User talk:Wowaname

Unblock request
wowaname  #   C  19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * To add to this in an unofficial manner, it really sucks that I log in to fix vandalism of an article only to be met with a block notice. wowaname   #   C  19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I commented on your talk page last year about an exact same problem I will not make a determination this time. But I will say that to the best of my knowledge the policy in Wikipedia about VPN editing has not changed. Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Whose talk page? because it definitely wasn't this one.
 * And what exactly is the issue with using an IP address that I paid for in order to use it for myself? Nobody has explained that part to me. wowaname   #   C  23:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, you mean this discussion? Could you maybe next time clarify what exactly you're referring to so I don't have to hunt things down that I hardly have a recollection of?
 * That discussion was irrelevant. I tried to make a logged-out edit. Clearly now I am logged in. Doesn't Wikipedia have some sort of thing where you're supposed to be allowed to edit once you're logged in, or did Wikimedia become more totalitarian since I've last dealt with wikis years ago?
 * Repealing my block below. wowaname   #   C  23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeal declined block

 * The reason we don't accept the use of anonymising services is because they've historically been grossly abused and still are to this day by chronic and extreme vandals, who use them specifically to circumvent their own blocks and who will use multiple open proxy IPs on one attack. I should also note the rest of the Internet is generally not as malleable as Wikipedia is, and it's not uncommon for other wikis and online messageboards to likewise bar the use of open proxies. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 23:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Haven't exceptions been made? I admit I haven't read the IP address policies in a year or three but I'm pretty sure that exceptions are made to people who request it.
 * Believe me, I run services that get abused. Nowhere near as big as Wikipedia but it's enough to give me a headache at the end of the day. However, I've stood by my position not to treat IP addresses differently; people always find a way to abuse a service if they have enough time. And I don't know how to solve that issue, but rangebanning IPs and denying any appeals by default is a poor mechanism for handling this.
 * I'm sorry for coming across bluntly, but I'm a little heated on this issue because I place great value in privacy, Internet freedom, and decentralisation. And just because Wikimedia hides IP addresses from the general populace doesn't mean I want to go out of my way to make an exception just to edit what's supposed to be a "free encyclopedia".
 * I hope the admins give this a little more thought than just "oh hey kid, tough luck" because it's almost as if they're insinuating that I've come here just to waste my time vandalising the wiki. I'm not here to do that. I've contributed to other wikis, I know that vandalism goes no place, and I'm too busy in my life to deface a website that I actively consult – practically every day – for new knowledge on subjects I'm curious about. wowaname   #   C  23:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is WP:IPBE - but this is only granted to those who have no access to an IP that isn't blocked due to rangeblocks or who'd be firewalled (or otherwise have no access to Wikipedia outside of VPNs because of local bans). It's not granted to users who just seek to use VPNs for privacy purposes. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 00:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * And how would admins determine who needs it based off the user's word alone? This seems like a policy that needs to be looked at again, and altered to fit the nature of today's Internet. wowaname   #   C  01:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm still bewildered. "An editor in good standing is permitted to edit anonymously when they can demonstrate the need." How the hell does one demonstrate the need ? Isn't this a Catch-22 situation?

Would it be any better if I told you guys that sometimes my ISP decides it just won't route half the Internet one day and I'm unable to visit any websites without using a VPN or Tor? That has happened to me quite a bit with my ISP, so while my primary reason for using any sort of proxy is for privacy, a secondary reason is because my ISP is so bloody crappy that I can't trust it for anything.

Linking to the Great Firewall of China article is pretty assumptuous, seeing that people from all over the world face censorship or incompetent ISPs, seeing that everyone has their own reason for using any particular proxy, be it a legitimate or a malicious reason. Do you want me to list all the sites that manage to handle proxied users via an alternate means of verification? Let's see...
 * Facebook (they require ID for all accounts and offer a hidden service)
 * freenode (they require making an account first [same for Wikimedia, but more straightforward] and offer a hidden service)
 * 4chan (for $20 a year you get a CAPTCHA and VPN exemption)
 * the countless other services that use normal registration methods such as E-mail confirmation and they don't care what IP you use at all

So clearly it's pretty easy to allow more than just Chinese users to edit Wikipedia via proxy, and clearly Wikimedia has the infrastructure in place to support such a policy change, so why live in stone-set bureaucracy when we can experiment with new solutions? wowaname  #   C  12:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)