User talk:Kraŭs

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kraŭs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been granted a global exception, but I am somehow still not allowed to edit when I am connected via VPN. The reason for the last decline was incorrect; I did not remove anyone's comments. I had accidentally copied and pasted one old comment (which was clearly dated from before my request), then deleted it when I noticed my mistake. The person who declined my last request made false accusations and did not sufficiently research the question. Please talk to Vitto on Freenode; he granted me the global exception and told me to request a local exception. It is tiresome to have to keep requesting this, when I technically do not have to volunteer my time helping Wikimedia projects at all. Kraŭs (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

IP block exemptions to allow for anonymous editing are only given under exceptional circumstances. As your use of VPN is a personal choice as opposed to a necessary one, and as you are able to edit Wikipedia via regular channels, the IPBE request is declined. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You do seem to be able to edit outside of this talk page. As was asked before that you never answered: If you would post the error message you're receiving, along with IP address information, it would aid investigation. GB fan 11:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently connected to my VPN, so I am able to edit outside of this talk page. When I am connected to my VPN, I am receiving an error message that states that I am using an open proxy. The open proxy I am using is called PrivateTunnel and the server is located in San Jose. Currently, seeing as how I am not connected to my VPN, I obviously cannot tell you the error message I am receiving. I have been granted a global exception by Vitto, seemingly on all Wikis except for this one, which allows me to edit every Wiki except this one despite the open proxy block. So my IP is irrelevant, because even if you were to unblock my IP, I might have a new one at some other point and have to request an exception again. I am a logged in user registered using a Gmail address, so I don't really get the problem. If there were any kind of legal problems, that Gmail address would lead authorities/investigators right to me. Kraŭs (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikis where IP block exempt exists as right, the user needs to apply for exemption on that Wiki despite being given a global exemption. In order to be given exemption here, a compelling reason needs to be given. Is there a reason why you're using a VPN? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using a VPN for everything I do on the Internet, a very tiny portion of which involves editing the English Wikipedia. As others have pointed out, I have made very few contributions to the English Wikipedia over many years, and will probably continue to do so. I have no reason to stop using a VPN just to correct a few typos here and there in articles that I happen to come across. The compelling reason has already been stated: number one, I am a logged in user. Number two, I am registered using a Gmail address that would very quickly help track me down in the event of a legal problem. Therefore, there is zero utility in blocking my IP at times when I am logged in. I completely understand why you block VPNs: lots of spambots make anonymous edits. But I am a logged-in, registered user who provided a GOOGLE email address when he registered. If you would like me to send you my address and telephone number in order to continue editing, then fine. I'm just trying to get around your annoying, hindring IP block. That is the compelling reason; I have not once heard a compelling argument to continue to block me, other than "You know why." Kraŭs (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I cause problems, you can ban my username, and THEN I would still not be able to edit, because my VPN would STILL be blocked. That's how exemptions work. Kraŭs (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By compelling reason, I mean that for example you are being blocked by government censorships (this would require some verification though). Being a registered user and registering your email address by itself wouldn't really considered a compelling reason here. Please also note that the reason why this block prevents logged in users from editing is to also prevent people from creating spambot accounts (believe me there a lot of those running around) and that they have historically heavily been abused by many returning vandals. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use a VPN because I don't want people elsewhere on the web to know where I am located, and it just happens that I also edit Wikipedia using the same computer. I don't know if that is compelling? Kraŭs (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that "compelling"? It seems you are using VPN for your own convenience and not because of possible government persecution. Furthermore, your IP address is not revealed to anyone when you edit via your username. Finally, if you don't reveal your IP address, we cannot investigate alternatives properly (poking a hole in a blocked range, giving you an exemption, unblocking the range, etc.). Nothing will happen with this unblock request until you can do that. If you wish, you can send email to me or any other admin, to keep it out of public view.

If you're using an open proxy, you're out of luck. Open proxies will remain blocked. If you don't want people to know where you're located, there are several non-open, private proxies that you could use for the same purpose. My own web hosting provider offers one, for example. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much do they cost? I would be happy to switch to a different VPN that isn't blocked on the English Wikipedia, as soon as I have used all my data on this one. Could you provide me with a link? Kraŭs (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can do a web search as easily as me. I found http://www.megaproxy.com/ costs $10 for 3 months. That's the cheapest one I could find in a brief search for "private web proxy". Searching for "vpn proxy" I get different results. There's also an article here that lists other alternatives near the end. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My VPN had never said anything about it being an open proxy (also I got it from that article, or one like it). So I dunno? I thought you were currently using a VPN and could recommend it to me. Kraŭs (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your VPN is like AnchorFree, then they are usually blocked very quickly. Webhosts like Hetzner Online and OVH are also blocked quickly. If you're trying to look for one, then I recommend not using companies like these since Wikipedia as well as many other websites blacklist or block them. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kraŭs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i've been granted a global exception, but i am somehow still not allowed to edit.

Decline reason:

Having looked across userrights on meta, I see no such global exception. Of course, removing VALID questions and comments does not help your case. As I do not see extensive enough editing history - nor positive communication - there's no obvious need to local WP:IPBE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kraŭs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am a logged-in user with a long history of edits, connecting via a VPN.

Decline reason:

Clearing CAT:RFU. If this is still a problem you need to contact the unblock list to explain why you can't us your normal ip Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you still having problems? Your history of edits isn't large although it spans some years. If you would post the error message you're receiving, along with IP address information, it would aid investigation. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saluton! It is unclear why Idiom Neutral is not notable. Do you believe that the language is not notable, or do you believe that an acceptable article is possible but that the article does not prove notability? Is this an encouragement of editors that "we can do better" or is it a rejection of Wikipedia having an article on this topic? Dankon --Cam (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I am not a conlanger, but I speak a constructed language and have a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and personally I have never heard of Idiom Neutral (although the name is sufficiently generic that it could sound like any number of other conlangs). So I was just encouraging those familiar with the subject to help establish notabiliy according to Wikipedia's already-generally-accepted guidelines, by adding relevant, reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Kraŭs (talk)

Template:And? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to comment but my VPN is blocked! My vote would be for Deletion though; I'm not sure what I was thinking with that one. Have a good day! Kraŭs (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]