On 8/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/11/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
- I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it.
- 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"
Oh yeah, and my quote is dated later than yours: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00294.html
:)