[WikiEN-l] Jayjg: Abusing CheckUser for political ends?

[Anthony]

On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham at gmail.com> wrote:
> Slim Virgin wrote:
> > I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit
> > with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become
> > an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while
> > violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to
> > change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
>
> Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the consensus for the longest
> time that there was no problem with people using proxies so long as the
> proxies weren't being used abusively? I mean, [[Wikipedia:Advice to Tor
> users in China]] used to recommend using tor, but cautioned that nodes
> would often be blocked. When soft-blocking was enabled, there was a
> massive consensus to lighten the blocks on Tor to enable good-faith
> editors to contribute that way.
>
What happened to that, anyway?  Tor proxies seem perfect for softblocks.

> I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't
> have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are
> doing so in good faith.
>
I seem to remember this too.  Couldn't find the exact email, though.
OTOH, I think Jimbo has also said the opposite, that anonymous proxies
should be blocked.

I also remember someone claiming that Tor addresses weren't anonymous
proxies.  Not sure what the rationale for that was.

Oh yeah, and here's a quote from an interview with Jimbo:

<blockquote>
Seigenthaler's main criticism of Wikipedia is that contributors are
allowed to edit and add to articles anonymously. Why do you feel it's
important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain
anonymous?
There are two reasons I would put forward. First, on the Internet,
it's impossible to actually confirm people's identity in the first
place, short of getting credit-card information. On any site it's very
easy to come up with a fake identity, regardless.

Second, there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have
privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site. For example,
there are people working on Wikipedia from China, where the site is
currently blocked. We have a contributor in Iran who has twice been
told his name has been turned into the police for his work in
Wikipedia. He's brave. His real name is known, actually. But there are
lots of reasons for privacy online that aren't nefarious.
</blockquote>

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm

> Why then, are we making a big deal over an outdated policy page on meta
> that clearly is not supported by practice, policy, or basic common sense
> on the English Wikipedia?
>
Unenforced and nonsensical rules are great for political purposes,
because pretty much everyone has broken one or another of them.

Anthony