Wikivoyage talk:IP Masking Engagement

Welcome, please leave your comments below. STei (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. A couple of thoughts: the IP info feature looks useful. In the screenshot, is the "Number of Users on IP" the number of registered users who used that IP address in the past 24 hours, or is it an estimate of the number of unique individuals/devices that used that IP address to access WMF websites? (Or something else?)

It would be great if this project can provide better tools to deal with IP-hopping vandals. We have a few long-term vandals on this site who change IP addresses frequently in too wide a range for range blocks to be very useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a great idea and I think it could be really helpful in tackling repeat offenders. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Granger and LivelyRatification, sorry for the late response. The Anti-Harassment Team has updates on IP Masking here.

 In this update, there are details on the proposal for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and there’s also an update on tool development. 

Please pass by and check the new details out and give your feedback. STei (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The sockpuppet detector wouldn't be needed here. Sockpuppetry isn't banned on Wikivoyage and it's not worth the extensive time and effort here. But an IP hopping tool would be particularly useful against [certain LTAs]. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello SHB2000. The Anti-Harassment Team has updates on IP Masking here.

 In this update, there are details on the proposal for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and there’s also an update on tool development. 

Please pass by and check the new details out and give your feedback. STei (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@STei (WMF):, I like the proposal, but I think you should reduce the one year to six months. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

How would edits by IPs look at Recent Changes for admins and patrollers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that that is one of the things on which they're looking for input. Powers ^(talk) 15:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ikan Kekek, Powers. The Anti-Harassment Team has updates on IP Masking here.

 In this update, there are details on the proposal for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and there’s also an update on tool development. 

Please pass by and check the new details out and give your feedback. STei (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You now can see by a glance whether a series of edits have come from the same IP address or block of addresses. The sameness of IP addresses is important information, and with sophisticated techniques also sameness of locality, device or browser settings could be used to provide identifiers recognisable as close one to another. On the other hand, that closeness can reveal compromising information, if one of the similar users is known (publicly or by themselves).

The identifiers must be public, but it would be possible to have a suffix shown only to privileged users reveal additional information. Then the question is who is privileged enough for what piece of information. As little as possible should be shown while still allowing effective janitorial work. The problem is that for different vandals different pieces of information is important. Perhaps the system would need to be trained, but with strict limits for privacy, which a good AI may still get around if not very carefully designed. –LPfi (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

–LPfi (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello LPfi. The Anti-Harassment Team has updates on IP Masking here.

 In this update, there are details on the proposal for sharing IP addresses with those who need access and there’s also an update on tool development. 

Please pass by and check the new details out and give your feedback. STei (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications. You could have posted your message once and pinged all of us. But in any case, I started a thread on the Meta talk page linked above at "Reaction to 14 June 2021 update", which I invite anyone who's interested to read and reply to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin tools for IPs

Swept in from the pub

Please see Wikivoyage:IP Masking Engagement from one of my teammates. This will make some changes (and I am famous within the WMF for saying that "change is bad"), but I think it has some potential to make things better by requiring less technical knowledge. Imagine a world in which you don't have to copy an IP address and put it into another website to get some piece of information, and then go to another tool to get some other piece of information, because that information is just given directly to you on wiki. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ban IP editing here?

Swept in from the pub

Okay, so you might all think I'm crazy, but I think it's time to do this. So, a little bit of background history here, to why I thought this might be useful.

So about a month ago, I started to carefully look most IP edits (82 excepted), and I could not help but resist noticing that about a third of them were reverted (not accurate - as this is what I noticed about edits between 1700 to 2300 AEDT), often due to problems (and I noticed that Ikan Kekek was continually reverting IP edits on Cyprus - due to problematic edits). And while I wasn't looking at it back in April, it would've been much higher then, due to the presence of an LTA. And often, apart from one or two IP's, most aren't even quality edits. And today I noticed that on the Portuguese Wikipedia, I couldn't make a change without creating an account, as I realised I was logged out to translate something. And I myself will openly admit that I regret editing as an IP for 9 months on the English Wikipedia (and a little bit here, although probably no more than 40 edits here on enwv), and I (and I believe some other former IP editors here) don't want others having to feel the same.

Creating an account only takes like 40 seconds, and if I wanted to, I could create about 60 of them in an hour, and make an edit with all those accounts. And most other websites require you to verify your phone number or email address, and no WMF project requires you to do that. Just a captcha check, which isn't even that hard (unless you have short-sight or some other vision problems, which I'll later come to that), what more, it prevents IP tracking (not a big issue though) and what more, a block would only be preventing creating new accounts, and not affecting existing users who want to edit peacefully (e.g. I can't edit Wikipedia from my local library since someone thought it was a good idea to vandalize a swarth of pages.)

And with the Portuguese Wikipedia having done this only recently, the unspoken WMF project, Wikitech, has successfully managed to do this from the start with no problems. So I don't see why we can't do this here?

Now, for those who have short term vision problems or are blind, a good solution is to have four people here who has the role "Account creator", and make sure they are exempt from captcha checks, which I think what Graham87 is doing on the English Wikipedia (I saw a page about this, but can't remember which one).

And I get that this thread will be getting comments like "there are good faith IP editors", creating an account takes only 40 seconds, and often most vandals don't like creating an account, and there are very few major IP contributors, the solution is simple: create an account. And for the IP users who want to do one or two contributions: create an account and ditch it, for those who want to vandalise pages, create an account and get blocked. Simple, and I think this is the way to go in the future.

Also, since this is a big and large proposal, I would like to remind all editors to be civil here, and not resort to personal attacks just for disagreeing with me. Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll need time to think about this. But if "about a third of them were reverted", that means two-thirds weren't reverted, so a majority were considered useful contributions, even if subsequently modified.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

True, but if you were to edit and be forced to create an account, those IP editors may as well just ditch the account. Also, that stats was what I noticed in the timeframe I was editing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We rely on input from travellers, and it is easier to just add the restaurant when waiting for the bill than to take notes and add the listing after having returned home. I might not want to type in my password in an unfamiliar environment even if I have an account (personally I should not, except one of a parallel account). If one in that situation is forced to contact an account creator to make one's edit – come on! This might be a theoretic situation: perhaps anybody making edits en route use their standard (or alias) account, and perhaps no account-less readers ever adds useful listings, but I'd suppose the two thirds include at least some such edits. My en-route edits probably need copy editing and complementing: I won't take much care about wording and spelling if editing on mobile or on a bumpy ride, and won't check maps on a limited Wi-Fi connection on a train soon going into the next tunnel. I'd strive to include just what I might otherwise not be able to recollect. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I sometimes help blind people get started on the English Wikipedia; we also have a Wikipedia:Request an account process. I'm not in any position to influence what this project does but I generally favour users being required to be registered, especially with the upcoming IP masking changes. As noted above though, this may not work so well on this project. Graham87 (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need. We only get about 30 edits from IPs per day, which is an amount that any single editor can comfortably patrol. I just checked the most recent edit from the most recent 10 IP editors (most only made one), and I saw 100% good-faith edits and only two that could possibly be construed as a problem. One of them listed a tour outfit (there was already a different one on the page; I didn't check to see whether either qualify for our rare exception). The other possibly unwanted edit was an IP editor disagreeing with SHB2000 at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. All in all, I'd say that our IP editors are making positive contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Many of us edited as IPs for some time before we registered. I did so for IIRC 3 years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That includes me as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 20:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to oppose this on general principles.

It may block edits we want; for example I fairly often suggest to hotel or restaurant owners on Facebook that they list their establishment here (& yes, I or others often have to de-tout those listings) & I want to keep it easy for them (though I often suggest creating an account as well).

Some people (e.g. editors in China or other countries that censor) need anonymity for their own safety. IP editing is a terrible way to get that unless you use a proxy; it is probably safer to create an account with some random name. But it may be what some editors want.

I was once a fairly active editor at w:Citizendium, a project aimed at creating something "better" to replace WP. In spite of having some good ideas & good people, that failed miserably, & I think a large part of the reason was making things too hard for new editors. No IP edits & accounts must use your real name. There's a horrible slippery slope there -- some people at CZ suggested things like requiring ID to sign up & insisting on formal names so Bill Gates or Jimbo Wales could register only as William & James respectively -- which I do not think is a danger here, but it still gives me pause.

I doubt preventing IP edits will slow most vandals or touts down much.

I would favour milder restrictions on anonymous editors, like not allowing them to move or delete pages. Perhaps not to edit policy pages? Pashley (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose they cannot move pages as it stands, and moving a page is about as serious as writing something offensive at the top of the page, and as easy to revert. Editing policy pages is really no problem. They will be reverted, and vandalism on policy pages will mostly affect regulars, who can take it for what it is. –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Pashley, even I can't delete pages (on this wiki). Deleting pages is only for admins. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Jimbo's full first name is Jimmy, not James. Him having a username of "Jimmy Wales" still sounds wierd to me, though. Graham87 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous users cannot move pages, and deleting is an admin-only right... Leaderboard (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You cannot compare Wikitech with others. The reason they enforce login is because Wikitech directly interfaces with Toolforge and Cloud VPS, and is actually the place where public keys are added for a user (same applies for 2FA).

I'll just say that LTAs will always be around, and a better approach is to use filters if needed. At most, prevent them from creating pages. Blocking edits is too harsh and will almost always be blocked by the sysadmins (described on Meta) to the extent the proposal as-is is moot. Leaderboard (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about it and read everyone's responses so far, and on balance think that banning IP addresses would cause more harm than good. There probably would be an overall decrease in vandalism, at least initially, but it wouldn't stop anyone who was determined to disrupt, and such a move would also likely discourage good faith new users and registered users 'on the road' from contributing. What Wikivoyage needs most of all is greater numbers of active contributors in more geographically diverse parts of the world, and any barrier to this is undesirable. Therefore, I oppose this proposal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There's one more reason to consider. Based on research at the English Wikipedia, bad edits sometimes trigger improvements to neglected articles. The storyline runs something like this: You edit an article, and you put it on your watchlist. I edit it, and I make a mess. My edit causes the article to appear in your watchlist. You clean up my mess, and since you've already got the page open, you fix something else, too. The end result is that the article is better off than it was, even if none of my attempt sticks around.

I think that in a smaller project such as this one, the same thing happens via the Special:RecentChanges feed: An IP or a newbie edits an article; someone sees the edit in RecentChanges, and fixes it up a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I find IP editing to be a net benefit. The good edits stay and the bad ones get reverted quickly. Many IP vandals also reform themselves and become productive editors, either anonymously or later starting an account. But they may not have reached that point without experimenting. Also agree with ThunderingTyphoons. We need to reduce barriers, not raise them. Gizza ^(roam) 14:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing's remarks are true. I do a lot of recent changes patrolling, and due to that, I happen to see things that should be edited. That doesn't apply only to IP edits, nor only to edits I revert, but it still sometimes makes the article better than it was before a reverted edit. DaGizza, you know of cases of IP vandals becoming good users?? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I know of one at the English Wikipedia. He's not active any longer, but he made thousands of edits when he was younger, and one of his first was teenaged vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes at least on Wikipedia I know of a few teenagers or otherwise immature people who grew out of vandalism though I don't think they were vandals for long. Anyone who has been a vandal for 6 months will probably stay as one. Gizza ^(roam) 06:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)