Talk:No open proxies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives of this page


Please add new topics to the bottom of this page

"Open access means open proxies"[edit]

Wikipedia shuts out vast numbers of potential contributors, because they can only access Wikipedia using proxies.
I'm an author myself but have long stopped adding or correcting pages about my specialty, because half the time I'm forced to use a proxy and then cannot edit.
If it's about Wikipedia wanting to block spammers or hijackers of pages, find another method. In the so called Free World people aren't locked into or out of their apartment building because one person used it to send unsollicited flyers, or keeps shouting the same wrong or unwanted message over and over again. Wikipedia however does exactly that. Does that put Wikipedia outside the Free World?
If it's about preventing contributions from certain locations or groups, or if it's about wanting to know where contributors and readers are located, then please continue, and thus admit Wikipedis is outside the Free World.
As you can see, it's quite easy to make the point that Wikipedia isn't part of the Free World. So unless you want to continue this support of Wikipedia's opponents, and if you take open access seriously: open those proxies.

"nobody care"[edit]

I don't understand the reversion with the edit of summary of "nobody care". So I have restored it pending a discussion here. NonvocalScream 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

enwiki's policy is irrelevant here & all wikis have access to the user group, making it a pointless inclusion. I've again removed this reference.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Per the thread above, it is correct that some projects assume this to be a global policy, that is the way it is. It helps to link to an example policy that a project has set for exceptions, for guidance. I'll edit that into the page here, with more clarity. Hopefully this is a good compromise. If it does not sit well, revert me, and we can discuss it more. Best, NonvocalScream 17:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Why"[edit]

Maybe you have your idea,however,do you know one word called"Great FireWall"?Please,it's not esay to go to the websites like wiki which tell the truth.Without open proxies,searching wiki is very dangerous is China(even you can't access it)!Please,is this the only way?--Etrebil 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

List of proxy[edit]

Sorry to bother but someone can check this list? Some IP in this list still vandalism in global projects wikipedia.Tnt1984 15:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead link, "404" error. Rags (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply test using open proxies[edit]

You can find proxies at http://proxy.org/ and get an open proxy like http://www.1proxy.de/. By the way please block the proxy. --217.79.179.55 22:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Another proxy is https://zacebook.com/ . 37.220.1.234 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructions on appeals and translations[edit]

  • This page should use the Translate extension, it's quite an important one. Volunteers?
  • As I said in the context of legitimate Tor edits, I think this should contain some generic instructions valid for all projects on how to request appeals (unblocks, especially for broad IP ranges) or exceptions (IP exempt status). Most stewards link NOP in their block reasons, and it gets about 2000 visits per month (3000 in total).[1] [2] The best way is probably the stewards' OTRS queue, unless this proves to bring too much traffic/work for them; depending on the nature of the block and on the project of interest (and its policies), stewards could then act on the request or forward it to the appropriate queue/mailing list/on-wiki request page/agent/whatever.

--Nemo 12:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Support Yes to translate extension and to handle block appeals via OTRS (provides better privacy for users; which are not forced to publicy disclose the IP they're editting from in order find the blocked IP/Range). I don't expect we'll be that flooded but given that all stewards are now entitled at least to have access to the stewards queue, we potentially have more helping hands. In order to set this page for translation I'd like to improve it a bit first though. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Support--210.72.12.105 15:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Support Per MarcoAurelio. Trijnsteltalk 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Support Support Both suggestions seem reasonable. πr2 (t • c) 23:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As nobody stepped up yet, I just applied the consensus above adding a process. In short it just says to ask stewards and to include the necessary information; it will be up to stewards to decide what requests to accept or not and (if they wish) to later add clearer criteria etc. If nobody objects in a few days we can mark the page for translation (I've already prepared it, so if someone else wants to mark it and import old translations I won't feel offended). --Nemo 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also submitted a patch to link it from the MediaWiki error messages to blocked users, see bugzilla:42231. --Nemo 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The change is live and working on all Wikipedias as of yesterday, 18 UTC. --Nemo 10:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Authentication[edit]

I'd like to propose this policy be revised under the condition of authenticated users. This policy is valid for non-authenticated users because wikimedia depends on IP addresses to block abusive peers, but with regard to authenticated users there are alternative methods of blocking access that do not require wikimedia to discriminate against large demographics.

This policy is abusive and far too discriminatory, justified only through the fact that it appears to be common and accepted practice globally to ban excessively large IP blocks and the idea that people accessing the Internet through Open Proxies have alternative means at their disposal. This is a false assumption and needs to be re-evaluated. Millions of users are forced to use open proxies to access this website and others globally, and those that aren't forced may choose to do so regardless to protect their privacy and global security. It is unwise to force users to disregard their privacy and personal security for the sole purpose of facilitating the prevention of spam, especially so when there are less abusive methods for preventing said spam.

As such, I propose the policy be amended to whitelist any user who's successfully authenticated themselves to wikimedia, and whose account has not been flagged as being abusive.

-- Lhunath

What's an authenticated user? --Nemo 10:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There are multiple levels of authentication. The post appears to point out that millions of people are affected by the no TOR editing policy, and from my experience with Wikipedia, we spend way too much of our time hunting down people who might be operating sockpuppets and not enough time actually writing articles. I can also say categorically, that checking IP addresses is relatively unimportant in identifying or proving sockpuppets. I often edit from a shared IP address, and have no way of knowing how many dozens of other editors have used the same IP address that I have used. It is, though, a fact, that 99% of users, myself included, are going to be found to use the same IP address for more than one edit, if they do more than one edit. What I am saying is that for those not using TOR, checking IP addresses is a valuable method of confirming or dispelling accusations of sockpuppetry. But on the other hand, in today's world, there is no good reason for anyone who is not a government employee for not using TOR, and I would expect increased use of TOR. I certainly do not want my employer to know that I am either looking at or editing Wikipedia, and it would be very valuable to me to be able to use TOR for editing.
So what are the levels of authentication? One, making 10 edits and waiting four days. This proves that you are not just entering swear words, and have authenticated that you can make 10 edits that do not get you blocked. Two, verify your e-mail address. This is relatively unimportant, but does open up a second avenue of communication. Three, become an Admin. No one wants to only allow admins to be able to use TOR. Fourth, and the only real meaning to authentication, is to verify your identity to the Foundation. There are only about eight hundred identified editors, and really the sole purpose is to verify that you are over 18 (of legal age). No documents that are sent in are retained, and no record kept of your identity, only the fact that you have done so. There is no possibility that the Foundation wants to verify identity of the millions of people affected, nor is there any possibility that being identified will stop you from doing that 100 or 1000 times with different sockpuppets, if millions of identities are being checked, and no record kept, nor do I want to see the Foundation retaining information about your identity.
So I would recommend that only the first level of authentication be used in allowing TOR editing, 10 edits and four days. I know that most people who have been accused of sockpuppetry, and are guilty of same, simply go on doing that, no matter what, and are so patently easy to identify, that allowing TOR editing will have virtually no impact on the project, other than making it a lot easier for the millions of us who could definitely face real world consequences if we did not use TOR for editing. Apteva (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The numbers you mention for Newly registered user are valid only on en.wiki. --Nemo 09:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the above authors. This extreme policy of banning IP addresses goes much too far and should be revised. It is neither promising nor adequate for logged-in users and it does not only ban TOR users. I for instance encounter a ban for logging in via freifunk.net, a German NGO-initiated activity for free (cost-free and also registration-free, implying anonymous, using a Dutch open proxy) public WiFi networking and internet access. This initiative is basically following the same ideals as wikipedia and approved as charitable accoring to German law. As a freifunk user I can do anything just as on my personal DSL internet access (which by the way, I, like 99% of all private internet connections in Germany, features a new public IPv4-address every day, but nobody cares) - except editing my wikipedia articles. This is a shame. --G-u-t (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Faith[edit]

This is a b.s. policy that totally goes against the spirit of wiki. For example, pages are only blocked from anonymous users under the most stringent of conditions, and even then they are usually only blocked for at most a year.

Open proxies are, for most people, the only way to circumvent government censorship as they do not have the resources to make their own proxies. I strongly urge all of you to abandon this ridiculous policy and only block ip addresses and proxy addresses when absolutely necessary and only on a time limited basis. 68.104.139.226 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to circumvent government censorship the best way is not to contribute "anonymously" with an IP. The IP gives an entry to you even if you use an open proxy. Instead you should use an open proxy to *register* an account, make some minor edits from there that your goernment doesn't care about, then change to another proxy and logon there with your new account to mae any edits or visiting the politically-sensitive topics.
Make sure you are logged on in Wikimedia with your anonymizing account. Your IP will be hidden as well as the fact that you are logged on via a proxy, you'll look like any other regular user and this policy won't ham you.
The policy is there against spammers and abusers (and if they think they can abuse by registering an account, their abuse will still noted and detected by admins with CheckUser privilege (which have a string privacy statement, their role is just to confirm the identity of abusers only to correlate it with other edits made under various identities.
User accounts are there for your own protection, they are good for privacy (and you are completely free of the content you associate to it, you are not required to give your real name publicly, the account is just your pseudonym. Servers may still know this is you, but this info will not be made public (at least if you don't abuse the wikis in an harmful way). verdy_p (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If the IP-proxy is hard-blocked (i.e., you can't edit even when logged in), then you can request an IP block exemption if you have a registered account. --Glaisher [talk] 08:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I should have added this too. This is useful if you want to edit Wikimedia sites via the TOR network (connections come from a large set of randomized TOR exit nodes; independant of the TOR entry node you use to connect. If really your fear your governement, don't use a normal browser, but the special version of Firefox modified for TOR that filters out all privacy parameters notably those that may identify you: these parameters won't be detectable before they reach the TOR input node fro, your internet access when establishing the connection with the TOR network. It also ensures that it will really connect your browser to TOR and not to a filtering proxy giving you false security keys : this avoids "man-in-the-middle" attacks between you, and the output router of your local ISP to the Internet backbone.
Note that edits via TOR will be extremely slow, don't expect high performance, so you'll use it for limited interactions with Wikimedia that may be critical politically or your personal security (for example to post a photo to Wikimedia Commons of a political event forbidden by the local authorites, or if you have to send support data or documents for LGBT events or want a public return on these subjects).
Also Wikimedia should not forbid you to read any content even if you connect from an open proxy, unless that open proxy was blocked for everything due to attemps to use it to perform read-only DoS attacks against Wikiemdia servers (what is enforced here is not really specific to proxies but concerns any IP whose trafic of incoming requests is far above reasonnable quotas per connected "user" or IP; if you are blocked for this reason on that open proxy, select another one; or close your TOR session and reopen it so that your trafic will use another exit node; this is not a strict rule, such technical blocks may occur depending on the situation and performance of servers as experimented by the majority of users to protect their use of the sites; in some emergency situations, everyone could experience a temporayr blocking; but open proxies are much more likely to experience them).
Finally: never reuse the specific account you have used to connect to TOR via the secured browser, in order to connect directly with a normal IP. This account must remain secure and dissociated from your normal account.
Not all people use proxy to circumvent government censorship. Also, not all blocked sites are "related to politics".
Many foreigner believe that Chinese people use proxy only to bypass government censorship and find some information that is banned by the government. That is wrong. No one knows exactly how they make the black list, and many "unrelated sites" are banned for no reason. Some IP segments or service hosts are fully banned just because they contains one "harmful website".
I am fully confident that, even if the government knows what page I'm viewing, I will not be in any trouble. Open proxies are for people like me. And those who really want to hide from the government will definitely never use any open proxy.
Blocking open proxies will blocks users who do not care about politics, while still allowing those attackers make their own way.

Any Official Solution to people in China?[edit]

For most people in China, trying to connect Wikipedia directly (without proxy, VPN, etc.)will only be transfer to a fake IP like 159.106.121.75, 37.61.54.158, 59.24.3.173 .

Actually these are real shared proxies, hosted by the Chinese ISPs themselves. Quite similar to proxies also used by Mobile ISPs around the world (most users of mobile internet connections do not have their own local IPv4 adress over GSM and CDMA networks, and are only granted a private IPv4 address such as 192.168.1.300 on their phones, tablets and mobile-access USB keys: some of them may still have an IPv6 address but this is very uncommon in Europe and America, and these internet connections only support a few protocols, including often only HTTP, HTTPS, IMAP, POP3, and DNS; all this passes through a "transparent" proxy; however for HTTPS this is more complex and it passes though a VPN created temporarily with a short life time).
However these shared IP used by proxies are not really "open proxies" because these IPS-run proxies are correctly tagging the proxyng status and are relaying some minimal identification information about their proxies subscriber. These shared IP are only associated to a user for some minutes and from specific ports (this is similar to internet connectin sharing in private home routers, except that these routers are run by the mobile ISP and are hosting many more users that operate independantly and don't know each other: however, unlike China, there's no active filtering of connections, but the proxied DNS is often "infected", notably on "non-wokring" domain names which are randomly redirected to a web page showing search results and advertizing; hosted on a search engine operated by the ISP; these ISPs are not always asking the permission for these redirections and frequently they fail on identifying domains that are perfectly active, but only a bit longer than usual to reply: these Mobile ISPS have created a NON-NEUTRAL Internet without clear permission from users, and users cannot always opt out from these redirections; in addition, these proxies are also keeping logs about domains interesting users, and about visited proxied URLs, to perform profiling for advertizing purpose; frequently these search results are also trying to convince users to visit a commercial portal sponsored by the ISP or by its paying advertizers; instead of the expected website users wanted to visit: This is really bad, and this deceptive practice on mobile accesses is parasitic, even if ISPs are promoting this as a service such as "internet assistant"; these redirects may also be legitimately be used to block sites that are really illegal or dangerous or hosting badwares; or performing attacks to users hosts or to other domains; but users cannot really opt out this "service" and the ISP could block and redirect a whole domain name instead of just a few dangerous pages in that domain, that could be detected by security software running on the visitor's host. In extreme cases, these redirects have been used against competitors of the ISP itself; or because the ISP had stability problems on a peering link from their backbone to other ISPs or to the global backbone, instead of investing on upgrading these links to support more trafic).
In summary, proxies are very common on the web, but we are concerned only by procxies that are totaly anonymizing and that do not operate any active monitoring of complains about their proxied users. We shoudl allow all proxies that are proving at least an identifier of their subscriber (i.e. some numeric user id that allows the proxy admin to perform actions against their few abusive users.) For that, the proxy MUST have a contact address and MUST accept reports of abuse and take ction in a reasonable time (this ation could be clocking these users when they are using the procy to connect to some domain they have abused, blocking emails sent, or blocking the user completely on all sites except a ISP support site; or downgrading severely the bandwidth used or the number of requests, or offering them only a read-only access via a webcache, or banning the user from their network and cancelling their subscription). If the proxy runner acts responsibly, it will investigate about complains and will act promptly to limit abuses and theuir users may then remain anonymous for us.
However, we should not block users that have successfully been connected with a Wikimedia user name and password and that are using HTTPS to secure their visits and edits, if we have no reason to think that the Wikimedia account has been compromized/stolen, even if they are logging on Wikimedia via any anonymizing proxies (including Tor exit nodes), unless these proxies are used directly to perform attacks on the secure Wikimedia logon pages.
So to support users in China, we should instruct them to use Tor to logon with a Wikimedia user account over a secure HTTPS connection. As long as these users are logged on, and using HTTPS; and using their Wikimedia account accoring to policies, they can edit safely (and it's still easier for us to block users with their identified user names.
But the problem is to create these Wikimedia accounts securely so that China cannot determine who owns or controls that Wikimedia account and track it back to an identifiable user. For that, we could have a network of trustable users (or local organizations) creating accounts for other people in private external contacts with these private users or local organizations. And this will work only if users are educated to not reveal too muc hdetails about themselves when using their Wikimedia account (one good way to avoid this leakage of information is to teach these users to limit their interaction with Wikimedia; notably in talk pages; unless these interactions are dangerous for them).
In summary this requires using "sockpuppets" responsibly and in a very limited way for a few edits and interaction, but using another non-anonymous user account for all the rest which is legal in China.
Users must also take special care about the kind of language they use (notably about their most common typographic errors, or typical expressions used, or about mixing too many topics of interest with their secured account). They should use grammatical correctors (but should be careful about mobile phones with autocorrections "learning" to repreduce their own errors: they should cleanup their local dictionnary regularly). They must also be careful about the use of very rare Chinese characters (in case of problems, they could rewrite words more or less phonetically and let other people outsde China make the substitutions/corrections).
They should learn to work in teams with a few contacts outside China. And they must be extremey careful about the content of their uploade photos if they contain geolocalization to their home or work, or for all their trips or if they show faces of real people, even those that they don't know, such as other students in an university, or a local policeman or merchant). For some politically sensible topics, it's best to work in teams and get help from other users located in other countries or from travelers not living locally in China, or living in other regions of China and with some freedom of movement in the country. They could work on texts in China but communicate their work to another trusted user of their choice that will insert these works online and will help protect their right and that are able to keep the secret about the identity of contacts they are helping.
But for most contents in Wikimedia, it is safe to edit directly in China, with a regular user account and without any advanced anomyzation through open proxies (they must shut up their other sensible activities or interests on their dissociated user account and should avoid syncing these topics of interest in a traceable history of time; they may speak lightly about the work performed by the other user account, as if this was not themselves but another person; ideally theu should use a different terminal or PC to avoid errors and revelations for their secondary secured online identity). verdy_p (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Statistics on exemption requests[edit]

Based on one example of some months ago, some say «this process is currently quite restrictive in terms of actually granting global exemptions». Is there any reason to prove or disprove this claim? For instance, can we know approximately how many exemption requests have been made to stewards by Tor users and what portion has been satisfied? --Nemo 05:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would find that answer very interesting. Rags (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Rags (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It's very frustrating to have to copy the URL, open a new browser, log in again, and then type a message or edit VERY QUICKLY, before the software decides once again to log me off. I think there are other users besides the PRC who need to be concerned about personal privacy. I understand the U.S. congress has recently (within the last week) passed a bill which ISP's have lobbied for avidly, allowing them to disclose (read: datamine, sell) information regarding the activities of their paid subscribers online, from soup to nuts. ALL activity, from boot-up to shutdown. And our new president, who pays lipservice to personal privacy when speaking to appropriate audiences, has indicated his intention to sign this act into law. What use clearing histories, etc.? This has the effect of a blanket keylogger encompassing the entire country. If a mechanism lends itself to abuse, it will eventually be abused. Administrations change, and there are abuses under every administration. Both parties, and certainly third parties, as well. But, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", and leaving all doors and windows unlocked, and the keys in the ignition, and the check book and credit cards in the glovebox, in my mind doesn't qualify as vigilance. Rags (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarifiying what constitutes an open proxy[edit]

I find it unclear exactly what constitues an open proxy. The policy uses the phrasing open or anonymising proxies, and it links to w:en:Open proxy which defines an open proxy as one accessible by any Internet user. Would a paid for but otherwise public proxies be considered public? They're not really public in the sense that only a certain group of people can use them, but they are public in the sense that anybody could become a user of them. Would a VPS used as a proxy by just the one person who owns it be against this policy? It would be an anonymising proxy, so by a narrow reading of the policy it would seem so. I would like to propose that a clarification on whether paid for proxies are against this policy be written in, and that the or in open or anonymising proxies be removed if the private VPS is not against the policy. -Cake~talk 19:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that:
  • Open or anonymising proxies be changed to Publically available proxies (including paid proxies), to reflect the actual policy
  • That the sentence Proxies are left open due to deliberate or inadvertent configuration or because hackers have changed the configuration. should be removed entirely, as it contributes nothing, and simply leads to more confusion, implying that all open proxies are the result of 'hacking' -Cake~talk 15:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
C4K3 Support What you describe is closer to the intent of the rule than the text which you propose replacing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution to allow open proxies[edit]

While I understand that for non-registered users open proxies completely disarm admins, I think you could allow them for registered users, as administrators could sanction their accounts if necessary. This is similar to the behaviour of linuxquestions.org (except they completely disallow viewing pages, which is worse). So, you can continue to allow anyone to read, and allow to edit those with an open proxy XOR unregistered, not both. What do you think? --JMCF125 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is already the case, in practice: the exemption is granted very liberally, see No open proxies#Exceptions. Unconditionally exempting all registered users is not possible, because there is no practical limit to account creation. Nemo 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In the change I mentioned, accounts could not be created from an open proxy IP. Though I can see what you mean: users creating accounts from their regular IP, and using those from an open proxy IP. So I'll change my proposal. Think of it this way: self-confirmed users (not sure this is the right term, I mean users that did good edits and can edit some protected pages) would have the priviledge of being able to edit Wikipedia from an open proxy IP. What do you think? I can't come up with any possible abuse in this case. JMCF125 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Permisi[edit]

Hey Kepriwe bisa ngerti angger nganggo proxy dibuka? Murbaut (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"total lock"[edit]

Hello, I am a registrated user of german Wikipedia. I am in holidays for two weeks. Today and on the 18th July, my edits were stopped by a lock of an IP, which had use an open proxy in April. These are dynamic IPs and I am registrated! In the last year I was also locked for one day. Is this useful? I hope you can understand my English. --Universal-Interessierter (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Universal-Interessierter I am having trouble understanding. Can you explain the issue in German? I will find someone who understands German who can assist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I can. Ich kann Englisch gut verstehen, habe aber manchmal meine Probleme mit der Formulierung. Also: Ich bin derzeit im Urlaub. (holidays) Ich bin derzeit in allen Wikis durch eine globale Sperre (global lock) meiner IP lahmgelegt (locked). Dasselbe Poblem hatte ich am 19. Juli (19th July) und auch schon letztes Jahr einmal. Begründung: Open proxy. Das hat wohl bei der Überprüfung vor einigen Monaten gestimmt, aber durch mehrere IP-Wechsel in der letzten Tagen dürfte nachgewiesen sein, dass es sich um dynamische IPs handelt. Außerdem werden unschuldige registrierte und um die Verbesserung der Artikel bemühte Benutzer lahmgelegt. Ist das wirklich sinnvoll? Zumindest angemeldete sollten ausgenommen werden. I hope you find a user who understand German. --Universal-Interessierter (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I requested support in two places -
Let's see what happens. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I read it in another fashion: He doesn't use an open proxy, his dynamic IP was just used some time ago by an open proxy and he's now a collateral damage of that block. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Translation (though my english is also not the best, but hopefully good enough): I can understand english well, but at times have some problems framing. So: I'm currently on vacation. My IP is currently globally locked (note by translator: Maybe actually a global block?) in all wikis. I already had the same problem on 19th July and once last year. The block had the reason "Open proxy". That may have been correct when it was checked a few months ago, but several IP changes should proof it's a dynamic IP. Thereby innocent registered users who strive to improve the wiki-articles are halted. Is this really useful? At least logged-in ones should be exempted. @Universal-Interessierter: Wenn du eine betroffene Adresse nennen könntest wäre das evtl hilfreich, wobei es wegen w:de:WP:ANON hoffentlich auch so gehen sollte ;-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
My current IP address is 195.82.63.198 / Meine aktuelle IP-Addresse ist 195.82.63.198. --Universal-Interessierter (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Universal-Interessierter I think that requests for IP block exemption can be made at the Unblock Ticket Request System. I just tried to make a request for this IP address by emailing the address provided. I tried to explain the issue and asked for further guidance. I am sorry, I am not sure what to do to get access. Let's see what these people say. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Text regarding email to stewards is obsolete[edit]

The article currently reads in part, "The recommended way is to privately email stewards@wikimedia.org." This text needs to be changed: email to that address simply goes unanswered. (Please reply here and/or at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sdsds.) 50.35.77.217 04:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

More accurately the reply can take quite some time. Could some text be included on the page indicating the reply might take a week or more? Sdsds (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a policy, not a help page. The linked contact form explicitly says the messages are handled by volunteers. Is there a risk that people do not know they cannot demand service guarantees from volunteers? I'm not sure we'd want such confused people on the wikis anyway. :) --Nemo 13:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)