On 8/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was
commit it.
2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt.
So you consider that the devs being unwilling to alter the MediaWiki
codebase just so you personally can edit through TOR constitutes a
"ban"?
This user is not the only one who would benefit from such a patch, so
that part's a little unfair.
I strongly suggest you are out of step with the
project.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010659.html
"In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish
them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on
Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." - Jimmy Wales
Do I really have to dig up the quotes where he said essentially the opposite?
Eh, I will:
"Anonymous edits are mostly good, but when we look into problematic edits
in an effort to limit the waste of good people's time, a couple of
things really strongly stick out: open proxies and Tor nodes. These are
used almost exclusively for ill, almost never for good.
So, we block them. But I don't like this. I want there to be ways for
people who have genuine privacy needs to be able to edit Wikipedia.
--Jimbo"