[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:24 PM Risker  wrote:

>
> I'm less concerned about the "protected page" issue raised by SJ.  There
> are generally good reasons why those pages are protected.  They have either
> been the long- or short-term target of repeated vandalism (e.g.,
> biographical articles of controversial people, pages where disruptive
> editing has required the application of Arbcom or other discretionary
> sanctions, articles about today's news or are being discussed in the dark
> corners of social media, articles that have been subject to significant
> disinformation).  In almost all cases, the person trying to edit is
> directed to the talk page.
>

Yes and also at this point, the problem is not that people are generally
unaware that Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Anyway this issue is solvable
by design changes that direct anonymous or new editors to how they can
contribute to protected pages (either by registering or the Talk page as
appropriate). Proxy blocking on the other hand is entirely in the hands of
the community to fix.


>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:53, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for mentioning this Florence.  It's affected me lately too.
>> I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to
>> most of the world, including most of us.
>>
>> -- Blocking mobile users:  I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in
>> the past two weeks.  No solution I could find to make a new account and
>> leave a comment.  No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in,
>> either.
>> -- Permablocked IPs.  A friend told me they were permablocked from WP.
>> looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had
>> been blocked for a decade.
>> -- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners.  I was just on the phone
>> an hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia
>> , and their normal internet access [VPN] was
>> blocked.  It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning
>> it off.  Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected
>> against editing. (some time ago, 14%
>>  of
>> pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then)
>> -- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance
>> is not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people
>> who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing
>> back. A softer-security approach would be better.
>>
>> Benjamin writes:
>> > We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
>> entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
>>
>> +++.  We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off
>> vandalism and spam.  But hard security like this can put an end to the
>> projects, for good.  There is no more definitive end than one that seems
>> mandated from within.  We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing,
>> and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and
>> can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of
>> vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also relevant:
>>> 
>>> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences
>>>
>>> We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
>>> entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
>>>
>>> I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably
>>> difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to
>>> a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
>>>
>>> Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have
>>> opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat
>>> popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for
>>> example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and
>>> just give up the edit.
>>>
>>> Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the
>>> page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to
>>> unnecessary frustration.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bence
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.

 I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging
 on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just
 know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a
 sysop or a steward with no power.

 It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Risker]

Those who have been around since the "early days" may remember the
nearly-routine blocks of AOL proxies on English Wikipedia, which were
completely ineffective in blocking vandals (they got issued a new IP in
seconds) and impeded good users.  It took a long time to persuade admins
and checkusers to stop those blocks.

I've been a checkuser since 2009, well before global IP blocks became
available in 2011.  I've argued against routinely blocking open proxies
(with the exception of Tor) ever since. There are times when it's entirely
appropriate to block them - there are a few that really are frequented by
bad users and spammers.  But as a routine block, I've never really heard a
good case presented.  There are rarely good reasons to globally block an IP
range; usually, only one or two projects are actually affected by problem
editors (whether logged-in or unregistered).  I know that if I wasn't an
administrator myself, I would be affected by global or local proxy blocks
on a regular basis.  For a long time, I was the main CU on English
Wikipedia that granted local IP block exemption; Enwiki is one of the
projects where global IPBE doesn't work.  I have never found a list of
projects that require local IPBE.

I've been unsuccessful in persuading my own project to liberalize the use
of IPBE, or to decrease the routine (and often automatic) blocking of
"proxies".  Those proxies being blocked include just about every VPN in the
world (including the one I use), as well as huge swaths of IPs that provide
service to African countries and other countries with less-developed
internet access.  It is definitely having an impact on the adequacy of
coverage of topics related to those regions, in my opinion.

I'm less concerned about the "protected page" issue raised by SJ.  There
are generally good reasons why those pages are protected.  They have either
been the long- or short-term target of repeated vandalism (e.g.,
biographical articles of controversial people, pages where disruptive
editing has required the application of Arbcom or other discretionary
sanctions, articles about today's news or are being discussed in the dark
corners of social media, articles that have been subject to significant
disinformation).  In almost all cases, the person trying to edit is
directed to the talk page.


Risker/Anne


On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 18:53, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Thanks for mentioning this Florence.  It's affected me lately too.
> I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to
> most of the world, including most of us.
>
> -- Blocking mobile users:  I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in
> the past two weeks.  No solution I could find to make a new account and
> leave a comment.  No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in,
> either.
> -- Permablocked IPs.  A friend told me they were permablocked from WP.
> looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had
> been blocked for a decade.
> -- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners.  I was just on the phone
> an hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia
> , and their normal internet access [VPN] was
> blocked.  It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning
> it off.  Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected
> against editing. (some time ago, 14%
>  of
> pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then)
> -- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance
> is not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people
> who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing
> back. A softer-security approach would be better.
>
> Benjamin writes:
> > We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
> entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
>
> +++.  We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off
> vandalism and spam.  But hard security like this can put an end to the
> projects, for good.  There is no more definitive end than one that seems
> mandated from within.  We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing,
> and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and
> can propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of
> vandalism and spam that is visible to the world.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Also relevant:
>> 
>> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences
>>
>> We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
>> entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
>>
>> I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably
>> difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to
>> a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Samuel Klein]

Thanks for mentioning this Florence.  It's affected me lately too.
I'm not sure the Wikipedia we love is still accessible as a project to most
of the world, including most of us.

-- Blocking mobile users:  I was blocked from editing on mobile twice in
the past two weeks.  No solution I could find to make a new account and
leave a comment.  No way to contact the blocking admin w/o logging in,
either.
-- Permablocked IPs.  A friend told me they were permablocked from WP.
looking into it, they were covered by a small IP range that had
been blocked for a decade.
-- Blocking VPNs, with large unhelpful banners.  I was just on the phone an
hour ago w/ someone who maintains another online encyclopedia
, and their normal internet access [VPN] was
blocked.  It took them a minute to realize they could get access by turning
it off.  Then the first three pages they thought to visit were protected
against editing. (some time ago, 14%
 of
pageviews were to protected pages; may have increased since then)
-- Getting an IP block exemption for people trying to avoid surveillance is
not easy. in theory email-for-access could work, in practice most people
who reasonably an exemption may not end up getting one or even hearing
back. A softer-security approach would be better.

Benjamin writes:
> We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.

+++.  We are raising these barriers to [apparently] try to stave off
vandalism and spam.  But hard security like this can put an end to the
projects, for good.  There is no more definitive end than one that seems
mandated from within.  We need better automation, MLl models, sandboxing,
and triage to help us *increase* the number of people who can edit, and can
propose edits to protected pages, while decreasing the amount of vandalism
and spam that is visible to the world.


On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:22 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Also relevant:
> 
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences
>
> We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to
> entry that was the key to Wikipedia's early success.
>
> I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably
> difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to
> a significant, but hard to measure, degree.
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:
>
> Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have
> opted in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat
> popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for
> example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and
> just give up the edit.
>
> Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the
> page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to
> unnecessary frustration.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
>>
>> I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging
>> on Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just
>> know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a
>> sysop or a steward with no power.
>>
>> It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated
>> exactly, but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot
>> about this policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no
>> matter how time-consuming it's getting.
>>
>> A.M.
>>
>> Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni <
>> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully
>> with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people
>> from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
>>
>> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but
>> during the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
>>
>> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this
>> several times, and they always say something like "we know that this
>> affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has
>> changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies
>> because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis".
>> I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
>>
>> --
>> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
>> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>> ‪“We're living in pieces,
>> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>>
>>
>> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Vi to]

Exactly, cgNAT is a pain. I think we should shorten global block, and turn
them into soft blocks for countries where carrier-grade NATs are in use.
Then, I don't expect to be hard to tell legit users apart from abusers.

Vito

Il giorno mer 20 apr 2022 alle ore 23:42 Mario Gómez 
ha scritto:

> Hello Florence,
>
> Thank you for bringing this up and collecting all this feedback.
>
> Here's the announcement of the new P2P proxy blocks on English Wikipedia,
> it includes information about the origin of the blocks for this particular
> proxy service:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335#Recent_proxy_blocks
>
> These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish
> Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking
> system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of
> affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some
> countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink
> how/when we apply the blocks.
>
> This is not meant to be a definitive answer, but I hope the additional
> context is useful.
>
> Best,
>
> Mario
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:21 PM Florence Devouard 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello friends
>>
>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
>> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
>> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
>> *
>>
>>
>> Long version :
>>
>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
>> the past couple of weeks/months.
>>
>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
>> policy [1]
>> In particular africans.
>>
>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
>> all other Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>>
>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
>> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
>> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
>> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>>
>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
>> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>>
>>
>> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until
>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open
>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using
>> an open proxy
>>
>>
>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is.
>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>>
>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
>> New editors just as old timers.
>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
>> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>>
>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
>> regular occurence.
>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
>> Several complaints per week.
>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
>> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
>> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>>
>>
>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
>> blocked, it is recommended
>>
>>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting 
>> and
>>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>>
>>
>> So...
>> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
>> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
>> IP block exemption list.
>> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
>> look at 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Mario Gómez]

Hello Florence,

Thank you for bringing this up and collecting all this feedback.

Here's the announcement of the new P2P proxy blocks on English Wikipedia,
it includes information about the origin of the blocks for this particular
proxy service:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335#Recent_proxy_blocks

These blocks from English Wikipedia are now also imported to Spanish
Wikipedia, as well as global blocks (the ones by Tks4Fish). The blocking
system has received some tuning over time to decrease the number of
affected users, but it's clear that it's not enough, in particular for some
countries like Ghana or Benin. So we need further tuning, or rethink
how/when we apply the blocks.

This is not meant to be a definitive answer, but I hope the additional
context is useful.

Best,

Mario


On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:21 PM Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>
>
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
> blocked, it is recommended
>
>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and
>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>
>
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
> IP block exemption list.
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a
> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
>
> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay
> blocked several days.
>
> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But
> it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
>
> We 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Collection / Special:Book usage

[Amir Sarabadani]

Here is a regular reminder that:
 - You can't throw money at a problem and expect it to be solved
automatically.
 - $100M is a lot of money but 1- Not all of it goes to personnel,
especially engineering personnel. 2- It's not that much money compared to
the rest of technology companies and their personnel expenditure especially
the ones with similar scale.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:14 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> We may differ in what was first: abandoning it or closing it, but the
> process is available at phabricator.
>
> Here it wais said FOUR! years ago that the service would be closed and
> done by PediaPress (what didn't happen):
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T184772#4116906
>
> Here, we have a more detailed post saying that the functionality would be
> back: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T184772#4119731
>
> The last details were provided 3 years ago, when it was said that the
> PediaPress "solution" didn't happen:
> https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Uxkv0ib36m3i8vol
>
> We migh also have a different view on priorities, but a Foundation with
> 100 million dollars in a vault can pay for someone to solve this issue, no
> doubts. The problem is again that we have a vehicle, but no maintenance and
> no one driving it down the slope.
>
> By the way: the Proton PDF render is also failing if the article has a
> gallery. But no one cares about it. It used to work, it was broken, and no
> one was responsible for the fail.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Galder
>
>
> 2022(e)ko api. 20(a) 17:02 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Gergő Tisza <
> gti...@gmail.com>):
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:04 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is not that it was "Just one of the things that died out
> because no-one could be bothered to maintain it", it is worse: it was
> broken on purpose, and not recovered, because the WMF decided that no one
> cares about it.
>
>
> That is patently untrue. The book renderer (OCG) was, due to the lack
> of maintenance, increasingly causing problems for the operators of
> Wikimedia production services, and the approach it was based on (converting
> wikitext to LaTeX) resulted in an endless stream of discrepancies in the
> PDF output. It was replaced with another PDF rendering service that used a
> headless browser - an approach that resulted in much more faithful
> rendering (basically it outsourced the cost of maintaining a good PDF
> generator to browser vendors) but didn't scale well and wouldn't have been
> able to handle large collections of articles.
>
> I'm not fond of that decision but it obviously wasn't about disabling
> something that worked before, just for fun. The Foundation had to choose
> between risking platform stability, a significant time investment to
> modernize the service (at the detriment of other projects that time could
> be invested into), and shutting down a feature that saw relatively little
> use, and chose the third.
>
> FWIW there was a volunteer-maintained service doing LaTeX-based
> multi-article book generation which might still be functional:
> https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OWNWQB7JYYNJZ2NAGWLPDJ4BKTNXZMGY/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UKEXFMEN34OOZYNVLFGPZZ6RYGWGMBSL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Vi to]

FYI, I've moved this page to the "talk" namespace.
Anyway, I've notice this specific kind of proxy block has too many
collaterals, so I planned to rise the issue with fellow stewards next
weekend. Those blocks will probably end up being handled differently.

Vito

Il giorno mer 20 apr 2022 alle ore 20:21 Florence Devouard <
fdevou...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>
>
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
> blocked, it is recommended
>
>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and
>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>
>
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
> IP block exemption list.
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a
> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
>
> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay
> blocked several days.
>
> We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. But
> it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.
>
> We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4].
> Please note that people who added their names here are not random newbies.
> They are known and respected members of our community, often leaders of
> activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are confronted to
> this situation on a REGULAR basis.
>
> I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy
> blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and quicker
> IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Collection / Special:Book usage

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

We may differ in what was first: abandoning it or closing it, but the process is available at phabricator.Here it wais said FOUR! years ago that the service would be closed and done by PediaPress (what didn't happen): https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T184772#4116906Here, we have a more detailed post saying that the functionality would be back: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T184772#4119731The last details were provided 3 years ago, when it was said that the PediaPress "solution" didn't happen: https://m.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Uxkv0ib36m3i8volWe migh also have a different view on priorities, but a Foundation with 100 million dollars in a vault can pay for someone to solve this issue, no doubts. The problem is again that we have a vehicle, but no maintenance and no one driving it down the slope.By the way: the Proton PDF render is also failing if the article has a gallery. But no one cares about it. It used to work, it was broken, and no one was responsible for the fail.SincerelyGalder2022(e)ko api. 20(a) 17:02 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (Gergő Tisza ):On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:04 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  wrote:The problem is not that it was "Just one of the things that died out because no-one could be bothered to maintain it", it is worse: it was broken on purpose, and not recovered, because the WMF decided that no one cares about it.That is patently untrue. The book renderer (OCG) was, due to the lack of maintenance, increasingly causing problems for the operators of Wikimedia production services, and the approach it was based on (converting wikitext to LaTeX) resulted in an endless stream of discrepancies in the PDF output. It was replaced with another PDF rendering service that used a headless browser - an approach that resulted in much more faithful rendering (basically it outsourced the cost of maintaining a good PDF generator to browser vendors) but didn't scale well and wouldn't have been able to handle large collections of articles.I'm not fond of that decision but it obviously wasn't about disabling something that worked before, just for fun. The Foundation had to choose between risking platform stability, a significant time investment to modernize the service (at the detriment of other projects that time could be invested into), and shutting down a feature that saw relatively little use, and chose the third.FWIW there was a volunteer-maintained service doing LaTeX-based multi-article book generation which might still be functional: https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OWNWQB7JYYNJZ2NAGWLPDJ4BKTNXZMGY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Also relevant: 
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences

We would do well to remember that it was the incredibly low barrier to entry 
that was the key to Wikipedia's early success. 

I expect that even IF there's some legitimate (perhaps not unreasonably 
difficult, even!) way around the block, it will still discourage editing to a 
significant, but hard to measure, degree. 



On Apr 20, 2022, at 3:59 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

> Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted 
> in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat popular/default 
> once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for example - and half 
> the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and just give up the edit. 
> 
> Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the page 
> (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to 
> unnecessary frustration.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bence
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
>  wrote:
> Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa. 
> 
> I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on 
> Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know 
> me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop 
> or a steward with no power. 
> 
> It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, 
> but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this 
> policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how 
> time-consuming it's getting.
> 
> A.M.
> 
> Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni 
>  ha scritto: 
> 
> 
> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with 
> the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from 
> Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
> 
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during 
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
> 
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several 
> times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain 
> countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the 
> mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would 
> immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean 
> well, but this is not sustainable.
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 
> בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard ‏ < 
> fdevou...@gmail.com ‏>:
> Hello friends
> 
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> 
> 
> Long version : 
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the 
> past couple of weeks/months. 
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies 
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all 
> other Wikimedia projects. 
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies 
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While 
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may 
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies 
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the 
> IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the 
> open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way 
> of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local 
> projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
> 
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those 
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy 
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an open 
> proxy
> 
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do 
> not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
> 
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked 
> due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. 
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. 
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Steven Walling]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:04 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> I've always thought this justification fraught with bias.
>
> Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem.
> And it's true!
>
> But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible.
>

This 100%

Do we need to start an RFC on Meta to change the proxy policy globally?


>
>
> On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully
> with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people
> from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
>
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
>
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this
> several times, and they always say something like "we know that this
> affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has
> changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies
> because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis".
> I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת ‪Florence Devouard‬‏ <‪
> fdevou...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hello friends
>>
>> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
>> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
>> *
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
>> *
>>
>>
>> Long version :
>>
>> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
>> the past couple of weeks/months.
>>
>> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
>> policy [1]
>> In particular africans.
>>
>> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
>> all other Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
>> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
>> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
>> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>>
>> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
>> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
>> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
>> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>>
>> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
>> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
>> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>>
>>
>> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until
>> those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open
>> proxy with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using
>> an open proxy
>>
>>
>> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is.
>> They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>>
>> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
>> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
>> New editors just as old timers.
>> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
>> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
>> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
>> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>>
>> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
>> regular occurence.
>> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
>> Several complaints per week.
>> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
>> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
>> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
>> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
>> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>>
>>
>> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
>> blocked, it is recommended
>>
>>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)] 
>>wikimedia.org.
>>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Benjamin Ikuta]

I've always thought this justification fraught with bias. 

Vandalism is highly visible: you can point to it and say it's a problem. And 
it's true! 

But the *lack* of contributions is of course, by nature, invisible. 



On Apr 20, 2022, at 2:33 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni"  
wrote:

> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with 
> the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from 
> Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
> 
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during 
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
> 
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several 
> times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain 
> countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the 
> mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would 
> immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean 
> well, but this is not sustainable.
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> “We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 
> בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת Florence Devouard ‏ < 
> fdevou...@gmail.com ‏>:
> Hello friends
> 
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> 
> 
> Long version : 
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the 
> past couple of weeks/months. 
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open   Proxies 
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all 
> other Wikimedia projects. 
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies 
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While 
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may 
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies 
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the 
> IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the 
> open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way 
> of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local 
> projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
> 
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those 
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy 
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an open 
> proxy
> 
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do 
> not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
> 
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked 
> due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. 
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. 
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members   or 
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. 
> 
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular 
> occurence. 
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per   week. 
> Several complaints per week. 
> This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting 
> activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our 
> donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical 
> region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, 
> inclusion blahblahblah). 
> 
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly 
> blocked, it is recommended
> * to privately email stewardswikimedia.org.
> * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor doesn't 
> mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire privacy 
> (for Tor usage)).
> * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest contacting 
> User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is probably 
> the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
> 
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or not 
> quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to IP 
> block exemption list. 
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to look 
> at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a new 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next Conversation with the Trustees 21 April

[Elena Lappen]

Hi everyone,

Our next Conversation with the Trustees is tomorrow/today depending on your 
timezone ! Come chat with the 
Trustees about the 2022 Board Elections, the next steps for the Universal Code 
of Conduct, and the Foundation’s Annual Plan. 

Thanks to everyone who has already registered and to everyone planning to tune 
in on YouTube. You can still register by emailing ask...@wikimedia.org. More 
information on Meta 
.

See you there,
Elena

--
Elena Lappen (she/her)
Senior Movement Communications Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation 



> On Apr 14, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Elena Lappen  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> We’re one week away! The agenda for this Conversation will be:
> 
> 2022 Board Elections: new elections process, changes to plans to expand the 
> Board
> Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines: next steps
> The Foundation’s Annual Plan: we’ll host a live discussion where you can help 
> shape the Plan
> 
> Register, submit questions, or request interpretation by emailing 
> ask...@wikimedia.org . More information on Meta 
> .
> 
> See you there,
> Elena
> 
> --
> Elena Lappen (she/her)
> Senior Movement Communications Specialist
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2022, at 6:54 AM, Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 
>> mailto:rstephen...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> I’m writing as Acting Chair of the Community Affairs Committee to invite you 
>> to our next Conversation with the Trustees, which will take place on 21 
>> April at 10:00 UTC . This is a 
>> chance for you to speak directly with members of the Wikimedia Foundation 
>> Board of Trustees about our work guiding the Wikimedia Foundation’s 
>> activities.
>> 
>> We welcome you to join us on Zoom. Request the Zoom link by emailing 
>> ask...@wikimedia.org , or stream live on 
>> YouTube  instead. You can also email 
>> ask...@wikimedia.org  to submit questions ahead 
>> of time or request language interpretation for the call. 
>> 
>> Agenda items include the Foundation’s Annual Plan and how the community can 
>> participate in shaping it. More agenda items will be added on the event Meta 
>> page 
>> 
>>  closer to the date.
>> 
>> Hope to see you there!
>> 
>> Rosie
>> 
>> 
>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (she/her)
>> Acting Chair, Community Affairs Committee
>> Board of Trustees, Wikimedia Foundation  
>> 
>>  
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> , guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 
>>  and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 
>> 
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2UQWYQZJXZUXXWAJPRLH7XHZB442F5GO/
>>  
>> 
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RX7VJFPGY7CLHJ2RB6FJHSZCSBCHYHX6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Bence Damokos]

Beyond the mentioned countries, this is also affecting those who have opted
in to Apple’s Private Relay, which I expect will be somewhat
popular/default once out of beta status. I myself am unable to edit for
example - and half the time I am not bothered to workaround the issue and
just give up the edit.

Also, annoyingly, the block message only shows up when I try to save the
page (at least on mobile), not when I start the edit, again, leading to
unnecessary frustration.

Best regards,
Bence
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 20:42, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa.
>
> I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on
> Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just
> know me or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a
> sysop or a steward with no power.
>
> It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly,
> but you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this
> policy and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how
> time-consuming it's getting.
>
> A.M.
>
> Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> ha scritto:
>
>
> I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully
> with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people
> from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.
>
> The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during
> the last year it has become unbearably frequent.
>
> A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this
> several times, and they always say something like "we know that this
> affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has
> changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies
> because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis".
> I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת ‪Florence Devouard‬‏ <‪
> fdevou...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 Yes, it's getting frequent and not only from people in Africa. 

I ended up to trouble-shoot these problems by mails or direct messaging on 
Facebook more and and more frequently, maybe with simple users who just know me 
or have my contact. Sometimes it looks like sharing the duties of a sysop or a 
steward with no power. 

It's getting less and less clear how pros and cons are calculated exactly, but 
you just get the feeling that some users really care a lot about this policy 
and you just have to deal with the consequences, no matter how time-consuming 
it's getting.

A.M.

Il mercoledì 20 aprile 2022, 20:34:36 CEST, Amir E. Aharoni 
 ha scritto:  
 
 I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully with 
the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people from 
Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.

The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during the 
last year it has become unbearably frequent.
A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this several 
times, and they always say something like "we know that this affects certain 
countries badly, and we know that the technology has changed since the 
mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies because it would 
immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis". I'm sure they mean 
well, but this is not sustainable.
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת ‪Florence Devouard‬‏ 
<‪fdevou...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

  
Hello friends
 
Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
 

 
 
Long version : 
 
 
I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in the 
past couple of weeks/months. 
 
 
Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies policy 
[1]
 In particular africans.
 
 
In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and all 
other Wikimedia projects. 
 
According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies (including 
paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While this may affect 
legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies 
until those are blocked [...]
 
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies 
should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely the 
IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or the 
open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
 
According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of 
an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on local projects 
by administrators and globally by stewards. »
 

 
 
I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those are 
blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy with the 
IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an open proxy
 
 

 Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They do 
not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
 
 
 
In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being blocked 
due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing. 
 New editors just as old timers.
 Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives. 
 At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or trainees, 
during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc. 
 
 
 
It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a regular 
occurence. 
 There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. Several 
complaints per week. 
 This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is disrupting 
activities organized in good faith by good people, activities set-up with our 
donors funds. And the disruption is primarlly taking place in a geographical 
region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, 
inclusion blahblahblah). 
 
 

 
 
The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly blocked, 
it is recommended

   - * to privately email stewardswikimedia.org.
   - * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the editor 
doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to desire 
privacy (for Tor usage)).
   - * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest 
contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and is 
probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log   
 
 

 
 
So...
 Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I absolutely concur with Flo.
Though I've not followed the recent developments Flo tells about, in the
last years this problem has been getting increasingly worse. And despite
dozens of alerts in many public channels, including personally to stewards,
nothing seems to have been done to fix this. If at all, the proxy blocking
policy (at least empirically) seems to have become even more aggressive
than it used to be.

What are we gaining with all the harassment this policy is causing in many
communities, most of them allegedly a priority for the Wikimedia projects?
Clearly something is broken with that policy, and clearly needs to be
fixed. I've no idea how, as Meta is the most opaque project I know in the
Wikiverse, and by far the most difficult to understand. But this situation
has passed all limits, and needs to be dealt with. With an RFC to put an
end or to fix that policy or whatever other means are available.

Best,
Paulo



Florence Devouard  escreveu no dia quarta, 20/04/2022
à(s) 19:21:

> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>
>
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
> blocked, it is recommended
>
>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and
>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>
>
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
> IP block exemption list.
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a
> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
>
> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay
> blocked several days.
>
> We do not know know why 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Sage Ross]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:21 AM Florence Devouard  wrote:
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being 
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
>

This matches up with my observations as well. Over the last couple of
years, it has been increasingly common for new editors to be affected
by range blocks without any understanding of why. We see this
frequently with Wiki Education's student editors, and in most cases,
the editors are not knowingly using a VPN or other non-standard way of
connecting to the internet. In some cases, institutions are now using
VPNs at the network level by default. In other cases, patterns of how
people connect are just shifting so that they are more often assigned
temporary IP addresses that are covered by range blocks.

These kinds of blocks also prevent account creation, which Wiki
Education can easily work around by creating accounts on these user's
behalf (and event organizers using Programs & Events Dashboard
similarly have tools to work around this). But there are certainly
many, many more good faith would-be contributors who are stopped
before they can create an account, and they have no user-friendly
recourse to understand why they are affected by a block or how to work
around it.

My sense is that this is an important problem that merits attention at
the global level.

-Sage
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/55Z32IZM3S64ZHOFULEYD7GZLNGGANG2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I don't have a solution, but I just wanted to confirm that I agree fully
with the description of the problem. I hear that this happens to people
from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and some other countries almost every day.

The first time I heard about it was actually around 2018 or so, but during
the last year it has become unbearably frequent.

A smarter solution is needed. I tried talking to stewards about this
several times, and they always say something like "we know that this
affects certain countries badly, and we know that the technology has
changed since the mid-2000s, but we absolutely cannot allow open proxies
because it would immediately unleash horrible vandalism on all the wikis".
I'm sure they mean well, but this is not sustainable.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬


‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באפר׳ 2022 ב-21:21 מאת ‪Florence Devouard‬‏ <‪
fdevou...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬

> Hello friends
>
> Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans being
> globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.
> *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking
> *
>
>
> Long version :
>
> I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in
> the past couple of weeks/months.
>
> Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies
> policy [1]
> In particular africans.
>
> In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta and
> all other Wikimedia projects.
>
> According to the no open proxies policy : Publicly available proxies
> (including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. While
> this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may
> freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]
>
> Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies
> should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it is likely
> the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically reassigned, or
> the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should be unblocked.
>
> According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by
> way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on
> local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »
>
>
> I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until those
> are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an open proxy
> with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to edit using an
> open proxy
>
>
> Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. They
> do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.
>
> In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being
> blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.
> New editors just as old timers.
> Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups,
> organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
> At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or
> trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.
>
> It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a
> regular occurence.
> There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week.
> Several complaints per week.
> *This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is
> disrupting activities organized in good faith by good people, activities
> set-up with our donors funds. **And the disruption** is primarlly taking
> place in a geographical region supposingly to be nurtured (per our strategy
> for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *
>
>
> The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly
> blocked, it is recommended
>
>- * to privately email stewards[image: (_AT_)]wikimedia.org.
>- * or alternatively, to post a request (if able to edit, if the
>editor doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
>desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
>- * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
>contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism fighting and
>is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the most. See log
>
>
> So...
> Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or
> not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people to
> IP block exemption list.
> Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to
> look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about how a
> new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated
> Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...
>
> As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... stay
> blocked several days.
>
> We do not know know why the situation has 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[H4CUSEG via Wikimedia-l]

Stella, how are the community members who review situations supposed to 
establish the mens rea of the accused? Intent is one of the hardest things to 
prove in criminal cases, and we're going to rely on volunteers to get it right? 
We should not look at intent at all, consider only the actual harm that 
occurred and focus on remediation, harm reduction and rehabilitation in stead 
of punishing people.

Vexations

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.

--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Stella Ng  wrote:

> Hello Andreas and Todd,
>
> I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
>
> First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum set 
> of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior. However, it does not 
> make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in our 
> global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of private 
> information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is going on on 
> a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political dynamics (such as 
> the position of power or influence) that the individuals involved could have. 
> Depending on the specific context of your examples, interpretation and action 
> could differ widely under those doxxing policies.
>
> What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is the 
> UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is nested 
> under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if the 
> information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to intimidate, 
> outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be 
> considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added). The next sentence 
> expands further that “Behaviour can be considered harassment if it is beyond 
> what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a global, 
> intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The policy as written is pretty 
> clear that both intent and what is often called in law the “[reasonable 
> person](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reasonable_person#:~:text=Noun=(law)%20A%20fictional%20person%20used,due%20care%20in%20like%20circumstances.%22)”
>  test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines are 
> built around human review since application of policy will always require 
> judgment. The community members who review situations will hopefully read the 
> text in context within the policy and will also have experience in 
> understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics within their 
> respective communities, and their own project policies on doxxing as COI, as 
> they will have the experience of dealing with the day to day.
>
> However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the round 
> of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion of Phase 
> 2.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stella
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the 
>> mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
>>
>> I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially 
>> regarding both spammers and already-public information.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Todd Allen
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Rosie,
>>>
>>> Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the 
>>> Universal Code of Conduct:
>>>
>>> - Disclosure of personal data (Doxing): sharing other contributors' private 
>>> information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email address 
>>> without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or 
>>> elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity 
>>> outside the projects.
>>>
>>> As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer 
>>> state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be 
>>> working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
>>>
>>> The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia 
>>> activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter 
>>> that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already 
>>> be in breach of the code as written.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 Hello,

 The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of 
 Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently 
 concluded community vote on the[Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal 
 Code of Conduct 
 (UCoC)](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines).

 The volunteer 

[Wikimedia-l] Open proxies and IP blocking

[Florence Devouard]

Hello friends

Short version : We need to find solutions to avoid so many africans 
being globally IP blocked due to our No Open Proxies policy.

*https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*


Long version :

I'd like to raise attention on an issue, which has been getting worse in 
the past couple of weeks/months.


Increasing number of editors getting blocked due to the No Open Proxies 
policy [1]

In particular africans.

In February 2004, the decision was made to block open proxies on Meta 
and all other Wikimedia projects.


According to theno open proxiespolicy : Publicly available proxies 
(including paid proxies) may be blocked for any period at any time. 
While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended 
targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked [...]


Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent 
proxies should typically be blocked for a shorter period of time, as it 
is likely the IP address will eventually be transferred or dynamically 
reassigned, or the open proxy closed. Once closed, the IP address should 
be unblocked.


According to the policy page, « the Editors can be permitted to edit by 
way of an open proxy with the IP block exempt flag. This is granted on 
local projects by administrators and globally by stewards. »



I repeat -> ... legitimate users... may freely use proxies until 
those are blocked. the Editors can be permitted to edit by way of an 
open proxy with the IP block exempt flag <-- it is not illegal to 
edit using an open proxy



Most editors though... have no idea whatsoever what an open proxy is. 
They do not understand well what to do when they are blocked.


In the past few weeks, the number of African editors reporting being 
blocked due to open proxy has been VERY significantly increasing.

New editors just as old timers.
Unexperienced editors but also staff members, president of usergroups, 
organizers of edit-a-thons and various wikimedia initiatives.
At home, but also during events organized with usergroup members or 
trainees, during edit-a-thons, photo uploads sessions etc.


It is NOT the occasional highly unlikely situation. This has become a 
regular occurence.
There are cases and complains every week. Not one complaint per week. 
Several complaints per week.
*This is irritating. This is offending. This is stressful. This is 
disrupting activities organized in _good faith_ by _good people_, 
activities set-up with _our donors funds. _**And the disruption**is 
primarlly taking place in a geographical region supposingly to be 
nurtured (per our strategy for diversity, equity, inclusion blahblahblah). *



The open proxy policy page suggests that, should a person be unfairly 
blocked, it is recommended


 * * to privately email stewards(_AT_)wikimedia.org.
 * * or alternatively, to post arequest (if able to edit, if the editor
   doesn't mind sharing their IP for global blocks or their reasons to
   desire privacy (for Tor usage)).
 * * the current message displayed to the blocked editor also suggest
   contacting User:Tks4Fish. This editor is involved in vandalism
   fighting and is probably the user blocking open proxies IPs the
   most. See log


So...
Option 1: contacting stewards : it seems that they are not answering. Or 
not quickly. Or requesting lengthy justifications before adding people 
to IP block exemption list.
Option 2: posting a request for unblock on meta. For those who want to 
look at the process, I suggest looking at it [3] and think hard about 
how a new editor would feel. This is simply incredibly complicated

Option 3 : user:TksFish answers... sometimes...

As a consequence, most editors concerned with those global blocks... 
stay blocked several days.


We do not know know why the situation has rapidly got worse recently. 
But it got worse. And the reports are spilling all over.


We started collecting negative experiences on this page [4].
Please note that people who added their names here are not random 
newbies. They are known and respected members of our community, often 
leaders of activities and/or representant of their usergroups, who are 
confronted to this situation on a REGULAR basis.


I do not know how this can be fixed. Should we slow down open proxy 
blocking ? Should we add a mecanism and process for an easier and 
quicker IP block exemption process post-blocking ? Should we improve a 
process for our editors to pre-emptively be added to this IP block 
exemption list ? Or what ? I do not know what's the strategy to fix 
that. But there is a problem. Who should that problem be addressed to ? 
Who has solutions ?


Flo


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Tks4Fish

[3] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption


*[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking*

[Wikimedia-l] Join Earth Day Editing Workshop

[Ruby Damenshie-Brown]

Dear Wikimedians,

On Friday 22nd April, we join millions of people across the world to
celebrate Earthday. 

As part of the #WikiforHumanRights
campaign, we will be
hosting an editing workshop to equip participants with Wikipedia editing
skills.

This workshop is also a good opportunity for newcomers. Feel free to share
the invitation with community members in your region.

*Join our Earthday workshop on Friday, April 22nd at 12:00 UTC*
*Register to join the zoom meeting- https://wikimedia.zoom.us/j/87329258230

*

See you!
Ruby
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LBPRNZTSIZEWJXMPGJLYJ2BPWIRJCS6F/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Collection / Special:Book usage

[Gergő Tisza]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:04 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is not that it was "Just one of the things that died out
> because no-one could be bothered to maintain it", it is worse: it was
> broken on purpose, and not recovered, because the WMF decided that no one
> cares about it.
>

That is patently untrue. The book renderer (OCG) was, due to the lack
of maintenance, increasingly causing problems for the operators of
Wikimedia production services, and the approach it was based on (converting
wikitext to LaTeX) resulted in an endless stream of discrepancies in the
PDF output. It was replaced with another PDF rendering service that used a
headless browser - an approach that resulted in much more faithful
rendering (basically it outsourced the cost of maintaining a good PDF
generator to browser vendors) but didn't scale well and wouldn't have been
able to handle large collections of articles.

I'm not fond of that decision but it obviously wasn't about disabling
something that worked before, just for fun. The Foundation had to choose
between risking platform stability, a significant time investment to
modernize the service (at the detriment of other projects that time could
be invested into), and shutting down a feature that saw relatively little
use, and chose the third.

FWIW there was a volunteer-maintained service doing LaTeX-based
multi-article book generation which might still be functional:
https://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/EFM7UJPGMPJ4Z6GWGMJUJHM5NYQZP62T/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

[The Cunctator]

Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much
sense.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 PM Stella Ng  wrote:

> Hello Andreas and Todd,
>
> I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this.
>
> First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum
> set of guidelines for expected and unacceptable behavior.  However, it does
> not make existing community policies irrelevant. Currently, communities in
> our global movement may have different policies around the disclosure of
> private information (“doxxing”), specifically taking into context what is
> going on on a day-to-day basis, as well as relationship and political
> dynamics (such as the position of power or influence) that the individuals
> involved could have. Depending on the specific context of your examples,
> interpretation and action could differ widely under those doxxing
> policies.
>
> What would be contextually consistent across the communities, however, is
> the UCoC. If we look specifically at section 3.1, which is what doxxing is
> nested under, what is important to note is context - specifically that if
> the information is provided or the behavior is “intended primarily to
> intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would
> reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome” (emphasis added).
> The next sentence expands further that “Behaviour can be considered
> harassment if it is beyond what a reasonable person would be expected to
> tolerate in a global, intercultural environment.” (emphasis added) The
> policy as written is pretty clear that both intent and what is often called
> in law the “reasonable person
> ”
> test applies. This is one of the reasons that the Enforcement Guidelines
> are built around human review since application of policy will always
> require judgment. The community members who review situations will
> hopefully read the text in context within the policy and will also have
> experience in understanding the parties involved, their unique dynamics
> within their respective communities, and their own project policies on
> doxxing as COI, as they will have the experience of dealing with the day to
> day.
>
> However, it is likely the standards could be clarified further in the
> round of Policy review that will be conducted a year after the completion
> of Phase 2.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stella
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 11:02 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Actually, you're technically even breaching it saying it here, since the
>> mailing list is "outside the Wikimedia projects".
>>
>> I would agree that this needs substantial clarification, especially
>> regarding both spammers and already-public information.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Todd Allen
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:02 PM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Rosie,
>>>
>>> Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
>>> Universal Code of Conduct:
>>>
>>>
>>>- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other
>>>contributors' private information, such as name, place of employment,
>>>physical or email address without their explicit consent either on the
>>>Wikimedia projects or elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their
>>>Wikimedia activity outside the projects.
>>>
>>>
>>> As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
>>> state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
>>> working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.
>>>
>>> The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors'
>>> Wikimedia activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on
>>> Twitter that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would
>>> already be in breach of the code as written.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_staffer_edits
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:09 PM Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight <
>>> rstephen...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Hello,

 The Community Affairs Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
 Trustees would like to thank everyone who participated in the recently
 concluded community vote on the Enforcement Guidelines for the
 Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC)
 
 .

 The volunteer scrutinizing group has completed the review of the
 accuracy of the vote and has reported the total number of votes received as
 2,283. Out of the 2,283 votes received, 1,338 (58.6%) community members
 voted for the enforcement guidelines, and a total of 945 (41.4%) community
 members voted against it. In addition, 658 participants left comments, with
 77% of the comments written in English.

[Wikimedia-l] Arabic Wikimedians User Group annual report 2021

[Mohammed Bachounda]

[[ENGLISH]]
Dear all,

Here is the annual report of the Arabic Wikimedians User Group In English

Kind regards,

Bachounda 

[[عربي]]

أعزائي،

إليكم التقرير السنوي لمجموعة مستخدمي ويكي ميديون العرب باللغة الإنجليزية،
الترجمة بالعربي ستكون متاحة قريبا

أطيب التحيات،

بشوندة
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2021_AWUG_Annual_report
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DWRDQGAFH2VPBLP6LWJNIX22PKB3V43V/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org