Bad policy for Tor users will limit my contributions
As of 14 May 2016, Wikipedia prevents all edits from IP addresses associated with Tor, even if the editor is a registered user and is logged into Wikipedia. Wikipedia states that the percentage of Tor traffic that leads to vandalism is high. I believe Wikipedia that Tor traffic has more vandal activity than non-Tor traffic. I strongly disagree, however, that the solution is to block Tor traffic. The solution is to increase the amount of non-vandal traffic through Tor because that reduces the percentage of vandal traffic through Tor.
Creating barriers to legitimate Tor traffic A) increases the percentage of illegitimate Tor traffic, B) discourages adoption of Tor, and C) penalizes people who can only access some websites through Tor. If a person is already the victim of oppression and must use Tor to overcome that oppression, then is it morally acceptable for Wikipedia to victimize that person again by creating barriers to their use of Tor? No, it is not morally acceptable.
Defending against vandals by blocking Tor does help to reduce the vandal problem, but some of the cost of fixing the vandal problem is paid by oppressed and vulnerable people. Is it morally acceptable to shift these costs to a group that already has less power than the average Wikipedia editor? No, it is not morally acceptable.
Until Wikipedia stops discriminating against Tor traffic, I will eliminate or severely curtail my contributions (edits or talk discussions, as examples). It is true that I already dramatically reduced my contributions for other reasons, and I realize that the loss of my contributions is so insignificant to Wikipedia that it barely qualifies as trivial.
Elie Wiesel, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, said in his acceptance speech, "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Especially when the tormented are mostly silenced, I cannot be silent. I have the luxury of publicly protesting this policy that unintentionally discriminates against oppressed and vulnerable people. The users who are the most damaged by Wikipedia's policy are the same users who have a reduced ability to publicly discuss the policy and how it affects them.
If I do contribute, I will not edit war
I greatly dislike some aspects of contemporary Wikipedian culture. My particular dislikes are unimportant and expressing them would not be constructive. Because of those dislikes, I do not revert war, edit war, skirmish, arm wrestle, tussle, fisticuff, race, or have staring contests. I do not watch articles I edit, I do not watch talk pages I edit, I do not watch articles I created, and I disabled notifications about reverts of my edits. I do not build consensus, and I do not engage in politics.
My digital personality
Peace, paz, سلام, 和平