Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/Archiv-Index 2

message: I placed two requests, but now, I realised that maybe my system has bypassed the proxy connection, connecting on my regular ISP, which suggest the connection was never done on the two IP. Should I remove or leave both connections there? Fad (ix) 00:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think they're open proxies after all, feel free to remove them. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should I remove them?

message: Hi.  I have listed six IPs from anonymous proxy websites that were open and have now been blocked.  Is the correct procedure to list them here (so that they can be reported to other Wikimedia projects) or do I just block them and move on with life?  I took a look and most of what is talked about here seems to be geared towards zombie/hacked machines that require investigation as opposed to simple, straight forward anonymizers. Should I report such sites here or just block? --BigDT 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. It is even more important to block those, since they're easier to find and use. Please do list them here. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous editing sites

message: Does anyone have a tool that's keeping an eye on feeds like the ones on http://tfcsi.info/ ? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS (etc) feeds? 

message: Should we use  or  when there is a backlog? Jesse Viviano 18:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways non-admins can help, but the backlog essentially requires someone with the ability to block (and anyway most people, admins or not, who would be "experienced" enough to clean up an article would have no idea what to do to check an open proxy). —Centrx→talk • 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, this is a back-end task that is totally unlike anything else listed by , and even if someone were competent to do it, they would need to be specifically trusted in order to be at all useful. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which backlog tag to use? 

message: It would be nice if someone created a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies to show others how to check for proxies manually (besides web-based CGI proxies, which anyone with average Joe computer smarts can check). I would like to check them, but I do not know how to scan them manually. Jesse Viviano 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a subpage 

message: * Part of a coordinated attack on my user page, probably an open proxy--Heliac 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added these to the project page where it will hopefully be noticed (If I don't get around to checking them myself first) --Michael Billington (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinated attack on my user page, please look into this 

message: WP:TOR claims that TOR nodes should be soft blocked, however it appears that this isn't implemented. Could someone please sort this out? Thanks. Anon TOR user 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that they should be softblocked, and more likely they should not be, because they are used by vandalizing accounts. Anyway, blocks are done individually, per IP, so this IP was hardblocked and there is no way to suddenly make all the Tor blocks into softblocks. —Centrx→talk • 22:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOR confusion 

message: ;Copied from m:Meta talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Online_NMAP:
Well, since no one else has offered, I went ahead and set one up. I've just finished configuring it for OP scanning (though I'm open to suggestions as to how to further fine-tune it), and I'm trying to keep it as utterly secure as possible. It will be running with root access; however, I've disabled loopback/localhost scans and every other dangerous exploit I could think of, and I'm going to be restricting access only to OP verified users of the MetaWikiProject and its sister projects. To request a password, please e-mail me. Details can be found here. I'll post this to enwiki too. AmiDaniel 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online NMAP 

message: See this list compiled 13 May 2007 of IPs blocked as open proxies on the French Wikipedia but not on this one:
*meta:WikiProject on open proxies/Blocked on frwiki
**discussion:  meta:Talk:WikiProject on open proxies#Huge update (permanent link)
I've duplicated the list on subpages at:
*User:A. B./Sandbox10#12,640 open proxies from fr.wikipedia (permanent link)
**Unlike the Meta list, the one I constructed uses includes  links for each IP; example: 
***
I'm slowly working through the first 1000 annotating which IPs have been used on en.wikipedia for spamming or vandalism. I'm not an admin, so I can block problem IPs I find, but someone can work through my annotations.
My intention is to identify domains spammed through open proxies and take them to be blacklisted at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. The list of IPs is a sort of byproduct of that effort.
--A. B. (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did this on Wikiversity with over 15,500 IPs in January, you'll be surprised how fast it can be when you put your mind to it. --Michael Billington (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I can screen edit histories for each and comment but that I can't do more than that; I have neither admin nor verified user powers. So far, I've screened about 500 and noted the active, problematic IPs for someone else to follow up on. --A. B. (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12,640 open proxies blocked on fr.wikipedia but not here

message: I've been going through the French list of open proxies and I noticed that open proxy notices had been deleted after a few months as part of "old IP warning cleanup" by bots. Those are probably not notices anyone should delete but I'm not sure bots are very judicious.
This happens when the OP notice is only put on the talk page and then the user page is redirected to the talk page.
I suggest also leaving the OP notice on the user page; otherwise, there's no obvious record of any open proxy and it wastes time when people are going through lists (such as this one) looking for open proxies left to block. Alternately, train the bots to leave OP notices alone. --A. B. (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old IP talk page "cleanup" is deleting open proxy notices 

message: I have been dealing with a serial vandalizer who uses Open Proxies to continue to edit the english Wikipedia since being blocked. A comment from another user about the possible source of his IP addresses being a list on a proxy website. Would it be possible to use that list to proactively block Open proxies before they have a bite at the apple, so to speak? here is the list from the site we believe the user to be using SirFozzie 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Go for it. All the ones I tried on that list are already blocked though. —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest one he's using is from a site called "ConcealMyIP.com".. Guy blocked the IP, but not sure if it uses other IP's in that range. SirFozzie 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 13 IPs registered on more than one continent attacked a number of Meta-Wiki pages within a few minutes today. I listed all 13 at :meta:WikiProject on open proxies however it's not clear that's a very active project. If they aren't checked there within a day or two, some verified user here may wish to check and block them on en.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk)  18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 open proxy candidates to check

message: I've applied to be a verified user, but haven't been approved yet. I already have a port scanner, would anyone mind if I started checking those IPs out to help clear the backlog? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of verification is to verify that you are trustworthy and technically competent. —Centrx→talk • 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, still, theres no harm in asking, is there? Also, could someone go to the talk page for the verified users list? Theres another person on there who wants to become one besides me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even though I'm not a verified user... 

message: I have downloaded the list from http://www.gmedya.com/proxy and reformatted it to facilitate checking open proxies at:
*User:A. B./Sandbox15 (permanent link)
I checked the histories of the first 10; 6 have been blocked here as open proxies but 4 have not. All of these remaining 4 have shown problematic behaviour either here on en.wikipedia or elsewhere.
--A. B. (talk)  18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of 200+ open proxies 

message: Five months ago, a question about having a  HOWTO subpage on checking for proxies manually went unanswered. Feedback on the question would be appreciated. --Aarktica 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow-on to 'Suggestion for a subpage'  

message: Hi all, may I suggest that complete blocking of Java Anon Proxy proxies will be limited to blocking of people not signed in? "The Free Encylopedia" should not block people trying to access free content on a free base. The German Wikipedia allows that. -- Fleasoft 12:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Open proxies are regularly used by sockpuppets, so only blocking anonymous users wouldn't help. Blocks only apply to editing, so the ability of "people trying to access free content on a free base" is not restricted in any way. --Gribeco 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking only anonym edits possible? 

message: Do you guys ever retest the IP's you have blocked? You have IP's blocked as far back as 2004. Maybe you should retest at least once a year.--76.220.202.53 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, they are only re-tested if there is a request of some sort. Even keeping up with the newly reported ones is a huge burden, let alone checking all the old ones. Properly, IPs blocked as open proxies should not be blocked indefinitely, but they were before almost always, and many times still are.  The ones that are blocked indefinitely I have in the past and will again, check and either unblock or re-block with an expiry. —Centrx→talk • 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regular retesting? 

message: So if I log in while using Tor will my account be banned assuming I created it with a non-blacklisted IP?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.128.72.97 (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Your account will not be affected if you login through tor, but you still won't be able to edit since tor IPs are blocked. —Crazytales talk/desk 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You will be autoblocked by association I'd assume.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.100.1 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. IPs are blocked because they're used by a blocked account. Accounts aren't blocked because they're logged into from a blocked IP. —Crazytales talk/desk 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tor 

message: What exactly are we expected to write in the notes column? Also is being blocked a firewall typical of a proxy? DenizTC 09:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notes column should have a description of why you might suspect it's an open proxy, for example if the same editor is using IPs from several ISPs or countries at the same time. It's also used for the response to the check. It is probably safe to say that a reliable indication of an open proxy is that it can be accessed in some way without being blocked by a firewall, even though a firewall may sometimes be present. It is quite common for traceroutes to get blocked by a firewall at some point in the chain, but it doesn't usually mean anything. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And the bot found it 'innocent'. Will you check it anyway? I haven't withdrawn my request. DenizTC 12:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I ran :Category:Open_proxies_blocked_on_Wikipedia against the SORBS dynamic IP list (dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net) and found over 7,000 matches, i.e. dynamic IPs that are blocked as open proxies.
Samples: , , , , ,  (I can post the full list if there's interest.)
Some of these are Tor exit nodes that will be automatically unblocked. What should we do about the others? --Gribeco 02:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start listing them here to be checked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the list: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies/Dynamic IPs blocked as of 7 October 2007 -Gribeco 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic IPs 

message: This IP seems to be reserved by IANA itself , yet it is a vandalism account. Is this normal? DenizTC 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Samspade does that quite frequently:
 inetnum:      121.208.0.0 - 121.223.255.255
 netname:      TELSTRAINTERNET45-AU
 descr:        Telstra Internet
 ...
-- zzuuzz (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User Talk:121.217.126.200]] 

message: Are pay proxy services consider acceptable?   maps to megaproxy.com, which is a pay service.  This particular user is obviously  editing through a proxy.  But should IPs mapping to this proxy service be blocked or are they acceptable since you have to pay for access and your average vandal isn't going to do that? --B 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your average vandal won't, but your average banned sockpuppeteer might. Vandals are easy to block as they come; they are somewhat secondary to sockpuppeting. Mr.Z-man 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|208.77.91.8}} 

message: I added recently two socks of User Talk:Sstakis, as the editor is from Macau and the ips are, according to Geobytes, from India. But when I clicked the whois link after adding the ips, I saw that they were from Macau. What is the reliability of Geobytes? Thanks. DenizTC 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  geobytes 

message: I was thinking that perhaps I could have ClueBot II go through and archive any report still listed 5 days after being handled (, , , ) by moving the reports to /Open, /Closed, /Inconclusive, and /Thrownout respectively.  Also, /Unblock for the IP addressed requesting unblock.  What does the community think about this?  -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Carbon Monoxide 03:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - WP:OP loads up slowly on my computer, and I've got a cable connection. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would help lots if the page was cleared. It would also be useful if the bot could check if the IPs have been blocked or still need to be blocked/unblocked after being checked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic archiving of [[WP:OP]] 

message: I suggest the reporting should be separated from the Wikiproject page, possible to Wikipedia:Open proxies reports →AzaToth 22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? (not rhetorical :D) AmiDaniel (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reporting should be outside the project 

message: Where is the list of "trusted proxies" that the x-forwarded-for header can be used for kept, and what's the process for getting something checked for that? —Random832 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "trusted proxies"/x-forwarded-for 

message: On behalf of the Bot Approvals Group, — madman bum and angel 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 6|MadmanBot task request]] 

message: nocharge.com seems to me to be an open proxy; could I have a second opinion please? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I declined an unblock request on one of their IPs after reviewing their website. If I understood it correctly, you download their software and then can connect via telephone to one of their servers, no registration required. It seems like it would take about 5 minutes to set up. Practically it would only be used by people for whom it would be a local call or who have unlimited long distance, but technically it could be used by anyone. Mr.Z-man 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nocharge.com 

message: The article text "| location" has been changed to "| location = /dmirror/http/en.wikipedia.org/w/" for several anonymous edits. Here are example diffs: , ,
 (multiple edits).
A bug report has been filed  and it was suggested that this is caused by a poorly coded web proxy. Please could somebody take care of that. Сасусlе 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addded to the list on article page. Сасусlе 19:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a badly coded proxy, and it's open, I have range blocked 64.62.138.0/26 as a result. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proxy breaking articles? 

message: I'm proposing an additional category in the :Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed template change

message: I'm a proxy, please block me now! --8.17.168.106 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Hello, I don't know what to do, so I'll just bring this matter here and hopefully someone who knows what to do can deal with it. I left a vandalism warning on the talk page of an IP earlier today. Upon checking back, I discovered an admission that the IP was an open proxy. Here's the talk page: User talk:68.94.60.201. -MBK004 00:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible open proxy? Help needed 

message: May I request Verified User status? It says on Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users to see the main page, but the main page has nothing about becoming a verified user. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for "Verified User" status 

message: Are there ANY actual members of this WikiProject out there?  Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 08:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, me, Zzuuzz, and Crazytales.  Though, Crazytales hasn't edited the page in a while.  Those are the ones I know of.  And, of course, ClueBot IV and ClueBot.  -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I havent done any editing on the page in a bit due to other time constaints but still willing to do some work, currently working on a better TOR checker. Q T C 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I go through them from time to time. I generally make sure that IPs are listed for some time, due to the very high dropout rate of open proxies. The meta-wiki aspect of this project appears dead however. There are divergent policies on open proxies between wikis, suggestions for cross-wiki blocking, and a policy here which places less emphasis on prohibition. I wonder what the future of this project is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd join and help out, but nobody has responded to my requests to add me to the verified users list. (I'm a huge computer nerd, have experience with proxies and interpreting portscans, and have Nmap and Tor installed on my computer) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Members 

message: I was wondering, if I could get some of the admin members of this project, to take a look at User:SQL/Funky TOR, and, consider reviewing some of these blocks. Yes, some listed are still TOR (not many, I estimate about a 2% failure rate), due to network congestion, IP hopping, flipping, or, etc. I'd appreciate the help, if any of you have the time to do so, thanks! SQLQuery me! 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what I came up with. Q T C 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: And this page for all the TOR nodes that are unblocked. Q T C 04:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: To reply to myself again, just what is the policy for unblocking ex-TOR nodes?  Surely they dont stay banned indef? Q T C 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been unblocking them, mostly. Careful to check it out, however. In some cases, some users actually blocked them (say, as "Blocked proxy") for other reasons, and then, a third party came by and tagged the page as . I usually check over the talkpage, the block log, the torstatus, and whatnot, when unblocking. SQLQuery me! 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why I come up with more than you, as far as blocked  goes? BTW, you may want to limit that to the user_talk namespace :) I doubt anyone's monobook is blocked :) How are you determining torstatus? I use a combination of DNSBL's SQLQuery me! 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A fresh copy of the Tor Directory, it's updated regularly and in MySQL so its easy to query against, got my copy here Q T C 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: From the blocking policy: "blocks on open or anonymous proxies should be undone once it is confirmed that they have been closed;". I would suggest some caution in removing blocks, especially relying on online checkers such as as3344.net or DNSBLs. Some admins will indef-block any IP which even looks a little like an open proxy, or is highlighted in a DNSBL list for even a day, whereas other admins may make more extensive checks the results of which may not be immediately obvious. Of particular relevance are asynchronous exit nodes (eg 83.15.197.2) and by the same measure IPs which could be CGI proxies, and anonymisers such as anonymizer.com, or even other types of open proxy (which are also immune to port scanning). Such things are usually noted in the block log or talk page, but may not always be obvious. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOR 

message: I'm suggesting a change to Proxyip2 (and have asked recent users to opine here)...
:Line 13 (TOR link) is currently http://www.ippages.com/?ip
:I'm suggesting a change to http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args
I find the "Kewlio.net Limited [AS3344] -- TOR node checker" to be much simpler to check just for a TOR check, rather than having to sift through the ippages to find the right line...  Comments, suggestions, would be greatly appreciated! SkierRMH (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do too, and it can't be that controversial of a change. If you could also put some sort of open proxy checker on that (if it's even possible), that would also be appreciated. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the AS3344 one is MUCH simpler. SQLQuery me! 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Speedy Delete Err, I mean, go for it. Agree Q T C 07:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've absolutely no objections if it makes things easier for the checkers. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If the new one is reliable, better and thrust worthy, I have no object to the change. --Appletrees (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, change it it's a better link, although it is less conclusive - with as3344 you have to make a further check on what exits the node allows. If you're changing the template I would also suggest replacing the link to cwi with one to robtex as this provides similar information but better access to DNS and c-net info which is useful for web proxies and anonymisers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're wanting something like that, I could throw up something similar to as3344, but with the exit information. Q T C 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Try this Q T C 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the Tor checker from The Dark Citadel, due to the detailed information it gives. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The Dark Citadel does give good detailed info - stable & reliable?  SkierRMH (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the only downside, it's my site, and I'm not a major ISP like kewlio so I can't guarantee uptime quite as well as they can. Q T C 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: While I know little about the topic, I've certainly found the Kewlio link simpler. Dan (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to {{tl|Proxyip2}}

message: I stumbled across a list at www.blogging4.com and I have posted it at User:A. B./Sandbox4. I don't have access to efficient port-scanning tools and I am not a verified user. On top of that, I'm tied up with other things. 
If someone works on this list, please mark it up as you go so that others won't cover the same ground.
Happy hunting/scanning. --A. B. (talk)  14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of 131 open proxies