More Jimbo quotes on Tor

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
I present these not as edicts from above, but rather to show that
completely blocking Tor is not an edict from above:

"All I'm saying is that Tor could segregate users easily enough into two
clouds: "We sorta trust these ones, more or less, a little bit, but no
guarantees" -- "We don't trust these ones, we don't know them".

Users in the first group could be allowed access to Wikipedia because
their overall level of bad behavior would be tolerable.  Users in the
second group would still be blocked."

http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00274.html

"First, having a login id doesn't mean that we trust you, it just means
that you've signed up.  One of the reasons that we don't _require_ login
ids, actually, is that it allows jerks to self-select by being too lazy
to login before they vandalize. :-)

But, we could do something like: allow non-logged in posts, and allowed
posts with Tor *for trusted accounts*, but not non-logged-in posts with
Tor, and not logged-in-but-not-yet-trusted accounts with Tor.

Still, there's a flaw: this means you have to come around to Wikipedia
in an non-Tor manner long enough for us to trust you, which pretty much
blows the whole point of privacy to start with."

http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00292.html

Anthony

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

NavouWiki
I'm failing to see why "Jimbo quotes" carry more weight than anyone else's.

I'm also failing to see why we need to allow editors to override a TOR /
Anon proxy block.  I think the latter point has been established already.

Regards,
Navou

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:15 PM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: [WikiEN-l] More Jimbo quotes on Tor

I present these not as edicts from above, but rather to show that
completely blocking Tor is not an edict from above:

"All I'm saying is that Tor could segregate users easily enough into two
clouds: "We sorta trust these ones, more or less, a little bit, but no
guarantees" -- "We don't trust these ones, we don't know them".

Users in the first group could be allowed access to Wikipedia because
their overall level of bad behavior would be tolerable.  Users in the
second group would still be blocked."

http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00274.html

"First, having a login id doesn't mean that we trust you, it just means
that you've signed up.  One of the reasons that we don't _require_ login
ids, actually, is that it allows jerks to self-select by being too lazy
to login before they vandalize. :-)

But, we could do something like: allow non-logged in posts, and allowed
posts with Tor *for trusted accounts*, but not non-logged-in posts with
Tor, and not logged-in-but-not-yet-trusted accounts with Tor.

Still, there's a flaw: this means you have to come around to Wikipedia
in an non-Tor manner long enough for us to trust you, which pretty much
blows the whole point of privacy to start with."

http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00292.html

Anthony

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
"Some of the worst vandalbots create accounts.

Still, your point is absolutely valid in the broader sense.  What
changes could be make that might allow us to mitigate the problems of
anonymous proxies in a gentler way than wholesale blocking?

Keep in mind that ideas are essentially useless, at least as compared to
simple running code.  So those of us who want to get something done in
this area have a responsibility to either code it, or make sure that our
great heroes the programmers understand that their humble subjects would
be overjoyed to see something good in this area.  :-)"

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/031398.html

It has been coded.  The patch has been submitted.  Now accept it.  If
not for Wikipedia, at least for other wikis running mediawiki.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Stephen Bain
On 8/12/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It has been coded.  The patch has been submitted.  Now accept it.  If
> not for Wikipedia, at least for other wikis running mediawiki.

The only bug relating to Tor that I can find in Bugzilla is one
relating to using a Tor DNSBL to block all Tor exit nodes, I'm
guessing you're not referring to that one.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
On 8/11/07, Stephen Bain <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The only bug relating to Tor that I can find in Bugzilla is one
> relating to using a Tor DNSBL to block all Tor exit nodes, I'm
> guessing you're not referring to that one.
>
I believe the bug being referred to is "9862 Separate group for
ipblock-exempt on en.wikipedia".

AB provided a patch which added an ipblock-exempt group, which a user
could be added to to be exempt from IP blocks (but not from username
blocks), but this was rejected because the power wouldn't be available
to bureaucrats (the software only allowed stewards to perform such a
feat).  Then Simetrical made a patch to implement Special:MakeIPExempt
which would allow bureaucrats to put users in the group, but this
patch was rejected because it was considered too messy to use yet
another Special: extension.  Bug 6711 addressed this, and is now
resolved.  It adds a Special:Userrights page and exactly who has the
power to do what can be configured on a site by site basis.  So now
that 6711 is resolved it seems to me that AB's patch should now be
accepted.  Then, any wiki running the new version of the software can
allow assignments to the ipblock-exempt group using
Special:Userrights, so long as the appropriate $wgAddGroups line is
added to the config file.

Once the patch is accepted, it'd be up to the individual projects to
decide who, if anyone, should be allowed to assign users to this
group.  Presumably for wikien it'll be the bureaucrats, who will
assign/remove users to the group after a successful !vote.
Alternatively, sysops could be trusted to assign/remove users to the
group, either after a successful !vote, or under their own judgment.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
On 8/11/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> feat).  Then Simetrical made a patch to implement Special:MakeIPExempt

bah.  That should read "^demon", not "Simetrical".

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Matthew Gruen
In reply to this post by NavouWiki
On 8/11/07, NavouWiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm also failing to see why we need to allow editors to override a TOR /
> Anon proxy block.
>
Because then, we won't have to tell people to change the way they
connect to the internet in order to actively contribute to a small part
of it.

Jimbo's words may not carry any more weight than anyone else's,
but the fact that you fail to see why we should allow editors to
override a TOR block implies that you *should* read them: not
for their authority, but for their logic. This is a way to ban proxies
without banning people, in line with the recent ArbCom
ruling, to allow more good-faith anonymizing proxy users
to contribute, and vanishingly less bad-faith users. The only
problem is that no one cares.

--Gracenotes
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Gregory Maxwell
On 8/12/07, Gracenotes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Because then, we won't have to tell people to change the way they
> connect to the internet in order to actively contribute to a small part
> of it.
>
> Jimbo's words may not carry any more weight than anyone else's,
> but the fact that you fail to see why we should allow editors to
> override a TOR block implies that you *should* read them: not
> for their authority, but for their logic. This is a way to ban proxies
> without banning people, in line with the recent ArbCom
> ruling, to allow more good-faith anonymizing proxy users
> to contribute, and vanishingly less bad-faith users. The only
> problem is that no one cares.

I'm in full agreement.

We're not an anonymity service, but until the day we make giving your
real name + DNA sample a requirement for editing we should try to be
as friendly towards outside anonymity services as we can reasonably
be.

If anything the ability to handle the good users coming through a set
of anonymous proxies will allow us to be more aggressive at blocking
sources of problems.

The ability for people who don't play fairly to sockpuppet exists
whether or not we have the ability to create proxy block exceptions.
As such, our decision making processes need to be robust against sock
manipulation.

The purpose of blocking open proxies isn't to close every opportunity
for socks, since we simply can't manage that. The purpose is to stop
things like vandalbots.  Handing out proxy block exceptions to
established users will have no negative ability in our ability to
block vandalbots.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

NavouWiki
In reply to this post by Matthew Gruen
I don't mean to be obtuse, which arbitration case are you referring to?

Also - if I'm not mistaken, the folks editing behind the proxy, are not
banned, only the proxy is blocked.

Regards,
Navou

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gracenotes
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:01 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Jimbo quotes on Tor

On 8/11/07, NavouWiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm also failing to see why we need to allow editors to override a TOR /
> Anon proxy block.
>
Because then, we won't have to tell people to change the way they
connect to the internet in order to actively contribute to a small part
of it.

Jimbo's words may not carry any more weight than anyone else's,
but the fact that you fail to see why we should allow editors to
override a TOR block implies that you *should* read them: not
for their authority, but for their logic. This is a way to ban proxies
without banning people, in line with the recent ArbCom
ruling, to allow more good-faith anonymizing proxy users
to contribute, and vanishingly less bad-faith users. The only
problem is that no one cares.

--Gracenotes
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Matthew Gruen
On 8/12/07, NavouWiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't mean to be obtuse, which arbitration case are you referring to?
>
> Also - if I'm not mistaken, the folks editing behind the proxy, are not
> banned, only the proxy is blocked.
>
> Regards,
> Navou

Ah, my apologies. By arbitration request, I mean CharlotteWebb's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CharlotteWebb#Policy_gap

You are quite right: people editing behind a proxy are not banned;
only the proxy is. This concept is a good start, but there is no way to
implement it on Wikipedia at the moment. Allowing modular
userrights or enabling [[Special:MakeIPExempt]] would change this.
The former is preferable to the latter, but long-term software goals
are not infringed at all by enabling the Make* extension.

--Gracenotes
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

NavouWiki
It appears to me, the implementation is already here.  They are free to use
the proxy until it is blocked.


Regards,
Navou

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gracenotes
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 12:53 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Jimbo quotes on Tor

On 8/12/07, NavouWiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't mean to be obtuse, which arbitration case are you referring to?
>
> Also - if I'm not mistaken, the folks editing behind the proxy, are not
> banned, only the proxy is blocked.
>
> Regards,
> Navou

Ah, my apologies. By arbitration request, I mean CharlotteWebb's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CharlotteWeb
b#Policy_gap

You are quite right: people editing behind a proxy are not banned;
only the proxy is. This concept is a good start, but there is no way to
implement it on Wikipedia at the moment. Allowing modular
userrights or enabling [[Special:MakeIPExempt]] would change this.
The former is preferable to the latter, but long-term software goals
are not infringed at all by enabling the Make* extension.

--Gracenotes
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by NavouWiki
On 8/11/07, NavouWiki <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm failing to see why "Jimbo quotes" carry more weight than anyone else's.
>
They shouldn't.

> I'm also failing to see why we need to allow editors to override a TOR /
> Anon proxy block.  I think the latter point has been established already.
>
Some editors are *already* allowed to override a TOR/Anon proxy block
- sysops.  Do you not see why we "need" that as well?

We don't absolutely *need* it, as we don't absolutely *need* anything.
 But I think it's a good idea.  And regardless of whether or not
enwiki should implement it, it certainly should be implemented in
Mediawiki.

Here's another "Jimbo quote" to ponder - one from 2001 which Jimbo has
said "that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia
will be run".

<blockquote>Any security measures to be implemented to protect the
community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are
already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of
"strict scrutiny".

"Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must
address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored
to achieve that objective and no other.</blockquote>

I agree completely with this principle, and it is precisely that
principle of narrowly tailoring security measures to achieve their
objective which is why I think this feature needs to be implemented.
Wow, put that way I even used the word "needs", I must be convincing
myself....

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
> I believe the bug being referred to is "9862 Separate group for
> ipblock-exempt on en.wikipedia".
>
> AB provided a patch which added an ipblock-exempt group, which a user
> could be added to to be exempt from IP blocks (but not from username
> blocks), but this was rejected because the power wouldn't be available
> to bureaucrats (the software only allowed stewards to perform such a
> feat).  Then Simetrical made a patch to implement Special:MakeIPExempt
> which would allow bureaucrats to put users in the group, but this
> patch was rejected because it was considered too messy to use yet
> another Special: extension.  Bug 6711 addressed this, and is now
> resolved.  It adds a Special:Userrights page and exactly who has the
> power to do what can be configured on a site by site basis.  So now
> that 6711 is resolved it seems to me that AB's patch should now be
> accepted.  Then, any wiki running the new version of the software can
> allow assignments to the ipblock-exempt group using
> Special:Userrights, so long as the appropriate $wgAddGroups line is
> added to the config file.
>
> Once the patch is accepted, it'd be up to the individual projects to
> decide who, if anyone, should be allowed to assign users to this
> group.  Presumably for wikien it'll be the bureaucrats, who will
> assign/remove users to the group after a successful !vote.
> Alternatively, sysops could be trusted to assign/remove users to the
> group, either after a successful !vote, or under their own judgment.

Individual projects can already decide that. The patch that hasn't
been accepted is just one to add the ability to enwiki, that's one
project, and it's a project that has not made the decision to add the
ability. The MediaWiki code already has all the functionality it needs
in this matter, it simply needs to be turned on in the settings for an
individual project. If a consensus is found to exist to turn it on for
enwiki then the patch will be accepted, but that consensus does not
exist (or, at least, hasn't been shown to exist).

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
On 8/12/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The MediaWiki code already has all the functionality it needs
> in this matter, it simply needs to be turned on in the settings for an
> individual project. If a consensus is found to exist to turn it on for
> enwiki then the patch will be accepted, but that consensus does not
> exist (or, at least, hasn't been shown to exist).
>
Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Thomas Dalton
> Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.

By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established.
Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for
the change in policy you are suggesting.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Anthony-73
On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.
>
> By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established.
> Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for
> the change in policy you are suggesting.

I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the
people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
suggested that AB should be an admin.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Kamryn Matika
On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.
> >
> > By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established.
> > Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for
> > the change in policy you are suggesting.
>
> I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the
> people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
> suggested that AB should be an admin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Can you provide a link to his RfA? I can't find it.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Kamryn Matika
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On 8/13/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.
> >
> > By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established.
> > Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for
> > the change in policy you are suggesting.
>
> I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the
> people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
> suggested that AB should be an admin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Not much of a majority.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
On 13/08/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/13/07, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Depends on what you mean by consensus, of course.
> >
> > By any realistic meaning of consensus, none has been established.
> > Point me to a discussion that you believe established a consensus for
> > the change in policy you are suggesting.
>
> I've heard consensus defined as a majority, and a majority of the
> people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
> suggested that AB should be an admin.

I said "realistic meaning". "consensus==majority" is not realistic.
I've seen "rough consensus" defined as "supermajority" (which is, for
the most part, the definition used on RfA), but that's as close to
your definition as I've seen.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More Jimbo quotes on Tor

Sean Barrett-3
In reply to this post by Anthony-73
Anthony wrote:

> I've heard consensus defined as a majority....

I've heard that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Hearing
it doesn't make it true.

>... and a majority of the
> people who commented on AB's RfA, knowing that AB edited through Tor,
> suggested that AB should be an admin.

The majority were unaware of, or misunderstanding, or simply ignoring
our policy.

--
  Sean Barrett     | You're just jealous because
  [hidden email] | the voices only talk to ME.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123