Wikidata:Requests for permissions/RfIPBE/May 2013
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- It does appear that there certain users running Tor nodes need IPBE, so this request is not at all without merit. However, since Caesarion has not replied in almost a week, I'm procedurally closing this as
Not done. Caesarion, should you become more active here in the future (i.e., active enough that you'll be able to check in on this page in a reasonable timeframe), then feel free to re-apply. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:18, 8 May 2013
- It does appear that there certain users running Tor nodes need IPBE, so this request is not at all without merit. However, since Caesarion has not replied in almost a week, I'm procedurally closing this as
Caesarion
Caesarion (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
I run Tor node. I already have this flag in ruWikipedia and ruWikiquote. Caesarion (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are you running just a Tor relay or a Tor exit node as well? Legoktm (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am concerned that your only edit to this project is requesting IP exempt. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well if you're blocked most of the time, you can't exactly edit... Legoktm (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am concerned that your only edit to this project is requesting IP exempt. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I'm right, I think CheckUser should verify the need, although the fact that this user already has the flag elsewhere might change this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jasper, I asked a three stewards. Two didn't know and the third said it can be classed as fishing and declined. Personally, CheckUser may be of use in this situation. If we had our own team it would be easy but that is a long way away. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- CheckUser affects the user's privacy and shouldn't be used in this case. The question is, whether the user is trusted enough for IPBE and really needs it, not how to collect unnecessary CU actions. Regards, Vogone talk 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Vogone, CheckUser should be used in IPBE requests (unless the user provides all information a check would bring up) as it checks validity and whether the user needs it. Once given, regular checks should be done and once the need is finished, removed. All is policy perfect. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) All this commenting is rather pointless. The whole reason I asked Caesarion the question is due to a bug with the TorBlock extension that's affecting a lot of users. There's no need for CU. Legoktm (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Vogone, CheckUser should be used in IPBE requests (unless the user provides all information a check would bring up) as it checks validity and whether the user needs it. Once given, regular checks should be done and once the need is finished, removed. All is policy perfect. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- CheckUser affects the user's privacy and shouldn't be used in this case. The question is, whether the user is trusted enough for IPBE and really needs it, not how to collect unnecessary CU actions. Regards, Vogone talk 21:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Jasper, I asked a three stewards. Two didn't know and the third said it can be classed as fishing and declined. Personally, CheckUser may be of use in this situation. If we had our own team it would be easy but that is a long way away. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do we request a block message then? 9_9 Vogone talk 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, if the provides provides the information that a check would bring up, a check would be redundant. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's nonsense. IPBE isn't even mentioned in the CheckUser policy … Vogone talk 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, how were you able to edit this page if your TOR nodes are blocked? Techman224Talk 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
CU should really be used to verify that the IPBE is necessary - I'm puzzled that the stewards did not do this. This is done on enwiki all the time, and no public disclosure of that information is necessary. That being said, if he already has the flag elsehwere perhaps a global IPBE may be more appropriate. --Rschen7754 23:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, global IPBE only works on global blocks, not local ones, so that might not be the silver bullet. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was reminded of this after I made that comment.
--Rschen7754 05:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- But aren't the TOR nodes globally blocked already? -- Lavallen (block) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- We're getting more sidetracked, but Tor nodes are locally blocked on each wiki, however there's an outstanding bug where Tor relay runners are being blocked, not just Tor exit nodes. Legoktm (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- But aren't the TOR nodes globally blocked already? -- Lavallen (block) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was reminded of this after I made that comment.
- If the requester does not reply in the next few days or so, I think we are going to close this as not done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
