[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] TorBlock extension enabled

[Jonas Rand]

> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:45:12 +0100
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] TorBlock extension enabled
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew Garrett <andrew at epstone.net>
> Date: 2008/6/4
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] TorBlock extension enabled
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> After working through the code with Tim for a few hours this
> afternoon, the TorBlock extension has been enabled on Wikimedia.
>
> The TorBlock extension will override local IP blocks to provide a
> consistent treatment of tor. Currently, this involves allowing only
> logged-in users to edit, and requiring tor users to have 100 edits,
> and a 90-day-old account, prior to being autoconfirmed.
>
> Hopefully, this will provide a balance between allowing users to edit
> through tor without the difficult process of granting per-wiki IP
> block exemptions, and preventing pagemove vandals (such as the user
> known as 'Grawp' on English) from using Tor for vandalism and so on.
>
> I haven't yet implemented this, but I am interested in the prospect of
> marking Tor users as such on either CheckUser, or (privacy policy
> depending) on Recent Changes.
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

I think this is a good idea, as far as soft-blocking or. However, the 
"autoconfirmed, 100 edits, 90 days" is not, because the users with Tor 
should be allowed to use it, if it protects them from privacy. It should not 
be softblocked until an editor is an "experienced editor", because it is an 
assumption of bad faith for Wikipedia to assume that an editor does not have 
good intentions because they aren't "prolific".

I can understand if this is a cautionary measure, however just because an 
editor hasn't made 100 edits and stayed there for 90 days, does not mean 
they are vandals or sleeper accounts. This is a flaw in the proposal, and 
should be fixed.

Jonas