Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Admins and patrollers

Admins and patrollers
25 proposals, 409 contributors, 972 support votes
The survey has closed. Thanks for your participation :)



Overhaul spam-blacklist

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The current blacklist system is archaic; it does not allow for levels of blacklisting, and is confusing to editors. Main problems include that the spam blacklist is indiscriminate of namespace, userstatus, material linked to, etc. The blacklist is a crude, black-and-white choice, allowing additions by only non-autoconfirmed editors, or only by admins is not possible, nor is it possible to allow links in certain namespaces, certain wikis (or certain wiki-flavours, e.g. disallow everywhere except for all of wikitravel). Also giving warnings is not possible (on en.wikipedia, we implemented XLinkBot, who reverts and warns - giving a warning to IPs and 'new' editors that a certain link is in violation of policies/guidelines would be a less bitey solution).
  • Who would benefit: Editors on all Wikipedia's
  • Proposed solution: Basically, replace the current mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist with a new extension with an interface similar to mw:Extension:AbuseFilter, where instead of conditions, the field contains a set of regexes that are interpreted like the current spam-blacklists, providing options (similar to the current AbuseFilter) to decide what happens when an added external link matches the regexes in the field (see more elaborate explanation in collapsed box).

    Note: technically, the current AbuseFilter is capable of doing what would be needed, except that in this form it is extremely heavyweight to use for the number of regexes that is on the blacklists, or one would need to write a large number of rather complex AbuseFilters. The suggested filter is basically a specialised form of the AbuseFilter that only matches regexes against added external links. Alternatively, it could be incorporated into the current AbuseFilter as a specialized and optimized 'module'.

description of suggested implementation

description of suggested implementation

  1. Take the current AbuseFilter, create a copy of the whole extension, name it ExternalLinkFilter, take out all the code that interprets the rules ('conditions').
  2. Make 2 fields in replacement for the 'conditions' field:
    • one text field for regexes that block added external links (the blacklist). Can contain many rules (one on each line, like current spam-blacklist).
    • one text field for regexes that override the block (whitelist overriding this blacklist field; that is generally more simple, and cleaner than writing a complex regex, not everybody is a specialist on regexes).
  3. Leave all the other options:
    • Discussion field for evidence (or better, a talk-page like function)
    • Enabled/disabled/deleted (not turn it off when not needed anymore, delete when obsolete)
    • 'Flag the edit in the edit filter log' - maybe nice to be able to turn it off, to get rid of the real rubbish that doesn't need to be logged
    • Rate limiting - catch editors that start spamming an otherwise reasonably good link
    • Warn - could be a replacement for en:User:XLinkBot
    • Prevent the action - as is the current blacklist/whitelist function
    • Revoke autoconfirmed - make sure that spammers are caught and checked
    • Tagging - for certain rules to be checked by RC patrollers.
    • I would consider to add a button to auto-block editors on certain typical spambot-domains (a function currently taken by one of Anomie's bots on en.wikipedia).

This should overall be much more lightweight than the current AbuseFilter (all it does is regex-testing as the spam-blacklist does, only it has to cycle through maybe thousands of AbuseFilters). One could consider to expand it to have rules blocked or enabled on only certain pages (for heavily abused links that actually should only be used on it's own subject page). Another consideration would be to have a 'custom reply' field, pointing the editor that gets blocked by the filter as to why it was blocked.

Possible expanded features (though highly desired)
  1. create a separate userright akin AbuseFilterEditor for being able to edit spam filters (on en.wikipedia, most admins do not touch (or do not dare to touch) the blacklist, while there are non-admin editors who often help on the blacklist).
  2. Add namespace choice (checkboxes like in search; so one can choose not to blacklist something in one particular namespace, with addition of an 'all', a 'content-namespace only' and 'talk-namespace only'.
    • some links are fine in discussions but should not be used in mainspace, others are a total nono
    • some image links are fine in the file-namespace to tell where it came from, but not needed in mainspace (e.g. flickr is currently on revertlist on en.wikipedia's XLinkBot)
  3. Add user status choice (checkboxes for the different roles, or like the page-protection levels)
    • disallow IPs and new users to use a certain link (e.g. to stop spammers from creating socks, while leaving it free to most users).
    • warn IPs and new users when they use a certain link that the link often does not meet inclusion standards (e.g. twitter feeds are often discouraged as external links when other official sites of the subject exists; like the functionality of en:User:XLinkBot).
  4. block or whitelist links matching regexes on specific pages (disallow linking throughout except for on the subject page) - coding akin the title blacklist
  5. block links matching regexes when added by specific user/IP/IP-range (disallow specific users to use a domain) - coding akin the title blacklist
Downsides

We would lose a single full list of material that is blacklisted (the current blacklist is known to work as a deterrent against spamming). That list could however be independently created based on the current rules (e.g. by bot).


Modular approach: make the current AbuseFilter 'modular', where upon creation of a new filter, you can define a 'type' of filter. That module can be a module like the current existing AbuseFilter, or specialised modules like this spam-blacklist filter described above.


Discussion

  • This would be very useful and seems to be kind of urgent! Zblace (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Having poked my head in, there would indeed be firm value both on reducing the complexity side of things and also for the more nuanced components - at the moment there's an ongoing call having to be made between major collateral damage and allowing spam to avoid severing a sometimes useful domain. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • The lack of an SBL-override right for sysops and bots is criticized since some years and nothing happened though it is highly required. --Achim (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Absolutely support this. ALso we need to rename spam blacklists to link-blocklist for all projects. JzG (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    This would be good too, but renaming extension that is in use is very complicated, see phab:T254649. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    I am not proposing to rename any extension (the phab ticket does, and I support that, maybe we should do a wishlist for that as well to show how much the community wants that). In its simplest form I suggest to make a copy of the AbuseFilter extension and name it (e.g.) 'ExternalLinkFilter'. Then from the copy you rip out the part that is executing the 'code' that is the core of the AbuseFilter, and replace that with a textbox containing regexes and code which matches these regexes against the added external links (like what the current spam-blacklist does). The rest are additions to that part code. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    Well, in other words, what you mean is "rewrite the extension" or "make new extension" completely, neither is simple, obviously. Note that I am equally frustrated with the weird limitations of this extension, I am just acknowledging the reality. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Ammarpad: yes, in a way it is going to be a near rewrite from scratch. I guess my suggestion to copy and adapt the AbuseFilter is more based on the idea that many of the controls there are very suitable for the needed control (basically all outside of the actual AbuseFilter-code). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Can someone explain in a simpler way what this would do? Thanks! — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 21:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    @WinnerWolf99: The proposal suggests that instead of editing on the MediaWiki: namespace to adjust the spam blacklists and whitelists, there should be a dedicated special page for such blacklist just like the abuse filter. The current implementation of the blacklist is also very limited in that it only disallows the edit from being performed, and that admins and bots are not exempted from using text that matches the regex of the blacklists. The proposal borrows some ideas from the abuse filter, which allows different actions (like silent logging, warning, and disallowing). If you want an even simpler explanation, this mock-up of the new blacklist interface might help you. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    OK, voting support below — WinnerWolf99 talkWhat did I break now? 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Late to the comment period, but one potentially useful feature would be the ability to blacklist all domains on a given IP - mentioned by Beetstra at w:en:Special:Diff/995659682. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

Create an extension for fixing parent IDs

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: As of MediaWiki 1.31, when revisions are restored, they will keep their old parent IDs. But this also means that it is impossible for revisions whose parent IDs have changed from undeletions in previous MediaWiki versions to revert back to having their original parent IDs.

Also, other problems with rev_parent_id could occur too:

  • Undeleting revisions that were deleted prior to MediaWiki 1.5 could cause all of them to have rev_parent_id 0 (see the history of Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1 on Wikipedia, for example).
  • Undeletions of revisions deleted prior to MediaWiki 1.5 and imports could cause the restored or imported revisions to all unexpectedly have the latest revision ID at the time of the undeletion or import as the parent ID (see the histories of Joshua Claybourn, Talk:Netherlands, and California on Wikipedia, for example).
  • Page deletions in MediaWiki 1.18 and earlier did not fill in the ar_parent_id column, so undeleting revisions that were deleted in MediaWiki 1.18 or earlier could cause unexpected results (see the histories of Eshay and Sembcorp on Wikipedia, for example).
  • Importing could cause the imported revisions to have a parent ID that does not correspond to the one on the original source wiki (see the history of MediaWiki:Gadget-formWizard-core.js on Wikipedia, for example).
  • Who would benefit: Users patrolling page histories for size differences
  • Proposed solution: Create an extension for fixing parent IDs and install it on Wikimedia wikis. The following are the (collapsed) descriptions from the Phabricator tasks:

Summary:
First, all rows in the archive table that have an associated page ID (ar_page_id) but no parent ID (ar_parent_id) will have their parent IDs populated. After that, all page titles that were imported, deleted in February 2012 or earlier and also have at least one page undeletion log entry, or undeleted in January 2018 or earlier will automatically be added to a new table. Targets of merge and move log entries with sources in the table will also be (recursively) added to the table. One can still request for a page that was not automatically added to the table to be added manually if needed. Such requests are needed, for example, when one has a page with suppressed edits that were migrated from the Oversight extension.

If one finds a page from the table that has at least one revision that needs to have its parent ID fixed, then one should go to Special:FixParentIDs/Page title ("Page title" should be replaced with the page's actual title) and start implementing the required parent ID changes. After the changes have been saved, the authors of the affected revisions will then be notified of the changes. A log entry notifying of the change will also be created.

Discussion

  • Sample usage (from my comment on T223342):
The following example shows that for imported revisions, rev_parent_id might require fixing on both the source and the target wikis.
The subpage User:Calliopejen1/Bronces de Benín on the English Wikipedia was imported from the page Bronces de Benín on the Spanish Wikipedia. There is also a move comment that says "fusión de historiales", which, of course, is the Spanish translation of "merging histories". This together with the negative size diff for the edit at 23:23, 21 July 2010 by Xqbot suggests that we should fix rev_parent_id for some of the the edits between the 2 moves by Millars. The strategy is to separate the revisions containing <nowiki>'ed categories from the ones that contain live categories until the Xqbot edit.
The following fixes should therefore be done:
  • Revision ID 526466627 on enwiki and revision ID 38879757 on eswiki should both be fixed to have rev_parent_id 0 to make them show as page creations on Millars' contributions on the respective wikis.
  • Revision ID 526466630 on enwiki and revision ID 38881146 on eswiki should be fixed to have rev_parent_id 526466626 and 38879182 respectively.
  • Revision ID 526466631 on enwiki and revision ID 38884289 on eswiki should be fixed to have rev_parent_id 526466629 and 38881051 respectively.
  • Revision ID 526466643 on enwiki and revision ID 38956953 on eswiki should be fixed to have rev_parent_id 526466630 and 38881146 respectively.
  • Revision ID 526466644 on enwiki and revision ID 38975104 on eswiki should be fixed to have rev_parent_id 526466641 and 38922039 respectively.
  • Finally, the rest of the revisions' parent IDs should be left unchanged on both wikis.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeoffreyT2000 (talk)

As just a side note, for anyone not technical, this is going to be incredibly difficult to understand and probably should be rewritten for that audience if it is going to get any votes. --Rschen7754 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]
I honestly think this is going to get basically 0 votes. It's an exceedingly technical change that impacts <1% of all editors. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]
This is very difficult to understand even for someone who does understand technical stuff. As far as I can tell, there's two things being proposed here. One of them is "fix T38976", which is a reasonable proposal, and the other is "support pages containing parallel histories", which doesn't seem to solve a real problem (just don't do that, and you can fix any pre-existing pages with parallel histories using selective undeletion without any new code being written). Also note that w:User:Calliopejen1/Bronces de Benín no longer exists. * Pppery * it has begun 00:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Pppery parallel histories would be incredibly useful for a whole hist of things. See T113004 for some. But it's a massive undertaking that would probably be outside the wishlist's scope. Tgr (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

Watchlist of users

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Vandals are hard to follow, as are new users.
  • Who would benefit: Better control of new users and vandals.
  • Proposed solution: At the very least, for administrators, it would be necessary to have a "user watchlist".
  • More comments: When we are reviewing articles, many times we see a user who has done something wrong, or has entered wrong data. We write a message to him in his discussion, and we watch the edits he makes for a while, to see if he has improved in his attitude. However, when you have written to many users, it is almost impossible to follow them all, so a watchlist of each user's edits would be interesting, at least for administrators.
We could have a star on the users, as we do with the articles, and have a "user watchlist" where a list of issues will appear separated by user, to see what each one has done. When we consider that a user is doing their job well, we can remove the star, just like we do with the articles. Thanks.

Discussion

  • This was previously declined (5 whole years ago) as it was seen to be a major tool in 'harassment'. Basically, it would be trivial to write a script that does just this (User:MER-C just did that): collect the last ### edits of a set of users, sort them out, and display them in a watchlist-like-manner (that could be a user-script in my on-wiki .js, it could be on my own computer and no-one would see that I would 'script' except maybe CheckUsers). For N00bs: I can do the same things with a folder of bookmarks of user-contributions for these users and just every morning check them (as I do with my watchlist). Yes, having this might be a nice tool to harass users ('what have my favourite victims been up to') but that can be done anyway in undetectable ways.
Having this tool has some big benefits in 'following problematic users' (suspect spammers, socks, COI editors, etc.). To mitigate harassment one could make the user-watchlist-lists visible to users with advanced rights (e.g. that admins can see who others are following, though probably better only CheckUsers/Stewards can see it).
I think it is time that the community re-assesses this, and possibly we have a commmunity discussion on solving possible concerns. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Samwilson: and @Beetstra: Thanks a lot for your feedback. Have a nice day ;) --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Vanbasten 23 and Beetstra: I've moved this back to its category, so it can be voted on. (I'm using my staff account now, but am the same person as User:Samwilson above.) —SWilson (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • While I see the usefulness I also see a downside in that it makes Wikihounding much easier. --Count Count (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
The right to use this feature could be limited to admins (and editors), or it could be withdrawn from users who use it abusively. -- Aspiriniks (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This ought only be implemented if for administrators only, and only usable on accounts with under a certain number of edits, as Bilorv suggests. Though I do often think of such a tool for keeping an eye on vandals, it could so easily be turned into a harassment tool. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    • @CaptainEek: I strongly doubt whether this is becoming a harassment tool if you give visibility to the watchlist (e.g., admins can plainly see who you are watching, or have access to a Special:WhoWatchesWho which is bidirectional, or even a Special:WhoWatchesMe .. meh, even add a 'approve' for named accounts if someone wants to follow them - then in case of (group-)mentoring they will likely approve, but for regulars that will not happen, or they can later 'unapprove' if they at first did not have a problem with it). I have currently a watchlist of Wikipedia pages of my interest, which contains some filters and user contribs. This tool is literally nothing else than that. Whether I have 3 users that I 'follow around' through three clicks on bookmarks, or that I have one tool where I have all of that in one page is all the same. I really see no difference in harassing an editor through looking at their Special:Contribs every hour or by using this tool every hour. Can someone please explain me how this is (becoming) a harassment tool (pinging oppose !votes, I'd like to hear your reasoning: @MarioSuperstar77, Keepcalmandchill, Putnik, and NMaia:)? --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 05:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
      • I certainly think some checks and balances would be necessary, I like your suggestion of a needing approval, or making the watch watchlists be public/seen to admins. My fears would be that both our vandals and our veterans could use this tool for ill. Vandals could throw together a list of the admins they hate, and then use it to follow them and harass them, or keep an eye on who is active so as to evade them. Much harder to do with 50 contribs pages, but easy if its in one place. For veteran users, I can imagine it worsening feuds and disagreements and encouraging edit stalking. When two users don't quite like each other, and are on the other's watchlist, they would be more likely to follow the other around, and I can see a lot more IBans being handed out. I'm not fully against this, I too would like to be able to put vandals and hooligans on a sort of watchlist, but I do think a lot of preparation/rules are needed to ensure it doesn't become a tool of evil. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Something like that is already working at pt.wiki and is actually helpful. We can track users that seems to be vandals/spammers at the beginning but we are not sure to block. We can track new users we are mentoring to see how their first edits are going.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • To further alleviate the concern of harassment: make it a right, ‘canwatchusers’, that is not standard given out to anyone. People who can show a use for it on a wiki can then be given this ability (mentors, spam-fighters), or wikis can decide never to give it out. The right can be temporary for mentors, who can only use it for the time of an event. —Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Needs to be re-thought - for mentors/education/etc, allow users to specify who can "watch" them and for how long. For vandalism, make it a user-right, perhaps one that is NOT bundled into the "admin/sysop" bit. I have no problem with Stewards, Oversighters, ARBCOM, and others at that level being able to watchlist editors and make decisions about who else can watchlist people for vandalism control. On projects with many sysops/admins like en-wiki, I would be reluctant to include this in the "admin" bucket of rights. On projects with fewer admins, this might make more sense. There should also be a "global-watcher" user-right that is included in steward and some other highly trusted global- user-groups. I can also see value in having an "bot" account have this user-right to prepare off-wiki reports for use by highly-trusted abuse-fighting editors. Davidwr/talk 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support Should not only be possible for registered users but also for IP ranges, which should not be blocked for long-term, but from which vandalism occurs regularly. Aspiriniks (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ValeJappo【〒】 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Johannnes89 (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Kisnaak (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support , especially for IP addresses, including the IPv6 /64 ranges who do not receive User_talk: messages due to IP hopping within the /64. Certes (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Per comment by Dirk Beetstra. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support janbery (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support With limited access to this tool for sysops or patrollers to mitigate harassment risks. — Jules Talk 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Jan Myšák (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support If harassment is a concern it could be limited to admins or other roles josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This is efficient and risky. It can also expose a potential harasser. YFdyh000 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Editor760 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Oesterreicher12 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose As already declined. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ✍ Janwo Disk./de:wp 02:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Conditional Support Support on this only working on accounts with fewer than X edits, and IP addresses and ranges. X should be as low as possible, like 100. I do not support unrestricted use for sysops or users in any group, as there are definitely cases of users with very advanced permissions using those for harassment or at least to BITE. The user should be unwatchlisted if/when they cross X edits. Positives would include mentoring new users and keeping an eye on IP ranges too large to block or people who have been given rope. — Bilorv (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Itz Marlon (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I don't think we need this, but if so, only for sysops (only). --Ján Kepler (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Em-mustapha User | talk 15:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. — putnik 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Nehaoua (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support dwf² (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose would become a harassment tool. NMaia (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I believe that this can be useful. Kizule (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support JPxG (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose harassment risk --Ita140188 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ויקי4800 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Strong oppose. Too much risk, if created that tool can be abused very easily and I think almost everyone can think of at least one admin on their project who they absolutely can not trust to use a tool like this. Meiræ 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Strong oppose הארי פוטר 73 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Strong oppose, for privacy reasons Libcub (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose This will just lead to more HOUNDING or STALKING, absolutely not. If we want to mentor, there's some other ways to implement and if we want to monitor, we can use something less likely to be abused in the above mentioned manner. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose --𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Nouill (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose due to harassment concerns, if given to everyone. If admins only, same concerns to a lower level but at that point it's just a waste of dev time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. BoldLuis (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Adamoszkovics (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support AinScept (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support As an admin.ThiênĐế98 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Although I can see the uses; both from a counter-vandalism standpoint and from a mentoring standpoint, I share in the concerns about the potential for abuse. Moreover, I think this is pretty unnecessary, as the user contribution page exists. ONUnicorn (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose User contribution page exists. --Kusurija (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Kusurija: but it cannot be followed Golmore (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Golmore: ??Could you explain this more clearly? So what?--Kusurija (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Too Orwellian for me. VaneWimsey (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Gce (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose if users can't agree on being watched. Which means it could be a nice-to-have feature for mentors watching newcomers they agreed to work with. Trizek from FR 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose per Kusurija. There's also CentralAuth if the problem is global. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I understand the harassment concerns, but there are ways around that as explained in the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Wikibenchris (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Golmore (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support, use restricted to admins and maybe patrollers. Should cover IPs as well. --Achim (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - access to admin only. And must have ability for admins to check who others are watching, for accountability reasons, etc. And based upon the "need" outlined in the discussion above, limit to very recent changes. (If an admin needed more than recent changes, they could just go and manually check a users edit history). Else, I would oppose this. - Jc37 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Already declined before, and too easy to abuse by random doofuses. For more experienced editors, MER-C and others have already built equivalent tools you can research how to find and use. This shouldn't be easy, since every troll and vandal would abuse it to harass legitimate editors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Rhetos. I don't like the juxtaposition of "new users" and "vandals". As a casual editor, I would be quite put off if I knew there was some electronic ankle tag keeping track of me. Alternatively, I would welcome any electronic tool to notify mentors of my own choice of changes I have made. The difference is between Orwellian Control and Friendly Help. --Rhetos (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Dr-Taher (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Wolfmartyn (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Far too much potential for abuse. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose This feature can favor harassment. A.WagnerC (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Dgw (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support בורה בורה (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose This will only end up with harassment for most editors. SunDawn (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose opens the door to HOUNDING, not good. - Atsme📞📧 11:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose user contributions page is enough to follow and Better control of new users and vandals --Nanour Garabedian (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose--Mac9 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose no one should gain access to the watchlist.---Temp3600 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Superchilum(talk to me!) 12:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose the concept is good, yet that will base on an administrators personality and characteristics, and thus may spur harassment and cyberbullying in the internet :( JN Dela Cruz (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I strongly recommend limiting access only to some trusted user Astronommica (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose, no matter how promising you make it sound, in essence it's just a hounding tool. Enjoyer of World (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support WikiAviator (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • There's definitely a good-faith way to use this to tackle serious vandalism, but I really really really don't see how this can ever be employed. What a user's watchlist contains is private information, and I don't think we could even imagine providing access to such private information to anyone below the level of an arbcom member. Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose the potential for abusing this is too high. --Vachovec1 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose I think creating a page specifically dedicated for such users won't be much useful as it is just possible to look after them via bookmarking them and watching their Watchlist. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose I understand how this can be useful in dealing with potential spammers, sockpuppets, vandals etc., but, in my opinion, it's too risky if used in bad faith. Ahmadtalk 03:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Emha (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

UNDO (rollback) by UserName

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Sometimes User make destruct change in one day in many articles (like Bot) - and Admins (Patrollers) must undo User actions (5-10 articles typically, but meet - 30 per day) article by article - it's expansive loose of time
  • Who would benefit: Admins and patrollers
  • Proposed solution: In list of "User contributions" make special UNDO-button for Admins (Patrollers). Maybe have choose Undo by DAY ACTIONS of user, or BY SIZE of change (for example: from 300 Bytes to 325 Bytes (diffs max 1 Kb))
  • More comments: It's need consensus by 2 Admins or 3 Patrollers (for example: it's mean: 2 admins must press special UNDO-button for User actions)
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Всевидяче Око (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi! I read Manual:Combating vandalism Всевидяче Око (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC) (added later)[]

Discussion

  • This reminds me a bit of the Special:Nuke special page added by mw:Extension:Nuke. I wonder how much common code could be adapted from that extension… {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi, Nihiltres! Extension:Nuke, near, because it's delete all articles in summary diapason - we need Undo same changes (or rollback same changes). But really this code can be useful for begin base. Thx)
With respect -Всевидяче Око (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Hi, Camouflaged Mirage! In Manual:rollbackEdits.php or mass rollback.js I don't see "summary diapason" (size of change, date of cange,- only User by IP). Both script's delete all changes(. We need little more flexible script) with partial deletion
With respect -Всевидяче Око (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Hello, if it's partial deletion (or reversion) of an user / IP contributions, I will suggest manually as if we need to quantify a specific range, it's more likely we have to look into the edits, so why not do it by hand. Best, Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
HI! "..destruct change...30 per day)... must undo User actions article by article - it's expansive loose of time". If Your do this time by time - Your konow whot about it. ) With respect -Всевидяче Око (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
If You are read upper: "It's need consensus by 2 Admins or 3 Patrollers..." - it's how one of variant, or can propose Your too. With respect -Всевидяче Око (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Yes, it is partially possible - but not at all. For example, when 1 administrator or 1 patrol has seen this revision and do action, other administrators or patrols may see it as a specification message (or as some may suggest yours). And we need remember about ethically action. With respect -Всевидяче Око (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Disculpen que pregunte esto, pero quisiera ayudarles a controlar las cuentas, etc. Asi como lo hacen sus bots. me podrian decir si es posible. Gracias

Voting

Automatically detect edit-warring

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Bringing edit-warring to the admins' attention currently requires editors that have the time to go through a fairly bureaucratic process.
  • Who would benefit: Editors who wish edit-warring to be more strictly enforced against, and administrators/other editors who wish to enforce it more strictly or just arbitrate conflicts.
  • Proposed solution: Add a function that automatically compares every new revision against all those of the last 24 hours, and then flags to the administrators or other editors if it detects the same text being added or removed more than three times (as per the three revert rule).
  • More comments : There could still be a separate process for making formal complaints, and this could simply be a way to get attention that there is a conflict brewing, preventing things from getting out of hand earlier. Further comment: it seems that the current process for edit-warring complaints is extremely inefficient, with complaints being archived without any attention having been given to them. Therefore, perhaps this function should automatically give short blocks for first time breakers (24hrs) and longer ones for repeat offenders (72hrs and more). I think having complaints not addressed at all is extremely disappointing, and perhaps a reason for editors to stop contributing.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • This seems like something that could be easily automated and would make it a lot simpler to detect edit-warring and hopefully keep it from festering. Jessamyn (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This should be a lot easier to build now thanks to the reverted edit tag. You might even be able to write a Quarry query for it. MusikAnimal talk 05:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • It would be even easier if the event stream included events for reverted edits (i.e. whenever the reverted edit tag is set on an edit). --Count Count (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I've seen some research on this topic that is interesting (unfortunately the results of which are predominantly not used by wiki editors). --Izno (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • Izno, do you still have a link to this research?Carn (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This shouldn't be too hard, but I do think you'd need to take some steps to avoid major false positives. I don't know how general the auto-tagging system is, but with that en-centric bias noted, you'd want to have edits with "potential vandalism/blanking/etc" tags discounted, so edits reverting them wouldn't count. The pages are already being handled and so pulling further attention to it is unneeded Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • There are various other issues with this, as well. For an enwiki example, reverting against consensus doesn't really need to be reported to ANEW. Bots wouldn't really need to report for 3RRNO exceptions either. As such, I think it's best this be done on a per-project level, with a bot, if needed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I'm going to move this to the Admins & patrollers category, since the proposal is more about moderation than it is about improvements to editing. Hope this is okay, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This should probably be implemented at the community/bot level, at the discretion of each local community. Now that we have the reverted edit tag, each local community can action automatically-detected edit warring as it sees fit without further WMF technical effort. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 06:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support with reservation. I agree with the problem, but not sure with solution. It's not difficulty to create automatic detection but once it's implemented, it's also very easy to bypass and circumvent. It motives warriors to change their behavior and make it hard to detect. Xinbenlv (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support Sounds about right – "make it a lot simpler to detect edit-warring and hopefully keep it from festering" by Jessamyn. Waddie96 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support There are already good scripts like "Edit War Checker" that prove this is possible - I fully support incorporating this into the main site! ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Silver hr (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support That should definitely be implemented. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support YFdyh000 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose better done with bot (eg w:en:User:ProcBot/EW. Not good use of dev resources imo, especially compared to other proposals. What is “edit warring” is mostly defined at a project level, as are exemptions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Anti-vandalism reverts might be a false positive. Firestar464 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support BALA. RTalk 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Shizhao (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ✍ Janwo Disk./de:wp 03:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose No tool can automatically detect edit warring, because edit warring is about intention. More than three reverts of clear vandalism is not edit warring, but fewer than three reverts can be edit warring. Autoblocks are really undesirable for this reason. This would formally codify 3RR, but each project should be able to set their own revert rules. — Bilorv (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Edit warring is too subjective. No automated tool could accurately determine what is and isn't edit warring. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Would work along with the very first proposal in this list. Penguin330 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose --BoldLuis (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose this can not be effectively accomplished. DGG (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Yining Chen (Talk) 00:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose, Edit warring is something heavily influenced by psychological and ideological conflicts. Often there are multiple reverts or removal of texts, but you can't take an action against them without understanding the depth of the underlying clashes and confusions created around it. A bot can't handle this subject. You can do something to reduce the bureaucratic complications, but empowering bots with the mechanism to resolve such emphatic issues seems totally impregnable. Ppt2003 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Spinney Hill (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Ability for sorting Special:UnreviewedPages by time

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: It is a long-time request from patrollers/reviewers, that items on Special:UnreviewedPages should be able to be sorted by creation date, so the very old items can be handled with priority, organize campaign for them etc. The list is sorted alphabetically now, which is not very useful.
  • Who would benefit: reviewers/patrollers, admins
  • Proposed solution: Offer an option to sort the list by time
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T45857
  • Proposer: Samat (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

Voting

Discourage External Spam that Exploits Wikipedia

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Many spamming scammers use Wikipedia references to add credibility to their scams (usually 419s).
  • Who would benefit: Wikipedia would have less spurious traffic reflecting the interests of scammers and potential victims would benefit by being warned against scams. Wikipedia's reputation would be enhanced by taking a clear position against criminal use of Wikipedia.
  • Proposed solution: A flag option to create a banner saying that This article is currently being referenced by scam email. The link to Wikipedia should not be taken as evidence of the truth or accuracy of email which is referencing this article. The basic implementation would allow someone to report the spam email to Wikipedia and select the kind of crime it represents. Most of the examples I have seen appear to be 419s, so in that case the warning message should include a link to the article about 419s, but others are phishing scams or various other crimes. The warning should persist for a while to allow for delays in people reading their email, but the basic idea is that spammers would stop abusing Wikipedia because their scams would be quickly negated at the Wikipedia end. The person reporting the spam email could trigger the warning, or it could go through a review process to confirm its spamminess.
  • More comments: This kind of abuse has been going on for many years and "Live and let spam" is obviously great for the scammers. If they weren't making money by exploiting Wikipedia's reputation then they would stop doing it.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Shanen (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • @Shanen: This sounds like it could be a template that's placed on such articles (such as those used when articles are the subject of active news events etc.), and not something that requires anything technical or software development. Am I understanding it correctly? —Sam Wilson 06:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Samwilson: [Is that the correct way to flag it to your attention?] Sorry, but even after many years of making minor contributions to Wikipedia, I do not understand Wikipedia well enough to be sure that I understand your terminology accurately enough to answer correctly. I feel the answer is "Sort of yes", but the "template" would need a couple of slots for filling in the blanks. As I would imagine a possible implementation, the person reporting the spam would submit the email, preferably with the headers, and the Wikipedia-side server would parse it for Wikipedia links or references. Then it would probably ask the person who is submitting the report for help regarding the category of crime, unless the report was passed to someone else, perhaps a member of the Wikipedia abuse team. After that, the warning notification would be added to the front of the article in question (for the appropriate period of time, perhaps two weeks in the case of an email-based scam). Not sure if this is the best way to reply to you. Maybe I should try to include a copy in your personal talk page? Shanen (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[]
@Shanen: Yep, the {{re}} template is a great way to get people's attention; no need to separately mention on their talk page. :-) Thanks for clarifying. This sounds like there are some technical development tasks here, so I think it's fine to proceed to voting (the week after next). —Sam Wilson 02:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I feel that this is likely to cause individuals to distrust it to a fairly high degree, even though it's by no means the article's fault. It also needs someone to review the emails, which would drench OTRS (speaking as an agent, I at least wouldn't want this added), a standard process for timed removal, and so on. I would be against its addition. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This is an encyclopedia. It might be similar to spoiler warnings, which have since been discontinued. Firestar464 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Carn (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This would certainly help actually, I believe we should have a system to put any article on semi-protection to deter edit war/spams during major events. Penguin330 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Triptychon (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose You can do it with an easy template. -Theklan (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Wikibenchris (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Enable the ability to rollback to specific version

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: The current rollback function cannot specify a version to revert to (that wasn't deleted or oversight'd). Extensions and user scripts are required to do so.
  • Who would benefit: Rollbackers
  • Proposed solution: (unmentioned), seems to add a (rollback to version) button, or something like that.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Yining Chen (Talk) 10:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Translator: 1233 T / C 13:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[]

  • 問題: 现阶段回退功能无法将指定页面回退到某一个已知的且未被删除或监管的版本
  • 有益於誰:拥有回退权限的用户
  • 提案的解決方案:
  • 更多評論:它可能是一个有用的功能。另外,我不确定这个提议是否在这次调查的范围内。如果不在的话,很抱歉打扰。我对Community_Tech#Scope的理解不是非常好。
  • Phabricator請求:
  • 提案者: --Yining Chen (Talk) 10:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • So, make it so rollback can go to last known accepted version instead (for wikis and pages with that extension enabled)? That's definitely in scope. :) Yining Chen --Izno (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Izno Actually they mean, to make it rollback to the last non RDed / OSed version and certain version. I will say why not use Twinkle in these situations, but yes, to the last accepted / stable version will be good to have. However, we can also use reject pending changes but yes, rollback can be faster. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I think I did not express it clearly: ( For example, this is an article in Chinese Wikipedia, and this is the history page of it. I have the rollback permission in Chinese Wikipedia, then I want to be able to rollback the page to the version besides [1](oldid=62456210) without other tools(like Twinkle, I think it is kind of slow). --Yining Chen (Talk) 12:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Note to all: Translated. Seemed to be related to editing/admin and patrollers thingy. Translation doesn't mean endorsing this project--1233 T / C 13:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I'm not sure this would technically have much to do with rollback. Twinkle, for example, has this. I'm not sure how it works behind the scenes, but I imagine it's just grabbing a given revision and submitting an edit to restore to it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Would this be a one-click alternative to the process of (1) go to the revision i.e. click its time/date in the history, (2) click Edit, (3) click Publish (and optionally add edit summary)? Unless I'm misunderstanding it, extensions and user scripts are not required. Nurg (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I would like to add one more point, loading .js files (like TW) is slow when the Internet connection is bad. I often need to wait for approximately one minute until TW is ready. But the rollback function can avoid this problem, I can use it as soon as the page is loaded. --Yining Chen (Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Twinkle seems to have this one covered. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Count Count (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This would auto fill the comment, which simply grabbing an previous version does not do. Snaevar (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support CrystallineLeMonde (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Kisnaak (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Support for convenience. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Jaguar83 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose One could just go to an old revision and make a null edit. Firestar464 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This is a vital Twinkle feature which should simply be the way things work. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose Not a bad idea but other proposals are more urgent, as this action is not too difficult to do in Twinkle or in the page history directly. — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Libcub (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Teukros (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This functionality should be added to the rollback right.--Sudonet (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Would save time and mistakes DGtal (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Other proposals are more urgent. If you know the correct version of a page, you've seen it, so "restore this version" or "undo" ( mw-undo ) isn't much more complicated. Especially since the rb is more specific to counter vandalism and therefore less used in this case. —Eihel (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support~SHEKH (Talk) 15:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose On the back burner. Not a bad idea, but there are scripts that can do that already and this is not as urgent as others.—Teles «Talk ˱C L @ S˲» 16:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This is very much needed. Twinkle is not an option for smaller wikis. Papuass (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Lt2818 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Spinney Hill (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support This will make it easier to manage vandalism Sikander (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose that's UNDO.Temp3600 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Martin-78 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support S8321414 (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Mykola7 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Mark all consecutive edits by same user as patrolled

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Often users (especially unregistered and new ones) make lot of consecutive edits that can be rollbacked and checked in the history diff at once with a single click, but those will result unverified unless every single edit is marked as such one by one, which is tedious. As a result, no patroller uses this feature on my wiki.
  • Who would benefit: patrollers, mostly.
  • Proposed solution: "mark N edits as verified" link or something like that, in recent changes, history and such, just how it's available for rollbacks.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Wedhro (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • I believe the user script here does what you want? Not sure what wiki's it's available for though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    I believe it works for any wiki. Note that there may be forks, the most up-to-date one is on cswiki. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    I used your tool since I discovered it and I can say that any patroller should have/use it to save a huge amount of time. I agree that it should be installed by default in any wiki as a standard tool. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This would not be a problem to start with if you could simply patrol edits from recent changes instead of having to open each individual revision. I do support the idea though. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same as rollback? Firestar464 (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • In ruwiki we have flagged rewiews and patrollers just mark last edit as patrolled and next edits can be autopatrolled if maked by users with such flag. I do not understand a problem.Carn (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support Waddie96 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Shoeper (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --NGC 54 (talk / contribs) 19:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 19:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Kisnaak (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Per the comment I made. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Yair rand (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support makes sense Leftowiki (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support BALA. RTalk 01:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ✍ Janwo Disk./de:wp 03:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Mandatory to reduce manual work by default: make sure to include this everywhere. Dagelf (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Ywats0ns (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Monozigote (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support dwf² (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support JPxG (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support It look like a script that do this already exist if few wikis (in he-wiki we have something like this, I don't know if it is the same script like cs-wiki or a different one), It can be good idea to turn it to "official feature" for all wikis. - yona B. (D) 07:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Minorax (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Euro know (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Srđan (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support. BoldLuis (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Encycloon (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Robins7 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Redalert2fan (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support SupportEihel (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I think it is one of my biggest frustrations at the moment. Please vote and support! :) Trizek from FR 18:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support for sure! —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Paperoastro (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --IWI (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Golmore (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support --Achim (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support~SHEKH (Talk) 15:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support I would welcome any improvements that can save patrolling time. Papuass (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Jurbop (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Cswiki solution is very useful. ;) — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Risk Engineer (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Kocgs (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support When you select two differences, you can simultaneously explore all our differences with one click Shahnamk (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support JN Dela Cruz (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Geonuch (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Julián L. Páez 01:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Juan90264 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Goombiis (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support David1010 (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Nadzik (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Improve display of multiple IPv6 contributions by a single editor

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: A single IP editor using an IPv6 connection can have multiple IP addresses, which can change daily, usually without them knowing. However, all those assigned IP addresses fall within "the /64 range", and so all of these contributions belong to just that one user. Unfortunately, Special:Contributions will only display edits from just one of those IP addresses, unless specifically commanded to show them all. The full picture of an editor's contributions is therefore often missing. Without knowing that one can simply add /64 to the end of an IPv6 url at Special:Contributions, it is obvious that admins, vandalism patrollers and any editor interested in the full range of a user's edits are unable to see them, and probably unaware they can be found. The picture of editing is therefore often seriously incomplete. Warnings for bad faith edits can easily be scattered across multiple IP address, and remain hidden from view unless one knows the /64 trick. Even if one IPv6 address gets blocked by an admin, the user can still edit on a more recently assigned address unless the fully range of addresses is blocked (explained in plain English here).
A further problem arises when admins or patrollers work from a mobile phone. From a PC one has to click and manually add '/64' to the end of an IPv6 url in a browser window every time one needs to check an IPv6 editor's full contributions. But on a mobile phone in Desktop View (which most serious editors use) it is not feasible on at least some phones. On an iPhone (and probably many others), even in landscape mode, the url runs off the screen, making insertion of '/64' onto the end of that url quite impossible). Anti-vandalism patrolling of IPv6 users on a mobile phone is therefore severely restricted or impossible to fully achieve because there is no way to display the full contributions of an IPv6 user across the whole /64 range.
Even if IP anonymisation is implemented, there will still be a need to view all of one user's past contributions and talk page warnings related to multiple, changing IPv6 addresses. Knowing their actual IP addresses is not essential to this proposal; it's about seeing them all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Who would benefit: All admins, anti-vandalism patrollers, and any editor interested in understanding the range of editing contributions made by the huge number of users who have changing IPv6 addresses.
  • Proposed solution: Provide a clear and very visible button on the Special:Contributions page to permit the easy displaying of all IPv6 edits on the /64 range by that one IP user. e.g. a big, easy-to-click button labelled: Display full range of IP edits by this user which appears whenever IPv6 contributions are shown.
  • More comments: Related to this issue is the inability to see any previous warnings or discussion messages left for a user at an active IPv6 talk page address within the /64 range because it is no longer currently in use. A lot of separate IPv6 talk pages need to be individually opened up to see all those messages. Equally, the IPv6 editor won't be able to see earlier warnings or notices left for them. This closely-related proposal attempts to address that issue.
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Nick Moyes (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • I will add is there a possibility that when I am at an ipV6 address, I can click on the block log to see not only the single ipv6 is blocked or not, but had the range be blocked before. In addition, I will like to be able to block a /64 without the need to remove the last few octets (i.e. a block the range /64) in special block. One more is that it will be ideal if there can be a page created to leave messages for a whole /64 range. These might be beyond the scope of this proposal but worth looking. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Camouflaged Mirage: Regarding your last point, I did attempt to address that very important need with a separate proposal on this page to 'mirror' talk page contents in some way (See here). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    @Nick Moyes Sure, after I made this comment I read the other page, I agree there is a need to mirror those pages. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I agree with the gist, but I think Twinkle could probably add this pretty easily. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I think this should be handed over to the IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation team. They are actively working on upgrades for these tools. Alsee (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • As also noted above: Some hosters assign IPv6 addresses within the same net to different customers. --Shoeper (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I was going to ask for something similar, but my suggestion is add common CIDR range (/16, /24, /32, /48, /64) links in Special:Contributions EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I support this wholly. As an English Wikipedia checkuser and admin, I am consistently shocked by the behavior of MediaWiki when it comes to IPv6 editing, especially within the same /64 block. In my opinion, /64 ranges should be treated by default for most purposes as a single IP address with a single talk page and a single block setting by default; dealing with /64 ranges within poor technical infrastructure wastes a lot of valuable volunteer administrator time that could be spent elsewhere. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 06:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • This is useful but care should be taken to avoid giving the impression that /64 blocks equal users; this is not always the case. --Tgr (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    • You're correct that "/64 = one end user" may not be true for all cases, but also note that individual IPv4 addresses do not always equal individual users either. An IPv6 /64 matches closely with the scope of an individual IPv4 address (a /32). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 08:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

  • Support Support --Teukros (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Stryn (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Sgd. —Hasley 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Strong support. It is currently next to impossible for administrators to keep troublesome IPv6 users under control. Furthermore, bad faith unregistered editors have long been a problem from both dynamic IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. It is high time that Wikipedia found a way to determne when the same device was being used on different IPs so that they can be treated as a single user. SpinningSpark 18:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support , although it requires that any future IP obfuscation use en:Crypto-PAn or similar. Certes (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Absolutely agree with that idea. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support YFdyh000 (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support BugWarp (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Mahir256 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 01:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Thomas Kinz (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support DEFO support this! Situation is already bad, and only likely to get worse. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support MisterSynergy (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Monozigote (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Cabayi (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support GeneralNotability (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Bonus points for providing a box so that admins can automatically check "Block the /64" for IPv6 contributions CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - yona B. (D) 07:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support. Meiræ 15:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Hiàn (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support per my comment above. KevinL (aka L235 · t) 00:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Wutsje (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Encycloon (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Asartea Talk (Enwiki Talk (preferred)) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 16:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Csigabi (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support OosWesThoesBes (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support James Martindale (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support FabianHorst (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ONUnicorn (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support SD0001 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Xnet1234 (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Tgr (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support, though this may already be taken care off. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support ~ Amory (utc) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Izno (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support and please make also deleted contribs viewable. --Achim (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Novak Watchmen (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support SupportThanks for the fish! talkcontribs 22:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support It will be one good step forward. -Всевидяче Око (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Jthekid15 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Bebiezaza (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support SupportTeratix 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Lt2818 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Udo T. (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Shenme (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support - absolutely! Atsme📞📧 11:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Quedel (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support MinervaAustral (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Whisperjanes (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Geonuch (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose Oppose I think investing precious community directed development time before we know how IP masking is going to work is not a good choice. Additionally, I would hope that the team implementing IP masking could build this into that tool again saving us time now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Julián L. Páez 01:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Juan90264 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support NicoScribe (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Support Support Thibaut (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[]

New on-wiki block appeal process

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Currently there are several on-wiki and off-wiki block appeal processes. They have some deficiency:
  1. Talk page
    • This proposal will not replace talk page as the primary venue for appeal in the foreseeable future. This proposal is dedicated to situations that talk page is unusable or inappropriate.
    • Global locked users can not log in and use this venue without evading blocks.
  2. EmailUser
    • This may only make a specific admin (usually the blocking admin) aware, which may not receive attention from unbiased admins. In addition, this admin may be inactive.
    • Some wikis have a mail list for appeal. But a mail list is less usable than a request tracker system.
    • EmailUser is not publicly logged.
    • There are no case list available.
  3. UTRS
    • Only existed in few wikis such as English Wikipedia.
    • Because it is in WMF labs, UTRS can not automatically fetch the block status of user or IP currently involved (i.e. user must provide one). There is no integraton with the CheckUser extension either.
    • No on-wiki way to query the past appeals so admins must left a note in user talk page (such as this).
    • No integration to notification system (i.e. admins does not get a notice if someone they blocked have submited an appeal).
    • Case list is updated by a bot and not real-time.
  4. IRC
    • This requires some admins online and active watching IRC messages.
    • Appeal is not publicly logged.
  5. For global lock the primary route to appeal is steward OTRS
  • Who would benefit: Blocked users who are not suitable to use user talk pages to appeal, especially:
  1. Users with both talk page and email access revoked. (User may be banned from this process, but I propose local admins other than stewards and ArbCom members) can only issue bans up to one year.
  2. Users blocked in a wiki with few active admins. (This may be handled by stewards and global sysops.)
  • Proposed solution: We introduce a new special page Special:BlockAppeals and allow users to appeal through this page. This page works similar to UTRS (appeals and comments are private), though log of status changes on individual tickets are public (i.e. admins may provide public summary when closing an appeal). See also proposed workflow.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: GZWDer (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • With respect, there are a few misconceptions you have about UTRS. This may be because a lot of things have changed in the switch from Version 1 to Version 2. That said, I feel a complete replacement is a waste of volunteer time and foundation money. First, UTRS was designed initially for only English Wikipedia. Since then, I've only received requests from stewards and ptwikipedia to have systems setup for them. Because of different types of communities, the requirements for the software are different. We are currently working on internationalization and it would give us the ability to scale to any wiki that wishes to have it given that they can show a consensus that their community wants it.
UTRS does automatically obtain the block information based on user input. We can't automatically call blocks for IPv6 because the Cloud Services has refused us IPv6 for years despite multiple asks, but may now be giving it to us. If this is the case, we'd be happy to integrate the use of that into the tool. Even then, you can't use OAuth to gain information on blocked users because OAuth refuses to authenticate blocked users even for identification purposes only.
While UTRS does not integrate with CU, it has the same functionality as CU. Any checkuser can sign in with their OAuth credentials and look at the details of any appeal where data has not expired. If you think there should be a generic interface to search it from, that can be done with a feature request. Either way, external software is never meant to integrate into the database of another software. I also have yet to see a proper use case for that functionality. Typically most CheckUsers don't care about specific actions taken, as the data is usually sufficient already and CU isn't meant to be magic pixie dust.
There is no onwiki way to query past appeals, you are correct, but that is partially because the English Wikipedia community outright rejected making appeals publicly visible as when I did make most visible with version 2 forcing a complete code reversion. I'd be happy to make a onwiki master list of sorts if that would help alleviate the concerns. We also still plan to return to talkpage posting about appeals, it's just something that still has to be coded.
There is no integration with the notification system to notify administrators of their blocks because no administrator has asked for it. It's also never been implemented even in the form of a bot pinging an admin. I know personally I would never want such pings as policy is we can't review to decline ourselves, we can only unblock them. This would also allow socks to preform targeted harassment of admins with each and every sock they create.
As for the appeals list not being in realtime...again, no one has ever asked for a real time version, and the the one that handles the onwiki appeals has never been realtime either.
I also would like to note for the majority of the time, we have only ever worked with two developers at a time at most. We are willing to onboard others who are willing to step up instead of forcing the WMF to pay for staff to rewrite. I also started to consider a grant for this year, but the process for getting one grinded to a halt in June and there is no indication the WMF intends to return to it. So a fair chunk of the deficiencies that already exist because of issues related to WMF administrative decision fallout, so I don't see how the WMF replacing the tool would fix that.
Overall, a lot of the complaints about UTRS listed above are not something that has been requested or expected out of the tool, and to replace something where the system hasn't even been tried to have been fixed is frankly a slap in the face of volunteer time and effort, and even WMF money for the travel to hackathons that created this tool in the first place back in 2012. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • @AmandaNP: OAuth does in fact authenticate blocked users. It doesn't authenticate locked users, but I don't think there's a use case for that. --Tgr (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • UTRS is imperfect, but it is adequate. It does not need replacement. Any developer effort spent replacing it would be better spent refining it. Please see AmandaNP's response for fuller details. Emailing the blocking admin needs to be deprecated. Email requests cannot be scrutinized as we are discouraged from revealing email contents. UTRS can be scrutinized if only by a group that has been vetted, which is actually a good thing. I don't like IRC and I never will. Secret and secretive sub rosa back channel. I prefer requests be in the open. There is a final avenue of appeal apart from TPA and UTRS. Appellants can email the ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
As UTRS affects mostly the English Wikipedia, and as it seems evident that UTRS is adequate to English Wikipedia's needs, perhaps we can close this discussion as moot and start a new discussion for those other projects that have unmet needs. As to transparency, it is easy enough to post a decline note and link on the user's talk page (as I do). Posting their appeal to their talk page might defeat the purposes of maintaining confidentiality and preventing disruption. I will go on to reiterate that developers that might create a replacement for UTRS would be better utilized optimizing it.--Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I concur with AmandaNP and Deepfriedokra. We don't need something new. Agree that emailing the blocking admin should be depreciated. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • At least since 2014 I did have some concern about UTRS - not such listed above but a lack of transparency (everyone should be able to see a list of currect and past appeals and for declined appeals a summary for why they are declined). If English Wikipedia does not want to replace UTRS let's focus on smaller wikis with inadequate appeal processes (e.g. Commons does not have one).--GZWDer (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • In general, I would say that the policies of the different projects and languages of each wikiproject are rather different. Not to mention the different attitudes of each individual sysop everywhere. For users who end up blocked, I think most of them end up leaving the project for a while, at least. Especially for vandals who might be young children, and then come back to the project later in life. I am not sure how many of these people want of be associated with a former blocked account. The unblock process is a little weird, to say the least, but this is due to the decentralized nature of wikis in general. It could use some positive changes, but I don't see much of a way of doing so without hurting the distributed power necessary for a decentralized project. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I don't think creating a different version of UTRS, when UTRS is actively maintained, is a good idea. If wikis want a system like this, UTRS seems good enough. If UTRS could be integrated into the wikis more, like letting OAuth work for blocked accounts only for UTRS, in my opinion that would be a better use of WMF money and developer time. Perhaps something like this is needed for smaller wikis, but the proposed idea talks about a special page on the wiki. I would have thought that for global sysops a central place would be better (like a global version of that special page). I would have thought global sysops won't want to be checking many small wikis for unblock requests, so having a centralised system might be easier for them. Perhaps UTRS can be this centralised system, which is enabled for wikis that want it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 23:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Perhaps UTRS can be extended with configuration options which allow wikis to opt in to having appeals and their responses public. Also perhaps UTRS can be merged into the WMF sphere, and WMF money + developers could be used to work on UTRS? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Question: why UTRS system hasn't been publicised more? It'd be probably good to have it by default on small wikis. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • Maybe technical support isn't so readily available or it's an enwp only issue? Will be good if UTRS system can turn global too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
      Currently UTRS only supports enwiki, however that's something that we're expecting to change in the near future. Majavah (talk!) 19:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
      Can metawiki be included, I think will be useful here. Thanks @Majavah: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
      I don't see why not once we've fixed the remaining technical blockers and there is community consensus for it. Majavah (talk!) 19:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • OTRS / UTRS or mailing list emails are confidential, there is clearly a breach of privacy for summaries to be given up. If it's a brief conclusion of decline reason I am still okay, but to give a comprehensive summary of appeal reasons clearly shouldn't be encouraged. It may OUT users or it may endanger PII/minor information. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • I think this is perhaps only an enwiki issue. While I don't reflexively think the wishlist should be absolutely restricted to more global issues, I don't think this is a big enough issue even on enwiki to justify devoting developer time. It also seems to me that (while there may be a few technical tweaks that could be made) this is mainly a policy issue. Other contributors have described above why this isn't a great idea and how easily it could run afoul of user privacy and safety, and I agree with these points. Risker (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[]
    • Some notes: 1. It is currently focused on other wikis that does not have such process. 2. For "summary", yes I mean "conclusion of decline reason" - and currently this may be only manually posted in user talk page and many appeals do not have it.--GZWDer (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]
  • From an enwiki perspective, I fully agree with AmandaNP and I doubt that the proposal here would receive enwiki consensus. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 06:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    • It is no longer targetting enwiki.--GZWDer (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • @Awesome Aasim: have made a very similar (though much broader) proposal at phab:T269207.--GZWDer (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • Regarding Commons does not have one (a block appeals process). I've just come from there, and they do have such a process at Commons:Blocking_policy#Appealing_a_block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[]
    • @Deepfriedokra: For Commons: [2] - Commons has no standard way for a user to discuss their block if they have had both talk page and email access denied - this is actually the direct reason that I made this proposal (Yes I have this idea for years). The process described in blocking policy does not handle such situation. Note I have such idea, even informally, since 2014. Another issue to consider is in some wikis, it is a common practice to revoke both talk page and email access of blocked users. (All three wikis I mentioned do not have a thing like UTRS.)--GZWDer (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[]
  • If any foundation time is to be spent, it should be to help refine UTRS and/or integrate it into the smaller Wikis. It is a great and useful tool. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

Allow global user rights to expire automatically

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: Like local user rights used to, up until the 2016 Community Wishlist, global rights don't expire automatically, creating a burden of keeping track of the expiry dates for the rights that need to be removed.
  • Who would benefit: Stewards, mostly
  • Proposed solution: When granting global user rights, add a new option to set a time how long the rights will last (maybe a drop-down menu?).
  • More comments: There is already a patch pending review on phab/gerrit. It'd need someone to adopt it and push it forward.
  • Phabricator tickets: phab:T153815
  • Proposer: —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

  • Just want to know that this will also require schema changes, so its not as simple as merging the pending patch --DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting

Diffs to deleted content

Edit proposal/discussion

  • Problem: I want to compare deleted content to live revisions under the same title, or live/deleted revisions for a different title. This is especially useful to check whether a page is a substantive copy of the deleted content and is a key tell to determine whether the author is a sockpuppet. I could do this via Special:Diff or the API... but it is very difficult to discover the revision ID. There should also be associated UI improvements to page history, Special:Undelete and Special:Deletedcontributions to integrate this functionality.
  • Who would benefit: Administrators
  • Proposed solution: See above.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets: T30819
  • Proposer: MER-C (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Discussion

Not opposed to this, but a better tool to this end would be to have a bot look at all articles created at previously deleted titles and note when recreated content substantially duplicates the previously deleted content. BD2412 T 19:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Voting