With Wikipedia Zero we were able to filter the users using that program
with a flag similar to the one you propose, and then monitor them and make
informed decisions based on the quality of the editions. I suppose
something similar could be done with OPs too. That would really be a
relief. It would make it much easier for those who have access to the
filters to identify sockpuppets and LTAs, possibiliting a much more
intelligent and informed blocking of those accounts, instead of the
randomic mess that happens now. There are some privacy concerns with the
use of that flag, but all of them way more bearable than using bare IP
addresses, or having to expose oneself on the steward mailing list when
trying to request a IPBE for legitimate use.

And legitimate uses for OPs are getting more and more common by the day,
and not only for those living in China, Russia or Venezuela. At this point
most of us who edit from Portugal and Brasil know very well the dire risks
we incur everyday when editing Wikipedia with a known identity, which go
from physical threats and harassment of us and our direct family, to having
to defend ourselves in court on all kind of frivolous causes - which is
just another form of harassment - generally without help from the WMF.


effe iets anders <effeietsand...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia sábado,
30/04/2022 à(s) 08:37:

> Hi Danny,
> this is great thinking. There's one more angle that I'd like to offer, but
> it would come with plenty of risks and downsides, so I'm not sure if it is
> actually viable (I guess it falls in the 'mitigate harm' category). But
> just to put it out there:
> One of the main reasons that we block open proxies, is because of
> sockpuppets and block evaders. What if we would somehow expose to admins
> which edits are made by open proxy? That way they can consider the entire
> picture (including a history of good faith edits) before blocking their
> edits. Down the road, that flag could become more nuanced (open proxy vs
> shared connection) but obviously it would have to remain pretty broad
> categories. There are plenty of downsides (WMF would need to keep a
> database of open proxies for one, but it would also share a small piece of
> private information about the user - we could warn them about that as they
> are saving their edit).
> If we are afraid primarily for rapid open proxy edits, we could use a
> tactic that is used by some social media tech companies in other settings:
> slow them down when using an identified open proxy. If we build in a 30s
> throttle or even wait time before the edit can be saved, or a 5 minute
> delay before the edit can become visible, that would take the fun out of it
> possibly. Obvious downside is that this is still annoying as hell for good
> faith users, but at least they can now request exceptions on-wiki.
> This family of methods risks a two class community, but I'm not sure if
> that is worse than the current situation. I'm not sure what would be the
> 'right' path either.
> Lodewijk
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM <dh...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> (cross-posted from
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#Help_from_WMF
>> )
>> Hi folks, I'm DannyH from the Wikimedia Foundation. I manage the product
>> teams that build Contributor Tools -- Community Tech, Campaigns, CheckUser
>> improvements and sockpuppet detection, moderator tools on mobile web, and
>> the new incident reporting system.
>> I've been reading all of these conversations, and I'm concerned about the
>> people on both sides of the issue -- the admins working to keep the
>> projects safe from bad-faith people, and the good-faith people who are
>> being blocked because of someone else's rangeblock, or because they're
>> using default network proxy features that they're not aware of.
>> This problem is getting attention within the WMF. Foundation folks are
>> really concerned about what we're hearing on Wikimedia-L and in this
>> discussion, especially because there seem to be systemic issues that are
>> specifically making things harder for new users in Africa. I've got the
>> opportunity right now to assign people to make software changes to help
>> solve this problem, which is great. But now I'm trying to figure out what
>> those software changes could be, and I don't have a clear answer yet for
>> what that should be.
>> So if you don't mind, I'd like to run through what I think the main
>> points are, and a list of possible directions that a solution could take,
>> and then I would love it if you could help me figure this out.
>> Here's what I understand about the problem:
>> * Open proxies are a vector for harassment and vandalism. Bad-faith long
>> term abusers use them to disguise their IP and evade detection. The
>> projects automatically block open proxies that they know about, to
>> discourage the bad-faith vandals.
>> * There's been a big increase in proxy blocks since July 2021 on English
>> Wikipedia (and Oct 2021 on Spanish WP), because ST47ProxyBot has been
>> getting trustworthy outside data to help identify open proxies.
>> * The use of open proxies on the internet is rising, partly because
>> people are becoming more concerned about their privacy. Apple has
>> introduced iCloud Private Relay, which is disguising people's IP — this is
>> currently in beta, but will probably become the default. Google is working
>> on a similar project. Our system of using IPs to identify block vandals is
>> gradually breaking down, and there will probably be a point when IPs just
>> won't be useful anymore.
>> * There are a lot of good-faith users, including first-time contributors,
>> who are getting caught in these blocks. For some people, that's an annoying
>> inconvenience; for many others, especially brand new people, it drives them
>> away completely.
>> * There appears to be a systemic issue with how some African ISPs deal
>> with IP addresses, which is creating a lot of collateral damage in places
>> where campaign organizers are trying to introduce new users to wiki
>> contribution. I saw one person mention that the problem was especially bad
>> in Ghana and Benin.
>> * The messages that people get when they're blocked are confusing,
>> especially for new people. They only get the message after they've made an
>> edit and are trying to publish, which is very frustrating.
>> * The solution for individuals is to request an IP Block Exemption, which
>> can be either local or global, depending on whether the block is local or
>> global. The local/global distinction is very confusing for people who are
>> trying to make the request, and the whole process is difficult.
>> * Each request has to be processed by hand, and the system gets backed
>> up. It's possible to get unblocked quickly if you know the right person to
>> email, but a lot of people just fill out the request, and then wait for who
>> knows how long.
>> * It's possible for admins/stewards to get overwhelmed by the number of
>> unblock requests.
>> That's a cluster of many different problems, so now I'm trying to figure
>> out which problems we could actually make progress on.
>> Possibilities include:
>> * Mitigate the harm coming from open proxies, so we don't need to
>> automatically block them
>> * Understand the difference between a "dangerous" open proxy (which
>> bad-faith people are actually using) and a more "innocent" proxy (which is
>> just blocked because we know it's a proxy), and then treat them
>> differently. (If it's possible to make that distinction.)
>> * Make the messages to good-faith people more helpful and less frustrating
>> * Make the unblock request process easier/faster/more friendly for the
>> people making requests
>> * Make the unblock request process easier for the people responding, so
>> they can process them faster (or involve more people who can help)
>> * Make it easier for good-faith people to get some kind of automatic
>> exemption
>> * Make it easier for campaign and editathon organizers to whitelist their
>> participants
>> * Adapt the system better to the reality of African ISPs — figure out
>> what the problem is, and treat those ISPs differently
>> That's a lot, and it's not clear to me what the path forward should be.
>> Can folks help me out? What did I get wrong here, or what did I miss?
>> Thanks in advance for your help.
>> DannyH (WMF)
>> aka Danny Horn, Director of Product Management, Contributor Tools
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/3YXRPJOOJNESFYGR2WF3LCT54TFUHBM7/
>> 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/OP2EHWKKCP6GK4R4GRBMUILXFMCIJ4TK/
> 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 
Public archives at 
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Reply via email to