The bit except you can't really, and if you do it'll get randomly
revoked is false or unproven. Is there any example of rejected or
revoked global IP-exempt valid application in the last few months in
which we had the policy?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NOP
Note that every single Tor user
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
What freenode does is not functionally useful for Tor users. In my
first hand experience it manages to enable abusive activity while
simultaneously eliminating Tor's
On 01/13/2014 11:32 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Assume a person under continual surveillance.
If they have to reveal their true IP address to Wikipedia in order to
register their editor account, the adversary will learn it as well,
and can then attribute all subsequent edits by that handle to
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 01/13/2014 11:32 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Assume a person under continual surveillance.
If they have to reveal their true IP address to Wikipedia in order to
register their editor account, the adversary will learn
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Zack Weinberg za...@cmu.edu wrote:
To satisfy Applebaum's request, there needs to be a mechanism whereby
someone can edit even if *all of their communications with Wikipedia,
including the initial contact* are coming over Tor or equivalent.
Blinded,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:43:53AM -0500, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
If you start with that assumption, then it is unreasonable to assume
that the endpoints aren't /also/ compromised or under surveillance.
Editing Wikipedia is an inherently public action, if your security or
life is in danger
On 01/13/2014 12:15 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
What do you mean by endpoints?
The computer from which the edit is made is the salient one. Or, indeed
even visual observation of the person of interest coupled with rubber
hose crypto.
The scenario I am trying to explain is that which starts
quote name=Marc A. Pelletier date=2014-01-13 time=12:27:11 -0500
The scenario I am trying to explain is that which starts from the given
premise: Assume a person under continual surveillance. TOR offers no
protection against that scenario, privacy pundits notwithstanding.
Sure, and even more
On 01/13/2014 12:55 PM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
That's a strawman (both your statement and mine).
That wasn't /my/ statement, I was just pointing out its straw nature
myself. :-) My point was exactly that trying to use emotional
statements as rationale for change won't lead to anything good.
As long as I know, the solution nemo pointed out works perfectly on Persian
Wikipedia which deals with Iranian internet censorship on daily bases. We
have people using open proxies or Tor to connect and it is doing well with
IP block exemption. The actual number of users using this beside admins (
I started that thread.
1. Please refer to https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59146
Enabling also edit access to Wikipedia via TOR which much better
allows tracking of this issue towards to find a practical solution.
2. Recommended reading:
Peter Wayner Disappearing Cryptography
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, at 3:32, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
What freenode does is not functionally useful for Tor users. In my
first hand experience it manages to enable
Just create a page editable for everybody (as user talk pages are editable
for blocked users):
* [[Wikipedia:Edit suggestions by TOR users]]
Redirect to it with a notice when a TOR node click on edit tabs. Later, any
user can add the suggestions to the articles, if they are OK.
Anyway, TOR
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, at 3:32, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I rather think it does. Assume a person under continual surveillance.
If they have to reveal their true IP address to Wikipedia in order to
register their editor account,
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
Does Jake have any mechanism in mind to prevent abuse? Is there any
possible mechanism available to prevent abuse?
Preventing abuse is the wrong goal. There is plenty of abuse even
with all the privacy smashing
This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has
universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high.
However, we might consider doing what the freenode IRC network does.
Freenode requires SASL authentication to connect on Tor, which basically
means only users with
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has
universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high.
No, it's not analogous to just permitting open proxies as no one in
this thread is
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com
wrote:
This question is analogous to the question of open proxies. The answer has
universally been that the costs (abuse) are just too high.
No, it's not analogous
Sob perennial discussions. Personally I consider this issue solved: a
global policy now is in place to allow global exemptions via email requests.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NOP
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Does Jake have any mechanism in mind to prevent abuse? Is there any
possible mechanism available to prevent abuse?
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't the discussion *not*
Hi,
during the 30C3 Congress [1] in Hamburg - where neither Wikipedia
Foundation nor MediaWiki were formally present this year (but should be
next year)-
Jacob Appelbaum [2] - core member of the TOR project - complained in one
of his numerous talks that the (edit) access to Wikipedia via TOR is
Editing via tor is possible on WMF wikis if the account / user is trusted
On Monday, December 30, 2013, Thomas Gries wrote:
Hi,
during the 30C3 Congress [1] in Hamburg - where neither Wikipedia
Foundation nor MediaWiki were formally present this year (but should be
next year)-
Jacob
Am 30.12.2013 23:01, schrieb John:
Editing via tor is possible on WMF wikis if the account / user is trusted
Can you explain this briefly, or send me a pointer ?
This single info can be a help for him and others.
(Honestly, I do not know, what a trusted account/user is.)
I am on #mediawiki now
Give me 25 minutes and ill join
On Monday, December 30, 2013, Thomas Gries wrote:
Am 30.12.2013 23:01, schrieb John:
Editing via tor is possible on WMF wikis if the account / user is
trusted
Can you explain this briefly, or send me a pointer ?
This single info can be a help for him and
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
Can you explain this briefly, or send me a pointer ?
This single info can be a help for him and others.
(Honestly, I do not know, what a trusted account/user is.)
I am on #mediawiki now
There is a special permission that
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
Am 30.12.2013 23:01, schrieb John:
Editing via tor is possible on WMF wikis if the account / user is trusted
Can you explain this briefly, or send me a pointer ?
This single info can be a help for him and others.
(Honestly,
I understand Jacob's remarks as a welcome call to the TOR
community to work more intensively with Wikipedians to understand the
actual issues that motivated Wikipedia's TOR block.
This is, why we (or some core) MediaWiki developers should also attend
such congresses like the C3 regularly.
FWIW, I set IP block exempt on Jake's account a few years ago, but to my
frustration it looks like someone removed it because of inactivity.
(Editorializing a bit, I don't see much value in the removal; while it is
true that an inactive user's account could be broken into, the permission
extends
Thank you all, I expected such an explanation, it matches my
understanding who MediaWiki currently works.
I think, it is worth to start a formal bugzilla about that topic, so
that it can be better tracked and commented.
Am 30.12.2013 23:10, schrieb Tyler Romeo:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:03 PM,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
This is, why we (or some core) MediaWiki developers should also attend
such congresses like the C3 regularly.
Times like these living in USA is inconvenient.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
I opened
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59146 -Enabling access
and edit access to Wikipedia via TOR
for discussions
T.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Shouldn't the discussion *not* be happening on Bugzilla, but somewhere
where the wider community is actually present? Perhaps Meta?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
I opened
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59146 -Enabling access
and edit
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't the discussion *not* be happening on Bugzilla, but somewhere
where the wider community is actually present? Perhaps Meta?
Well the issue is not whether we want Tor users editing or not. We do. The
issue is
On 30 December 2013 18:09, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't the discussion *not* be happening on Bugzilla, but somewhere
where the wider community is actually present? Perhaps Meta?
Well the issue
On 12/30/2013 06:49 PM, Risker wrote:
I disagree fundamentally with your position here.
I have to agree with Risker here (Oy! Twice in one year!)
The problem isn't that it is technically difficult to allow edits
through TOR, but that the vast majority of edits coming in from TOR are
abusive,
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree fundamentally with your position here. It's technically possible
for Tor editors to edit; all we have to do is unblock Tor nodes (or for
them to disable Tor), and they can edit. It is the social and policy-based
On 30 December 2013 18:59, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree fundamentally with your position here. It's technically
possible
for Tor editors to edit; all we have to do is unblock Tor nodes (or for
them
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 December 2013 18:59, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree fundamentally with your position here. It's technically
possible
for
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Chris Steipp cste...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was talking with Tom Lowenthal, who is a tor developer. He was trying to
convince Tilman and I that IP's were just a form of collateral that we
implicitly hold for anonymous editors. If they edit badly, we take away
Chris Steipp wrote:
I think there may have been some progress on this since the last time it
was brought up, since we now have OAuth in place. It might be a way to
help bridge this gap.
I was talking with Tom Lowenthal, who is a tor developer. He was trying to
convince Tilman and I that IP's were
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Chris Steipp cste...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I was talking with Tom Lowenthal, who is a tor developer. He was trying to
convince Tilman and I that IP's were just a form of collateral that we
On 12/30/2013 09:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This isn't perfect— it creates a bias towards people in wealthier nations
which can afford the tokens, but most people don't need their tokens and
so it would be reasonable to expect substantial token charity to exist.
Your scheme has thought
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Digging up an old proposal of mine…
Relevant: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3729#c3
I've attempted implementing this proposal before (about a year ago). The
inherent issue, though, is that unless you
On Dec 30, 2013 10:58 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerro...@gmail.com wrote:
Implementing a system like this to
work with donations would be extraordinarily difficult, if it's even
possible.
I don't think that's true. Given a reference implementation of a generic
blinding service, I think it should be
Please can you discuss it on the bugzilla
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59146
where it can better be tracked ?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
45 matches
Mail list logo
