Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Archives/2020

< Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard

Notice and publication of WMF Board agendas and minutes

Hello, I request that the WMF Board regularly update https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetings with meeting agendas and minutes. I also request that agendas for board meetings be published to that page two weeks in advance of meetings, that links to the agendas also be sent to Wikimedia-l two weeks in advance of meetings, and that links to the minutes be sent to Wikimedia-l upon publication of the minutes. Thank you, ↠Pine (✉) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WMF spending increase

Prior to the last board election of community-elected seats, a question was asked to candidates on acceptable limits of budgetary growth. Certain (now-)trustees expressed the view that continued rapid growth would be problematic. ("I think that a budgetary growth of more than 20% in the case of an organization of the WMF’s size would definitely be dangerous and possibly unhealthy (unless there was a very clear need for a certain vital project or investment)." - User:Pundit, "Continued exponential growth is not a realistic possibility. When I was previously on the board I supported stabilizing spending at its than current levels. ... With respect to hard-ish limits, the FDC has one set at 20% but even that IMO is too great with respect to the WMF. I would find it hard to imagine a situation where the foundation would need an increase in budget greater than that. Staff take time to on-board. For a request greater than 15% a movement discussion should be required." - User:Doc James).

Four months ago, the members of the board unanimously voted to approve a >20% budget increase for the 2019-20 fiscal year. Not only was there no movement discussion, this was the first year in nearly a decade when the annual plan wasn't even publicly disclosed. (We did have a get a brief presentation on it, but the plan itself appears to be confidential.) I would like to know: Was this an extreme situation, where there was an unusual great need for more spending? Was there a very clear need for a certain vital project? It's looking more and more like the WMF plans perpetual exponential growth, and I think it would be helpful to clarify the reasons for the unexpected spending increases.

User:Raystorm also had this response to the same question on budgetary growth: "Ultimately, our publicly discussed annual plan and budget discussed with the communities remain the best way to manage our spending." This year there was no public discussion with the communities on the annual plan, nor was there any FDC to look things over, so I think it's very important that some explanation of the reasons for the decision be made public. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking the question. Nemo 08:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Yair rand 2017/2018 expenses were 78.8M, 2018/2019 expenses were 92.94M,[1] 2019/2020 projection is 111.7 M.
It is basically a 20% increase (slightly less if averaged over the last two years).
Agree it is fast expansion and would not want to see any greater than this at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I stick to the opinion I expressed that going beyond 20% growth is dangerous and should only happen in exceptional circumstances in our movement. It is sometimes justifiable in smaller organizations (e.g. for a small affiliate just hiring the first staff member can easily increase the spending to a growth of even over 50%), but for the WMF such a rapid increase would definitely call for a closer scrutiny. Currently, we are at about 20% growth. Naturally, our strategic exercise may call for larger budgets, but every single initiative needs to be scrutinized carefully, as overall growing faster than 20% per annum is dangerous. Pundit (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for a "budget review committee"

I think that a group which is similar to the FDC should be given the mandate, resources, time, and full access into WMF's finances to conduct deep dives into WMF's budgets and spending every year, and should publish extensive reports and recommendations to the WMF Board and the community. This is a major job and would consume dozens or hundreds of hours of time if done thoroughly. The group that does this should probably be relatively small, have significant expertise in budgets, and probably given modest compensation for what will be an intensive consulting job. The members could be elected in a similar manner to stewards. ↠Pine (✉) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I think that the "BRC" should be separate from the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee can focus on compliance with reporting requirements and previously approved budgets, while the BRC can focus on future spending. ↠Pine (✉) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Pine I personally like the idea of a committee of volunteers to review the budget of the Wikimedia Foundation and to report back to the board and movement generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I would love to serve on such a committee, and would like to point out that fundraising has been growing linearly. EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that this is among the potential functions of the new 'governance body' being mooted in the movement strategy recommendations. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup, as Chris has already mentioned, a governance body/council/committee is being proposed, and while the nitty-gritty details are not yet established, it likely would serve such a role. Pundit (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
@The Land and Pundit: You must be referring to Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure Equity in Decision-Making, which includes an expected outcome stating, "Dedicate equitable budgets for community growth, incorporating scoping and direction from the global Governance Body, which will have oversight on targeted goals, for participatory, stable, reliable, unrestricted, and regular fund allocation to allow communities to develop their capacities and activities over a sustained period of time." Does Florida law allow a nonprofit's Board of Trustees to delegate budgetary control to that extent? Or is the Governance Body just another name for the Board of Trustees? EllenCT (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
EllenCT: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it'd have to be an advisory committee to the Board. Pundit (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be legally challenging for the Board to formally subordinate itself to some other body (not necessarily impossible, but a big deal change). But there is no problem establishing a body whose advice is in moral or practical terms binding - analagous to the FDC, say. There would certainly be details to be worked out. But the WMF legal team have been looking at draft recommendations throughout the process and have not highlighted any of them as legal impossibilities. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would combine an outside review of the WMF budget with the some type of community governance body. I think that asking one group of people to fulfill both functions would be a lot to ask if people are not paid for their time. Also, if the governance body's funding, trademark licenses, appointments to office, or any other permissions come from the WMF Board, then there will be concerns about conflict of interest between the governance body's need to get along with the WMF Board to maintain its funding, trademark licenses, or other permissions while also being asked to review WMF's proposals. ↠Pine (✉) 18:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
An advisory body can easily be made independent if there is sufficient will: just like you would choose an audit firm and pay their invoice at the end of the year, you can choose some external entity to host the body, select a budget and sign a multi-year contract to firewall them from undue influences. As Chris says, it's harder to afford complete independence to a body with binding powers on the WMF, which may look like some sort of "supervisory board" in the dual-board structure of some jurisdictions: at a minimum, you would need to be very sure that it's accountable to the relevant stakeholders. (Note how most Wikimedia chapters don't have any such problem because they're associations where it's clear that the assembly is the ultimate decision maker, and the assembly mostly self-renews.) Nemo 08:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Updates from April 28, 2020

Updates Wikimedia Foundation Board from April 28, 2020 are posted as a separate subpage here: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Updates from April 28, 2020. As there are a lot of topics to talk about, please post your thoughts/comments on the talk page of the message itself, so we can have a structured discussion. Thank you! --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 - Board of Trustees on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces

The statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces from May 2020 is on a separate subpage here: May 2020 - Board of Trustees on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces. Comments may be posted on the talk page of the statement itself. Thank you! --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Summaries of Universal Code of Conduct feedback and consultations

Because the WMF has a history of lying the Board about community responses, I must ask about how the recent UCoC consultations and feedback were summarized to the board. Was it more like this and this and general "broad rejection", or more like "mixed responses"? --Yair rand (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ombudsman, oversight team, privacy problems

when will you finally look into creating global privacy violations noticeboard? there are names of innocent peopel all over wikimedia, many associated with users they are not, how can you allow this? the above never look into anything no matter how many times they are contacted!!! so what's the purpose of their existence? just to ingore people?Valueboy2 (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

US-based hosting and political instability

As a US-based Wikipedian and Wikimedia Foundation staff member concerned about the political instability in the country we operate in, I would appreciate it if the Board would direct the Foundation to establish a contingency plan for what happens if the US seizes WMF's servers or bank accounts. Knowing that our movement would live on in this scenario would be a great comfort. --Brion Vibber (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Board Update on Branding

Updates on Branding from June 22, 2020 are posted as a separate subpage here: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Board Update on Branding. 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) 01:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling Ombuds Commission "Ombuds" with consistency rather than sometimes calling them "men"

Dear WMF Board members,

The Ombuds Commission acts on your behalf as part of the movement's governance processes and it is, therefore, the WMF board that authorizes Ombuds policies. The Wikimedia project systems and policies for the commission were established many years ago with rare amendments since, and are not harmonized on the use of the word "ombuds". For example, though the email contact group uses "ombuds", the detailed policy page on Meta uses "ombudsman" and refers to members of the group as "ombudsmen". As a gender-neutral form is in common International English and American English usage and is already used in some places and not others, can the WMF board agree that the gender-neutral term is desirable in line with the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation strategy and should be applied systematically?

With your agreement, this would then harmonize in the names of email groups, the group name configured into the system on Meta and the wording of policies, and help avoid an accidental bias towards identifying ombuds members as men. As this is a question of harmonization, rather than a change in process, policy or scope, this is a style issue rather than a change that required a resolution or a community RfC.

For those unaware, the Ombuds Commission "investigates complaints about infringements of the Privacy Policy, the Access to nonpublic personal data policy, the CheckUser policy and the oversight policy on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees. They also investigate for the Board the compliance of local CheckUser or Oversight policies or guidelines with the global CheckUser and Oversight policies."[1]

Links
  1. Ombudsman commission
  2. Special:GlobalUsers/ombudsman
  3. Wikimedia-l open letter/discussion

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Saw this linked in a discussion, not trying to follow you around Fae. We (the OC) have been increasingly using Ombuds Commission in our external communications, and it would make sense to rename the group to the Ombuds Commission and individual members to Ombudsperson(s). It might also make sense to rename the group to something more specific to its purpose, like the Privacy Ombuds Commission or even just Privacy Commission. There are other types of ombudspeople even within the Wikimedia movement. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The term "privacy ombuds(persons/men)" was occasionally used in the past when the Commission was tasked exclusively with privacy-related matters; it is hardly a good fit anymore, given the additional, non-privacy related responsibilities that the Commission eventually assumed (oversight policy, etc). — Pajz (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a better fit that a completely generic name. I think it should be possible to find a word that, with a little imagination, makes sense for a group that investigates violations of the privacy, CU and OS policies. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course Ombuds is an exemplar for a possible firmer general guideline. Naming groups of all types (from affiliates to name choices in software configurations) would benefit from a quotable 'official' WMF statement about the direction to take that would better reflect the diversity of volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
We don't call them "men", we call them "ombudsmen". All words ending in -men do not mean exclusion of women. Is your next proposal going to be moving "human" to "huperson"? As a huwoman, I find this unnecessary. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Board Update on Branding: next steps

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 postponement

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 meeting

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 community

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)

phab:T261200

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 revisions

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)

Call for feedback about Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric

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)

Decision about mandatory registration to edit Portuguese Wikipédia

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 wiki.pt 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, wiki.pt 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 wiki.pt 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 wiki.pt 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)

Committee meeting minutes

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)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2020&oldid=24956001"