On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:10 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/6/5 Andrew Garrett <andrew(a)epstone.net>et>:
Of course, the extension can always be disabled
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?
I'm not suggesting a plain soft-block. I'm suggesting special
treatment. For instance, we can handle sockpuppetry by marking edits
made through tor as such in recent changes. When users have their
edits revealed as made through tor, they'll go back to their open
proxy farms which aren't as easily identified. I'm not sure how we sit