On 17/08/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
For clarification, does this mean that discussion regarding AB in particular, or discussion on proxies in general? I'm of the opinion that the former issue was distracting from productive resolution of the greater matter at hand: trying to find a better working solution to the proxies problem. I'd say more, but want to wait for that clarification.
Go for it :-)
- d.
On 8/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Go for it :-)
Thanks, David.
Now, I don't know exactly where to begin, it's been awhile since I've really opined on this issue in public. Yes, sockpuppets are a concern. Yes, vandalism is a concern. As a Wikipedian who is no stranger to dealing with either, I take these problems very seriously. But -- and I'm sure you knew there was a "but" -- I'm just as torn when I see willing, helpful people prevented from contributing, sometimes people who have a lot to offer us, or even people who are already widely recognized on the wiki for their work, all on account of potential abuse from others.
There's been a lot Jimbo-quoting, lately. That's all well and good, but let's not forget that there are plenty of apt, eloquent comments on the matter. As Gmaxwell said, just recently:
We're not an anonymity service, but until the day we make giving your
real name + DNA sample a requirement for editing we should try to be as friendly towards outside anonymity services as we can reasonably be.
If anything the ability to handle the good users coming through a set of anonymous proxies will allow us to be more aggressive at blocking sources of problems.
Hell, as part of the growing consensus among the community, the "policy" tag on [[WP:NOP]] has been "disputed" since mid-July, and even recently *removed* without any significant argument. I'm clearly not the only person who isn't quite satisfied with our current means and ways of dealing with proxies.
There has to be more we can do. On IRC, it's as simple as getting +e set on your nick, to overrride the general quiet on Tor users. Maybe we can to implement a new class of ipblock-exempt. Maybe we can to implement a new class of blocking for proxies, which certain users could circumvent. Such permissions could be granted by invitation, by discussion, by some community process to deal with requests. I'm no tech whiz, but I certainly hope we're open for suggestions, here. Our problem is with the abusive use of proxies, not with the helpful people behind them. There probably is no perfect solution.
But we should try. -Luna
On 0, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com scribbled: ...
There has to be more we can do. On IRC, it's as simple as getting +e set on your nick, to overrride the general quiet on Tor users. Maybe we can to implement a new class of ipblock-exempt. Maybe we can to implement a new class of blocking for proxies, which certain users could circumvent. Such permissions could be granted by invitation, by discussion, by some community process to deal with requests. I'm no tech whiz, but I certainly hope we're open for suggestions, here. Our problem is with the abusive use of proxies, not with the helpful people behind them. There probably is no perfect solution.
But we should try. -Luna
Freenode's nice enough that if you have a hostmask (only moderately tedious to get), you can easily use Tor without any problem, and it seems to have worked out well for them. I really don't see why WP couldn't have some moderately tedious process for getting a wiki equivalent of a hostmask protecting from Tor blocks. It doesn't even have to be particularly complex - perhaps 20 CAPTCHAs? (Since they're already installed...)
-- gwern nkvd Yakima Kvashnin PABX ISEC imapct garbage Counterterrorism Terrorism SDF
On 8/17/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Freenode's nice enough that if you have a hostmask (only moderately tedious to get), you can easily use Tor without any problem, and it seems to have worked out well for them. I really don't see why WP couldn't have some moderately tedious process for getting a wiki equivalent of a hostmask protecting from Tor blocks.
Perhaps such a system would also prevent "good" editors from being affected by IP range blocks aimed at somebody else using the same ISP who is being a major WP:DICK as what happened to me a few years ago.
On 8/17/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Freenode's nice enough that if you have a hostmask (only moderately
tedious to get), you can easily use Tor without any problem, and it seems to have worked out well for them. I really don't see why WP couldn't have some moderately tedious process for getting a wiki equivalent of a hostmask protecting from Tor blocks.
Perhaps such a system would also prevent "good" editors from being affected by IP range blocks aimed at somebody else using the same ISP who is being a major WP:DICK as what happened to me a few years ago.
There wasn't support for soft blocks a few years ago... the addition of that feature has been, perhaps, one of the most important improvements to MediaWiki added in recent years. ipblock-exempt would, come to think of it, be a simpler way to resolve autoblocks of constructive editors (without having to give out one's IP address).