UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/proxy use
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Deal --CaptainM 08:01, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Gold Blade, 3page and Stallone can fuck off. I'm tired of their proxies mangling pages. –Xoid S•T•FU! 08:30, 16 September 2006 (BST)
I don't know why this hasn't always been codified. Cyberbob Talk 08:51, 16 September 2006 (BST)
What's proxy use? --Funt Solo 16:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Yes but what is "obvious" proxy use? Is it the use of different IP by the same user ID in the same period of time? How short? How many times? What rules do you propose that would determine what "obvious" is? And are you sure that the detection technology will not discriminate against those whose ISP's use a small number of IP? From the example above, it sounds like you have a set of users that commit vandalism (mangling), an act which is pretty well defined. How come the ordinary precedents and procedures don't handle this without introducing a new concept like "obvious proxy use"? Bubba 19:42, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Whats the point? Blue blade got banned because he used a proxy before this even existed. --Gold Blade 19:54, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- The point is that it needs to be codified, so mistakes don't happen in the future. Cyberbob Talk 19:55, 16 September 2006 (BST)
I don't like the current policy draft at all. First of all, I don't feel that merely the act of using an open proxy should be considered vandalism, whatever the circumstances. But what I would not mind is policy against the open proxies themselves (as oppose to the users using them). Fortunately Wikipedia comes to rescue, with their NOP policy.We would quite simply not block the users, but the IPs of open proxies. In such a system the only reason to warn someone would be if they continuously use slashspamming proxies, after they have been informed of NOP policy. --Brizth M T 21:57, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Ummm... this could be a problem for me. When I'm at work on playing on break, I use a proxy because the Fortune 100 company I'm employed by uses multiple proxy servers. And when I'm at home, my personal dealings also occasionally require me to use a proxy server (open or private, as my needs dictate) as well. I'll be voting against this if/when it comes for vote, as I don't believe I'm impacting the game at all. Asheets 04:09, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Definition of Obvious Proxy Use
- anything that inserts slashes anywhere... /'/'/'/'
- any sock puppet account that upon performing a check user search and a google search for the IP reveals it is a proxy.
any more ideas?--Gage 20:37, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I'd say just the second one, as not all proxies insert slashes. That'd be enough. Cyberbob Talk 20:39, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Add if the user is coming from another website. --Gold Blade 20:44, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Who cares? That doesn't indicate proxy use, hurr.--Gage 21:38, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I meant those open proxy sites where you type in the site adress. --Gold Blade 21:51, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Who cares? That doesn't indicate proxy use, hurr.--Gage 21:38, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Why does a proxy add slashes?
I admit I don't know a whole lot about proxies, although I think that I understand the concept. I am curious as to how a proxy modifies content on the wiki. I don't doubt that it does add slashes - I've seen it happen, and I think that is the real threat. Proxy use by defalut is not bad faith, but distorting content is unacceptable. Perhaps it would be prudent to address the modification of other comments and text as vandalism. If we knew what about the proxy makes the change, we can address it specifically. --Kiki Lottaboobs 22:02, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- That actually works a lot better than just a no to all proxies. The problem is I don't know anyone who knows why some proxies slash pages up like that. --Gold Blade 22:12, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- There are two types of proxies (at least). One is the kind that directs all your web traffic through itself. For those you need to edit your browser settings (in Firefox: Preferences->General->Connection settings). These proxies are not a problem as such, as they shouldn't add any slashes, or anything extra for matter.
The other type are web pages which have an input box where you can enter the page you wan to see (like wiki.urbandead.com). These don't redirect your traffic as such, but just show you the page you asked (and allow you to do whatever you normally would do with it, like edit a wiki). These are the ones causing the slashes to appear.
Oh and please have a look at my idea just above #Definition of Obvious Proxy Use. --Brizth M T 22:16, 16 September 2006 (BST)- Thank youuu, Brizth --Gold Blade 22:22, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Voting on Specifics
I think the fastest way to reach a consensus would be some quick voting. The way i see it, we have three options (feel free to give me some more)
- ban the user, ban the proxy
- warn the user, ban the proxy
- just ban the proxy
does anybody see anything else we can do?--Gage 23:34, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- I say #2 is more fair.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 23:36, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Number 3, I say (surprise, isn't it?)
And don't you mean three options?--Brizth M T 23:40, 16 September 2006 (BST) - #3, so long as it is defined as someting on the wikipedia OP list, or something that causes slashes, sounds deterministic and enforceable. Can we just use the wikipedia OP list and let them maintain the list? Bubba 01:40, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- #2 is the most fair, although I would say that the first warning be unofficial. Using a proxy isn't bad faith, and not knowing the impact that their proxy use might have on the wiki isn't something that should be on their permanant record. Unofficial warning, ban the proxy. --Kiki Lottaboobs 04:04, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- Numero 2 seems fair. --Axe Hack 06:09, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- #2, as is the general concensus. --CaptainM 06:10, 17 September 2006 (BST)
- #4 - Ban the proxy, but only if it adds slashes or is used for vandalism. And leave a messsage (as oppposed to a warning) on the talk page explaining what's happened. --Toejam 16:02, 18 September 2006 (BST)
- #3 - I think that the amount of damage a user hiding behind a proxy can do is reason enough to not give them the chance. People have abused them long before MediaWiki was even coded, and they'll be abusing them long after IPv6 is implemented. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:45, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Potential Wording
I propose that we formally adopt Meta's policy regarding open proxies. We will use both their list of open proxies and their blacklist in conjunction with our own blacklist and our own whitelist. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:03, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Discussion Goes Here, Compadre
Xoid and I talked about this over IM, and I agree. It seems like they have a good system set up.--Gage 06:05, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Good idea. I'd support that. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:07, 20 September 2006 (BST)
- Me too. --CaptainM 02:01, 21 September 2006 (BST)
- Actually, Brizth did most of the work by posting the link somewhere on this page prior to my wording that. All I did was said "Yeah, let's do that!". Didn't take a lotta effort. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:13, 22 September 2006 (BST)
Problem
After looking at the blacklist and block list, I have found that any range bans on certain proxy IP's will also block mine. --Steel Laser 03:02, 29 September 2006 (BST)
- Which is why you email an admin or post on the wiki's forum and we'll add it to our whitelist. One day of inconvenience at most as compared to, say, almost everyone's days upon days of inconvenience cleanning up the messes proxy abusers cause? An easy choice IMO. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:32, 29 September 2006 (BST)
