In addition, we'd be making significantly more difficult the detection and mitigation of abusive anonymous editing. Currently, when someone edits as an IP, gets blocked, resets their router, and changes the last octet, we can easily tell they're socking around a block. And to mitigate that, we can then consider an appropriate range block, if they keep doing it.
With a "pseudo pseudonym" used instead of the IP, a checkuser would be required to do that in both those cases, rather than an admin just being able to. That would be a good deal more load on the checkusers, since they would then be responsible for running checks on anonymous editors as well as accounts. A plus there would be that checkusers could definitively link anonymous socking to accounts, which today they can't do for privacy reasons, but realistically, I'd be more in favor of just removing that restriction--if you're editing abusively, you shouldn't have the right to have us help you conceal it. That doesn't necessarily make it a no go, but even today, anyone concerned about having their IP show up need only create an account, and we've got pretty clear warnings indicating that the IP will be left in the public history if you edit anonymously. If people don't take that simple step, see that warning, and save the edit anyway, I think we can pretty safely conclude that they do not mind if their IP is in the edit history. Todd On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Lucas Teles <telesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > That would require a precise prediction of how it would affect > countervandalism. Sometimes a very good clue we have about a sockpuppeteer > is the information we get from the IP. Not the number itself, but location > and ISP. If that change can make this impossible to find out, that may be a > bad idea. > > We can also recognize a long term vandal by their IP range when they have > dynamic IPs. Providing another kind of identification instead of the IP > could also take out this ability. > > The price for that could be lots of checkusers with headaches. > > Teles > > Em sáb, 12 de nov de 2016 às 19:00, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > > Honestly I cannot find pros since it's a free choice to edit without > > logging, so it's not up to me to find them :D if it would depend solely > on > > me this thread would even exist ;) > > > > Meanwhile I weight in the biggest con: the inability to use rangeblocks > and > > an unacceptable weakening of our ability to investigate sockpuppetry and > > abuse. > > > > Vito > > > > 2016-11-12 22:54 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>: > > > > > While it is tempting to start with cons, I think for most of the > > community > > > members, the question will be: 'what alternatives are there to > accomplish > > > more or less the same' with regards to fighting vandalism and > > sockpuppetry. > > > And answering that question would start with describing how we actually > > do > > > make use of this data. Sounds like a good process to go through, but > this > > > puts more emphasis on 2). > > > > > > Lodewijk > > > > > > 2016-11-12 21:36 GMT+01:00 Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Point #1, with current means, will simply imply the end of > > > countervandalism > > > > with IPs. > > > > > > > > Vito > > > > > > > > 2016-11-12 21:02 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber <bvib...@wikimedia.org>: > > > > > > > > > The biggest privacy problem in Wikipedia has always been the > > permanent > > > > > public exposure of casual editors' IP addresses. > > > > > > > > > > Secondarily, we store logged-in editors' IP addresses for a limited > > > time, > > > > > exposing all editors' IP addresses to access by staff and volunteer > > > > > accounts which could be stolen or misused as well as to any > potential > > > > > attacker who gains sufficient access to the database systems. > > > > > > > > > > I would like to suggest that the Wikimedia editor community, along > > with > > > > the > > > > > Wikimedia Foundation as steward of the software and servers, have a > > > > serious > > > > > consultation about committing to fix this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Eliminate IP address exposure for non-logged-in editors. Those > > > editors > > > > > should be either given a random, truly anonymous identifier, or > > > required > > > > to > > > > > create a pseudonym as a login. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Seriously think about how this will affect workflows tracking > and > > > > > fighting vandalism, and provide tools that do not depend on public > > > > exposure > > > > > of network addresses. > > > > > > > > > > 3) Avoid public exposure or long-term logging of any other > > > > > location-specific or network-specific information about anonymous > > > users. > > > > > > > > > > 4) Consider stronger controls on storage of IP addresses in the > > > databases > > > > > and how they are secured, in the face of possible attacks through > > > social > > > > > engineering, security vulnerabilities, or state action. Think about > > > what > > > > > really needs to be stored and what types of data recovery are > > possible > > > > when > > > > > storing truly personal-private data in shared databases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org) > > > > > Lead Software Architect, Wikimedia Foundation > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > -- > Steward for Wikimedia Foundation. Administrator at Portuguese Wikipedia and > Wikimedia Commons. Sent from mobile. Please, excuse my brevity. +55 (71) > 99707 6409 > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
