IP Editing, Masking, and Ephemeral Accounts

[orangepi]

According to an on-going VPP discussion, the long-rumored solution to "we probably shouldn't show contributor IPs publicly" is getting rolled out later this year.

It seems to be an "ephemeral account" solution rather than a masked-IP solution. This ... is a tradeoff.

One thing is certain. The usernames will be a mess.

[eppur si muove]

I can just imagine all the allegations of socking that a poor implementation would generate.

[Vigilant]

I can just imagine all the allegations of socking that a poor implementation would will generate.

FTFY

[DFlhb]

IP address will still be accessible to basically any active user (6 months, 300 edits), see Meta-Wiki. And that page says people are allowed to repost these IPs on dramaboards, which makes them visible to anyone.

The WMF mockup shows a prominent "show IP" button in the revision history. IPs are still there, just hidden behind a button that almost anyone can access with a pinky promise "I won't misuse this", and a perfunctory warning that misuse of IP info will be punished. Checking the Steward requests archives, I can't find an instance of this punishment being issued. It's self-evidently just there to "technically meet" a legal requirement.

Seems the only real difference is that IPs aren't retained permanently, so you won't be able to reveal IPs for old ephemeral accounts.

[tinyboxs]

6 months, 300 edits

How did they come up with those criteria? It's like extended confirmation but not.

[Ryuichi]

6 months, 300 edits

How did they come up with those criteria? It's like extended confirmation but not.

The same place they got the criteria for ECP, ab culo.

[Hemiauchenia]

New update from German Wikipedia (translated):

Bye, bye, IPs – hello temporary accounts!

WikiCon presentation on temporary accounts
The Wikimedia Foundation is eliminating IP editing. Instead, users who edit unregistered will receive a temporary account in the future . DerHexer and I talked about the upcoming changes and what that means for our community at WikiCon in Linz over the weekend . In the linked presentation you will find all the details and further links, here in the courier we would like to summarize the most important things and would be happy to exchange ideas with you on the courier disk.

What is the WMF doing again, why do we suddenly need temporary accounts?

IP addresses are now widely viewed as personal data worthy of protection - and rightly so, because they reveal some information about the person editing. Unannounced editing can become a security risk, especially in non-democratic states. In addition, demands for data protection are growing worldwide, especially since the introduction of the European General Data Protection Regulation , which is why the public, unlimited storage of IP addresses in version histories is no longer appropriate.

Instead, non-logged in users receive a temporary account that is linked to the browser used via a cookie. It exists for a maximum of 12 months as long as the stored cookie is valid. This means that multiple IP addresses can be linked to a temporary account. Authorized users (e.g. checkusers, admins, but also most viewers who meet the WMF guidelines ) can view the IP addresses of a temporary account. The naming scheme for temporary accounts is ~ANNUAL NUMBER-NUMB (e.g.: ~2023-123456-789).

IP addresses that are already visible will not be adjusted, so they can remain visible in the version history or on documentation pages for persistent problems. However, the IP addresses of temporary accounts may no longer be mentioned publicly in the future; the temporary account name should be used instead. In order to be less dependent on IP addresses when fighting vandalism, the IP info tool should also display important information about temporary accounts without necessarily knowing their IP address.

Many tools, scripts, bots or templates work with IP addresses, for example to evaluate article statistics. These must be adjusted before starting temporary accounts. To this end, the WMF is asking all volunteer developers to adapt their respective tools and work processes in the coming months and would also like to offer assistance in this regard. In addition, with the introduction of temporary accounts, numerous help pages, communication materials, etc. will have to be revised.

When does it start?

From December 2023 or January 2024, a first version of temporary accounts will be integrated into MediaWiki and available in the testwiki . A pilot project in a small wiki without much IP editing is planned from March 2024, after which temporary accounts will be gradually introduced in other projects. The Foundation deliberately wants to proceed slowly in order to be able to correct any errors in each wiki and to allow time for necessary adjustments. I estimate that dewiki, as a particularly large and opinionated community, will not be affected by the changes until 2025, but we should prepare now if it happens faster.

How can you help to make the introduction to dewiki optimal?

Talk to others (e.g. in local spaces) to let them know about the upcoming changes
Collect tools in the Etherpad that are likely to need customization
Adapt scripts and tools you have developed or ask for help
Update our help pages as we get closer to introducing temporary accounts
Write to DerHexer (T-C-L)or me for feedback and questions to the WMF
We are optimistic that the upcoming changes will mean a lot of getting used to for us, but that with good preparation we will be able to cope. On the courier disk we are happy to answer any questions that our presentation linked above may leave unanswered. J89 , 2.10.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier

[AndyTheGrump]

It's trainwreck time!

[Elinruby]

I can just imagine all the allegations of socking that a poor implementation would generate.

[Beeblebrox]

I've known this was coming for a while but I can't slaim that I actually understand how it works. It sounds kind of weird and pointless.

[AndyTheGrump]

I've known this was coming for a while but I can't slaim that I actually understand how it works. It sounds kind of weird and pointless.

Pointless? Big Popcorn disagrees. The entertainment possibilities are endless, as we watch everyone try to figure out what the heck it is supposed to be doing, whether it actually does it, and whether it was a good idea to do it in the first place. With all the consequences involved, intended and unintended, in unilaterally tinkering with basic website functionality there's enough plot potential here for a decent-sized novel. Or several, like Asimov's Foundation series. Or Dune, only with less spice and sandworms, and more RfCs and storming-off-in-a-huffs.

This one will run and run. Just wait and see...

[FelinaLavandula]

I would be so mad if I was a perma-IP user, though I understand that’s very few people. Also, if it’s stored via a cookie, couldn’t you just clear browser cookies to get a new temp account?

[Giraffe Stapler]

I would be so mad if I was a perma-IP user, though I understand that’s very few people. Also, if it’s stored via a cookie, couldn’t you just clear browser cookies to get a new temp account?

Yep. And if you're using the private mode of most modern browsers, they will happily accept the cookie only to automatically delete it when you close the browser.

This has always been a mysterious project that was undertaken based on some unspecified legal risk. That risk could have been mitigated by disabling IP editing, but the WMF instead chose to embark on a scheme that would replace IPs with other identifiers (but leave IP data accessible to some, possibly most, editors). I feel like we are at least a year into this and I see that they don't expect to roll this out on large Wikipedias until 2025. What a waste of time and money for no appreciable benefit to editors or readers.

[kepchup]

I'm sure no one is going to find a way to game or bot this and bloat datastores with six quadspillion throwaway accounts with incomprehensible names to the point where stopping bad actors or tracking POV or LTA socking jackassery becomes pointless. The signal to noise ratio is not at all going to be incredible.

[Anroth]

I'm sure no one is going to find a way to game or bot this and bloat datastores with six quadspillion throwaway accounts with incomprehensible names to the point where stopping bad actors or tracking POV or LTA socking jackassery becomes pointless. The signal to noise ratio is not at all going to be incredible.

This is a basic misunderstanding of how the majority of LTA or POV trolls are tracked on a day-to-day basis before (if one is requested) an SPI is opened. Which is primarily by the content they post/edits they make. And not their IP address. Sure some are, but all this is doing is masking the IP from public view, its still easily viewable if they need to do an actual comparison.

The actual big loser in this is news orgs who can no longer report on anonymous edits from government IP addresses, political parties, etc. The loss of publicly viewable IP's hits the public, not the insiders. Which is kind of the point.

[tarantino]

T & S has posted a new FAQ on temporary accounts.

[Háčky]

T & S has posted a new FAQ on temporary accounts.

Displaying IP addresses is a privacy issue that presents legal risks, so the solution is to store tracking cookies in unregistered editors’ browsers, which is not a privacy issue that presents legal risks?

Are they going to add a cookie consent popup? It looks like they want to claim the cookies are essential, because…

Creating a new user for each edit is not an option. Otherwise, there would be a too large rate of new users.

…but that’s their problem, not the users’.

[Randy from Boise]

Simple solution: Ban IP editing, require registration for an account.

WMF solution: This clownshow.

t

Would disallowing or limiting anonymous editing be a good alternative?

No.

In the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has supported research into requiring registration for all editors editing Wikipedia articles. The results have been mixed. We can't say that disabling not logged-in editing of articles is clearly an equally good solution.

Even if it was, we would need to disable not logged-in editing of any page. That would be against a founding principle. (To read more about it, look at the table above.)

They're making the original sin of IP editing into a "founding principle."

[Vigilant]

How does this idiotic idea work with browser extensions that block cookies?

How much more crosswise does the WMF want to get with the GPDR?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Displaying IP addresses is a privacy issue that presents legal risks, so the solution is to store tracking cookies in unregistered editors’ browsers, which is not a privacy issue that presents legal risks?

Are they going to add a cookie consent popup? It looks like they want to claim the cookies are essential, because…

Creating a new user for each edit is not an option. Otherwise, there would be a too large rate of new users.

…but that’s their problem, not the users’.

I was just checking to see if accepting (first-party) cookies is already required and it appears that it isn't (for anonymous editing), assuming this document is accurate.

I did find this interesting, though:

We use cookies, JavaScript, tracking pixels, and other locally stored data technologies to accomplish different purposes.

later:

Turning off the browser's cookies will prevent tracking pixels from tracking your specific activity. A tracking pixel may still record an anonymous visit from your IP address, but unique information will not be recorded. If you do not want to receive tracking pixels, you will need to disable HTML images in your browser-based email client, and that may affect your ability to view images in other emails that you receive.

Tracking anonymous user activity with tracking pixels? That doesn't sound like something that an open and aboveboard institution would do without letting you know and opt out...

[Háčky]

How does this idiotic idea work with browser extensions that block cookies?

It just creates a new temporary account for every edit and clutters up the database. It’d be a shame if such technology were adopted by the masses and the WMF had to spend another six years solving that problem.

[Randy from Boise]

How does this idiotic idea work with browser extensions that block cookies?

It just creates a new temporary account for every edit and clutters up the database. It’d be a shame if such technology were adopted by the masses and the WMF had to spend another six years solving that problem.

I'm cynical enough to believe that's EXACTLY how this plays out.

All because they think registering a free account is onerous.

It's completely stupid, but we're talking about the WMF following the Original Cult Guidelines, so there you go.

t

[Hemiauchenia]

How does this idiotic idea work with browser extensions that block cookies?

It just creates a new temporary account for every edit and clutters up the database. It’d be a shame if such technology were adopted by the masses and the WMF had to spend another six years solving that problem.

I'm cynical enough to believe that's EXACTLY how this plays out.

All because they think registering a free account is onerous.

It's completely stupid, but we're talking about the WMF following the Original Cult Guidelines, so there you go.

t

I agree it's completely stupid. If you look at WP:AIV (T-H-L) on any given day, most of the obvious vandalism on Wikipedia is caused by IP users. Given that vandalism is a crime of opportunity, you wonder how many people would bother with vandalism if they actually had to take the time to register. It wouldn't drop to zero of course (as some people do choose to vandalize with accounts even when they target non-protected articles), but I conservatively suggest that the amount of vandalism would drop by at least 10%.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I agree it's completely stupid. If you look at WP:AIV (T-H-L) on any given day, most of the obvious vandalism on Wikipedia is caused by IP users. Given that vandalism is a crime of opportunity, you wonder how many people would bother with vandalism if they actually had to take the time to register. It wouldn't drop to zero of course (as some people do choose to vandalize with accounts even when they target non-protected articles), but I conservatively suggest that the amount of vandalism would drop by at least 10%.

And if the amount of vandalism drops by 10% there will be a similar drop in edits by the fools fine people who revert that vandalism. The WMF doesn't want the edit count to go down.

[Vigilant]

What happens to the massive range blocks that are extant if they force the end of IP editing?

[Randy from Boise]

What happens to the massive range blocks that are extant if they force the end of IP editing?

That's how this plays out, after five years of chaos and $30 million donor dollars down the toilet — sign in to edit. QED.


t

[rnu]

What happens to the massive range blocks that are extant if they force the end of IP editing?

I think that you can't edit from a blocked id whether you're logged into an account or not. So ip blocks should continue to work (as far as they work now).

[Giraffe Stapler]

What happens to the massive range blocks that are extant if they force the end of IP editing?

I think that you can't edit from a blocked id whether you're logged into an account or not. So ip blocks should continue to work (as far as they work now).

Exactly. Nothing will change except how they record the identity of the editor. If an IP is blocked, you ain't editing.