Talk:No open proxies/Archives/2019

Authentication

I'd like to propose this policy be revised under the condition of authenticated users. This policy is valid for non-authenticated users because wikimedia depends on IP addresses to block abusive peers, but with regard to authenticated users there are alternative methods of blocking access that do not require wikimedia to discriminate against large demographics.

This policy is abusive and far too discriminatory, justified only through the fact that it appears to be common and accepted practice globally to ban excessively large IP blocks and the idea that people accessing the Internet through Open Proxies have alternative means at their disposal. This is a false assumption and needs to be re-evaluated. Millions of users are forced to use open proxies to access this website and others globally, and those that aren't forced may choose to do so regardless to protect their privacy and global security. It is unwise to force users to disregard their privacy and personal security for the sole purpose of facilitating the prevention of spam, especially so when there are less abusive methods for preventing said spam.

As such, I propose the policy be amended to whitelist any user who's successfully authenticated themselves to wikimedia, and whose account has not been flagged as being abusive.

-- Lhunath

What's an authenticated user? --Nemo 10:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple levels of authentication. The post appears to point out that millions of people are affected by the no TOR editing policy, and from my experience with Wikipedia, we spend way too much of our time hunting down people who might be operating sockpuppets and not enough time actually writing articles. I can also say categorically, that checking IP addresses is relatively unimportant in identifying or proving sockpuppets. I often edit from a shared IP address, and have no way of knowing how many dozens of other editors have used the same IP address that I have used. It is, though, a fact, that 99% of users, myself included, are going to be found to use the same IP address for more than one edit, if they do more than one edit. What I am saying is that for those not using TOR, checking IP addresses is a valuable method of confirming or dispelling accusations of sockpuppetry. But on the other hand, in today's world, there is no good reason for anyone who is not a government employee for not using TOR, and I would expect increased use of TOR. I certainly do not want my employer to know that I am either looking at or editing Wikipedia, and it would be very valuable to me to be able to use TOR for editing.

So what are the levels of authentication? One, making 10 edits and waiting four days. This proves that you are not just entering swear words, and have authenticated that you can make 10 edits that do not get you blocked. Two, verify your e-mail address. This is relatively unimportant, but does open up a second avenue of communication. Three, become an Admin. No one wants to only allow admins to be able to use TOR. Fourth, and the only real meaning to authentication, is to verify your identity to the Foundation. There are only about eight hundred identified editors, and really the sole purpose is to verify that you are over 18 (of legal age). No documents that are sent in are retained, and no record kept of your identity, only the fact that you have done so. There is no possibility that the Foundation wants to verify identity of the millions of people affected, nor is there any possibility that being identified will stop you from doing that 100 or 1000 times with different sockpuppets, if millions of identities are being checked, and no record kept, nor do I want to see the Foundation retaining information about your identity.

So I would recommend that only the first level of authentication be used in allowing TOR editing, 10 edits and four days. I know that most people who have been accused of sockpuppetry, and are guilty of same, simply go on doing that, no matter what, and are so patently easy to identify, that allowing TOR editing will have virtually no impact on the project, other than making it a lot easier for the millions of us who could definitely face real world consequences if we did not use TOR for editing. Apteva (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The numbers you mention for Newly registered user are valid only on en.wiki. --Nemo 09:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above authors. This extreme policy of banning IP addresses goes much too far and should be revised. It is neither promising nor adequate for logged-in users and it does not only ban TOR users. I for instance encounter a ban for logging in via freifunk.net, a German NGO-initiated activity for free (cost-free and also registration-free, implying anonymous, using a Dutch open proxy) public WiFi networking and internet access. This initiative is basically following the same ideals as wikipedia and approved as charitable accoring to German law. As a freifunk user I can do anything just as on my personal DSL internet access (which by the way, I, like 99% of all private internet connections in Germany, features a new public IPv4-address every day, but nobody cares) - except editing my wikipedia articles. This is a shame. --G-u-t (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I, too, think that this policy is a bit misguided. Users shouldn't need to justify their desire for privacy, and I would find it rather strange if there were users who would opt against privacy, if given the choice of "lower privacy" vs. "higher privacy" at equal cost. In my case, I usually run a system-wide (paid) VPN service as a proxy, and was surprised to find a user with as much activity as me isn't exempt from this rule that's obviously aimed at users that don't have my usage profile: Registered for ten years, activity spread over the years, over multiple projects.. Maybe it makes sense to adjust this and let registered users that meet a certain set of criteria use open proxies. --Saftorangen (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)