Comments on several of today's posts:
"Every wiki is different" isn't a superficial thing. Major structures such
as sysop, arbcom, checkuser usage, and probably vandalism and abuse profiles
and so on, vary greatly between the WMF wikis. What's being discussed here
is an extension that affects those, and where checkusers on one wiki are
making representations that the extension's default setting, as mooted by
some, badly match the experienced needs and abuse profile of that wiki,
which would be better dealt with by hard blocking.
That shouldn't be a major contention. Checkusers are the ones who are aware
of these things, and the contention's not made that all wikis should do
this, just that the one wiki whose community of checkusers is strongly
representing that a hard block system is more needed and a soft block
approach a serious problem, should be listened to. The same users also point
out that they also have a tool in active use to allow bypassing for those
with genuine need, a process to make that reasonably available, and that
"not an experiment" applies here.
This is the reply to GerardM and Platonides - the tool may be WMF wide but
each project may (like many tools) have it individually configured. Nobody
here is saying "wikinews (or other projects) shouldn't do what they need".
They're just saying "don't force Wikinews' ideal solution on all wikis",
including those whose checkusers pretty much all see the problems and all
object.
Likewise the comment, "even our public figures, people living in the "free
world" are harassed, stalked, threatened...Rape, murder, the use of
sulphuric acid they are the kind of threats that are issued" ... in fact,
most en wiki checkusers are on its Arbitration Committee mailing list, and
see exactly the threats that go on. So they don't need to be advised what
can happen, or how to evaluate it; almost all enwiki checkusers are in a
position they can judge for themselves that need and balance, and how
(un)common. And yet, after knowing that, this is still the overwhelming view
of multiple independent checkusers for that project. That should make one
pause and think hard if maybe they know what they're saying, when they ask
for this one project to gain a specific tor handling. After all most enwiki
checkusers value freedom too, we're also one of the early adopters of IP
block exemption to specifically allow users with a need, to override hard
tor blocks.
For the record, so there is no misassumption, confirming Andrew's comment
that he has only the best interests of the project at heart. That was my
impression of his stance. Where we've not resolved things is more, that
Andrew hopes there is a "wriggle" that would mean tor wouldn't need hard
blocking on en wiki... and despite trying I've just not yet come close to
that view, nor a way that might bypass the need via software :-/ So I have
to stand and say I would still rather when TorBlock is configured, let the
config for en wiki be a hard block norm, not a soft block one. I have no
urge to propose what other projects might find individually best, or the
settings which may fit their profile of vandalism and experience, other than
to encourage them to choose based on their own project's needs too, which
they presumably will.
The en wiki preference (if a general stance can be drawn from this thread)
is a default to hard-block, plus exemption, rather than a default to
soft-block, plus retrospective abuse handling. Not a demand that any other
wiki does differently than what is best for them, or that all projects must
do so.
FT2