| This is L235's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19Auto-archiving period: 14 days
 |
I recently clicked edit and it turned out I wasn't logged in. I was faced with IP ban on 107.181.176.0/20 by you. This does not hinder my ability to edit at all, since I simply logged in.
Here is the thing, I wasn't using VPN, and this is a recurring problem for me since 2020, when I first started to attempt an edit. I use cellular network from a large ISP in my country.
I first noticed in 2020 that I was unable to edit because of a range block by Widr (I can't locate the IP of the time anymore), but most importantly range blocks preempt account creation too, I believe I made an account request at the time but wasn't granted (I can't locate the request anymore).
I was finally lucky that I was briefly not range blocked in 2022 and I rushed to create an account, but I must note that I was range blocked more than 99% of the time while not using VPN. I live in a flawed democratic country that has a lot of vandals though not malicious (this is what I perceive).
I'm concerned about range blocks' potential of harming inclusion from my country, which already suffers from a lack of editors. I am thankful if you can investigate whether range blocks are disproportionately applied in my country, compared to, say, United States, and find ways to minimize harm.
Thanks in advance! Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Sir Kenneth Kho: Thanks for taking the time to write in. I'm sorry about the situation you found yourself in. In this particular case, I would note that the IP range is also
blocked globally, which means that even without any action on the English Wikipedia side, it would still be blocked. It's a difficult balance -- we can't allow known webhost or proxy IP ranges to have unrestricted edit access to Wikipedia because of the degree of abuse we see from those ranges. However, I know that there's often a lot of collateral damage that comes from those decisions. Ultimately, in the longer run, we probably need to get smarter about risk mitigation on Wikipedia — our current tools were created back in the early 2000s and broadly haven't been updated much since then. Best
KevinL (aka
L235 ·
t ·
c)
18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ L235 Thanks for the response! I didn't realize the block was global. Can you provide an educated guess why the IP ranges were considered a webhost or a proxy? I don't think it is proxy, because this is a cellular national ISP. Could it be webhost, I don't really understand what a webhost actually is, but could it be that the ISP implemented this in a way resembling a webhost? Could a national DNS filtering on obscene contents trigger this? Could a plain error by Wikipedia cause this? Thanks! Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 23:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Hello everyone,
After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.
As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.
The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:
Individual vote:
Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).
Affiliates vote:
Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).
Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.
With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.
We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.
The Charter Electoral Commission,
Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
I tried to edit request into WP:ENFORCEMENT your interpretation
"administrators may take enforcement actions" (not "any user")
— User:L235 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
, but it was not done. Note ARBECR is separate from ARBPIA. The ARBECR ambiguity would involve me after I sign up and become EC but not admin, but other areas might not require EC to edit. Me at first glance, Ymblanter in the archived thread, and 2 admins disagreed with the interpretation:
of course editors are empowered - that is, they have the authority or power - to enforce arbitration decisions
— User:Anachronist 07:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done. There is no ambiguity and the proposed assertion is false
— User:Malcolmxl5 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm splitting this from my ARCA statement because nobody responded. This talk page thread and the ER are DR, and I won't have 2 open ARCAs to avoid bludgeoning. What is your interpretation on enforcement by non-admins?
Simpler but considered undesirable by the majority. My original ER at WP:ENFORCEMENT:
| − | sensitive situations. | + | sensitive situations. Nothing in this section empowers editors to enforce arbitration decisions. |
The problem is I can't find policy authorizing editors enforcing ArbCom decisions. § Policy and precedent says decisions aren't policy (unless implying wikt:read in). Being guidelines sounds wrong. § Procedures and roles only gives clerks the mandate. § Elements of a decision authorizes "administrators responsible", implied "all [uninvolved] admins" by the AE header. Only specific decisions like CT could allow non-admins by omission.
I found nothing authorizing interpreting non-admin EC editors' ARBECR enforcement as WP:NOT3RR under item "D". My ARBECR interpretation is: without only, it authorizes admins without prohibiting editors. You could file an ARCA to restore your original intent. Otherwise, if we codify consensus at WP:ENFORCEMENT, it authorizing admins is redundant. Post-codification, idk if removing misleadingness is worth an ARCA edit towards passive voice.
I'm struggling to find acceptably simple WP:ENFORCEMENT wording. "policies, guidelines and ArbCom decisions" loses parallelism. An additional sentence might be creepily undue.
Some policy should codify whether non-admins' actions can be considered ArbCom decision enforcement in general unless specified otherwise. 142.113.140.146 ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear all,
I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
In cooperation with the U4C,
| This is L235's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19Auto-archiving period: 14 days
|
I recently clicked edit and it turned out I wasn't logged in. I was faced with IP ban on 107.181.176.0/20 by you. This does not hinder my ability to edit at all, since I simply logged in.
Here is the thing, I wasn't using VPN, and this is a recurring problem for me since 2020, when I first started to attempt an edit. I use cellular network from a large ISP in my country.
I first noticed in 2020 that I was unable to edit because of a range block by Widr (I can't locate the IP of the time anymore), but most importantly range blocks preempt account creation too, I believe I made an account request at the time but wasn't granted (I can't locate the request anymore).
I was finally lucky that I was briefly not range blocked in 2022 and I rushed to create an account, but I must note that I was range blocked more than 99% of the time while not using VPN. I live in a flawed democratic country that has a lot of vandals though not malicious (this is what I perceive).
I'm concerned about range blocks' potential of harming inclusion from my country, which already suffers from a lack of editors. I am thankful if you can investigate whether range blocks are disproportionately applied in my country, compared to, say, United States, and find ways to minimize harm.
Thanks in advance! Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Sir Kenneth Kho: Thanks for taking the time to write in. I'm sorry about the situation you found yourself in. In this particular case, I would note that the IP range is also
blocked globally, which means that even without any action on the English Wikipedia side, it would still be blocked. It's a difficult balance -- we can't allow known webhost or proxy IP ranges to have unrestricted edit access to Wikipedia because of the degree of abuse we see from those ranges. However, I know that there's often a lot of collateral damage that comes from those decisions. Ultimately, in the longer run, we probably need to get smarter about risk mitigation on Wikipedia — our current tools were created back in the early 2000s and broadly haven't been updated much since then. Best
KevinL (aka
L235 ·
t ·
c)
18:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ L235 Thanks for the response! I didn't realize the block was global. Can you provide an educated guess why the IP ranges were considered a webhost or a proxy? I don't think it is proxy, because this is a cellular national ISP. Could it be webhost, I don't really understand what a webhost actually is, but could it be that the ISP implemented this in a way resembling a webhost? Could a national DNS filtering on obscene contents trigger this? Could a plain error by Wikipedia cause this? Thanks! Sir Kenneth Kho ( talk) 23:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
|
| |
| Six years! |
|---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Hello everyone,
After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.
As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.
The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:
Individual vote:
Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).
Affiliates vote:
Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).
Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.
With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.
We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.
The Charter Electoral Commission,
Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
I tried to edit request into WP:ENFORCEMENT your interpretation
"administrators may take enforcement actions" (not "any user")
— User:L235 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
, but it was not done. Note ARBECR is separate from ARBPIA. The ARBECR ambiguity would involve me after I sign up and become EC but not admin, but other areas might not require EC to edit. Me at first glance, Ymblanter in the archived thread, and 2 admins disagreed with the interpretation:
of course editors are empowered - that is, they have the authority or power - to enforce arbitration decisions
— User:Anachronist 07:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done. There is no ambiguity and the proposed assertion is false
— User:Malcolmxl5 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm splitting this from my ARCA statement because nobody responded. This talk page thread and the ER are DR, and I won't have 2 open ARCAs to avoid bludgeoning. What is your interpretation on enforcement by non-admins?
Simpler but considered undesirable by the majority. My original ER at WP:ENFORCEMENT:
| − | sensitive situations. | + | sensitive situations. Nothing in this section empowers editors to enforce arbitration decisions. |
The problem is I can't find policy authorizing editors enforcing ArbCom decisions. § Policy and precedent says decisions aren't policy (unless implying wikt:read in). Being guidelines sounds wrong. § Procedures and roles only gives clerks the mandate. § Elements of a decision authorizes "administrators responsible", implied "all [uninvolved] admins" by the AE header. Only specific decisions like CT could allow non-admins by omission.
I found nothing authorizing interpreting non-admin EC editors' ARBECR enforcement as WP:NOT3RR under item "D". My ARBECR interpretation is: without only, it authorizes admins without prohibiting editors. You could file an ARCA to restore your original intent. Otherwise, if we codify consensus at WP:ENFORCEMENT, it authorizing admins is redundant. Post-codification, idk if removing misleadingness is worth an ARCA edit towards passive voice.
I'm struggling to find acceptably simple WP:ENFORCEMENT wording. "policies, guidelines and ArbCom decisions" loses parallelism. An additional sentence might be creepily undue.
Some policy should codify whether non-admins' actions can be considered ArbCom decision enforcement in general unless specified otherwise. 142.113.140.146 ( talk) 02:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C because this page is listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Subscribe.
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear all,
I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
In cooperation with the U4C,