[WikiEN-l] more active censorship

[Skyring]

On 7/5/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Skyring <skyring at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 7/4/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >From: "Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder at energon.org>
> > > > > No, it's supposed to work that way.  It's doing exactly what it is
> > > >intended
> > > > > to do.
> > > >
> > > >No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing
> > > >that in this case?
> > >
> > > Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
> >
> >That doesn't make sense. A blocked user CANNOT edit. It is like
removing the engine from the car of a driver whose license has been
suspended and saying that turning the key in the ignition is an
attempt to drive. It isn't - the car's not going anywhere. The driver
KNOWS this.

> Well, that's not really accurate, but most blocked users can no longer us a
> different Userid to avoid the block, precisely because Wikipedia blocks the
> IP address when attempts are made to do this.  That wasn't the case before
> the IP blocker was added.

I'm talking about the same logged-in user. The system has removed the
engine and they are merely turning the ignition key. Obviously if they
use a different IP address and don't log in, then they can edit, but
in such a case the system doesn't know who they are, it doesn't stop
them editing and it doesn't reset the block.

Please focus on the point of this discussion.

> > > >What purpose does it serve exactly?
> > >
> > > Protects against block evasion.
> >
> >How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit.  If you already have absolute
protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common
sense.

> If only that were the case.  In practice, blocked editors edit all the time;
> this simply stops the ones with fixed IP addresses from editing with
> sockpuppets.

No it doesn't. In such a case they CANNOT edit. The system stops them.

The fact that the block is reset doesn't stop them editing. They can't
edit anyway.

Please address the point. I notice that you removed the sections of
text that I included to make the point clear (which I've now
reinserted), so I'm assuming that you have grasped the point I am
making and now you are trying to erect a strawman. This doesn't really
help.

-- 
Peter in Canberra