Wikipedia talk:Advice to users using Tor

message: #I have removed the section on https servers; if China blocks them, not much point in listing them.
#I have corrected the section on the TorBlock extension; as I understand it, it is active on all wikis but the override is disabled.  (That is, it was written to automatically softblock all exit nodes and override any local hard blocks.  Only the override has been disabled.)
#Added IP block exemption.
#Modified the section on soft blocks.  Hard blocks should be much less controversial now that IPBE has been implemented.
--Thatcher 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: And can anyone tell me why? I thought there was a system in place for legitimate users to create accounts and then edit via Tor... -- AndySimpson talk? 11:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tor is hardblocked because we get an overwhelming amount of abuse from it. Legitimate users with good reason to use it can request IPBE. I've updated the page to reflect the status quo - the system for creating accounts is described there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we still hardblocking Tor? 

message: The project page states:
:Ask someone outside of mainland China to set you up with an account
However, Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies/Criteria states:
:Do you have over 3000 edits on Wikipedia?
How is someone from China supposed to make 3,000 edits in order to qualify? Is one supposed to make 3,000 diffs and e-mail them to a closed proxy operator? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the 3000+ edits criteria for WP:WOCP. Ryttaren (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've also tweaked the wording of other criteria to make them consistent with the "Whether you need to have a Wikipedia account created" bullet point on /Usage instructions. But then how is "not including schools, educational institutions or public libraries" intended to intersect with people who live on campus or can't afford Internet access at home? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  3,000 diffs for new users in China 

message: ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.38.70.7 (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  While HTTPS.wiki is availble in China now, does China issue still exists? 

message: Tor is by no means only interesting for users from China. There are numerous other states that censor the web. Also, censorship is only one reason to use Tor, anonymity is another. So I propose to to move the page to "Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor". --Tobias (Talk) 09:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Tobias (Talk) 10:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Move to "Advice to users using Tor" 

message: Before:
:“Registered users in good standing can ask for IP block exemption to be enabled on their accounts.”
After:
:“In highly exceptional circumstances, registered users in good standing can ask for IP block exemption to be enabled on their accounts.”  (emphasis: Babelfisch)
This new version flatly contradicts what is at the top of the project page:
:“Tor users should be met with good faith, as there are good reasons to use anonymity networks. In countries that censor Wikipedia or block it completely, it is one of the few ways of accessing Wikipedia. Additionally, in light of governmental surveillance programs, users may choose to use Tor in order to exercise their right to anonymity.”
Consider:
:“I am a strong supporter of people using Tor to edit Wikipedia, and I think the current situation is quite unfortunate. There are complications to be sure, but the idea that admins can use Tor, while ordinary users can not, does not strike me as particularly appropriate. Anyone who is a normal trusted editor ought to be able to use Tor if they like... and why not?--Jimbo Wales 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to previous version. --Babelfisch (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some reason I don't recall getting a notification for your message. I made the change to reflect what our policy page mentions. I figure that if "we" are offering advice to users, we should advise them as to what our current practices are. (As I linked to in the edit.) It would be preferable to revert it back to the previous version, as a policy page is more accurate than the essay page you linked above.  Mike V • Talk 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your “current practice” is not undisputed (see here), and the policy is under discussion right now (Wikipedia talk: IP block exemption). --Babelfisch (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta's practice for handing out IPBE is different from the way that en.wiki handles IPBE. It's no different to how each project has it's own policies regarding admin/'crat/OS/CU roles, deletion discussions, article notability, project maintenance, etc. Respectfully, I'm not too bothered by Reguyla's opinion of me. He doesn't seem to have a favorable opinion of any administrator, nor is he particularly kinds towards us when we have to block his sock accounts.  Mike V • Talk 21:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  „Highly exceptional circumstances“ 

message: The paper is
*
It was covered in The Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/Recent_research.
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic paper about Wikipedia and Tor