zero 0000 wrote:
I would object to it being done without a study to
determine how many
genuine editors use anonymizers. There are quite legitimate possible
reasons. One is an editor who writes in Wikipedia from work but
doesn't want his/her employer's IP to be associated with it. Another
is someone who wants to be anonymous on Wikipedia but has a fixed IP
address that uniquely identifies him/her. We should not ban this
practice unless we have a global policy that anonymity is forbidden.
That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the problem you
describe. On the other hand, how much of this problem would
exist if it wasn't for the practice of allowing people to edit
articles without logging in? Every time this matter is raised there
are screams about the sky falling in, but I have yet to see a single
convincing reason why we can't restrict editing to logged-in users.
In this particular case, the case of "anti-capitalist", the user in
question did log in.
The most convincing reason why we ought not to restrict editing to
logged-in users is that it doesn't appear to solve any problems that
we actually have.
--Jimbo