Requests for Comment/Local IP Block Exemption

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki

Abstain[edit | edit source]

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

Oppose[edit | edit source]

Comments[edit | edit source]

Proposal 2[edit | edit source]

Allow a local IP Block exemption to be given by Stewards

Support[edit | edit source]

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

Neutral/Abstain/Conditional or Qualified Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Neutral, if the group was created I would prefer for it to be given by a Meta Administrator after a note on Meta: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)
  2.  Neutral Almost exactly per above. It's usually better to make a request about things privately. YellowFrogger (Talk Edits) 01:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. 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 (tcg) 04:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Neutral  Anpang📨  05:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  5. Conditional  Support 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[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak oppose 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 steward(at)miraheze.org, 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)
  2. 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)
  3.  Oppose – local user groups should be assignable by local sysops. --Magogre (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  4.  Strongest oppose this is a local group, local administration should be assigning it, not Stewards. User:Universal Omega/Sig  07:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) |

Comments[edit | edit source]

Proposal 3[edit | edit source]

Keep as-is; status quo.

Support[edit | edit source]

Abstain[edit | edit source]

Oppose[edit | edit source]

  1.  Weak oppose 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.  Oppose This part of the proposal sounds pretty vague. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  3.  Oppose  Anpang📨  01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments[edit | edit source]

  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 ( TalkAll Contribs ) 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you planning to have a name for global ip exemption rights? YellowFrogger (Talk Edits) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and whilst I'm not the proposer, I don't understand what you're asking here, @YellowFrogger:. 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 (Talk Edits) 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