How about requiring users from known anonymizers to
login? This still allows for legitimate uses of the
anonymizers, but helps to restrict vandals.
-Rholton (aka Anthropos)
--- zero 0000 <nought_0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
Anonymous proxies are
regularly used for vandalism, and once we block
one, the vandal just
moves to another one. On meta recently we've
had a
bot operating to
vandalise tens of articles, via an anonymous
proxy.
Would there be any objections to systematically
blocking all
anonymous proxies on a site-wide basis?
I would object to it being done without a study to
determine how many
genuine editors use anonymizers. There are quite
legitimate possible
reasons. One is an editor who writes in Wikipedia
from work but
doesn't want his/her employer's IP to be associated
with it. Another
is someone who wants to be anonymous on Wikipedia
but has a fixed IP
address that uniquely identifies him/her. We should
not ban this
practice unless we have a global policy that
anonymity is forbidden.
That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the
problem you
describe. On the other hand, how much of this
problem would
exist if it wasn't for the practice of allowing
people to edit
articles without logging in? Every time this matter
is raised there
are screams about the sky falling in, but I have yet
to see a single
convincing reason why we can't restrict editing to
logged-in users.
Zero.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing
online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.