdump' I will be able to snag random Wikipedia Administrator's username, passwords and edit tokens. The notion that someone is "trustworthy" while at the same time they are transmitting their authentication information in near plain-text (oooh, an MD5 hash?) over random networks is far beyond frightening. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose since she has in effect withdrawn and hasn't answered Q.7 or Q.8, I think we have to turn it down. Smallbones 09:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    She has 'not withdrawn; she has had every IP she ever edited from blocked. Please see her talk page. -- nae'blis 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    There is a standing offer [38] from an abitration committee member to unblock her, if she is indeed blocked from editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

63. Oppose. I'm absolutely sensitive to privacy concerns and the desire for anyone, even potential admins, to maintain that privacy. But I think that this user's reaction to being questioned on this issue speaks volumes. In my opinion, this indicates that they would not make a good admin. Nandesuka 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
64. Oppose as per other opposes, and using TOR bothers me a bit.(lemonflash)^talk 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    She can't answer the questions, her IP's have now been hard blocked so she can't edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Bear in mind that we only have CW's word for that, and if it's true, s/he could have requested an unblock at any time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Ooh. Didn't know that. (lemonflash)^talk 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, Raul654 has confirmed that her IPs were blocked,[39] and has offered to have the non-TOR IPs discreetly unblocked. He says the blocking of those ones was probably an accident as she had used so many. Even if she chooses not to take him up on his offer, she is still able to post on her talk page, and it seems that she is able to post elsewhere.[40] ElinorD (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    CharlotteWebb is a "she", btw. Gracenotes^T § 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

65. Oppose – There are a number of conflicting elements here, in my judgement. The decisive element ought, I think, be to err on the side of caution with respect to maintaining the integrity of the project's stated goals and ideals. In this instance that dictates opposition. TealCyfre0 23:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
66. Oppose (I initially supported, but withdrew my vote over the lack of answer to A6). I can no longer assume good faith. CharlotteWebb has edited since the TOR issue came to light, but has still offered no explanation. I also note that she was an active contributor on the Wiki-EN mailing list and appears to have dropped out of sight there too.-gadfium 23:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose, on a technicality of sorts. Regardless of whether the user would make a good admin, and regardless of TOR, I feel that given the circumstances, granting adminship after all that's happened here will do more harm than good. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    Related: this comment, from Ryulong's controversial third RfA. Gracenotes^T § 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

68. Oppose Use of TOR violates policy, plus the lack of a straightforward response (either public or private, as far as I know) and shoot-the-messenger response makes it look hinky to me. Thatcher131 18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Normally, I would support, but the opposes bother me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Per Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor. I'm, moreover, worried about the lack of edit summaries. --wpktsfs 23:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral Changed to support - pending a response to Q0.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

3. Neutral - Pending a response to Q6.--Danaman5 04:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral until Tor editing is not explained Alex Bakharev 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral Tor editing does not bother me, but is a little too brusque for my taste. Riana ⁂ 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Supporting now, hoping to cancel out some of the ridiculous opposes. Riana ⁂ 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral My first, and really, only, interaction with CharlotteWeb was the Phaedriel incident (in which I think I could be considered involved a bit -- I replaced the questioned quotes with older ones). I admit that getting a much respected and heartfelt award, then reporting the award giver for fair use violations seemed a bit less than ideal to me, but I was quite glad that the issue was solved and Phaedriel and Charlotte made up. Being able to make up to the level that Phaedriel is supporting this RfA is important, and, frankly, just being eligible for one of her "days" is a very good sign. Editing from Tor proxies isn't inherently a disqualifier for me -- like, say, use of sock puppets, it can be used for good or for harm, and I don't see any allegations of abuse with it. There are so many areas of admin work, that no one can be perfect at all of them -- even Phaedriel herself, for example, the most supported admin of all time, and I suspect still one of the best loved, was even at the time of her RfA known to be weak on fair use issues. :-) However, I do worry about the response to Jayjg just now. It's an unnecessarily defensive answer to a good faith question. If Jayjg just wanted to scuttle the RfA he could have done it much more directly than this, for example by just blocking you; in fact he didn't even oppose your candidacy, so I believe it could well be a good faith question, asked as civilly as could be. It's deserving of a good faith answer, again as civilly as can be. This is a neutral vote, and can change to support or oppose based on further actions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral While the whole trojan admin thing seems unlikely due to honest editing history (easy to fake with hollow edits, hard to fake with actually caring edits). Nevertheless the TOR thing being unresolved is kinda weird. --W.marsh 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral. The reactions to question 6 force me to withdraw my support. If the candidate is unwilling to answer an optional question that's fine, but the strong reaction against the person who posed the question poses questions about how well the candidate can react to certain situations that might be a common occurance for an admin. Not enough to switch me to an oppose, though. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral (from support) due to TOR issue.--Húsönd 23:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Neutral on the fence a bit because of some of the issues dredged up by the opposers. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 03:02, 16 June 2007 UTC)
9. Neutral I do like the contributions, but the civility and opposing issues prevent me from supporting. Jmlk17 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral but leaning toward oppose pending an answer about the use of open proxies. I don't understand how it's an invasion of privacy for someone to ask for an explanation about this (although if someone contacts me via e-mail to explain that even answering the question is potentially dangerous I'll certainly reconsider.) --JayHenry 07:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral. I don't know CharlotteWeb well enough to support her adminship, but I'm strongly tempted to support just to counter all the NOP-fueled opposes, which are IMO overblown and off the mark. —Steve Summit (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
12. This whole thing could hardly have been handled worse. It seems that those who would seek to expand the reach of WP:NOP from a policy of convenience to a fundamental community principle are trying to use RFA, the rawest, nastiest, most wikipolitically charged page on this web site, to do so. I strongly disapprove of that practice; it will discourage adminship applications from good candidates, and it will not result in better policy in regard to proxies. Furthermore Jayjg's interpretation of checkuser policy here is quite a stretch. If arbcom, for example, wants to intervene in cases like this (privately) then fine. But to just put somebody through the ringer is cruel. Chick Bowen 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    This policy has lost us already one good potential administrator, and is about to lose us another. There are clearly reasons why someone might need to use such a proxy, and the potential use of the proxy for impersonating an admin seems to have happened only once. Agreed, that many people who go in through a open proxy are using this for vandalism, so we can't simply permit them again. But what we need here is a technical solution for the people who need it. Perhaps it might involve an additional encrytped password or challenge-response as an arrangement for individual accounts who were able to confidentially self-identify. But this problem is harming, rather than helping, WP. DGG 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

13. Neutral. I can't support you fully because of the TOR issue (which is policy), but your contributions are invaluable and would receive my full support. Sr13 10:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Hmm, difficult - I don't care about the open proxies thing (in fact I had no idea what an open proxy was until Armedblowfish's RfA, and had to look it up) and I'm tempted to support just in protest at the pointless techno-lawyering in the Oppose section. However, I agree with Majorly that CharlotteWebb has been excessively tough on RfA candidates; she ought to recognise that RfA can be a very emotional process for candidates going through it, and that every Oppose vote she casts has the potential to cause pain to a fellow Wikipedian. In itself, this isn't sufficient to cause me to oppose here, but I can't support either. Walton^talk 16:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Neutral TOR issue as well. -Pilotguy hold short 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Neutral Unlike ArmedBlowfish, who was known to use Tor before his RfA, the fact that the nominee has used it without anyone knowing before this is very meh... I apologize, otherwise I'd support. Kwsn^(Ni!) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Neutral from Oppose. Upon careful consideration of policy wording and the discussion I've changed my mind. I think CharlotteWeb had no reason to believe he/she would be outed in public. Given the follow up checkuser actions I think it's time the issue was properly clarified for the benefit of the whole community. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Neutral I cannot support CharlotteWebb due to a lack of prior interaction with her, but I think she has been treated unfairly by Jayjg, the oppose voters and the checkuser who blocked all her IPs (effectively banning her/forcing her to leave Wikipedia). I propose we rename our "No Open Proxies" policy to "WE HATE THE CHINESE! LONG LIVE GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP!" --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Did the checkuser even make sure that all of Charlotte's IPs were proxies before blocking? FunPika 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

19. Neutral with the Strongest possible moral support. She hasn't gotten a fair shake at all. I am rather alarmed at the idea that someone with checkuser privileges would use them so callously, and I am sad at the ensuing fight. I might not otherwise give my input, but I think it's important now that everyone show their support. From what I can see in her contributions, she's more than worthy of adminship. Right now, however, she simply can't be an admin. It would be impossible for her to take up the mop without massive amounts of undue scrutiny coming her way and compromising her ability to act as an impartial servant. Not to mention the lingering dispute, the checkuser block and the possible ArbCom/Ombudsman case. In a few months, if she tries again, I'll be here to support her, but presently, it's impossible. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.