Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

TorBlock extension enabled

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

brock.weller at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 1:47 PM

Post #26 of 58 (844 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:16 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:51 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> 2008/6/5 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> >>
> >>> Is there a way to allow exempt IPs to edit through Tor anyway?
> >>
> >>
> >> I mean exempt usernames (I believe sysops are presently immune to IP
> >> blocks, for example).
> >>
> >
> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
> >
> > You'll notice an extra permission under User, called
> > torblock-unblocked, or something. All that would need to be done is
> > for that to be reassigned to a user group given out.
> >
> > However, I don't like the idea of hard-blocking tor, even when we do
> > give out flags to people who need to use it. I maintain that we are
> > best to come up with some other form of novel handling that balances
> > the need to prevent vandalism with other needs.
>
> Why do you not like the idea of hard-blocking tor? What other needs
> are you referring to?
>

Can't speak for the other person, but assuming good faith, not biting
newcomers, and the recognition that many legitimate reasons exist for using
tor under repressive governments as the reasons for not liking hard blocks.
As for other needs, id say, you know, being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
that *anyone* can edit is a pretty important need. The more we close off the
club, the more we stagnate.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
-Brock
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 2:21 PM

Post #27 of 58 (841 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

2008/6/6 Brock Weller <brock.weller [at] gmail>:

> Can't speak for the other person, but assuming good faith, not biting
> newcomers, and the recognition that many legitimate reasons exist for using
> tor under repressive governments as the reasons for not liking hard blocks.
> As for other needs, id say, you know, being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> that *anyone* can edit is a pretty important need. The more we close off the
> club, the more we stagnate.

This is what I mean when I say that hard-blocking Tor is a bad idea,
and why it's obviously necessary to enlighten the devs as to why
(whether casually or ideologically) disabling hard-blocking Tor will
be an even worse one.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jayjg99 at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 2:39 PM

Post #28 of 58 (846 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Brock Weller <brock.weller [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:16 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:51 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>> >> 2008/6/5 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
>> >>
>> >>> Is there a way to allow exempt IPs to edit through Tor anyway?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I mean exempt usernames (I believe sysops are presently immune to IP
>> >> blocks, for example).
>> >>
>> >
>> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
>> >
>> > You'll notice an extra permission under User, called
>> > torblock-unblocked, or something. All that would need to be done is
>> > for that to be reassigned to a user group given out.
>> >
>> > However, I don't like the idea of hard-blocking tor, even when we do
>> > give out flags to people who need to use it. I maintain that we are
>> > best to come up with some other form of novel handling that balances
>> > the need to prevent vandalism with other needs.
>>
>> Why do you not like the idea of hard-blocking tor? What other needs
>> are you referring to?
>>
>
> Can't speak for the other person, but assuming good faith, not biting
> newcomers, and the recognition that many legitimate reasons exist for using
> tor under repressive governments as the reasons for not liking hard blocks.
> As for other needs, id say, you know, being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> that *anyone* can edit is a pretty important need. The more we close off the
> club, the more we stagnate.

I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
that apply to someone in a Western democracy?

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 3:01 PM

Post #29 of 58 (846 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Brock Weller <brock.weller [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:16 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:51 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> >> 2008/6/5 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Is there a way to allow exempt IPs to edit through Tor anyway?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I mean exempt usernames (I believe sysops are presently immune to IP
>>> >> blocks, for example).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
>>> >
>>> > You'll notice an extra permission under User, called
>>> > torblock-unblocked, or something. All that would need to be done is
>>> > for that to be reassigned to a user group given out.
>>> >
>>> > However, I don't like the idea of hard-blocking tor, even when we do
>>> > give out flags to people who need to use it. I maintain that we are
>>> > best to come up with some other form of novel handling that balances
>>> > the need to prevent vandalism with other needs.
>>>
>>> Why do you not like the idea of hard-blocking tor? What other needs
>>> are you referring to?
>>>
>>
>> Can't speak for the other person, but assuming good faith, not biting
>> newcomers, and the recognition that many legitimate reasons exist for using
>> tor under repressive governments as the reasons for not liking hard blocks.
>> As for other needs, id say, you know, being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> that *anyone* can edit is a pretty important need. The more we close off the
>> club, the more we stagnate.
>
> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

Perhaps someone who prefers to browse the web more anonymously?

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jayjg99 at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 3:30 PM

Post #30 of 58 (840 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Brock Weller <brock.weller [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:16 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:
>>>> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:51 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> >> 2008/6/5 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Is there a way to allow exempt IPs to edit through Tor anyway?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I mean exempt usernames (I believe sysops are presently immune to IP
>>>> >> blocks, for example). only editi
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights
>>>> >
>>>> > You'll notice an extra permission under User, called
>>>> > torblock-unblocked, or something. All that would need to be done is
>>>> > for that to be reassigned to a user group given out.
>>>> >
>>>> > However, I don't like the idea of hard-blocking tor, even when we do
>>>> > give out flags to people who need to use it. I maintain that we are
>>>> > best to come up with some other form of novel handling that balances
>>>> > the need to prevent vandalism with other needs.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you not like the idea of hard-blocking tor? What other needs
>>>> are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can't speak for the other person, but assuming good faith, not biting
>>> newcomers, and the recognition that many legitimate reasons exist for using
>>> tor under repressive governments as the reasons for not liking hard blocks.
>>> As for other needs, id say, you know, being Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>> that *anyone* can edit is a pretty important need. The more we close off the
>>> club, the more we stagnate.
>>
>> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
>> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?
>
>
> Perhaps someone who prefers to browse the web more anonymously?
>
> -Chad

Browsing via TOR is not blocked.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Simetrical+wikilist at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 3:38 PM

Post #31 of 58 (837 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Perhaps someone who prefers to browse the web more anonymously?
>
> Browsing via TOR is not blocked.

And as for someone who prefers to *edit* the web more anonymously,
well, I don't see any reason Wikipedia (or anyone else) needs to
indulge them. They only gain anonymity from checkusers, and I *hope*
we think that's a bad thing -- else why have the rank to begin with?

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

compwhizii at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 4:42 PM

Post #32 of 58 (842 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Simetrical wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> Perhaps someone who prefers to browse the web more anonymously?
>> Browsing via TOR is not blocked.
>
> And as for someone who prefers to *edit* the web more anonymously,
> well, I don't see any reason Wikipedia (or anyone else) needs to
> indulge them. They only gain anonymity from checkusers, and I *hope*
> we think that's a bad thing -- else why have the rank to begin with?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I think it's also because there have been vandal related issues.

- --CWii
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhJy3kACgkQJovU4OsScay1rACfcjqOLRTzND81rMkxEz5RK4nL
KUEAoNUrCu3dii0Jfuy+R6tey6S/vGnm
=cF1B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

marco at harddisk

Jun 6, 2008, 5:06 PM

Post #33 of 58 (843 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

jayjg schrieb:
> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?
Living in a Western democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you can surf
the web or use internet services freely, look at all those blocks for
Bittorrent, the dozens of blocks for Nazi hosters, and especially the
German court decision about YouPorn, which actually led to >2 million
websites being invisible by Arcor customers; they can only be helped
through proxys (though I don't think watching porn via proxys is good).

And please also do not forget that some people indeed care about their
privacy - what many people unfortunately do not, and so freedom passes
more and more away.

Marco

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 5:09 PM

Post #34 of 58 (844 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Simetrical
<Simetrical+wikilist [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:30 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Chad <innocentkiller [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> Perhaps someone who prefers to browse the web more anonymously?
>>
>> Browsing via TOR is not blocked.
>
> And as for someone who prefers to *edit* the web more anonymously,
> well, I don't see any reason Wikipedia (or anyone else) needs to
> indulge them. They only gain anonymity from checkusers, and I *hope*
> we think that's a bad thing -- else why have the rank to begin with?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

From the raw IPs, I agree. However, if we have a user wishing to edit
via TOR and they have a registered account, we should grant them
ipblock-exempt. TOR's still hardblocked, yes. Anon edits aren't allowed
in. However, single users who wish to edit and can be trusted should
be allowed to do so.

It's not as though giving them ipblock-exempt suddenly makes the IP
free and wild for everyone. Nor does it permit them to confer the right
onto other accounts. It's easy to keep an eye on a single user.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

andrew at epstone

Jun 6, 2008, 5:14 PM

Post #35 of 58 (837 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki [at] gmail> 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

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

ft2.wiki at gmail

Jun 6, 2008, 5:38 PM

Post #36 of 58 (841 views)
Permalink

TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

> Living in a Western democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you can surf
> the web or use internet services freely, look at all those blocks for
> Bittorrent, the dozens of blocks for Nazi hosters, and especially the
> German court decision about YouPorn, which actually led to >2 million
> websites being invisible by Arcor customers; they can only be helped
> through proxys (though I don't think watching porn via proxys is good).
>
> Marco

Most ISPs and indeed most places generally, even workplaces, don't block
Wikipedia. "Argumentum ad YouPorn" won't really apply.

FT2

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

andrew at epstone

Jun 6, 2008, 9:07 PM

Post #37 of 58 (848 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 7:39 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:
> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?

Tor has written this FAQ on this question:
https://www.torproject.org/torusers.html.en

--
Andrew Garrett

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

andrew at epstone

Jun 7, 2008, 1:28 AM

Post #38 of 58 (831 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

I had a discussion with FT2 on IRC a few hours ago. He said that he
would be happy to have a soft-block, with these provisions:
1. A special page exists which allows the monitoring of recent tor
edits. Perhaps Special:Recentchanges/tor?
2. A new protection level is added, which allows tor users to be
prevented from editing an article, which, for instance, has concerns
with regard to sockpuppeting and so on.

What do others think of these?

--
Andrew Garrett

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mohamed.m.k at gmail

Jun 7, 2008, 8:50 AM

Post #39 of 58 (838 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:

> I had a discussion with FT2 on IRC a few hours ago. He said that he
> would be happy to have a soft-block, with these provisions:
> 1. A special page exists which allows the monitoring of recent tor
> edits. Perhaps Special:Recentchanges/tor?

Also on user contribs would be good place.

>
> 2. A new protection level is added, which allows tor users to be
> prevented from editing an article, which, for instance, has concerns
> with regard to sockpuppeting and so on.
>
You mean protect article A from user X (or x1,x2,x3) ?
If that is possible, I don't see why not make it work for any user and not
restrict it to tor users.

--
--alnokta
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrzmanwiki at gmail

Jun 7, 2008, 10:41 AM

Post #40 of 58 (826 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

Andrew Garrett wrote:
> I had a discussion with FT2 on IRC a few hours ago. He said that he
> would be happy to have a soft-block, with these provisions:
> 1. A special page exists which allows the monitoring of recent tor
> edits. Perhaps Special:Recentchanges/tor?
> 2. A new protection level is added, which allows tor users to be
> prevented from editing an article, which, for instance, has concerns
> with regard to sockpuppeting and so on.
>
> What do others think of these?
>

With the extended Tor autoconfirm requirements, the second doesn't
really seem necessary, semi-protection should work. If there are still
problems with Tor abuse on semi-protected articles, the Tor autoconfirm
restrictions can be raised without having to worry about significant
impact to most users. As for the first, would users who meet the
extended autoconfirm requirements or have ipblockexempt still be listed?

--
Alex (w:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

ft2.wiki at gmail

Jun 7, 2008, 6:18 PM

Post #41 of 58 (821 views)
Permalink

TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

> Andrew Garrett andrew at epstone.net
> Sat Jun 7 08:28:10 UTC 2008
>
> I had a discussion with FT2 on IRC a few hours ago. He said that he
> would be happy to have a soft-block, with these provisions:
> 1. A special page exists which allows the monitoring of recent tor
> edits. Perhaps Special:Recentchanges/tor?
> 2. A new protection level is added, which allows tor users to be
> prevented from editing an article, which, for instance, has concerns
> with regard to sockpuppeting and so on.
>
> What do others think of these?
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett

Apologies, I sadly need to correct this. We spoke at length. The topic was
Andrews question "what software or other measures might mean I would feel
able to change my current view and endorse a soft-block approach to tor".

We spoke at length exploring ideas, one of which was perhaps a way to
protect a page so that tor could not be used on it (unless a user who was
specifically IP block exempt). This was joint exploration of a difficult
problem, and the question was a good one. However about an hour into the
conversation I came to understand that TorBlock was not now going to be used
as I had thought, to require a long autoconfirm (many days + many edits).
Even with a long "autoconfirm" period I was not sure any solution below hard
blocking was possible. But we tried to see if we could find ideas anyway.

With my understanding corrected, and no "long extended period" I dead-ended.
With regret I therefore have to correct the mis-impression that I would be
"happy" to have a soft-block on these conditions. I tried hard, and both of
us talked for a long time, exploring many novel options, but I was not able
to find any that did the job short of hard blocking, even so :-/

I'm very very sorry if I had left Andrew with that incorrect impression. We
tried hard to brainstorm "what could be done in software that might make it
practicable to avoid ". We looked at many ideas, and did so positively and
constructively. But ultimately nothing came up that would actually fix the
main problem at all, other than hard blocking, and that remains therefore my
current view on it. Tor hard blocked + IP block exemption for those needing
it. We just get too much tor abuse (including quite sophisticated abuse) to
do less on this specific wiki, even if it is not that way on other wikis.
:-/

FT2

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

andrew at epstone

Jun 8, 2008, 4:00 AM

Post #42 of 58 (805 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Alex <mrzmanwiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> With the extended Tor autoconfirm requirements, the second doesn't
> really seem necessary, semi-protection should work. If there are still
> problems with Tor abuse on semi-protected articles, the Tor autoconfirm
> restrictions can be raised without having to worry about significant
> impact to most users. As for the first, would users who meet the
> extended autoconfirm requirements or have ipblockexempt still be listed?

The idea is to prevent sophisticated sockpuppeting through tor. FT2
spoke of users who keep a clean account and a dirty account (good
hand, bad hand), and users who have multiple sockpuppets from tor. The
idea is that if an admin suspects sockpuppeting on a debate, they may
disable all tor editing for that page.

--
Andrew Garrett

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Simetrical+wikilist at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 10:46 AM

Post #43 of 58 (793 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:38 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> Most ISPs and indeed most places generally, even workplaces, don't block
> Wikipedia. "Argumentum ad YouPorn" won't really apply.

And if they did (I'm sure some workplaces do), I don't think there's
any particular reason we need to give people tools to violate the
terms of service of their ISP. If a workplace blocks Wikipedia, they
probably do it for the perfectly sensible reason that they're paying
employees to work, not to edit Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jayjg99 at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 10:58 AM

Post #44 of 58 (795 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Marco Schuster
<marco [at] harddisk> wrote:
> jayjg schrieb:
>> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
>> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?
> Living in a Western democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you can surf
> the web or use internet services freely, look at all those blocks for
> Bittorrent, the dozens of blocks for Nazi hosters, and especially the
> German court decision about YouPorn, which actually led to >2 million
> websites being invisible by Arcor customers; they can only be helped
> through proxys (though I don't think watching porn via proxys is good).

As has been pointed out, while porn sites may be blocked, Wikipedia
rarely (if ever) is, so the analogy fails.

> And please also do not forget that some people indeed care about their
> privacy - what many people unfortunately do not, and so freedom passes
> more and more away.

Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, not an experiment in internet
anonymity. If it were, then we would discard all checkuser logs
immediately. We give editors a reasonable level of anonymity, a
balance that provides the most net benefit to *Wikipedia*. Allowing
TOR open proxies to edit (why TOR and no others, I wonder?) has an
overall net dis-benefit to Wikipedia.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jayjg99 at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 10:59 AM

Post #45 of 58 (796 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Andrew Garrett <andrew [at] epstone> wrote:
> I had a discussion with FT2 on IRC a few hours ago. He said that he
> would be happy to have a soft-block, with these provisions:
> 1. A special page exists which allows the monitoring of recent tor
> edits. Perhaps Special:Recentchanges/tor?
> 2. A new protection level is added, which allows tor users to be
> prevented from editing an article, which, for instance, has concerns
> with regard to sockpuppeting and so on.
>
> What do others think of these?

Actually, FT2 has said that he did not, in fact, say this, and
apologizes if that was the impression you were left with.

As for me, I don't see any reason why TOR proxies should be afforded
any special consideration; like all proxies, they should be hard
banned, per policy, and developers shouldn't implement ways of
over-turning the actions of wikis that quite properly do so. On the
contrary, they should be implementing extensions that automatically
block TOR exit nodes. And I don't see any particular reason why we
should be adding layer upon layer of complexity to this scheme whose
underlying premise is fatally flawed.

I'm not sure why the IP block exemption wouldn't work for the
incredibly small number of wiki-en editors who actually have a
*legitimate* reasons to use TOR.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 11:16 AM

Post #46 of 58 (792 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

2008/6/8 jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail>:

> As for me, I don't see any reason why TOR proxies should be afforded
> any special consideration; like all proxies, they should be hard
> banned, per policy, and developers shouldn't implement ways of
> over-turning the actions of wikis that quite properly do so. On the
> contrary, they should be implementing extensions that automatically
> block TOR exit nodes. And I don't see any particular reason why we
> should be adding layer upon layer of complexity to this scheme whose
> underlying premise is fatally flawed.
> I'm not sure why the IP block exemption wouldn't work for the
> incredibly small number of wiki-en editors who actually have a
> *legitimate* reasons to use TOR.

Indeed. This extension appears to be for the benefit of TOR and no-one
else. Why not all open proxies? (Because that would not be of benefit
to the projects.) Why TOR? Ideological reasons to be pro-TOR? How does
specifically enabling TOR fit the Wikimedia Foundation's mission?

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Simetrical+wikilist at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 11:21 AM

Post #47 of 58 (800 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> Indeed. This extension appears to be for the benefit of TOR and no-one
> else. Why not all open proxies? (Because that would not be of benefit
> to the projects.) Why TOR? Ideological reasons to be pro-TOR? How does
> specifically enabling TOR fit the Wikimedia Foundation's mission?

I would imagine that detecting Tor is easier than detecting anonymous
proxies in general, although I haven't looked at the extension.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 12:56 PM

Post #48 of 58 (795 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

Hoi,
We are discussing a tool that is to be implemented WMF wide. There are
projects that are utterly different, there are languages spoken in countries
where the sheer audacity of printing the historic election communiques of
the ruling government can get you killed. They are largely the less and
least resourced languages and consequently these projects are comparatively
tiny.

There are people I am aware off who want to contribute to Wikinews but it is
EXACTLY their need to be outside of their country and to be anonymous that
may give them the courage to start doing a journalistic job.. We all now
how great our community is at keeping secrets, there are people who insist
that everything should be available to them. I am fearful that removing the
option for these people to use TOR will kill off what is essential to our
goal; bring information to our public..

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. This is in my opinion the greatest threat
that we face. This threatens our NPOV. For some people safety exists in
anonymity but there are people who are loose lipped, who think that the
issue is not that dire and who as a consequence will carelessly endanger
their fellow wikimedians.

There is a balance between on the one hand the vandals, the sock puppeteers,
the insane and on the other hand the people who need the anonymity that TOR
can offer. At this moment I am afraid that only one side of the picture has
been considered.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:58 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Marco Schuster
> <marco [at] harddisk> wrote:
> > jayjg schrieb:
> >> I appreciate why someone in China would want to use tor. Would any of
> >> that apply to someone in a Western democracy?
> > Living in a Western democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you can surf
> > the web or use internet services freely, look at all those blocks for
> > Bittorrent, the dozens of blocks for Nazi hosters, and especially the
> > German court decision about YouPorn, which actually led to >2 million
> > websites being invisible by Arcor customers; they can only be helped
> > through proxys (though I don't think watching porn via proxys is good).
>
> As has been pointed out, while porn sites may be blocked, Wikipedia
> rarely (if ever) is, so the analogy fails.
>
> > And please also do not forget that some people indeed care about their
> > privacy - what many people unfortunately do not, and so freedom passes
> > more and more away.
>
> Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, not an experiment in internet
> anonymity. If it were, then we would discard all checkuser logs
> immediately. We give editors a reasonable level of anonymity, a
> balance that provides the most net benefit to *Wikipedia*. Allowing
> TOR open proxies to edit (why TOR and no others, I wonder?) has an
> overall net dis-benefit to Wikipedia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l [at] lists
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jayjg99 at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 1:04 PM

Post #49 of 58 (790 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> wrote:
> Hoi,
> We are discussing a tool that is to be implemented WMF wide. There are
> projects that are utterly different, there are languages spoken in countries
> where the sheer audacity of printing the historic election communiques of
> the ruling government can get you killed. They are largely the less and
> least resourced languages and consequently these projects are comparatively
> tiny.
>
> There are people I am aware off who want to contribute to Wikinews but it is
> EXACTLY their need to be outside of their country and to be anonymous that
> may give them the courage to start doing a journalistic job.. We all now
> how great our community is at keeping secrets, there are people who insist
> that everything should be available to them. I am fearful that removing the
> option for these people to use TOR will kill off what is essential to our
> goal; bring information to our public..
>
> 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. This is in my opinion the greatest threat
> that we face. This threatens our NPOV. For some people safety exists in
> anonymity but there are people who are loose lipped, who think that the
> issue is not that dire and who as a consequence will carelessly endanger
> their fellow wikimedians.
>
> There is a balance between on the one hand the vandals, the sock puppeteers,
> the insane and on the other hand the people who need the anonymity that TOR
> can offer. At this moment I am afraid that only one side of the picture has
> been considered.

Ah, but which side? As far as I know, the proposal was to unilaterally
implement a change in *all* wikis which would *force* TOR exit nodes
to be soft blocked, regardless of Foundation policy, or of local wiki
policy. A number of wiki-en CheckUsers found out about this and
objected, stating that, on wiki-en at least, the damage would far
outweigh any benefit.

And here we are.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

dgerard at gmail

Jun 8, 2008, 1:04 PM

Post #50 of 58 (792 views)
Permalink

Re: TorBlock extension enabled [In reply to]

2008/6/8 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>:

> We are discussing a tool that is to be implemented WMF wide. There are
> projects that are utterly different, there are languages spoken in countries
> where the sheer audacity of printing the historic election communiques of
> the ruling government can get you killed. They are largely the less and
> least resourced languages and consequently these projects are comparatively
> tiny.

So leave it entirely off unless and until it's asked for and there's a
clear and checkable consensus, one wiki at a time. Not blithely
switched on by default.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads