[WikiEN-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies

Mon Feb 14 01:02:27 UTC 2005

Charles Podles wrote:
> An anonymous user posted the following on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :
> 
> == Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==
> 
> *'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st
> amendment of the US constitution.'''

This is a privately-run encyclopedia, not a public forum. The First 
Amendment protects us, it does not obligate us.

> *'''Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while
> communicating--enables the expression of  political ideas and the
> practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public 
> retaliation.'''

Anyone that thinks they're any safer editing through an open proxy than 
registering an account with Wikipedia to hide their IP that way is 
either delusional or lacks basic knowledge of how the Internet functions.

> :''Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.

Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a forum for discourse.

> Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
> critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
> of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill
> of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect
> unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an
> intolerant society.''
> :<small>Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
> 1995.</small>

SCOTUS decisions on the First Amendment do not obligate Wikipedia to do 
anything at all.

> Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely
> block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy
> ([[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]])

General Wikipedia policy is to block open proxies, period. This is not a 
blocking of the user, it is a blocking of a proxy. The user is free to 
find alternate ways to edit Wikipedia.

> These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people
> to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb
> vandalism of articles.

No one has any right to edit or even access Wikipedia, only privileges. 
These privileges have conditions attached to them, and may be revoked 
for any or no reason. Wikipedia is not a government project, nor is it a 
forum. It is an encyclopedia.

> These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the
> liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand
> vandalism, without resorting to these measures.

No, it is not. Declining to block open proxies will result in machine 
vandalism that cannot be stopped. Whoever wrote this has not even a 
rudimentary understanding of computers.

> Case in point: On February 9, [[User:David.Monniaux]] blocked IP
> address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service
> for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP
> users that wanted to protect their anonymity.

Good.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.143.113.125.
> The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have
> been disputed by me.
> ([[Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user]].
> 
> I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the
> right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their
> rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking
> policies.

No one has any right to contribute to Wikipedia. It is a privilege 
granted by a private organization, and may be revoked at will.

> Copies of the above have been sent to:
> * The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
> * The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
> * The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/

All of whom will, if they respond at all, patiently explain that 
Wikipedia is not a public forum under government control, and is not 
required to allow anyone to write anything at all.