Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

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.

Board Update on Branding: next stepsEdit

Updates on Branding from June 26, 2020 are posted as a separate subpage here: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board Update on Branding: next steps. Please post your thoughts/comments on the talk page of the message itself, so we can have a structured discussion and people can "subscribe to it" if they want to. Thank you! --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Briefing postponementEdit

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was notified by staff on the night of July 7th that the briefing of July 8th needs to be rescheduled because of the illness of one of the key staff members. We are looking for a new date before the August board meeting, and we shall share an updated timeline in a few days --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Get well soon, whoever you are! I hope it's not Covid-19. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Update on timing: this Board briefing has been rescheduled for July 28th. - ZMcCune (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Next board meetingEdit

Has been moved from August to Sept 24th, 28th and 30th. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Board decision to pause the Brand project. Raystorm (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Expertise seats and the communityEdit

Two of the Board's appointed members' terms are almost up, and given the typical length of appointed board members' time on the Board, I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them are not going to continue after their term finishes. I imagine the Board might be looking into finding new members, so I'd like to make a few points about filling appointed seats:

The appointed seats, sometimes called "expertise seats", serve a valuable role in filling out the Board's range of skills and capacities. However, these trustees are usually unfamiliar with Wikimedia. If I might make a recommendation: Before looking for candidates from outside the movement, perhaps first try to recruit from within the community? The Board could put together a list of particular qualifications/qualities they're looking for, and calls could be put out to the communities to see if anyone around has those qualifications. We have tens of thousands of very active volunteers, and I expect that at least one willing Wikimedian will have the qualities that are sought. (Also, an effort could be made to specifically target certain languages, to fill out the Board's issues with geographic diversity.)

  • Going on a brief tangent on the point of geographic diversity: The current Board has, IIUC, four people in the US North America, four in Europe, and two in the Middle East. The Board currently has no members east of 60th meridian, an area that includes 60% of the world's population. Of the 35 members that the Board has had over the past 17 years, only one has been in this area. Additionally, none have ever been from Africa. Might be something to work on.
    The appointed seats in particular, have several times included individuals with high-level experience in executive positions in large tech organizations (eg Kawasaki, West, Geshuri, Battles, and Capuano), every single one of which has been an American company. It's not like there are no major tech companies in Japan, Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, Singapore, etc. (I don't actually know whether or not this was deliberate; for all I know, it's quite possible that experience with American companies is actually more relevant to the WMF's work. But if it's just that it's easier for the WMF and Board to find Americans, that sounds like another problematic bias introduced by the selection process.)

Besides for the issue of trustees' unfamiliarity with Wikimedia, I'm generally concerned by the extent to which the staff are involved in filling positions of the group that is supposed to oversee the organization and keep them accountable.

There are currently six members of the Board that we ever hear from, six that have editing experience, six that we really know who they are. I'd like it if we could increase that to ten. --Yair rand (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Yair rand am I being counted as being from the United States? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: Whoops, sorry, I meant North America. (I cannot believe I made that mistake. I think I need to hand in my Canadian citizenship.) --Yair rand (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Yair, thanks for your message. If the Board approves the expansion to 16 seats after the community has reviewed and provided comments, there will be three additional community-sourced seats that will require a new process. Something along the lines of what you propose sounds good to me - we have a standing Elections Committee that could be repurposed for this type of process too, and they could prepare the selection from the communities for the Board. I'm sure there will be lots of ideas of possible pathways. As for the appointed seats - there is value in an external perspective. They may not be initially familiar with the movement, but that doesn't mean they are unfamiliar with the projects (particularly Wikipedia). The reader/final beneficiary perspective is also a valuable one, which we would lose if all trustees were to be editors. We do recruit for the Audit Committee chair position in particular, which necessitates specific knowledge of pretty much a US CFO and so tends to be a US trustee - West, Battles, and currently Capuano. But otherwise, we are striving towards a different set up - the two trustees you initially refer to are from Bahrein and India. Thanks for your message, Raystorm (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


This may require some input.--GZWDer (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is on the radar, there were some challenges with the upgrade on the technical front and some other stuff, but the Legal team did not lose sight of this. (I don't know where in the queue it is after this highly atypical year though.) Raystorm (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Universal code of conduct revisionsEdit

Would the Board allow for two draft revision cycles from community comments instead of just the one presently on the Universal Code of Conduct#Timeline, please? James Salsman (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this is not an isolated request, there have been several people asking for this on the draft feedback page. If it's not acceptable for a second round before the draft goes to the Board, then could the Board propose their own modifications and instruct the Foundation to re-consult on the resulting document? Pelagic (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

IP ban on pt.WikiEdit

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 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)

Decision about mandatory registration to edit Portuguese WikipédiaEdit

We, users from the Portuguese Wikipedia community, after a long discussion and voting widely publicized to all registered users by our SiteNotice, decided to make registration mandatory in order to edit articles on the Wikipedia in Portuguese. Many people who do not contribute in our language do not understand what led us to arrive to that decision, and many think that there is a rule that prevents us from making that decision. What we would like to ask the Board of Trustees is to make a statement that confirms that our decision is valid and must be respected. We have already planned several ways to apply the decision in case it is denied to apply directly to the wiki settings through a request in phabricator, as a consultation before the voting has already shown that it will happen. A statement from you will give us more security and will avoid possible conflicts with the global community because of our decision. The majority of our community is determined to make our decision be applied in any way, but we hope it will be as peaceful as possible.

This was not a sudden decision, we have been having difficulty dealing with IP editions for years, in 2013 we were against deactivating CAPTCHA due to the increase in IP edits and so it was extended for a few months, in that period we discussed several measures to improve the fight against vandalism, several improvements in the filters were made at that time and new tools were activated. Years later, even with several tools available, patrollers still struggle to deal with IP issues, many would like to engage in other more constructive activities within Wikipedia, but that is not possible as patrolling IP issues takes a long time, and articles cannot keep vandalized.

Regarding the impediments to making this decision, many claimed that the possibility of editing IPs is one of the five pillars, but what the third pillar says is that anyone can edit, and our decision does not prevent anyone from editing, it just requires the editor to make a registration that is fast and does not require any personal data, anyone will be able to continue editing, and with more privacy than before due to the hiden IP. With the mandatory registration we will be able to separate users who have already made several good edits from those who need to be carefully patrolled. In addition, when the user does something wrong we will make sure that they were notified by the warn on their talk page before making the next edit, which helps the user learn from the mistakes and helps patrollers identify users who insist on the mistake and need a stronger warning.

Those are just some of the arguments of those who voted in favor of mandatory registration, no matter how much we try to explain all the reasons behind our decision, only those who constantly contribute in our wiki can fully understand the need for that decision. As much as Wikipedia in several languages ​​has many similarities, each one has its own peculiarities and its own mix of cultures, that is why each wiki has its autonomy to decide its editing policies, we have all respect for the opinions and decisions of other wikis communities, even when their opinions are contrary to ours, in the same way we want our opinions and decisions to be respected, so we need a statement from the Board of Trustees, to guarantee respect for the differences and diversity of opinions between the wikis, and ensure that our decision will be implemented smoothly. Danilo.mac talk 12:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[...] in 2013 we were against deactivating CAPTCHA due to the increase in IP edits [...] I guess not much was learned from that altercation, as the discussion at phab:T261133 was quite similar in tone and arguments. I imagine the answers will be quite the same as well, but since [t]he majority of our community is determined to make our decision be applied in any way, but we hope it will be as peaceful as possible I'm quite curious to see the results.
I'm also unsure how 8 days of discussion equates to a long discussion. Isabelle 🔔 21:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To take this proposal forward is to serve the ego of half a dozen users who think they own Wikipedia. It is interesting how they waste time trying to do everything in a "peaceful" way, and a negative assessment will not prevent the local administration from implementing an IP block. .J. tlk 22:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

8 days? Half a dozen? Sources needed here. The beginning of discussion was in 23 Aug followed by a 30-day duration poll with 3-digit amount of users there. Millennium bug (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Poll that several users disagreed with a warning for non-registered users. The interested party cannot know of a measure that could affect it. .J. tlk 01:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
A poll is not a discussion. Don't weasel word. Isabelle 🔔 01:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally: This is being discussed in at least since 2006, if I well recall. When this so called "foundational principle" was created as an half-joke by a wiki.en editor back in 2004, existed for 3 years, already. Nobody asked the community there about it. The legitimacy of such a thing is below none.- Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@DarwIn: "[A]t some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run. ... "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.", Jimmy Wales, October 2001. While people might have been a bit late documenting things on Meta, this really is a core fundamental principle --Yair rand (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The link to the original version by Jimbo is this one posted 03:34, 27 October 2001. So this was definitely not a) in 2004 and b) no half-joke, Please stop using such (deliberately?) misleading statements, that have no base in the reality. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
BTW: The oldest version of the ptWP-Mainpage is from 12h41min de 12 de outubro de 2003‎ ,2 years after Jimbos statement, was there anything before that, that predates the main page? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Less casting aspersions, please.) The Portuguese Wikipedia was founded on May 11, 2001. Unfortunately, early page histories were not reliably preserved on any Wikipedia. --Yair rand (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: "You can edit this page right now" continues being respected, since registering takes nothing but some few seconds. The trade-off for allowing non registered editors was having thousands of articles in permanent protection, with a number increasing everyday. Permanent protection implies that anyone only can start editing that article after a number of days and procedures, which is very, very far from "You can edit this page right now". So I truly believe that we are now way closer to Jimbo statement than we were before blocking IPs.
As for IPs themselves, despite that Jimbo statement, nor he, nor WMF has ever made any attempt to protect the privacy of the so called "anonymous users", which are everything but anonymous. So the most basic conditions of privacy and security were never met in Wikipedia for that type of user. As of today, we have bots tweeting to the world IP editions made from some sensitive ranges as soon as they are made, which can then be used to persecute people judicially and in their work place. This is not acceptable in the least, and never has been. There's no point in defending "anonymous" access at all, if the consequences are exposing those editors to such risks - which in some contexts can even mean risk of life.
Finally, I should note that Commons has been blocking IPs from adding content there since... ever? and nobody has ever appeared to be specially worried with that. It is really hard to understand all the fuss now.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Those "sensitive" IP ranges that DarwIn is referring to are actually IP's from public offices and institutions (those connections are public and the internet access is payed by taxpayers. In fact, those computers should only be used for work related tasks. They aren't meant for private use or editing wikipedia).
For example, in the article that Darwin linked above, a police officer faced disciplinary sanctions after using the corporation's computer to praise the Brazilian former dictatorship government in wikipedia; he removed words like "torture" and refered to that period of oppression as a "revolution".Daveout (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Daveout: Thanks for explaining very clearly why IPs should not be allowed in any Wikimedia project, at all. I hope the legal department sees that and suggests WMF to finally take measures to respect the privacy and security of our editors. Wikipedia is not the place for the Thought Police, vigilants and persecutions based on ideology. If that's what you want to do, please chose another project, that's not welcome here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
“respect the privacy and security of our editors”. We do respect those. Nobody is being forced to disclose their IPs. It is a choice that people make. Likewise, we should ~also~ respect editors’ freedom to edit Wikipedia using their IPs (when they feel it’s safe and convenient to do so). \\\ You're yet to provide an example of someone being persecuted on the basis of their ideology. The police officer mentioned above wasn't punished bc of his opinions, he was punished for using the corporation's computer to voice those opinions. In other words: for misbehaving in the workplace.\\\ And please stop flooding my notifications with unnecessary “thanks” notices. Gracias.✌ Daveout (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

After years of editing the foundation's projects, mainly Wikipedia, I gained knowledge and experience about how the community works. So I am not surprised by false and / or distorted comments by those who took a stand against the proposal. I am deeply sorry that users have to prepare arguments for such "distorted questions".

The community has been questioning the restriction of ips for some years. The current vote met the deadline and obtained 71% approval, a percentage that corresponds to 169 favorable users against 69. The Portuguese community suffers a very high load of recurring vandalism. This overloads the volunteers, reducing their assistance to the newbies. In short, we are being overwhelmed that we need to revert edits instead of tutoring new accounts. In addition, communication between ips is practically null due to the dynamics of the bands.

Obviously the measure is strong, with few precedents. As the decision has already been made, the community seeks to know the position of the BoT and expects at least a diplomatic response. I hope that the other editors do not turn the topic into an open discussion and await the positioning of the department. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

71 % is a strong majority but it's not consensus. Given the short time for the discussion etc., so far I see no indication that the Portuguese Wikipedia gained local consensus for such a change. Nemo 06:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: The relevant reference for is the fair-use vote there - which, unlike this one, was directly against one of the 5 pillars. The decision passed by 54% and was accepted like that by the WMF. 71% is more than enough, specially for a subject that is being discussed there for the last 14 years (at least).--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
In addition to what DarwIn said above, I note that it is not true that this topic was discussed only recently or "for a short time." The user who started the section above "forgot" to say that banning IP's edits is constantly discussed since ever: pt:Wikipédia:Temas recorrentes/Bloqueio prévio às edições de IP, for reference. Érico (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia has already banned IP editions. This discussion is a joke. .J. tlk 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We have many ways to apply the decision, but the ideal one is through the wiki configuration, and the developers said in phabricator that they only will do that with a Board of Trustees validation. And I would also like a Board validation to avoid any complaint on our decision from outside the ptwiki, the more peaceful our decision is the better. Danilo.mac talk 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, support and concur with what Danilo.mac said. The ideal way of applying this community decision would be to block IPs by design, and smoothly send them to registration and an explanation of why that as happened, as well as tutorials about Wikipedia and so forth, as appropriate. Since the developers have stated very clearly that they are not competent to decide on that, and made their action dependent on a Board resolution, coming here to ask the Board about it is how things should be done on that respect, independently of other local measures the community is taking which may become redundant if this one is approved.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sysops who apply such a change, not supported by consensus, will need to be deflagged by stewards. Nemo 08:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Realy? Good luck with that... Vanthorn (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Deflagging is really not necessary. The WMF Legal Team is already working on the case to rectify issues with the way IPs were banned on ptwiki and provide alternative technical solutions which can address concerns from the community which led to this hasty decision. --Joalpe (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I respect you a lot but, please, stop trying to impose some half-joke made back in 2004 over the decision of a Wikipedia community.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Wow! Your idea is excellent. .J. tlk 18:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Joalpe: Wikimedia could have a better dialogue if the administrators did not work with mockery. .J. tlk 19:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
But it is the apocalypse, having WMF legal department asking us to let sensitive location information (IPs) fall into the article history where everybody can see it, and where it can be immediately tweeted to the world, instead of being caught by a filter of very limited access. And we are talking about 0-1 hits per hour, a large part of them about vandalism... *rolling eyes*--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I keep hearing that the Portuguese Wikipedia is some sort of “special case”; and that people from the English Wikipedia are unable to understand its so-called peculiar reality of endless trolling by IPs... Well, those statements are false. There is nothing going on in there that doesn’t also happen at the en-wiki at a much greater scale and intensity.

In fact, the main difference between the two is that the pt-wiki has trouble attracting editors (even IP editors): most articles remain intact, without improvements, for long periods of time. Forcing users to register may reduce vandalism, but it will also throw in the trash the positive contributions of people who are simply not willing to register for whatever reason (we cannot aford to lose those!!, as they are of a significant number. it is best to just keep fighting vandalism).

The pt-wiki hasn't even tried to expand the use of "pending changes protection" (aka flagged revisions), or other less-extreme measures (As suggested by many users, including members of the WMF), before resorting to this exclusionary and anti-community policy.

It should also be noted that that RfC was rushed and not widely publicised (and only extended confirmed users were able to vote). I've seen far less important discussions take way more time to be closed than the RfC that is being discussed here, which is related to major policy changes and that took just one month to be closed.

And finally, I want to thank JardelW and Isabelle Belato for being the voices of reason here. Daveout (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dave, I understand you are not happy with the decision taken by the community, but please, some fairplay would be nice, instead of trying to game the system. You don't even know what you're talking about, we tried flagged revs for years. They were a total and unabashed disaster, so much that the community decided by unanimity that not only they were not of any help, but they were causing damage to the project, and asked their complete removal from there.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it’s quite clear to everyone here who is actually gaming the system in a desperate attempt to prove a point. Daveout (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
What special kind of vandalism is it, that's impossible to deal with with normal and wikimedian measures? I asked that above, but got no answers. I can't be school vandals (the well-known penis vandals), or SEO spammer, or SPAs, as in those cases flagged revisions is a good working extension for example in the deWP. So what's the use case for this extreme measure? Why has such exlusionist and anti-open measure to be made? I see no reason stated up to now. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
It's just a bloody lot of it. But if you don't have that problem in the projects you participate, great.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Daveout I thank you for understanding the whole issue. You cannot imagine how difficult the dialogue between the administration of pt.Wiki with users. .J. tlk 01:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubricEdit

Call for feedback about Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric from October 07, 2020 is posted as a separate subpage here: Call for feedback about Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric. Please post your thoughts/comments on the relevant talk pages:

It would help to have structured discussions and people can "subscribe" the pages if they want to. Thank you! --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)