Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the methods of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia? Here, Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWeb edited from Tor previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/C...
":'''6''' Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"
How is he allowed to make such a public disclosure to sink an RFA? Any question of whether Jay's actions are inappropriate (if not a violation of the Foundation Privacy Policy?) are deflected by SlimVirgin.
Is Jayjg in violation of the Wikipedia Privacy Policy by disclosing this to affect a Requests for Adminship? He also implies he has similar data on others, yet has not acted on them. Sitting on them for the political winds to be right?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Since editing via TOR is a violation of policy I don't see how revealing that information can be a violation of privacy. The Privacy Policy doesn't give people a right to secretly break the rules.
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
On 6/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
Mainly because you could abuse sockpuppets without anyone being able to tell, I think.
Bingo.
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
Mainly because you could abuse sockpuppets without anyone being able to tell, I think.
Ah. Got it. (That sucks, but it makes sense.)
(this posted also to the talk page of the RfA, but fits here too) I have to say I don't have any problem with a legitimate editor using proxies non-abusively; actually, I think it's a reasonable thing to do for an editor concerned about his/her own privacy. People get logged out and accidentally reveal information; it happens. I use TOR myself on other sites; I'd use it more often if I didn't get frustrated with how slow it is.
Yeah, so "no open proxies" became policy, because they're a favorite of vandals and trolls also, and it makes those users difficult to track. But... I can't get worked up about this. I don't think CW was doing anything wrong, in substance. We don't collect identifying information about anyone anyway, letting people edit from public libraries, cybercafes, and schools, and I'm assuming that if CW did do something where checkuser investigation might be warranted that we'd block the crap out of the account, having no reason to assume we should do otherwise. And I think some collateral damage to legit users who use anonymising services is acceptable, one of the tradeoffs you have to make. (I note that it's not as though someone couldn't run a nest of sockpuppets through different IP addresses without using open proxies should they wish.)
Perhaps on balance the proxies are too much of a negative for the positive uses, but I think ultimately it would be nice to have a better system for users who legitimately want to protect their identities against accidental revelation. As far as I can tell—and I don't know CW—it seems like it's being used by a legit user with a consistent identity who otherwise would have been considered enough of an asset to the project to be made an admin, and while it may violate the letter of a policy, doesn't violate the spirit of it.
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
-Kat
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
-Kat
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
The latter's true, but checkusers can at least see their location. If you have two admin accounts making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, and both editing from location X (one from a library, the other from an internet cafe), it's a good indication you've got a problem.
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
The latter's true, but checkusers can at least see their location. If you have two admin accounts making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, and both editing from location X (one from a library, the other from an internet cafe), it's a good indication you've got a problem.
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
I still don't see why someone using an anonymizing proxy, who has maintained a consistent identity, does not resemble another user, and otherwise does not ping anyone's trouble radar, is more of a risk here than any other admin for whom we do not know any personal details.
-Kat
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
I still don't see why someone using an anonymizing proxy, who has maintained a consistent identity, does not resemble another user, and otherwise does not ping anyone's trouble radar, is more of a risk here than any other admin for whom we do not know any personal details.
Expanding on this: I think it would be fair to be particularly suspicious, not to give the benefit of the doubt, if the account smelled funny and it was also using anonymous proxies to edit.
But using them in itself isn't an indication that someone wants to do harm, nor is someone intending to do harm much limited by the restriction.
-Kat
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I am on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
The latter's true, but checkusers can at least see their location. If you have two admin accounts making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, and both editing from location X (one from a library, the other from an internet cafe), it's a good indication you've got a problem.
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
I still don't see why someone using an anonymizing proxy, who has maintained a consistent identity, does not resemble another user, and otherwise does not ping anyone's trouble radar, is more of a risk here than any other admin for whom we do not know any personal details.
We have some details for most admins, if only the IP address if it's needed. That allows checkusers to look for sockpuppetry, and it allows the Foundation to respond to a request from a court for the admin's details in case of libel, for example. It's minimal accountability, and to take even that away would mean that someone who was permabanned could easily be up and running several admin accounts a few months later, and could cause a lot of trouble, with almost no way of getting caught. Look at Wikitruth, for example, and the reposting of possibly libelous or distressing material. Look at the trouble caused by people posting IRC logs from the admins channel.
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
We have some details for most admins, if only the IP address if it's needed. That allows checkusers to look for sockpuppetry, and it allows the Foundation to respond to a request from a court for the admin's details in case of libel, for example. It's minimal accountability, and to take even that away would mean that someone who was permabanned could easily be up and running several admin accounts a few months later, and could cause a lot of trouble, with almost no way of getting caught. Look at Wikitruth, for example, and the reposting of possibly libelous or distressing material. Look at the trouble caused by people posting IRC logs from the admins channel.
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
Well, thank goodness rules are not set in stone. Policies *should* be ignored if there is good reason to do so, and there appears to be good reason here: that a dedicated contributor should be become an admin when it will benefit the project, and that she needs to use TOR for some reason, which I do not doubt is an appropriate use (otherwise she would not use it).
Although you have not yet, please don't claim that many current opposes have to do with anything other than the TOR issue. Others refer to a moment of justifiable indignation caused by a civil form of mud-slinging. I don't care if the mud is policy; email was clearly the more appropriate route here (exhibiting greater judgment and empathy).
On 6/15/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
Well, thank goodness rules are not set in stone. Policies *should* be ignored if there is good reason to do so, and there appears to be good reason here: that a dedicated contributor should be become an admin when it will benefit the project, and that she needs to use TOR for some reason, which I do not doubt is an appropriate use (otherwise she would not use it).
Although you have not yet, please don't claim that many current opposes have to do with anything other than the TOR issue. Others refer to a moment of justifiable indignation caused by a civil form of mud-slinging. I don't care if the mud is policy; email was clearly the more appropriate route here (exhibiting greater judgment and empathy).
As an addendum to that, several of your other concerns have to do with solving an overall rare *social* problem with a *technical* solution. This has nothing to do with the candidate, but the issue of open proxies in general, and of the policy (could you believe that people disagreed with NPOV when Wikipedia started? with the GFDL now? with notability?).
G'day Gracenotes,
<snip/>
general, and of the policy (could you believe that people disagreed with NPOV when Wikipedia started? with the GFDL now? with notability?).
What of it? NPOV is not the Holy Grail, just a reasonable compromise (more on that later). The GFDL is a terrible licence, adopted only because it was the best we could think of at the time. Notability is still being debated --- there's an ongoing argument about it on this list on this day.
We're still quite fond of NPOV, for good reason. We're not so fond of the GFDL, but we're stuck with it. We were never fond of notability (I was and to a degree am, but I am in the minority).
Now, on NPOV. When we purport to be a source of facts, we need to be careful of our own biases. There are different approaches. The first, and most popular, is what we might call the FOX News Approach: lie about them. Another approach is to clearly explain our biases, and say, "We are telling the truth, but we are biased." Call this the Guardian Approach. Finally we have NPOV: "We are doing our damnedest to be as unbiased as possible."
The FOX News Approach is clearly inappropriate. The second approach works quite well. It is obvious to me that the best point of view to write from is Mark Gallagher's Point Of View (MGAPOV), and I see nothing wrong with writing like that. If, however, I intend to collaborate with Gracenotes, I may run into trouble, because he clearly supports MGRPOV instead. He's wrong, but I will find it difficult to convince him. Gracenotes doesn't want all of Wikipedia written in MGAPOV (because he's biased), and I certainly don't want MGRPOV to dominate (because MGAPOV is superior). Whatever shall we do?
Maybe we could have a compromise. Maybe we could decide to write from ... a neutral point of view (NPOV), and have articles that do not conform to MGRPOV or MGAPOV, but which we can both agree is a fair summary? Maybe ... just maybe ... that could work.
On 6/17/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
We're still quite fond of NPOV, for good reason. We're not so fond of the GFDL, but we're stuck with it.
Not really see:
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gsfdl-draft-1.html
and suggest changes.
On 6/17/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Gracenotes,
<snip/>
general, and of the policy (could you believe that people disagreed with NPOV when Wikipedia started? with the GFDL now? with notability?).
What of it? NPOV is not the Holy Grail, just a reasonable compromise (more on that later). The GFDL is a terrible licence, adopted only because it was the best we could think of at the time. Notability is still being debated --- there's an ongoing argument about it on this list on this day.
We're still quite fond of NPOV, for good reason. We're not so fond of the GFDL, but we're stuck with it. We were never fond of notability (I was and to a degree am, but I am in the minority).
Now, on NPOV. When we purport to be a source of facts, we need to be careful of our own biases. There are different approaches. The first, and most popular, is what we might call the FOX News Approach: lie about them. Another approach is to clearly explain our biases, and say, "We are telling the truth, but we are biased." Call this the Guardian Approach. Finally we have NPOV: "We are doing our damnedest to be as unbiased as possible."
The FOX News Approach is clearly inappropriate. The second approach works quite well. It is obvious to me that the best point of view to write from is Mark Gallagher's Point Of View (MGAPOV), and I see nothing wrong with writing like that. If, however, I intend to collaborate with Gracenotes, I may run into trouble, because he clearly supports MGRPOV instead. He's wrong, but I will find it difficult to convince him. Gracenotes doesn't want all of Wikipedia written in MGAPOV (because he's biased), and I certainly don't want MGRPOV to dominate (because MGAPOV is superior). Whatever shall we do?
Maybe we could have a compromise. Maybe we could decide to write from ... a neutral point of view (NPOV), and have articles that do not conform to MGRPOV or MGAPOV, but which we can both agree is a fair summary? Maybe ... just maybe ... that could work.
-- Mark Gallagher
I agree with you that the GFDL... sucks. It's a good license for writing a user guide. Not so much an encyclopedia.
As for alternatives to NPOV, I was not thinking so much about (obviously superior) personal POVs ;) but about this:
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Sympathetic_point_of_view
While SPOV is not a bad idea, I personally think that NPOV is our best bet (for many of the reasons you eloquently describe). If I recall correctly, SPOV was one of the main concerns that lead to the fork, but it is much harder to use in fighting POV pushers.
Incidentally, the fact that we don't use the Guardian approach is what brings Wikipedia its more "newsy" aspects. People often go to Wikipedia for information about current events: not biased information (as is commonly presented in blogs), but neutral information. This task should be delegated to Wikinews, but the trend is hard to reverse.
Slim Virgin wrote:
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the consensus for the longest time that there was no problem with people using proxies so long as the proxies weren't being used abusively? I mean, [[Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China]] used to recommend using tor, but cautioned that nodes would often be blocked. When soft-blocking was enabled, there was a massive consensus to lighten the blocks on Tor to enable good-faith editors to contribute that way.
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
Why then, are we making a big deal over an outdated policy page on meta that clearly is not supported by practice, policy, or basic common sense on the English Wikipedia?
On 6/16/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why then, are we making a big deal over an outdated policy page on meta that clearly is not supported by practice, policy, or basic common sense on the English Wikipedia?
Because the original problem - the inability to identify sockpuppets editing from such proxies - remains.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/16/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Why then, are we making a big deal over an outdated policy page on meta that clearly is not supported by practice, policy, or basic common sense on the English Wikipedia?
Because the original problem - the inability to identify sockpuppets editing from such proxies - remains.
So since some puppeteers might abuse proxies, nobody can use them at all. Always the hallmark of a poor policy.
What if we instead said, "If we suspect you're a sockpuppet and checkuser reveals you're using an open proxy, you're identified"? (That is, what if we declared, by fiat, that we *could* identify sockpuppets editing from such proxies?) This would mean that the "punishment" for using an open proxy would then be the possibility of being falsely accused as a sockpuppet, instead of today's "violating policy with every edit you make" and possible capricious derailment of RfA.
Would this hypothetical shift in policy reduce our ability to identify sockpuppets, or otherwise harm the project in any way?
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 07:59:46 -0400, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
So since some puppeteers might abuse proxies, nobody can use them at all. Always the hallmark of a poor policy.
Check out user JB196 and his hosiery drawer. Proxies are bad.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the consensus for the longest time that there was no problem with people using proxies so long as the proxies weren't being used abusively? I mean, [[Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China]] used to recommend using tor, but cautioned that nodes would often be blocked. When soft-blocking was enabled, there was a massive consensus to lighten the blocks on Tor to enable good-faith editors to contribute that way.
What happened to that, anyway? Tor proxies seem perfect for softblocks.
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
I seem to remember this too. Couldn't find the exact email, though. OTOH, I think Jimbo has also said the opposite, that anonymous proxies should be blocked.
I also remember someone claiming that Tor addresses weren't anonymous proxies. Not sure what the rationale for that was.
Oh yeah, and here's a quote from an interview with Jimbo:
<blockquote> Seigenthaler's main criticism of Wikipedia is that contributors are allowed to edit and add to articles anonymously. Why do you feel it's important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous? There are two reasons I would put forward. First, on the Internet, it's impossible to actually confirm people's identity in the first place, short of getting credit-card information. On any site it's very easy to come up with a fake identity, regardless.
Second, there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site. For example, there are people working on Wikipedia from China, where the site is currently blocked. We have a contributor in Iran who has twice been told his name has been turned into the police for his work in Wikipedia. He's brave. His real name is known, actually. But there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren't nefarious. </blockquote>
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm
Why then, are we making a big deal over an outdated policy page on meta that clearly is not supported by practice, policy, or basic common sense on the English Wikipedia?
Unenforced and nonsensical rules are great for political purposes, because pretty much everyone has broken one or another of them.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
I seem to remember this too. Couldn't find the exact email, though.
See [[Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#A general statement]].
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
I seem to remember this too. Couldn't find the exact email, though.
See [[Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#A general statement]].
"I would like this policy to be (thoughtfully, slowly, and with due consideration for all valid viewpoints) revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do."
This is a pretty strange comment if editing via open proxies is already a violation of policy. He didn't say he thinks the policy should be revised to allow editing via open proxies, but rather he said he thinks it should have "a stronger acknowledgment" that this is already allowed.
2007/6/17, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
I seem to remember this too. Couldn't find the exact email, though.
See [[Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#A general statement]].
"I would like this policy to be (thoughtfully, slowly, and with due consideration for all valid viewpoints) revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do."
This is a pretty strange comment if editing via open proxies is already a violation of policy. He didn't say he thinks the policy should be revised to allow editing via open proxies, but rather he said he thinks it should have "a stronger acknowledgment" that this is already allowed.
Until 7 May 2007 the page Wikipedia:Advice to users using TOR to bypass the great firewall recommended users affected by a block: "Tor proxies can now be softblocked so logged in account users can edit via a tor connection. If you find an IP that has this problem please request an unblock to a softblock for tor."
It signalled in no way that it would be a violation of policy to '''use''' an anonymizer - only that there could be problems to edit because these proxies would be routinely blocked.
That it would be already a violation of policy to '''use''' proxies or anonymizers is a fairly new interpretation of the original descriptive policy "open proxies may be blocked at any time" and I am not sure that it is a valid one.
1) for those, who follow the words of the benevolent dictator: even Jimbo seems to assume that editing via anonymizer may be a valid thing to do, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_open_proxies#A_general_statem...
2) It would be a policy which could not be enforced. Or should the checkusers in the future check randomly normal users if they use an open proxy or anonymizer? This would be a serious violation of the checkuser policy - enforcing one policy by breaking an other, infinetely more important one doesn't look like a good thing to do. Or should the checkusers just block good users they accidentally discovered using proxies while hunting vandals?
3) Sometimes it isn't even possible to prove that a user knowingly used an open proxy. Open proxies are often a result of misconfiguration by the server admin. So you are punished by Wikipedia because your provider's sysadmin made a mistake? wonderful.
Summary: please let's stick to policies which can be enforced and which make sense. Punishing good editors only for their way of accessing wikipedia doesn't make sense.
greetings, Elian
On 6/17/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
That it would be already a violation of policy to '''use''' proxies or anonymizers is a fairly new interpretation of the original descriptive policy "open proxies may be blocked at any time" and I am not sure that it is a valid one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_open_proxies&diff...
On April 13, 2006, the text of [[Wikipedia:No open proxies]] was changed from the descriptive "Users using open or anonymous proxies are currently not allowed to edit Wikipedia." to the prescriptive "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." The edit was made by User:Pathoschild and the summary of the change was "Updated policy from the Meta-Wiki".
I'm not sure what that means and whether or not the change was ever discussed, but it seems to me that this was the point where the policy changed from one that allowed blocking of the IP addresses used by proxies into a policy against using those proxies.
The whole philosophical/political debate over whether or not someone making an edit to a policy page changes the policies of the encyclopedia (perhaps after some period of a lack of objection) is somewhat interesting to me, but I don't foresee much in the way of consensus over *that* issue. Personally I'd advocate to [[Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy]].
Anthony wrote:
On April 13, 2006, the text of [[Wikipedia:No open proxies]] was changed from the descriptive "Users using open or anonymous proxies are currently not allowed to edit Wikipedia." to the prescriptive "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." The edit was made by User:Pathoschild and the summary of the change was "Updated policy from the Meta-Wiki".
This was more or less the original version of the policy, which based on [[m:No open proxies]]. This is also the version that certain groups are striving to rigorously enforce, and they don't mind hanging a few adminship nominations out to dry in the process.
It should be noted that [[m:No open proxies]] is an outdated policy. It went live in 2004, although the meta policy page wasn't created until 2006. Softblocking of proxies was, when the policy was created, not possible.
Longstanding practice and consensus on the English Wikipedia appear to support the use of proxies, so long as those proxies are not being used abusively. The fact that some groups are striving to re-force an outdated policy onto the English Wikipedia for undisclosed reasons shouldn't have bearing on the longstanding practice and consensus.
On 6/17/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On April 13, 2006, the text of [[Wikipedia:No open proxies]] was changed from the descriptive "Users using open or anonymous proxies are currently not allowed to edit Wikipedia." to the prescriptive "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." The edit was made by User:Pathoschild and the summary of the change was "Updated policy from the Meta-Wiki".
This was more or less the original version of the policy, which based on [[m:No open proxies]]. This is also the version that certain groups are striving to rigorously enforce, and they don't mind hanging a few adminship nominations out to dry in the process.
It should be noted that [[m:No open proxies]] is an outdated policy. It went live in 2004, although the meta policy page wasn't created until 2006. Softblocking of proxies was, when the policy was created, not possible.
Longstanding practice and consensus on the English Wikipedia appear to support the use of proxies, so long as those proxies are not being used abusively. The fact that some groups are striving to re-force an outdated policy onto the English Wikipedia for undisclosed reasons shouldn't have bearing on the longstanding practice and consensus.
"Undisclosed reasons". LOL! More dark conspiracies, no doubt.
Anyway, back in the real world there was no such practice or consensus on English Wikipedia; that's just something you've invented. The only reason proxies weren't all blocked were technical; not all proxies were known. Certainly all *known* proxies were blocked, and various technical means were devised from time to time to block all the rest. Unfortunately, none of them worked very well. It might be instructive to read Mackensen's comment on the CharlotteWebb RFA.
jayjg wrote:
"Undisclosed reasons". LOL! More dark conspiracies, no doubt.
I'm going to be blunt and open. Nearly everything you do is related to an agenda of some sort. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever tried to work with you on an article or policy issue. Period.
I can't pinpoint the angle you are working here, but judging by your history, it's a fairly safe bet that you've got something to show. It doesn't seem like you are really concerned about this editor using tor because of policy reasons. It's pretty apparent that something else is up, but nobody can exactly say what.
Thus, I have to concede that you violated the CheckUser policy for an undisclosed reason. The result, at least at the moment, is that this is the second RFA you and your cohorts have torpedoed in relation to the open proxy nonissue (although, granted, in the first RFA this stunt was pulled on the editor had a history of incivility, was thus a poor candidate for adminship, and as a result, nobody paid much attention to you and slimvirgin et al harping on the open proxy nonissue.)
Anthony wrote:
On April 13, 2006, the text of [[Wikipedia:No open proxies]] was changed from the descriptive "Users using open or anonymous proxies are currently not allowed to edit Wikipedia." to the prescriptive "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." The edit was made by User:Pathoschild and the summary of the change was "Updated policy from the Meta-Wiki".
I'm not sure what that means and whether or not the change was ever discussed, but it seems to me that this was the point where the policy changed from one that allowed blocking of the IP addresses used by proxies into a policy against using those proxies.
This repeats what I said on Meta in response to Elian.
This begs the question, "Who's policy is this?" I can appreciate your understanding that it was copied one day from the English Wikipedia, but at the same time there is a notice on en:wp not to make changes there, because any human changes will be overwritten by a bot when changes are made on meta. It has also been made clear that this is not a Foundation policy. Slim Virgin asserts that the policy should not be changed before there is a consensus, but I can find no place where there was a consensus to adopt it in the first place. There are some positive aspects to the policy, but that does not justify the kind of dishonest policy games that leave people on at least two projects believing that it was duly adopted on the other project in the hopes that no-one will question the origin of the policy. I am seriously concerned about how this policy has been applied on an English admin request, and I am even more concerned about the way in which policies in general are adopted.
The whole philosophical/political debate over whether or not someone making an edit to a policy page changes the policies of the encyclopedia (perhaps after some period of a lack of objection) is somewhat interesting to me, but I don't foresee much in the way of consensus over *that* issue. Personally I'd advocate to [[Wikipedia:Follow consensus, not policy]].
The entire policy adoption process is remarkably fucked up. It favours the policy wonks with private agendas who have the time and tenacity to ensure that their favorite views will prevail. The corpus of our policies (including guidlines and other pseudo policies) is so huge that it becomes easy for anyone to plant a policy virus whose infective nature will not be noticed until much later. At that point the supporters of a change can offer nothing but a glib response to the effect that you should have said something about it earlier, because now that it has been here so long it can only be changed if a consensusto change is first achieved. If it can then be transferred to meta ...
I do not advocate that the Foundation should be generally writing up rules for the projects, except in a very few limited areas. But a consequence of that must be that the projects accept more responsibility for what is happening.
Ec
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:54:36 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The entire policy adoption process is remarkably fucked up. It favours the policy wonks with private agendas who have the time and tenacity to ensure that their favorite views will prevail.
Sure. Whose stupid idea was it to have a project where *anyone* can edit stuff? That can't possibly work.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/18/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:54:36 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The entire policy adoption process is remarkably fucked up. It favours the policy wonks with private agendas who have the time and tenacity to ensure that their favorite views will prevail.
Yup
Sure. Whose stupid idea was it to have a project where *anyone* can edit stuff? That can't possibly work.
Yup, utterly ridiculous.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
KP
Ec wrote:
The entire policy adoption process is remarkably fucked up. It favours the policy wonks with private agendas who have the time and tenacity to ensure that their favorite views will prevail. The corpus of our policies (including guidlines and other pseudo policies) is so huge that it becomes easy for anyone to plant a policy virus whose infective nature will not be noticed until much later. At that point the supporters of a change can offer nothing but a glib response to the effect that you should have said something about it earlier...
Ayup. And that's pretty much inevitable, given the way anyone can edit anything. (On Wikipedia, just as someone observed about the the Internet at large, the lunatics aren't just running the asylum, they designed and built it...)
It's easy to imagine one remedy, though. We already claim that we're a pretty fluid, evolving place. So when a policy is found not to be working, or otherwise comes up for review, and there's a move afoot to change it, we should work harder at reminding ourselves that "because we've had it for a while" is *not* anything like a sufficient reason for blindly keeping that way. If we've got a policy that has come into question, and if there's no rationale written down for it and no record of the alleged consensus that originally fostered it, then we should feel free to start with a blank slate, to draft a new policy based on today's needs and emerging consensus, without being unduly bound by "tradition".
(I'm not saying to always throw out tradition, of course -- if a tradition is good and still enjoys consensus, then of course we can keep it.)
...that it has been here so long it can only be changed if a consensus to change is first achieved.
That's a real problem, too, of course, because it can be stupefyingly difficult to achieve consensus on these contentious policy issues.
Part of the problem is that people get really stubbornly entrenched. I think we need to work harder at remembering that the spirit of compromise that's inherent in NPOV applies (or ought to apply) in project space as well as article space. It seems to me that, too often, the same editors and admins who will scold the fractious editors of a controversial article, insisting that they set their personal agendas aside and find a middle ground, will turn around and stonewall each other just as fractiously when they get involved in a policy debate.
On 6/17/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/17, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On 6/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/15/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
I'm relatively sure that even Jimbo himself has stated that he doesn't have a problem with users editing through proxies as long as they are doing so in good faith.
I seem to remember this too. Couldn't find the exact email, though.
See [[Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#A general statement]].
"I would like this policy to be (thoughtfully, slowly, and with due consideration for all valid viewpoints) revised a bit to include a stronger acknowledgment that editing via open proxies can be a valid thing to do."
This is a pretty strange comment if editing via open proxies is already a violation of policy. He didn't say he thinks the policy should be revised to allow editing via open proxies, but rather he said he thinks it should have "a stronger acknowledgment" that this is already allowed.
Until 7 May 2007 the page Wikipedia:Advice to users using TOR to bypass the great firewall recommended users affected by a block: "Tor proxies can now be softblocked so logged in account users can edit via a tor connection. If you find an IP that has this problem please request an unblock to a softblock for tor."
It signalled in no way that it would be a violation of policy to '''use''' an anonymizer - only that there could be problems to edit because these proxies would be routinely blocked.
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not policy.
That it would be already a violation of policy to '''use''' proxies or anonymizers is a fairly new interpretation of the original descriptive policy "open proxies may be blocked at any time" and I am not sure that it is a valid one.
The WP:NOP policy has, since its inception, banned open proxies from editing Wikipedia, regardless of the specific wording.
2007/6/17, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On 6/17/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
That it would be already a violation of policy to '''use''' proxies or anonymizers is a fairly new interpretation of the original descriptive policy "open proxies may be blocked at any time" and I am not sure that it is a valid one.
The WP:NOP policy has, since its inception, banned open proxies from editing Wikipedia, regardless of the specific wording.
Open proxies, yes. But it never tried to extra punish users for the use of open proxies or anonymizers (apart from the collateral damage when a vandal using the same IP was blocked). Until recently it even tried to help innocent users affected by such a block (i.e. recommending chinese tor users to ask for a soft block). From giving up this for practical reasons toward punishing and blocking good users deliberately for using anonymizers is quite a large step and one that is not covered by wikimedia wide consensus.
greetings, elian
On 6/17/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2007/6/17, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On 6/17/07, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
That it would be already a violation of policy to '''use''' proxies or anonymizers is a fairly new interpretation of the original descriptive policy "open proxies may be blocked at any time" and I am not sure that it is a valid one.
The WP:NOP policy has, since its inception, banned open proxies from editing Wikipedia, regardless of the specific wording.
Open proxies, yes. But it never tried to extra punish users for the use of open proxies or anonymizers (apart from the collateral damage when a vandal using the same IP was blocked).
"Extra punish" in what way?
Until recently it even tried to help innocent users affected by such a block (i.e. recommending chinese tor users to ask for a soft block).
That was an essay, not policy.
From giving up this for practical reasons toward punishing and blocking good users deliberately for using anonymizers is quite a large step and one that is not covered by wikimedia wide consensus.
Who has suggested that?
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Until recently it even tried to help innocent users affected by such a block (i.e. recommending chinese tor users to ask for a soft block).
That was an essay, not policy.
The essay/guideline/policy distinction is not so important as this one:
Is it common sense?
And this one:
Does it help us make an encyclopedia?
And this one:
Is it consensus?
Anyone who cannot answer *those* questions should not be enforcing policy, let alone creating it, and if they are, I feel highly uncomfortable with that.
On 6/17/07, Gracenotes wikigracenotes@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Until recently it even tried to help innocent users affected by such a block (i.e. recommending chinese tor users to ask for a soft block).
That was an essay, not policy.
The essay/guideline/policy distinction is not so important as this one:
Is it common sense?
And this one:
Does it help us make an encyclopedia?
And this one:
Is it consensus?
Anyone who cannot answer *those* questions should not be enforcing policy, let alone creating it, and if they are, I feel highly uncomfortable with that.
If it were all those things then it someone should make it policy. My experience with TOR proxies mirrors that of a number of other CUs; they are primarily used either for vandalism or for sockpuppeting.
On 6/17/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If it were all those things then it someone should make it policy. My experience with TOR proxies mirrors that of a number of other CUs; they are primarily used either for vandalism or for sockpuppeting.
And your experience will _certainly_ be taken into account in deciding whether NOP is (as it stands) a good policy, and whether it should be altered or not. What you mention is one major factor.
On 6/17/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not policy.
It may not have been explicit policy, but it was linked to from [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]] for some time, and if that doesn't indicate a reasonable consensus, I don't know what does.
I do - it's when something is actually part of policy, and is consistently acted on as policy. Neither is the case here.
Blu Aardvark wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not policy.
It may not have been explicit policy, but it was linked to from [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]] for some time, and if that doesn't indicate a reasonable consensus, I don't know what does.
So who ever pays a lot of attention to [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]], or, for that matter, anything on the Mediawiki namespace? How can a consensus be viewed as reliable when it appears to have developed on an obscure corner that no-one ever visits?
Ec
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock puppetry very difficult.
-- Eagle 101
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Blu Aardvark wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not
policy.
It may not have been explicit policy, but it was linked to from [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]] for some time, and if that doesn't indicate a reasonable consensus, I don't know what does.
So who ever pays a lot of attention to [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]], or, for that matter, anything on the Mediawiki namespace? How can a consensus be viewed as reliable when it appears to have developed on an obscure corner that no-one ever visits?
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock puppetry very difficult.
Not really - the primary reason is that open proxies are overwhelmingly used for vandalism and trolling, not merely sockpuppetry (though that too).
- d.
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock puppetry very difficult.
Not really - the primary reason is that open proxies are overwhelmingly used for vandalism and trolling, not merely sockpuppetry (though that too).
Wikipedia attempts to do the impossible, create a site that anyone can edit except those who are banned, without placing any barriers to entry for those who aren't banned.
Proxies are banned to try to accomplish this impossible task.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but that's how I see it.
I wonder what will happen to Wikipedia's block policies if IPv6 ever becomes a reality.
On 6/18/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock
puppetry
very difficult.
Not really - the primary reason is that open proxies are overwhelmingly used for vandalism and trolling, not merely sockpuppetry (though that too).
Wikipedia attempts to do the impossible, create a site that anyone can edit except those who are banned, without placing any barriers to entry for those who aren't banned.
Proxies are banned to try to accomplish this impossible task.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but that's how I see it.
I wonder what will happen to Wikipedia's block policies if IPv6 ever becomes a reality.
Range blocks would possibly to the trick, although they would be very, very, very messy.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:18:29 -0400, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Wikipedia attempts to do the impossible, create a site that anyone can edit except those who are banned, without placing any barriers to entry for those who aren't banned. Proxies are banned to try to accomplish this impossible task.
Nicely put.
Guy (JzG)
David Gerard wrote:
On 18/06/07, Eagle 101 eagle.wikien.l@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock puppetry very difficult.
Not really - the primary reason is that open proxies are overwhelmingly used for vandalism and trolling, not merely sockpuppetry (though that too).
Sure. But this still begs the question, that we've been dancing around for a couple of days: is it the case that if a sysadmin leaves a proxy open, we will block *it*, or that if a Wikipedia editor uses an open proxy, we will block *him* (or her)?
Is a good-faith user of an open proxy guilty of anything? (Some will and have already said "yes", but is that the right answer?)
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me the "committed identity" that CharlotteWebb has on her userpage? Would this be something that should be taken into consideration, or is it just to prevent account hijacking?
Risker
Risker rote:
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me the "committed identity" that CharlotteWebb has on her userpage? Would this be something that should be taken into consideration, or is it just to prevent account hijacking?
See [[Commitment scheme]]. It means that at some later date, she can reveal her true identity, and in such a way that we know it's been her true identity all along, and not (say) the identity of some imposter who hijacked her account at some point.
What she's done is prepare a statement, such as
I, Cherie Wilcox, dob 1/23/45, of 123 Main St., Busytown, USA, am Wikipedia User:CharlotteWebb.
Then she's taken the SHA-512 hash of that statement, resulting in the number 2bc40c120f424e1a6f5ef1f38ca718580900698db318f1ceeda555 f7613ee4251e90accbe33b741ed8984982f37a040e951e35a8573d4a68b01b63c 19ad7e548. If she ever releases the statement, any of us can verify that it has (and has always had) this hash. Until she releases it, no one can come up with any other statement which has the same hash, or predict what hers says.
Ah, thank you. So at any time someone, say a checkuser, could have asked her to provide confirmation...
R.
On 6/19/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Risker rote:
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me the "committed
identity"
that CharlotteWebb has on her userpage? Would this be something that
should
be taken into consideration, or is it just to prevent account hijacking?
See [[Commitment scheme]]. It means that at some later date, she can reveal her true identity, and in such a way that we know it's been her true identity all along, and not (say) the identity of some imposter who hijacked her account at some point.
What she's done is prepare a statement, such as
I, Cherie Wilcox, dob 1/23/45, of 123 Main St., Busytown, USA, am Wikipedia User:CharlotteWebb.Then she's taken the SHA-512 hash of that statement, resulting in the number 2bc40c120f424e1a6f5ef1f38ca718580900698db318f1ceeda555 f7613ee4251e90accbe33b741ed8984982f37a040e951e35a8573d4a68b01b63c 19ad7e548. If she ever releases the statement, any of us can verify that it has (and has always had) this hash. Until she releases it, no one can come up with any other statement which has the same hash, or predict what hers says.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/19/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, thank you. So at any time someone, say a checkuser, could have asked her to provide confirmation...
R.
On 6/19/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Risker rote:
Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me the "committed
identity"
that CharlotteWebb has on her userpage? Would this be something that
should
be taken into consideration, or is it just to prevent account
hijacking?
See [[Commitment scheme]]. It means that at some later date, she can reveal her true identity, and in such a way that we know it's been her true identity all along, and not (say) the identity of some imposter who hijacked her account at some point.
What she's done is prepare a statement, such as
I, Cherie Wilcox, dob 1/23/45, of 123 Main St., Busytown, USA, am Wikipedia User:CharlotteWebb.Then she's taken the SHA-512 hash of that statement, resulting in the number 2bc40c120f424e1a6f5ef1f38ca718580900698db318f1ceeda555 f7613ee4251e90accbe33b741ed8984982f37a040e951e35a8573d4a68b01b63c 19ad7e548. If she ever releases the statement, any of us can verify that it has (and has always had) this hash. Until she releases it, no one can come up with any other statement which has the same hash, or predict what hers says.
Well, confirmation that her account had not been commandeered.
On 0, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com scribbled:
Ah, thank you. So at any time someone, say a checkuser, could have asked her to provide confirmation...
R.
Just confirmation that the same person who provided the hash was the same person providing the secret. The secret doesn't actually have to be contact information or anything fancy - we just recommend that because it provides a third way of verification and contact information tends to be lengthy (and as we all know, longer passwords/secrets == better).
-- gwern JOTS ISACA NCSA ASVC spook words RRF 1071 Bugs Bunny Verisign Secure ASIO Lebed
Eagle 101 wrote:
The primary reason for blocking proxies of any kind is to make sock puppetry very difficult.
I know that much, but my point was not about the apparent reason for this policy; it was about how such policies are adopted. When it happens in the mediawiki namespace, I question the reliability of the consensus. If the policy is a good one it should have no trouble being accepted in a more public place.
Ec
On 6/18/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Blu Aardvark wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not policy.
It may not have been explicit policy, but it was linked to from [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]] for some time, and if that doesn't indicate a reasonable consensus, I don't know what does.
So who ever pays a lot of attention to [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]], or, for that matter, anything on the Mediawiki namespace? How can a consensus be viewed as reliable when it appears to have developed on an obscure corner that no-one ever visits?
On 0, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net scribbled:
Blu Aardvark wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That page was an essay. It wasn't even a guideline, and certainly not policy.
It may not have been explicit policy, but it was linked to from [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]] for some time, and if that doesn't indicate a reasonable consensus, I don't know what does.
So who ever pays a lot of attention to [[MediaWiki:blockedtext]], or, for that matter, anything on the Mediawiki namespace? How can a consensus be viewed as reliable when it appears to have developed on an obscure corner that no-one ever visits?
Ec
A good question. When was the last time most of the people on this list (or core editors period) actually saw the blocktext? I think the last time I saw it was a few months ago, and that was an accident of configuration.
-- gwern RPK74 SG530 SG540 Galil arm Walther WA2000 HK33KE Parker-Hale MOD. 82 AKR Ingram
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
I still don't see why someone using an anonymizing proxy, who has maintained a consistent identity, does not resemble another user, and otherwise does not ping anyone's trouble radar, is more of a risk here than any other admin for whom we do not know any personal details.
We have some details for most admins, if only the IP address if it's needed. That allows checkusers to look for sockpuppetry, and it allows the Foundation to respond to a request from a court for the admin's details in case of libel, for example. It's minimal accountability, and to take even that away would mean that someone who was permabanned could easily be up and running several admin accounts a few months later, and could cause a lot of trouble, with almost no way of getting caught. Look at Wikitruth, for example, and the reposting of possibly libelous or distressing material. Look at the trouble caused by people posting IRC logs from the admins channel.
Someone permabanned *can* be up and running several admin accounts a few months later. It's just that most of the people we permaban are unable to handle the social aspects for long enough to become admins, rather than the technical measures we employ, that stops them from doing so most of the time.
Being able to produce even minimal details in case of wanting to find out an editor's identity depends on several things, and is not consistent. I don't think the accountability argument flies here; we just don't know who any of our admins are who do not choose to tell. And an editor posting logged-out from an open proxy we don't know about can just as well post something libelous as an admin can (and something that looks plausible might stay for longer than we like to think about) -- but the admin has a strong disincentive to do so, as it would ruin the reputation of the identity they'd chosen, which takes a significant amount of effort to build up.
I suspect most of the cases of admins abusing what little technical power they have are people not editing from proxies, just people who are casually anonymous (that is, not taking any particular privacy measures beyond not revealing their real name and personal details), and whose damage is small enough compared to the amount of energy it would take to stop them that no one does so.
(I could be the one feeding data to Wikitruth and sending out text of deleted revisions, for all anyone knows. I hope that I have established enough of a reputation that others trust I am not the one doing it! I'm not, but all you truly have to go on is my say-so.)
I think the important point is that it's a violation of policy to edit with open proxies, so it's a bit rich for an editor to ask to become an admin, who'll be able to block others for policy violations, while violating it themselves every single time they edit. If they want to change the policy, they should try to do that openly before standing.
I just can't get too upset about it. Here, as in general, I'd rather look at the intent of the policy and the effects of breaking it. No one would even know that the user was violating this policy if someone hadn't gone to the trouble to bring it up. What's the intent of the policy? To prevent people from causing trouble unchecked. (If we cared so much about being able to find out the identity of editors -- or admins -- we'd have some sort of proactive measures in place to that effect, but we don't.) There's no indication that CW is doing that or is even suspected of it; if the account smelled funny I suspect it would have been blocked long ago. (I don't know what all the checkusers have to say about it, though.)
It would have been better to bring up the proxy usage openly, sure; I also think it would have been better to bring up the knowledge of it privately first.
(And since I hate it when mailing lists turn into a back and forth between two people that leave others with a flurry of posts to read if they want to participate, I'm stepping back from the thread at least until after I wake up again.)
-Kat
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On 6/15/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/15/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
I realize this is a minority opinion and I've been outnumbered on it before, but there it is. If I were not completely open about who I
am
on this site, and did want to maintain anonymity, I would probably want to be using TOR myself.
Kat, the issue of editing with proxies is different from wanting to be an admin and carry on using them. We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies. Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
I don't actually think it's very different, editing and being an admin. Admins do not have much technical power beyond that of ordinary editors; what they do have could just as easily be abused by someone editing from a public library, cybercafe, or other public terminal, and yet we don't ban those accounts from becoming admins.
The latter's true, but checkusers can at least see their location. If you have two admin accounts making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, and both editing from location X (one from a library, the other from an internet cafe), it's a good indication you've got a problem.
Trojan admin accounts can do a lot of damage. They can view and copy deleted material; unblock abusive users; unprotect pages that would be better left protected; cause endless arguments on AN/I by questioning other admins; log and hand out conversations on the admins' channel, and doubtless other things I haven't thought of.
And if you have two admins making the same kinds of edits, with the same voice, both editing from Tor, it's a good indication you've got a problem. While, just like the library/internet cafe situation, there's no way to be absolutely certain it's the same person, deciding that you're reasonably sure would be just as difficult in both situations.
Yes, trojan admin accounts can do all those things. But so can regular admin accounts. What's the difference?
Rory
Slim Virgin wrote:
We have issues with users running more than one admin account, and one of the ways they're allegedly doing this is by using open proxies.
Allegedly or actually?
Being able to log an admin's real IP address is the only tiny bit of accountability the Foundation has regarding admins.
Wait a minute. We weren't talking about logging real IP addresses per se, or accountability in general; we were just talking about identifying sockpuppets.
If instead of
Thou shalt not edit (even while logged in) from an anonymizer or open proxy
our policy was instead
If two accounts are suspected of being sockpuppets, and one or both uses an anonymizer or open proxy, we will assume identity
would the effect be the same? (As I understand it, currently, when a checkuser request shows up proxies or other shared IP addresses, the result is said to be "indeterminate" or some such.)
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
Mainly because you could abuse sockpuppets without anyone being able to tell, I think.
I'm not complaining about abusing genuine sockpuppets; many seserve it. I do oppose abusing genuine honest users.
Ec
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
Because you could have a dozen other user names and the checkusers would have no way of determining it, if you used a different open proxy each time. Of course, you could do the same thing by using different ISPs, but it costs money and they would tend to show the same location, at least.
On 6/15/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Can someone explain why it's against policy to edit *under an identifiable, logged-in username* via an anonomizer or open proxy?
What's to stop people from creating undetectable sockpuppet accounts using various proxies and anonymizers?
The Runcorn case is also illustrative.
On 6/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Since editing via TOR is a violation of policy I don't see how revealing that information can be a violation of privacy. The Privacy Policy doesn't give people a right to secretly break the rules.
The Privacy Policy doesn't give people a right to secretly break the rules.
But neither does one rulebreaker give another person the right to break rules.
If Jayjg was abusing his authority then he was abusing his authority. (Frankly, I have no idea, though I tend toward being very circumspect with spreading information around.)
We don't let the police or the military break their own rules of conduct with suspects or convicts for very good reasons (see Abner Louima, Abu Ghraib).
Two wrongs don't make a right.
On 6/15/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the methods of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia? Here, Jayjg disclosed that CharlotteWeb edited from Tor previously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlotteWebb
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/C...
":'''6''' Can you explain why you edit using TOR proxies? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)"
How is he allowed to make such a public disclosure to sink an RFA? Any question of whether Jay's actions are inappropriate (if not a violation of the Foundation Privacy Policy?) are deflected by SlimVirgin.
Is Jayjg in violation of the Wikipedia Privacy Policy by disclosing this to affect a Requests for Adminship? He also implies he has similar data on others, yet has not acted on them. Sitting on them for the political winds to be right?
Regards, Joe
Aside from all the other responses in this thread to this rather bizarre e-mail, I am frankly baffled as to what "political ends" I might be pursuing in this case. I don't recall "CharlotteWebb" ever expressing a political POV on anything, and, in fact, I don't recall ever interacting with him/her.
Jay.
On 6/15/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from all the other responses in this thread to this rather bizarre e-mail, I am frankly baffled as to what "political ends" I might be pursuing in this case. I don't recall "CharlotteWebb" ever expressing a political POV on anything, and, in fact, I don't recall ever interacting with him/her.
By political, being it's RFA, it's clearly Wiki-politics. No offense, but Sarah has already played a role in sinking two RFAs via a contentious imaginary policy (attack sites). She torpedoed the admin career of both Cla68 and Gracenotes. Seeing the other half of the Dynamic Duo suddenly asking a question with private, priviledged information is distressing.
Was it appropriate for you to make that public disclosure? http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
"It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement 2. With permission of the affected user 3. To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his/her legal counsel, or his/her designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. 4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues. 5. Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers 6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public."
I would venture it merits an investigation of your usage of the tool and priviledged information. No offense.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
Who is the Wikimedia Foundation contact, if I can ask, for reporting breaches of the privacy policy?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/16/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Who is the Wikimedia Foundation contact, if I can ask, for reporting breaches of the privacy policy?
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
It seems to be the [[m:Ombudsman commission]]. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:29:00 -0700, "Joe Szilagyi" szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Is it appropriate for a CheckUser to disclose on someone's RFA the methods of *how* they connect to edit Wikipedia?
Yes, if they are using TOR. TOR is verboten, for good reason.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/16/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Yes, if they are using TOR. TOR is verboten, for good reason.
I'm slightly concerned that things are allowed to get that far.