Talk:Global IP block exemptions

Guideline proposal

@MarcoAurelio, Billinghurst, and DannyS712: I am pinging you because you are some of users who were active on Global IP block exemptions and users that I know. I wanted to inform you that I have created an RfC located at Requests for comment/Global IPBE guidelines to set some guidelines around assignment and revocation of the global IPBE permission. Please feel free to make comments on it as you see fit. Huji (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a stewards issue, and I keep out of it. I just direct those who make local unblock appeals to the global process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of requesting via email strategy

We know that we have assigned the group email address stewardswikimedia.org for sending requests in the cases that there are privacy concerns for posting the IP addresses in public. Although the above provision may suffice for most cases, more privacy is desired in specific scenarios:

One scenario is whenever the current stewards crew might contain members which belong to or otherwise might happen to be affiliated with the governments or institutions among the enemies of the internet. In such cases when the requesting user is also residing in such country, it might feel more rational and preferred that such users contact a single and specific steward directly for their request rather than posting it to whole list of stewards.

I wanted to know whether it is currently allowed to carry on this way or not. Please share your idea about whether you agree that we expand the current strategy to include this proposed method of requesting or not? Alfa80 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That will depend on the steward. Nothing in the current process prescribes any restrictions on how to apply, though some stewards may want to have a record of the interaction and requirements on where that action is recorded.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Inactivity

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.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. There's a consensus to remove the global IP block exemption from users who have been completely inactive on any Wikimedia project for 1 year. Users can reapply for the permission if they become active again and need it. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Following up from Special:PermaLink/28580197#GIPBE. I'd like to propose to add an activity requirement for GIPBE. I'm thinking of 1 year of total inactivity globally and users can request for GIPBE again if needed. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support this proposal. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 14:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support sounds reasonable. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support aqurs 🍧 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support seems fine, would also be ok with 2 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support. – Svārtava (tɕ) 17:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 02:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support (i) 1 year if "total inactivity" really means total inactivity (no type of single log or edit whatsoever).
                    (ii) 2 years if there will be exemptions to things like automatic account creations.
    -- CptViraj (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Searching for that can be quite cumbersome, I'd be fine with no published revisions or autocreations. (e.g. having to go look at the thanks log on every project is a bit onerous). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support Queen of Hearts (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Support seems reasonable to me. //shb (t • c) 07:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 07:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support fine with one year. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

---

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