To clarify on that, consider good Tor users and exit node operators who have never contributed to Wikipaedia. They cannot be said to have violated policy, since they have obeyed it by not editing, either when most of Tor was softblocked, or by evading Tor blocks while most of Tor has been hardblocked. (Well, unless you want to say that exit node operators allowing exits to Wikipaedia are 'violating policy' by doing so... why some people think Tor exit policies are in Wikipaedia's jurisdiction, I don't know....)
It would be nice if those Tor users and exit node operators could edit, after being authenticated as trusted. On the Tor IRC channel, Wikipaedia is complained about more than any other site, by polite individuals. However, I myself have no interest in getting unbanned/unblocked/whatever, and said RfA is a source of distress for me, so it would be nice if you could leave that out of the debate.
Armed Blowfish
On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I asked for my RfA to be blanked for a reason. Really, if you want to argue for or against allowing Tor editors, that's fine, but could my RfA please be left out of it?
Armed Blowfish
On 13/08/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor, suggested that AB should be an admin.
Whatever measure you use, you would need to actually ask people for their opinions on the actual issue at hand, and not try to deduce their opinions from their prior opinions on other issues.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l