> enwp has a general four day waiting period for page moves - do any
> others use this?
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
And on en.wp anonymous users cannot create new articles. Also the ability for blocked users can edit their talk page in active somewhere, and inactive somewhere else.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------
Trova il tuo mutuo su misura. Tassi ridotti da 4.25% solo per richieste online, mutuionline.it
http://click.libero.it/mutuionline19feb7
>From: Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] One week later and I am still blocked,
> nobody is doing a fucking thing
>To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Message-ID: <eraa1e$9ht$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>Cascaded open proxies? Do you mean to say that you are blocking these
>secure ISP proxies because there is an open proxy behind them, on a
>customer computer?
Tim,
I think my scanning method is a bit more sophisticated than just noticing or
omitting a VIA or FORWARDED FOR header.
My scanner requests a page from a server (my own) via the suspect proxy.
Provisions are taken that the program recognises that page. The page returns
the complete header info. Following cases can happen:
* The header being returned includes the ip of the proxy (in REMOTE_HOST or
REMOTE_ADDR) and my own (in HTTP_VIA or HTTP_X_FOWARDED_FOR): transparent
proxy - only reactive blocking after vandalism
* The header includes the ip of the proxy: elite (or anonymous) proxy - same
as above
* The header includes a totally different ip (in REMOTE_HOST or
REMOTE_ADDR): high anonymous proxy.
The latter case means that the proxy, as chosen by the program, is followed
by at least one other proxy, being the one that shows up in the header (a
cascade more or less similar to TOR). What is between, I don't know.
The exit node ip is added to a seperate table of exit nodes. The program
retries building up a connection via the same (entrant) proxy to find wether
there are other exit nodes used by the same. That loop ends when
new==previous and the program continues with the next (actually many
instances run in parallel).
In this way some 1000 exit proxies have been found till now. These are fed
by over 5000 entrant open proxies (and whatever might be in between). The
champion is serving even >800 different entrant proxies, some 250 serve 2 or
more. The other way around: one entrant ip is feeding 32 exit servers (a
kind of mini-TOR) and 600 entrant IP's are feeding 2 or more exit servers
(status of yesterday, continuously growing).
The exit nodes, which might also be a normal open proxy, are today's issue.
Because of the impossibility to trace the originating ip and the possibly
changing exit nodes, these are pro-actively blocked.
After reading the XXF article, an improvement I could think of is testing
the VIA/FORWARDED of the exit server as well (which I don't care of at the
moment). And subsequently checking whether the entrant node (and/or VIA)
fits in a similar ip range as the exit node, or more loosely the same
country. Depending on the result the blocking of exit node would be hard or
soft, regardless wether it is a trusted proxy.
Just had a look to the table (in human readible format, ip's are stored as
longs) and sampled some records. Some combinations are within the same
submask, others are more weird (e.g. an US exit fed by ip's from US, CA, FR,
GB, SE, AE).
I'll send you info on trusted proxies which appear to have an open proxy
behind them, according my list.
Rgds Ronald
Thank you for the answers.
Well, the decision was taken after almost three months of discutions,
followed by a regular voting poll (the same used to choose official policies).
The option that requires a 45-day-old account to move page was clearly the will of majority.
If the decision is way to restrictive according to the Foundation,
we'll have to choose the best option available.
Well, that's it. Thank you in advance
Dantadd
************************************************************
In my opinion, but of course i can not speak in any way for the foundation,
this is not an issue that is up to the foundation. The local community knows
best what they need, and I guess that if they find a developer that wants to
implement this, they can just ask him (her) to do it. I see no need to
discuss it all over here :-) It would perhaps be something different if you
prohibit editing for unregistered users etc maybe :-)
Lodewijk
2007/2/18, Titoxd op Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia op gmail.com>:
>
> No, it only requires some alterations of the site configuration file.
> Nothing major, actually. The main issue here is if it is acceptable to the
> Foundation.
>
> Titoxd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves
> inpt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
>
> Hi Daniel, one question: Was this conclusion reached from a "straw poll"
> or
> discussion? Otherwise, it seems good, but it would probably involve a
> site-wide semi-protection against moves and upping the "new account
> cut-off"
> to 45-days.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces op lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Nix
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:25 PM
> To: foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves in
> pt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> In a recent poll on pt.wikipedia it was decided to restrict move
> pages to users with at least a 45-day-old registered account, the same
> minimum period to grant right to vote (but without the request of 100
> valid
> editions).
>
> I made a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9024 and
> it was suggested to consult the Foundation because the decision seems to
> be
> very restrictive.
>
> Well, the community decision was:
>
> First question (pro or con):
> *52 pro restriction
> *11 contro restriction
>
> Second (time restriction):
> *15 votes - 5 days
> *8 votes - 15 days
> *38 votes - 45 days
>
> So, I'd like to know what you think about it and what could be done after
> this decision.
>
> Thank you,
> Dantadd
> http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Dantadd
__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
Hi everybody,
In a recent poll on pt.wikipedia it was decided to restrict move
pages to users with at least a 45-day-old registered account, the same minimum period to grant right to vote (but without the request of 100 valid editions).
I made a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9024 and it was suggested to consult the Foundation because the decision seems to be very restrictive.
Well, the community decision was:
First question (pro or con):
*52 pro restriction
*11 contro restriction
Second (time restriction):
*15 votes - 5 days
*8 votes - 15 days
*38 votes - 45 days
So, I'd like to know what you think about it and what could be done after this decision.
Thank you,
Dantadd
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Dantadd
__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
*** This post is intended for people with some basic technical expertise ***
The facts:
1. Waerth has posted this
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8069/stillblocked1cv4.jpg as "evidence".
Everyone, at any place in the world, can find lists of open proxies that
have been blocked on nl:w: (see
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie:Wikipedia:Open_proxies). An IP can be
picked from those lists and any browser can be configured to use that number
as proxy. The port is not published, but some ports could be obvious and
after some trial and error one could find a working combination. Regardless
the geo location of the IP tried as proxy. Make the screenshot and here you
are.
2. Waerth has disclosed in the Dutch village pump this list
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lijst_van_geblokkeerde_exit_servers
to be my source for blocking "the whole of Thailand". However, this page
lists the exit nodes of cascaded open proxies as these are discovered by my
scanning program and is generated automatically. Besides the blocking of
these exit nodes is done by a bot with a standard phrase in the remark
field. The readable text is "Open proxy - Nadere informatie". The clickable
part brings you to: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blockreason3
3. The screenshot above is NOT the result of being blocked by one of the
exit nodes as referred to in 2 (btw a similar mechanism is used when
auto-blocking TOR exit nodes, obviously with slightly different text), but
the result of a manual block of a (normal) open proxy. Such type of open
proxies are only blocked in the case of noticed vandalism of any kind.
4. From a mail sent this morning by Waerth to various people, I have derived
the originating IP. This IP is currently not and has never been blocked in
the past (except maybe autoblocks). Some weeks ago I've spent considerable
time to figure out what IP's could possibly be used by Waerth's provider as
a cache. One such IP has been unblocked then as a precaution, although it
was very unlikely this one could be the source of any trouble.
For more reading on this topic in general, see
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:RonaldB/Open_proxy_fighting (in
English).
Rgds Ronald
As you can see the Dutch mods have done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. And people
here say I have NO reason to be angry!
I have written over a 1000 articles to the wikipedia and now I am not
able to edit them. I am raging in anger.
Here is a screenshot I took today:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8069/stillblocked1cv4.jpg
Sofar for EVERYONE can edit. I am not even a vandal. And people tell me
to calm down. It has been TWO WEEKS now! And NO FUCKING BODY is doing
anything at all.
Fuck everyone with their stupid advices about being nice. I am leaving.
Fuck the board for putting this stupid block all proxies in effect and
refusing to do anything.
Waerth
>>Hi Walter,
>>
>>I would like to ask you to donate at least 10% of your efforts which
>>are usually spent on this list by you to convince the Thailand
>>government or the Thai ISPs to fix their internet access so we might
>>be able to ban "just the right people" in the future. 10% should be
>>more than enough to convince them.
>>
>>Mathias
>>
>>
>
>If i correctly geussed what's happening:
>a) Thai ISPs put their users under transparent proxies.
>b) A nl admin regularly blocks them as "open proxy"
>
>
>a1) If the ISP proxy provides X-Fordwarded-For: header, talk with Tim
>Starling to add them to the XFF list.
>a2) Convince the ISP to remove the Proxy (almost imposible).
>
>b) No admin should block "open proxys" unless he confirms they're open
>proxys.
>
>
>Trick: Accesing via
>https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/wiki/Hoofdpagina will probably
>bypass transparent proxys.
>
>
>I have found myself several times blocked on en.wikipedia due of being
>behind a proxy. Sometimes it was there were previous vandalism by other
>users. Others, it was alledged an "Open Proxy", either without reason or
>pointing to a proxy-list page.
>Astounishing, as neither the admin or the page mainteiners could have
>checked that proxy (maybe the lists were done by listing visitors behind
>it?).
>I sent several mails stating this, and asking for a lesser block (some
>were infinite hard blocks!). Well, i had no answer about this matter
>(could be unblocked without answering, however).
>
>Worse, my ISP doesn't provide means for stating if a given ip is one of
>their proxys or not. If an ip vandalised a page and -being accused of
>doing it- a checkuser showed that i had used that ip, i'd have no way to
>prove that ip being a transparent proxy, and not my personal ip. I'd
>probably be blocked forever. :(
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
Hi everybody, my name is CJ King. I would really like to know what OTRS is.
Thanks and have a great day!!
On 2/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The "problem with your article?" page for en:wp is:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_e…
>
> It directs people to either the Help Desk or to OTRS. The Help Desk
> appears to be getting a few reasonable queries from organisations,
> which are being dealt with properly.
>
> No flood of crap yet, which is good :-)
>
> OTRS volunteers - how's it looking from your side?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
You've got an email from cjkingwiki(a)gmail.com.
All of my edits are a copyrightviolation of books in my posession. All
texts were literally copied and because of that all of my edits on
wikipedia and pictures I added should be removed immediately as they are
in violation of the GFDL. Also all of my sources seem to be non
reputable and non trustworthy so many falsehoods consist in these edits.
Since I am blocked from editting the mistakes myself the foundation
should do better and delete all of my edits.
Waerth/Walter
Hmmm... Now I see I sent this to wikipedia-l, not foundation-l. Those
interested can read the discussion there. I'm getting as angry as Waerth,
almost...
To put this thing to something that actually belongs on foundation-l: I
would favor repealing the foundation policy that open proxies are blocked.
My reasons are:
* Main reason for the policy is that there is no reason for editing
Wikipedia from a proxy. I disagree, seeing already three;
** Editing on subjects where one could get problems for writing from a
searching POV and/or NPOV
** People who always use a proxy for extra anonymity and have to switch it
off to work on Wikipedia now
** Cases like Waerth who are automatically sent through an anonymous proxy
by their provider
* Large-scale vandalism using many proxies does occur, but is rare enough
that blocking the proxies when they are being used for vandalism is no big
issue.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
http://www.aspirationtech.org/events/devsummit
This should be of interest to anyone involved in both Wikimedia
Foundation issues and open source technology. Sorry for the late
notice, I just found out about it. Aspiration has a couple of other
cool projects, such as their index of nonprofit tools (some of them
open source, some of them not):
http://www.socialsourcecommons.org/
As well as Penguin Days:
http://www.penguinday.org/
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
