What is the current set of things you can restrict to? Configurable? What about setting up the TorBlock extension, similar to the ConfirmEdit extension (well, maybe a larger list of things that can be restricted). Basically, so that rather than making it part of the extension, we can configure what rights or abilities we want the TorBlock extension to revoke. [Link adding, group rights (edit, move, or even view in the most restrictive way), edit patterns matching a regex, talkpage editing, etc...] and also give a flag to higher groups like sysop that disables the Tor soft blocking. Then TorBlock can be enabled, and individual communities can decide what type of bad actions are coming in from Tor to their wiki, and have those actions disabled. A semi-permissive community could even generally block edits from Tor users, but permit them to edit talkpages to request edits or moves. Like with the ConfirmEdit extension, the regex is quite useful. I actually have /^\s*$/ which generates a captcha when someone tries to blank an article. Rather than removing editing, that kind of thing could be used to prevent page blanking coming from Tor users. If tor is used to pagemove vandalize, then remove move permissions for tor users. If tor users mass vandalize pages, then remove edit permissions, but allow them to edit talkpages, or just require autoconfirmed. If they linkspam, restrict the ability to edit when adding links.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
Andrew Garrett wrote:
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.
On the CheckUser list there is considerable opposition to what appears to be a unilateral over-riding of both local and meta policy, creating a new policy that might work for a little edited wiki but would not be appropriate at all on wiki-en. I encourage the developers to ensure that this change has wide acceptance at the local level and support from the Foundation before implementing.
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.