On 17/08/07, madman bum and angel madman@ferretproductions.com wrote:
Luna wrote:
For clarification, does this mean that discussion regarding AB in particular, or discussion on proxies in general? I'm of the opinion that
the
former issue was distracting from productive resolution of the greater matter at hand: trying to find a better working solution to the proxies problem. I'd say more, but want to wait for that clarification.
Thanks for re-focusing us. I'm working on a solution myself; I hope to be able to post a proposal for review within a couple days.
-madman bum and angel
I tried 're-focus' this a long time ago.
To quote myself, '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?' (13 August 2007 10:20)
'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.' (13 August 2007 10:40)
But apparently no one reads what I write.