Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people.
There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals.
However, the general observation is that the current system to report an unfair block to stewards and get unblocked by them is largely broken. 1) process is not simple to understand by the user 2) complicated to implement on the steward side (requires back and forth discussion, checking legitimacy of request, copy pasting information etc.) 3) the steward pool of volunteers is limited, whilst the stewards willing to do that job is even smaller (I heard the VRT queue is overflowing) 4) the process reveals IP private info All this creates a bottleneck.
There is one path we could explore, a feature to simplify the process of "adding legitimate users" to the Global IPblock exemptions list, in a process inspired from the Global renamers one. * new functionary role (eg Global IPblock exempters) : populated by stewards, or people appointed by steward * interface directly on wiki (bypass of VRT, bypass of copy pasting between tools) * a process which would NOT require revealing the IP address to the functionary (it is sufficient that the system recognise the person is blocked in relationship with an Open Proxy/TOR stuff) * a process which could provide info to the functionary to very quickly assess whether the person is a legitimate editor or not (every person fighting vandalism know how to do that... display last contribs... block log... number of edits... etc. or simply direct links to those info to simplify the functionary job) * a process allowing various "unblocking" options, day, weeks, indef listing, pretty much as the blocking feature permit, so as to grant indef listing to the super trustworthy individuals, and a time limited listing to those more questionnable * add a checkbox system where requesters can give pre-loaded reasons for their asking (edit-a-thons etc.), which will help make the system multilingual and language neutral for the functionary (in most cases, no need to discuss with the user) * add any feature necessary to limit the risk of vandals abusing the feature (forced loging before submitting the request, capcha stuff)
In short, simply make the "add to the Global IP block exemption list" process fluid with removal of the current bottle neck (stewards), which in turn will be able to focus on more important security issues.
Is there any reasons why this would technically and socially not work ?
Flo
Le 22/04/2022 à 13:25, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks. The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me. I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community. Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors. Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block. Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs. WSC _______________________________________________ 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/CDBOEBW2ZRYHWYBHAYEPOIWZ6YC2WLIK/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Den fre 22 apr. 2022 kl 14:43 skrev Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com:
I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people.
There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals.
We talk a lot about the process of unblocking, or IP block exceptions, which is relevant and I don't want to derail from it, but I think we need to remember that a lot of people will try to make one edit and if it doesn't work – because they're blocked for reasons they can't understand – they will never come back again. They are not invested in the wiki they tried to edit, they are not going to wait or spend time and effort fixing the issue. If we block a significant amount of internet users in a specific area, some languages will have real obstacles to attracting new editors.
//Johan Jönsson --
All of these suggestions sound good.
Reducing the current intimidating wall of text should be very high on the priority list.
Another thing I'd suggest experimenting with is reducing the use of preemptive IP blocks, simply because an IP was identified as a potentially problematic proxy, and blocking them only if they actually vandalize.
בתאריך יום ו׳, 22 באפר׳ 2022, 15:44, מאת Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com>:
I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people.
There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals.
However, the general observation is that the current system to report an unfair block to stewards and get unblocked by them is largely broken.
- process is not simple to understand by the user
- complicated to implement on the steward side (requires back and forth
discussion, checking legitimacy of request, copy pasting information etc.) 3) the steward pool of volunteers is limited, whilst the stewards willing to do that job is even smaller (I heard the VRT queue is overflowing) 4) the process reveals IP private info All this creates a bottleneck.
There is one path we could explore, a feature to simplify the process of "adding legitimate users" to the Global IPblock exemptions list, in a process inspired from the Global renamers one.
- new functionary role (eg Global IPblock exempters) : populated by
stewards, or people appointed by steward
- interface directly on wiki (bypass of VRT, bypass of copy pasting
between tools)
- a process which would NOT require revealing the IP address to the
functionary (it is sufficient that the system recognise the person is blocked in relationship with an Open Proxy/TOR stuff)
- a process which could provide info to the functionary to very quickly
assess whether the person is a legitimate editor or not (every person fighting vandalism know how to do that... display last contribs... block log... number of edits... etc. or simply direct links to those info to simplify the functionary job)
- a process allowing various "unblocking" options, day, weeks, indef
listing, pretty much as the blocking feature permit, so as to grant indef listing to the super trustworthy individuals, and a time limited listing to those more questionnable
- add a checkbox system where requesters can give pre-loaded reasons for
their asking (edit-a-thons etc.), which will help make the system multilingual and language neutral for the functionary (in most cases, no need to discuss with the user)
- add any feature necessary to limit the risk of vandals abusing the
feature (forced loging before submitting the request, capcha stuff)
In short, simply make the "add to the Global IP block exemption list" process fluid with removal of the current bottle neck (stewards), which in turn will be able to focus on more important security issues.
Is there any reasons why this would technically and socially not work ?
Flo
Le 22/04/2022 à 13:25, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ 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/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/N6OKHEJ6OJNKB6ULB6ELASY23D7GFF55/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Flo.
Viewing the IP address involved is necessary. There's a reason why Stewards and CheckUsers are generally the ones involved in handling IPBE requests. There's differences between people trying to use open proxies to edit through the Great Firewall of China, people caught in IPv4 blocks from CGNAT-using ISPs, people whose residential ranges are blocked as p2p proxies, and people who just want to edit with a proxy. Often there are rangeblocks with specific circumstances behind it, such as usage by LTAs or being a specific type of proxy. Knowing this background is necessary.
It would be incredibly helpful if there was a way to send in IPBE requests on-wiki and for Stewards to be able to respond to it on-wiki, confidentially. Where those affected can input the affected IP address and reason, and Stewards can answer the queue there quickly and easily. We can handle the quantity of requests if the process is workable.
I'm also wondering who the people discussed with privately are. Your suggestion here is one of the most feasible I've seen, and as far as I can tell there are very few people asking Stewards directly for input on this. I've seen a lot of comments which are misinformed about what is happening, why, and what is a feasible fix.
My message on the Meta-Wiki page outlines my views on this. Optimally, the WMF would discuss with Stewards ways to create a better system for this, and implement it. New problems, old tech.
Best regards, Rae
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ User:Vermont https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:43 AM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people.
There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals.
However, the general observation is that the current system to report an unfair block to stewards and get unblocked by them is largely broken.
- process is not simple to understand by the user
- complicated to implement on the steward side (requires back and forth
discussion, checking legitimacy of request, copy pasting information etc.) 3) the steward pool of volunteers is limited, whilst the stewards willing to do that job is even smaller (I heard the VRT queue is overflowing) 4) the process reveals IP private info All this creates a bottleneck.
There is one path we could explore, a feature to simplify the process of "adding legitimate users" to the Global IPblock exemptions list, in a process inspired from the Global renamers one.
- new functionary role (eg Global IPblock exempters) : populated by
stewards, or people appointed by steward
- interface directly on wiki (bypass of VRT, bypass of copy pasting
between tools)
- a process which would NOT require revealing the IP address to the
functionary (it is sufficient that the system recognise the person is blocked in relationship with an Open Proxy/TOR stuff)
- a process which could provide info to the functionary to very quickly
assess whether the person is a legitimate editor or not (every person fighting vandalism know how to do that... display last contribs... block log... number of edits... etc. or simply direct links to those info to simplify the functionary job)
- a process allowing various "unblocking" options, day, weeks, indef
listing, pretty much as the blocking feature permit, so as to grant indef listing to the super trustworthy individuals, and a time limited listing to those more questionnable
- add a checkbox system where requesters can give pre-loaded reasons for
their asking (edit-a-thons etc.), which will help make the system multilingual and language neutral for the functionary (in most cases, no need to discuss with the user)
- add any feature necessary to limit the risk of vandals abusing the
feature (forced loging before submitting the request, capcha stuff)
In short, simply make the "add to the Global IP block exemption list" process fluid with removal of the current bottle neck (stewards), which in turn will be able to focus on more important security issues.
Is there any reasons why this would technically and socially not work ?
Flo
Le 22/04/2022 à 13:25, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ 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/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/N6OKHEJ6OJNKB6ULB6ELASY23D7GFF55/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello
Ok, so viewing the IP is necessary. I added the barebone proposition on the meta page for futher refining. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_open_proxies/Unfair_blocking#On-wiki... If anyone can edit the description to make it clearer, it would be great
Since you indicated seeing the IP is necessary, I have been wondering on steward pool
1) how do you truely evaluate/know of each steward activity or lack there of (steward activity). Probably easy to see the fully inactive ones (might not be wiki active anymore), or the super active ones. But for all those in-between.... how do you know the level of activity of the 40 or so ? I have looked at the past situation and see there are only 1-2 people removed for inactivity for most of the past few years. It seems a bit surprising to me.
2) Number of stewards has been more or less stable since 2009... the highest seem to have been 36. The lowest was 29 stewards in 2011. I am not sure how much the job has evolved since inception given the many roles added over time. But has the job been easier or more complicated since 2009 ? Is the current number of steward sufficient ?
3) I see the number of candidates has been fairly limited over the year. With a third to half of candidates rejected. 7 candidates in 2018 (2 no), 14 candidates in 2019 (7 no), 10 candidates in 2021 (5 no), 7 candidates in 2022 (2 no). Is this figure considered satisfactory to you, or would you be hoping for more good candidates ? Has the recruitement process been rather passive (simply posting an announcement to call for new candidates) or rather active (actively approaching potential candidates).
Flo
Le 22/04/2022 à 15:20, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
Hi Flo.
Viewing the IP address involved is necessary. There's a reason why Stewards and CheckUsers are generally the ones involved in handling IPBE requests. There's differences between people trying to use open proxies to edit through the Great Firewall of China, people caught in IPv4 blocks from CGNAT-using ISPs, people whose residential ranges are blocked as p2p proxies, and people who just want to edit with a proxy. Often there are rangeblocks with specific circumstances behind it, such as usage by LTAs or being a specific type of proxy. Knowing this background is necessary.
It would be incredibly helpful if there was a way to send in IPBE requests on-wiki and for Stewards to be able to respond to it on-wiki, confidentially. Where those affected can input the affected IP address and reason, and Stewards can answer the queue there quickly and easily. We can handle the quantity of requests if the process is workable.
I'm also wondering who the people discussed with privately are. Your suggestion here is one of the most feasible I've seen, and as far as I can tell there are very few people asking Stewards directly for input on this. I've seen a lot of comments which are misinformed about what is happening, why, and what is a feasible fix.
My message on the Meta-Wiki page outlines my views on this. Optimally, the WMF would discuss with Stewards ways to create a better system for this, and implement it. New problems, old tech.
Best regards, Rae
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:43 AM Florence Devouard <fdevouard@gmail.com> wrote: I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people. There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals. However, the general observation is that the current system to report an unfair block to stewards and get unblocked by them is largely broken. 1) process is not simple to understand by the user 2) complicated to implement on the steward side (requires back and forth discussion, checking legitimacy of request, copy pasting information etc.) 3) the steward pool of volunteers is limited, whilst the stewards willing to do that job is even smaller (I heard the VRT queue is overflowing) 4) the process reveals IP private info All this creates a bottleneck. There is one path we could explore, a feature to simplify the process of "adding legitimate users" to the Global IPblock exemptions list, in a process inspired from the Global renamers one. * new functionary role (eg Global IPblock exempters) : populated by stewards, or people appointed by steward * interface directly on wiki (bypass of VRT, bypass of copy pasting between tools) * a process which would NOT require revealing the IP address to the functionary (it is sufficient that the system recognise the person is blocked in relationship with an Open Proxy/TOR stuff) * a process which could provide info to the functionary to very quickly assess whether the person is a legitimate editor or not (every person fighting vandalism know how to do that... display last contribs... block log... number of edits... etc. or simply direct links to those info to simplify the functionary job) * a process allowing various "unblocking" options, day, weeks, indef listing, pretty much as the blocking feature permit, so as to grant indef listing to the super trustworthy individuals, and a time limited listing to those more questionnable * add a checkbox system where requesters can give pre-loaded reasons for their asking (edit-a-thons etc.), which will help make the system multilingual and language neutral for the functionary (in most cases, no need to discuss with the user) * add any feature necessary to limit the risk of vandals abusing the feature (forced loging before submitting the request, capcha stuff) In short, simply make the "add to the Global IP block exemption list" process fluid with removal of the current bottle neck (stewards), which in turn will be able to focus on more important security issues. Is there any reasons why this would technically and socially not work ? Flo Le 22/04/2022 à 13:25, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit : > Hi all, > > About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though > the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs > are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t > traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be > unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly > managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism > from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done. > > “Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of > work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal > with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember > to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s > that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP. > > Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, > it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a > lot of requests. > > I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a > comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well. > > Best regards, > Rae > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers > <werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several > Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their > problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks. > > The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall > problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing > volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do > have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly > underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our > community and in our Projects. I don't know if other > languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me. > > I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals > would increase the workload of those who'd rather be > improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there > are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if > we want a more global community. > > Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we > lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those > countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs > in countries where we have lots of editors. > > Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range > bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage > where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, > O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the > block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type > of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a > smart block. > > Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more > liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries > where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number > of often blocked IPs. > > WSC > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/CDBOEBW2ZRYHWYBHAYEPOIWZ6YC2WLIK/ > To unsubscribe send an email to > wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org > > -- > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on > Wikimedia projects > they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter > <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ > To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@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/N6OKHEJ6OJNKB6ULB6ELASY23D7GFF55/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B7R5MIAHIDQRE2H54YMKTJHDG5MR4FZE/ To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I'm skeptical about solution #1 (we lack candidates rather than roles) and #3 (without actual data is not possible to find the best solution, yesterday alone I think I wrote 30 times through VRTS "hey, you forgot to turn this VPN off"). Instead, I wholeheartedly endorse improving blocking messages. I've tried to write down a stub of wizard at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vituzzu/wizard but I lack the time to do it). Also I'm quite skeptical about the technical support, for the issue. This proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Admins_and_pa... has been around since 2014, lack of global block for accounts is already a meme.
In short, stewards and global patrollers are left alone fighting against machines (it took ages to improve the NTSAMR spammers situation) and deeply dedicated trolls (Rgalo and his T-MO block is immensely expensive in terms of resources) almost by hand.
Vito
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2022 alle ore 14:43 Florence Devouard < fdevouard@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I have read all the comments and discussed privately with a few people.
There are some elements of answers that are purely in the hands of stewards, they have to discuss and find common grounds, in particular to implementing blocks, so that they limit damage on good people, whilst preserving the projects from vandals.
However, the general observation is that the current system to report an unfair block to stewards and get unblocked by them is largely broken.
- process is not simple to understand by the user
- complicated to implement on the steward side (requires back and forth
discussion, checking legitimacy of request, copy pasting information etc.) 3) the steward pool of volunteers is limited, whilst the stewards willing to do that job is even smaller (I heard the VRT queue is overflowing) 4) the process reveals IP private info All this creates a bottleneck.
There is one path we could explore, a feature to simplify the process of "adding legitimate users" to the Global IPblock exemptions list, in a process inspired from the Global renamers one.
- new functionary role (eg Global IPblock exempters) : populated by
stewards, or people appointed by steward
- interface directly on wiki (bypass of VRT, bypass of copy pasting
between tools)
- a process which would NOT require revealing the IP address to the
functionary (it is sufficient that the system recognise the person is blocked in relationship with an Open Proxy/TOR stuff)
- a process which could provide info to the functionary to very quickly
assess whether the person is a legitimate editor or not (every person fighting vandalism know how to do that... display last contribs... block log... number of edits... etc. or simply direct links to those info to simplify the functionary job)
- a process allowing various "unblocking" options, day, weeks, indef
listing, pretty much as the blocking feature permit, so as to grant indef listing to the super trustworthy individuals, and a time limited listing to those more questionnable
- add a checkbox system where requesters can give pre-loaded reasons for
their asking (edit-a-thons etc.), which will help make the system multilingual and language neutral for the functionary (in most cases, no need to discuss with the user)
- add any feature necessary to limit the risk of vandals abusing the
feature (forced loging before submitting the request, capcha stuff)
In short, simply make the "add to the Global IP block exemption list" process fluid with removal of the current bottle neck (stewards), which in turn will be able to focus on more important security issues.
Is there any reasons why this would technically and socially not work ?
Flo
Le 22/04/2022 à 13:25, Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l a écrit :
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ 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/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/N6OKHEJ6OJNKB6ULB6ELASY23D7GFF55/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thank you so much Rae. Reading some emails it seems that stewards spend their days trying blocking random people.
Vito
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2022 alle ore 13:32 Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
Hi all,
About unblocking IPs that geolocate to Africa, it’s not as though the blocked IPs are random. The problem with these affected ISPs are that they have many users on the same IP address. They aren’t traditional proxies (and traditional proxies will not be unblocked, that isn’t the issue here), they’re just poorly managed ISPs. I’m not even sure if there would be more vandalism from unblocking these ISPs, and I think it should be done.
“Smart blocking” would be a bad idea. It would take *a lot* of work to implement and would be a net harm to our ability to deal with abuse. I am strongly opposed to creating this. Also remember to a large extent the issue with these IPs isn’t a range, it’s that there’s multiple users on the *same* IP.
Regarding IPBE, the issue isn’t that we’re declining requests, it’s that we don’t get to them in a timely manner. There are a lot of requests.
I’ve tried to clear up a number of other misconceptions in a comment on the Meta-Wiki page as well.
Best regards, Rae
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 07:03 WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Yesterday I was on a conference call that included several Nigerian Wikipedians, I was surprised at how much of their problems editing Wikipedia were over blocks.
The English language Wikipedia doesn't have an overall problem with editing numbers, nearly eight years on, editing volumes are still clearly above the 2014 minima. But we do have huge geographic skews and in particular we badly underrepresent the English speaking parts of Africa in our community and in our Projects. I don't know if other languages have similar issues, but it would not surprise me.
I get that lowering our guard overall against IP vandals would increase the workload of those who'd rather be improving Wikipedia than clearing up after vandals. But there are a couple of things that could fairly easily be done if we want a more global community.
Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.
Secondly, implement "smart blocking", especially with range bocks. Yes there will still be lots of collateral damage where someone in the same range has the same sort of device/, O/S etc as the person who did the edit that prompted the block. But anyone in the same range who uses a different type of hardware operating system etc would not be caught by a smart block.
Thirdly, especially if we can't do the first two, be more liberal with IP block exemption for accounts in countries where we lack editors and have problems with a limited number of often blocked IPs.
WSC
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
User:Vermont <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vermont> on Wikimedia projects they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter <https://www.mypronouns.org/what-and-why>) _______________________________________________ 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/RQYWVQXJJ3EOSEXXDTZQQRFEOSESROA7/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
"*Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.*" -> That's not as simple as that, as the whole Wikipedia Zero Angola debacle has shown perfectly well - > at some point, the situation with piracy and vandalism coming from Angola W0 IPs was so bad that pretty much the whole country was hard blocked. I put a number of filters on place in order to monitor those editions on wiki.pt, and the result was that basically 100% of the editions coming through those IPs - and even accounts using them - were either vandalism, piracy or absolutely hopeless newbies who had not the least idea how to edit, without any means available to teach them - and without the least shred of interest from who was coordinating that W0 project in teaching the few goodwilling newbies the very basics of edition. This was clearly stated at the time by the WMF representative, it would have to be us, volunteers, who had somehow to find some way to teach users in Angola entering the projects from their cellphones (which is basically hell on earth even to old, seazoned, wikiwise rats like me and many others I know) without even access to talk pages or alerts or whatever how to edit Wikipedia. The obvious result was that shortly after that problem began, pretty much the whole country was blocked in a number of projects, including wiki.pt (not covering registered users) and Commons, and then, at some point, globally blocked on Meta. That was basically the end of the Angola community that had been forming before the W0 program started, since, if I recall correctly, the few users that existed were generally blocked at the time the global block was implemented, and asking for an IP block exception is very far from being an easy process, especially if you are using a cell phone, which was generally the case over there.
Anyway, IP blocks* per se *are not the problem here. It is perfectly possible to block anonymous access, as we do at wiki.pt, and allow (and encourage!) registration of new users, allowing for a much productive and much less frustrating Wikipedia experience - where newbies can find help in many ways, including at the new mentorship program, which works fairly well, and actually engage with the community in a productive manner from day 1. The problem are those global blocks that do not allow new users to register, and often not even registered users if they have not sysop access or are not otherwise IP block exempt.
Best, Paulo
Please, replace "block anonymous access" with "block unregistered access". That extremely wrong, nocive, but generalized Wikimedia habit of calling IP access "anonymous", when they are anything but anonymous, is so pervasive in the wikiverse that I still fall for it sometimes. 🙄
Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 22/04/2022 à(s) 18:50:
"*Firstly, unblock IPs that geolocate to countries where we lack contributors.Yes we will get more vandalism in those countries, but far far less than if we also unblocked all IPs in countries where we have lots of editors.*" -> That's not as simple as that, as the whole Wikipedia Zero Angola debacle has shown perfectly well - > at some point, the situation with piracy and vandalism coming from Angola W0 IPs was so bad that pretty much the whole country was hard blocked. I put a number of filters on place in order to monitor those editions on wiki.pt, and the result was that basically 100% of the editions coming through those IPs - and even accounts using them - were either vandalism, piracy or absolutely hopeless newbies who had not the least idea how to edit, without any means available to teach them - and without the least shred of interest from who was coordinating that W0 project in teaching the few goodwilling newbies the very basics of edition. This was clearly stated at the time by the WMF representative, it would have to be us, volunteers, who had somehow to find some way to teach users in Angola entering the projects from their cellphones (which is basically hell on earth even to old, seazoned, wikiwise rats like me and many others I know) without even access to talk pages or alerts or whatever how to edit Wikipedia. The obvious result was that shortly after that problem began, pretty much the whole country was blocked in a number of projects, including wiki.pt (not covering registered users) and Commons, and then, at some point, globally blocked on Meta. That was basically the end of the Angola community that had been forming before the W0 program started, since, if I recall correctly, the few users that existed were generally blocked at the time the global block was implemented, and asking for an IP block exception is very far from being an easy process, especially if you are using a cell phone, which was generally the case over there.
Anyway, IP blocks* per se *are not the problem here. It is perfectly possible to block anonymous access, as we do at wiki.pt, and allow (and encourage!) registration of new users, allowing for a much productive and much less frustrating Wikipedia experience - where newbies can find help in many ways, including at the new mentorship program, which works fairly well, and actually engage with the community in a productive manner from day 1. The problem are those global blocks that do not allow new users to register, and often not even registered users if they have not sysop access or are not otherwise IP block exempt.
Best, Paulo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org