To clarify on that, consider good Tor users and exit node operators
who have never contributed to Wikipaedia. They cannot be said to have
violated policy, since they have obeyed it by not editing, either when
most of Tor was softblocked, or by evading Tor blocks while most of
Tor has been hardblocked. (Well, unless you want to say that exit
node operators allowing exits to Wikipaedia are 'violating policy' by
doing so... why some people think Tor exit policies are in
Wikipaedia's jurisdiction, I don't know....)
It would be nice if those Tor users and exit node operators could
edit, after being authenticated as trusted. On the Tor IRC channel,
Wikipaedia is complained about more than any other site, by polite
individuals. However, I myself have no interest in getting
unbanned/unblocked/whatever, and said RfA is a source of distress for
me, so it would be nice if you could leave that out of the debate.
Armed Blowfish
On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
I asked for my RfA to be blanked for a reason.
Really, if you want to
argue for or against allowing Tor editors, that's fine, but could my
RfA please be left out of it?
Armed Blowfish
On 13/08/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the
people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
suggested that AB should be an admin.
Whatever measure you use, you would need to actually ask people for
their opinions on the actual issue at hand, and not try to deduce
their opinions from their prior opinions on other issues.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l