I don't mean to be obtuse, which arbitration case are you referring to?
Also - if I'm not mistaken, the folks editing behind the proxy, are not banned, only the proxy is blocked.
Regards, Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gracenotes Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:01 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Jimbo quotes on Tor
On 8/11/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also failing to see why we need to allow editors to override a TOR / Anon proxy block.
Because then, we won't have to tell people to change the way they connect to the internet in order to actively contribute to a small part of it.
Jimbo's words may not carry any more weight than anyone else's, but the fact that you fail to see why we should allow editors to override a TOR block implies that you *should* read them: not for their authority, but for their logic. This is a way to ban proxies without banning people, in line with the recent ArbCom ruling, to allow more good-faith anonymizing proxy users to contribute, and vanishingly less bad-faith users. The only problem is that no one cares.
--Gracenotes _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l