(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
If a solution of generally blocking Tor exit nodes (prior to abuse from that specific node) is adopted it looks like the technical solution provided by RonaldB is by far the best option. It offers constant updating, operation by an experienced expert and quick (relatively) unblocks of former Tor exit nodes.
Others have raised a good point, though: The trade off is between vandalism by TOR users and editing from China / other nations with selecting blocking of Wikipedia.
In any event, it looks like the link provided by Mercury has dissolved into indecision and it seems unlikely much will come from it (except sniping between Mercury and Raul...).
Nathan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com Date: Jan 14, 2008 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On a ip hardblock, can't do anything but read. Ip exempt would permit a bypass per username.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:16 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki
Can you login from a TOR node? Or is traffic from TOR banned completely? If you can login, I don't see the problem. Frankly, I think logging in to make a substantial edit isn't a bad idea. The old argument is that a great deal (perhaps the majority) of content has come from IPs. True probably, but only because they didn't have to log in!
On Jan 14, 2008 7:13 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This mentality must change before any process can move forward.
Chad
Oh indeed.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You really could have left off the sniping remark. Let us try to remain collegial and respectful and keep to the topic at hand. Regards, Mercury.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:03 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] TOR Nodes
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
If a solution of generally blocking Tor exit nodes (prior to abuse from that specific node) is adopted it looks like the technical solution provided by RonaldB is by far the best option. It offers constant updating, operation by an experienced expert and quick (relatively) unblocks of former Tor exit nodes.
Others have raised a good point, though: The trade off is between vandalism by TOR users and editing from China / other nations with selecting blocking of Wikipedia.
In any event, it looks like the link provided by Mercury has dissolved into indecision and it seems unlikely much will come from it (except sniping between Mercury and Raul...).
Nathan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com Date: Jan 14, 2008 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On a ip hardblock, can't do anything but read. Ip exempt would permit a bypass per username.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:16 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki
Can you login from a TOR node? Or is traffic from TOR banned completely? If you can login, I don't see the problem. Frankly, I think logging in to make a substantial edit isn't a bad idea. The old argument is that a great deal (perhaps the majority) of content has come from IPs. True probably, but only because they didn't have to log in!
On Jan 14, 2008 7:13 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This mentality must change before any process can move forward.
Chad
Oh indeed.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
Hi, forgive me, but I don't quite see how you got there from here.
First, problems with editing Wikipedia from China are primarily the fault of China itself, which blocks access to Wikipedia.
Second, anonymizing proxies are not the only way in which these blocks may be bypassed.
Third, and most importantly, open proxies are *already* indefinitely hard-blocked, abuse or otherwise. It would be nice to think that they are only blocked in case of abuse, but this is not the case. All this proposal would do would allow exemptions from such hard-blocks for individual users. If this sounds controversial, bear in mind that all administrators are alrady exempt from hard-blocks. Any administrator on any project could already be editing through any hard-block blocked proxy and (short of a checkuser) nobody would be any the wiser.
In short, this proposal makes it no more "impossible to edit from China" than it is already.
-Gurch
I agree that China is responsible for the problem in general (Internet censorship being something individual websites have trouble doing) but I suspect our influence over Chinese policy is limited. There are technical workarounds for Chinese editors, however - blocking all Tor exit nodes categorically shuts off a main workaround.
Re the blocking policy, if you read the page linked to by Mercury it seems that it isn't at all clear what the consensus is there. Mercury made mention of modifying the policy based on the discussion on that page, which contained a number of objections to the indef hardblock of all open proxies. The most convincing to my mind was the apparent fact that Tor exit nodes are frequently active only for a very short period of time - afterwards the IP is recycled, so it serves no purpose to indefinitely block an IP that was used as an exit node for 2 days.
Lastly, anonymizer IP ranges are under consideration for blocking as well using RonaldB's tools.
In a technical sense, I would be fine with using Ronald's tool to block all current open proxy exit IPs. Politically, I think it is something the Foundation should weigh in on so that issues associated with blocking this category of IPs permanently can be addressed/anticipated.
Nathan
On Jan 14, 2008 11:28 PM, Matthew Britton matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
--- Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
Hi, forgive me, but I don't quite see how you got there from here.
First, problems with editing Wikipedia from China are primarily the fault of China itself, which blocks access to Wikipedia.
Second, anonymizing proxies are not the only way in which these blocks may be bypassed.
Third, and most importantly, open proxies are *already* indefinitely hard-blocked, abuse or otherwise. It would be nice to think that they are only blocked in case of abuse, but this is not the case. All this proposal would do would allow exemptions from such hard-blocks for individual users. If this sounds controversial, bear in mind that all administrators are alrady exempt from hard-blocks. Any administrator on any project could already be editing through any hard-block blocked proxy and (short of a checkuser) nobody would be any the wiser.
In short, this proposal makes it no more "impossible to edit from China" than it is already.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Since we already hardblock all open proxies we find, without exception, and the foundation knows we do this, if they cared to weigh in, shouldn't we expect they'd have done so already?
Cheers WilyD
On Jan 15, 2008 9:12 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that China is responsible for the problem in general (Internet censorship being something individual websites have trouble doing) but I suspect our influence over Chinese policy is limited. There are technical workarounds for Chinese editors, however - blocking all Tor exit nodes categorically shuts off a main workaround.
Re the blocking policy, if you read the page linked to by Mercury it seems that it isn't at all clear what the consensus is there. Mercury made mention of modifying the policy based on the discussion on that page, which contained a number of objections to the indef hardblock of all open proxies. The most convincing to my mind was the apparent fact that Tor exit nodes are frequently active only for a very short period of time - afterwards the IP is recycled, so it serves no purpose to indefinitely block an IP that was used as an exit node for 2 days.
Lastly, anonymizer IP ranges are under consideration for blocking as well using RonaldB's tools.
In a technical sense, I would be fine with using Ronald's tool to block all current open proxy exit IPs. Politically, I think it is something the Foundation should weigh in on so that issues associated with blocking this category of IPs permanently can be addressed/anticipated.
Nathan
On Jan 14, 2008 11:28 PM, Matthew Britton
matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
--- Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
Hi, forgive me, but I don't quite see how you got there from here.
First, problems with editing Wikipedia from China are primarily the fault of China itself, which blocks access to Wikipedia.
Second, anonymizing proxies are not the only way in which these blocks may be bypassed.
Third, and most importantly, open proxies are *already* indefinitely hard-blocked, abuse or otherwise. It would be nice to think that they are only blocked in case of abuse, but this is not the case. All this proposal would do would allow exemptions from such hard-blocks for individual users. If this sounds controversial, bear in mind that all administrators are alrady exempt from hard-blocks. Any administrator on any project could already be editing through any hard-block blocked proxy and (short of a checkuser) nobody would be any the wiser.
In short, this proposal makes it no more "impossible to edit from China" than it is already.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You may be right. Did the policy change? I ask because there was some disagreement over whether hardblocking all open proxies is in fact the policy.
On Jan 15, 2008 9:50 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Since we already hardblock all open proxies we find, without exception, and the foundation knows we do this, if they cared to weigh in, shouldn't we expect they'd have done so already?
Cheers WilyD
On Jan 15, 2008 9:12 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that China is responsible for the problem in general (Internet censorship being something individual websites have trouble doing) but I suspect our influence over Chinese policy is limited. There are technical workarounds for Chinese editors, however - blocking all Tor exit nodes categorically shuts off a main workaround.
Re the blocking policy, if you read the page linked to by Mercury it seems that it isn't at all clear what the consensus is there. Mercury made mention of modifying the policy based on the discussion on that page, which contained a number of objections to the indef hardblock of all open proxies. The most convincing to my mind was the apparent fact that Tor exit nodes are frequently active only for a very short period of time - afterwards the IP is recycled, so it serves no purpose to indefinitely block an IP that was used as an exit node for 2 days.
Lastly, anonymizer IP ranges are under consideration for blocking as well using RonaldB's tools.
In a technical sense, I would be fine with using Ronald's tool to block all current open proxy exit IPs. Politically, I think it is something the Foundation should weigh in on so that issues associated with blocking this category of IPs permanently can be addressed/anticipated.
Nathan
On Jan 14, 2008 11:28 PM, Matthew Britton
matthew.britton@btinternet.com wrote:
--- Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
Hi, forgive me, but I don't quite see how you got there from here.
First, problems with editing Wikipedia from China are primarily the fault of China itself, which blocks access to Wikipedia.
Second, anonymizing proxies are not the only way in which these blocks may be bypassed.
Third, and most importantly, open proxies are *already* indefinitely hard-blocked, abuse or otherwise. It would be nice to think that they are only blocked in case of abuse, but this is not the case. All this proposal would do would allow exemptions from such hard-blocks for individual users. If this sounds controversial, bear in mind that all administrators are alrady exempt from hard-blocks. Any administrator on any project could already be editing through any hard-block blocked proxy and (short of a checkuser) nobody would be any the wiser.
In short, this proposal makes it no more "impossible to edit from China" than it is already.
-Gurch
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You may be right. Did the policy change? I ask because there was some disagreement over whether hardblocking all open proxies is in fact the policy.
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
- d.
On Jan 15, 2008 7:07 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You may be right. Did the policy change? I ask because there was some disagreement over whether hardblocking all open proxies is in fact the policy.
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't that also true of school IPs? (I would be surprised if it's only 99% there, probably more like 99.9% sewage on those.) Can I go start hardblocking schools on-sight?
Todd Allen wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:07 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
You may be right. Did the policy change? I ask because there was some disagreement over whether hardblocking all open proxies is in fact the policy.
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't that also true of school IPs? (I would be surprised if it's only 99% there, probably more like 99.9% sewage on those.) Can I go start hardblocking schools on-sight?
There's a fundamental difference between the two. An open proxy can be used by just about anyone from anywhere, making them attractive for people trying to avoid a block/ban, spam/vandalbots, or people who don't want to be traced. If school IPs were used for any of those purposes rather than common vandalism, it probably would be hardblocked. The main difference is registered account abuse (hardblock) vs. IP abuse (softblock). A school IP can only be used by people *in the school* and depending on how many IP addresses a school owns may or may not even be shared (colleges have their own IPs too).
A better comparison would be wireless access points, most of which can be used by anyone with a laptop willing to go to it, but still much more limited in access than open proxies. (I can use an open proxy in India from the USA, I'm not about to fly there to use a WAP.)
On 15/01/2008, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
A better comparison would be wireless access points, most of which can be used by anyone with a laptop willing to go to it, but still much more limited in access than open proxies. (I can use an open proxy in India from the USA, I'm not about to fly there to use a WAP.)
And I've had to hardblock some of those on en:wp as and when our more persistent sources of toxic waste discover them. So far I'm doing it one at a time for a limited period - editing at a coffee shop or pub is of course a deeply civilised activity. I need to write more articles at the Pembury Tavern.
- d.
Alex wrote:
There's a fundamental difference between the two. An open proxy can be used by just about anyone from anywhere, making them attractive for people trying to avoid a block/ban, spam/vandalbots, or people who don't want to be traced. If school IPs were used for any of those purposes rather than common vandalism, it probably would be hardblocked. The main difference is registered account abuse (hardblock) vs. IP abuse (softblock). A school IP can only be used by people *in the school* and depending on how many IP addresses a school owns may or may not even be shared (colleges have their own IPs too).
A better comparison would be wireless access points, most of which can be used by anyone with a laptop willing to go to it, but still much more limited in access than open proxies. (I can use an open proxy in India from the USA, I'm not about to fly there to use a WAP.)
Right. Now please go and explain that difference to the enwiki admins blocking non-OP with reason "Open proxy".
On 15/01/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that also true of school IPs? (I would be surprised if it's only 99% there, probably more like 99.9% sewage on those.) Can I go start hardblocking schools on-sight?
I dunno if schools are quite at 99%, though they're pretty bad. School IPs fundamentally have traceability, i.e. there is someone in authority to bring the block to the attention of. (In many cases they say "hell yeah, please keep our school blocked." Pity we can't set up timed daily blocks in some cases.) A Tor node has buckets of crap and no traceability whatsoever (obviously).
- d.
On Jan 15, 2008 10:07 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
David, "opening them or softblocking them" implies that you think that they are currently blocked on English Wikipedia.
In Tor's case, it's not. At least not mostly.
There are 1803 Tor exits in my middleman node's directory which are able to reach at least one of the 5 IP/Ports which can be used to edit Wikipedia.
Of those English Wikipedia currently blocks only 261. 14.4% is higher than last time I checked... But since anyone using Tor can manually select their exits (as opposed to the default random selection) if they aren't all blocked Tor isn't blocked.
There have been two RFAs in the past for bots which would automagically block and unblock Tor exits. But, ZOMG ADMIN BOT!!!!! IT MIGHT GO CRAZY AND VANDALIZE!@#!@# NO!!! erm. I mean, the community could not reach consensus on their adminships.
If TOR, the most visible, easily used, and easily blocked proxy network is mostly unblocked... How good a job do you think we're doing with respect to other open proxies? Yet the wheels still grind on...
True. This issue has been raised time and again, and the issue still stands:
Are we going to block Tor and do it right, or are we going to stop blocking Tor? Because right now, our attempts at blocking it are far below what should be, were we truly wanting to shut it down.
Chad
On Jan 15, 2008 6:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 10:07 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
David, "opening them or softblocking them" implies that you think that they are currently blocked on English Wikipedia.
In Tor's case, it's not. At least not mostly.
There are 1803 Tor exits in my middleman node's directory which are able to reach at least one of the 5 IP/Ports which can be used to edit Wikipedia.
Of those English Wikipedia currently blocks only 261. 14.4% is higher than last time I checked... But since anyone using Tor can manually select their exits (as opposed to the default random selection) if they aren't all blocked Tor isn't blocked.
There have been two RFAs in the past for bots which would automagically block and unblock Tor exits. But, ZOMG ADMIN BOT!!!!! IT MIGHT GO CRAZY AND VANDALIZE!@#!@# NO!!! erm. I mean, the community could not reach consensus on their adminships.
If TOR, the most visible, easily used, and easily blocked proxy network is mostly unblocked... How good a job do you think we're doing with respect to other open proxies? Yet the wheels still grind on...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So let's block IPs if they vandalize if they vandalize or disrupt, block accounts if they vandalize or disrupt, and let those who want to keep their IPs private, keep them private.
I'm sure considering using TOR myself, after the recent release of IP data from the Foundation to Video Professor. If the Foundation doesn't plan on fighting to keep data private, I don't blame anyone who wants to take steps to do so themselves. Granted, I can do that and it won't affect me regardless, but that's not true of many.
On Jan 15, 2008 5:16 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
True. This issue has been raised time and again, and the issue still stands:
Are we going to block Tor and do it right, or are we going to stop blocking Tor? Because right now, our attempts at blocking it are far below what should be, were we truly wanting to shut it down.
Chad
On Jan 15, 2008 6:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 10:07 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There are many who disagree with it due to the 1% of good people using anon or open proxies, but it's basically en:wp policy due to the 99% sewage opening them or softblocking them results in.
David, "opening them or softblocking them" implies that you think that they are currently blocked on English Wikipedia.
In Tor's case, it's not. At least not mostly.
There are 1803 Tor exits in my middleman node's directory which are able to reach at least one of the 5 IP/Ports which can be used to edit Wikipedia.
Of those English Wikipedia currently blocks only 261. 14.4% is higher than last time I checked... But since anyone using Tor can manually select their exits (as opposed to the default random selection) if they aren't all blocked Tor isn't blocked.
There have been two RFAs in the past for bots which would automagically block and unblock Tor exits. But, ZOMG ADMIN BOT!!!!! IT MIGHT GO CRAZY AND VANDALIZE!@#!@# NO!!! erm. I mean, the community could not reach consensus on their adminships.
If TOR, the most visible, easily used, and easily blocked proxy network is mostly unblocked... How good a job do you think we're doing with respect to other open proxies? Yet the wheels still grind on...
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You are wrong that this proposal primarily enwiki. The nl.wikipedia has as strong policies effected as the English has. This policy seems to fit best when Single User Login.
Apart from that it is a happy proposal.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:03 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
(Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
This seems like something that, while it affects primarily en.wiki, should be run by the Foundation because of the potentially serious PR consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from China etc.).
If a solution of generally blocking Tor exit nodes (prior to abuse from that specific node) is adopted it looks like the technical solution provided by RonaldB is by far the best option. It offers constant updating, operation by an experienced expert and quick (relatively) unblocks of former Tor exit nodes.
Others have raised a good point, though: The trade off is between vandalism by TOR users and editing from China / other nations with selecting blocking of Wikipedia.
In any event, it looks like the link provided by Mercury has dissolved into indecision and it seems unlikely much will come from it (except sniping between Mercury and Raul...).
Nathan
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com Date: Jan 14, 2008 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On a ip hardblock, can't do anything but read. Ip exempt would permit a bypass per username.
Merc
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:16 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki
Can you login from a TOR node? Or is traffic from TOR banned completely? If you can login, I don't see the problem. Frankly, I think logging in to make a substantial edit isn't a bad idea. The old argument is that a great deal (perhaps the majority) of content has come from IPs. True probably, but only because they didn't have to log in!
On Jan 14, 2008 7:13 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This mentality must change before any process can move forward.
Chad
Oh indeed.
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong that this proposal primarily enwiki. The nl.wikipedia has as strong policies effected as the English has. This policy seems to fit best when Single User Login.
Apart from that it is a happy proposal.
Thanks, GerardM
Hoi, It was posted to the list for the purpose of enwiki, not global. Enwiki's policies do not affect nlwiki's.
Thanks,
Hoi, New functionality is necessary to implement this policy. This is a global matter and not an en.wikipedia only thing. If it only needed for en.wikipedia, it would make more sense to finish software first that will help all projects. Things like Single User Logon come to mind.
Yes, I think this is entirely reasonable and I would like to see this happen on all projects.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 9:19 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong that this proposal primarily enwiki. The nl.wikipedia has
as
strong policies effected as the English has. This policy seems to fit
best
when Single User Login.
Apart from that it is a happy proposal.
Thanks, GerardM
Hoi, It was posted to the list for the purpose of enwiki, not global. Enwiki's policies do not affect nlwiki's.
Thanks,
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It doesn't require new functionality to be implemented across all WMF wikis, it just requires a configuration change like rollback did.
Chad
On Jan 15, 2008 3:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, New functionality is necessary to implement this policy. This is a global matter and not an en.wikipedia only thing. If it only needed for en.wikipedia, it would make more sense to finish software first that will help all projects. Things like Single User Logon come to mind.
Yes, I think this is entirely reasonable and I would like to see this happen on all projects.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 9:19 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You are wrong that this proposal primarily enwiki. The nl.wikipedia has
as
strong policies effected as the English has. This policy seems to fit
best
when Single User Login.
Apart from that it is a happy proposal.
Thanks, GerardM
Hoi, It was posted to the list for the purpose of enwiki, not global. Enwiki's policies do not affect nlwiki's.
Thanks,
-- Alex (Majorly)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org