[WikiEN-l] The real Occam's razor and AGF: stop it before it begins

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 6/17/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:29:00 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi"
> > <szilagyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the
> methods
> > >of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia?
> >
> > Yes, if they are using TOR.  TOR is verboten, for good reason.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
> > --
> > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> >
> >
>
> jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>  to English
> show details  8:52 am (3 hours ago)
>
> >Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
> and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge. There's no particular
> reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner
> who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident
> from the very start.
>
> If the TOR was forbidden for good reasons, Charlotte should have
> simply been asked, long before the RfA, to stop using it.  I have no
> doubt she would have complied with a request.  There was no need for a
> revelation of information gained through use of check user tools to
> sink her RfA.
>
> That is the real Occam's razor coupled with AGF in this incident: ask
> her to stop, when you first find out, explaining it is verboten, for
> good reason.
>
> KP
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

Asking someone first is indeed a good first step, but I fail to see what the
"good reason" for forbidding it would be. As long as the user isn't hiding
behind the proxy to get away with edit warring and such there's no reason we
should disallow it. (Is there evidence of any editing abuse?)

If anonymity services are really that much of a problem we should've blocked
AOL ages ago (we know it is possible). It is offering more or less the same
functionality.