Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

A modest proposal

Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking...

Daniel R. Tobias

11 Aug 2007 11 Aug '07

5:54 p.m.

On 11 Aug 2007 at 12:23:40 -0500, "Armed Blowfish" <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

The community denied my unblock-auto request, which makes it a community ban. 'If not one out of 1,298 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.' See [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban]].

But it's not your username, or you as a person, that's banned, it's merely the IP addresses of the proxy servers which are the only means you choose to use to access the site. Thus, although this effectively prevents you from editing, it's not actually a ban of you personally. If somebody is such a strict vegetarian that they won't eat anything prepared in a kitchen where meat is prepared, or somebody is keeping kosher so strictly that they won't eat anything prepared in a nonkosher kitchen, then such a situation means that there are many homes and restaurants they are unable to eat in. This is not the same as saying they're "banned" from those places, however. (Shades of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi.) Perhaps it's even a matter of necessity rather than choice, as when they're severely allergic to peanuts and must avoid any food that even has a chance of having touched something with peanut residue; this may impose severe limits on what they can eat, and where their food may come from, but it still wouldn't make sense for them to claim they were "banned" from places that use peanuts. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Show replies by date

Armed Blowfish

11 Aug 11 Aug

6:08 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

...

On 11 Aug 2007 at 12:23:40 -0500, "Armed Blowfish" <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users. I am, however, uncertain if I should feel complimented that people are trying to convince me otherwise, or hurt that people said I was lying about this. : / Does it really matter, though? It could easily be a year before I'm sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least. Armed Blowfish

Tracy Poff

6:41 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote: > If somebody is such a strict vegetarian that they won't eat anything > prepared in a kitchen where meat is prepared, or somebody is keeping > kosher so strictly that they won't eat anything prepared in a > nonkosher kitchen, then such a situation means that there are many > homes and restaurants they are unable to eat in. This is not the > same as saying they're "banned" from those places, however. (Shades > of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi.) > > Perhaps it's even a matter of necessity rather than choice, as when > they're severely allergic to peanuts and must avoid any food that > even has a chance of having touched something with peanut residue; > this may impose severe limits on what they can eat, and where their > food may come from, but it still wouldn't make sense for them to > claim they were "banned" from places that use peanuts.

A better example would be editing via the protocol set by RFC 1149: IP over Carrier Pigeon. We don't accept carrier-pigeon-editing from any editor, but that's no reason to say that Armed Blowfish is banned from carrier-pigeon-editing--everyone is, after all.

...

Armed Blowfish

6:52 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, Tracy Poff <tracy.poff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

David Gerard

7:02 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

But those things were bad for me? And isn't a block upgraded to a ban when the community denies an appeal?

TOR IPs are pretty much banned. User:Armed Blowfish is not. If all TOR users were like User:Armed Blowfish, TOR IPs wouldn't be blocked. You choosing to use only blocked methods to access Wikipedia is not enough reason to unblock TOR IPs, sadly.

...

Really, I'm over wanting to edit... but it would have been good if more people had been kind about the whole thing.

Deliberately using jargon terms with your own private meanings is unlikely to lead to either effective communication or people assuming good faith in you when they realise you've been doing it. - d.

Armed Blowfish

7:08 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

But those things were bad for me? And isn't a block upgraded to a ban when the community denies an appeal?

TOR IPs are pretty much banned. User:Armed Blowfish is not. If all TOR users were like User:Armed Blowfish, TOR IPs wouldn't be blocked.

Or, to be specific, if all Tor users were like the way Armed Blowfish *used* to be. (I've changed.)

...

You choosing to use only blocked methods to access Wikipedia is not enough reason to unblock TOR IPs, sadly.

I never asked for Tor IPs to be unblocked, I just asked for ipblock-exempt.

...

Really, I'm over wanting to edit... but it would have been good if more people had been kind about the whole thing.

Deliberately using jargon terms with your own private meanings is unlikely to lead to either effective communication or people assuming good faith in you when they realise you've been doing it. - d.

But that isn't what I've been doing? Armed Blowfish

geni

7:19 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

I never asked for Tor IPs to be unblocked, I just asked for ipblock-exempt.

The devs have better things to do with their time. -- geni

Armed Blowfish

7:22 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it. 2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt. Armed Blowfish On 11/08/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

I never asked for Tor IPs to be unblocked, I just asked for

ipblock-exempt.

The devs have better things to do with their time. -- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David Gerard

7:28 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it. 2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt.

So you consider that the devs being unwilling to alter the MediaWiki codebase just so you personally can edit through TOR constitutes a "ban"? I strongly suggest you are out of step with the project. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010659.html "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." - Jimmy Wales - d.

David Gerard

7:32 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010659.html "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." - Jimmy Wales

And: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010660.html "If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia." - Jimmy Wales - d.

Andrew Gray

8:22 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I spent *hours* the other day looking for that message and couldn't turn it up. Thanks... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Anthony

7:56 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it. 2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt.

So you consider that the devs being unwilling to alter the MediaWiki codebase just so you personally can edit through TOR constitutes a "ban"?

This user is not the only one who would benefit from such a patch, so that part's a little unfair.

...

I strongly suggest you are out of step with the project. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010659.html "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." - Jimmy Wales

Do I really have to dig up the quotes where he said essentially the opposite? Eh, I will: "Anonymous edits are mostly good, but when we look into problematic edits in an effort to limit the waste of good people's time, a couple of things really strongly stick out: open proxies and Tor nodes. These are used almost exclusively for ill, almost never for good. So, we block them. But I don't like this. I want there to be ways for people who have genuine privacy needs to be able to edit Wikipedia. --Jimbo"

Anthony

7:59 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/11/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 8/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it. 2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt.

So you consider that the devs being unwilling to alter the MediaWiki codebase just so you personally can edit through TOR constitutes a "ban"?

This user is not the only one who would benefit from such a patch, so that part's a little unfair.

Oh yeah, and my quote is dated later than yours: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00294.html :)

Anthony

8:04 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/11/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 8/11/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

On 8/11/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

1. I wrote a patch, all they had to do was commit it. 2. Admins already have ipblock-exempt.

So you consider that the devs being unwilling to alter the MediaWiki codebase just so you personally can edit through TOR constitutes a "ban"?

This user is not the only one who would benefit from such a patch, so that part's a little unfair.

Oh yeah, and my quote is dated later than yours: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00294.html :)

P.P.S., Jimbo has also said before that Tor is not an anonymous proxy, so the quote you gave wasn't about Tor. In fact, in the quote I gave, Jimbo specifically names open proxies *and* Tor nodes, which implies that he makes a distinction between the two. So if we're going to use the fallactious appeal to authority argument, I think those supporting Wikipedia editing using Tor win.

JodyB

7:36 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

Guys, he's obviously yanking your chain -- he's been around enough to know. Just stop feeding him. JodyB Armed Blowfish wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Tracy Poff <tracy.poff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

But those things were bad for me? And isn't a block upgraded to a ban when the community denies an appeal? Really, I'm over wanting to edit... but it would have been good if more people had been kind about the whole thing. Armed Blowfish _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Joshua Brady

7:24 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

RFC 1149 is IP over Avian Carriers not Carrier Pigeons, and is uselss as RFC 2549 has QoS for IPoAC ;) -Josh On 8/11/07, Tracy Poff <tracy.poff(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

In some situations, "I still feel banned" would be the important issue. However, you were supporting a change to the way we notify blocked users based on an argument of 'I am banned, and this would be bad for me,' when you are not, in fact, banned; since the community uses the word ban to mean a certain thing, and since that particular definition was important to this discussion, it does matter that you use the same terms as everyone else. Tracy Poff _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

David Gerard

6:49 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

...

> Perhaps it's even a matter of necessity rather than choice, as when > they're severely allergic to peanuts and must avoid any food that > even has a chance of having touched something with peanut residue; > this may impose severe limits on what they can eat, and where their > food may come from, but it still wouldn't make sense for them to > claim they were "banned" from places that use peanuts.

...

I still feel banned.

That's entirely up to you. Your continued use of the term remains inappropriately hyperbolic and fundamentally inaccurate, and you know it.

...

Does it really matter, though? It could easily be a year before I'm sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least.

Wikipedia is not therapy. - d.

James Farrar

6:53 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Wikipedia is not therapy.

I think you should put that in [[WP:NOT]] :)

David Gerard

7:03 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Wikipedia is not therapy.

...

I think you should put that in [[WP:NOT]] :)

I proposed it, with the second sentence "In particular, Wikipedia is not [[chlorpromazine]]." It's probably still there on the talk page. - d.

Christiano Moreschi

6:55 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

...

From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:49:37 +0100 On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

I still feel banned.

That's entirely up to you. Your continued use of the term remains inappropriately hyperbolic and fundamentally inaccurate, and you know it.

Does it really matter, though? It could easily be a year before I'm sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least.

Wikipedia is not therapy. - d.

No, it isn't. The discussion as to whether you are banned (or not) has been going on for quite a while, and probably too long. It's getting boring. A community ban is when an admin blocks an account indefinitely and no one is willing to reverse that. Your account is not blocked. What has been blocked is a certain type of IP that we do not permit. Doubtless you have excellent reasons for using TOR, none of which interest me in the slightest. But you are not - quite definitely not - banned. C More schi _________________________________________________________________ Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com

Armed Blowfish

6:55 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

I still feel banned.

That's entirely up to you. Your continued use of the term remains inappropriately hyperbolic and fundamentally inaccurate, and you know it.

Blocked -> appeal to community -> appeal fails -> banned?

...

Does it really matter, though? It could easily be a year before I'm sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least.

Wikipedia is not therapy. - d.

So why not ban an insane person... politely? And apparently Wikipaedia is the opposite of therapy, at least just now. Armed Blowfish

Thomas Dalton

12 Aug 12 Aug

7:45 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

...

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

Allowing individual Tor users to edit Wikipedia involves adding a line to LocalSettings.php and having a Steward give you the permission. It's easy. But why would we do that? We don't allow people to edit through anonymous proxies (and there is no consensus that Tor nodes are not anonymous proxies - I, for one, certainly don't see any significant difference) for a reason. That reasons applies to you just as it applies to anyone else. If there is a reason to make an exception for you, then there is a reason to make an exception for pretty much anyone, in which case we should simply remove the rule.

Anthony

10:38 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/12/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

I love how the word consensus gets thrown around willy-nilly to argue any point at all. There is no consensus that Tor nodes *are* anonymous proxies either. Of course, that's pretty irrelevant, since AB isn't *intentionally* being blocked because s/he edits through Tor, rather the fact that s/he is blocked is a side effect (which, incidentally, is why I don't think it's accurate to say that AB is banned).

...

That reasons applies to you just as it applies to anyone else. If there is a reason to make an exception for you, then there is a reason to make an exception for pretty much anyone, in which case we should simply remove the rule.

That's absolutely not true, though. AB has made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, over a course of over a year. It's safe to say this isn't just a throwaway account being made to do some vandalism and run. The majority of people who commented on this users request for adminship supported it, and even some of those who didn't support it mentioned that they would be supportive of allowing the user to edit through Tor. That isn't the case for all users, and that's why simply "removing the rule" is not acceptable.

Armed Blowfish

13 Aug 13 Aug

1:54 a.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 12/08/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 8/12/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

I love how the word consensus gets thrown around willy-nilly to argue any point at all. There is no consensus that Tor nodes *are* anonymous proxies either.

Open anonymising proxy + authentication layer = pseudonymity proxy Armed Blowfish

...

Of course, that's pretty irrelevant, since AB isn't *intentionally* being blocked because s/he edits through Tor, rather the fact that s/he is blocked is a side effect (which, incidentally, is why I don't think it's accurate to say that AB is banned).

Armed Blowfish

1:47 a.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 12/08/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

NavouWiki

1:57 a.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

You are not banned for doing anything. An extract from your block log: No matching items in log. You are able to freely use a proxy until it (read: the proxy) is blocked. Respectfully, Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:48 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames On 12/08/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

Okay, so I am banned for using Tor and running a Tor exit node, right? So can I pretty please qualify for emotional protection under [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]], where it says, 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.' Also BLP.... Armed Blowfish _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Armed Blowfish

2:33 a.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 12/08/07, NavouWiki <navouwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

You are not banned for doing anything.

Considering how many people told me I was willfully flouting policy, I think it is safe to say I am.

...

An extract from your block log: No matching items in log.

It's a collection of autoblocks.

...

You are able to freely use a proxy until it (read: the proxy) is blocked.

'We're okay with subverting entry-blocks. This isn't hypocrisy; this is because entry blocks are fundamentally different. When Alice connects to Tor to connect to Bob, an exit block means that Bob doesn't want anonymous connections, whereas an entry block means that somebody doesn't want Alice to have privacy. Entry blocking subverts Alice's self-determination, whereas exit blocking on Bob's part *is* self-determination, even if we don't like it.' -- Nick Mathewson, Tor developer, September 2005 http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00260.html Thanks, Armed Blowfish

...

Respectfully, Navou -----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 8:48 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames On 12/08/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

Armed Blowfish

2:42 a.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

A more complete quote (the relevant parts are spread out): 'here are some things that might make you feel better in the short run, but which will ultimately not help [...] - Trying to convince Tor developers to subvert services attempts to block Tor exit connections{4} based on IPs. We won't; it would be wrong. [...] {4} We're okay with subverting entry-blocks. This isn't hypocrisy; this is because entry blocks are fundamentally different. When Alice connects to Tor to connect to Bob, an exit block means that Bob doesn't want anonymous connections, whereas an entry block means that somebody doesn't want Alice to have privacy. Entry blocking subverts Alice's self-determination, whereas exit blocking on Bob's part *is* self-determination, even if we don't like it.' -- Nick Mathewson, Tor developer, September 2005 http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00260.html Armed Blowfish On 12/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

On 12/08/07, NavouWiki <navouwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You are not banned for doing anything.

Considering how many people told me I was willfully flouting policy, I think it is safe to say I am.

An extract from your block log: No matching items in log.

It's a collection of autoblocks.

You are able to freely use a proxy until it (read: the proxy) is blocked.

I still feel banned. There is more than one option available to unblock individual Tor users.

Thomas Dalton

12:39 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

...

I'm banned from using Tor to edit Wikipedia as well. I'm also banned from vandalising Wikipedia, from uploading copyrighted images without stating the source, from reverting an article more than 3 times in 24 hours, etc, etc, etc. Should I get treated as a banned user? You are not banned. There is nothing stopping you editing Wikipedia. You simply choose not to. It's exactly the same as if you were a member of a religion which refuses to use computers. You wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia then, either, but that would be entirely your own doing.

Anthony

12:46 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Well, if s/he actually runs an exit node, then there is something, as the users actual home IP address is blocked. I still wouldn't call it a ban though. Bans are on people, not on IP addresses. If AB would just stop saying that eir banned and make some reasonable arguments instead, I might actually sympathize (my home IP addresses often get blocked because I run Tor exit nodes too - but I don't call myself a banned user).

Thomas Dalton

12:53 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

...

Well, if s/he actually runs an exit node, then there is something, as the users actual home IP address is blocked. I still wouldn't call it a ban though. Bans are on people, not on IP addresses.

It's an unfortunate situation but there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps there is some way Tor could mark packets coming from an exit node as having been forwarded so we could somehow tell the difference between Tor packets and packets coming from the exit node itself. Doesn't sound likely to happen, though (and would make blocked Tor all too easy, so I doubt the Tor people would go for it).

Anthony

1:06 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Well, if s/he actually runs an exit node, then there is something, as the users actual home IP address is blocked. I still wouldn't call it a ban though. Bans are on people, not on IP addresses.

It's an unfortunate situation but there is nothing we can do about it.

Sure there is. Accept the patch and give the user ipblock-exempt.

...

Perhaps there is some way Tor could mark packets coming from an exit node as having been forwarded so we could somehow tell the difference between Tor packets and packets coming from the exit node itself.

No, there isn't a way to do this. But there is a way for Wikipedia to know this. Here it is: when AB sends those packets while logged in as AB, the packets are coming from the exit node itself!

...

Doesn't sound likely to happen, though (and would make blocked Tor all too easy, so I doubt the Tor people would go for it).

Actually, "the Tor people" go out of their way to make it really easy to block traffic coming from Tor.

Andrew Gray

12:53 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

You're not banned; you're not being baited or mocked. You're *voluntarily choosing a course of action* which leads you to get responses that you construe as being a) banned, and b) baited or mocked. If I chose that same course of action I would get the same responses. I am not the first to point this out. We are here to write an encyclopedia. We are not here to spend hours endlessly adjusting the processes for each and every person who feels they can't work with the processes we have. There are ten thousand active and committed editors on enwp; why do we have to bend over backwards to accomodate the fact that you, alone in those ten thousand, feel you don't have to abide by our normal standards? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Armed Blowfish

3:33 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 13/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

You're not banned;

The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.

...

you're not being baited or mocked. You're *voluntarily choosing a course of action* which leads you to get responses that you construe as being a) banned, and b) baited or mocked. If I chose that same course of action I would get the same responses.

There isn't a switch I can flip to turn of my paranoia - it isn't a matter of choice. And yes, there have been hurtful responses, and they continued even after I withdrew my RfA. It doesn't actually matter if they were meant to be hurtful, in fact I don't think they were, but they were hurtful all the same. 'for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me it [Denmark] is a prison.' -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, Folio 1 (1623), lines 1295-1297

...

I am not the first to point this out. We are here to write an encyclopedia.

Is it worth driving people over the brink of sanity just to avoid courtesy blanking pages that are not in the article space?

...

We are not here to spend hours endlessly adjusting the processes for each and every person who feels they can't work with the processes we have. There are ten thousand active and committed editors on enwp; why do we have to bend over backwards to accomodate the fact that you, alone in those ten thousand, feel you don't have to abide by our normal standards?

I have not attempted to circumvent my block/ban. And some courtesy blankings and deletions hardly qualify as bending over backwards - arguing about them on-wiki, as some have done, is severely hurtful to me and does nothing to help the encyclopaedia.

...

-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Armed Blowfish

Thomas Dalton

3:39 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

...

The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.

You said before that you used the unblock-auto template to appeal. It's not an autoblock you are appealing against, though, it's an ip block. Your main request is for ipblock-exempt, which is not an appeal and be denied it is certainly not akin to being banned.

Anthony

3:43 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/13/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

On 13/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

You're not banned;

The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.

Actually, according to what I've read, you withdrew your appeal.

Kamryn Matika

3:50 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

...

On 8/13/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On 13/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Okay, so I am banned for using Tor and running a Tor exit node,

right?

> > > > So can I pretty please qualify for emotional protection under > > [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]], where it > > says, 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave > > Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently

for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.'

You're not banned;

The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.

Actually, according to what I've read, you withdrew your appeal. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

The appeal == RfA? Or the ipexempt patch? God this is all so confusing :*( If it's the RfA, well, there's more to adminship than ipexempt. And if it's because of the patch - well, that's more of a dev thing than a community thing.

Armed Blowfish

3:58 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 13/08/07, Kamryn Matika <kamrynmatika(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 8/13/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:

On 8/13/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On 13/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Okay, so I am banned for using Tor and running a Tor exit node,

right?

> for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait > banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.' You're not banned;

The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.

Sorry to confuse you. : ( There were three appeals: 1. An unblock-auto request on my talk page, asking to be added to the ipblock-exempt group. Failed because there was no such group. 2. A patch, to create such a group. Failed because the developers didn't like it. 3. The RfA, which, as established above, was the only thing the community could do, which was rejected by the community. Armed Blowfish

Anthony

4:06 p.m.

New subject: Hardblocking usernames

On 8/13/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

3. The RfA, which, as established above, was the only thing the community could do, which was rejected by the community.

You didn't respond to my comment though, which is that you *withdrew* that RfA request, and that it *wasn't* rejected by the community. Maybe it would have been, although maybe it wouldn't. Most members of the community who commented on it approved of your adminship. And don't try to tell me not to bring this up, because you're the one who brought it up this time. (And the other time I didn't reveal any personal information and didn't link to the actual RfA - blanking is one thing, which I support, pretending something never happened is different and I don't support it in this instance)

6123

days inactive

6125

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

38 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Andrew Gray
Anthony
Armed Blowfish
Christiano Moreschi
Daniel R. Tobias
David Gerard
geni
James Farrar
JodyB
Joshua Brady
Kamryn Matika
NavouWiki
Thomas Dalton
Tracy Poff