[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[K P]

On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/18/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/18/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > However, as CW had never been banned, and plenty of admins with check
> > > > user tools knew she had an open proxie, she might not have expected it
> > > > would be a cause to sink her RfA, or that it was banned for her to do
> > > > so.
> > >
> > > As far as I know 3 checkusers knew of it, but CW would *have no way of
> > > knowing that*. I'm not sure why people are spinning ever more fanciful
> > > yarns about CW's ignorance of this policy, in the face of nearly
> > > irrefutable evidence that CW was well aware of it.
> >
> > This isn't a fanciful tale supposing CW's ignorance of the "no open
> > proxies" policy.  What it is a comment about her expectations or not
> > of being allowed to use it.
>
> She knew Armedblowfish wasn't being given a "pass" on this; why would
> she expect that she would be?
>
> > > > After all, she is a registered user who uses open proxies and has
> > > > not been banned or told not to use them.
> > >
> > > That doesn't even logically follow. Armedblowfish wasn't banned for
> > > using TOR proxies either, but it was also made clear that there would
> > > be no exceptions made for him using them, he would have to edit from
> > > real IPs
> >
> > Yes, it does logically follow that she has been allowed to use them,
> > so she might not expect to be torpedoes for using them.
>
> But she wasn't "torpedoed" for that; rather, her own responses
> torpedoed her. If, for example, CW had said "I use TOR proxies because
> I edit from China" I'm sure there would have been a tidal wave of
> support *for* her. Or, if CW had said "I wasn't aware that this was
> forbidden, but I'll make sure not to do that from now on", I'm sure
> the response would have been positive.
>
> > Still, CW was allowed to edit
> > from open proxies, probably knew she was allowed to edit from them, at
> > least 3 admins know she edits from them, and no one blocked her or
> > made mention of them until it came to her RfA.
>
> Well, except for the fact that she would keep running up against
> blocked TOR proxies all the time.
> >
> > "Fabulous tales"  etc., etc.
>
> Yes, of which you are one of the primary authors.
>
> >
> > Open proxies apparently aren't all the inappropriate as registered
> > users in good standing are allowed to use them.
>
> No, they're not, which is why admins keep blocking them when they find
> them. But if you truly believe what you're saying, then asking that
> question could not possibly have "torpedoed" CW's arbcom nomination,
> since everyone would just look at it and shrug and say "Well, no
> problem there, registered users in good standing are allowed to use
> them."
>
No, you never blocked HER.  And, that is how it should be handled if
htey are somehow the threat to Wikipedia that Slim makes them out to
be.  You should block the sign-ins of all editors using TORs.

But you don't.  You just bring it up when they apply for adminship.
It seems that Charlotte did not read the Armedblowfish (redundancies
abound) issue, as she seemed rather surprised that you brought it up.

KP