User talk:Duff/Archive 1

HELP!! Wiki Tor War! Post-Tor IP block exile

 * OK there's no war...well, there is a war, but this isn't it. Please press war for that sort of thing.

Uh-Oh. Well, I may be saying goodbye to wikipedia, sadly in exile, based on what I've learned this week about other good folks, such as Armed Blowfish, who've also been banned or blocked on Tor for similar reasons. I've invested some time on this topic, learning that a whole lot of other people have pressed many a keyboard silly about it.

After a couple of years of learning to edit wiki by reading and editing wiki (using Privoxy, and for much longer than wiki, by the way), I now consistently receive blocking notices at any attempt to edit pages directly (including my own user page). This began immediately after I installed the Tor/Vidalia/Privoxy combination described here Tor (anonymity network).

Beyond the avidly monitored text on the Tor article and on its discussion pages, and notwithstanding the clear usefulness of the tool, potential users should be fully aware that it and other open proxies are definitely and enthusiastically banned here at wikipedia.

In a nutshell, I am now banned unless I drop my shields, and so are you unless you keep them down, because of WP:NOP. While I was working over refinements to this section, another editor made a short post here and so I had no choice but to re-integrate several painstaking hours of changes back into an edit conflict page. Excrutiatingly tedious. You need to know this. Wikimedia sees things a little differently. I've registered over there as arbortender, as my long-held English wikipedia pseudonymic username was already taken. I am able to post there, at least for now, based on their stated policy and evidenced by my first post.

I haven't toggled Tor off since I loaded it. I'm not sure which is disturbing and which baffling, but the recent 9th Circuit Court decision on warrantless internet packet sniffing (which anyone interested in computer security and privacy ought to consider fully at this .pdf file here), coupled with the actions of the wikipedia administrative community's bot-wielding authorities and enthusiasts, however seemingly justified and expedient, have now together provoked my full and considerate attention. I no longer rely on duct tape, let's just say.

I've been offered an opportunity to have others post edits for me, via this page, which I'll be trying hard to make the most of and be gracious about. It may be turns out to be wankin', clumsy, power-wasting, time-consuming, disruptive, and reasonlessly punitive for everyone involved, but it'll be great fun, I promise! I am willing to explore whether this is 'slightly inconvenient' or a royal pain in the finger, and provide another first hand account for the record.

Regrettably, I was not aware of the enormous and octopusine controversy that surrounds IP addresses, anonymity, and pseudonymity on Wikipedia. I had not yet encountered WP:NOP, had no familiarity with open proxies. Until I read this, and one comment there, had never heard of Tor. It turns out that both Tor's and Wikipedia's founders and programmers have discussed it in depth and while both seem to want a better solution, two years of discussion have yet failed to yield consensus for any action, including block Tor users from editing directly, regardless of behavior. Would it have been simpler to assess my posting history and apply a user rights mask of some sort?

I can't really afford to waste time hashing this out; time I spend here is out of fascination for the projects. I want to explore and improve articles or plant trees and food, or install more solar panels, so please let this be as painless, anonymous, and brief as possible. I could stand to focus more on my meatspace life anyway, but in parting before I go, I'll try to post a few good links below and a running narrative of my experience with this, to illuminate the crux of the matter for those who come after. In particular, I recommend reading Armed Blowfish's talk page for a detailed history and an extremely well-referenced, up-to-date analysis of the present situation with Tor and other open proxies, including proposals to solve the problem community-wide.

Requests for Posting
Thank you and agape to those who have volunteered to do this. I truly am sorry to distract your work, and hopefully we can all get back to productive editing swiftly. Please drop a quick edit note below the individual request itself, with a timestamp signature, so I can keep track of what's done & not yet done. Please also see Requests for Posting below in the WikiProjects section (unrelated to this issue) regarding articles I am working on or watching, perhaps of an only slightly lower priority.

-Duff 07:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Could someone please contact Peteforsyth over at WikiProjectOregon subproject Government, and tell him I said Thank you very much for the Barnstar of Diligence, my first, and likely my last. I had exactly 5 days to enjoy the glow from that, and enjoy it I did.  Diligence gets you Barnstars, but it doesn't get you trusted.  Please let him know he can read what happened to me here, and tell him I said goodbye from his neighbor to the east.
 * 2. Could someone please shut off the Suggestbot?  It only irritates me now, no matter how useful I thought it was.  I don't need or want any more automated suggestions to contribute.
 * I've removed your name from Suggestbot's regulars list. I contacted Pete as well.--Chaser - T 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -Duff 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This statement is on the Tor page: "For Wikipedia policy on editing with open proxies, see Wikipedia:No open proxies." which I assume is a template...(can't click edit to check that). That is not strong enough language. That warning should be at the very least in bold and it should appear on every one of those pages that contain references to software the use of which will result in an editor being blocked. There should also be BIG RED X's in the template, like I found on my talk page and every other page, when I attempted to edit. The banner should contain links to all the relevant current policy discussions on both wikipedia & wikimedia, and URGE potential users to seek understanding of the issues at hand, and then participate in the discussions about WP:NOP as well as document the matter on the talk page of the articles themselves, FIRST, BEFORE downloading and installing any such package. It should make clear that they will not, specifically, be able to participate in those discussions, except by editorial proxy from within their own user talk page, if they do download the package and install it first, without dropping that privacy shield, no matter how blemish-free their record on wikipedia may be. The Tor article gives no indication whatsoever that there is any controversy, other than a need for sources. Even its discussion page, by the way, does not disclose the instantaneous ban, though there are hints of some anomalous vague problem. I admit I did not go there first and may have acted hastily in installing Tor without digging up more about the controversy, but it's pretty easy to miss what isn't there and the punishment is out of scale with the act. -Duff 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody really oughtta put a very explicit warning at the top of the main Tor page at Tor (anonymity network), Vidalia project, Privoxy and any other appropriate pages in Category:Anonymity networks and do it so that that warning stays there until this paradoxical situation changes (if it ever does), so that editors can weigh and decide carefully about the wikiquences of using these products, armed with full disclosure of information, BEFORE the cascade of blocking, resultant proxy address privacy losses, and effective community exile occur.


 * p.s. I will try to update the "Tor" article as well as you requested, but it will take a little thinking…because I think the "problem" is more a WP problem than a Tor problem, so figuring out how to include it in that article appropriately will take a little work. Open to suggestion, of course! -Pete 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much Pete.  Anywiki that thinks it's a good idea can surely clip and paste any or all of this discussion (coherently, perhaps) into the Tor Discussion page.--Duff 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki needs an essay, analogous to this page: Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall, perhaps entitled Advice to users using Tor or open proxies for other perfectly legal, valid, private, reasonable, timely, or needful reasons without doing mischief and also Advice to users thinking of using Tor for Mischief. I may get to those, but someone else surely has better advice.--Duff 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please post at the [ArbCom committee workshop page for CharlotteWeb (at point #16), directly after this comment:

"I've read it... you say we have a policy forbidding editing via open proxies ("editing from Tor (and other open proxies) is prohibited"). I say we don't. As to, "they've no real right to complain if they find their proxies blocked". You know this is a strawman right? No one has actually lodged such a complaint. I believe the complaints were over having their RFA derailed by a false accusation of violating a "foundation policy" (the foundation has made no such statement) and having their NON proxy IPs blocked. I think people DO have a 'real right to complain' about such. --CBD 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)"

the following text, for me:

"I concur thoroughly with CBD on all points. I have this very problem; have had it for a few days,since I downloaded and installed Tor, completely oblivious to the underlying and ongoing wiki-controversy.  I wish to complain. I wish to cut to the chase and formally lodge the complaint, on behalf of myself and any other John Doe users with the same problem who wish to participate in the complaint.  What is the established process for initiating such a complaint?  I am a wikipedia contributor.  I use Tor.  I am not a vandal.  I am not an admin.  I am not a sockpuppet.  I am not a criminal nor am I a policy breaker.  I am not even anonymous.  I have no intention of pretending to want to be an administrator or enduring some lengthy process of begging to re-establish something I never should have lost.  Why disrupt my work?  Why hinder users in any way from attempting to see to their own online and personal security and attempting to secure their own constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, by deliberately and consistently obscuring their own true IP address? Anyone with a subpoena can find the information out anyway, and for that, anyone needs probable cause. And for that, well...you get it. Where's the fire? Anyone here who has done a "checkuser" (whatever that is, I don't even know) on me or is toying with the idea of doing one now, would be well advised to re-read carefully the rules for use of that tool, keep well within them, and keep the results of that activity private, or be prepared to face wiki-consequences, wiki-scorn, and wiki-wrath. --Duff 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)"


 * Please also send the above comment to CBD in the manner of a cc: since I am unable to send him an email through the link to do so on his page; I get the blocked notice, blocked from editing by the User:Dmcdevit bot, by clicking on a link to send email to another user, an admin...what else am I blocked from? Not just editing articles.  Hmmm. --Duff 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that (newyorkbrad@gmail.com) is in change of delivering comments from hard-blocked users to the RfAr. (He is the clerk for this arbitration request.)  Grace notes T § 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a hard-blocked user. I am not even a blocked user, as repeatedly documented by User:Gscshoyru here and here and by User:ElinorD here and here. I am restricted to my page because wikipedia is blocking Tor IP addresses from editing.  I use Tor.  Who is in charge of delivering non-blocked users comments to the RfAr, for those who are restricted to editing by proxy editor on their userpages?  As noted above, I am now also restricted from emailing wikipedians, though I am supposedly neither blocked nor banned--Duff 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please add this text without quotes:

" *Duff - research, general aptitude, positive attitude, will busily carry templates and whatnot, by editorial proxy from user talk page. --Duff 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) "

to the end of the roster at |WikiProject Supreme Court cases No really, post it please. I make time. I weave it of ash and dust.--Duff 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please add this text without quotes

" *Duff - research, general aptitude, positive attitude, will busily carry templates and whatnot, by editorial proxy from user talk page. --Duff 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC) "

to the end of the roster at WikiProject Law --Duff 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Armedblowfish has some useful links for you, but I am not sure why he is not posting them here. Anyways, here is the list:

User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish, User_talk:Armedblowfish. If they don't work, talk to him. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BlockBots
I'm not sure whether Chaser is Raul654 or User:Dmcdevit, or yet another admin whose gig it is to cover the bots deployed by Raul654 and Dmcdevit. Either way, thank you to Chaser for following up on posting for me, by proxy, from here. Note: User:Dmcdevit's bot is behind my banning, though an apparently similar bot from User:Raul654 did also ban me (one instance), which, if I recall correctly, was on my first visit to WikiMedia, to study this issue, also using TOR. Subsequent visits to WM have not been banned, and I've posted there twice since...The first commenting on this issue, the second to creat a userpage there and comment on this issue. For the record, the username duff was too close to an existing WM username, DuFF, so I chose another pseudonym that is one I have used in various other contexts, all researchable I suppose, m:User:arbortender. Just in case my case also winds up in arbitration, and so that others are able to find my research. In any case, It makes sense to me to document the full communication chain that I have experienced thus far, and so here are the blockers, as I understand them to be (separate?), and the responses I have received from the specific (separate?) blockers:

Raul654
July 7, 2007 initial block

(no communications from this blocker yet)

Dmcdevit
July 7, 2007 initial block:

Emails sent & received
date         Jul 7, 2007 1:13 PM subject		Copy of your message to Dmcdevit: Wikipedia e-mail mailed-by		wikimedia.org Hiya, Suddenly I am blocked, and whilst editing on my own userpage, no less. I am a regular user and frequent contributor. Can you please clarify what the problem is? I installed some good software this morning, which may or may not have anything to do with it...(updated privoxy and installed TOR and vidalia, as a result of learning of a recent 9th circuit court decision that enables a great deal more privacy violation via warrantless internet snooping than I am comfortable with). There may be some way to configure it so that my wikiwork can continue, or there may not. I do not quite get it, but will be pleased to perform whatever cartwheels are necessary.

Thanks much, xxxxxx

date           Jul 10, 2007 12:13 AM subject		Re: Wikipedia e-mail mailed-by      Dmcdevit 

Yes, that software is indeed the problem. Tor and other anonymizing proxies are blocked on Wikipedia because of their history of abuse. Such IPs cannot be traced, and therefore it is impossible to block persistent vandals and other abusers who can use services like Tor to change IPs with impunity. Therefore the policy is to block anonymous proxies when detected. There is a small amount of collateral experienced by good users, but in general, the benefits of blocking, unfortunately, outweigh the benefits of those users. Yo are free to edit from your regular internet connection. Millions of people access the internet without proxy services, and, unless you are in a country that actively censors the internet like China, you have no need to be worried. Certainly I would consider that unnecessary paranoia in the United States, court rulings notwithstanding. Of course, I am sorry for the convenience, but that's the best answer I can give you.

Cheers, Dominic

date           Jul 11, 2007 1:38 PM subject		Re: Wikipedia e-mail mailed-by	xxxxx@gmail.com Dominic, There is a large amount of collateral experienced by this good user, and I suspect you are also wrong about how many 'good' editors are affected. Your apparent level of comfort with the recent supreme court decision does not render my decision to shield up "uneccesary paranoia," but I do thank you for your, of course, carefully considered opinion on the topic. Please be aware that I am pursuing this matter diligently through the appropriate channels, as I discover them, and that this block has completely disrupted my work on wikipedia. Also, be aware that although I may indeed be able to toggle off Tor and post as before, I am not at all comfortable doing so, I have not done so, and at this time I do not intend to do so. It would be highly appropriate at this point for you to also disrupt your own work and either assist in posting edits to the articles I was working diligently on, which I am continuing to submit postings on (only now restricted to my User Talk Page and a variety of wiki proxy editors, whose good work is also being needlessly disrupted) or better still, focus on development of appropriate tools to effectively combat persistent vandals, unethical sockpuppeteers, and other abusers without disrupting ethical editors worldwide who act to protect their own civil liberties.

If you are not already following along, perhaps you ought to, since your name has already come up repeatedly, in related cases as well, and you will certainly be involved in whatever happens next. You can read about the unfolding progress at my user talk page, where I will carefully document my efforts, including the content of this email exchange. Also, so we're clear, now that I am quite familiar with the issue and with the conflicting policies, I intend to stop nearly everything else and work toward a complete and successful resolution of this extremely sticky issue, so please spare me any further condescension and I will also do my very best to remain civil with you.

Peace. xxxxxxx

Links & References

 * Armed Blowfish's detailed odyssey
 * failed nomination for Adminship in effort to release TOR ipblock Armed Blowfish
 * and another failed nomination CharlotteWebb
 * One user's failed attempt to develop an effective bot for TOR (apparently now they do have one, because it got me)


 * Discussion between founders of Tor & Wikipedia in 2005
 * It seems that even though Wikimedia Foundation Board Members use anonymising proxies, there's a lot of resistance to it, based on established policy at NO OPEN PROXIES and some editors and administrators serious concerns about sockpuppetry among trusted admins.
 * [http://www.templetons.com/brad/watched.html A Watched Population Never Boils
 * 

Apparently the discussion continues to present day, at all indicate that there is still much debate about this so-called policy.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

And I have more research to do on this topic at
 * 
 * 


 * A Tor-Wiki discussion beginning Sept. 27, 2005:
 * [http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Sep-2005/msg00233.html A fuller discussion beginning the same day, entitled Wikipedia & TOR and described as "...a conversation with Jimmy Wales regarding how we can get Wikipedia to let Tor get through." EXHAUSTIVE and EXHAUSTING, beware.
 * User:Gurch
 * Some background information on Gurch, who I now sort of get, but had never heard of
 * Security_through_obscurity a peripherally related article


 * !! an eerily similar case, currently unfolding, whose outcome would appear to be significantly related to my disposition at this time!!]]
 * !!The Evidence page for the above ArbCom] wherein User:Shadow1 presents evidence that this bot run by User:Dmcdevit was responsible for the mass banning of User:CharlotteWebb's Tor & non-TOR & non-open proxy (!) IP addresses, with 48% of the blocked IPs being non-TOR and non-open-proxy (!!).
 * The Charlotte Webb Story Citations Original ArbCom Request page Evidence Workshop Proposed Decision the User's Talk Page
 * The Armed Blowfish Story The User's Talk Page
 * The Badly Drawn Jeff Story Workshop Proposed Decision
 * One possible solution to allow logged in users to use open proxies and monitor for violations/vandalism
 * A draft proposal to solve the problem, from Tor
 * Signpost:Privacy International rates Wikipedia Privacy Policy
 * Catch_and_release

Another Great WikiTor Founders thread, back and forth on solving the proxy puzzle, that starts to lead somewhere, then ends with a. Two years. Nearly two years, now. --Duff 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Comments
I want to say this: This: US Court Says Warrantless Web Use Monitoring OK is why I got TOR today, and I think I'm going to keep it, though my service out here in the desert, completely off the grid, and cellular only, is so painfully slow that I can't share any bandwith at all with the TOR project, so there'll be no node. I have nearly the same reason that Chinese dissidents are using TOR, I now realize.

I'm not paranoid, but I'm pragmatic and practical, and I value my inalienable right to privacy more highly than my alienable right to work on the world's greatest dictionary, no matter how much I enjoy that work. It's an American principle. I'm an American. I swore to protect & defend the Constitution of the US and by gum I shall, from invasions such as this [] and this [] and too-numerous recent others.

These are the ip addresses that I have now been banned at:

(Posting these was a really poor idea. Don't revert this change, please.) Suffice it to say there were several and the list keeps growing. Each time I click on my history or bookmarks, I run the risk of accidentally clicking an edit page instead of a main or discussion page, as I've edited on several. --Duff 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize it's not a good solution, but you could continue editing by proposing things at your talk page and having people handle the edits for you (with credit to your account, of course). That's what Armedblowfish does.--Chaser - T 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I COULD do that, but I am not going to be BOTHERED with doing that, anymore than anyone at wikipedia could be BOTHERED to place a warning that this might happen HERE---> Tor_(anonymity_network) which is how I got the software in the first place. What English wikipedia is doing in this regard is just wrong, for a lot of reasons, many of which have been detailed on discussions (which continue on, by the way) both here and at Wikimedia on this topic. It works out swell that the banned-but-probably-should-be-trusted users who might have something of value to contribute to the other side of these conversations are relegated to posting nowhere; not on this topic, or any other, beyond their own userpages. I don't have anyone to babysit my userpage, I don't want anyone to babysit my userpage, and anyone that thinks this would be a smart way to spend their time, I don't want involved with my postings. Go after vandals and sockpuppets. Spend your time making lists of banned IPs. I have better things to do than beg for someone to post my edits, when my cellular dsl connection is regularly at below-modem speeds. That is just not going to happen. Good luck to you all. I think fascism has overcome English wikipedia, and I want no part of this. Armed Blowfish will surely come to his senses soon. I just have. Duff 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And a final note: Blocking established users without notice, who are logged in, and choose to use TOR, is antithetical to the philosophy upon which I understand Wikipedia to have been founded, and NOT Wikimedia policy. Peace. Don't be dicks.

-Duff 07:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read the looooong archived discussions between Jimbo and TOR's founders, from two years ago. After all that time and effort spent, and all the back and forth since, and everyone's awareness that there's a problem, why no solution or waiver for established, non-vandal editors? I don't get why User:Armed Blowfish is still banned. He's way more valuable than I am, and not a vandal, but insists on TOR, and is what should be a trusted user. Plenty of smart people who see what's happening in America are going to be seeking such tools, and they are wise to do so, in my opinion. Soon we'll be just like China, but for now, I'll take plausible deniability. Wikipedia is, by a stretch, not the only place I write. If Wikipedia can give gangs of tools to Admins, and can let anybody using a Public IP and not logged in at all do as much damage as they like (or not), then they should surely be able to give some sort of trusted user status with an ipblock waiver to registered, well-established users with good records who choose to login, even if those users also choose to use anonymity software to protect their internet activities from unlawful warrantless search. -Duff 08:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

With a long, squinty look at my emerging masochistic behavior, I retract my insistence on leaving over this matter, and instead insist that these issues be resolved, and soon, in a manner that does not require people like me, and Armed Blowfish and Charlotte Webb to endure protracted wikistress. I'm going to stay with this, and if you are also committed to resolve such issues, you may want to watch my page, as I suspect that my dilemma may blossom further and encompass many. These questions have already caused great division in at least a part of the community, and pain for those impacted. That's not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. My research continues today, and I'll be posting links to it here, as I uncover them. Also, to be clear about a couple of things:


 * 1. I'm not a coder, so don't expect my work to trip off in that direction, of solving any underlying coding matter that may exist, if one even does, which I am not so sure of either.  That sort of work goes on someone else's desk.  However, the issues that have stimulated the most wikistress, as far as I see it so far, are not code related, but are trust and fear related.
 * 2. I've no interest whatsoever in becoming an admin, so don't expect me to try that route to release the expanding ipblock on myself either.

Anyhow, moving right along in the only place I can... So much for anonymity software...you're all going to know far more about me than I would actually prefer, so here's the intro I never bothered to craft for my userpage until now. If I ever do get to work on my user frontpage again, I'll try to improve it. Right now it's a pile of tools that I am trying to learn how to use properly, and it accurately reflects the state of both my workshop and my office.

A little about me... I've been a lot of things, but today I'm a writer and a researcher, an arborist and a farmer, a consummate questioner of authority, and a believer in the merits in demonstrating ones own convictions in ones own life. In that spirit, I live completely off the grid, by which I mean that I am not connected to the powergrid that many, if not most of you rely on implicitly, without question or understanding, and are plugged into and drawing from in a variety of ways RIGHT NOW. No offense there, I came here from a completely urban area and had the same sort of benign ignorance myself until quite recently. I expose this point to note that I am responsible for my own power, water, and food production, thus I cannot always be as quick on the draw with powered equipment in general and power-hungry computers in specific, as I'd like to be.

Still, I am crafty and handy and I try to understandy when things don't go as I intend. I prefer not to police other people and prefer that my own behavior demonstrate an absence of need to be policed upon. That I practice in meatspace, as well as in the various shades of pseudonymity and anonymity that are possible on the internet.

I am morbidly fascinated by the disintegrative directions my supposedly liberated country and the many states within her appear to have taken with respect to supposedly inalienable human rights. In an effort to gain a clearer understanding of such matters, I've dug into the state government wikipages of my new state, Oregon. You can check out what I've done there already, and where I'm going with it is to help the great crew over there at WP:Oregon to make it possible for all Oregonians to clearly discern what the hell is going on with the people we are paying to represent and serve us and the public bodies formed to implement all of their fantabulous ideas. I think it's worthy, and there was (and is), clearly, a void waiting to be lit. So, the ability to go and read pages, but not post, is basically crippling that effort on my part to actually create the pages that need to be read to gain the understanding that I, and probably many others, seek. I doubt it's just a void in Oregon, though I've come across several other US states whose presence on Wikipedia is profoundly more developed. Likely, population is the key factor, but that's why I moved here. Fewer humans, further apart, gawd luv you all. Here, I'll put down that torch for a moment and pick back up with this other one that pains me now.

I wonder if simply toggling off TOR on wikipedia would, in practice, permit posting. While I'm tempted to try this, from a purely scientific angle, it would certainly negate any benefit I had hoped to gain from using TOR in the first place, so for now, I'm going to leave TOR on, and stand firmly on those principles aforementioned. To be clear, it's not because I can't. I just discovered TOR, and then and only then, did I just discover the Great Wikontorversy. I am not about flagrantly violating policy, and I have not done so.

Besides, I grow onions, among other things, and I dig the groovy little onion icons.

Valued References from Other Editors and Very Good Advice
Duff, ChaserT contacted me - this looks messed up! I don't understand it all yet, I've only skimmed what's on this page. But please let me know if I can help…I'll try to figure it out myself, as well. Any situation that prevents an editor like you from participating is messed up, and oughtta be fixed if at all possible…you've been pretty civil through what looks like a incredibly frustrating process, and I thank you for it, it makes it so much easier for someone like me to get up to speed… -Pete 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Duff, sorry to see you go--hopefully this can be worked out soon. I never heard of TOR until today, and don't yet understand the whole anonymity issue, but I can vouch for your excellent contributions. Take care, Katr67 15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Hey now Katr67.  Thanks for that.  It looks like I might be a gonna-need a voucher...please stay tuned...desert news at 11 in a podunk town that you know, coming right up.  Yeah, like I'm so anonymous.  Pu-lease. --Duff 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Duff, I think that Wikipedia has collectively fallen into a trap, by using IP addresses as a way of identifying people, when they were never intended for that purpose. Obviously sock puppets are a concern in any system where you let everybody edit, and IP addresses are often helpful in identifying sock puppets. But there are numerous cases - TOR being only one of them - where IP addresses are not suitable for that task.
 * I think you have been snared by one of WP's biggest "growing pains." With all the intelligent minds around here, I suspect that the situation will be resolved at some point…but it probably won't be soon.
 * How simple would it be to establish relative editorial mojo? It self-polices. Well I do, anyway.

Wiki grant admin. status and weapons tools after just 4 months of editing, but even after all the extensive interview processes and hammered debates and well-reasoned grillings of all the candidates for these statuses (statii? ) and weapons tools, wiki pale at the thought of coding the establishment of that trust in an ENTIRELY anonymous/pseudonymous medium. Wiki don't trust each other because some editors are not to be trusted and at this moment wiki don't apparently have an effective plan to accumulate and secure trust. What can be said? Wiki are a traumatized nation world. None of us has to build Rome. --Duff 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously using your "talk page" to edit content is far from ideal, but if it's any help, I will gladly volunteer to keep it on my watch list, and post changes. So you can "view source" on other pages, and post your edits on your talk page, and I'll try to insert them on your behalf. I will also try to keep abreast of this complex issue and help if I can… but obviously I'm in no position to solve it on my own! Best of luck, and I hope that you/we find a way to keep you involved and engaged on some level, because you've proven to be a very valuable member of the community. -Pete 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is extremely thoughtful and gracious of you. I am in way over my head, truly, and this isn't where I want to focus at all.  Sorry for the disturbance. I think this issue severely challenge Do not Disrupt, or whatever that Policy or Principle is, on that.--Duff 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, and Thank you. and furthermore, Thank you. --Duff 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Shall I request ArbCom?
I am wondering, as I read through the workshop comments, do I need to submit a separate request, or wait for the results of Charlotte's arbcom? Now I really want to toggle my TOR and join in that discussion. Holding my mud. Reading. -Duff
 * This case has more to do with the policy of hardblocking Tor than that arbcom case. If you want to continue using Tor, you are welcome to email arbcom (). However, I have little doubt they will turn your case down and indicate this is a policy issue that they won't get involved in.--Chaser - T 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will consider that. Thank you.--Duff 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Duff! had asked that I give you this link: User talk:Armedblowfish. The page it points to has a quote of interest. It's part of the conversation between Jimbo and the founder of Tor. Cheers, Grace notes T § 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gracenotes! Yes, thank you and please thank Armed Blowfish for me.  He's created an impressive body of work on this issue. I had missed that particular node of the looooong thread, and also the line of responses that came after it, which almost seemed to get somewhere productive.  However, still here we are, just about two years later...no patch, no token, no solution, no consensus TO make any change either, I note.  I really need someone to post that CBD cc noted above in Requested Postings, to CBD, and also inside the CharlotteWeb AfD workshop at the point noted, and I want to take his advice in that Workshop and file a formal complaint, as an ethical user. Can you post those?  Any other ideas?    Thanks--Duff 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Government Project- state legislators
Hi Duff, I hope you got the above sorted out. I'm curious what you have in mind for state legislators - I posted my question at WikiProject Oregon/Government so that others can participate. Please take a look, and maybe let us know what direction you see this taking. -Pete 07:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still sorting, as time permits. I posted on the project site in that discussion.  Thanks for the poke! Duff 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow- you sure ain't shy about taking on a daunting task! Keep up the good work at Oregon's statewide elections, 2006. I'm impressed! -Pete 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Posting

 * removed edit to Greg Walden - done -Pete 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lake County, Oregon
This recent disambiguation effort [diff] needs to be corrected again, properly, to Silver Lake, Oregon.

Thanks and peace, Duff 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe that the disambig is correct, because the article is talking about the lake, Silver Lake (Oregon), and not the town, Silver Lake, Oregon. Would you like me to write an article on the lake? Katr67 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Open Content Initiative

 * Thanks for signing up to help with the Oregon Open Content initiative (or whatever we decide to call it!) Haven't done much recently, but it would be good to keep things rolling. <<See Pete's userpage subpage legislation (he noted this at timestamp 07:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC) as part of another comment, and I moved it here, copying the source)--Duff 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Airport infobox
Well, it wasn't really an invitation, but I put it there... there's one on every US airport now that has an article, as of a few days ago anyway. You've done some pretty good work with it, though typically "in good condition" doesn't go in the infobox. If you feel so inclined, you could always do a facilities sections to put the condition, width, etc of the runways. Great job! thadius856talk 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hi Duff, welcome back to WP and especially Wikiproject Oregon (and welcome to Oregon, too!) I saw you're part of the Airports group, too, and thought I'd suggest you take a look at Tillamook Air Museum and Evergreen Aviation Museum. They both could probably use some help from someone knowledgeable. (And if you ever get over to this side of the Cascades, they might make interesting destinations…I've only been to Tillamook, but it was a fun visit.) Good luck with your move, and happy editing… -Pete 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, well I developed a specific interest in the Christmas Valley Airport, a while back, and worked on that a minute, when I first discovered these groups. I probably oughtta take my name out of that wikiproject, as I have not got any specific knowledge or yearning interest in airports, to begin to cover that work. --Duff 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot Fun
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
I've created this section for you to make changes to the code on your userpage. I have your talk page watchlisted and will happily change your userpage as you desire. Just modify the code below (visible when you edit this section) and don't leave the comment tags in place unless you want the same thing here on your talk page.--Chaser - T 02:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want the same thing on my talk page, but I'm not clear what you mean by "don't leave the comment tags in place". Also, will this ah...template be here for me to use again? Duff 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Typo. Which template? The stuff below this is your userpage, all within comment tags to make it disappear unless you're editing the section.--Chaser - T 22:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get it, and I think we are on target: I make edits in that page from time to time (in the same fashion that I did on my last change in this section, and you find differences and post them on my userpage, correct?  Thank you.--Duff 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. Done.--Chaser - T 06:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week
Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Glad to see you've found a way to rejoin us, Duff! Hope your move to Oregon has turned out well! -Pete 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall WPOR COTW
Welcome to autmun and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for  Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW
I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough
Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiOregon COTW
Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAM ala COTW
Ladies and Gentlemen its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring Fort Vancouver National Historic Site & Eastern Oregon received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, Johnny Kitzmiller & John Wesley Davis. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Don’t delay, act today! Aboutmovies 18:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New COTW
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon. A round of applause for the project in October when we added three GAs, one FA, plus 10 DYKs! Next, thanks to all those who participated in last week’s Collaboration of the Week, John Wesley Davis & Johnny Kitzmiller. This week we have the Cayuse War, and in honor of the home opener, the Portland Trail Blazers. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WPOR's newest COTW
Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon COTW version 11.20
Welcome to the jungle folks. Thanks to those who helped out with Katie Harman and Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) last week. This week, we have two high priority stubs, one of the two major hospitals in Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, and Oregon Department of Education. Enjoy your turkeys, or for some enjoy your tofurkeys. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WPORE Civil War COTW
Hello again to WikiProject Oregon members, time for this week’s Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out improving Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center and Oregon Department of Education last week. This week, in honor of the annual Civil War, we have the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Or if you attended some other school, feel free to improve your alma mater’s article. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FA for WPORE COTW
Greetings boys and girls from the fine folks at The Wettest Place on Earth! A thank you to those who helped last week make some good improvements on the U of O and OSU OS articles. For this week, the next stub on the list is Fortune 1000 company Lithia Motors, Inc. way down south in Dixie, which only needs a little added to make it to Start. The other is a bit more of a challenge, but Linus Pauling I believe is our only Nobel Prize winning Oregonian, and a former FA. So hopefully we can get it back to FA, check the talk page’s article history template for comments. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oregon GA COTW
Howdy to WikiProject Oregon members, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. As you may have already noticed, our flagship article Oregon is up for the third time as we make a push to get WP:GA status before going for WP:FA. Since this will take some time to get where it needs to be, this will be the COTW for more than just a week. Also, so we hopefully don’t trip over ourselves, try to coordinate on the article’s talk page. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here.

On another note, just a general good job/pat on the back to the project for a great 2007, the first full year of the project. We had 83 DYKs about Oregon, improved one article to FA, and went from around 4 GAs to 17 GAs. Plus numerous new articles, improvements to existing, the introduction of the COTW, and the introduction of article assessment at the project. Again, great job and here’s to a new year. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowy COTW from WPOR
Hello again from WP:ORE. Please note the Collaboration of the Week is running two hours late, no morning kindergarten, and routers are on snow routes. Thank you to those who helped improve Oregon, we are inching towards GA quality. This week we have another High importance Stub in our official state insect (who knew?) with the Oregon Swallowtail, and then a new article I came across, Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. Help if you can get out of the snow. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Good day! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Peterson says it time for Oregon COTW
Wake up! Wake up to a happy day! Says Tom Peterson. Greetings to the gang at WP:ORE, its time for another round of Collaboration of the Week. Last week was a very successful endeavor with great improvement to Oregon Swallowtail and Deuce Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. OK, so there’s no “e” but it makes me laugh. The Biglow production was so successful we got our first DYK out of it. So, let’s try for a second with the tallest building in the state, the Wells Fargo Center. Then by request we have the former governor (among other things) Neil Goldschmidt. Again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, visit here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the impressive update. I had been waiting for a member of the Mohave tribe, or a historian of Aha macave, to do the actual writing instead of my piecing together the web page--- out of cultural respect. It has been three years since I suggested to Tribal Council that a Fort Mohave person do the write before someone else did, to avoid errors from a non-Mohave perspective.

Regarding the usage of the phrase Aha macave, as others have pointed out that is one of several names the Mojave Indians in general, and the Fort Mohave ones in particular, used: there is a much less common, but apparently more accurate, name that they called themselves by in the 1850s. I have not written that name here because in Mojave tradition, names have power and I am an enemy (i.e., I am from European invasion cultures).

I have been considering adding a paragraph in WikiPedia regarding slavery among the Mojave. It was common, before and after the Oatman captivity. --Desertphile (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Duff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Peter Buckley (Oregon politician) -