On 17 January 2014 14:08, Marc A. Pelletier <m...@uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 01/17/2014 01:21 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > This seems like a valid reason for a global exemption to me, so I'm > > not sure the current global policy is sufficient. > > To be fair, Erik, I don't think it's fair to expect that one would be > granted IPBE (especially globally) simply by just remembering to not add > "and vandalize" in the request. > > On English Wikipedia, at least, IPBE is normally only granted to someone > who has some positive history and has an actual /need/ for the bit. The > reason for this is simple: It's be abused over and over again > historically. The number of times I personally caught someone misusing > a proxy for socking that happened to have a "good hand" account with > IPBE also on that proxy is much higher than the number of IPBE I've seen > used legitimately. > > The problem isn't straight up vandalism (IPBE is no help there -- the > account'd get swiftly blocked) but socking. POV warriors know how to > misuse proxies and anonymity to multiply "their" consensus, and having > IPBE and editing through any sort of anonimizing proxy (including TOR) > defeats what little means checkuser have to curb socking. > > I agree with Marc on this, and further would say that the "reason" given by Erik in his application for IPBE is pretty much a red flag that a user is going to be editing in a controversial and non-neutral manner. It's also a red flag that the user's probably been blocked for doing it before, and thinks this will be a workaround that will prevent him/her from being blocked this time. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
