On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
There is a difference between being banned (specific, targeted bar against a specific editor editing Wikipedia through any method available) and being unable to edit because the way you (choose/need) to do so has been blocked because of a persistent vandal and troll problem.
AB is in the same situation as someone whose school has been range-blocked because of persistent vandalism from that range that the school admins are unable/unwilling to deal with.
Sure, the immediate results are the same - being unable to edit. However, AB is able, as is the student whose school is blocked, to edit should another means of access become available to them.
And yes, it sucks. I am quite aware that it sucks. However, Wikipedia right now is in the situation where a user's originating IP is pretty much the basis for any ability to bar editing at all for anyone, since we have so few requirements to create an account. If we permit anonymizing services such as Tor, we effectively no longer have any way to block users or track them at all.
The only other functioning alternative, IMO, is to make it require a lot more effort to qualify for an account, so that it is much harder to create a new Wikipedia identity. I'd submit that doing that is going to change the Wikipedia environment a heck of a lot more than banning anonymizing proxies does. (The other alternative, which appears to be soundly rejected, is giving up on any attempt to use technical information about a user's internet connection and HTTP requests to back up suspicions of sockpuppetry/resurrection).
-Matt