Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.) This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page. You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Partial blocks model policy

Hello all,

I'm writing to let you know that now there is a Partial block model policy on Meta. If a local language wiki does not have a policy to cover partial blocks then the model policy could be adapted for the wiki. Or if there is already a customized policy for a wiki, you can share it on the Meta page for possible use by other wikis. There is also a page where you can share examples of the way that you are using partial block on this wiki.

Please contact me if you have questions or comments about partial block. Regards, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Great resource, thank you. ~riley (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks: Deployment plan

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team has made improvements to Special:Block that add the ability to set a Partial blocks.

While no functionality has changed for sitewide blocks, Special:Block now allows for the ability to block a named user account or ip address from:

• Editing one or more specific page(s)
• Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)

Partial block is now deployed on most large and medium size Wikimedia Foundation project wikis, all Wikivoyage, all Wikisource, and all Wiktionary. We appreciates the feedback received from volunteers during the development phase that has gotten the feature to this stable place. Additional feedback can be recorded on Meta or Phabricator.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2674

Now that there is a stable version, we plan to deploy partial blocks to most other wikis on January 6, 2020. A Wikimedia Foundation project wiki can make a request for a delay of deployment to me or Niharika Kohli (User:NKohli (WMF)).

There is a Partial block model policy on Meta adapted from the policies written by a few local language wikis. There is also documentation about how to set a partial block and example uses. We invite administrators with experience using partial block to add examples cases from their local wiki.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Sortable table scripts

Is there a more complicated sortable table script like javascript that you can use which recognises K as 1,000 and M as 1,000,000 when sorting rows?

Or if not, any others bar; {| class="sortable wikitable" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:C7F:D827:BE00:A8D3:4B31:778D:30F6 (talk)

Information about sorting is at mw:Help:Sorting  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Voting requirement in CheckUser policy and Oversight policy

In these policies the voting requirement of successful CheckUser and Oversight election is 70–80% support and 25-30 support. This is a vague number. I propose to change it to excatly 70% and 25. Comments welcome.--GZWDer (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? Tell me how it is ineffective? The numbers are not vague, they are specific, it is called a range. It is used by the stewards and it takes in a number of factors. There is no requirement for absolutism.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

So this means steward may decide whether or not to grant the flag if the number of support is between 25 and 30?--GZWDer (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It gives the steward flexibility. Don't tell us the rule of 10+ years, show us how it is not working.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GZWDer that the rule should be improved. 70% of support in most projects would make a simple RfA fail, yet apparently that'd be okay for an RfCU/OS? In addition, the policy must explicitly state that RfCU/OS cannot be opened forever in an attempt to get the required thresholds. Just put it simple: 75% of support and 25 votes in support as minimum requirements. I don't want flexibility when it comes to hand out permissions that involve people's privacy. CU/OS is not "not a big deal". I want clear, exact rules, easy to follow. Local wikis might still enact rules making access to the tool harder than the Meta policy. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Except the proposal does not change the base criteria, and your suggestion now makes it harder. Stewards can close at 70% and 25 votes right now, completely within scope. I understand that the variability was due to not force stewards to close when 25 exactly was reached where some of the votes where edge cases and contentious, and as such game the system. The timing was left open as the smaller communities were not like the WPs and numbers were not immediate, though I would feel comfortable with an extended period of time that is not more than 3 months.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio and Billinghurst: I have proposed an amendment in Requests for comment/Amendment of CheckUser policy and Oversight policy. Note in this amendment I also proposed a much more significant change.--GZWDer (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)