⚓ T261133 Ban IP edits on pt.wiki

In the discussion of the Lusophone community, I was in favor of banning IPs, as they are the main vandalists of Wikipedia Lusophone; but the foundation principle says that

The ability of almost anyone to be able to edit (most) articles without registering.

she says without registering, it is an easy matter to assimilate; it is not a condition, in which if the community accepts the ban of IPs; banning happens. It is a condition, which I even understand why WMF employees refuse; I sincerely think it is even better to use the abuse filters and tools against vandalism, for example: Huggle - That it is easy to detect vandalism, and reverse it. I will exchange my vote for a disagreement for the part of the possibility that an abuse filter is possible, since the filter will monitor the edits by IPs and be able to revert it if it is vandalism and would not have to ban IPs; that I violated a pillar of the foundation's principles.

First, there is no pillar being "violated". We are challenging not a pillar, but a "foundational" principle born and implemented at wiki.en in 2005, 4 years after wiki.pt was running as a community. Nobody there was consulted, as far as I know, before alien entities decided that the bizarrery that "anyone can edit" forcibly included IPs - which are not persons, and are not equivalent to them - was something "foundational". Not unsurprisingly, that topic has been controversial since ever at wiki.pt, with a lot of community members wanting to get rid of it, but with fear of challenging a status quo where they had no word, to start with. To me, this was clearly a colonial/imperial-like interference of the wiki.en community into other local communities, which unfortunately continues to be perpetuated.

As for filters and Huggle, the first requires a very qualified task force to implement, monitorize and update, while the second relies on the availability of enough qualified members of the community to run Huggle almost continuously, or at least at peak times. Both have shown to be very problematic over the times due to the very limited community resources. While we have a stupendous battery of filters in place now, it is the work of 4 or 5 persons at most, and it's not replicable. And we need a minimum taskforce for at least monitoring and updating them, which often is not available. Either you already have an expertize on stuff like regexp and an excellent domain of logic, or it would be quite difficult to make something useful with them. As for Huggle, not only there is a chronic problem of people willing to waste their volunteer time there operating it, instead of creating content, but it's a bad solution as well, since it fills up the historic of the articles with revertions after revertions, polluting it and making it much less readable.

Finally, about the mentioned "foundational principle", let's not forget the huge fallacy of talking about "freedom" when referring to using IPs to edit. IPs are a liability, both for then persons behind them, for the project and ultimately for WMF, which has the obligation/ideal of ensuring a safe environment for editing the projects. IPs can reveal who and where you are, up to the desk the computer is installed at. Just to mention a well known case from wiki.pt, less than 2 years ago a military police worker from São Paulo, Brasil, which politically edited Wikipedia using and IP from the Military Police network, was easily detected, publicly denounced and subject to disciplinary process and other charges at their workplace, for using an IP he most probably believed was "anonymous", as Wikipedia policies very wrongly call them. This liability and source of danger for Wikipedia users should have been more than enough reason to have thrown that "foundational" principle down the toilet long ago. Yet, inexplicably, there are still people defending it (never caring to explain why, but just parroting "it's the status quo", as you just did). In any case, calling this "anonymity" and "freedom to edit" is nothing but a sad joke.

Best,
Paulo

First, there is no pillar being "violated". We are challenging not a pillar, but a "foundational" principle born and implemented at wiki.en in 2005, 4 years after wiki.pt was running as a community. Nobody there was consulted, as far as I know, before alien entities decided that the bizarrery that "anyone can edit" forcibly included IPs - which are not persons, and are not equivalent to them - was something "foundational". Not unsurprisingly, that topic has been controversial since ever at wiki.pt, with a lot of community members wanting to get rid of it, but with fear of challenging a status quo where they had no word, to start with. To me, this was clearly a colonial/imperial-like interference of the wiki.en community into other local communities, which unfortunately continues to be perpetuated.

Finally, about the mentioned "foundational principle", let's not forget the huge fallacy of talking about "freedom" when referring to using IPs to edit. IPs are a liability, both for then persons behind them, for the project and ultimately for WMF, which has the obligation/ideal of ensuring a safe environment for editing the projects. IPs can reveal who and where you are, up to the desk the computer is installed at. Just to mention a well known case from wiki.pt, less than 2 years ago a military police worker from São Paulo, Brasil, which politically edited Wikipedia using and IP from the Military Police network, was easily detected, publicly denounced and subject to disciplinary process and other charges at their workplace, for using an IP he most probably believed was "anonymous", as Wikipedia policies very wrongly call them. This liability and source of danger for Wikipedia users should have been more than enough reason to have thrown that "foundational" principle down the toilet long ago. Yet, inexplicably, there are still people defending it (never caring to explain why, but just parroting "it's the status quo", as you just did). In any case, calling this "anonymity" and "freedom to edit" is nothing but a sad joke.

Hello Darwinius, well ... there is no wiki that I know of, that IPs have been banned, I understand that people inexplicably still defend (never bothering to explain why, but just repeating). But this request will only be made if WMF employees; not taking that request, a "violation" of the founding principles. And I will change (again) my vote to Agree, because it is still possible to use the abuse filters; in relation to the abuse filters I refer to the Filter 180.
In short, we need to find a way or an answer for WMF employees to accept the ban, without them claiming that it "violates" the founding principles; the more I believe it is possible. Send one, good luck with that decision!

P.S .: I forgot to add that the order will only be accepted if ALL WMF employees; do not consider it a violation of the founding principles.