2008/6/5 Andrew Garrett <andrew(a)epstone.net>et>:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:17 AM, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)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.
Almost all of what comes through Tor on en:wp is vandalism,
sockpuppetry and rubbish.
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.
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?
- d.