Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments/CU/Courcelles: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Questions for this candidate: question |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 45:
Checkuers are often relied on to determine whether someone is using anonymising proxies to perform their sockpuppetry. Please describe your general experience in this area. Please also describe, preferably with an example, how you (would have) suspected, identified, confirmed, and blocked a socking open proxy on Wikipedia. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*My general experience with proxies has been mainly chasing a few sockmasters who use them, so my experience here isn't great. Sometimes, as a checkuser, you already are deeply suspicious of an IP, if an master you know is in one country suddenly appears in the middle of nowhere, for instance, you're going to take a closer look. Also, if XFF data shows up, you're going to look closer. (There are other reasons you might want to run a proxy check, but I'm trying to stay away from [[WP:BEANS]] here). Once you dig deeper, you might find the IP or range on a list of proxies, which tells you you're onto something (or see that one of the proxy blocking bots previously blocked it). But that's just an indicator, and at this step, the absence of evidence is not that meaningful. To prove an IP is an open proxy, you really need to connect through it using the browser, either through navigation or changing the proxy settings, if I can di that, it's definitely an open proxy. Given we have a foundational policy against open proxies, if an IP is confirmed as one, it gets hardblocked for a couple months, or longer if it is long-term open. (The blocking is more necessary because the only reason I'm likely to ever check for an open proxy is if there is abuse happening.) [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
=====Comments=====
| |||