User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/005

2220:

corroborate his over-the-top rhetoric with actual evidence, but unsurprisingly there was no such result. Maybe he was just trying to impress you at my expense and didn't care about the result, I really don't know or care either. But whatever his motives are, if he still wants to express these views he can request a review of the arbcom decision (which did identify me as a "user in good standing" but failed to accomplish shit else, unless hollow reminders actually count). Failing that he could try expressing his a funny userbox or writing his blog about it elsewhere. Now, can you explain why you keep putting it back? —

3951: 3305: 3115: 2925: 2671: 2449: 2035: 1794: 1595: 1408: 1185: 702: 141: 35: 65: 1044:

fact that you have not stood up for yourself is allowing an impression to grow that your lack of response suggests a guilt that may be unfair to apply. And now, you are suggesting that you are simply going to abandon this ID in favor of another attempt in a year or so for another spot at admin. I don't know you, but that says to me that either your reasons are compelling enough to let someone higher up the food chain know what they are (so they can

4164: 4158: 4021: 2357: 538: 3745:, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to 3966:

edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers!

2642:

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Knowledge project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of

3740:

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, and your thoughtful questions. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. For now though, especially because

2310:

I clicked "save" and then I got the "make a donation" screen, then I clicked "back" and then clicked "save" again because I thought the edit had failed. Apparently I had clicked "edit" before those other comments were made. I think the edit conflict was properly avoided on the first attempt but not

2219:

Is "vicious personal attack" not a good enough reason for you? If I made similar unfounded accusations about you or anybody else, would I not be blocked for it, regardless of whether I believe half the things I say? Perhaps your friend Quadell was shooting from the hip and hoping that somebody would

1043:

Charlotte, pardon me for asking, but why aren't you defending your proxy usage? It would appear that you could overcome the hurdle of the TOR issue if you just explained your issue, either to the RfA group or someone higher up (so they can let folk know if your reasoning was sound)? I think that the

1124:

Thanks for your kind words above. If your mind isn't made up and you'd like some advice from someone who has also been targeted, mine is that you take Raul's offer and keep this account. There's no sense in starting over, especially when you would not necessarily be exempt from being targeted under

1095:

If Jayig noticed a problem a while ago, he should have raised it then. Instead, he noticed and did nothing until the Rfa--call that applying pressue, call that political control, call it what you want, but Jayig either did think that damage was being done and failed to act, or he didn't think that

1088:

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for

893:

I did some follow up on your statement above that someone went on a spree and blocked all of your IPs, even non-Tor ones. (Note - this required me to run a checkuser on you) Long story short - you are right that someone did indeed go on a spree. I think, though, given the sheer number of IPs you've

640:

I think the RfA has a chance of passing. And while I don't agree with anonymity by administrators, if it does pass you could work toward allowing anonymity in some circumstances. As far as explaining the use of proxies, I think the people who are demanding it don't understand that the explanation

546:

I'd like to express specific gratitude to the supporters whom I admire the most for their tireless contributions to Knowledge and their firmer grasp of our project's basic goals (to build a vast, 💕 that anyone can edit, not to play politics in a virtual fish tank), those who less frequently bother

534:

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

526:

Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network.

3965:

Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I

587:

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

4219: 530:

This looks and smells like an unannounced de facto ban from the English Knowledge (one having nothing to do with my behavior). Because of the heightened level of surveillance I'm under, any further edits I make from this account will only have a denial-of-service effect on myself and any other

1048:

you), or you are indeed guilty of the sorts of things that others who use TOR are wont to do. It looks like you are running away, and that's why people currently are opposing your RfA for the most part (most of the rest being concerned overyour flagrant violation of the rule in the first

904:

I have already chosen to create a new username, after wasting a year of my life on this one. Of course I do realize that anyone with unrestricted use of checkuser will be able to find me if they fish long and hard enough for it. I'll just have to deal with it when the time comes. —

894:

used (over 400) the non-TOR ones were accidental. If you email me a list of Non-TOR Ips you've used (go to my userpage and click email-this-user), I'll see to it that they are unblocked (and if you don't want me to do it myself, I can privately ask another admin to do it quietly).

4212: 434:

Think of what you, yourself wrote: "Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it?" That could have been phrased a lot better, but in any case, Jayjg has now explained. Your turn.

3694:

as the page for processing the request. I know you made your request for recall on his talk page before this opened up. Could you be so kind as to add there (either by diff to the original request or a current description) your reasons for requesting recall? Thanks.

419:

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

547:

to even participate in RFAs, those from whom I least expected to hear a vote of confidence, those who may be controversial in their own right, those willing to risk their own credibility in an effort to salvage mine, those whose sentiments most closely mirror my own:

508:

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

423:

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

1125:

the new account. Your RfA did reasonably well and you have a strong chance of passing a new one in a few months, particularly if you give up proxy usage or offer a good explanation for it (perhaps you've done that already and I didn't notice it).

367:. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. 4200:

supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to

363: 2012:

is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee.

527:

For obvious reasons it would be foolish of me to say which is which, though I don't doubt everything about me will be revealed soon enough. It's so refreshing to know that my privacy is in such safe, competent hands!

651:"Don't give up"? Did you even READ what she wrote above? A checkuser has BANNED her from the project without discussion. She can't edit from home at all; I assume she found a public computer to make the above edit – 952:

Anyway, maybe some b'crat will go crazy, say the WP:NOP is a bad policy, take all the oppose votes concerning open proxies out of how they'll decide everything, the vote will be 80/0/0, and they'll promote you :).

988: 474:"Incidental" information is not anybody's business, and I do hope nobody takes seriously any suggestion to reveal it by default. Checkuser is not for fishing. If something is snagged by accident, please see 3563:

You'll remember it, after the election ends and everybody reverts to a clearer state of mind. You'll probably figure out the answer to the other question as well. Otherwise I'll have to resort to e-mail. —

2862:

Hi there; I noticed that your comment stated "I'm not even comfortable with the user being an Admin. yet". Could you elaborate? I'm always looking to improve, and I'm interested in what made you say that.

2237:

923:

Of course when they block your new account, they'll have to defend themselves for doing inappropriate checkusers and fishing for someone's new account, when they've openly said they'll be using it. :) --

4038:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

3796: 457: 1086:"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. 4277:

Cases stay on RFAR for 7 days if they are not accepted. While this was about ready for archiving, you just removed it without archiving. The arb clerks normally handle removing and archiving.

2377::-O I was being serious! I hope you decide to stay - we've had our little problems in the past, but I hope we can move on from them now - you do some great work and wikipedia has missed you 468: 502: 3991:

was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--

3734: 2746: 2643:

the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Knowledge. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes,

1655: 2523: 2518: 1250: 492:, I assumed that you would have no problem soft-blocking TOR nodes (thus enforcing policy). If I am wrong, please indicate that somewhere, and I shall strike my comments. 4112:... shrug), or for a published news article which supports your description of what was said on the show. Until then it will be almost indistinguishable from hearsay. — 3382: 3204: 3014: 2766: 2547: 2530: 2112: 1907: 1875: 1691: 1672: 1492: 1269: 800: 783: 234: 3394: 3216: 3026: 2778: 2559: 2124: 2017: 1997: 1919: 1703: 1504: 1281: 812: 427:

Think of how Acalamari nominated you. "CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that." Keeping your

246: 3597:

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. There are good reasons for the killer's info box, and you simply wiped it out without discussion.

3389: 3211: 3021: 2773: 2554: 2119: 1914: 1696: 1497: 1390: 1380: 1376: 1274: 807: 239: 567:

I don't have any hope that it will pass but I see no reason to close it early, considering the gravity of the underlying issues. Thank you and may God bless all. —

1361: 2404: 2364: 2345: 3616:

Hello Charlotte, welcome back! I saw your name pop up on Elonka's RfA (I have it watchlisted but I haven't decided if I will participate). I hope you're well. --

2736: 2510: 1863: 1855: 1660: 1473: 1245: 776: 763: 482: 215: 202: 3370: 3192: 3002: 2761: 2100: 1880: 1684: 1480: 1468: 1262: 543:

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

227: 210: 617: 3691: 788: 771: 4116: 4189: 1868: 1150: 2224: 513: 449: 3763: 3377: 3199: 3180: 3009: 2653: 2542: 2107: 1902: 1887: 1116: 3829: 3803: 3706: 3568: 3464: 3286: 3096: 2990: 2731: 918: 909: 592: 577:

Thanks for replying on this. Could you say more about why you wer using Tor, and whether or not you were aware of the policy against using it? Thanks,

400: 3844:

Hello CharlotteWebb, I've granted your account rollback rights, as I trust you completely for using it to revert vandalism only. You may want to read

2848: 4086:

OK...It's true, but how do I cite an on-air mention? This is a brand-new story going around DC, and I think it's interesting and worth mentioning.

3726: 3540: 3502: 3489: 3424: 3365: 3246: 3187: 3056: 2997: 2808: 2754: 2635: 2629: 2589: 2535: 2194: 2154: 2095: 1989: 1949: 1895: 1735: 1679: 1667: 1536: 1485: 1353: 1313: 1257: 992: 882: 842: 795: 318: 278: 222: 1775: 1576: 1067: 627: 4101: 1998: 1372: 1362: 600: 3292: 3102: 2912: 1147:

Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.

947: 4072: 4005:

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise.

3718: 3813: 3778: 3175: 2985: 2658: 655: 489: 413: 3935: 3653: 2278: 3675: 2430: 2022: 1781: 1172: 689: 589: 128: 439: 2889: 1582: 1395: 4128: 3606: 3454: 3276: 3086: 2902: 2838: 2619: 2264: 2184: 1979: 1765: 1566: 1343: 872: 308: 581: 571: 4253: 3727: 3428: 3250: 3060: 2856: 2812: 2636: 2593: 2158: 1953: 1739: 1540: 1317: 977: 846: 282: 3882: 3553:

Actually, I don't know what you're talking about but it is good to see you back. Does this mean we will be seeing you around again?

2305: 3988: 3975: 2894:

I've restored this, as I assume that you've not noticed it. However, I'm really interested in your point of view, if you have one.

4142: 4081: 3699: 1153: 384: 3557: 1119: 2315: 408: 4298: 3530: 2213: 1000: 645: 3420: 3416: 3242: 3238: 3052: 3048: 2804: 2800: 2585: 2581: 2150: 2146: 2004:

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that

1945: 1941: 1731: 1727: 1532: 1528: 1309: 1305: 1129: 838: 834: 335: 274: 270: 1167: 682: 4014: 3920: 3856: 3631: 898: 74: 4131:

was posted right after you edited the Seresin RfA. Just in case you missed it, not sure it will change your view at all.

4064: 3845: 2425: 112: 108: 104: 100: 92: 88: 84: 80: 3808:

Feel free to re add the cat, but please do not add hidden conversational commentary to wiki code as for the addition of

3585: 1115:

After all the abuse you've suffered, why create a new account and suffer more? Why not just leave Knowledge for good? --

531:

legitimate users of the Tor network. So, all I can say is I hope to meet you all again in the future when I feel safer.

4093: 3995: 3348: 3158: 2968: 2714: 2492: 2078: 1837: 1638: 1451: 1228: 745: 184: 1006:

Not to but in there, and I don't want to interrupt, but the above comment had me in stitches. Good one YechielMan. --

4052: 2875: 3913: 2250: 354: 3749:

status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know.

3741:

of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions, I am going to take it slowly -- I'm working my way through the

3590: 3479: 21: 463: 4108:

You could wait for the transcript to be archived on Limbaugh's site (which might be as soon as 24 hours by the

3774: 431:

is an important part of being an admin, which is why Acalamari emphasized it so much. You're not doing that.

1025: 1012: 3760: 3411: 3233: 3043: 2795: 2650: 2576: 2321:

I see, I thought there must have been something - god damn wikimedia software! Well, good to see you back.

2141: 1936: 1722: 1523: 1300: 829: 265: 4240: 4202: 3866:

I just noticed it, and thought that what I changed it to was what you intended, so you are most welcome.

3768: 3548: 4122: 3849: 3742: 3304: 3114: 2924: 2670: 2448: 2034: 1793: 1594: 1407: 1184: 701: 140: 42: 3906: 3685: 1106: 956: 926: 409: 3941: 3861: 1020: 1007: 521: 635: 4113: 4109: 4068: 3826: 3800: 3591: 3565: 3486: 2438:

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry.

2381: 2361: 2322: 2312: 2282: 2221: 967: 937: 915: 906: 568: 510: 479: 446: 381: 51: 17: 3512: 4272: 4224: 4097: 670: 623:

You mean the input she would already have given had she not just been BANNED BY A CHECKUSER? –

465: 3950: 1375:. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 641:

itself might be to revealing - you might say something to that effect. Anyway, good luck.

4089: 4060: 3876: 3611: 1148: 1102: 995: 608: 601: 8: 3971: 3792: 3460:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3282:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 3092:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 2844:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 2625:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 2190:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1985:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1771:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1572:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1349:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 1134: 971: 941: 878:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 578: 358: 342: 314:. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. 4147: 4035: 4000: 3930: 3602: 3526: 3434: 3256: 3181:

WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations

3066: 2818: 2599: 2200: 2164: 2005: 1959: 1745: 1546: 1323: 1164: 888: 852: 326: 288: 4031: 4010: 1089:

example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."

1060: 1019:

I also quite agree with YechielMan - I hope we can all learn something from this. --

612: 475: 395: 64: 361:

to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at

4291: 4137: 3983: 3839: 3757: 3750: 3714: 2854: 2647: 2272: 2014: 1387: 1138: 2008:

remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time.

3869: 3624: 3537: 2206: 652: 624: 493: 436: 374: 3825:

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for your condescension. Go play with someone else. —

50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4043: 3967: 3887: 3853: 3852:. If you don't want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. 3668: 3582: 3438: 3260: 3070: 2822: 2603: 2422: 2416: 2232: 2168: 1963: 1749: 1550: 1327: 1126: 1078:

R--can you explain how the checkusering of CharlotteWeb was not inappropriate?

856: 663: 462:

Hello, I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here

428: 348: 332: 292: 1099:

In addition, he released the information publically. Why and how is this ok?

3924: 3901: 3598: 3576: 3519: 1158: 4027: 4006: 3746: 3696: 3554: 1053: 895: 642: 390: 4280: 4132: 3754: 3710: 3638: 3461: 3283: 3093: 2845: 2644: 2626: 2439: 2191: 1986: 1772: 1573: 1350: 879: 315: 211:

Privacy report lists Knowledge among best sites, but needing improvement

3992: 3617: 3499: 3476: 3470: 2009: 1052:

I would really like to understand, Charlotte. Help me to understand. -

4163: 3709:, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. 3660: 3338: 3148: 2958: 445:

I see, but as it turns out there is more to this story, see below. —

3923:(in case you are not watchlisting it and care to comment). Cheers, 223:

WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"

4218: 4157: 3896: 2895: 2882: 2868: 2704: 2257: 2243: 3453: