In practical terms the only working point for category #1 is the last one, which is already done *in theory*. Yes, proxying systems from countries affected by such problems can generally be exploited from elsewhere. About category #2 the first point is great, but it needs a committed development effort, point 2 a temporary GIPBE can be a good idea.
Vito Il giorno mar 3 mag 2022 alle ore 03:31 <dh...@wikimedia.org> ha scritto: > I've been getting really helpful replies both here and in the Meta > discussion, thank you very much. I'm going to summarize what I'm seeing so > far, and ask some new questions. > > One thing that's come up is that there are many kinds of good-faith people > who experience collateral damage from the current practice — people in > Africa and South/Southeast Asia who are automatically in proxies thanks to > their ISP (the folks who started the conversation), and also people who > live in countries where contributors risk harassment or legal action, > including queer editors who live in countries where queer sexualities are > criminalized. > > Right now, I'm thinking about the different kinds of "pain" involved on > all sides. Just for the sake of this conversation, I'm using the word > "pain" to mean something that's frustrating, time-consuming, dangerous, > obstructive, or otherwise negative. Admins & stewards who spend all of > their free time trying to block IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", users > who get doxxed or harassed by IP-hopping abusers experience "pain", > organizers with editathon participants getting blocked experience "pain", > editors who are blocked from contributing experience "pain". > > So: is this a zero-sum game, where one group's pain relief = another > group's pain point? Right now, I think the expansion of proxy blocks since > last year has been reducing the pain for vandal/abuse fighters, which has > increased the pain for good-faith users (especially in Africa/South Asia). > For stewards, it may have just shifted the work: less work blocking the > vandals, but more work granting block exemptions. > > If it's a zero-sum game, then we're trying to find an acceptable balance > among these groups, which is difficult and makes everyone unhappy. I'm > hoping there are things that we can change in the software that make this > more of a non-zero-sum game, so that relieving pain for one group doesn't > increase it for someone else. > > The ideas so far break down into two categories: #1) making proxy blocks > less frequent or more nuanced so that we don't need an unblocking request > process, and #2) making the unblocking request process easier or more > efficient. The IPBE process is kind of the pivot point in the problem. From > a software design perspective, the fact that IPBE even exists is a failure > state — we're not doing our job properly making a website that anyone can > edit, if good-faith people are blocked and other good-faith people are > spending time unblocking them. So the ideal solutions would be focused on > #1, because if we solve those, #2 doesn't exist anymore. > > Here are some of the ideas suggested so far: > > Category #1: Making proxy blocks less frequent, or more nuanced > * Instead of auto-blocking, wait for someone to vandalize before blocking > that open proxy > * Tag edits made through open proxies, so that admins can give them more > scrutiny > * Throttle edits made through open proxies, to discourage vandals (and > good-faith people) > * For Apple's Private Relay, rangeblock the regions where vandalism is > coming from rather than blocking the whole service > * Treat ISPs in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia that use > carrier-grade NAT differently, instead of making them auto-blocked open > proxies > > Category #2: Making the IPBE process easier, or more efficient > * Make the local/global distinction easier to understand and navigate by > signaling to users that they've got a local or global block, and guiding > them in the right direction > * Let trusted users like campaign organizers submit lists of accounts to > be automatically exempt (but obviously blockable if those accounts are used > badly) > > Are there other suggestions for either category? What have I missed? > > One thing I'm curious about: for the "treat ISPs in Africa/South Asia > differently" idea — would people in other regions be able to abuse those > services? Would a bad actor in Europe be able to make edits through an > unblocked ISP in Ghana? > > Also: What happens if the open-proxy block only applies to anon edits, and > allows edits from people with accounts? I know that the basic answer is > "then the bad-faith people create accounts, so there's no point" — but does > that at least reduce the amount of "pain"/damage to a more acceptable > level? > > I'd also like to know what happens if a wiki chooses to block all > unregistered edits, like Portuguese WP and Farsi WP are doing right now? > Would we still need to auto-block open proxies, if there was no more > anonymous editing at all? I'm not suggesting that as a solution right now; > I just want to understand what the impact would be. > > Thanks for your thoughts and ideas. > > DannyH, aka Danny Horn (WMF) > _______________________________________________ > 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/TNMMK5HEQQ3H4MSLEPXV72LI567OIJPB/ > 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/FKRZUR2UMHCECAFSMR4C66VMRQBZRI4F/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
