On 6/18/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
In fact, considering that the first 55 votes are all support votes
I misread the RfA, of course. At the time of the vote there were most likely both support and oppose votes.
So there wasn't a consensus against this policy. But there clearly wasn't a consensus in favor of it either.
Actually there is; the consensus is that they are blocked, which is why they are blocked.
Yes, there is consensus that the IP addresses should be blocked, but that's about it.
Whether or not Charlotte read anything stating that there was a written policy against editing using TOR is a) not at all clear; and b) quite irrelevant anyway, as true Wikipedia policies are based on consensus, not what happens to be written on a policy page.
The whole AFD was specifically because Armedblowfish wanted to become an admin because he was *using TOR proxies and TOR proxies are blocked by policy*. It couldn't be more clear. Please stop wikilawyering.
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
The RfA of Armedblowfish shows quite clearly that many people, even a majority of people, support the use of TOR by responsible editors, so of course there isn't consensus for a policy against that.