Requests for Comment/Local IP Block Exemption


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This RfC doesn't have a lot of details in terms of implementation. There is consensus here for the creation of a local IPBE group (Proposal 1), to be granted generally by Meta administrators. Since Stewards already grant GIPBEs, which provides for exemptions from local as well as global blocks, there also seems to be consensus to allow Stewards to grant local IPBEs in limited, contextually-relevant circumstances (Proposal 2). There may be cases where a user, or a Steward, wishes to switch a user from a GIPBE to an IPBE, or additionally where a Meta administrator may refer a request to Stewards for additional consideration. As a last point, Proposal 1 never actually lists the rights that are to be created but given the name of the group it can be presumed that these are the same as the current GIBPE group. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 21:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (UPDATE) After having considered the comments made here and discussion with John I have decided that due to the unclear nature of the consensus in Proposal 2, it is best to revert and therefore consider Proposal 2 as having failed to attract consensus. If the Community wishes the proposal to be successful or something similar they should feel free to open another RfC but express their views more clearly (rather than as 'neutral' votes). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently, I have been granted a Global Exemption, but after a steward told me that most wikis have the  user right automatically assigned automatically to the   group. Me and the steward mentioned agreed that about the local IP block exemption (with the technical group name ) should be created for meta. This is my 2nd RfC (1st valid RfC), so if I make any issues, please let me know :) -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 00:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1
Allow a local IP block exemption to be given by Meta Administrators

Support

 * 1)  As proposer. -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 00:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  See my abstain rationale for Proposal 2. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't suppose why not? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Unsure why this hasn't already been done.  dross  (t • c • g) 04:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I don't see any particular reason why Meta should differ in this regard from general wiki configuration, and as a local role, it should be assigned by Meta Admins. — Arcversin (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Conditional  per comments in response to proposal 2. Dmehus (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Magogre (talk)  04:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)   Anpang 📨  12:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)   07:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ］ |

Abstain

 * 1)   Anpang 📨  01:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)  moved to support

Proposal 2
Allow a local IP Block exemption to be given by Stewards

Support

 * 1)  As proposer; I personally prefer Meta Administrator, but consensus will . -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 00:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Anpang 📨 01:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)  moved to abstain

Neutral/Abstain/Conditional or Qualified Support

 * , if the group was created I would prefer for it to be given by a Meta Administrator after a note on Administrators' noticeboard or upon request of a Steward after receiving a stewards@miraheze.org email requesting it. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  Almost exactly per above. It's usually better to make a request about things privately. YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 01:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Stewards can, in general, perform all administrative functions on meta, as it is the central global project in addition to the Miraheze community project. Stewards are entrusted to perform administrative and clerical tasks with respect to the effect of their actions on local administration.  dross  (t • c • g) 04:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)   Anpang 📨  05:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Conditional  per my comments in Proposal 1, my reply below in Proposal 2, and the conditional/qualified supportive comments expressed by dross and Justarandomamerican who both did a fairly decent job on why it is context dependent in terms of who grants. Note that the above arguments are also conditional supports, too, and should so be treated as such. Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This is a local role without global consequences (as opposed to, say, wiki creator), and therefore should be assigned by local administrators. — Arcversin (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is, more or less, as Justarandomamerican (and dross) explained. Meta Wiki has a unique governance structure in that is both a local wiki and a central coordination wiki, with global impacts. In the course of evaluating whether to grant a global IP block exemption, Stewards may feel that it isn't needed globally and may instead decide to grant one locally. For the most part, such requests are received via, but a user requesting via stewards' noticeboard would also be considered. It really depends on the context in which it was requested, though. For example, if a legitimate user would be potentially adversely affected by a global rangeblock, and that user was only active on Meta Wiki or used the Tor anonymity network on Meta Wiki, Stewards may decide does not require the user group globally. Dmehus (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If local IPBE is being assigned on the basis of activity on Meta Wiki, even in the context of a request for GIPBE, then I would see that as an action a steward is taking whilst wearing their local sysop hat. — Arcversin (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no reason why a local group should be assigned by Stewards, especially when it only affects Meta. It would make more sense for it to be assigned by Meta sysops or crats. That isn't what Stewards are for. Also, why should local groups not have control over Meta? Especially when it doesn't affect other wikis? Naleksuh (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) – local user groups should be assignable by local sysops. --Magogre (talk)  04:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  this is a local group, local administration should be assigning it, not Stewards.  07:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ］ |

Proposal 3
Keep as-is; status quo.

Oppose

 * 1)  keeping the status quo, I'm surprised that this hasn't already been created, but I can see the support argument of "I really don't see the point." Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  This part of the proposal sounds pretty vague. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)   Anpang 📨  01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) What does this proposal actually do that cannot be done already with a user requesting an account, then using an account to do their thing (which is overwhelmingly possible with proxy or tor with hardly any hindrance as-is)? Perhaps I am confused, but I do not see the utility in this proposal. --Raidarr (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is for a local (Meta) IP Block Exemption user group, which currently does not exist. -- Cheers, Bukkit ( Talk • All Contribs ) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you planning to have a name for global ip exemption rights? YellowFrogger (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, and whilst I'm not the proposer, I don't understand what you're asking here, . No changes to GIPBE's name are needed, as it clearly specifies the group is global. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * UM. I see that. YellowFrogger</b> (✉ Talk </b> ✐ Edits </b>)</b> 02:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section