Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Board noticeboard)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Board of Trustees Board noticeboard Archives
Welcome to the Board of Trustees' noticeboard. This is a message board for discussing issues related to Wikimedia Foundation governance and policies, and related Board work. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page and sign them.
  • For details of the Board's role and processes, see the Board Handbook.
  • Threads older than 90 days will be automatically archived by ArchiverBot.

IP ban on pt.Wiki[edit]

The following vote taking place on Portuguese Wikipedia could lead to an unprecedented decision in the entire project: ban IPs from making edits, releasing only registered users. Knowing that Wikipedia is "a free encyclopedia" and that the Portuguese strand is increasingly isolated, it loses active editors and becomes an increasingly toxic community, how does the Board of Trustees receive this information?

Take into account that the community itself does not want the public to know this, limiting the notice of voting to registered users only. .J. tlk 07:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Ain't that against the five pillars? Why don't they try flagged versions first? It works fine in the deWP. not really a small one. Banning IP-Users completely from editing must be a strict no-go, imho anyone voting for such anti-wikimedian stuff should be restricted from editing in the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden)
Sänger The five pillars are being ignored in part of the discussions. See: "Não sei como impedir que IPs editem é contra qualquer pilar. Nenhum direito seria atingido. É fácil se registrar. Muito fácil." / "[...] os cinco pilares não são nenhum 'princípio fundador'. São uma página escrita cinco anos depois do início do projeto." (ps: i did not translate the excerpts so that you understand the point where the five pillars are ignored. it is interesting to note that in these two comments they suggest a subversion to a possible refusal to implement the IP ban.) .J. tlk 08:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know Portuguese, in neither dialect, so I can't read the discussions there, let alone participate, but has anyone ever mentioned Flagged Revisions at all? That's imho a good possibility to keep IP-vandals at bay, while keeping the threshold low for participation. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Or the Founding principles? This is quite clearly a decision beyond the individual community's will as it involved what Wikipedia is, so it would be rejected outright based on this discussion alone. However, if there is a very strong local consensus that such a measure should be investigated, the Portuguese Wikipedia community can launch a global RfC or other discussion to ask whether there is consensus for Wikipedia to go in this direction. (Before that it's probably useful to have some fact-collection in conversation with relevant Wikimedia Foundation folks.) I'll note that the current discussion doesn't show a strong consensus, only a relatively small majority. Nemo 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Some editors claim that the situation of the project "requires" blocking IP editions to prevent vandalism, ignoring the fact that the participation of active users has been low lately. They are very firm in this regard, so much so that in two days the vote ends and, with the vast majority of votes in favor, the implementation of the blockade begins. Regarding the "founding principles", the discussion of the last topic wants to suggest that the page is a "joke or personal essay" ("[...] will you continue to worship this golden caf, or let the worshipers of that joke interfere in our decisions?"). .J. tlk 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
And for the same link Nemo linked to (in Limits to configuration changes, look for "Installation of extensions/skins that are not well maintained" table), FlaggedRevs are no longer allowed to be installed on any wiki (while they are supported on the existing wikis with it). (PS: Well, unconfirmed, but I've heard that they were already told that they will be rejected on phab, but they are going to do it anyway whatever others said. I guess they are going to try abusefilter?) — regards, Revi 18:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
That was the suggestion. They are even planning ideas for implementing filters to force unregistered users to create a registry. All this due to the rejection of the IP ban in the phabricator. .J. tlk 19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there any reason why Flagged Revision is no option any more? Why was this simple solution put off the table? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: It have been tested before, and was removed due to its inefficiency on wiki-pt. See phab:T211433. ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What strange kind of vandalism ist this, that can't be dealt with with normal and wikimedian measures, but has to resort to such antiwikimedian measures like IP-Verboten!? It can't be the usual penis vandals, they can be dealt with perfectly with FlaggedRev and Huggle or such, SPA and SEO-vandals can#t be the problem a well, as other WP can handle them as well without much problems with the usual, more pinpoint, measures. Why ditch the free editing, a very highly valued characteristic of the Wikiverse? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger:I'm very used to following IP vandalisms at the filters. A significant part of them is motivated precisely by the fact that they can edit unregistered. They write precisely that in the articles: "Wikipedia is so unreliable that I just edited it, and they allowed me. Also, there are games or challenges organized by teenagers at social networks where dozens of them ravage an article or a set of articles with tenths of vandalisms in a very short time, made in such a way that they are virtually impossible to block using the filters. And much more. Everybody is pretty much fed up with that. Other Wikimedians who have different realities do as they please, but I do not consider them to have even the least right to interfere in our community in this specific subject.- Darwin Ahoy! 16:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
And with FlaggedRevs nobody would ever see this, besides those, who know about it and can asap revert. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC) PS: What's that <blockquote> is supposed to mean?
@Sänger: As for flagrevs, it failed miserably as it totally mixed up good revs and bad revs in the history of the article, making it a very hard task to try to approve the good ones without simply reverting everything. Also, there were not enough people monitoring them, and they would stay unapproved for weeks or months. <blockquote> is just crap added by the crappy visual editor.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
FlaggedRevs works fine on deWP, it's a good tool against school-vandalism, SPA, and that kind of vandals. What exactly went wrong on ptWP, that you can't cope in a normal way with vandals? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


As far as I know, this is unprecedented? My Portuguese is not good enough to follow all the conversations on the Esplanada, but I wonder if more anti-vandalism tools (I'm thinking ORES for instance, I don't know if it's been tried) would help in the face of such a drastic measure. Raystorm (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

To get to this point it is because the pt.Wiki has become so isolated that they want to take radical measures, like this one that is unprecedented in the Wikipedia. I brought it here because the public from outside does not imagine what is going to happen - and this will only become public when there is a favorable consensus for a portion of the community (when registration is required to edit and create new articles). .J. tlk 18:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is a issue for Board to discuss. @Martin Urbanec:.--GZWDer (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, I thought this is where Wikimedia should know about this initiative before it is implemented. .J. tlk 09:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a better place would have been Wikimedia Forum, not just the board talk page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I'm done here. .J. tlk 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You should notice that JardelW has a indefinite ban at wiki.pt at the Wikipedia domain.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You should notice, that banning IPs is antiwikimedian behaviour, imho all users, that voted for this should be banned. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: Sure, good luck with that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I was the target of an authoritarian block for making comments off Wiki. Pure revanchism. Bringing this irrelevant fact to the discussion is further proof that they want to go over the established pillars and that they would do it in a hidden way. The emissary is blamed for disclosing information of interest. It is a symptom of the obscure period that society lives (and a constant reality of pt.Wiki). To tell you the truth, I am afraid of any retaliation for bringing this issue here. .J. tlk 22:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, it's not "unprecedent". In Commons IPs have been banned from adding content since... ever?, and nobody seems to be especially worried with that. To each own, it's reality.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Did BoT not give an opinion on the question? This theme should be better discussed, since the local administration has already disseminated the "novelty" to the press. Obviously, they have omitted all the problematic issues they have overcome in order for this to be "approved". .J. tlk 07:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

You know there is no local administration, right, Jardel?--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Better to use these words than to use the appropriate adjectives... .J. tlk 07:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
It's good to see some a comment from Raystorm. I would have hoped to hear from the other board members. (Note that the issue was reported in English Wikipedia's Signpost a month later, News and Notes 1 for November "Portuguese Wikipedia bans IP editing" by Erico, where he wrote "The community then contacted the WMF Board of Trustees to argue in favor of the new rule. The WMF has not responded so far, but neither have they interfered". Another Portuguese user in the comments section said that registrations were up and vandalism was down already by 3 November.)Pelagic (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In fact, the "users" are spending time fighting among themselves. The author of this text left the post of Bureaucrat because he was disallowed by another Bureaucrat (because of a fight between sysops). It is just an appetizer of the situation on Portuguese Wikipedia. If no one from the WMF interferes there, the project will become a fighting ring lol .J. tlk 19:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Committee meeting minutes[edit]

Assuming the intended locations for publication of committee meeting minutes are still the various committee wiki pages, there have been no minutes published from meetings of the HR Committee since 2014, of the Board Governance Committee since 2017, or of the Special Projects Committee or Product Committee since those committees were established. Are these going to be posted at some point in the future? --Yair rand (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Approval of Bylaws amendments and upcoming call for feedback about the selection of new trustees[edit]

Hi everyone. Please see Approval_of_Bylaws_amendments_and_upcoming_call_for_feedback_about_the_selection_of_new_trustees. Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)