Wikipedia talk:Advice to users using Tor

Please add new sections to the bottom of the page

Archived discussions

Rewrite
--Thatcher 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have removed the section on https servers; if China blocks them, not much point in listing them.
 * 2) 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.)
 * 3) Added IP block exemption.
 * 4) Modified the section on soft blocks. Hard blocks should be much less controversial now that IPBE has been implemented.

Why is it Wikipedia's job to help others circumvent the law?
I have severe reservations about this article. In my opinion Wikipedia shouldn't state or support opposition of the law. I don't care if China's censorship of Wikipedia is wrong, we shouldn't support the circumventing of any law anywhere in any place. I will talk with Jimbo on this. If he agrees, this may need speedy deletion.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as these articles don't circumvbent western law, it won't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.116.183 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I care very much about the fact that PRC is censoring WP. In my personal book of moral law it's illegal not to help the victims of inhuman dictatorships. Ryttaren (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so you're saying "My morality is better than your morality so I'll dictate what should be law..." Or to redirect, where I live people normally settle disputes by shooting each other; is my morality "better" because it has an effect of removing any additional violence due to a continued dispute as well as promoting the seeking of non-mortus ways of compromise? So again, your way of life is not the only way of life... it appeals to baser instincts and is very addictive, but it is not the MORAL way.
 * I'd say there are many "Western Laws" people disagree with, 'drinking and driving' is an easy one. Many people argue that they are 'sober enough to drive, and have never gotten into an accident' and hence are being persecuted for a 'victimless crime.' Unfortunately the crime is only 'victimless' until there is a victim (accident.) Then people say 'why didn't you stop it to begin with.' Yet every advance to prevent drunk driving is met with "YOU CAN'T STOP ME, I HAVEN'T VIOLATED ANY LAWS YET!!!" We even have radar-detectors to specifically warn people that they should 'stop violating the law' for a short period of time.
 * So if your book of "morality" says "The only morality is MY morality", my book says you're amoral. It is not, and should never be, Wikipedia's grounds to VIOLATE other countries laws, despite your AMORAL positions. 173.168.30.119 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This rhetorical question is based upon the erroneous notion that there is such a thing as the law that may or not be circumvented by a person. To be clear: there is no such thing as the law. Humans create civil law, common law, customary law, criminal law, administrative law, admiralty law, ecclesiastical law and international law. These laws apply only to a defined set of natural persons or legal persons, property, non-human animals, plants, woodlands and riverine systems, maritime systems, etc, in a stipulated jurisdiction at a given place and at a given time. The laws may be decided by referendum, by statute, by case law, by royal prerogative, by decree. As well as Act of Parliament, Act of Congress or Act of Tynwald, etc, there are statutory instruments, regulations, rules, standing orders, codes of practise, codicils, national standards, state standards, local government standards, memoranda of understanding, building codes, health and safety codes, fire codes, sanitation codes, waste disposal codes, hygiene codes, non-human animal codes, hospital policies, school policies, employment policies, sporting policies, contractual agreements, nuptial agreements etc that are subservient to the legal acts. The intended territorial applicability and legal extent of any given law, and all that given law's subsidiary consequences, created by one or more persons, may be limited to any person resident, or property that exists, in a manor, parish, diocese, local government, metropolis, state, nation, or internationally. Usually, man-made law is not retroactive and does not apply to past deeds or to the dead. Nevertheless, laws can be retroactive and apply to every natural and legal person, and even to non-human animals, living or not. Many nation states, or states within a nation state, may try to overreach - insisting that they have exclusive jurisdiction over territory, resources, persons and the resolution of disputes to which other states may also lay claim. In conclusion, the naive assertion that there is such a thing as the law is not sustainable.58.165.105.140 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all correct but unnecessarily pedantic. The short version is: There is no such thing as "the" law. There are particular laws, within particular jurisdictions, to which any given entity may be subject. Wikimedia Foundation and its projects are not subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the People's Republic of China, Turkey, or other countries that censor or block Wikipedia and its sister projects. Furthermore (and to echo something the other anon said), just because something is "a law" somewhere doesn't make it, or worth our consideration. Lots of nasty regimes create lots of laws that no reasonable entity would comply with (e.g. because they violate international-law concepts of human right) unless one would be directly subject to punishment for not doing so. WMF in particular has an explicit mission of providing unfettered access to information and tools to create and disseminate it, making it incompatible by definition with things like the Great Firewall of China.  As for risks specific individuals may incur in evading things like their own jurisdiction's censorship systems, they are already aware of these risks and are doing it anyway on a regular basis. WP is not increasing their risk; this page tells people how to best interact with WP through Tor if they have already decided to take the risk of bypassing unethical governmental restrictions.

Are we still hardblocking Tor?
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)
 * 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)

3,000 diffs for new users in China
The project page states:
 * Ask someone outside of mainland China to set you up with an account

However, 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)


 * I've removed the 3000+ edits criteria for WP:WOCP. Ryttaren (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

Proposal: Move to "Advice to users using Tor"
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)


 * Done --Tobias (Talk) 10:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

„Highly exceptional circumstances“
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)” (see User Talk: Jimbo Wales, Archive 26)

Mike V, please explain. --Babelfisch (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Back to previous version. --Babelfisch (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Academic paper about Wikipedia and Tor
The paper is

It was covered in The Signpost at Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-12-22/Recent_research.

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)