2008/6/5 Andrew Garrett andrew@epstone.net:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:17 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
In practice, soft-blocking proxies is the same as not blocking them at all.
My understanding is that the primary problem with tor is page-move vandals such as the user known as 'Grawp'. These were the main objections to the extension that came from my discussions with CheckUsers and stewards. In response to this, I implemented the additional restrictions on tor users becoming autoconfirmed. A number of CheckUsers were happy with this compromise, but apparently, I didn't speak to enough of them.
Almost all of what comes through Tor on en:wp is vandalism, sockpuppetry and rubbish.
Of course, the extension can always be disabled for further development, but I do encourage those who oppose the use of this extension to think about alternative treatment of tor by the software (similar to the expanded autoconfirm limits), rather than simply hard-blocking tor.
You're speaking to people who've been there and done that.
In practice, soft-blocking Tor is equivalent to not blocking at all. I've looked. Have you?
- d.