| Revision as of 03:52, 5 August 2007 editPathoschild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,216 edits archival← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:55, 5 August 2007 edit undoPathoschild (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,216 edits + {{archive box}}Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|WT:NOP}} {{talkheader}} | {{shortcut|WT:NOP}} {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{archive box|width=10em|1= | |||
| * | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Let's determine what we agree on.== | ==Let's determine what we agree on.== | ||
| Is there consensus that ''softblocking'' open proxies is an acceptable precaution? -] <small>]</small> 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | Is there consensus that ''softblocking'' open proxies is an acceptable precaution? -] <small>]</small> 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:55, 5 August 2007
Shortcut| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open proxies page. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 Archives |
Let's determine what we agree on.
Is there consensus that softblocking open proxies is an acceptable precaution? -Amarkov moo! 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Until bugzilla:9862 can be somehow implemented, soft-blocking is fine with me—not as status quo, but as volatile practice. However, I suggest that we leave certain open proxies hard-blocked, e.g. web accelerators. Soft-blocking won't last forever (at least I hope not). Gracenotes § 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, certain proxies should probably be hardblocked. I'm just trying to see if there's agreement that they should at least be softblocked. -Amarkov moo! 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, softblocking (blocking anonymous users) open proxy IPs is sensible. Fnagaton 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. You should at least have to be editing from an account to edit with a proxy. -- The_socialist 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree we should softblock proxies. Allowing anonymous editing that way would be a nightmare. Seraphimblade 10:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, softblock with account creation enabled. ←Ben 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Softblock or hardblock?
Alright, let's get down to the next issue here. There seems to be significant disagreement on whether open proxies should be softblocked or hardblocked. (For those not familiar with the terminology, a softblock only prohibits anonymous editing through an IP, but allows registered accounts to edit from the blocked IP address, while a hardblock prevents any editing from the IP at all, including from a registered account). Currently, addresses found to be proxies are hardblocked. For quite some time, it was a softblock that was used. There are several issues raised here:
- Softblocking may allow banned users or sockpuppeteers the ability to use proxies to help in evading detection.
- Softblocking may also allow vandalbots to cycle through pre-created accounts and proxies to vandalize.
- Hardblocking prevents many good or potentially good editors from editing, including all of China and many editors from other parts of the world who cannot or will not edit without anonymity.
- Hardblocking any IP creates a much more significant risk of collateral damage to innocent users, especially if the blocked proxy is a compromised machine on a dynamic IP. This is especially true since proxy blocks are often long or even indefinite ones on IP addresses.
I think these issues do need to be addressed, and that there are points on both sides. In the end, we've got to do one or the other, so which shall we do and why? Seraphimblade 08:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Softblock all, hardblock vandal and sockpuppet IPs to the extent possible without causing detriment to users in good standing. Do not hardblock or ban users in good standing editing from open proxies; privacy is a fair enough request and open proxies are necessary for those with extenuating political or social concerns. -- The_socialist 08:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)