User:Spinningspark/IP disruption proposal

This proposal suggests a method that could be used to improve our defence against IP hopping disruptive editors. The method would require IP editors to accept a cookie before being allowed to edit. Instead of the IP address being publicly identified, the user is instead labelled with a unique, but anonymous ID.

The problem

Many disruptive editors do not register and continually hop from one IP address to another. If they have access to a large IP range then blocking is ineffective: it degenerates into an endless game of whack-a-mole. Nor is page protection always the answer. Sometimes the vandal is also hitting a wide range of pages, possibly at random. Also, it is not always appropriate to protect non-article pages, particularly talk pages and community pages. This is not desirable because there is a great deal of collateral damage in shutting out non-registered users from such pages.

The proposal

An IP user attempting to edit a page is asked to accept a cookie. The cookie then returns the MAC address of the user to the server. The server then generates an ID related to the MAC address, but not decodable by other users. This ID, let's call it the URID (unregistered user identification) then becomes the user name for all edits from that MAC address. Administrators can then block the URID with a much higher degree of confidence that an individual is being blocked than when blocking an IP.

The exception to this confidence is with schools, colleges and libraries where the physical machines are being shared by many users and blocking a URID can still result in blocking other users. However, this is certainly no worse than blocking the school IP and in some circumstances will be much better because it is more targeted. Some pupils will habitually sit at the same location in the IT room, individual classes may only have access to a subset of the schools machines etc.

Alternative proposal

In case the community do not want to make accepting a cookie compulsory, it could be made voluntary. However, if the IP refuses to accept a cookie then the system reverts to displaying the IP address. Policy should be amended to allow administrators to take much stronger action against IPs than currently where the IP refuses the cookie and then goes on to vandalise. This could include allowing indef blocks of individual IPs and much larger range blocks than currently allowed. large range blocks should not, of course, be indef.

Scope

This proposal is not the answer to every form of disruption. However, it provides another tool in the box and can address certain problem areas that current powers simply cannot cope with.