Guild Wars Wiki talk:No open proxies

Reference links related to open proxy blocks

 * w:Wikipedia:No open proxies - Wikipedia's policy on open proxies
 * WikiProject on open proxies - The MetaProject on open proxies
 * Blocked proxies from the MetaWiki projects - Category listing of blocked open proxies for the MetaProject

Discussion
I believe this policy is necessary, per User:J.Kougar's recent activities. The use of open proxies to circumvent administrative tools will only increase as time goes on -- especially when the wiki is integrated more fluidly into the game client. &mdash;Tanaric 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully support this - but the challenge has always been how to implement and maintain this type of enforcement. Wikipedia routinely updates a fairly sizeable list - to me, the only manageable way to integrate that list into here is via some type of bot. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This might be useful: Extension:RudeProxyBlock --Rezyk 03:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support implementation of this policy. Didn't look at Rezyk's link. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it could be useful, I guess the only thing is that I don't know how many legitimate editors are using open proxies to get around work or school filters. I mean I like the idea but having been forced to use proxyfiers in the past, I feel for any editor who would be stopped by this. I know we can speculate that somebody could use a hundred different IPs to start a spate of unstoppable mass vandalism but is it really going to happen? That's not a rhetorical questions, I have no idea, I just know that it hasn't happened yet. But then again I don't know what the number of good editors who are using open proxies is either. I just think it's something to consider, it is a reduction in the usability of the site. Also these proxies are notoriously slow from my experience, it would be probably be slow mass vandalism at worst! --Xasxas256 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the extension Rezyk mentioned not only disallows edits, but also page views. Which means that anyone using one of the 23,714 IPs in Category:Open proxies blocked on Wikipedia wouldn't be able to even read any articles on this wiki. --Dirigible 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yuck. Well, we could also consider modifying it to not affect viewing. --Rezyk 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's to block page edits then that's ok, if there are people using open proxies then I hope they'll see this proposal and put forward their case. If it blocks page views then I'd be strongly against it. --Xasxas256 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support most things that attempt to prevent disruption and vandalism. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (reset indent) I would support a block on open proxies for editing, yes. Not for viewing though. --Karlos 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I'm in favour of this I'd like to know how many contributors have objections, and by that I mean all of those anonymous contributors who never take part in policy discussions. LordBiro 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a clairvoyant whose opinion you trust - then this is, by definition, unknowable.
 * That said - Wikipedia uses a similar policy to block anonymous proxies from contributing, and that policy has survived repeated scrutiny by a much larger user population. My biggest concern is the maintenance of such blocks - as long as we can automate the maintaning of the blocks, then I fully support this policy.  Otherwise, if it's left to a manual process - it's like swatting at gnats - you may occasionally get one or two, but thousands more are available to irritate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that WP's policies on this are relevant, our user base is so much smaller and WP is a far far greater target for pointless mass vandalism. There's been no Willy on Wheels here or on the other wiki that I know of. The problem is that the percentage of users who comment on policy is so small that we will not only probably never hear the opinions of those who would be negatively impacted by this, we won't even know how many people are affected. I don't mind seeing a block on editing for users going through open proxies but it should be done because that's what Wikipedia does. --Xasxas256 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that it should be done because Wikipedia does it. I'm arguing that it should be done because it's a good idea.  The comments on Wikipedia were specifically to provide an example of how other sites handle such issues, and that doing so here would not be un-wikilike.  Also, because of their much larger user base; negative impacts from such a policy would be magnified several times over, so we can also use them as a reference to understand some of the degree of impact. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think the majority of our vandalism is very minor, only one or two edits and not from open proxies anyway. I think that blocking open proxies is the way that Wikipedia handles open proxy mass vandalism, something that we haven't had to deal with yet. I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea or that we're immune from open proxy mass vandalism, only that is a far greater occurrence over there. Secondly I don't imagine that many schools/businesses would ban WP whereas many would block this site. So the number of legitimate editors using open proxies would be greater here. But it works for them because it was a major problem for WP and there's fewer reasons to be using an open proxy to edit WP (although getting around the Great Firewall of China may be one). I also consider it to be a bit of a last resort when there's no other solution and that's why it works, it works for the majority but it's a real problem for the minority. If mass vandalism from open proxies is a major problem for us then ok, we have to make the decision that we don't want to small number of legit edits we get from open proxies, we'll sacrifice them because mass vandalism is a very real issue. If that's the case then yes that's what we need to do. Maybe we could have a switch, if we're coming under an open proxy mass vandalism attack then we turn that block on, otherwise we normally leave it off. --Xasxas256 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider that this Kougar guy is the first case we've had of someone using proxies to persistently vandalize the wiki, consider that he stopped doing that after just a few IP changes, and also consider the possibility that the reason he kept that act going for even that long was because our editors active during that incident handled it terribly and provoked him even further (revert wars, taunting on his talk page, calling him names in their revert summaries). Now, also consider the fact that it's been four and a half months since this wiki opened, during which time we've had audience spikes caused by the news on GuildWars.com that an official wiki has opened and the in-game integration. Yet this is still the first incident of this kind. Not sure about you guys, but I personally don't think such a policy here is needed at all, at least not for the time being. Maybe we should just get the discussion at Blocking policy going again, adding a point that says something along the lines of "All means of bypassing an administrative block are disallowed, including anonymising proxies etc"? Wouldn't that suffice?--Dirigible 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is widom in what you say, but I rather have the means installed at least. So that, if someone shows up, say next week, and starts a vandalism campaign, that we can just shut them down isntantly, then reset the option if needed a few days later. I really do not see, or comprehend the need for using open proxies to edit this wiki other than for malicious reasons. We have a Chinese person in our guild and she can't access Wikipedia, but she can access this wiki just fine. So, overall, I don't see a risk here. Does ANYONE know of any person in-game or her eor in the forums who uses open-proxies to edit and with good reason? --Karlos 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sort of - we never got it working, though. Take a look at User_talk:Snograt and Help:Ask_a_wiki_question/Archive1. I've got one set up on my webserver, though it goes really slowly. I mainly use it to get around the rather restrictive firewall at work - thankfully, GWW is not blocked yet. GuildWars.com is, though.
 * Of course, I figured out a better way around our firewall, so I'm using that instead most of the time =\ MisterPepe talk 02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to this idea. As Dirigible has laid out above, open proxy vandalism has so far not been an issue on the wiki, the one case that happened only involved a few IPs and was handled quickly. For a site that is gaming related and might reasonably end up being blocked for quite a few editors, open proxies are a good way to get around that. --Xeeron 12:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Implementation of this policy is not difficult -- up-to-date lists of open proxy IPs can be pulled from Wikipedia/Meta and updated by a bot with sysop privileges.


 * Re Dirigible's suggestion: The whole point is that anonymizing/open proxies provide a vehicle by which one can flout current policy. Adding a line saying "don't do this" does not aid enforcement.


 * Re Xeeron: I don't think it's our responsibility to provide an access mechanism for people wasting time at work; that said, I agree that so far the problem caused by open proxies has been small and mostly contained (one could argue that the Stabber fiasco on GuildWiki relates to open proxies, but I digress). As long as we're all aware that open proxies do not merely provide potential for abuse -- they are actually being abused on occasion -- I'm happy with any direction this policy proposal goes.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would argue that it is not our responsibility to keep people from wasting time at work either, the problem is bigger. For example all internet access from computers at my university is handeled by a company which also provides school's internet access, therefore certain sites are blocked. So far that has not caused any problems for me (I take it the blocks mainly extent to sex and nazi sites), but it easy to see that sites like GWW might end up on such a list - either as a mistake or because of more rigorous filtering. That would keep all Students and pupils from visiting GWW (even in their free time) using their university/school internet access. This is just one example that you should not be too fast in assuming that noone has any need to use open proxies when normally editing here. --Xeeron 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point; but my opinion is that potential future actions by a third party (ie: not imminent, threatened or even proposed by the third party) should not weigh in on the decision one way or the other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I dont understand yours. What else are we talking about but potential future actions by a third party (read: potential future open proxy abuse)? --Xeeron 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have had open proxy abuse. We will very likely have more. Your blocking argument is totally abstract, as we have had no reports of universities unconditionally blocking either wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 22:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They're both blocked at my workplace which is an educational institution. I did a big favour for our sys admin a while ago and in return I got my own access to the GWiki but I suspect that not everybody else can do that. Prior to getting access I was using Tor which was very very slow but at least allowed me to do a bit of editing. Any school with a decent content filter would surely block both wikis. It's not our job to campaign against strict filters at workplaces but a hell of a lot of wiki editing occurs at work/school/uni, we're not society's moral police either who tell you when and where you're allowed to edit from are we? :| --Xasxas256 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no... but your workplace or school is. You agree to follow their content policies when you join the institution. &mdash;Tanaric 22:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So... are you saying that it's our job to enforce that? Or is it more of a "sucks to be you, deal with it" thing? Did I miss the point? When I started working at the evil, vile hellhole that I do, I didn't sign anything or agree to any "content policies" afaik - they were simply forced upon my by the filtering software. I've figured out ways to circumvent those blocks, and no one really cares (in fact, most people find it highly amusing). I mean, we've got a few examples of people who have been buggered by filters like this, and only one example of a person who abused proxies at all (even then, it was fairly limited).
 * At least to me, that limited abuse doesn't really seem to be worth blocking the only access some people have to the wiki. MisterPepe talk 23:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant more along the lines of "sucks to be you, deal with it." I don't think your workplace policy should affect our wiki policy. &mdash;Tanaric 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't be bothered getting into another argument here. I'll just put it on the record that blocking open proxies from editing because we care more about the company the editor works for than the editor themselves is stupid, what kind of a GWW community is that? If we could easily keep the IP list updated and turn the open proxy block on if we come under attack I'd be interested in using that. --Xasxas256 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, on that much we agree. As far as I'm concerned debating on policing a company or school's policy is a diversion from the actual subject.  It's irrelevant what policies, if any, the school or company may have.  The concern needs to be with the wiki - period.  If users get cut off while at work, that's not a show stopper to me - they can still connect from home.  Connecting from work is bonus, not a requirement to me.  Still, it's obvious that this has nowhere near concensus support.  The concept was discussed so the community is aware of its options, that satisfies me until if/when this type of vandalism increases in frequency. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh I probably do about 90% of my wiki activities at work and only 10% at home. Why would you edit a wiki on a game when you could be playing it! :P --Xasxas256 04:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too, exactly why the above discussion with MisterPepe took place. I love this ol' game of ours and I love helping any way I can with this wiki. However, when it comes down to a choice between playing the game and editing the wiki ...nuff said. -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 08:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can I ask again (and hopefully get an answer) whether or not we can INSTALL the feature but NOT turn it on until we need to? Does anyone have any input on this? --Karlos 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the installation notes, probably not - at least not easily. The extension is activated (after installation) by adding a line to LocalSettings.php - something that only ArenaNet can do. It'd probably be easier for them to install the whole thing at one time than it would be to go back later to add that line (if we thought we needed it).
 * Of course, that's not even taking into account the whole reading issue - without modification, that extension will block both reading and editing.
 * Not that I really want this installed. MisterPepe talk 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do see another option - have it installed (after the necessary changes), and then not put any proxies on the list at MediaWiki:Openproxylist. It would be blocking all the IPs on that non-existant list - and that could hypothetically be updated by us, rather than ArenaNet.
 * I still don't want this installed, though =P MisterPepe talk 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Aye, it's doable. The extension gets installed by ANet, but we keep MediaWiki:Openproxylist blank, and we store that huge list of proxy IPs in MediaWiki:Openproxylist2. If someone goes nuts and starts vandalising with proxies, any sysop can just move MediaWiki:Openproxylist2 to MediaWiki:Openproxylist, and the extension will kick in. Once the show is over, the admin can move the page back and everything is back to normal. Not the most elegant solution ever, but it should do the trick. --Dirigible 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't we just "Comment out" the list and then uncomment if needed? like /* and */ in C? --Karlos 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Commenting the list out would be the best solution imho. I'll support this policy and extension if it's used like suggested above. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 23:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm guessing that the vandal who is vandalizin atm could be stopped with this. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stopped? Not exactly. See my comment in the next section - I checked that IP specifically =P MisterPepe talk 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately commenting the list out like that won't work, the extension explodes the entire page, turning each line in an array element, so /* and */ would be nothing more than simple elements. But, we could do something even better, I think. We can easily make the extension check MediaWiki:Openproxyliststatus before deciding whether to block a user or not. If we enter "1" in that page, the extension is enabled, and IPs in the proxy list will be shown the blocked message. If we enter anything else but 1, the extension is disabled and everything works as normal. --Dirigible 02:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would very much like to shy away from the extension posted by Rezyk, as I do not think it's appropriate. This policy is not contingent upon an extension. It is very easy to block a list of IPs via bot. &mdash;Tanaric 03:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bigger issues...
Ok, to separate the other issues from the issue of installing that extension, I have sprouted this section. I thik a few issues have been brought up here: I think we shold sort out these issues before we try and decide on how to best handle open proxies. --Karlos 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should we have unneeded policies? i.e. should we develop policies without incidents that trigger them? I am generally opposed to this. It was one of the main reasons I was turned off when this endeavor started, all the people putting in all the policies in this wiki that they could not get off in GuildWiki or because they always wanted to champion such a policy.
 * 2) Is the proxies issue an unneeded policy based on a single incident? I believe that's an incorrect assessment. I appreciate Dirigible's warning that we should not overreact to a single vandal like the Patriot Act, but I think this vandal opens our eyes to new possibilities of vandalism. It would be foolish to ignore that bitter players like J.Kougar will, sooner or later, figure that Gaile Gray's user page (and Mike O'Brien's and Isiah Cartwright's...) is a good place to antagonize. We can protect these pages from anonymous edits if something like that started to unfold, but the concept that they will start to terrorize the wiki because they feel it is ANet's wiki (as opposed to GuildWiki which was always viewed as a separate entity). I think it would be foolish if we do not install such mechanisms IF WE CAN. In Guildwiki almost ALL the revert wars and vandalisms of that degree were a result of user friction. i.e a user slighted in some manner and started a feud over a page or a section. It's obvious to me that we're not in GuildWiki anymore. Now, people can come wage war here because of issues they have in the game, because they were banned on Guru, because they were banned in-game... This is a much bigger target than GuildWiki.
 * 3) Should we enforce other entites' rules in-terms of limiting access to the wiki? Absolutely not, none of our business.
 * 4) If a user can't access the wiki because his work/school prevents it, should we help them? As much as we can. Our loyalty is to the wiki and if active contributors need to work from their office or school or whatnot, that's fine by me. Remember that a person contributing from work because he is bored is NOT going to contribute when he gets back home. He's contributed because he is bored at work. As a growing wiki we should absolutely encourage anything that helps users contribute.
 * I agree with all but #2 (IAWMOTC?). I'd also like to propose a #5 to this list - whether the potential benefits (2) outweigh the potential downfalls (4). #6 would be, if #5 is true, is it worth the amount of work? This extension is not ready-to-use at the moment - remember, it blocks reading as well as editing. At least from what I've seen in the discussion above, that needs to be fixed before we consider implementation.
 * As for my feelings on #2? Yes, this wiki is a higher-profile target than GuildWiki. And yes, it's possible that we're dealing with a new breed of vandalism (=P). However, (and maybe this is more of a #5 thing), I don't really think that an extension will solve the problem. If we actually want to "solve" the problem of proxies, sockpuppeting, and other joyful things, we need to more SysOps, IMO.
 * As far as I can tell in the situation that sparked this whole discussion, it took four hours for him to get a warning on his talk page (after his last flame on Gaile's page prior to that). Sure, after he resumed vandalizing/flaming/etc, he was banned fairly quickly (27 minutes), but, honestly, he shouldn't even have had that long. The next three IPs were taken care of quickly, but the sockpuppet acct (Special:Contributions/Kougar) took almost another 7 hours to be blocked.
 * If someone wants to get around a block, they can. Even if, hypothetically, we were able to block every proxy in the world. I could, for example, drive down to the local library and use a computer there. Any school/university will have multiple computer labs. I really think that, at least in this case, the problem was less with proxies and more with slow administrator reaction. That being said, Gares was on the ball with those three IP blocks in the middle there. Yay, Gares! =P
 * From what I can tell, 203.122.254.24, 194.251.240.114, and 66.246.246.50 (to name a few - - one was this Kougar fellow), are all proxies. However, they're not in the open proxy block list on WP. I think it's a bit silly to assume that the problem will go away with a simple extension - we'd have to add these proxies manually, which is even more work than blocking them in the first place. This extension is not a solution, and it's not even in a place where it would work as a partial solution (since it blocks readers as well).
 * If the extension doesn't work for what we need, then we're really down to just blocking individual IPs as they come up, which is what we're doing now. Leaving the extension out of it removes the possibility of hurting good contributors - of course, it also means there's basically no need for this policy. MisterPepe talk 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy proposal has nothing to do with the extension pointed out by Rezyk. I don't even think necessarily supports using that extension. I do not support using that extension, yet I still fully support this policy proposal. The primary means of implementing this policy should be to have a much larger team of sysops. (Even if this policy goes nowhere, we still need a much larger team of sysops, but that's another thing entirely)


 * Nobody's assuming the problem will simply disappear because of this policy. The goal is to make it significantly harder to circumvent legitimate administrator actions.


 * As an aside, the only way a user-maintained list like Wikipedia's can grow is if people contribute -- just like any project on any wiki. If we find open proxies here, we can certainly suggest that they be blocked on Wikipedia, and thus everybody benefits.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a clarification, Pepe... NO ONE suggests a proxy block that would ban reading. If you read from the beginning, you'll see that me and Biro are supportive of edit blocks ONLY. So, any proxy blocking that takes place has to be on editing only. No one is specifically supporting the version Rezyk linked to, not even Rezyk himself, I think. --Karlos 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I didn't say otherwise. I was merely attempting (at least with the part about the extension) to point out to the people who seemed to thing that the extension was a good idea (Gem's "I'll support this policy and extension if it's used like suggested above" in the previous section) that the extension wouldn't work, especially as-is.
 * I apologize if I was less than clear. MisterPepe talk 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued
In light of the recent spate of vandalisms... bump. -- ab.er. rant  16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to suggest something a little bit different. My main concern with this proposal is the ability to harm actual contributors to the wiki, but it's pretty obvious that proxies are being abused, so we probably need to do something. Personally, I'd like to just see a provision in the blocking policy (also a proposal/draft) that allows for indef blocks of any proxies that have been abused. That way, any proxies that are being abused by vandals will be stopped (though, admittedly, it's like a drop in the proverbial bucket), and it wouldn't disallow people that are actually trying to help out the wiki but are blocked by overly restrictive firewalls.
 * Then again, maybe that's not realistic. Thoughts? MisterPepe talk 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I prefer avoiding indefinite bans. Over time, even semi-static IPs for cable modem users change - if we're not using a maintained list to identify IPs to add/remove, then I would prefer limiting ourselves to no more than a a week or two - a month tops for bans on IPs - what's a problematic one now may be re-assigned to a useful contributor later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I sparked the creation of this whole page? That's kinda crazy, just because I have access to programs like MultiProxy and all the other similar programs that can allow you to use a different IP addresses every minute or so if you want to (and I did that for a while there while banned when I wanted to continue to reply to people on this site) but since fresh lists of proxies are made available every few days, and contain hundreds of proxies (sure, some companies shut those doors once they find out they left them open and people are accessing through their system without their permission) but there are still a lot of proxy possibilities.  I really don't see how you can block them all, realistically, and as has already been said by others here... blocking the big popular ones that are available from free websites can potentially lead to locking out users who were also using those sites to access this Wiki from work or school.  I've worked for places before that tracked your pages, and using a public proxy site was the best way to view things not on their approved list.


 * True, I only did some minor vandalism to get the administrator's attention so that'd they'd actually read what I had to say at the time (since I felt it needed to be heard) and it worked like a charm and got the attention I wanted directed where I wanted it to... but someone that was given reason to have a grudge against this site, someone who was banned from the game for disagreeing with Gaile during one of her in game chats, someone who just has it out for the game or company could really do some damage and cause a lot of headaches if they wanted to and had access to the right programs, but at this point in time is that really something you're having a lot of issues with on this site?


 * Are there really that many people vandalizing the site on a constant basis who are using multiple proxies at a time to cover their tracks and/or be able to keep posting? If not, then it seems like it would be a lot of effort to try and stop something that probably cannot be stopped, and would be a waste of time for your programmers... would it not?  Yes, I did it once, but for a specific reason.  I don't have reason to do so again, and am just contributing to the site with screen-shots, information, and ideas now... as I was before I pulled my stunt to get the attention directed to where I needed it... so I'd hate to see all this effort put into coding just to try and keep me from ever doing the proxy swap on you guys again, especially if I'm the only one who has done it.  Just a thought.  ~  J.Kougar  [[Image:UserJKougar sig.gif]] 10:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to, for whatever reason, implement some kind of defense against vandals with a multi-IP program, what would you suggest we do? - Auron 10:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the toughie... I'm really not sure what you can do to stop what basically equates to a non-stop string of different IP addresses available via proxy programs. I just cannot think of a way that they can all effectively be blocked, especially when so many aren't even legitimate or willing proxies. The only semi-effective way I can think of to stop something like this would be to require all posters/editors to be logged in for all actions... but even then it's only a minor setback since free e-mail address providers are in no short supply, and with a fresh IP you could easily just register another account with another address and be all set once again.  It would be a hindrance, but not a preventive.  You could require all people who register to have 'paid' addresses... not accepting any free e-mail provider but then you really limit your users as badly as if you were to only allow editing or posting permissions to specific pre-approved people.  I can't see the wiki being very effective like that.  In short, I really don't know what a good defense would be other than a lot of diligent and patient moderators who are online at various times throughout the entire day.  ~  J.Kougar  [[Image:UserJKougar sig.gif]] 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you for the most part. Any additional measures we enact would necessarily be built atop a foundation of a strong sysop pool. That said, if blocking all known open proxies can lessen the issue by an order of magnitude, I still think it's worth pursuing. &mdash;Tanaric 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is more about "discourage" or "hinder" than "prevent". -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Require everyone to provide a thumbprint to the GW servers before editing. Abuse of a thumbprint = ban. Thumbprint = username + password. Ban of thumbprint = no more wiki.
 * Now to provide thumbprint readers to everyone who looks at the wiki... Armond 06:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Casting: Resurrect Debate
This policy proposal got plenty of initial support, but later edits seem to be mostly negative, so there is currently no consensus for this. Maybe we can have a new debate to give supporters of the policy a chance to bring forward their case so we can either implement this or, failing that, move it to failed proposals. --Xeeron 14:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think with the proposed Guild Wars Wiki:Blocking policy, this would make more sense as an incorporated section into such a larger policy, rather than its own policy, if anything. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it can become a subsection there, but I think the issue of open proxies and timing of blocks still warrants separate discussions. --Xeeron 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, I just don't think it merits an entirely separate policy proposal. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as failed seeing as there doesn't seem to be consensus support nor interest in this proposal at the moment. I'd suggest to anyone who wishes to resurrect it that it might be best to discuss it as part of a new section of Guild Wars Wiki:Blocking policy or whatnot. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. The only way a policy like this will gain support is if an immediate, dire need arises. We're certainly not at that point. &mdash;Tanaric 23:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection Chant
So, looking at Tanaric's last comment above, are we in any more need for blocking open proxies than before? -- ab.er. rant  15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it prevent occurances such as these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]? Obviously someone is trying to make a point. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it's time to accept this policy. It has undeniably a price, but, in light of recent events, I believe the benefits it may give (together with CheckUser being installed) are enough to make it worth such cost. Erasculio 12:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still support. My support has nothing to do with Raptors -- it's a good policy that causes far more good than harm. &mdash;Tanaric 09:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you tell if something is an open proxie? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  11:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sites that keep lists, such as . [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good call. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  13:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But there are always new open proxy ips every day... how would you compile a list comprehensive enough to justify the cost? People who want to vandalise aren't stopped because they will find the ones which aren't banned, people who use them for good will be because using one is against the rules so they can't. I am currently using them to edit in light of the recent revalations about the desire for checkuser. If this were to pass I would end up having to stop contributing or break this rule. Like someone else said you can change your ip if you have a dynamic address, which is just as easy as selecting a new proxy. It's stupid to ban a range, you would likely hit non vandals at the same time, so that wouldn't be justified. There really is no need for this. Stop with the wiki drama over nothing, you guys are creating problems where there are none and taking away more privacy for your perceived protection against your imaginary threat. Anon
 * Let me just sidetrack a little Anon. Do you use ad-blocking plugins on your browsers? Or spam filters? They seem like good analogies. I block/filter as much ads/spam as possible, but I can't stop all of them. There are always new ones, which just means an update is in order. There's a small risk of blocking/filtering the wrong thing, yet that is a risk willingly accepted by many people. Note I am not refuting your concerns regarding blocking legitimate contributors, yes, there is that risk. Seems like a case of sacrificing the majority for the minority, or sacrificing the minority for the majority. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me start by saying that I don't agree with Anon over how damaging this policy would be. That said I do feel that we are making a decision in the dark here. I would like to know the following:


 * If this policy were in place how many contributions from IPs would have been unable to edit? Of those edits how many were negative?


 * I started considering a program to do this but I have no idea how to get a list of contributing IPs easily, or how to get a list of known open proxies. LordBiro 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisited
So. Did we decide on this? More and more have started using open proxies it seems. Some are quite persistant. I'd fully support open proxy blocking, as long as it's only affecting open proxies. I use a closed one myself at times when "borrowing" someone's unprotected WLAN to get some encryption going. *cough* &mdash; Galil 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for installing CheckUser and forbidding open proxies, for everyone's reasons above.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (part 2)
I think it's time to revive this discussion in the light of recent events. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't block them all through a bot run as Tanaric suggested earlier in the policy. -- scourge  10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be considered a recent event? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what, I wouldnt be allowed to surf the wiki with a proxy on? ~_~.--Ryudo 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If this passes, you'd be allowed to surf, and even contribute, but I think this would just block anyone who vandalizes using an open proxy and then perma blocking that IP. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would stop him from contributing, but not from reading, while using an open proxy (no matter if that IP was used for vandalism before or not, as long as it is on the list the bot uses). --Xeeron 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought blocking open proxies isnt fool proof. That it depends on a list of IPs that are known to be open proxies. And from what it sounds like, open proxies just keep getting updated.  So I dont think this is a winning battle, nor worth the time. In my opinion people need to rethink the entire nature of letting IPs contribute at all.  It doesnt cost anything to make an account, and a monkey could figure out how to do it.  If you forget it, or dont know what cookies are good for, just make another.  While I am sure some IP edits are all good and nice, most IP things seem like trolls, cowards and vandals.  Guild Wars does have the whole immature demographic as a big part of its user base.  So what is really wrong with just having people make an account?  If it stops a few people from contributing because they wont make an account out of spite, so be it.  Would rather punishment mean something, and not let the inmates run the asylum.-- riceball   [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would work either, since (I think) proxy users could just create a new account and keep on. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the concept of stripping identities in a sense? I am willing to bet this Kougar person values their online persona.  People can pretend they are anything online.  User Pages can become walking advertisements for that person.  What about taking away these well crafted images by completely deleting the user account?  Sure they could just make another account with the same user page, but the history is lost.  The contribs are lost, the talk history is mostly lost (if not a hassle to keep replacing).  They would risk losing their investment in their persona by going around a ban.  Anyone who advertising anything about themselves is always worried about losing that.-- riceball   [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 21:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, everybody would still know: "It's him!"
 * Let's take an example. Raptors. If he was to come back under another username, behaving like he used to and being a major pain in the behind for a while, it wouldn't take long before people started connecting the dots. While he will no longer be able to vandalize and troll using his name he would still be able to vandalize. If this policy goes through, he will still be able to vandalize if he signs up, obviously unless signups too are blocked from open proxies (which I personally would support), but he wouldn't be able to proxy his way out of all the bans. As it stands now, Sysop tools are mostly useless in regards to banning since everybody and their grandmothers know how to use a proxy, and those who don't know won't have any problems learning. Let's also take a few examples for completeness' sake:
 * {| class="expandable" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid silver;"

! style="background-color: #ddd;" | J. Kougar
 * 00:59, 3 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "72.36.245.194 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (J.Kougar again)
 * 00:45, 3 April 2008 Galil (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "66.197.241.54 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (J. Kougar circumventing ban)
 * 09:59, 1 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "89.149.244.184 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Whack-an-IP is fun. J.Kougar again)
 * 09:15, 1 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.101.35.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Whack-an-IP is fun. J.Kougar evading ban)
 * 06:38, 1 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.44.137 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (J.Kougar evading ban)
 * 06:37, 1 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "J.Kougar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Per User talk:J.Kougar)
 * 03:53, 1 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "74.14.106.47 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (NPA)
 * 03:45, 1 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "J.Kougar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (You can't help but throw in that little NPA can you?)
 * 03:53, 1 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "74.14.106.47 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (NPA)
 * 03:45, 1 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "J.Kougar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (You can't help but throw in that little NPA can you?)
 * }
 * {| class="expandable" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid silver;"

! style="background-color: #ddd;" | Riven
 * 22:37, 7 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "66.90.103.37 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 00:47, 7 February 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.53.138.228 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (Riven)
 * 00:28, 7 February 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.53.157.11 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (Riven)
 * 23:58, 6 February 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.50.90 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (Riven circumventing ban)
 * 23:20, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "209.17.190.78 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:50, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "91.194.90.76 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:46, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.53.157.22 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:43, 6 February 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "204.73.200.75 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (Evading a block and NPA)
 * 22:26, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.46.12 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:22, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.44.96 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:20, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "38.100.42.25 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:17, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "198.77.13.115 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:16, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "209.236.224.202 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:12, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "208.113.249.125 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:07, 6 February 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "64.191.91.101 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:06, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "64.191.91.101 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 22:02, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "64.191.50.138 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven)
 * 21:55, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.44.24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven, personal attacks)
 * 21:46, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Riven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (personal attacks)
 * 21:55, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "67.159.44.24 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (proxy of User:Riven, personal attacks)
 * 21:46, 6 February 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Riven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (personal attacks)
 * }
 * {| class="expandable" style="width: 100%; border: 1px solid silver;"

! style="background-color: #ddd;" | Cursed Angel 12:55, 20 March 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "90.15.62.52 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (User:90.9.252.244 circumventing block) 20:24, 19 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "90.9.121.8 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (same user as User:90.9.252.244 (blocked for trolling}) 19:22, 18 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "90.15.186.242 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (same user as User:90.9.252.244 (blocked for trolling)) 15:58, 18 March 2008 Brains12 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "86.64.70.44 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (trolling (same user as User:90.9.252.244)) 02:56, 15 March 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "78.82.75.121 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (Cursed Angel circumventing ban) 00:10, 13 March 2008 Anja Astor (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Cursed Angel (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 days (refusal to change disruptive signing)
 * }
 * These are the ones I could find since new year while skimming the block log. If we also make open proxies unavailable to sign up, the "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" setting on the block page would actually do something other than just add another line to the IP blocklist. Again, I'm all for this policy as long as it only blocks open proxies and not closed ones. Using a list of open proxy IPs would only block open ones so I'd say it's safe. &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where should we get the blocklist from? How often should we update it to add new open proxies and remove IP addresses which no longer belong to open proxies? Even if we do block open proxies, it won't do anything against users with dynamic IP addresses like Riven. -- Gordon Ecker 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how you could block them thought because so many of them change daily or hourly on sites that let you use them for a proxy so if they change all the time how will you keep that sites IPs blocked? 208.53.131.244 08:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with this policy and think it should be reactivated as a proposed policy. Open proxies are usually used to circumvent a block, ehih ai find unacceptable. -- Shadowphoenix   02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except Riven claimed himself to use proxies.
 * The blocklist would be something like this one, or one of the numerous other ones. As for update frequency, how about "every now and then"? We'd obviously have to experiment with how often would be often enough. Maybe once a week? &mdash; Galil [[Image:User Galil sig.png|Talk page]] 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well most of his addresses listed above are from the same ISP according to ARIN. According to njable.org's faq, they have a 90 day expiration timer, which seems reasonable, however according to Wikipedia's comparison of DNS blacklists, about half of the major DNSBLs have indefinite listing lifetimes, so we should be careful about which one we use. -- Gordon Ecker 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of Pascal's Wager. Think of it this way.  If we try this, and it works, the wiki gains(+).  If we try this and it doesn't work, the wiki neither loses nor gains (=). If we don't try this, the wiki neither loses nor gains (=).  There's no negative things.  Personally, I like to aim for the positive.  MiraLantis 02:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a case could be made for a few negatives (accidental positive user blocking). That would be rare, I suspect, but possible. Either way, I agree. At the very least, a sort of trial period to see how it worked for us wouldn't hurt.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true. Perhaps a special page or an email address could be provided for said users?  I'd also expect support tickets to go to ArenaNet for that (since people link from the game) so perhaps a deal with their support?  I think that would cover the lot of it.  I have severe doubt that a contributor would be accidentally blocked, and since the block is only on contributions, not on reading, that's a very weak negative.  I think a short trial period would be fantastic, but I suppose we should vote on that, first.  Maybe a new policy about a trial period, or should we just move this back to proposed (after more discussion as I'm sure it'll be here).  MiraLantis 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, lets give this a test run and see how it goes.-- riceball  [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should give the community a warning before the test run, and what do you think the length of the run should be? I suppose we'll also need people to test the test run, if that makes sense?  MiraLantis 03:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1-2 Weeks test I imagine, maybe even a month. Someone else can test it :P-- riceball   [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking a month when Calor first mentioned it. MiraLantis 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to open this back up as a policy propsal, time to renew it :) -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User-Shadowphoenix Shadow Phoenix Signet.jpg|19x19px]] 03:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be a "new" proposal, for the clean talk page and also so that we can think of ways to help complement what Calor noted were negatives of the policy - namely, innocent-banning. While I offered two solutions I don't know what all this technical mumbo-jumbo is so I suppose they don't go far.  Or maybe we can archive discussions before, say, 2008?  Yeah.  I like archive.  What do you think, should I archive it? MiraLantis 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstandings
This policy does -not- prevent "innocents" from reading or editing the wiki.

Anybody can read the wiki, even blocked users, at all times. This policy, if implemented, would prevent editing anonymously from an open proxy. Any user who uses an open proxy can still contribute pseudonymously by creating an account. Logged-in users are not prevented from editing, even if they have an IP on the open proxy list. If a logged-in user is a vandal, we can still block him as normal.

This proposal is not a magic bullet vandal blocker. Users intent on circumventing a block can still do so with open proxies, but they must create a new account each time. This adds a significant timesink to users intent on vandalizing in this way, and makes it easier for sysops to intervene. It significantly lessens the problem, in my opinion, but it does not solve it.

I strongly support this policy, as I did when I first proposed it.

&mdash;Tanaric 06:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, instead of a "no open proxy" statement, wouldn't it be better to have a "no anon/ip" restriction on editing?. As it has been said already, there are other things to consider, like dynamic ip users. Plus, creating an account isn't really hard even for most of the following-instruction-challenged users, and i would guess most of them end creating an account once they realize their IP is logged otherwise.--Fighterdoken 06:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO allowing anonymous edits is important. I suspect that most of our registered editors started out as casual anonymous editors. What about a page protection policy / guideline allowing users to request semi-protection (protection from anonymous edits) of their talk pages. -- Gordon Ecker 06:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This policy does not disallow anonymous/ip edits, nor does it disallow editing from open proxies. It only disallows doing both at the same time - anonymous ip editing via an open proxy. I see no reason why we shouldn't enact this. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but Fighterdoken seems to be suggesting that we prevent all anonymous / unregistered edits. -- Gordon Ecker 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what WoWwiki does. Apparently they had a bunch of problems with proxies and bots, so they just blocked IP editing. Our vandals come in waves (and seem to have slowed down recently), so that drastic a measure isn't warranted yet. - Auron 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As the first time around, everyone please be aware that what this policy is simply a ban on paper of all proxies. It does not suggest how this will technically be achieved. All this policy is saying is "We do not want anonymising proxies on this wiki and if we catch you using one, we'll ban you".


 * Of course, without an automated tool to implement this, the only way we can find out that an IP is a proxy is when it gets abused by someone bypassing a ban, in which case it will get banned anyways, whether this policy exists or not. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly here, so let me try once more... If this is going to be simply a ban that's left up to the admin team to execute, it will realistically only happen when those proxies are maliciously used against the wiki. And in all those cases the proxies would have been blocked anyways even without the policy, as is the case right now. What advantage does this policy give us then?


 * If an automated tool is required, what will it be? How will it practically work? Will someone code a bot/script to scrap those anon proxy lists and mass-add them to the wiki? If something like that extension that Rezyk once posted is going to be used, pulling the data from WP/Meta, is it going to help us at all? The last time this was brought up, both Pepe (here on the wiki) and I (on the ANet admin mailing list) looked up anon ips that were being used here against the WP/Meta lists, and the majority simply weren't on there. Meaning, they wouldn't have helped us, we'd still have to ban them manually as they popped up, one at a time.


 * I'm afraid this policy is going to be supported by users who don't understand that this offers no solution to any problems we may have with proxy abusers. Right now it's just a vague hand-wave saying "we don't like proxies around here". No feasible technical solution has been proposed.


 * The solutions to proxy abuse are what they've always been:
 * More admins
 * More common sense from everyone. Engaging in multi-page discussions with someone who has a proven history of Not Getting It is a bad idea. It's what our parents were trying to teach us when they told us "don't feed the trolls". They want attention, and if we keep giving them attention, they'll keep coming back for more. Yet people still think to believe they can beat them with the common sense club... which just won't happen.


 * I'm still opposed to this policy. --Dirigible 10:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the two key points of this policy proposal, Dirigible, and they're both in the first line, specifically, 2 pairs of words: any period, and any time. The point of the policy is not to allow blocking of proxies, because they could, as you mentioned, be blocked anyways for the activity that would likely earn the actual attention of a sysop. Rather, this policy is aimed at effectively nipping wiki-drama over proxied IP edits in the bud - if a sysop thinks a proxy'd IP is acting up, they can block it, fully in accordance with a policy, without having to argue over whether the block is warranted. If the contributor believes the edits to be ok, they can always register an account, or switch to a non-proxy IP, and continue editing, but it prevents arguments over whether a block is valid on what are effectively throwaway accounts. That is why I support this policy, because it does offer a significant advantage in that regard. I'm afraid that this policy is going to be opposed by users who don't understand that this offers a reduction in stress for sysops with no real impact on the constructive user base. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The same purpose could be served by including "open proxy" in the blocking criteria for a blocking policy or blocking guideline. -- Gordon Ecker 11:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that would involve getting the entire blocking policy passed, which is a significantly larger task. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Dirigible, that would not make the task of blocking real vandals any quicker, but, according to you, it would make the blocking of innocents/grey cases easier (provided they use an open proxy IP). I fail to see the use in such a policy. --Xeeron 17:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already explained the use of it above, Xeeron. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning but please don't say you fail to see the use. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I should have used a clearer wording: The policy doesn't do alot about real vandals (my reading of what Dirigible said), but it allows sysops to ban uncontroversial editors for the simple reason of their method of connecting to the wiki (my reading of your third sentence above), therefore I oppose it. --Xeeron 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it doesn't ban editors. It bans ip editing from that IP, and that's it. The same editors can still edit by registering an account while still using the proxy, or via a non-proxy route (if available), and they can still read regardless. In effect, it's like asking to see the driver's license of anyone who isn't obviously at least 40 years of age when purchasing alcohol - sure, it's quite possible they're 32 years old, but since it's a gray area, there's slightly more regulations concerning it. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that (technically, it is not the editor who is banned, but his method of editing), but it takes a few seconds to set up a wiki account. That will never deter a determined troll like Kougar, but might be enough of a hassle (especially when doing it the first time, not the 20th) to prevent a new user from editing the wiki, who might be using the same open proxy for very different reasons. When valuing the benefits against the drawbacks of this policy I just dont get a positive number. --Xeeron 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I dont understand wiki stuff much, and I am mostly hand waving at the niceness that banning open proxies represents. I dont know the logistics of it, I do feel like its mostly futile. But I got the impression from others that it was not hard to do, but some others have now suggested otherwise. So if its not a simple process that you can just turn on, screw it.

But what do you do then? Nothing? I think something still needs to be done.

There is a problem when you cant punish the bad apples. Trolls need to be controlled, and I think the community suffers as long as that remains the case. We need find one way or another to punish the trolls, and hit them where it hurts, so they actually have something to lose by acting like an asshat and thus a reason to stop being an asshat. One tool is banning, while that forces them to open proxies and sock puppets (basically annoyances only). So what else can be done? While this is probably an easily dismissed suggestion, I think you need to think about what a troll wants in the end. They want to advertise themselves. They cultivate an online persona. A troll is usually nothing without their history of contribs and their user pages and the ability of others to know their name. They like seeing others respond to them, and the mind games they somehow think they won. So I wouldnt mind purging the system of their main user accounts, and their contributions. Once they see that they cant have any legacy, motivation can go out the window. Sure they can make another account, and make us know its still them, but then you just ban that too, and eventually they still have little to show for it. I dont expect many, if even any, to agree with me on any of this. But I think its a punishment that could have some weight to it unlike a ban.

I also would have no problem with banning all IP edits. But I imagine there is resistance for one reason or another to that. While some IP edits help, I think there is way too much "coward" posting here.

While you can also say we just need more admins, I dont think thats the answer either. This isnt a massively intensive issue at the moment. But the remains of the issue linger everywhere for everyone to see. And I think for this troll, and many like him, that is what they love the most and motivate them to continue. And admins seem pretty much powerless to do anything about it presently, so what will more do?

So maybe we just let the trolls keep trolling, and do nothing I guess.-- riceball   22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aiiane, if passing a blocking policy would take too long, what about a blocking guideline? Riceball, I don't think we should delete accounts as punishment, if an account was deleted, there would be no way to prevent someone else from registering under the same user name, and if, in addition to deleting accounts, we removed credit for a user's contributions or purged their edits from the wiki's history, it would violate the attribution clause of the GFDL. -- Gordon Ecker 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With the history of this wiki, Gordon, a blocking guideline would take about the same effort to make pass as a blocking policy, and would be less effective. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically its nothing more than a futile game of wack-a-mole that gives the advantage to the troll because they can still say whatever they want, whenever they want.-- riceball  [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At this rate, maybe just having a tacit agreement between sysops in the lines of "If an user has proved to be conflictive in the past, stop trying to convice him to correct his ways. Just ban as needed when needed and ignore any argument he/she provides. If the user really feels something should be amended, he can request for Bcrat intervention.". After all, Proxy IPs and their contributions aren't really the problem, but all the arguments users start with other users (and admins) while trying to prove they are right and the whole wiki is wrong. If going by this, you could go as far as putting a new warning (in the same lines as the no-comment here) for "not-feeding the trolls", so you actually start punishing the troll-feeders too :).--Fighterdoken 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Attempting to enforce a "don't feed the trolls" policy tends to create just as many new possibilities for drama as it removes when you're working in a system where administrative decisions are guided by the community rather than by pure sysop discretion. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that way we would ignore the trolls and have e-drama only with the feeders, which usually are easier to convince than the troll itself.--Fighterdoken 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know, I've seen at least one user in particular who makes everything personal yet thinks they dont.-- riceball  [[Image:User Riceball Sig.JPG]] 00:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem then Fighterdoken is that you bring up the issue of who exactly is a troll and who isn't - which is essentially the same as the original problem of whether a ban is valid or not. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apply the solution for vandalism: Have a community of editors undoing the vandal/banned edits whenever they come up (while the weaker "block" tool provides less useful secondary support). Leave this as a potential arbitration solution to ensure fair process before shutting anyone out in this manner. --Rezyk 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've added an "open proxy" criterion to the draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Blocking policy, and I'm thinking of reviving it. -- Gordon Ecker 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Rezyk -- removing all content by blocked users is the way to go. I've advocated getting ArbComm involved for this very reason -- since passing a policy around here is next to impossible, right now the best solution for persistent trolls like Kougar is an ArbComm ruling requiring the immediate reversion of all edits made by the banned user in question.


 * Dirigible, by your logic, does that mean we should scrap GWW:NPA? It provides no technical means for preventing personal attacks, so why have it at all?


 * &mdash;Tanaric 18:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Inaccurate comparison. NPA is not like No Open Proxies, because while all personal attacks are undesirable, not all open proxies are so (as you well know).


 * If this is going to be simply a ban on paper, one that's not going to be automated in any way, why would we make such a statement, lumping both malicious and benign proxy users in one group? If it's just a ban on paper, why not be more precise? Why not say "Proxies are ok, but if you're using them to vandalize or evade another ban, you're out" instead? Not making a distinction in how the proxy is actually used would only make practical sense if there were an automatic way to block them all without sysop intervention.


 * Lumping all proxy users in one group, and saying "we can ban you at any time for any reason" has only one result, as Xeeron pointed out, it allows sysops to ban editors simply because of their method of connecting to the wiki... it justifies sysops banning those who shouldn't have been banned at all, or gray cases which should be treated with more care instead of hammering through them with a ban and saying "oh well, open proxy, too bad so sad". It doesn't affect malicious users or trolls, as they are getting banned anyways and the community has been supporting their banning with no wiki-drama. It only affects innocents/gray cases.


 * Here's a better alternative to this policy: Guild Wars Wiki:Don't evade bans. Don't Evade Bans not only would include open proxy use for that purpose, but would also cover those with dynamic IPs, and would also cover those registering new accounts with the purpose of evading bans. If you are dead set on pushing a policy of this kind, Don't Evade Bans would be more reasonable than No Open Proxies. I still would consider it unnecessary (as there is no commotion about sysops banning in those cases anyways), but at least it would be precise. --Dirigible 12:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be more precise and it can be made to include the allowance of removal of all contributions made during the banned period, regardless of value, and regardless of namespace. Without a way to cut down on the aftereffects of the trolling (which is what trolls love), whatever power that is allowed to sysops on banning open proxies is mostly futile. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This adds a significant timesink. Sorry, but have anyone actually bothered to test this? It took me 3 seconds and no effort at all. Would be completly ineffectual against, well, anything. Backsword 00:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I just might have to partially agree with Dirigible. Making this policy Guild Wars Wiki:Don't evade bans might be better suited, of course it would need more content then this policy and would also need some signifcant changes, if an "No Open Proxies To Avoid Bans" section was to be added, to this. Dirigible makes some excelent points about how this might hurt more than help, I think it would better be serve if it was added to a policy lik Guild Wars Wiki:Don't evade bans. I am still in support of this policy, but I agree with dirgible that it needs to be a modified part of a policy not a whole policy. Maybe if this was tweaked a bit and then added to Guild Wars Wiki:Don't evade bans it would be better accepted. The only reason I wanted this policy is to stop people from evading bans. So I guess /agree with Dirigible. -- Shadowphoenix   22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the ban log for a lot of these well-known trolls, you'll notice that the policy is pretty much Don't evade bans even if it's not already written out (unsure). Sure, it would be nice to have a policy for what we already do... but we're already doing it, SP, so I don't think that's going to really be what solves the issue.  This was brought up, and if it was brought up, then there was a problem with the existing way that the wiki works.  Since it seems to me, at least, that they're already banning people who continue to evade bans, making a policy about what is already going on is NOT going to solve the problem.  If the sink is clean, but broken, fix it - don't clean it.((Cont))
 * Personally I believe that 1.) No IP editing would be bad. Sure, that would a(e)lleviate the problem of the proxies, but especially in regards to guild pages, a large number of these edits are being done by hard-working IP users.  What's more, while it IS easy to register (VERY easy), I present this case:  ((cont))
 * Say you just found a great way to mimic some green weapon (sorry, greens are my specialty so they get note :P). OH!  Share it with the wiki!  Then, casual GW gamer goes on and finds that he has to register.  THINKING that this is going to take forever instead of just click-edit-type-click-save, they decide not to contribute.  While I may be a user with a username, I didn't used to be - actually, I did a lot of IP-editing before I finally took the plunge and made a username.  We have to remember to assume good faith, but at the same time that the majority of us (at least, where I live!) are LAZY.  If you're going to do a thing out of good will and you find out there's a road cone in the way, you'll just turn around - instead of making the effort to move the cone. ((cont))
 * And, 2.) I believe that while more admins may be needed (though it is not up to me to say, but rather, for the current adminship to say, as they're the ones who know if they need help), please remember that at this moment, Guild Wars is a dying game.  Yes, it sucks.  All over the place, places are empty, forums are mentioning inactivity and I'm sure we're all seeing it ourselves.  As time moves on (closer to GW2, but not close enough until release!), we need to confront the problems before we run out of a base of editors that could become admins.  ((cont))
 * Hope that all makes sense. I for one do support this policy, as I have seen current admins ask for it; however, being that this is a policy that ultimately affects them more than us, I hope that their knowledge of the situation is given gravity.  MiraLantis 05:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support
I support this policy, I think it needs to clarify somethings, but I support it. I am putting my draft up for deletion after re-reading it.... I dont see the point in a trial period :) -- Shadowphoenix   01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read what Dirigible, Xeeron, Gordon and Aiiane have posted already? They're discussing the meat of the matter and the success of this policy depends on you winning a debate in support of the policy. If you can't counter their logic, this policy will fail. Saying "I support" is, in the context of consensus, absolutely useless. Go up one or two sections and start posting there, you'll make a difference then. - Auron 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Auron I read their comments, no I am not contributing to the discussion because I really see no point in me doing that (although I am watching it). I do support this policy, and I doubt that my mind will be changed.  -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User-Shadowphoenix Shadow Phoenix Signet.jpg|19x19px]] 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait you're saying that you know that there is no point in you posting to contribute to the discussion and yet you are posting stuff like this anyway? Why are you one of those attention trolls who feels the need to comment on anything and everything just so people see you and with vain hope that some sysop will give you a little bit of attention and make you feel special?  If you can't contribute something useful why spam up pages unless you are just an attention troll. 208.53.131.244 08:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People, please keep discussions of each others' posting at the very least off policy proposal talk pages, and preferably off the wiki (using private contact if you really need to discuss such matters). Arguing over how someone is posting what just sidetracks debates and creates unnecessary arguments. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * /agreed. Someone should just delete this section for that reason.  Sections dedicated to pointless chatter started by people interested in only that will only encourage other people to make similar sections of their own. 208.53.131.244 09:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)