On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot speak for other wikis, but with IP block
exemption working out so
well, we probably have no real need to keep tor open at all. The ability to
defeat CheckUser is an admin right, permits easy socking, and requires a
degree of communal trust. If there is a genuine need, then we have it in
place, now, that the request will be considered communally and if agreed,
granted. The strictness of the process has meant that this right can be
given when genuinely helpful, without major concerns over abuse.
IP block exemption is fantastic for contributors who've been with us
for a while, but what about new users? We can't really attract new
contributors (perhaps from nondemocratic countries such as China,
Burma, et cetera), if we insist that users are well-trusted before we
let them edit through tor. This results in a catch-22 situation.
What does matter is the potential it has, for drawing
attention to a user
and encouraging speculative or bad faith conclusions (eg: "they use tor so
they must be a sock/hiding something/up to no good/etc"). I'd be tempted to
limit it primarily for the latter reason rather than for privacy reasons. In
general it may not be a bad thing to let admins see that info in contribs,
diffs and edit histories, as admins do a lot of the initial multiple account
spotting for the project. Not making it public to all, and limiting it to
admins, will cut most of the problematic usage.
I don't have a problem with implementing this now, but it would be a
bit of a waste of time if somebody had to go through an IP block
exemption process first anyway, since this would reveal that they're
editing through tor, in itself.
--
Andrew Garrett