[Foundation-l] TOR Nodes

[Nathan]

You may be right. Did the policy change? I ask because there was some
disagreement over whether hardblocking all open proxies is in fact the
policy.

On Jan 15, 2008 9:50 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since we already hardblock all open proxies we find, without
> exception, and the foundation knows we do this, if they cared to weigh
> in, shouldn't we expect they'd have done so already?
>
> Cheers
> WilyD
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2008 9:12 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that China is responsible for the problem in general (Internet
> > censorship being something individual websites have trouble doing) but
> > I suspect our influence over Chinese policy is limited. There are
> > technical workarounds for Chinese editors, however - blocking all Tor
> > exit nodes categorically shuts off a main workaround.
> >
> > Re the blocking policy, if you read the page linked to by Mercury it
> > seems that it isn't at all clear what the consensus is there. Mercury
> > made mention of modifying the policy based on the discussion on that
> > page, which contained a number of objections to the indef hardblock of
> > all open proxies. The most convincing to my mind was the apparent fact
> > that Tor exit nodes are frequently active only for a very short period
> > of time - afterwards the IP is recycled, so it serves no purpose to
> > indefinitely block an IP that was used as an exit node for 2 days.
> >
> > Lastly, anonymizer IP ranges are under consideration for blocking as
> > well using RonaldB's tools.
> >
> > In a technical sense, I would be fine with using Ronald's tool to
> > block all current open proxy exit   IPs. Politically, I think it is
> > something the Foundation should weigh in on so that issues associated
> > with blocking this category of IPs permanently can be
> > addressed/anticipated.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2008 11:28 PM, Matthew Britton
> >
> > <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Was Ipblock exempt proposal for en wiki)
> > > >
> > > > This seems like something that, while it affects
> > > > primarily en.wiki,
> > > > should be run by the Foundation because of the
> > > > potentially serious PR
> > > > consequences (Wikipedia makes it impossible to edit from
> > > > China etc.).
> > >
> > > Hi, forgive me, but I don't quite see how you got there
> > > from here.
> > >
> > > First, problems with editing Wikipedia from China are
> > > primarily the fault of China itself, which blocks access to
> > > Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Second, anonymizing proxies are not the only way in which
> > > these blocks may be bypassed.
> > >
> > > Third, and most importantly, open proxies are *already*
> > > indefinitely hard-blocked, abuse or otherwise. It would be
> > > nice to think that they are only blocked in case of abuse,
> > > but this is not the case. All this proposal would do would
> > > allow exemptions from such hard-blocks for individual
> > > users. If this sounds controversial, bear in mind that all
> > > administrators are alrady exempt from hard-blocks. Any
> > > administrator on any project could already be editing
> > > through any hard-block blocked proxy and (short of a
> > > checkuser) nobody would be any the wiser.
> > >
> > > In short, this proposal makes it no more "impossible to
> > > edit from China" than it is already.
> > >
> > > -Gurch
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>