Eric Demolli wrote: No, if you read the blocking message you'd see "Your IP address has been blocked because it is an open proxy. Please contact your Internet service provider or tech support and inform them of this serious security problem.". Apparently your home network is an open proxy, either because you misconfigured it, or because a troyan horse opened it. The blocking was done automagically by the proxy blocking addition recently added into the software. [[en:User:Ahoerstemeier]]

As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment. Fred From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jheiskan(a)welho.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: 30 Mar 2004 12:27:51 +0300 To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration. Firstly, as you as an arbitration body clearly wish to have an effective regulator for the process, why should you not give those who are to *be* the regulators enough authority to *effectively* actually *act* as regulators!

From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jheiskan(a)welho.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: 30 Mar 2004 16:03:42 +0300 To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Qualifications for referrals to arbitration. On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote: As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure. One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no comment. Fred Hello, Fred. I do sincerely think it would not be counterproductive to have an alternate forum for this kind of jaw-jaw, but that is one of those things that is up to your posse as are most things to do with the arbitration-mediation framework. Your input is welcome. Fred As regards to your effective mechanism to "regulate access", you probably meant to type "restrict access". No. Fred It is definitely the case that the perception is that the mediation process is not even a "hurdle" on the way to arbitration, but totally separate and "useless" in reference to it. It is not meant to be a hurdle. It is an opportunity to settle disputes. Fred If there were a way to engender a perception that the mediation process was conjunct in some real way to the arbitration committee, this would not only improve the functionality of the mediation committee, but also *potentially* effectively _restrict_ the number of cases that actually flared up to a state that can only be remedied by arbitration. "A stitch in time, saves nine!" The intention is to resolve disputes without having to engage in a quasi-judicial procedure. Issues which are not resolved by negotiation or mediation can possibly be decided by arbitration, or not. (not includes trivial matters; matters which are rightly subject to policy determinations by Wikipedia as a whole; matters which belong in the courts--God forbid; and matters we don't know how to handle). Fred Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l