Some proxies give an X-Forwarded-For (XFF) header, with the IP address
of the user for whom they are forwarding a request. This is how our web
servers get the IP addresses of users, despite the fact that they are
behind a battery of squids configured as "accelerators". It's been
suggested before that if a user is behind a proxy, we should display
their real IP address as reported by X-Forwarded-For, rather than the
address of the proxy. But if we did this, anyone could forge the XFF
header and masquerade as another user. Also, the XFF header often
contains private addresses which are not unique, e.g. 192.168.0.1.
Some ISPs force their users to use a proxy, and some of these proxies
give a valid XFF header. These ISPs can be reasonably trusted not to
forge the header. Thus, it makes sense to use whatever user-specific
address they report, for the purposes of blocking and user
identification. This is what I've just implemented -- a means to specify
a list of partially trusted proxies. Most of the code was already written.
Walter von Kalken's open proxy is in this category, and I have entered
it into the list. Thus he will no longer be blocked by the SORBS
blocklist. We should probably set up a page somewhere with suggestions
-- Tim Starling
Due to popular demand (I'm told consensus), I've disabled interwiki
redirects on all projects. Also, redirects to special pages are
disabled, which use the same mechanism and so are just as hard to revert.
-- Tim Starling
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
> Is every editorial disagreement a test of "moral rightness"? I really
> don't see it that way. Maybe the communication difficulty we are
> having surrounds your use of that phrase?
No, it's only a test of moral rightness if that is the basis behind an
editors decisions.. We can't always tell from the outside, but we can
ask. If there is no justification from the large set that we consider
valid reasons for changes to the article that can be discussed, then
we must assume that the reasoning is based on good/evil judgements.
>From below it seems we're pretty much in agreement on this stuff now.
> Yes, of course. That appears to be not at risk here at all. I
> haven't seen anyone say that it's ok to make these decisions based on
> "imposing" a "point of view", nor to say that such decisions need have
> no articulable basis.
When it was discussed at the begining of the thread why we must have
better bounds betwen languages the reasoning given was that what is
offensive in one culture can be offensive in another.
Am I missing something by assuming that "offensive" implies that
someone is imposing a point of view?
If there is another image that can be substuted which provides the
same information, then we can make the substutition based on keeping
the article focused. If the image is not topical, we can remove it
because it is non-topical. I don't believe "offensive" is ever useful
as a valid reason to exclude content.
Lets talk about that stupid autofellatio image... I'd been wanting to
avoid it, because I think the concepts here are more interesting than
the practice, but I think it might actually turn out to be a
I had pointed out to Anthere elsewhere in the thread that the image
conveys knowledge that can not easily be brought out through other
means: An image shows you that such an act is actually possible. A
drawing doesn't carry the same value. She agreed that in principal,
I might have a good point... and perhaps we should replace the image
with a similar one which improves upon it in a number of ways (that I
never considered because I don't find it objectionable). It seems
that there may be a possible solution that improves the situation
without excluding a photograph of a man with his penis in his mouth
from the encyclopedia.
This would remove my concerns about censorship and imposing points of
view... but I strongly doubt it would satisfy even a small percentage
of those that have complained so strongly.
> Yes, I don't think anyone really disagrees with any of this.
> At the same time, I don't think anyone would support banning people
> who vote based on "nudity is bad". It's too big a risk of trouble on
> _other_ grounds if we start declaring that people may not vote or
> discuss unless they give right reasons. :-)
Well it should be a part of the dispute process... if you can't
support why your position doesn't create NPOV in a matter where it is
accused that your edit creates NPOV, then you should lose the dispute
and be asked not to make those edits.
If someone is unable to follow such a decision, what choice do we have
but to ban? At that point the editor has become a vandal.
> > work, a standard unlikely to be met for the matters we are
> > discussing... at least in the case where the contributor is honestly
> > trying to enhance the value of the encyclopedia, rather than a troll.
> Yes, of course.
> But the point is, the decision taken in the end might differ across
> different wikipedias for reasons of culture, or perhaps even for
> reasons very very local to that editing community's history. We need
> not impose uniformity everywhere.
Uniformity of outcome or uniformity of procedure and requirements?
There might be differing outcomes, but I think we should uniformly
reject actions based only on pushing a POV.
To get to this goal we must hold all languages to the same standard of
neutrality, and make sure that the idea of neutrality is well
explained in every language. For this we have be currently left
largely at the mercy of those who are interested in each of the
languages... but the basic rules are a project matter, not a language
matter. It would make sense to ask participants in every culture and
language to occasionally check on all the others to keep everyone
honest with respect to the basic rules.
/me gives a big kiss to Tim
Tim Starling a �crit:
> Due to popular demand (I'm told consensus), I've
> redirects on all projects. Also, redirects to
special pages are
> disabled, which use the same mechanism and so are
just as hard to revert.
> -- Tim Starling
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>All of the above is no reason for Wikipedia to permit compromisable
>proxies to post. We'd be just spreading the problem outside Thailand and
>into the rest of the net. Believe me, there's nothing rosy about my view,
>I'm just determined not to permit bad practises in one or two countries to
>degrade the whole internet.
Try most of Asia and most Africa and South America as well, probably
close to a 100 countries and a couple billion people. Let me guess you
life in a save country in Europe or US or OZ.
>compromising the mail server. This is pretty serious stuff. Web proxies
>*should not* be open.
In your rosy world yes. Now try real world Millions of people are in
countries were their providers do not care about this. Nor will they
care because they do not have to listen to normal people. Thailand is
such a country. Count the rest of SEA and China in there as well. Not
all will be using open proxies though. But fact is as opposed to Western
countries, in most Asian countries you cannot complain to companies as
they'll tell you to shove it. Even western companies like JW Marriott do
the same. They have double roomrate one if your Asian one if your white.
It is common practice here. People complained to JW Marriott in
Thailand. They told them to shove it. So people threatened lawsuit
against parentcompany than they bowed down. But JWM is foreign owned so
you can threaten with that. Most IP's in this region are not.
Since yesterday the blocklist of SORBS is used on the wikimedia servers
to block open proxies.
If someone is having troubles to edit now, here are the steps he can do
to solve the problem:
* he first has to determine the IP address wikipedia is blocking, that's
not too hard, it's on the blocking page
* then he has to get someone on another computer to check if it's an
open proxy. the procedure is described here:
* if it is, then he should complain to whoever controls the server to
fix the configuration
* if not, he should request a retest
(http://www.sorbs.net/faq/retest.shtml) to be taken out of the list. the
status of the proxy might have changed since it was last scanned.
Please translate/forward this to your project to inform people.
>> You know Anthere is on the foundation board, right?
>Oh I knew. :)
>But I think the ideas are wrong and at odds with the published goals.
>If I do not misunderstand Anthere and the views are truly
>representative and accepting censorship based on some peoples
>non-neutral value judgements is acceptable ... then I think we should
>discuss the matter, because I think a lot of people are misled by the
>principal of neutrality 'as advertised'.
I think you are confusing censorship and neutrality
If we were claiming autofellatio is not possible, we would be incorrect.
If we were saying autofellatio is bad, we would be non-neutral.
If we were deleting the autofellatio article and pretending it does not exist, it would be censorship.
If we display a picture of autofellatio in the autofellation article, it is possibly displaying offensive content, or possibly not.
If we decide to use a drawing rather than the image in the autofellatio article, it is possibly admitting a taboo, or possibly not.
If we display autofellatio image in user talk page, it is hurting people who do not expect to see such a picture on a talk page (while they can choose not to go to the autofellatio)
If we do nothing to help those who spent hours cleaning up, it is lacking respect for other people time. It is unwikilove.
Both neutrality and censorship are "strong guidelines".
But neither are *rules*, in the sense none strictly and thoroughly explain exactly what should be from what should not be done. There is no page saying "if there is 1 cm3 blood, display. If there are 5 cm3 do not." There are examples given, but essentially, those are *guidelines*.
As for all guidelines applications, only editors have the authority to try to set rules to attempt to follow the guidelines.
On wikipedia, there is a strong desire to follow a couple of mandatory guidelines/principles, but there is an equally strong desire to let editors create themselves their own rules to try to fit the guidelines.
I think accepting that cultures have different taboos is right.
Calling other communities rules and opinions, when differing from yours, "non-neutral" is wrong. This is what you are doing. The decision of the english wikipedia is fine, but the rules applied on the english wikipedia, belongs to the english wikipedia. They should not impair the right of other communities to set their own rules, without those being called censorship.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.