Requests for Comment/No open proxies policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following proposals have been chosen:

• Block/lock duration determined by blocking/locking CVT member or steward;
• Block/lock length set to 6 months unless a longer duration is deemed necessary.

Since both proposals are regarding the block length, and the second proposal also allows discretion, the final text will be similar to: A 6 month length is advised, however, the final length is at discretion of the blocking/locking CVT member or steward. Southparkfan (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Currently, the No open proxies policy doesn't state how the duration of the block/lock should last, So I wanted to open an RfC to determine the proper procedure. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Block/Lock duration is determined by the blocking/locking CVT member or Steward.

Support

1.  Support if proposal 2 fails Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2.  Weak support If proposal 4 fails.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 09:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Always pro-choice on blocking and enforcement. John (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support per above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 04:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support How would any CVT block a proxy with a fixed duration for all proxies OwenFung87 06:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Weak support Both 6 months and 1 year seem too much to me, a case-by-case solution is marginally better.--Wedhro (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support I think it should be up to the CVT to choose what length they deem appropriate. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 20:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain Rathering for a clear time. Sentence to tweak a little bit. Which options, in which conditions etc. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Blocks/locks will be set to a 6 month length unless the situation shows a need of needing to be longer.

Support

1.  Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 21:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support makes sense. Reception123 (talk) (C) 04:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Follow everything nowhere except for the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Meta Wiki. --OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support Seems enough. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support HeartsDo/Videojeux4 (Talk || Global || Wiki Creator) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
7.  Strong support I think six months is a good time. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Weak oppose 6 months are not that bad but in my experience most vandals change identity way before that, leaving a tainted IP for no reason.--Wedhro (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Blocks/locks will be set for 1 year unless the situation shows a need of needing to be longer.

Support

1.  Weak support If proposal 4 fails.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 09:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose prefer 6 months as the "default". Reception123 (talk) (C) 04:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong oppose ?????????????????? OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Too much. Already saw IP users changing within 6 months. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose I'm afraid this would add more work (to unlock innocent people being assigned a bad IP) because this kind of users usually change identity way before 1 year.--Wedhro (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC
5.  Strong oppose I agree with all the above. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 20:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 20:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Blocks will be set indefinitely. The IPs can be unblocked when we confirm that they no longer work as proxies/VPNs/hostings (the confirmation will be done whenever such cases are reported). Those who can only access Miraheze from proxies/VPNs/hostings, etc. can ask for account creation by e-mailing our staff.

Support

1.  Support It's not very creative or productive to reblock almost the same IP ranges every time they reappear. This way we can finish it once and for all.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 09:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Weak support if proposal 1, or 2 fail. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Strong support and I'm very surprised that we aren't doing this already. It's a good site security practice - anything going through a proxy needs to have an account attached to it. Ref: CSEC ITSG-22 (UNCLASSIFIED). --Robkelk (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Weak support-The world's weakest support Per Zppix. --OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Weak support The "weak" is for the first sentence (rathering proposal 2 instead for this). Be aware an user using a VPN may not always have bad intentions, despite the abuses. Fine with unblocking the IPs when they're confirmed to be "safe". Also fine for e-mail creation - just be careful and not take this lightly, assure yourselves there are no abuses. Nocturnal-Galatea (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support the IP adress of an open proxy is unlikely to change under normal cicumstances. It seems ridiculous to have to keep blocking open proxies every six months or whatever for the rest of the company who operates them's life. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support. Bertie (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
8.  Strongest support Of course, we should do this. - P1av0rSe01^Complaint? 11:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
9.  Strong support -- Looney Toons (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Absolutely not. Under no circumstance would I ever indef block an IP, even if a policy told me I had to. It's an unmanageable system, requires a higher level of understanding than is expected of stewards and likely even sysadmins to fully understand when something is a static and never going to change proxy and even then I'd argue against such a practise. John (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per what John said, we never indefinitely block IPs for any reason, so why should this be different? Reception123 (talk) (C) 04:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose I do two votes because I think that this is the WORST option ever, however I follow Zppix. --OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Strong oppose What John said and IPs are dynamic by nature and proxies may change providers etc. and how they operate. It's not hard the mass block a range every once in a while if it's still an issue. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 19:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Nowadays it's so rare to see a vandal using the same IP over and over that it genuinely surprise me when it happens. Permabanning IPs just punishes innocent people.--Wedhro (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Oppose Per John. Paladox (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
7.  Strong oppose SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 20:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
8.  Oppose Blocking an IP to indef is a bad idea. The proposal says an IP could be unblocked when we confirm that it is not used as proxy. However, conclusion of an "Usage of IP" investigation can be vague. It is difficult to say that an IP is definitely not a proxy. Thus the result is likely to be keeping the block and driving away potential contributors.--Tiger (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
9.  Strong oppose You don't indef block IPs. You just don't. They can change owners over time and a completely different user could be blocked from miraheze forever which we definitley don't need. Examknow ● talk ● contribs 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: Indefinite blocks are NOT infinite blocks. It can be unblocked in the future (when a good-faith user report us that they no longer work as proxies; we can leave it to their reports for initial actions). The thing is, a lot of hosting IP ranges (including DO, AWS, etc.) are quasi-static in practice, and our blocking has been renewed every time it expires. So why not we just block them once until we find the situation has changed? Since the number of IPs are limited, proxies are as well, and having a control on the unblocking side will bring an end to the never-ending anti-spam wars in the near future.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 05:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  @開拓者: Even if the policy about indef blocks passes, they should always be set to autoblock disabled unless users in that IP proxy are likely to abuse this wiki or even the global system. See below for a more detailed explanation. --OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  That has always been a practice. Our global blocks targets usually anonymous users and anonymous users only.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 07:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: As I mentioned in my vote, I would be surprised to see an open proxy has a dynamically assigned IP address (unlike regular IP addresses, most company IP addresses are statically assigned) let alone go offline long enough to have its IP address reassigned within 6-months. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 07:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

The default duration of block (per proposals 2 or 3) will apply to IPs / IP ranges that has been abused for the first time. Their blocking duration will be doubled from last time every time they are re-abused (ex. 6 months -> 1 year (second time) -> 2 years (third time) ->...).

Support

1.  Support If proposal 4 fails.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 07:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support OwenFung87 02:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 04:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: This way we can reduce the cost of blocking the same IPs and avoid indef blocks. In addition, those repeatedly abused should be blocked for a longer time because we can easily guess repeating the same block will probably not prevent spambots from reappearing.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 07:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall comments

•  Comment: I don't think NOP is related to locking, as it only targets anonymous users.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 09:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  @開拓者: You are right. However, Ip ranges (especially web hosts (which should be tagged/pinned with {{Webhostblock}}) and open proxies (which should have {{Proxyblock}} on their talk page)'s open proxies) or proxies may hide or unhide their IP at any time. Everything block about open proxies should have autoblock disabled and account creation enabled (unless at the most exceptional, and the rarest cases where a user is editing under an open proxy and their originating IP is an open proxy (IP address hidden) and their accounts abuse their power (e.g. spamming links to external sites, creating attack pages, serious/persisting vandalism, etc), they should have their block parameters as account creation blocked, including logged-in users. So all the proposals are good, and so even if an indef block is absolutely needed, autoblock disabled is the priority, and people should be able to create accounts that don't abuse the wiki.
  That's why indef blocks are completely NOT beneficial to legitimate users who are stuck in a proxy block so they can edit. If course, those accounts should be verified as legitimate, if not then it follows the same procedure (warning, blocking, locking) to protect our wiki farm. --OwenFung87 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.