Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to theno open proxiespolicy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in _good faith_ by _good people_, activities set-up with _our donors funds. _**And the disruption**is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
* * to privately email stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org. * * or alternatively, to post arequest (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)). * * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent. A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard <fdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah).
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- * to privately email stewardswikimedia.org. - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)). - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards, Bence On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Also relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconvenien...
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards, Bence On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com >: Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Long version : I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months. Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans. In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects. According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked. According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah).
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewardswikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org -- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks for mentioning this Florence. It's affected me lately too. I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to most of the world, including most of us.
-- Blocking mobile users: I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in the past two weeks. No solution I could find to make a new account and leave a comment. No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in, either. -- Permablocked IPs. A friend told me they were permablocked from WP. looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had been blocked for a decade. -- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners. I was just on the phone an hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia https://edit.ewphp.org/en, and their normal internet access [VPN] was blocked. It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning it off. Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected against editing. (some time ago, 14% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_statistics of pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then) -- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance is not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing back. A softer-security approach would be better.
Benjamin writes:
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
+++. We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off vandalism and spam. But hard security like this can put an end to the projects, for good. There is no more definitive end than one that seems mandated from within. We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing, and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Also relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconvenien...
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards, Bence On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.ilamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.comhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.comfdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)] http://wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURG34YMOUDJZTAMY43W3QT4XOCEZTRZ/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3MBP32CNIAS2XCL7IDVZX5FOQL6RIE7P/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JPXAOHVXI4ASUZ57SPKM7UWTTFZ3Y2UO/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Those who have been around since the "early days" may remember the nearly-routine blocks of AOL proxies on English Wikipedia, which were completely ineffective in blocking vandals (they got issued a new IP in seconds) and impeded good users. It took a long time to persuade admins and checkusers to stop those blocks.
I've been a checkuser since 2009, well before global IP blocks became available in 2011. I've argued against routinely blocking open proxies (with the exception of Tor) ever since. There are times when it's entirely appropriate to block them - there are a few that really are frequented by bad users and spammers. But as a routine block, I've never really heard a good case presented. There are rarely good reasons to globally block an IP range; usually, only one or two projects are actually affected by problem editors (whether logged-in or unregistered). I know that if I wasn't an administrator myself, I would be affected by global or local proxy blocks on a regular basis. For a long time, I was the main CU on English Wikipedia that granted local IP block exemption; Enwiki is one of the projects where global IPBE doesn't work. I have never found a list of projects that require local IPBE.
I've been unsuccessful in persuading my own project to liberalize the use of IPBE, or to decrease the routine (and often automatic) blocking of "proxies". Those proxies being blocked include just about every VPN in the world (including the one I use), as well as huge swaths of IPs that provide service to African countries and other countries with less-developed internet access. It is definitely having an impact on the adequacy of coverage of topics related to those regions, in my opinion.
I'm less concerned about the "protected page" issue raised by SJ. There are generally good reasons why those pages are protected. They have either been the long- or short-term target of repeated vandalism (e.g., biographical articles of controversial people, pages where disruptive editing has required the application of Arbcom or other discretionary sanctions, articles about today's news or are being discussed in the dark corners of social media, articles that have been subject to significant disinformation). In almost all cases, the person trying to edit is directed to the talk page.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:53, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for mentioning this Florence. It's affected me lately too. I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to most of the world, including most of us.
-- Blocking mobile users: I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in the past two weeks. No solution I could find to make a new account and leave a comment. No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in, either. -- Permablocked IPs. A friend told me they were permablocked from WP. looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had been blocked for a decade. -- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners. I was just on the phone an hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia https://edit.ewphp.org/en, and their normal internet access [VPN] was blocked. It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning it off. Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected against editing. (some time ago, 14% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_statistics of pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then) -- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance is not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing back. A softer-security approach would be better.
Benjamin writes:
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
+++. We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off vandalism and spam. But hard security like this can put an end to the projects, for good. There is no more definitive end than one that seems mandated from within. We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing, and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Also relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconvenien...
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards, Bence On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.ilamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.comhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.comfdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)] http://wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURG34YMOUDJZTAMY43W3QT4XOCEZTRZ/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3MBP32CNIAS2XCL7IDVZX5FOQL6RIE7P/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JPXAOHVXI4ASUZ57SPKM7UWTTFZ3Y2UO/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:24 PM Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm less concerned about the "protected page" issue raised by SJ. There are generally good reasons why those pages are protected. They have either been the long- or short-term target of repeated vandalism (e.g., biographical articles of controversial people, pages where disruptive editing has required the application of Arbcom or other discretionary sanctions, articles about today's news or are being discussed in the dark corners of social media, articles that have been subject to significant disinformation). In almost all cases, the person trying to edit is directed to the talk page.
Yes and also at this point, the problem is not that people are generally unaware that Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Anyway this issue is solvable by design changes that direct anonymous or new editors to how they can contribute to protected pages (either by registering or the Talk page as appropriate). Proxy blocking on the other hand is entirely in the hands of the community to fix.
Risker/Anne
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:53, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for mentioning this Florence. It's affected me lately too. I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to most of the world, including most of us.
-- Blocking mobile users: I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in the past two weeks. No solution I could find to make a new account and leave a comment. No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in, either. -- Permablocked IPs. A friend told me they were permablocked from WP. looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had been blocked for a decade. -- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners. I was just on the phone an hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia https://edit.ewphp.org/en, and their normal internet access [VPN] was blocked. It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning it off. Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected against editing. (some time ago, 14% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_statistics of pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then) -- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance is not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing back. A softer-security approach would be better.
Benjamin writes:
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
+++. We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off vandalism and spam. But hard security like this can put an end to the projects, for good. There is no more definitive end than one that seems mandated from within. We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing, and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Also relevant: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconvenien...
We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards, Bence On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.ilamir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.comhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.comfdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]
http://wikimedia.orgwikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also
suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURG34YMOUDJZTAMY43W3QT4XOCEZTRZ/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3MBP32CNIAS2XCL7IDVZX5FOQL6RIE7P/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- -- Bence Damokos Sent from Gmail Mobile
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JPXAOHVXI4ASUZ57SPKM7UWTTFZ3Y2UO/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:53 AM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
+++. We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off vandalism and spam. But hard security like this can put an end to the projects, for good. There is no more definitive end than one that seems mandated from within. We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing, and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
For the P2P proxy blocks, vandalism was a factor (AFAIK spam wasn't), but I think the strongest trigger was the amount of harassment, death threats or other physical harm threats, and doxxing attempts coming out from this particular proxy service.
I agree that we should increase the number of people who can edit. But we should also maintain a reasonably safe space for contributors. There are trade-offs that need to tune at every corner.
For this kind of abuse, we have a toolbox: - IP blocking - Page protections - Edit filters - Bots and other post-edit analysis tools - Manual patrolling (assisted with various tools) + reporting to admins/oversighters/stewards.
Each of them has its own caveats, we should improve them all, and find some balance in the usage of each tool. IMHO, complete removal of any of these tools will be harmful to our projects and contributors.
Best,
Mario
My 2 cents in this telegraph short email
#1 it is a common situation in Bosnia&Herzegovina and Croatia, likely in other CEE countries of CEE where providers are 'cheap' with IP addresses. I know an amazingly constructive and dedicated, but not proactive editor who failed to get unblocked on EN, as he could not explain as a novice to EN admins in 2015 that he was not a sock puppet . Loss is on our side.
#2 This is a complex (and for outreach mission critical) problem that requires real-time addressing and most likely a dedicated paid professionals (better 4 x 50% across time zones) to take the burden off from voluntary stewards and admins, but also to inform and educate those who could not follow what are common network issues across different regions.
Best, Z.
A 'liberalization' of IPBE can easily be enabled by allowing WMF funded projects to add this group to any participants that request it, or even all participants in some editathons given the benefits of editing from shared wifi or through a proxy in some countries where editing Wikipedia may have personal risks.
Editathons in national museums or universities are often hampered, and new joiners have significant amounts of time wasted when they find out their edits made in a library of a cafe get rejected and they can forget editing that day, or told to wait for a month or indefinitely for a global steward to consider their request. The risks are almost zero that someone actively contributing to a funded content creation project would be a vandal. Even if this ever happened, their account would be sanctioned without it becoming a stewards problem. Keep in mind that stopping editing from internet cafes or libraries disproportionately harms poorer people and those editing from countries without the best technical infrastructure who otherwise have to try to edit from a mobile phone and may end up paying to edit rather than using the public free access.
The current system works against the stated values of the community and causes unnecessary harm. Let's just get on with making adding newbies to IPBE a normal part of good faith editing, and stop global stewards and mass IP blocks, being a serious and unnecessary barrier to good faith editors.
Lane
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 10:04, Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
My 2 cents in this telegraph short email
#1 it is a common situation in Bosnia&Herzegovina and Croatia, likely in other CEE countries of CEE where providers are 'cheap' with IP addresses. I know an amazingly constructive and dedicated, but not proactive editor who failed to get unblocked on EN, as he could not explain as a novice to EN admins in 2015 that he was not a sock puppet . Loss is on our side.
#2 This is a complex (and for outreach mission critical) problem that requires real-time addressing and most likely a dedicated paid professionals (better 4 x 50% across time zones) to take the burden off from voluntary stewards and admins, but also to inform and educate those who could not follow what are common network issues across different regions.
Best, Z.
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:32 AM Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
A 'liberalization' of IPBE can easily be enabled by allowing WMF funded projects to add this group to any participants that request it
I think it makes sense to quickly grant temporary (e.g. 6 months) GIPBE + IPBE to every participant in an editathon. I thought this was already happening to some degree?
Best,
Mario
It should usually be global. These days, people often need to edit a Wikipedia or a Wikisource or some other wiki in their language, and maybe in another language, and Wikidata, and Commons, and sometimes more wikis.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ה׳, 21 באפר׳ 2022 ב-15:03 מאת Mario Gómez < mariogomwiki@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:32 AM Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
A 'liberalization' of IPBE can easily be enabled by allowing WMF funded projects to add this group to any participants that request it
I think it makes sense to quickly grant temporary (e.g. 6 months) GIPBE + IPBE to every participant in an editathon. I thought this was already happening to some degree?
Best,
Mario
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
“the block message only shows up when I try to save the page”
That is just inexcusable. Symbolic of complete indifference to other people’s time wasted. Why would a new editor treated like this ever bother to try again? Block message with explanation and alternatives (with links) should come up when the person tries to open to edit, and page should not open to edit.
Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that “anyone” can edit if:
*very long list of conditions that apply…
*list of hoops that you must jump through to get access…
Cheers, Peter
From: Bence Damokos [mailto:bdamokos@gmail.com] Sent: 20 April 2022 21:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking
Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit.
Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to unnecessary frustration.
Best regards,
Bence
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a steward with no power.
It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming it's getting.
A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il ha scritto:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < mailto:fdevouard@gmail.com fdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah).
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
· * to privately email stewards (_AT_) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/At_sign.svg/16px-At_sign.svg.png wikimedia.org.
· * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
· * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:14 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
“the block message only shows up when I try to save the page”
Block messages generally appear when opening the editor. However, support is lacking in some cases for mobile web and apps [1]. There may be other issues depending on the editor, registered/unregistered, or type of block. Also it is possible that the warning was displayed, but it was easily ignored because of the lack of visibility in some scenarios.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile_communication_bugs
Best,
Mario
Thanks Mario - indeed it seems to be a bit random, maybe there was an update recently- on Hungarian Wikipedia as an anon I today see an edit button but then it tells me I am blocked (it doesn't give any real explanations, but at least the link to contact the stewards goes directly to the contact form) , on English Wikipedia when logged out I get the edit button and block message, whereas if I am logged in I get a locked pencil edit button and a nightmare of a block message: it is a wall of text that asks me to put something on my talk page, and then instead of linking to my talk page, it links to a help page that explains what talk pages are... Or alternatively it leads to an unblock request system, but also asks for my IP address that I should get by going to an other wikipedia page that should load my IP address, but in fact doesn't neither logged in or out...
Anyways, long story short - whoever designed this blocking system and the corresponding messages, should try to follow the path it sets to the users with the eyes of a newbie (maybe ask an outsider in front of you to see if they understand it) and see if they see an opportunity to streamline the hell out of it.
Best regards, Bence
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 12:32, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:14 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
“the block message only shows up when I try to save the page”
Block messages generally appear when opening the editor. However, support is lacking in some cases for mobile web and apps [1]. There may be other issues depending on the editor, registered/unregistered, or type of block. Also it is possible that the warning was displayed, but it was easily ignored because of the lack of visibility in some scenarios.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile_communication_bugs
Best,
Mario
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Suggestions to resolve open proxies and IP block issues.
- Building bots/ tools or features, when a user logs in from an open proxy. A notification pops up stating “ You have login from an open proxy. Kindly click on this link to enter your username,password and IP address. - If Username is verified. Access is granted to edit content. - If username is not verified. Kindly state “ There’s no username as such. Access denied. - After editing, thanks for your contribution. Your edit will be reviewed within (this duration) before its published. - Username must match with user login entered. - After reviewing, if there’s no form of vandalism. User receives a notification “edit from IP address is published”. If there’s a form of vandalism user receives a notification message “ edit from IP address contains vandalism content. Therefore user is blocked”.
Kindly note: Please this just an idea that came in mind. If there are stewards here who will like to go through this and share the feedback with me I will Ben grateful. On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:08 PM Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Mario - indeed it seems to be a bit random, maybe there was an update recently- on Hungarian Wikipedia as an anon I today see an edit button but then it tells me I am blocked (it doesn't give any real explanations, but at least the link to contact the stewards goes directly to the contact form) , on English Wikipedia when logged out I get the edit button and block message, whereas if I am logged in I get a locked pencil edit button and a nightmare of a block message: it is a wall of text that asks me to put something on my talk page, and then instead of linking to my talk page, it links to a help page that explains what talk pages are... Or alternatively it leads to an unblock request system, but also asks for my IP address that I should get by going to an other wikipedia page that should load my IP address, but in fact doesn't neither logged in or out...
Anyways, long story short - whoever designed this blocking system and the corresponding messages, should try to follow the path it sets to the users with the eyes of a newbie (maybe ask an outsider in front of you to see if they understand it) and see if they see an opportunity to streamline the hell out of it.
Best regards, Bence
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 12:32, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:14 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
“the block message only shows up when I try to save the page”
Block messages generally appear when opening the editor. However, support is lacking in some cases for mobile web and apps [1]. There may be other issues depending on the editor, registered/unregistered, or type of block. Also it is possible that the warning was displayed, but it was easily ignored because of the lack of visibility in some scenarios.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile_communication_bugs
Best,
Mario
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I've always thought this justification fraught with bias.
Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem. And it's true!
But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible.
On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com >: Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Long version : I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months. Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans. In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects. According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked. According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah).
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewardswikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:04 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
I've always thought this justification fraught with bias.
Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem. And it's true!
But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible.
This 100%
Do we need to start an RFC on Meta to change the proxy policy globally?
On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" < amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.comhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.comfdevouard@gmail.com>:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)] http://wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blockinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURG34YMOUDJZTAMY43W3QT4XOCEZTRZ/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:21 AM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
This matches up with my observations as well. Over the last couple of years, it has been increasingly common for new editors to be affected by range blocks without any understanding of why. We see this frequently with Wiki Education's student editors, and in most cases, the editors are not knowingly using a VPN or other non-standard way of connecting to the internet. In some cases, institutions are now using VPNs at the network level by default. In other cases, patterns of how people connect are just shifting so that they are more often assigned temporary IP addresses that are covered by range blocks.
These kinds of blocks also prevent account creation, which Wiki Education can easily work around by creating accounts on these user's behalf (and event organizers using Programs & Events Dashboard similarly have tools to work around this). But there are certainly many, many more good faith would-be contributors who are stopped before they can create an account, and they have no user-friendly recourse to understand why they are affected by a block or how to work around it.
My sense is that this is an important problem that merits attention at the global level.
-Sage
I absolutely concur with Flo. Though I've not followed the recent developments Flo tells about, in the last years this problem has been getting increasingly worse. And despite dozens of alerts in many public channels, including personally to stewards, nothing seems to have been done to fix this. If at all, the proxy blocking policy (at least empirically) seems to have become even more aggressive than it used to be.
What are we gaining with all the harassment this policy is causing in many communities, most of them allegedly a priority for the Wikimedia projects? Clearly something is broken with that policy, and clearly needs to be fixed. I've no idea how, as Meta is the most opaque project I know in the Wikiverse, and by far the most difficult to understand. But this situation has passed all limits, and needs to be dealt with. With an RFC to put an end or to fix that policy or whatever other means are available.
Best, Paulo
Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com escreveu no dia quarta, 20/04/2022 à(s) 19:21:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
FYI, I've moved this page to the "talk" namespace. Anyway, I've notice this specific kind of proxy block has too many collaterals, so I planned to rise the issue with fellow stewards next weekend. Those blocks will probably end up being handled differently.
Vito
Il giorno mer 20 apr 2022 alle ore 20:21 Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello Florence,
Thank you for bringing this up and collecting all this feedback.
Here's the announcement of the new P2P proxy blocks on English Wikipedia, it includes information about the origin of the blocks for this particular proxy service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv...
These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink how/when we apply the blocks.
This is not meant to be a definitive answer, but I hope the additional context is useful.
Best,
Mario
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:21 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Exactly, cgNAT is a pain. I think we should shorten global block, and turn them into soft blocks for countries where carrier-grade NATs are in use. Then, I don't expect to be hard to tell legit users apart from abusers.
Vito
Il giorno mer 20 apr 2022 alle ore 23:42 Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hello Florence,
Thank you for bringing this up and collecting all this feedback.
Here's the announcement of the new P2P proxy blocks on English Wikipedia, it includes information about the origin of the blocks for this particular proxy service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv...
These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink how/when we apply the blocks.
This is not meant to be a definitive answer, but I hope the additional context is useful.
Best,
Mario
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:21 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 07:42, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
… These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink how/when we apply the blocks. … Best,
Mario
Is there any reason we are creating multiple blocks, which is causing multiple rows created in the backend?
Surely it would be simpler to manage by just just directly as a global block in the first place?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:32 PM K. Peachey p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any reason we are creating multiple blocks, which is causing multiple rows created in the backend?
I'm not aware of the number of rows in the backend being currently a problem here. There's a few logistic reasons to do it this way. If stress on the backend becomes a problem, I'm sure we can figure out a solution.
Best,
Mario
Hi,
Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've followed closely the evolution of that problem.
“When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to the metawiki page and understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and solutions. Best,DerHexer (Martin) Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah).
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- * to privately email stewardswikimedia.org. - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)). - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Good point Martin :) I will continue the discussion there. But one more note as I do:
I think 'blocking' as a concept is now the wrong solution in 100% of cases. Once it made sense as a stopgap. But now we have machine models that can effectively help classify contributions based on their content rather than their metadata -- so it is always preferable to see what people are trying to post before deciding how to handle it. We also edit in a society, and can easily allow people to approve one another or ping one another to join our implicit web of trust.
As a bonus, doing this provides a smooth + uniform experience for editors + editing tools (even if the way their edit is applied changes w/ context), rather than giving different messages / interfaces based on how suspicious their ambient network environment is.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've followed closely the evolution of that problem.
“When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).”
Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to the metawiki page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont and understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and solutions.
Best, DerHexer (Martin)
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've followed closely the evolution of that problem.
“When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).”
Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to the metawiki page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont and understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and solutions.
Best, DerHexer (Martin)
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only.
Expiration is an option, as for any global group.
Vito
Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com ha scritto:
How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've followed closely the evolution of that problem.
“When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).”
Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to the metawiki page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont and understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and solutions.
Best, DerHexer (Martin)
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ User:Vermont https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only.
Expiration is an option, as for any global group.
Vito
Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com ha scritto:
How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've followed closely the evolution of that problem.
“When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).”
Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to the metawiki page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont and understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and solutions.
Best, DerHexer (Martin)
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block > (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar) >> users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good (countless >>> mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such block (if >>> necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a block would >>> case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit different >>> because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty often needed >>> by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. For that >>> reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only way to get >>> out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more people who >>> can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and >>> IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term users an option to >>> self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for such cases like >>> edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still be reported (in >>> order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one moment would be >>> solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to >>> the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse >>> in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies >>> policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta >>> and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies >>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While >>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may >>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by >>> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on >>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until >>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open >>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using >>> an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. >>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being >>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, >>> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a >>> regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. >>> Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly >>> blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the >>> editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to >>> desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. >>> Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people >>> to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to >>> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a >>> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... >>> stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. >>> But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QUSR3JGDUKF7E6I63II3CNOGIKKQF6DE/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Lane,
I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure for current volunteers to handle those requests.
What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it takes to do that human review.
Regards, Rae
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block > (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or similar) >> users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good >>> (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such >>> block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a >>> block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit >>> different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty >>> often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. >>> For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only >>> way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more >>> people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check >>> outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term >>> users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for >>> such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still >>> be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one >>> moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message to >>> the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse >>> in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open >>> Proxies policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta >>> and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies >>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While >>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may >>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit >>> by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on >>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until >>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open >>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using >>> an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. >>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being >>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, >>> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a >>> regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. >>> Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly >>> blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the >>> editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to >>> desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. >>> Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people >>> to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to >>> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a >>> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... >>> stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. >>> But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lPublic archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I was personally hit by an open proxy when I was on holidays last year (South Tirol, Italy, for the record). I could edit the four projects where I am administrator, but I could not edit five other projects where I update the image of the day. (In fact, I could not edit Meta either except for my own talk page). On my talk page, I requested an exempt and was quickly given it; then I requested a global exempt for the remaining couple of days and was given it as well; I can not really complain about the reaction speed. However, I am by every definition a trusted user: 500K global edits, admin flags on four projects, and a global rollback. I guess at least half of the stewards have seen my username around. It probably would be easier for everybody if I could get a global IP block exempt for say two or three years, and then have it renewed assuming I am still active and the account is not blocked on any project. I am sure we could come up with some criteria for trusted users, and these can be given long-term exempts. This would not fully solve the problem, but will take some time off the stewards' hands.
Best Yaroslav
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Lane,
I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure for current volunteers to handle those requests.
What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it takes to do that human review.
Regards, Rae
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block > (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or >> similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good >>> (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such >>> block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a >>> block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit >>> different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty >>> often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. >>> For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only >>> way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more >>> people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check >>> outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term >>> users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for >>> such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still >>> be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one >>> moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message >>> to the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse >>> in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open >>> Proxies policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta >>> and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies >>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While >>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may >>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit >>> by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on >>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until >>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open >>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using >>> an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. >>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being >>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of >>> usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a >>> regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. >>> Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly >>> blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the >>> editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to >>> desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. >>> Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people >>> to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want >>> to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about >>> how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... >>> stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. >>> But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lPublic archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RXJ2MVTDNWYGGTTW6K3ZS4CIMX7M4DG2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Lane,
I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have been misused and how they are still open to being misused.
gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure for current volunteers to handle those requests.
Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new joiners editing in good faith.
What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it takes to do that human review.
No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer time.
Regards, Rae
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any block > (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or >> similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good >>> (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such >>> block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a >>> block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit >>> different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty >>> often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. >>> For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only >>> way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more >>> people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check >>> outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term >>> users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for >>> such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still >>> be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one >>> moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message >>> to the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse >>> in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open >>> Proxies policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta >>> and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies >>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While >>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may >>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit >>> by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on >>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until >>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open >>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using >>> an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. >>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being >>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of >>> usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a >>> regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. >>> Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly >>> blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the >>> editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to >>> desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. >>> Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people >>> to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want >>> to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about >>> how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... >>> stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. >>> But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lPublic archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RXJ2MVTDNWYGGTTW6K3ZS4CIMX7M4DG2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" weren't addressed in your email at all, given that you're relying upon wrong premises by assuming checkusers' bad faith and non-existing practices.
Vito
Il giorno sab 23 apr 2022 alle ore 19:58 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Lane,
I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have been misused and how they are still open to being misused.
gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure for current volunteers to handle those requests.
Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new joiners editing in good faith.
What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it takes to do that human review.
No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer time.
Regards, Rae
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any > block (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> > ha scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or >> similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good >>> (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such >>> block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a >>> block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit >>> different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty >>> often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. >>> For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only >>> way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more >>> people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check >>> outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term >>> users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for >>> such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still >>> be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one >>> moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message >>> to the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting >>> worse in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open >>> Proxies policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on >>> Meta and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available >>> proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. >>> While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets >>> and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit >>> by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on >>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until >>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open >>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using >>> an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy >>> is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being >>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of >>> usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become >>> a regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per >>> week. Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be >>> unfairly blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the >>> editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to >>> desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not >>> answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before >>> adding people to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want >>> to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about >>> how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... >>> stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse >>> recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lPublic archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RXJ2MVTDNWYGGTTW6K3ZS4CIMX7M4DG2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 21:45, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" weren't addressed in your email at all, given that you're relying upon wrong premises by assuming checkusers' bad faith and non-existing practices.
The paragraph that starts with "If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, ..." addressed this issue precisely, hence is why I referred to it. You seem to have been reading a different email.
There were no assumptions about "non-existing practices" and it's not bad faith to highlight that there are cases of checkusers that misused the tools and have vanished or left the projects. Perhaps you can answer the question about how many cases there have been?
Lane
Vito
Il giorno sab 23 apr 2022 alle ore 19:58 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:17, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hi Lane,
I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it.
Maybe reading the facts in my email would be a good starting point. Your response has not refuted any of those facts, in fact as a checkuser you no doubt could confirm exactly how many times in the past checkuser tools have been misused and how they are still open to being misused.
gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure for current volunteers to handle those requests.
Declining was not mentioned and is not the issue. Alternatives for "lack of infrastructure" and lack of "current volunteers" was addressed in my email. Lacking volunteers is not a reason to fail to provide access to new joiners editing in good faith.
What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it takes to do that human review.
No, it would not "make CU next to useless". If people are contributing as part of editathons or similar, and if 100% of all their contributions are valuable good faith contributions, nothing else should matter. Literally they are not using the account for anything wrong, so why would anyone care? It is not the job of checkusers to be secret police and see all new joiners in bad faith, that is neither useful, nor a good use of volunteer time.
Regards, Rae
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance zinkloss@gmail.com wrote:
"Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not feasible."
Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata.
"also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against the safety of new and regular users.
Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to vanish without any serious consequences.
Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state lobbyists.
Lane
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible.
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com> wrote: > IPBE for autoconfirmed is a local matter, it would imply that any > block (TOR included) will, in practice, almost turn into anon-only. > > Expiration is an option, as for any global group. > > Vito > > Il giorno gio 21 apr 2022 alle ore 19:51 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> > ha scritto: > >> How significant is the risk in just granting autoconfirmed (or >> similar) users IPBE by default? Why does IPBE expire anyway? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:50 AM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for raising the topic. Being a steward for 14+ years, I've >>> followed closely the evolution of that problem. >>> >>> “When I noticed that range blocks caused more harm than good >>> (countless mails to stewards), I started to reduce the length of any such >>> block (if necessary at all; I check every single range intensively if a >>> block would case more harm than good). The situation with OPs is a bit >>> different because they obfuscate the original IP address which is pretty >>> often needed by checkusers and stewards to stop harm against the projects. >>> For that reason, I agree that we cannot give up on OP blocking. The only >>> way to get out of these problems are (much!) easier reporting ways, more >>> people who can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check >>> outdated OPs and IPBEs. Maybe it would also make sense to give long-term >>> users an option to self-assign an IPBE (e.g.) once per week for x hours for >>> such cases like edit-a-thons. Most of their IP addresses used would still >>> be reported (in order to prevent abuse) but most problems for that one >>> moment would be solved (and users could look for long-term solutions).” >>> >>> Why the quotation marks? Because I've posted that very same message >>> to the metawiki page >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Comment_from_Vermont> and >>> understand it as one step towards a solution. In my opinion, it makes way >>> more sense to talk publicly about the issue and possible solutions than >>> losing good ideas (and there have been some already in this thread!) in the >>> wide world of this mailing list. Let's have that conversation onwiki—and I >>> also encourage the WMF tech departments to join in that conversation. >>> Because we as stewards have reported our problems with the current >>> situation multiple times, sought for technical solutions (e.g., better >>> reporting tools), indeed did get a better rapport with the WMF teams but >>> still are not where we need to be in order to serve both interests >>> (openness and protection). Unsurprisingly, also stewards are individuals >>> with different opinions and (possible) solutions to that one problem. As >>> Vito said, we will once again discuss it and will share our thoughts and >>> solutions. >>> >>> Best, >>> DerHexer (Martin) >>> >>> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2022, 20:19:48 MESZ hat Florence Devouard < >>> fdevouard@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben: >>> >>> >>> Hello friends >>> >>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans >>> being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. >>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> Long version : >>> >>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting >>> worse in the past couple of weeks/months. >>> >>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open >>> Proxies policy [1] >>> In particular africans. >>> >>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on >>> Meta and all other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available >>> proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. >>> While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets >>> and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...] >>> >>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent >>> proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is >>> likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically >>> reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be >>> unblocked. >>> >>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to >>> edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted >>> on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. » >>> >>> >>> I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies >>> until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an >>> open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit >>> using an open proxy >>> >>> >>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy >>> is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked. >>> >>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting >>> being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. >>> New editors just as old timers. >>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of >>> usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. >>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or >>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. >>> >>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become >>> a regular occurence. >>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per >>> week. Several complaints per week. >>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is >>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities >>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly >>> taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our >>> strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). * >>> >>> >>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be >>> unfairly blocked, it is recommended >>> >>> - * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org. >>> - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if >>> the editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons >>> to desire privacy (for Tor usage)). >>> - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also >>> suggest contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism >>> fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See >>> log >>> >>> >>> So... >>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not >>> answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before >>> adding people to IP block exemption list. >>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want >>> to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about >>> how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated >>> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes... >>> >>> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global >>> blocks... stay blocked several days. >>> >>> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse >>> recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over. >>> >>> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. >>> Please note that people who added their names here are not random >>> newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often >>> leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are >>> confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis. >>> >>> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy >>> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker >>> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for >>> our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or >>> what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a >>> problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ? >>> >>> Flo >>> >>> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies >>> >>> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish >>> >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption >>> >>> *[4] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UU76SJ5LZI5MA5F3WC3NSY4UMGDQTGXR/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>> guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Y5UMK72JMT2FZY5V455QHEWHZ3W2QGXQ/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to >>> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >> guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5TMQ4I27YE6F4FIMFLGBVWJ34YLEFXHE/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to >> wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KZ2A3TFAQXKKCLHUQXEXHMXF6PNAGD5N/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-lPublic archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RXJ2MVTDNWYGGTTW6K3ZS4CIMX7M4DG2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
(cross-posted from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_fr...)
Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and the new incident reporting system.
I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for what that should be.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
Here's what I understand about the problem:
* Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to discourage the bad-faith vandals.
* There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
* The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because people are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just won't be useful anymore.
* There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors, who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them away completely.
* There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad in Ghana and Benin.
* The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing, especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
* The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
* Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed up. It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who knows how long.
* It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of unblock requests.
That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure out which problems we could actually make progress on.
Possibilities include:
* Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to automatically block them
* Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
* Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
* Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the people making requests
* Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
* Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic exemption
* Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their participants
* Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out what the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be. Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss? Thanks in advance for your help.
DannyH (WMF) aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools
Hi Danny,
this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But just to put it out there:
One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they are saving their edit).
If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings: slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.
This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the 'right' path either.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
(cross-posted from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_fr... )
Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and the new incident reporting system.
I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for what that should be.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
Here's what I understand about the problem:
- Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long
term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to discourage the bad-faith vandals.
- There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English
Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
- The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because people
are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just won't be useful anymore.
- There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors,
who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them away completely.
- There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal
with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad in Ghana and Benin.
- The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing,
especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
- The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which
can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
- Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed up.
It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who knows how long.
- It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of
unblock requests.
That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure out which problems we could actually make progress on.
Possibilities include:
- Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to
automatically block them
- Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which
bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the
people making requests
- Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so
they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
- Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic
exemption
- Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their
participants
- Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out what
the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be. Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss? Thanks in advance for your help.
DannyH (WMF) aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Den lör 30 apr. 2022 kl 09:37 skrev effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
Hi Danny,
this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But just to put it out there:
One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they are saving their edit).
If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings: slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.
This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the 'right' path either.
Relevant in this context: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IP_Editing:_Privacy_Enhancement_and_Abuse_Mi...
//Johan Jönsson --
With Wikipedia Zero we were able to filter the users using that program with a flag similar to the one you propose, and then monitor them and make informed decisions based on the quality of the editions. I suppose something similar could be done with OPs too. That would really be a relief. It would make it much easier for those who have access to the filters to identify sockpuppets and LTAs, possibiliting a much more intelligent and informed blocking of those accounts, instead of the randomic mess that happens now. There are some privacy concerns with the use of that flag, but all of them way more bearable than using bare IP addresses, or having to expose oneself on the steward mailing list when trying to request a IPBE for legitimate use.
And legitimate uses for OPs are getting more and more common by the day, and not only for those living in China, Russia or Venezuela. At this point most of us who edit from Portugal and Brasil know very well the dire risks we incur everyday when editing Wikipedia with a known identity, which go from physical threats and harassment of us and our direct family, to having to defend ourselves in court on all kind of frivolous causes - which is just another form of harassment - generally without help from the WMF.
Best, Paulo
effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 30/04/2022 à(s) 08:37:
Hi Danny,
this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But just to put it out there:
One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they are saving their edit).
If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings: slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.
This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the 'right' path either.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
(cross-posted from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_fr... )
Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and the new incident reporting system.
I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for what that should be.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
Here's what I understand about the problem:
- Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long
term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to discourage the bad-faith vandals.
- There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English
Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
- The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because
people are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just won't be useful anymore.
- There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors,
who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them away completely.
- There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal
with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad in Ghana and Benin.
- The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing,
especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
- The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which
can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
- Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed
up. It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who knows how long.
- It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of
unblock requests.
That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure out which problems we could actually make progress on.
Possibilities include:
- Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to
automatically block them
- Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which
bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the
people making requests
- Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so
they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
- Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic
exemption
- Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their
participants
- Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out
what the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be. Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss? Thanks in advance for your help.
DannyH (WMF) aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:37 AM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Danny,
this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But just to put it out there:
One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they are saving their edit).
If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings: slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.
This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the 'right' path either.
Lodewijk
A throttle plus flagging proxy edits to admins are really good ideas. Creating visibility for functionaries and ways to dial down volume without blocking everyone entirely are the right way to allow more openness balanced with control.
Thanks for hopping in the conversation Danny, glad to know the team is thinking on this. The poorly designed way that proxy blocks and requesting IPBE are communicated feels like low hanging fruit that the Foundation design and product teams could tackle here?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
(cross-posted from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_fr... )
Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and the new incident reporting system.
I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for what that should be.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
Here's what I understand about the problem:
- Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long
term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to discourage the bad-faith vandals.
- There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English
Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
- The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because
people are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just won't be useful anymore.
- There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors,
who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them away completely.
- There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal
with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad in Ghana and Benin.
- The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing,
especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
- The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which
can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
- Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed
up. It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who knows how long.
- It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of
unblock requests.
That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure out which problems we could actually make progress on.
Possibilities include:
- Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to
automatically block them
- Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which
bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the
people making requests
- Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so
they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
- Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic
exemption
- Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their
participants
- Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out
what the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be. Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss? Thanks in advance for your help.
DannyH (WMF) aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:25 AM Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 12:37 AM effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the 'right' path either.
A throttle plus flagging proxy edits to admins are really good ideas.
Creating visibility for functionaries and ways to dial down volume without blocking everyone entirely are the right way to allow more openness balanced with control.
+1. We already have many classes, not just two, as we flag accounts by seniority, an important aspect of soft security. We should always try to limit hard blocks and expand the capacity + efficiency of reviews and responses after contribution.
Thanks for hopping in the conversation Danny, glad to know the team is thinking on this. The poorly designed way that proxy blocks and requesting IPBE are communicated feels like low hanging fruit that the Foundation design and product teams could tackle here?
Two other ideas: - Let people who are vouched for by current users in good standing automatically get IPBE (linked to the vouching account). Or let current users create a new account for someone they bouch for, and ask on-wiki on their behalf for IPBE for that account. Simple, transparent. - Make the steps in the block-exemption process and the range of banners + messages people see when blocked, more browsable and editable by the community of editors.
S
Thanks for spending time on this issue Danny.
Rather than discussing the value of blocking open proxies, it is worth focusing on the use case and justification for ensuring that users with reasons to protect themselves when adding content to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects can be provided with easy to understand and reliable methods to do so, even while most open proxies remain blocked.
The specific use case we have is how to train and advise both new and existing volunteers editing from African countries or states with laws that criminalize queer people and who have been subjected to death threats, threats of reporting them to the police and blackmail, because they were editing queer and human rights topics regardless of whether they identify as LGBTQ. Most of our community will agree that our values of providing open knowledge projects "that anyone can edit" ought to be a priority over other practical considerations. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to provide safe and secure events, or how to advise on ways for non-technical volunteers to keep themselves safe while relying on mobile connections and public wifi. An easy and quick way to provide all good faith volunteers the means to be allowed to create an account, or a legitimate anonymous sock account if their main account has been connected to their real life identity, that can edit through open proxies, without having to out themselves by emailing stewards they don't know, having this logged on a database or archived group email list that may leak or be targeted by state actors, or risk messaging local administrators for help who may themselves be openly hostile against queer content in their language wikipedia. A reliable process would be welcome as part of a set of guidelines we or the WMF can provide to volunteers and ask projects to support that ensure users understand how to protect themselves.
In recent meetings with our queer volunteers contributing from locations where being reported to authorities as LGBTQ could result in imprisonment or a death penalty, tell us that in their personal networks they know of three times as many Wikimedians that would like to edit queer content but do not feel safe doing so. Let's at least document this use case, and provide better solutions than expecting users to be so brave they are prepared to risk threats of outing or prosecution to just edit a Wikipedia article in their language and instead help all contributors to put their personal safety first.
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 01:03, dhorn@wikimedia.org wrote:
(cross-posted from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_fr...)
Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and the new incident reporting system.
I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for what that should be.
So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take, and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
Here's what I understand about the problem:
Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to discourage the bad-faith vandals.
There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because people are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just won't be useful anymore.
There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors, who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them away completely.
There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad in Ghana and Benin.
The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing, especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed up. It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who knows how long.
It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of unblock requests.
That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure out which problems we could actually make progress on.
Possibilities include:
Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to automatically block them
Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the people making requests
Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic exemption
Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their participants
Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out what the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be. Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss? Thanks in advance for your help.
DannyH (WMF) aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I agree with the problem. There's also an issue where a lot of wikis are duplicating these IP blocks (eg enwiki also blocks open proxies locally), so having global-IPBE will not let people edit these local projects. They would have to get local IPBE on each project with local open-proxy blocks, as well.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:21 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Btw a general observation about something which seems to be neglected in general discourse: legal accountability.
Wikimedia is not Wikileaks, we protect users as soon as they contribute in good faith to the project and a certain level of liability should be present. It is quite a complex and dangerous matter as soon as surely a "libel case" from a notorious dictatorship is obviously not the same as posting pedo content.
Today I've found an apparent newbie with very bordeline behavior about depiction of minors. Guess the kind of IP their edits come from?
Vito
Vito
Il giorno dom 1 mag 2022 alle ore 05:08 proc proci.wiki@gmail.com ha scritto:
I agree with the problem. There's also an issue where a lot of wikis are duplicating these IP blocks (eg enwiki also blocks open proxies locally), so having global-IPBE will not let people edit these local projects. They would have to get local IPBE on each project with local open-proxy blocks, as well.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:21 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Hello friends
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy. *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Long version :
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the past couple of weeks/months.
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy [1] In particular africans.
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all other Wikimedia projects.
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
I repeat -----> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <------ it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. New editors just as old timers. Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular occurence. There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several complaints per week. *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, it is recommended
- to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
- or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
- the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
So... Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP block exemption list. Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay blocked several days.
We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4]. Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.
I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? Who has solutions ?
Flo
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests...
*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Look an obvious first step against this insanity is to at least act proportionately: block only those IPs that *have* been a source of too large a problem to be dealt in other ways, do so only for a limited time (it might be an incremental increase, maybe beginning even with just few hours, up to maybe 6 months), and *use more proportionate measures when they (still) might be enough*, such as the slow-down or delays that others proposed, and even those in incremental increases. And where there's no unwieldy problem, just do nothing (other than reverting the damage).
Just a few weeks ago I was pondering how bewilderingly "not badly" Wikipedia works in practice, despite his debatable mantra of allowing immediate modifications from anonymous persons. Please don't ruin it, unless you have very good comprehensive alternatives.
Kind regards, Gabriele
Another somewhat obvious solution: instead, or before, of blocking, make the edits coming from one of the (too) dangerous IPs go through a reviewal process before getting published; hopefully a very quick one. In theory this would be against the original Wikipedia ideas, but I saw that it's something already practiced in some cases, and anyway blocking seems enormously worse than requiring a review before publication.
By the way, I now realized that the current Wikipedia is already very different than what I believed, and it works just because it does *not* really allow anyone to make edits. Before deciding where to go from here I'd suggest you to reflect on what's worse: to forbid anonymity or require reviews; I believe most normal people are more interested in privacy than immediate publication of edits.
Kind regards, Gabriele
Gbfv, this would be good in theory except it's not scalable, and furthermore the English Wikipedia community has not been a fan of pending changes as implemented by https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs .
The thing with open proxy blocks in general is that many are made in direct response to abuse, particularly global blocks. So it would not help much even if we did have the appetite and will to relax the no open proxies policy.
On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 5:37 PM gbfv@tiscali.it wrote:
Another somewhat obvious solution: instead, or before, of blocking, make the edits coming from one of the (too) dangerous IPs go through a reviewal process before getting published; hopefully a very quick one. In theory this would be against the original Wikipedia ideas, but I saw that it's something already practiced in some cases, and anyway blocking seems enormously worse than requiring a review before publication.
By the way, I now realized that the current Wikipedia is already very different than what I believed, and it works just because it does *not* really allow anyone to make edits. Before deciding where to go from here I'd suggest you to reflect on what's worse: to forbid anonymity or require reviews; I believe most normal people are more interested in privacy than immediate publication of edits.
Kind regards, Gabriele _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
And who will do all this tedious work? Cheers, Peter
From: gbfv@tiscali.it [mailto:gbfv@tiscali.it] Sent: 01 May 2022 20:01 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Open proxies and IP blocking
Another somewhat obvious solution: instead, or before, of blocking, make the edits coming from one of the (too) dangerous IPs go through a reviewal process before getting published; hopefully a very quick one. In theory this would be against the original Wikipedia ideas, but I saw that it's something already practiced in some cases, and anyway blocking seems enormously worse than requiring a review before publication.
By the way, I now realized that the current Wikipedia is already very different than what I believed, and it works just because it does *not* really allow anyone to make edits. Before deciding where to go from here I'd suggest you to reflect on what's worse: to forbid anonymity or require reviews; I believe most normal people are more interested in privacy than immediate publication of edits.
Kind regards, Gabriele
Virus-free. http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient www.avg.com
Hi, can I help?
On May 3, 2022, at 8:25 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
And who will do all this tedious work? Cheers, Peter <> From: gbfv@tiscali.it mailto:gbfv@tiscali.it [mailto:gbfv@tiscali.it mailto:gbfv@tiscali.it] Sent: 01 May 2022 20:01 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Open proxies and IP blocking
Another somewhat obvious solution: instead, or before, of blocking, make the edits coming from one of the (too) dangerous IPs go through a reviewal process before getting published; hopefully a very quick one. In theory this would be against the original Wikipedia ideas, but I saw that it's something already practiced in some cases, and anyway blocking seems enormously worse than requiring a review before publication.
By the way, I now realized that the current Wikipedia is already very different than what I believed, and it works just because it does *not* really allow anyone to make edits. Before deciding where to go from here I'd suggest you to reflect on what's worse: to forbid anonymity or require reviews; I believe most normal people are more interested in privacy than immediate publication of edits.
Kind regards, Gabriele
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RZ6KIYQKTYQSMFSJV6XVHSAF224Y22DC/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Gabriele, indicated we shouldn't use the current methodology unless they have very good alternatives - but the same applies to stopping it.
We don't have the capacity to handle a big bulk increase in pending changes as proposed by gbfv on en-wiki and presumably others as well - and making very short-length blocks on proxies would require a major increase in Steward time, which a quick review of the average myriad steward backlogs indicates is not really a resource in sufficient supply to be profligate with.
Others have proposed using a professional group of employees to either replace or outweigh the CU corps. I seriously doubt many projects are going to be happy with vastly increasing the amount of blocks implemented by the foundation on the basis of evidence that very few can see.
Vermont has correctly summarised the issues that come with any auto-implementation of IPBE.
But there clearly is a need to act on the growing set of problems, and DannyH's list has many good options (and even the not so good options are the ones that obviously should be considered to judge the tradeoff threshold).
If we can smooth the process for Stewards (on their side) to shrink the time needed for each action, that's the same effect as having more active stewards. That let's us consider options that currently may be a non-starter. We also need to smooth the process for requesting unblocks (or even understanding the problem). No doubt this is excabated by the "they can't hear you" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mobile_communication_bugs problems.
We absolutely need a process for simplifying and clarifying both understanding IPBE (global/local) and then requesting it.
Now, I suspect most "innocent" proxies being added/blocked would probably become "harmful" if unblocked (that is, sooner or later they'd be used problematically), but that's definitely something that should be tested as we expand on blocking proxies just because we know they're proxies.
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 11:27 AM nosebagbear@gmail.com wrote:
We don't have the capacity to handle a big bulk increase in pending changes as proposed by gbfv on en-wiki and presumably others as well - and making very short-length blocks on proxies would require a major increase in Steward time, which a quick review of the average myriad steward backlogs indicates is not really a resource in sufficient supply to be profligate with.
Most of the steward blocks I see are already less than a month, and sometimes less than a day. (I'm not sure how they're deciding which length to use.) See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T303774 regarding the frequency of blocks.
I've been getting really helpful replies both here and in the Meta discussion, thank you very much. I'm going to summarize what I'm seeing so far, and ask some new questions.
One thing that's come up is that there are many kinds of good-faith people who experience collateral damage from the current practice — people in Africa and South/Southeast Asia who are automatically in proxies thanks to their ISP (the folks who started the conversation), and also people who live in countries where contributors risk harassment or legal action, including queer editors who live in countries where queer sexualities are criminalized.
Right now, I'm thinking about the different kinds of "pain" involved on all sides. Just for the sake of this conversation, I'm using the word "pain" to mean something that's frustrating, time-consuming, dangerous, obstructive, or otherwise negative. Admins & stewards who spend all of their free time trying to block IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", users who get doxxed or harassed by IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", organizers with editathon participants getting blocked experience "pain", editors who are blocked from contributing experience "pain".
So: is this a zero-sum game, where one group's pain relief = another group's pain point? Right now, I think the expansion of proxy blocks since last year has been reducing the pain for vandal/abuse fighters, which has increased the pain for good-faith users (especially in Africa/South Asia). For stewards, it may have just shifted the work: less work blocking the vandals, but more work granting block exemptions.
If it's a zero-sum game, then we're trying to find an acceptable balance among these groups, which is difficult and makes everyone unhappy. I'm hoping there are things that we can change in the software that make this more of a non-zero-sum game, so that relieving pain for one group doesn't increase it for someone else.
The ideas so far break down into two categories: #1) making proxy blocks less frequent or more nuanced so that we don't need an unblocking request process, and #2) making the unblocking request process easier or more efficient. The IPBE process is kind of the pivot point in the problem. From a software design perspective, the fact that IPBE even exists is a failure state — we're not doing our job properly making a website that anyone can edit, if good-faith people are blocked and other good-faith people are spending time unblocking them. So the ideal solutions would be focused on #1, because if we solve those, #2 doesn't exist anymore.
Here are some of the ideas suggested so far:
Category #1: Making proxy blocks less frequent, or more nuanced * Instead of auto-blocking, wait for someone to vandalize before blocking that open proxy * Tag edits made through open proxies, so that admins can give them more scrutiny * Throttle edits made through open proxies, to discourage vandals (and good-faith people) * For Apple's Private Relay, rangeblock the regions where vandalism is coming from rather than blocking the whole service * Treat ISPs in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia that use carrier-grade NAT differently, instead of making them auto-blocked open proxies
Category #2: Making the IPBE process easier, or more efficient * Make the local/global distinction easier to understand and navigate by signaling to users that they've got a local or global block, and guiding them in the right direction * Let trusted users like campaign organizers submit lists of accounts to be automatically exempt (but obviously blockable if those accounts are used badly)
Are there other suggestions for either category? What have I missed?
One thing I'm curious about: for the "treat ISPs in Africa/South Asia differently" idea — would people in other regions be able to abuse those services? Would a bad actor in Europe be able to make edits through an unblocked ISP in Ghana?
Also: What happens if the open-proxy block only applies to anon edits, and allows edits from people with accounts? I know that the basic answer is "then the bad-faith people create accounts, so there's no point" — but does that at least reduce the amount of "pain"/damage to a more acceptable level?
I'd also like to know what happens if a wiki chooses to block all unregistered edits, like Portuguese WP and Farsi WP are doing right now? Would we still need to auto-block open proxies, if there was no more anonymous editing at all? I'm not suggesting that as a solution right now; I just want to understand what the impact would be.
Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
DannyH, aka Danny Horn (WMF)
In practical terms the only working point for category #1 is the last one, which is already done *in theory*. Yes, proxying systems from countries affected by such problems can generally be exploited from elsewhere. About category #2 the first point is great, but it needs a committed development effort, point 2 a temporary GIPBE can be a good idea.
Vito
Il giorno mar 3 mag 2022 alle ore 03:31 dhorn@wikimedia.org ha scritto:
I've been getting really helpful replies both here and in the Meta discussion, thank you very much. I'm going to summarize what I'm seeing so far, and ask some new questions.
One thing that's come up is that there are many kinds of good-faith people who experience collateral damage from the current practice — people in Africa and South/Southeast Asia who are automatically in proxies thanks to their ISP (the folks who started the conversation), and also people who live in countries where contributors risk harassment or legal action, including queer editors who live in countries where queer sexualities are criminalized.
Right now, I'm thinking about the different kinds of "pain" involved on all sides. Just for the sake of this conversation, I'm using the word "pain" to mean something that's frustrating, time-consuming, dangerous, obstructive, or otherwise negative. Admins & stewards who spend all of their free time trying to block IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", users who get doxxed or harassed by IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", organizers with editathon participants getting blocked experience "pain", editors who are blocked from contributing experience "pain".
So: is this a zero-sum game, where one group's pain relief = another group's pain point? Right now, I think the expansion of proxy blocks since last year has been reducing the pain for vandal/abuse fighters, which has increased the pain for good-faith users (especially in Africa/South Asia). For stewards, it may have just shifted the work: less work blocking the vandals, but more work granting block exemptions.
If it's a zero-sum game, then we're trying to find an acceptable balance among these groups, which is difficult and makes everyone unhappy. I'm hoping there are things that we can change in the software that make this more of a non-zero-sum game, so that relieving pain for one group doesn't increase it for someone else.
The ideas so far break down into two categories: #1) making proxy blocks less frequent or more nuanced so that we don't need an unblocking request process, and #2) making the unblocking request process easier or more efficient. The IPBE process is kind of the pivot point in the problem. From a software design perspective, the fact that IPBE even exists is a failure state — we're not doing our job properly making a website that anyone can edit, if good-faith people are blocked and other good-faith people are spending time unblocking them. So the ideal solutions would be focused on #1, because if we solve those, #2 doesn't exist anymore.
Here are some of the ideas suggested so far:
Category #1: Making proxy blocks less frequent, or more nuanced
- Instead of auto-blocking, wait for someone to vandalize before blocking
that open proxy
- Tag edits made through open proxies, so that admins can give them more
scrutiny
- Throttle edits made through open proxies, to discourage vandals (and
good-faith people)
- For Apple's Private Relay, rangeblock the regions where vandalism is
coming from rather than blocking the whole service
- Treat ISPs in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia that use
carrier-grade NAT differently, instead of making them auto-blocked open proxies
Category #2: Making the IPBE process easier, or more efficient
- Make the local/global distinction easier to understand and navigate by
signaling to users that they've got a local or global block, and guiding them in the right direction
- Let trusted users like campaign organizers submit lists of accounts to
be automatically exempt (but obviously blockable if those accounts are used badly)
Are there other suggestions for either category? What have I missed?
One thing I'm curious about: for the "treat ISPs in Africa/South Asia differently" idea — would people in other regions be able to abuse those services? Would a bad actor in Europe be able to make edits through an unblocked ISP in Ghana?
Also: What happens if the open-proxy block only applies to anon edits, and allows edits from people with accounts? I know that the basic answer is "then the bad-faith people create accounts, so there's no point" — but does that at least reduce the amount of "pain"/damage to a more acceptable level?
I'd also like to know what happens if a wiki chooses to block all unregistered edits, like Portuguese WP and Farsi WP are doing right now? Would we still need to auto-block open proxies, if there was no more anonymous editing at all? I'm not suggesting that as a solution right now; I just want to understand what the impact would be.
Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
DannyH, aka Danny Horn (WMF) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"*if a wiki chooses to block all unregistered edits (...) w**ould we still need to auto-block open proxies, if there was no more anonymous editing at all?*"
Please don't use the term "anonymous" to refer to IP edits, which are anything but anonymous. The only edits with a minimum level of anonymity are precisely those made by registered users. One of the reasons we blocked IP editing on pt.wiki was exactly because editors using IP addresses were being traced, identified, and harassed.
Best, Paulo
dhorn@wikimedia.org escreveu no dia terça, 3/05/2022 à(s) 02:31:
I've been getting really helpful replies both here and in the Meta discussion, thank you very much. I'm going to summarize what I'm seeing so far, and ask some new questions.
One thing that's come up is that there are many kinds of good-faith people who experience collateral damage from the current practice — people in Africa and South/Southeast Asia who are automatically in proxies thanks to their ISP (the folks who started the conversation), and also people who live in countries where contributors risk harassment or legal action, including queer editors who live in countries where queer sexualities are criminalized.
Right now, I'm thinking about the different kinds of "pain" involved on all sides. Just for the sake of this conversation, I'm using the word "pain" to mean something that's frustrating, time-consuming, dangerous, obstructive, or otherwise negative. Admins & stewards who spend all of their free time trying to block IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", users who get doxxed or harassed by IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", organizers with editathon participants getting blocked experience "pain", editors who are blocked from contributing experience "pain".
So: is this a zero-sum game, where one group's pain relief = another group's pain point? Right now, I think the expansion of proxy blocks since last year has been reducing the pain for vandal/abuse fighters, which has increased the pain for good-faith users (especially in Africa/South Asia). For stewards, it may have just shifted the work: less work blocking the vandals, but more work granting block exemptions.
If it's a zero-sum game, then we're trying to find an acceptable balance among these groups, which is difficult and makes everyone unhappy. I'm hoping there are things that we can change in the software that make this more of a non-zero-sum game, so that relieving pain for one group doesn't increase it for someone else.
The ideas so far break down into two categories: #1) making proxy blocks less frequent or more nuanced so that we don't need an unblocking request process, and #2) making the unblocking request process easier or more efficient. The IPBE process is kind of the pivot point in the problem. From a software design perspective, the fact that IPBE even exists is a failure state — we're not doing our job properly making a website that anyone can edit, if good-faith people are blocked and other good-faith people are spending time unblocking them. So the ideal solutions would be focused on #1, because if we solve those, #2 doesn't exist anymore.
Here are some of the ideas suggested so far:
Category #1: Making proxy blocks less frequent, or more nuanced
- Instead of auto-blocking, wait for someone to vandalize before blocking
that open proxy
- Tag edits made through open proxies, so that admins can give them more
scrutiny
- Throttle edits made through open proxies, to discourage vandals (and
good-faith people)
- For Apple's Private Relay, rangeblock the regions where vandalism is
coming from rather than blocking the whole service
- Treat ISPs in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia that use
carrier-grade NAT differently, instead of making them auto-blocked open proxies
Category #2: Making the IPBE process easier, or more efficient
- Make the local/global distinction easier to understand and navigate by
signaling to users that they've got a local or global block, and guiding them in the right direction
- Let trusted users like campaign organizers submit lists of accounts to
be automatically exempt (but obviously blockable if those accounts are used badly)
Are there other suggestions for either category? What have I missed?
One thing I'm curious about: for the "treat ISPs in Africa/South Asia differently" idea — would people in other regions be able to abuse those services? Would a bad actor in Europe be able to make edits through an unblocked ISP in Ghana?
Also: What happens if the open-proxy block only applies to anon edits, and allows edits from people with accounts? I know that the basic answer is "then the bad-faith people create accounts, so there's no point" — but does that at least reduce the amount of "pain"/damage to a more acceptable level?
I'd also like to know what happens if a wiki chooses to block all unregistered edits, like Portuguese WP and Farsi WP are doing right now? Would we still need to auto-block open proxies, if there was no more anonymous editing at all? I'm not suggesting that as a solution right now; I just want to understand what the impact would be.
Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
DannyH, aka Danny Horn (WMF) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Paulo, you're right — I'm sorry, I shouldn't use "anonymous" to describe unregistered editing. I misspoke on that.
Danny
Hello Everyone,
Let me suggest three things:
1. For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team) should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights.
2. For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone.
3. For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Butch Southeast Asia
Hi Butch,
Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation Product department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in all the areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all different perspectives. As we go through this process we are also looking at potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the pain points that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. There are some existing recommendations on this mailing list and the meta page that are good starting points for these discussions. We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and the talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone has direct feedback, my inbox is always open.
Thanks!
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM bustrias@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everyone,
Let me suggest three things:
- For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user
training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team) should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights.
- For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product Development
Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone.
- For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on
the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Butch Southeast Asia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I have not further commented because I did not feel I could help further at this point. But I wanted to point out that the issue is still on my "concerns" list :)
I am looking forward to read your findings when process is completed.
Flo
Le 12/05/2022 à 01:02, Niharika Kohli a écrit :
Hi Butch,
Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation Product department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in all the areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all different perspectives. As we go through this process we are also looking at potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the pain points that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. There are some existing recommendations on this mailing list and the meta page that are good starting points for these discussions. We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and the talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone has direct feedback, my inbox is always open.
Thanks!
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM bustrias@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everyone, Let me suggest three things: 1. For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team) should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights. 2. For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone. 3. For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections. Thanks. Kind regards, Butch Southeast Asia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AVBXBOXQQY2DXD6LYF5J4F6R2CRQBYTH/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org-- Niharika Product Manager Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I just got in touch with RIPE.net folx who have a conference now in Berlin and they seem to be interested in helping.
John would be in a good position as former RIPE now WMF staff to evaluate this and follow up.
Best wishes - Z. Blace
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:05 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
I have not further commented because I did not feel I could help further at this point. But I wanted to point out that the issue is still on my "concerns" list :)
I am looking forward to read your findings when process is completed.
Flo
Le 12/05/2022 à 01:02, Niharika Kohli a écrit :
Hi Butch,
Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation Product department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in all the areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all different perspectives. As we go through this process we are also looking at potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the pain points that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. There are some existing recommendations on this mailing list and the meta page that are good starting points for these discussions. We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and the talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone has direct feedback, my inbox is always open.
Thanks!
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM bustrias@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everyone,
Let me suggest three things:
- For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user
training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team) should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights.
- For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product
Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone.
- For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on
the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Butch Southeast Asia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Niharika Product Manager Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
A year later...
This is a call for possible collaboration on info/skill-share if not more in relation to Wikimedia and DNS. On the same weekend of Wikimedia Hackathon 2023, there is also a DNS focused hackathon in Rotterdam with open call for proposals. https://labs.ripe.net/author/johanna-eriksson/connect-to-port-53-join-the-dn... ...
... consider to join forming a proposal https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T332971
Best wishes - Z. Blace
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:52 PM Željko Blaće zblace@mi2.hr wrote:
I just got in touch with RIPE.net folx who have a conference now in Berlin and they seem to be interested in helping.
John would be in a good position as former RIPE now WMF staff to evaluate this and follow up.
Best wishes - Z. Blace
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:05 PM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
I have not further commented because I did not feel I could help further at this point. But I wanted to point out that the issue is still on my "concerns" list :)
I am looking forward to read your findings when process is completed.
Flo
Le 12/05/2022 à 01:02, Niharika Kohli a écrit :
Hi Butch,
Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation Product department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in all the areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all different perspectives. As we go through this process we are also looking at potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the pain points that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. There are some existing recommendations on this mailing list and the meta page that are good starting points for these discussions. We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and the talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone has direct feedback, my inbox is always open.
Thanks!
On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM bustrias@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Everyone,
Let me suggest three things:
For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team) should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights.
For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone.
For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Butch Southeast Asia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Niharika Product Manager Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org