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 <nawr...@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 can give out exceptions (locally and globally) and check outdated OPs and 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 < >> fdevou...@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-le...@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-le...@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-le...@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-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
