RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive5

TOR exit nodes

 * First, this discussion started here
 * Second, no evidence of the very first claim made below has been presented anywhere on this page. 06:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been a long running problem, with obscene vandals using TOR to get around vandal binning and blocks. Whilst I like IP editing, TOR is a very different beast. It uses unused IP addresses from legitimate provides, the IPs changes constantly you can get several a minute, they doesn't keep record of who is using their service, and are generally a hive of depravity that would embarrass 4chan. Should we allow known TOR exit nodes to edit RationalWiki? I say no given that our lenient policies to blocking and vandal binning you should be able to edit from your home/school/work with no problems. 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with that User_talk:PainkillerUser:Painkiller 09:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem with what editing or blocking? 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the scale of the problem warrants this response. We probably have more sysops per user than wiki on the net.  Having said that - are there any circumstances when a user would need to legitimately use TOR? If there really are none then perhaps we should consider blocking it.--BobNot Jim 09:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we have no body blocked other than by people blocking themselves. Anyone vandal binned can leave a message asking to be released and if they promise to behave themselves, I'll release them. So anyone using there normal home/work/school/internet cafe/library IP should be able to edit with no restrictions. I can't think of a reason you should need to go to TOR other than to vandalise and vandalise lots. 09:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Obscene vandals", what is this, Conservapedia? The word, my friends, is "wandalism" and you are supposed to laugh at it and join in the fun.  What's next, are you going to call the FBI?  Oooh, they don't "keep record of who is using their service", you mean there's still a place on the webs where privacy still exists?  Onoz, we can't have that, we must have complete server records to turn over to Homeland Security!  Give me a break. 206.205.112.34 10:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I find leaving descriptions of sexual acts all over the place, including female users talk page, pushes the edge of free speech, given it is off mission. Along with redirect pages such as "butt slut" to users pages a little offensive and contrary to our community standards, which does mention civility at some point. It is not funny wandalism, it is childish. We are not going to report anyone because we don't care that much, but I can't see any reason why someone should use TOR to avoid blocks, when it provides no other service. If you want to contribute funny wandalism look at NEEDS VICODIN NOW who has run around unimpeded for several weeks. 10:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What a big surprise, your editing from a TOR node, fuck off. 11:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the above is a good reason for admins to use the delete and rollback features. Childish vandalism can be reverted in seconds.  Making a big deal about it is exactly what "they" want.  What you just said has more to do with being vigilant at reverting vandalism than anything about whether TOR should be blocked.  And yes I'm editing via TOR to make a point.  66.146.193.29 11:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another TOR BON who does not want it blocked. How about you use your normal IP from your ISP and comment? 11:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, re-create your account with your real first name and last initial. Of course TOR users don't want to be blocked, you utter fuckwit. What difference would using their normal IP make to the substance of their comment?Anus Deaton (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the comments from TOR users here are not from vandals but from users having more legitimate reasons to preserve their anonymity.
 * I'm editing RW not often, but regularly (maybe once in two months). When I do so, I sometimes use TOR (unlike now) because I don't want to enable others (especially gov) to track down my political views. If you block TOR exit-nodes, I will simply stop performing edits which I deem dangerous.
 * If TOR edits are such a problem, why don't you mark such edits in the "Recent Changes" page (I think I've read something on WP - they're doing something similar). Then they can be undone very quickly. Or (if you reeaally have to) you can block editing article pages but permit talk pages. -- 85.178.153.88 18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia Meta-Wiki has to say. 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. 11:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that our BON may be an established user making a point by editing as an IP. Anyway my feelings are:


 * IPs are already not as free to edit as established users already.
 * Ever time that we make life a little more difficult for vandals we also make it a little more difficult for users. Blocking TOR may be an exception, but it's another step down the blocking road.
 * As has been mentioned before, we are not short of sysops to cover things and revision is not difficult.
 * Ever since our creation (and based on our experiences at CP) we have tried to have as open an edit policy as possible. (OK this argument is not a logical one like the others, but it needs to be mentioned.) --BobNot Jim 11:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit via an IP regularly and have found the restrictions to be minor but workable. We can make IPs life easier by allowing minor flags and rollbacks if you would like, I have always wish I had them when I am a BON. Anyone can get an account no troubles so I can't see how we make it more difficult on legitimate users. Slippery slope arguments are always unconvincing as there is a brake somewhere, in out case we can't block 98% of our regular users as they are all sysops anyway. All our friend is showing is that anyone using TOR can stop and get an account anyway as they have one themselves. 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Kill em all. 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand why on a philosophical level, blocking TOR would really go against a lot of what we're about, and to a certain degree this is asking the Internet not to be the Internet. On the other hand, it's not just wandalism we're talking about, and it's not just childish: if one were to take what was posted on Toast's talk page last night and write it down and leave it in her mailbox at two in the morning, and do so repeatedly, it would be stalking, and depending on where in the world you were, criminal. for a long time, someone was using our Wiki to threaten to "ass-rape" a particular woman BY HER REAL NAME. Would blocking TOR stop that? No. would it make so it would slow down and be easier to control? Possibly. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (aside) You do see why I think it's MC? 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (aside) Well the last spammer knew enough about us to mention you by username and you were always MC's "favourite".--BobNot Jim 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (aside) Mind explaining what MC refers to in this context?  14:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:MarcusCicero.  15:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit button
(UI) Should we be worrying about CP blocking Tor only after reading this? I think the only reason they would know how to do it is by reading us. 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if you're using TOR to circumvent blocks, then any site that blocks you has a right to stop this practice to enforce it's rules. 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In principle I am against blocking IPs as it's counter to our ethos and we have the vandal brake to limit damage. In theory it should be possible to just rollback/undo any untoward edits. However, because TOR enables rapid change of IP these tools become worthless. It becomes like defending yourself against a machine gun with a stick. We have very liberal policies with regards people editing using any IP even if it is a known proxy, it's their perogative if they wish to remain anonymous. So there is no reason for anyone to actually need to use TOR here unless they wanted to circumvent any restrictions.  14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible that TOR is an exception - but would blocking TOR make much real difference? If one searches on "anonymous proxy" one gets quite a few hits. If TOR were blocked I assume people would eventually move to them. What then? Go down the CP route and start blocking more and more?--BobNot Jim 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They would. But then the other tools such as the vandal brake and short blocks become usable again. Finding proxies that actually work can often take a while, and having to go from one to another would be a real pain - certainly more troublesome than using TOR. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about TOR, but I'd say that if it can easily be turned off so that the user can use their original IP, we can block TOR. The user won't be blocked from using their original IP - unless, of course, their original IP has been blocked/binned, in which case we probably don't want them anyway. I hate to say this, but it seems to be a case of the innocent having nothing to fear if my above assumption is correct. EddyP (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the blockage of TOR, just so long as IP editing is enabled. Oh, and from the Wikimedia page on TOR

The problem of vandalism is deeper than the band-aid approach of blocking tor users from access to Wikipedia. Instead of this blunt instrument, the types of pages that are being vandalised should be analysed and stricter measures taken against the editing and vandalism on those pages rather than a blanket ban on all tor users.


 * Just some food for thought. -- 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. You get hardly any vandalism, which means that no one ever gets the pleasure of whacking vandals or spams )= I got to delete one lousy page since I've been looking at recent changes, and I got to it only seconds before the other guy blocked. You seriously don't have a problem, so don't take away the fun. Tarantallegra (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)That just means locking articles that could attract vandals or unwanted attention, nothing more. It's common on WP but is against the founding policy or RW. In the case of the malicious vandalism, they'd just find an unlocked article to post it on. Therefore, locking the articles will achieve far less and have a greater negative impact than blocking TOR nodes. 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Threatening people with rape and sexual stalking is fun? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely, we're talking about stopping the malicious stuff, not the annoying spam. 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the point, really. The amount of wandalism that occurs on this site is tiny. I haven't been around long, but it seems to me that this entire debate has caused more wandalism than anything else in recent memory.
 * There are at least two questions that need to be answered before a decision can be reached:
 * Will blocking TOR result in a net decrease in wandalism, and
 * Will blocking TOR inconvenience legitimate users.
 * From my POV, the answers are "probably not" and "maybe". If those are the answers then TOR must be left unblocked.
 * FWIW, I've changed my mind about 7 times during this discussion, and I may well change it again. If anybody from CP is watching (Hi TK!), THIS is what is meant by an open mind. SuspectedReplicant (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from my view 1) It's possible, I want to test it but I'd still be happy with proxies blocked even if it was a negligable effect 2) Extremely unlikely if not impossible because we'd only be blocking proxies - which are only ever used if you want to cause mischief or circumvent things (are we blocked in China yet? Probably not.). 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I came here thinking "no", and nothing I read changed my mind. I think Tarantella put it best.  What problem with vandalism?  I dunno how much work has to be done before noon EST, maybe it's non-stop chores, but during my "watch" all I ever see is, what, maybe a half-dozen reversions a day - IOW, they get fixed before I even go look at the edit. "Hurtful" or severely offensive comments can be archived and similar usernames can be renamed (we have what, 40-something crats?), fifty such actions could be accomplished in the time it took me to read the above and write this.  20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think besides being a great shame, if you started a blocking policy it would be seized upon with great delight by the likes of TK. FallenOak just passing by...82.23.209.253 23:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a script in my user space so TK can block the fucking lot if he wants. 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Onion routing
People keep asking why vandals won't just use another proxy server, the simple reason is other proxy servers don't behave the same way as Tor. As far as I can tell Tor is the only anon server that uses the onion layer. Most proxies just give you a single IP address, which they only have a few of, if we vandal bin that IP, the vandal is stopped same as a normal ISP. Tor gives multiple addresses using spare IPs all across the world, often without the owners realising they are being used. We all stand there laughing at TK's range blocks because they seem stupid, but often 1 IP in that range is being used by Tor so when TK blocks a printing press in Mexico cutting off it its 256 IPs it was probably because of Tor. Wikipedia restricts Tor use, tt is the only anon proxy that has an extension specifically to do this because the others behave the way we expect them to behave. And if after this CPwebmaster doesn't install this extension he has rocks in his head. 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And we get like, what, two wandals a day max? I think you are making a massively ridiculous mountain out of an utterly insignificant molehill.  Is it all because you had to undo a handful of wandalisms earlier today and they were done by torrorists?  04:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what, next time we get hit by a vandal using Tor I'll let them go ape shit and you can see how much shit we have to clean up. 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what did you do to stop them, unilaterally block all Tor proxies to save you some work? Just curious, since this page seems to be about "whether we should", not "whether we should undo what Pi did yesterday without discussion".  You're kinda freaking me out, dude, I don't like having someone who acts like that having whatever the heck server access you have.  05:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have as much server access as you do. I wrote a bot script yesterday to block the nodes, but as BobM said we should take this here before we block ~1,100 IPs. And as it turns out there is a more efficient way of doing it if we actually wanted to. 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take back the server access thing. All you did was block ~1100 IPs, of which only, what, 6, ever edited this site.  Nice work.  Yes, I understand you unblocked them, after sarcastic protests were made.  My question is, did you think about the community at all before you did the mass blocking?  07:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Misc
I'd like to vote "No" but I don't think it is my place to suggest that "privacy" (which TOR may not actually increase) is worth other people's effort. I'd suggest that it be tried, so long as advocates clean up vandalism. Lumenos (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a "secure" https way to access this site. Do you know what would prevent a TOR exit node from stealing log-in passwords, if these are used? Lumenos (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might therefore be pointless but otherwise I'd suggest allowing only logged-in users to edit through TOR [at first]. Lumenos (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Well duh, now I realize that TOR was already allowed. Lumenos (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki security is pathetic, it always has been. If you are worried about privacy don't use a MediaWiki website. The logged-in is an option, the extension allows many options, WP prevents (at least it use to) accounts being auto-confirmed until a much higher benchmark if they are using Tor. 00:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Humm I don't know then. It might be difficult to see how many zombie computers are made with this wiki, as users may not know about it. Vandalism is easy to see. Lumenos (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is easy to see, I just don't know why I have to spend time cleaning it up when our normal procedures to curb it aren't working and extension will cut most of the problem. Plus seeing as I often edit from uni, given the content of the vandalism, I don't particularly want to have to read it in order to clean it up. 00:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be your beef - that you, Pi, "had to" clean up some wandalism. You just got to it first.  This whole issue is a total fucking farce.  04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a search for MediaWiki vulnerabilities. That is a daunting number of results. I'll just ask in case anyone wants to reveal this. What would be the easiest MediaWiki exploit of my wiki or RW? And the worst case scenario? I'd appreciate if no one cause a problem for me, but if you have some benign exploit to test, you could try it on my wiki, to prove its effectiveness to me. I come back and tell everyone one you have evidence for your claim. Lumenos (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unpatched	 0% (0 of 28 Secunia advisories) -- Nx  / talk 06:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki is almost constantly being patched to fix these problems. We are currently running on 1.14.0 and there is a gaping great hole in Special:Block that allows people to enter the system through an admin's account, and seeing as you are now one you are a security risk to our site. 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Special:Block vulnerability is mitigated by the fact that mediawiki does not allow in usernames, so the only way to abuse it is to create a link and get the sysop to click it. That said, I have patched our MediaWiki to remove this vulnerability (I have also patched the vandalbin, which had this too because the code was copied), see User_talk:Tmtoulouse -- Nx  / talk 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now how can I worry the guy? BTW there is a 1.14.1 release now to fix a few other problems. 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. -- Nx  / talk 06:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be these conflicting uses for TOR (that might be addressed separately):
 * Allow editors privacy by using TOR.
 * Allow identification or exploitation of editors using TOR by: exit nodes, TOR software developers, etc.
 * Who knows how TOR will actually be used? Lumenos (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * About the only good thing I read about Tor is it allows people to get around the great firewall of China. If you want anonymity either use another proxy server or get an account. We don't have check user installed so we can't trace back who is using the account. 01:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a great deal we could do to make vandalism more difficult like protecting articles that are regularly vandalized and we don't do those things. I've sometimes protected articles during vandal campaigns and others unprotected those pages in minutes. Banning Tor, if it can be done will cause real problems for users in countries with oppressive regimes. Stopping Tor while other types of vandalism are accepted just doesn't make sense to me. We are now protecting our Main Page but even that wasn't done a few months ago. I think we should allow Tor and protect heavily vandalized pages if there is too much work for sysops. If vandalism is managable we can leave pages unprotected. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like for example, talk pages? -- Nx  / talk 10:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How come the mainpage is protected? I thought we didn't do that?--BobNot Jim 10:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested that we unprotect it the other day. 10:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was RA last October: dunno why, apart from a short rant in the comment. I doesn't warrant protection IMHO. 11:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Count down to Tit's blanking in 5,4,3,... 11:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected it as it is against agreed policy. 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with protecting pages is that in the case of the maliciously hateful stuff that sparked this thing, the wandal - who we strongly suspect is a person, not a script targeting the same page - just goes to another page (we even have a very handy link on the left for this purpose), blanks it and puts up their message. So you'd have to protect every page to stop that. Protecting only works when a specific article is recieving too much attention, such as whenever xkcd mentions something obscure, WP shuts down editing on the page to stop people repeatedly sticking in "XKCD MENTIONED THIS!!!111" into the article. That's what protection is there for - I'm not against protection, but it's not great at stopping the kind of thing this conversation started out discussing. 13:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing is that the main page is sort of like our public face. If you visited someone and they had shit smeared all over their front door and used sanitary products tied to the knocker then you might probably beat a hasty retreat. Yes, people can vandalise other pages but it has far less impact than the main page. As it has no content of its own I see no problem with locking it, if people want to vandalise then let them do it template by template. 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Question: Would it be too difficult to use/modify the extension in question to limit the total allowable edit from all TOR exit nodes to certain number per hour? (Optional: until certain privilige is given to accounts, if the concern is they will simply creating more accounts? Remember we have a habit to sysop mostly everyone so that metric can be used.)   01:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the extension and what is possible. I am sure it is editable, may be auto confirmed user can use Tor or something, although why you would edit at dial up speeds if given the option not to is beyond me. 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainland China and perhaps some other places need Tor to read the site (It has the words like "democracy" and "freedom", so I suppose it is blacklisted?)? I suppose you can only edit it if the site is readable.   06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't filter words, it blocks connection of IPs. Unless our websites IP has been added to list we won't be blocked. 06:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever happens over this, TOR nodes will always be able to readour pages. It was only the issue of editing through TOR that was being debated.  11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote - Should we block all TOR edits?
We've probably seen most of the arguments. Shall we take it to the vote?
 * You mean end the voting or impose a time limit here? Lumenos (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to ever close this poll. Lumenos (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Our voting procedures are semi-mystical. We carry on like this for a while, if there is overwhelming support for change it happens, if not it goes on for a bit longer until everyone loses interest and does something else. There is a certain built in inertia to the system, but it works for the most part. 01:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Should RW continue to vote like this? Yes No Don't care Goat

Yes

 * TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 22:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BLOCK TOR NOW! And stop drinking soda. NEED VICODIN NOW (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lord of the Goons (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My butthole itches 83.170.93.54 02:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No
--FernandoMartinez (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --BobNot Jim 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * -- 22:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC). Of course, I will change my vote to respect the wishes of the Cabal.
 * Web (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mountain Blue 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 05:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SuspectedReplicant (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * don't see how vandalism has suddenly become a problem that needs such drastic measures -- Nx  / talk 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 07:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC) It's not a problem at the moment.
 * Worm (t  10:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC) not a problem that needs addressing yet.  But that may change of course.
 * Not really seeing any need for it here yet. HumanisticJones (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mithearon (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mithearon (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Ace McWickedModel 500 22:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sterile 02:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Might help a little, might annoy a few members. Either way. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 14:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Conditional
Allow TOR (temporarily) so long as TOR advocates will clean up vandalism and there are no (publicly known) significant vulnerabilities to the MediaWiki softwares being used: Too complicated, nevermind. Lumenos (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow the practice of autoconfirmed users/sysops/most users to edit from TOR (and perhaps restrict a total number of edits from all exit nodes so they can gain autoconfirm status) so we won't end up progressively blocking the planet (I mean sooner or later blocks other than TOR will be added for other reasons) (If it is even doable to begin with)
 * 06:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if you clear the cache you should only block the current nodes, instead of all used nodes. 06:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote - since Pi apparently already did this unilaterally, shall we undo it?
Seriously. 05:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no block TOR nodes at the moment, check the block log. 05:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not convince me. Do you mean you created this whole clusterfuck because you "had to" perform a handful of rollbacks yesterday?  Because that's all I can see leading to this stupider than possible debate.  I move this whole piece of crap be archived.  06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It started yesterday with TOP wanting to rid us of anonymous editing. 06:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So why wasn't that linked at the top of this whole fucking debate? I only just found that, by looking at your contribs to see what pains you went through dealing with TorSpam.  (PS, couldn't find any trauma).  This whole fucking debate, and the other one, are such a waste of time I can't believe you guys are taking it seriously.  And you did do it, but you undid it, as said/discussed on a page only now linked from here.  How are people supposed to keep track of our conversations when they get moved to random debate pages and then here without a "paper" trail?  PS, I think TOP was speaking with his tongue jammed deeply in his cheek.  I still see no link the awful trauma that led to this/these discussion(s).  06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the header line. You did unilaterally block all Tor nodes from editing this site. But you undid your block when people complained at this other discussion which has only now been linked to from here. 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the debate was stupid, I think it was quite useful. Some users had what they felt were legitimate concerns and - with the best of motives - got a bit carried away yesterday. An objection was made to the process, and the changes they had made were removed. Everybody has had an opportunity to have their say and we look like we're going to get a consensus.  Looks like a pretty typical RW resolution to me.
 * I agree that not linking to the original debate was an oversight.--BobNot Jim 06:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any debate or discussion is good. But this one seems to overlook the reason for the discussion - that Pi used his bot to block a zillion IPs to make some weird point.  The discussion here came after the action.  And, above, Pi tries to whitewash his blocking of thousands of IPs with his bot. Perhaps the discussion should be "should any bot be allowed to be a sysop?" not this silly thing about Tor.  07:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to drop this asinine stupidity
It all appears to be based on one editor's whinging, and their ability to fuck up the wiki at the server level just because they want to. No evidence has been presented in this entire conversation of any problem at all. 06:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down Human. Pi blocked a bunch of IPs, any sysop could do that. -- Nx  / talk 06:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And none should. We don't block IPs.  There's no need to and as I said, in this entire stupid discussion, I haven't even seen one scrap of evidence presented that there is even a goddamn issue.  Now let's drop it. And Pi's unilateral blocking of a "bunch of IPs" is admin abuse and shows a lack of understanding of how the site works.  07:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC

Respectfully I have to agree with Human. It does seem like this is a storm in a teacup.Rad McCool (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More like weese in a pint glass. Ace McWickedModel 500 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And Human's accusations of fucking up the wiki at the server level and now admin abuse are not exactly helpful. -- Nx  / talk 07:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using a bot to block thousands, not "a bunch" of IPs is abuse. I desyssoped pibot, and expect the servant to remain that way.  And, yeah, I was wrong about the server level thing, Pi just used his bot to do something we simply don't do.  07:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake to start the blocking without asking the mob first, but it wasn't abuse of admin powers. -- Nx  / talk 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using sysop powers to block thousands of IPs that never edited here, with no discussion prior to the action, isn't abuse? Then what the hell is?  As far as I am concerned, Pibot should not ever be a sysop again, all it does is go on blocking sprees that interfere with the operations of the wiki.  And if Pi sysops pibot again, I will unilaterally remove his cratship (what, unless he decrats me first?) for abusing that power.  07:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we had a username blacklist, and a sysop added the word "dick" to it because a vandal created several usernames, all a variation of HumanLikesDicksInHisAss, would you consider that admin abuse? Pi undid the blocks, and there was no lasting damage. Your whining about admin abuse is the storm in the teacup, not the discussion above. -- Nx  / talk 08:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to take a look at Pibot's contributions before saying that it does nothing but go on blocking sprees. -- Nx  / talk 08:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pibot does many useful things, yes. But I think Pi abuses the bot.  I think Pi should break his bot into several separate "trusted" bots.  I'll address this on his talk page tomorrow. But saying a "bot" does many useful things, when the bot also runs rampage on the wiki and does things no sane user/sysop would do, then creates a CS discussion while hiding the sources of the controversy?  I think that is so "not-RW" that it really makes me angry.  Or at least confused.  09:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite being called a fuckwud and asinine stupid, I am more offended at the accusation I created this discussion on the community standards to hide something. I started when it was suggested that we take it from the debate about IP editing, to a site wide discussion on Tor. I didn't link it at the top, but most users there at the time followed it across from the debate, so it didn't occur to anyone to link back. 09:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, the "block all IP editors" thing was a sarcastic response to your rampage. And your claim that "I didn't link it at the top, but most users there at the time followed it across from the debate" is empty rhetoric - I had to chase the damn dragon via user contribs pages and added the goddamn links at the top that you should have, if you really cared that people could follow the story and edit intelligently.  09:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought Debate:Should we get rid of anonymous editing? was serious, and Pi's Tor blocking idea was a response to that, a less drastic alternative? -- Nx  / talk 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pi started the CS debate explicitly at my request when I queried the previous actions. I have no doubt that he acted in absolute good faith at all times.--BobNot Jim 10:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very few here take this wiki business as seriously as Pi. There is no doubt that he was acting in the best of faith. Yes, TOR does damage, and yes, RW is Pi's baby (among others) so I understand that he would take any action he deemed necessary to protect it. I think this is kind of like homskooling your kids. You're missing out on some of the stuff that makes you cool, even if most of it is dangerous or counter-productive. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pi acted a bit too quickly in response to a request from another user, but equally quickly reversed his action when it was questioned. I don't see the big deal here.--BobNot Jim 08:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to interject into the specific issue at hand, but just want to say that my confidence in and appreciation of Pi have not faltered in the least. I think the TOR issue resolved itself in a typical and satisfactory RW fashion. Calling out Pi at this point is not certainly not needed, and not fair for someone that has done so much good for the site. tmtoulouse 09:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "the other user" over-reacted to some vandalism and Pi tried to help but without thinking through the consequences - something anyone might do. Pi's actions were not malicious and he speedily reverted them when other editors queried him. There may come a time where the vandalism is destructive (rather than just obscene or distasteful) and I wouldn't want to hold a technically competent editor back from taking defensive action. In this case no damage was caused and I doubt that anyone was even inconvenienced, unlike, say, when TWIGOCP got trashed (in an amazing coincidence) by "the other user". :) 09:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with "Pi's actions were not malicious and he speedily reverted them when other editors queried him." But I wholly disagree with the way this CS discussion was started.  Sorry, it looked/looks to me like Pi was trying to whitewash his huge mistake, for instance, the discussion didn't even start with links to what happened.  That is not the RW way, is it? The real issue is, should any "bot" be allowed sysop status?  09:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here seems to be that we've become accustomed to King Log (Trent) taking a back seat for ages; there are now two additional "Crown Princes" (Nx & Pi,) who are are intent on being King Stork and taking a more active role. What we (the frogs) have to realise is that change happens; what the two have to realise is that you can't just do things to/for us "for our own good" without going through all the mobocracy thing. This is especially true when you're talking a different language to the rest of us (I did it when I started playing with dpl way back). There are users who feel that they're entitled to some consultation before anything is done, and they are, but so is everyone . Everything must be explained and agreed in the common tongue (peoplespeak not wikispeak or perl or php or whatever) before being instituted. I have no complaints whatsoever about anything that's in place right now, but when a, for instance, bot is given the right to block me without my consent, I find that somewhat annoying. As to the TOR thing: I really don't give a damn, but explanation and consultation before action is the RW way. 12:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you not use literary reference when talking to the illiterate? 13:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the RW way was to go ahead and break the wiki, then discuss when people start caring :P -- Nx  / talk 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * @ pi: Don't think Aesop's fables count as literary, anyhow, I expect uni attendees to be literary.
 * @ Nx: Yeah, unfortunately that's the way it's been.
 * Damn dropping connection! 13:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But when try to do it properly, noone cares. -- Nx  / talk 13:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect the general reaction to that was "WTF is this all about, I understand it not" 13:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, better now? -- Nx  / talk 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight: Those who are for this are TORies and those opposed are conservatives? No, that can't be right.
 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RWW
I hope at least one of us reports on this at RationalWikiWikiWikiWikiWIki! What a clusterfuck! 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to clean up the mess made there the other day first. Anyone still have a mop there? 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done that. -- Nx  / talk 10:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wow, I checked RC there after adding this. Nice mess, thanks for the cleanup.  10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

TK
I haven't read all of the above here, but considering that TOR is one of the only ways for us to pose questions on CP, isn't it a little hypocritical for us to talk about blocking it to get rid of "vandals". Also, don't post how you are going to block TOR, otherwise you'll give TK ideas. 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone still "pose questions" on CP? Why? 14:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who still posts on CP? Why would anyone care if TK locked it up some more?TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)