I was personally hit by an open proxy when I was on holidays last year (South Tirol, Italy, for the record). I could edit the four projects where I am administrator, but I could not edit five other projects where I update the image of the day. (In fact, I could not edit Meta either except for my own talk page). On my talk page, I requested an exempt and was quickly given it; then I requested a global exempt for the remaining couple of days and was given it as well; I can not really complain about the reaction speed. However, I am by every definition a trusted user: 500K global edits, admin flags on four projects, and a global rollback. I guess at least half of the stewards have seen my username around. It probably would be easier for everybody if I could get a global IP block exempt for say two or three years, and then have it renewed assuming I am still active and the account is not blocked on any project. I am sure we could come up with some criteria for trusted users, and these can be given long-term exempts. This would not fully solve the problem, but will take some time off the stewards' hands.
Best Yaroslav On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 4:17 PM Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Lane, > > I would appreciate if you could take the time to learn about an issue > before holding strong, accusatory opinions about it. > > gIPBE is granted to people in China and other areas where they want to use > proxies for security reasons. A significant portion of current gIPBEs are > for people in China. The issue here is not people being declined gIPBE, > it’s the sheer amount of people who need it and the lack of infrastructure > for current volunteers to handle those requests. > > What isn’t feasible is automatically giving everyone IPBE, global or > local, as it would make CU next to useless. Anyone intent on abuse could > just flip a VPN on. This isn’t “the convenience of current checkusers”, > this is an indisputable fact. People subject to bans often try to get IPBE > so they can edit on a VPN without concern for that account being found in > relation to previous ones. Any human review is better than mass-granting it > to tens of thousands of accounts. We just need to speed up the time it > takes to do that human review. > > Regards, > Rae > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 04:48 Lane Chance <zinkl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Granting IPBE by default to [...extendedconfirmed]/etc. users is not >> feasible." >> >> Granting IPBE to large groups of good faith editors is feasible, such as >> entire classes of people during editathons, all registered accounts joining >> a virtual conference, or everyone with more than 1,000 edits on wikidata. >> >> "also make CU next to useless" is a unverifiable hypothesis which puts >> the convenience of current checkusers and the existing practices against >> the safety of new and regular users. >> >> Checkusers are not legally accountable for their use of privileges, and >> in the past checkusers have been found to have kept their own private >> records, despite the agreement not to do it and simply been allowed to >> vanish without any serious consequences. >> >> Considering that the risks to some users is prosecution, imprisonment or >> harassment by state actors which may be instigated by leaking this >> information, simple precautions like GIPBE should be automatic and >> preferably unquestioned for some regions or types of editathon or >> competition, such as for good faith contributors to the articles about the >> Ukraine war or human rights in China. If that's inconvenient for volunteer >> checkusers, than it's pretty certain that the WMF can fund an support >> service under meaningfully legally enforceable non-disclosure agreements, >> even independent of the WMF itself if necessary, to run necessary >> verification and ensure that the editors are not just vandals or state >> lobbyists. >> >> Lane >> >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 20:49, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> It would result in every block effectively being anon-only, and it would >>> also make CU next to useless. Granting IPBE by default to >>> autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed/etc. users is not feasible. >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on >>> Wikimedia projects >>> they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter >>> <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/QUSR3JGDUKF7E6I63II3CNOGIKKQF6DE/ >>> 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/FRJAYBQCD4YYE3H2MQ4UIXLWONTLOHRN/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia > projects > they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter > <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) > _______________________________________________ > 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/RXJ2MVTDNWYGGTTW6K3ZS4CIMX7M4DG2/ > 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/5DOYVLW2P6PPFEWP3OQZTPEKPZ3UWPZQ/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
