Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs/AOL Prohibition

Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs

This poll has been archived, and closed. The current discussion for this policy is located here. There, you can suggest your thoughts to improve this policy.

I'm sorry, but this isn't a good policy. Most IP edits I have found on the anti-vandal tool are actually helpful, not harmful. Plus it sends the wrong message to newcomers. Sorry. The Republican 02:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's one reason why i've proposed: AOL users that usually vandalize will change their IP address at the speed of lightning, causing the administrator who would typically block a vandal to block the wrong person. If this policy were to take effect, AOL users that vandalize will have to sign up. If they sign up and vandalize, the administrator will be able to block that person without harming several (say, seven or eleven) people. Funnybunny 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this policy could do more good than bad. The reason is because any good AOL contributor will sign up and continue their good work. In time, they may even become an admin. Funnybunny 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My argument against that. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! If you use AOL, you have to register first!" Either all IPs register, or none at all. That's the only fair way to do it. Teke 05:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've changed my point of view with that. I guess I will support. The Republican 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to voice your opinions in support or opposition of this policy below, and please also leave comments as to how to improve it. Note, however, that the poll below is not a vote to ratify or reject the policy, but rather it is being used merely as a gauge to improve it.

Discussion/Poll

Support

1. Support - Given registration is done quickly; and, also, I'd rather extend the restriction to most shared IPs. CP/M 04:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support- This person has a brilliant mind. A brilliant policy. User: Sabertiger (18:52, 20 April 2006 A.D. (I hope anyway)
3. Support - It would slow down vandalism. I threatened to reccommend my school to be blocked indefinately, and the amount of vandalism decreased, and that was just one class. Davidpk212 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak Support vadalism levels will decrease but these anonymous vandals will create wikipedia accounts just to vandalize. I think that this will be an effective way to reduce vandalism. Half the vandalism made in wikipedia is done by anonymous users. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 10:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - This would definitley help combat vandalism. Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 15:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Support support support! - definitely! Great proposal. But could it be implemented? --Mets501^talk 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Support It'll be better by helping to reduce vandalism and allowing the vandals to get away with it. --Pilot|guy 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Support I guess. You are trading one bad thing (AOL users have to register) to avoid a different bad thing (AOL users get unfairly blocked). I would think that getting unfairly blocked more traumatic than having to register. Plus, in the bargain, you get to reduce vandalism somewhat. Anyway it should be explained to them. AOL users go to a page that says basically "You are connecting via AOL. Because of the way that AOL works, you have to register to edit, unlike most other users. If you find this unacceptable or overly restrictive, you must find a different method to connect." Then a link that explains in more detail about AOL IP allocation and all. Herostratus 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Support I only had one doubt, and he proved it to be unreasonable. A great way to stop vandals. The Republican 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
10. Support — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Support - Strong reasons for this policy have been cited, and I can only admit that it would be a great relief to vandal fighters. - Conrad Devonshire 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Suppport necessary given how AOL works. It's bad giving people talk page messages, that are negative, and unrelated to them. This avoids that. --Rob 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC) It's rather annoying to vote on something, and then have it turned into to something completely different. All votes seem to have been made moot. --Rob 06:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, for Machiavellian reasons. While I don't like the idea of blocking out all AOL IPs perpetually, it is my belief that such a policy will force AOL's hand. --Nlu (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong support, though I'd rather see this extended to all shared IPs. Registration only takes three seconds, and it will ensure that when I leave someone a message the correct person gets it. I'm really getting tired of situations like this--it only aggitates and confuses new users to have a stack of warnings accusing them of vandalism they didn't commit, and it makes life harder on admins and other users trying to stop vandalism to never be able to contact the intended user. Despite the user box on my page, I actually don't oppose IP editing, just so long as behind each IP is one recipient (and I might also add that anons are responsible, IMHO, for more than 80% of the vandalism, partially because of the inability/difficulty in blocking shared IPs). AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Support: I agree, the problems caused by not having a policy like this already in place are discouraging many new and old users who are wrongly affected. --Hetar 02:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
15. Pro I give my vote. Lincher 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment : It would be nice to do that to all the floating IP internet service providers so that hasseling with a user means he will have a stable IP. Second comment is about these users that will be registering, since Anti-vandal normally spots unregistered users, then with these registered wont be caught vandalizing. Lincher 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Another comment Maybe just blocking them from Mainspace editing would be a first step in blocking these vandals and since new users normally start by leaving messages in Talk pages, they wont be re-butted on their first attempt and will stay and be guided by an advanced user. Lincher 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    Comment. Check the IP history of the first article I hit on random. All good edits, even transwikis into German and French. That would just clutter a talk page. Teke 05:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    I am agreeing to both your comments. But since this proposal has been made, either I can amend it, or kill it and restart it so it will include all Shared IPs and prohibit them from only the Main Namespace. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    OR, suppose I rename it and then amend it? Would that be good? Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

16. Support If you block an AOL user by IP then you might block several good users who haven't loged in. By Making them register it keeps them from getting blocked needlessly Aeon 05:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
17. Support. Unfortunately necessary. Hopefully prohibiting anonymous AOL users from contributing will make it easier to block the vandals and encourage the contributors (both of which are impossible to identify due to AOL's current system). Good all around. bcasterline t 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
18. Support with Reservations We need to make sure that collateral damage is minimized, if not eliminated. Other than that, the reason behind it is sound, if unfortunate. -- Wizardry Dragon 23:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. AOL users are many of the plethoria of floating/proxy IPs, from the Asian Pacific Network to Verizon to hundreds of thousands of schools and universities. Teke 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, many of the same arguments on this page could be made to prevent anon contributions all together, but that would be against Wikipedia's core principles and, IMO, so is this.-Polotet 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, open to all. We allow anyone to edit, without registration, because that's how we've come to build this great encyclopedia - one edit at a time, one IP at a time, one user at a time. Simply having AOL, which has over 24 million users and represents a significant proportion of users and IP edits, should not exclude anyone from editing - regardless of whether they choose to register or not. Remember, look at the holistic view: are we to stem progress in an effort to stem vandalism? I am adamently, strongly, and vehemently against this proposal. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose The majority of anon edits coming from AOL are useful. JoshuaZ 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. If we block one set of anon IP's from editing, we should block all of them. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Sends the wrong message. Don't see justification for special AOL policy. I find school IPs more problematic than AOL. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose. I would rather see all anonymous ips blocked from editing or none at all but not all ips from a specific ISP just because some vandalize. -- 127.*.*.1 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose. See my comment below.--HereToHelp 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose Wikipedia's founding policy is being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this proposal happens then that will not be true. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

   Please see the comments section of this talk. We are currently trying to solve those issues. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose, per Flcelloguy. ~ PseudoSudo 05:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Oppose Wikipedia's founding policy is being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal and wait until that is implemented before we even try to do this. Stefan 05:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose. Goes against the philosophy of Wikipedia IMO. Also, I am afraid it will lead to more and more restrictions. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
13. Strong Oppose. So much of wikipedia was built by anon edits. Ludraman 11:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
14. Never I use AOL, and blocking it will be much worse as the vandals will just create a account, and cause a autoblock nightmare Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Would anyone want me to extend the policy's effects to School IP's? Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 02:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to create a separate proposal for school IPs if you want to create a proposal for them at all, especially since people have already been voting on this one in its current state. I also think either would have a better chance to pass on its own than the two would together (not that I would support either).-Polotet 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Wikipedia:No anonomous AOL editing or something like that. But the idea itself is flawed. First, M:voting is evil. Don't take a vote. Strive to create consensus, not measure it. Second, this looks like a joke. Like someone got really annoyed at the AOL people and decided to draw this up (the page on How to create policy says don't take a vote, emphasizing this with both bolding and repetition, and doing so suggests not taking the time to read it). Third, this goes against one of the M:Foundation issues: the "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering". Simply un-wiki.--HereToHelp 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's clearly been demonstrated that this principle has been bent many times before without a change to the foundation issues. For instance, anons cannot create new pages--that's clearly a bending of the rule as they do not have the same rights as other editors. New users cannot move pages as a result of WoW, yet another policy that bent this rule. Granted none of them outright violated the principle, yet if this proposal is modified to restrict shared IPs only from editing in the mainspace (in other words, they can still edit discussion pages to make suggestions in improving articles, they can still contact editors via user talk pages, etc.), which I think would recommend, then I believe this merely to be yet another stretch of the rule, this time resulting from the problems of shared IP vandals. I agree that this seems more like an attack on AOL than a serious policy (see my comment below); however, as I understand it, the above vote is not to actually accept or reject the policy, but rather it's more of a discussion between supporters and nonsupporters about how it can be improved (or am I mistaken?). AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now rephrased the heading on this page to indicate that this is not a vote on ratifying the proposal. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I generally agree that you shouldn't slip that into this proposal as people have already begun voting. However, I might suggest that this proposal be stripped down, and another prohibiting all shared IP editing be proposed. This proposal does seem to discriminate against AOL users when the problem is much broader than just AOL. AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anyone opposes to a part of this proposal, you can amend it, for example, you can move this proposal to something like Prohibited shared IP editing. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess AmiDaniel is right, I could kill this proposal, make it broad enough to include Shared IPs, and only prohibit them from editing the Main Namespace. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would suggest: that we archive the above comments and start the proposal anew at Wikipedia:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs or something like that. Then we can also broaden the scope and prevent violations of m:Foundation issues (we don't want to open up that can of worms). I also think we should take HtH's advice and not hold a poll on it as the goal is consensus rather than majority. I feel this is a very important issue and would be more than glad to help on the proposal, although I fear we won't be able to gain enough support to ratify. Let me know what you decide to do. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm deciding to rename this Proposal(again) and amend it to add your suggestions and everyone else's. Also, the amended Proposal should try to avoid the violations of m:Foundation issues, though it may be solved that they can edit anything other than the Main Namespace. I may need help on that. Thanks. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that eventually this is just going to turn into the "only Registered users can edit" arguement. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help us on that. AmiDaniel gave us a suggestion that Shared IP's can edit anywhere other than the Main Namespace. Though it can retain that Shared IP addresses can sign up to edit the Main Namespace. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I will try to not let this conversation to move into uncharted territory. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Vote for this policy}) 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful, Funnybunny. This is a hot button issue, one that has been/and will always be adressed. Teke 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes but AOL users already have problems being blocked all the time but now they can't edit without regirsting too. Also the amount of people beings unfairly blocked will actually increase since admins will give blocked vandals. But because they can't tell that they are AOL users they will give them higher blocks which will harm the user since the autoblocker will block all users with use that IP address. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that even further and say that because this policy is not in place, many users who have not vandalized are not given their right to edit even when registered. For instance, with current blocking methods, when an AOL IP is blocked (using blockip), potentially thousands of users cannot edit at all, even if they register. That should be considered a violation of the founding principles, and I feel this proposal may be a compromise that will enable even more users to edit than previously. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy_proposal and all comments, that proposal seams to have been accepted but is still wating to be implemented. This proposal is contradictory to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." statement and can therefore not be accepted like this. Stefan 05:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This Policy Is Being Moved

In the interest of broadening this policy to include all Shared IP users and to better explain the aims of the policy, it is being moved to Wikipedia:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs. After the page move is complete I will archive this discussion page. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)