User talk:Nageh

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Nageh, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback for new survey?[edit]

Hi Nageh, I noticed you gave some feedback on the last iteration of the Editor Survey that was run late last year. We're getting ready to run another version of this survey, and was wondering if you'd be willing to give us some feedback again? You can read the questions at Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_August_2012/Questions, and if you'd like to see how the survey will look in its final form, you can see it here, and feel free to take the survey to see how it works, or if you see any other problems with it. Thanks for your help!! Christine (WMF) (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

Simply an IP block may be set to prevents users from editing from that IP. Which kind of connection are you using now? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that anonymous users cannot edit or register, or even that unconfirmed users cannot edit. But established users?? I am using some kinda-open WLAN access point (you need to register, freely), it is what is being offered at the place I am staying overnight. Nageh (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is Global IP block exemption. πr² (t • c) 01:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(but it's probably not worth it if you're going to be on a different IP tomorrow) πr² (t • c) 01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. But I'm still clueless why confirmed editors need to ask for an IP block exemption in the first place. What is the issue this is trying to address? If you want to block anonymous editors or account creation from an IP, block that IP. If you want to block me, block my user name. But why am I automatically blocked when an IP block is in effect? That makes no sense to me. Nageh (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which IP was globally blocked so I cannot check this for you but here is what I think happened: The IP at wherever you were staying was globally blocked for being an open proxy. But the steward who blocked it did not choose the "anonymous only" option for the block. If you look at Special:Log/gblblock you will see that most of these blocks are not "anonymous only". That is why a confirmed editor needs to ask for IP block exemption. I'm not sure why trusted users aren't given some other form of "overriding" global blocks but there may be some other reason. You'll need to ask a steward about that. Technically it would be possible to give all rollbackers/reviewers global-ip-block-exempt rights but this might cause more problems and I think it is much better to have all global-ip-block-exempt requests go through Meta. Actually, this same thing happened to me once. I just waited and the next day everything was fine. πr² (t • c) 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll poke Vituzzu again. Nageh (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from TOR or open proxies is forbidden, so it makes no difference if an user is registered or not. Did you never seen an IP block without anon-only option? ;)

If you need to edit from some anonymising service or you're using a VPN caught by a rangeblock feel free to ask for an exception. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that what is being offered by a (budget) hotel chain counts as an "open proxy". I think there was a misclassification for that IP. But I'll give it up. Nageh (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Still adding that as long as I am editing under my registered user name I am not "hiding" behind any kind of open proxy, so I still fail to see the rationale behind this. Nageh (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you were using multiple accounts, then using open proxies would make it harder (supposedly) to figure out if you're the same person. Lots of open proxies are used by spammers and long-term vandals so they can easily switch IPs. So stewards sometimes block open proxies just to prevent this kind of abuse. See NOP. πr² (t • c) 15:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Okay, but then it should suffice to prevent anonymous edits and new account creation from those IPs. As long as someone has initially registered from a non-blocked IP one can just as easily identify whether that users is a sock or not. IOW, the "soft blocking" that was previously carried out seemed exactly the right solution. I do not see why a default total block (with admins exempted) followed by an IP exemption unblock request is a better solution. Anyway, maybe I should discuss this on the :en policy page. Nageh (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]