On 8/13/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
That's ridiculous. If the majority of people don't support this supposed policy, then it's not a valid policy in the first
place.
Nice try. But just in case you're slow instead of simply
disingenuous,
I'll explain. The few people weighing in on AB's RFA do not
represent
the entire population of Wikipedia. Just because one or two more
people
with fringe beliefs collect at one brief moment doesn't obliterate popular and long standing policy.
There were more than one or two people commenting on AB's RfA, and their beliefs were not fringe.
By the way, NOP is currently described as a *proposed* policy.
Don't be a wikilawyer.
The difference between a policy and a proposed policy is very real, and not an unimportant legalistic distinction.
And you're right, the policy is fine as it now stands. And so AB isn't banned from anything. That's great; everything's sorted. Let's drop it
and
move on.
AB isn't banned from anything. But s/he is blocked from editing, so everything isn't OK.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
AB is not blocked from editing, Tor is, and from my understanding Tor users are allowed to use Tor nodes until they are blocked.
As far as I'm aware, AB doesn't just use a Tor node. He *is* a Tor node.