Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs

message: The discussion regarding the former text of this policy, Wikipedia:Prohibit AOL users from editing has been archived and moved to Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs/AOL Prohibition as the discussion was not relevant to the current text of the policy. If you feel a matter discussed on that page needs to be discussed further, please bring it up on the current discussion page.
:Thank you! Doesn't anyone ever learn not to vote on everything?--HereToHelp 12:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

message: No. If you are going to have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, then you have to expect some vandalism. --Osbus 20:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "some" :) Kaldari 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you are clever, but what I meant, actually I don't know what I meant. How do you tell what's a shared IP though? --Osbus 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm, my question was answered later down in the page. --Osbus 14:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are going to have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, then everyone must be able to register. Since everyone can register, then everyone can edit. There is no problem with this policy. LegalSwoop 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: Maybe I'm going against my own position with this, but I think that it's worth bringing up to perhaps inform the discussion.
We currently do permanently block a certain type of IP -- I can't remember the name of it right now, unfortunately -- zombie IP, maybe? I don't really know the details of what that kind of IP is and why we permablock IPs of that nature when we find them. If anyone knows what I'm talking about enough to give us better information than I can provide ;) I think that it would be interesting to discuss how and why this type of IP is different from and/or similar to the type of dynamic IPs that this policy proposes to permablock. Looking at an analogous case like this, and deciding how analogous it truly is to the current issue, might be useful in thinking about this policy.
Hbackman 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There called open proxies. Open proxies are essentially IP addresses that have been "opened", usually by hackers, to allow many users to use an IP address at once.  This is usually done without the knowledge of the legal user. More information can be found at Wikipedia:No open proxies. Also there really isn't any connection between that policy and this proposed one. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Hbackman 01:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some IPs ''are'' permanently blocked, IIRC... 

message: Flcelloguy recently moved the policy to Wikipedia:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs/AOL Prohibition to coincide with an inactive and archived discussion about a former rendition of this policy. Can someone tell me why? All links to the policy now hide this discussion page as all users are redirected to an archive. I really don't appreciate that this was done (even by an admin) without discussing it first. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see your talk page; it was a simple mistake, assuming that someone had moved the talk page without moving the policy page, leaving behind a red "project page" tab. With all the talk of renaming the proposal and the fact that the talk page move location did not look like an archive, I did not realize that that page was an archive. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem--I figured it was something along those lines; I'm just megastressed at the moment, thus my shortness with you. I apologize, and thank you for moving it back. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy Move 

message: Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users, which is linked to from MediaWiki:Blockedtext.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The problems with this proposal--possible collateral damage, possible violation of a foundation issue--seem to outweigh the benefits of it, and I personally believe that pursuing the Wiktionary solution--to require all shared IP users to access the site via https in order to edit--seems to make a lot more sense. I believe that by requiring AOL proxy anons to connect to a secure server to edit we will be able to ensure that messages are received by the intended user, to cut down on the current problem of collateral damage, to cut down on the degree of vandalism resulting from AOL proxies, and to protect the ability of any user to edit without registering. My only question is: How do we implement this change? According to article Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users, "There have also been plans to modify the MediaWiki software so that AOL users would automatically be made to bypass the proxy system using https. This feature is currently still at an early stage, but it may be enabled some time in the future." (Note: this statement has been present in the article since 15 Apr 06.) I was unaware of such plans, but if this is the case, I feel we may need to do nothing but sit around waiting for the devs to do this, unless we would like to propose that this be extended beyond AOL to incorporate all ISPs that connect through shared proxies. If there is not already a plan to implement the https mandate, then I feel we should draft a proposal requesting that all anon users connected through shared proxies be required to connect through the https server before editing. In any case, I feel that the current proposal is unnecessary and would vote to reject it. Your thoughts? AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your VandalProof tool can speak for itself on the good contributions of IPs.  So far I've found  about one in ten IP edits to be questionable, 1:20 to be vandalism. Teke 06:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I totally agree--anons are not the evil they're made out to be. Yet you still have to accept that, though only 1:20 IPs is a vandal, about 8:10 (or maybe even greater) cases of vandalism are IPs (which VP's VandalismLog confirms as well). I've actually been quite amazed lately though--is it just me, or does it seem like vandalism has been slowing down at remarkable rates? It seems like formerly about 5:20 edits was vandalism, now it's more like 1:40... or maybe I just haven't been looking as hard lol. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See  and replies.  Tim Starling definitely seems to be the person to talk to about this.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. I posted a message on the Village Pump, where Tim Starling and others are likely to see it. I'll consider posting him a message too though. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, I too am starting to realize that this proposal is going to be unsuccessful and will cause too much collateral damage. Therefore, I have decided to reject this proposal as well. Funnybunny (talk/Vote for this policy) 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to Reject this Proposal 

message: Okay, we can say that many of the IP addresses that are shared are going to be obvious, but
* Who is going to enter these ranges in?
* Who is going to verify this?
It's a nice proposal, but I feel it's completely unworkable.  Inevitably, vandals are going to slip through the cracks. Lankiveil 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't tell completely, but a lot of times Whois will give sufficient information.  --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we know whether it's a shared IP or not? 

message: I disagree with this proposal for one reason.  Universities.  A significant number operate through shared IP addresses.  Yet, they are major sources of quality improvements.  I agree that vandalism is a significant problem, but I think banning those IPs with problems is a better way to go than to ban all shared IP addresses. --Midnighttonight 05:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This form of banning forces people to sign up, thus somewhat deterring kids in schools from using wikipedia as entertainment when in study hall. Kukini 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody has every suggested that we should "ban all shared IP addresses".  People are talking about if/when registration should be required for people using shared IPs.  --Rob 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with this proposal, for the same reason as Midnighttonight. Idril 13:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the connection from my apartment is a shared IP, because it is owned by my university. However, for the next few years, it is my IP alone. What if I want to edit anonymously, for whatever reason? I am effectively blocked, even though my IP isn't really being shared. So this proposal seems to hinge on whether or not I am allowed to edit anonymously... unless we're going to eliminate anonymous editing altogether, I don't think this policy is a good idea. ~MDD4696 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Even as a vandalism fighter I also must disagree with this proposal.  I think it will significantly deter academics and students from editing Wikipedia.  Yes they can sign up, but how many of us started with a couple anonymous edits?  I know I did.  -- CopperMurdoch 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universities 

message: It seems that one of the current problems with Wikipedia:No open proxies is that it's still not techically possible to only allow registered users to post through anonymous proxies. From the talk page:
:There's a feature request for the ability to block IPs without affecting registered users, but that's currently not possible. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it technically possible? 

message: I support this potential policy, as long as we change the Wikipedia tagline from "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as you plug yourself into our bureaucracy and fill out a form that you might not be able to find." zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey, I already used that line on the first proposal :-P Teke 04:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a lot of white space in the middle of the header. I'm sure we could fit it in, no? ;) zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: As someone said before, the policy we need is to block all anonymous editing. I support this proposal as a step in the right direction.
We need to step outside and listen to what the world is saying about Wikipedia. Generally there is far too much vandalism, and far too much unreliable junk. If you are an experienced user, vandalism is something you get used to, and becomes a minor irritant; if you are new user who doesn't know how to revert (for instance) it is a major pain in the neck.
I cannot see how forcing editors to register prevents anyone from contributing - except for those edits that should be prevented!
Let's get our house in order. AndrewRT 20:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree completely. Anonymous editing allows for all sorts of spamming, self-promotion, vandalism, and games. What large site doesn't require registration? Problems will only get worse, not better, if allowing anonymous edits continues.Jeff Fenstermacher 23:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *That's the most backward thinking I've heard in a long time, and I've heard some pretty backwards thinking.  It goes againt the spirit of Wikipedia, as well as the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses to prevent people from editing aribtrarily. -- Wizardry Dragon 23:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Registering hardly prevents people from editing. If one can get to a place in life where she (1) has a computer, (2) internet connection, and (3) relevant knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia, then actually registering, an amazingly painless step on Wikipedia, could hardly be said to prevent someone from editing. It's not an arbitrary bar: if one were to do a statistical study, one would easily find that the vast majority of vandalism comes from anonymous users. In addition, I would suspect that, on balance, the quality of information provided by logged-in users exceeds the quality of information provided by those not logged in. Whereas allowing anonymous editing might have been preferable in the past when articles were few and Wikipedia was relatively unknown, now over a million articles exist and Wikipedia is one of the most trafficked site on the internet. Such a changed position puts Wikipedia in the position to change its policy on anonymous editing. Therefore, I agree with the policy proposed as a step in the right direction. LegalSwoop 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Agree. LegalSwoop 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it would help. I usually patrol Special:NewPages and after the rule that only registered users can create new pages we've seen a lot of people registering just to create new vandalism pages or with irrelevent content. I'm against this policy because first of all it probably wouldn't help, and when you're using the vandlism tools it is a lot easier just to check the edits from anoms, than having to check every edit! Snailwalker | talk 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Anon Editing 

message: Why are anonymous contributions important again?
It takes all of about three seconds to register.  You don't even need an email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs) 
:1) It depends of your connection speed. It can take longer :)
:2) Registering isn't just the physical process of clicking on the button, and filling in the forms. There's also the question of choosing your user name. What if you don't want to associate your real name (or a pseudonym you regularly use elsewhere) with your wikipedia edits, and you don't feel like thinking up a permanent name just right now (thinking you might come up with a cleverer one later on). Should you create a "use once, then throw away" user name? How is that better than anonymous editing?
:Sounds silly, but it's probably a reason why if anonymous edits were banned, some valuable contributors may choose to not edit rather than regster.
:3)What if you're on different computers a lot (say you're traveling, or you're in a university) - and don't want to have Yet Another Username And Password To Remember? ('specially if you want them to be different from the ones you use elsewhere) Flammifer 14:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to disparage these reasons, but I do think they pale in comparison to the amount of benefit it would bring if everyone had to log-in.  It is so much nicer to have confident that when you leave a message for User:A, it will be User:A who gets the message and replies to you, vs User:next-guy-to-come-along-and-use-the-same-IP. Johntex\talk 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another consideration is that vandalism distracts from productive editing even when most of the actual  reverting is done by the bots and/or the RC patrol. You still have to review your Watchlist's History to understand what has happened and that can be time consuming when you are watching hundreds of articles. Sometimes a well meaning editor will manually revert a vandal, but zap only one out of 2-3+ bad edits and then good edits pile up on top of bad edits and it can get messy. Just a couple of weeks ago I had to rebuild a whole section from its fragments scattered across 5 or 6 versions. Ahasuerus 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure we are not the first group of editors to have thought about the problem :) but it would appear that the it is getting worse as Wikipedia gets larger and more popular. The more articles you have created/edited --> the more articles you have on your Watchlist --> the more time you spend policing it --> the less time you have to contribute new content --> frustration sets in --> eventually you give up and leave. I guess time will tell if the underlying model is sustainable. And even if it goes up in flames, well, it's not like the contents will be lost :) Ahasuerus 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am stupid 

message: My impression here is that the proposal is to pre-emptively block all anonymous shared edits. This may allow innocent people sharing the IP not to be blocked but it'll also force many more innocent users to register when they didn't have to before. Couldn't the blocking of anonymous editing be used as an alternative to outright blocking of IPs, whereby users then can't even register? That seems to be the problem now. The vandalism problem is not bad enough to justify this kind of pre-emptive action, particularly given the philosophy behind the project that has brought it so much success. BigBlueFish 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative suggestion