On 17/08/07, madman bum and angel <madman(a)ferretproductions.com> wrote:
Luna wrote:
For clarification, does this mean that discussion
regarding AB in
particular, or discussion on proxies in general? I'm of the opinion that
the
former issue was distracting from productive
resolution of the greater
matter at hand: trying to find a better working solution to the proxies
problem. I'd say more, but want to wait for that clarification.
Thanks for re-focusing us. I'm working on a solution myself; I hope to
be able to post a proposal for review within a couple days.
-madman bum and angel
I tried 're-focus' this a long time ago.
To quote myself, '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?' (13 August 2007 10:20)
'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.'
(13 August 2007 10:40)
But apparently no one reads what I write.