Talk:No open proxies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

I have a username[edit]

I understand, why open proxies are blocked, but don't understand, why my username also is blocked. I offer to block only those who don't use usernames or those who are already done, for example, at least 100 changes. I regulary can't work in Wikidata and another projects, because I have open proxies. I am administrator in Latvian Wikipedia, and there I can always to work, but it isn't fair, if I can't work in Wikidata because my computer has open proxy. It is from my internet provider, and I am not so clever, how to fix this problem.--Treisijs (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are blocked on no project Special:CentralAuth/Treisijs. Maybe you used an open proxy and could not edit because the proxy was blocked. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 07:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Treisijs you could ask for global IP block exempt at Steward requests/Global permissions if you have trouble editing at some projects. Johannnes89 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this moment I had solved this problem. I founded information, how remove open proxy for my computer. Thanks! Treisijs (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am just starting out and was immediately told my IP address was blocked because it was within a certain range which made it an open proxy. I don't even really understand what that is yet! I know I certainly haven't done anything to cause alarm. I noticed as I was writing this reply that you seem to have solved the problem. I'm glad for you! Hopefully I shall be allowed to function as well without too much hassle; after all, I have a username too.! Good luck. Obertsespetts (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think was block for no reason Flashboylee (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, it is difficult to understand why experienced users with many edits in a project cannot edit when they are on the net from a computer (work, for example) via an open proxy. This has already happened to me on commons, where I have never been blocked and have uploaded thousands of images, when I wanted to set a category from my work computer. What is the point of this and why doesn't our system distinguish between IPs, newly registered and experienced users? --Superbass (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Superbass: Default option when blocking an IP is to just block the IP + account creation (this option can of course be disabled too). When applying the block to registered users, all accounts using this IP are affected, except accounts with IP block exempt (automatically assigned to administrators).
If you wanted to change this for proxy blocks, you'd have to introduce a new option for all IP blocks. How do you determine which accounts should be affected? Account age? Number of edits? Some trolls use sleeper accounts which are many months or years old...
It's generally seen as more effective to just use IP block exempt if innocent users are affected by proxy blocks (although we might have to change our view on blocking open proxys [1])
If you have problems editing on Commons, I recommend reading Commons:IP block exemption. If you have issues on multiple projects, you might want to ask for Global IP block exemption (though global IP block exempt only covers global IP blocks, local IP blocks always require local exemption). Johannnes89 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not so much my personal problem as the question of weighing whether doing more good or more harm with open-proxy blocking for logged-in users.
Since logged-in, malicious users are comparatively easy to block via their account name and otherwise have no benefit from going online via open proxies, the effect of their blocking seems to me to be more of a side effect.
Technically, it would be possible to automatically select experienced users, as we do with page blocking. Sure, you can ask for an exception (the reason "I'm annoyed" is enough?), but a feature that automatically excludes experienced and unproblematic users would save us a lot of stress. Superbass (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps something you would like to submit to the Community Wishlist Survey 2023? Johannnes89 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you underestimate the malicious possibilities of OPs. User's IPs are usually hidden to the public, so hardly anyone knows the activity of registered users from OP, but I (as an de-CU) saw more malicious stuff from OPs then I had expected. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 02:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be. But there would be no argument against giving experienced and established users who have already been given some rights in the respective project, such as file mover or rollbacker, and who have an empty blocking-log, automatically the right to use open proxies? --Superbass (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Projects can have different standards for IPBE. In my homewiki it's easy to get just by asking admins, but in the enwiki you have to email the checkusers. I gave up and just decided to edit less there. A bigger project has bigger problems and more users who try to do something malicious or undeclared paid editing, for example. The term "sockfarm" is probably unheard of in most of the projects. But I agree with you that hardblocking proxies is a problem for good faith editors and especially for those who haven't even started to edit yet. Even if you could get IPBE (for valid security reasons, for example), you'd have to first know about it and then make the effort to apply. kyykaarme (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intent of this article should be made unambiguous[edit]


In my opinion, the wording on these sentences is problematic:

  • if you need to use Tor/proxies for valid reasons and can't [then] you can contact the stewards
  • why you need to use Tor

The word "need" implies that the editor's use of Tor is a consequence of an external cause. The editor has no choice. (no choice ⇒ can contact)

The wording does not say this, but the reader might misconstrue (by fallacy of the inverse) that: if the editor's use of Tor is a consequence of an internal cause (the editor's use of Tor is a choice), then the editor cannot contact the stewards. (choice ⇒ cannot contact)

If this wording is then please
  • rephrase like: "if you (registered contributor) are blocked when using Tor/proxies [then] you can contact the stewards"
  • remove why you need to use Tor
intentional This article should be (much) more explicit and unambiguous by stating that:
Wikimedia intentionally blocks legitimate registered contributors choosing to use Tor from contributing. (Please, do not appeal for an exception.)


With this in mind, the policy's title no open proxies might also be ambiguous:

literal interpretation "no (unregistered or registered) contribution through open proxies"
gracious interpretation "no unregistered contribution through open proxies [but registered contribution through open proxies are obviously welcomed]"

Logically, there is no misinterpretation possible. No means no. Legitimate. Vandals. Registered. Unregistered. Everyone out.

Morally however, registered contributors (identified by their account) are filtered out by another means of identification (their IP address). De facto, this policy is unfair to registered contributors. Some might think: What's the use of registration if you are banned based on your IP address? That's the reason why some of the registered contributors might interpret this policy's title graciously.

Solution: a subtitle should be present to state which interpretation is the correct one, like "no open proxies (unregistered or registered)"


Because this policy is ambiguous:

  • A legitimate registered contributor using Tor by choice might not appeal for an exception even if allowed.
  • Depending on a steward's understanding of this policy, an exception might or might not be given.

-- Luximeki (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a fallacy expert and don't feel particularly logical today, but I see some fallacy in your suggestion, particular when it comes to your adding of "intentionally blocks legitimate registered contributors". In my opinion the wording says what it means. If an editor has an equal choice of a blocked Tor node and an unblocked address, they should choose the unblocked item as they have no reason not to. They are probably collaterally restricted and not intentionally restricted. I'd point out that at English Wikipedia, which is one of the largest users of this type of policy, we changed the title in 2007 to become en:Wikipedia:Open proxies, reflecting a wider consensus including changes to this policy. Meta is often a lot slower to react to updates. The title should be changed here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree about the title change. This page also has no lead or "in a nutshell" banner, so many users just look at the title and think that VPNs are forbidden. What's the procedure here to suggest a renaming of the page? kyykaarme (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, let me rephrase my whole point.
1. If a sign says: "if you are a woman, then you can enter" (woman ⇒ can enter), then some might, by a fallacy of the inverse, think that "if you are a man, then you cannot enter" (NOT woman ⇒ can NOT enter). But in truth, the sign does not say anything about men. If you are a man, then maybe you cannot enter. Or maybe you can.
So, when the article says (something like) "if you are forced to use an open proxy then you can contact" (forced ⇒ can contact), it does not explicitely (or not explicitely enough) say "if you are not forced then you cannot contact" (NOT forced ⇒ can NOT contact).
This insufficiency is reinforced by two points:
2. One might think that, ideally, legitimate contributors should not be blocked (because: legitimate).
3. One might think that, ideally, registered contributors should not be blocked by their IP address (because: identified by their account).
These three points put together might bring one into the conclusion that a legitimate registered contributor choosing to use Tor can appeal for an account exception.
If it is wrong (and from your opinion it is), then it should be explicitely written in this policy's article (a reference as proof would be a bonus, to make sure the editor of this article does not try to pass off their own opinion or interpretation as a policy).
All sentences I proposed were examples. I agree that the sentence Wikimedia intentionally blocks legitimate registered contributors choosing to use Tor from contributing is ambiguous. It is true that legitimate registered contributors choosing to use Tor are not purposefully blocked (you are right to say that they are collaterally blocked, they are not the target). However, they are still blocked by [this] policy (= blocked by choice/design), meaning: it's not accidental but intentional/deliberate. Another wording (maybe equally wrong) would be: By design, Wikimedia blocks legitimate registered contributors' use of Tor by choice from contributing (Please, do not appeal for an exception.)
Luximeki (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]