On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Anthony <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they > >> will block it for real. And they will block again editing. > > > > > > "They" didn't block editing. "You" did. > > Technically, yes, but they made it impossible for us to do anything else. > I think at this point you have to describe what you mean by "block editing", then. > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Dan Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Do you have a suggestion? Not everyone uses XFF, certainly not ISPs > >> with dynamic IPs, how would you suggest we block anonymous users? > > > > > > If you want to block anonymous users, block anonymous users. If you want > to > > allow anonymous users to edit, then understand that you can't block > anyone. > > > > If someone is anonymous, then you don't know who they are, so you don't > know > > whether or not they're blocked. > > That's nonsense. In the vast majority of cases there is a one-to-one > correspondence between IP addresses and users (at least over the short > term) and blocking by IP address works very well. If there is a one-to-one correspondence between IP addresses and users, then there isn't any anonymity, is there? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
