On 6/19/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I am not the one wikilawyering. Yes, the IP addresses are blocked by policy. That is pretty much indisputable. If your only comment is that Charlotte *knew* the IP addresses were blocked, I don't think you need to look at this AfD to know that. Of course Charlotte knew the IP addresses were blocked. The question is whether or not Charlotte knew that it was wrong to edit using them anyway.
This seems pretty disingenious. The message normally shown when one tries to edit via a blocked Tor node, [[Template:Tor]], says:
"This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be a Tor network open proxy. To prevent abuse, editing Wikipedia from these proxies is prohibited."
For an analogy, imagine you wanted to get into a building and, for some reason, didn't want to use the door. So you try to climb in through a window, but it's barred, with a sign saying: "Entering the building through windows is forbidden!" So you try another window, and it too is barred with a similar sign. You try a couple more, and they're all barred. Then finally, you find a window that's ajar and has no sign. Would you conclude:
a) that entering through *this* window is perfectly acceptable, or b) that the signs you saw previously in fact apply to *all* the windows, but someone simply forgot to bar this one?
Depends. If I had permission from the owner to enter the building, for instance if I was supposed to feed her cat, then I'd assume that the other windows were barred to keep out burglars, and not me.
Especially if the sign said "To prevent burglary, entering the building through windows is forbidden!"