2008/6/5 Andrew Garrett <andrew(a)epstone.net>et>:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:17 AM, jayjg
> In practice, soft-blocking proxies is the same as
not blocking them at
My understanding is that the primary problem with tor
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
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
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?