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