Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2018-03

Steward Protection

I am thinking that especially because some Commons files are transcluded in a large amount of sites, I am suggesting that it be possible for stewards to cross-wiki cascade protect files. This may take time, but I will leave this comment here, this is just a suggestion, no one has to do anything, but it would allow files that are locally uploaded to ensure protection to be deleted without any worry. So in other words: Stewards should be able to invoke cross-wiki cascade protection so that an item transcluded on a different wiki can also be cascadeprotected. It may sound confusing, just ask me clarifying questions. Ups and Downs (↕) 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: can you describe a more detailed scenario, e.g. step by step what occurs today - and what you would want to be different? Please keep in mind, for most projects, (reupload-shared) is restricted to project admins (meaning users can't upload a file that overshadows a file already on commons). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I am saying that stewards should have the ability to apply cross-wiki cascade protection. That way, if a file or template is transcluded on a cross-wiki cascadeprotected page, the file or template is automatically protected. So if File:A on the English Wikipedia is transcluded on B on the English Wiktionary, and the page it is transcluded on is cross-wiki cascade protected, only EN Wikipedia administrators would be able to upload the file A. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Hi, I could be seriously missing something here - but cross-project transclusion does not occur with 2 "exceptions" (COMMONS FILES-->Everywhere) (META BASEUSERPAGES-->EVERYWHERE). Can you show an example of this occurring anywhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. But it makes sense with Commons files, though. Ups and Downs (↕) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is already protection in place preventing overshadowing commons files. Is there still something you think is needed here? Please be specific with an example as possible. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Nope. I think I get what you are saying. Commons files cannot be transcluded in a cascadeprotected page. Is that what you are saying? Ups and Downs (↕) 04:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: what problem are you trying to solve? Weird to have a solution with no explanation of the problem. That aside, basically an idea with no hope, stewards do not have that role, and should not. Stewards are not involved with content issues, that belongs to Commons and local communities. If a file needs protecting request at Commons to have it protected, that is the role of the local admins to act to their local policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Billinghurst Okay, then can you close this? And apologies for the disruption. I was trying to be as less involved in this as possible. Just like there is no need to cascade protect the MediaWiki interface, there is no need to prevent commons files from being transcluded in cascade protected pages. Ups and Downs (↕) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: See above, nothing to really do at this point. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

IRC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I got banned from each and every IRC channel by someone named AlexZ for no apparent reason. This seems to be a habitual thing. So what exactly is the purpose of these channels? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

IRC/Guidelines suggests you may speak with #wikimedia-ops^connect to discuss the ban, gently. (The purpose of IRC is real-time chat on a topic specified by the channel; majority of channels have their own scope as indicated in its topic. But not everything from that scope is welcome in the channel, often there are restrictions set and enforced by the channel ops/administrators...) --Gryllida 22:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

They banned me from that channel as well. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about it here. First make sure your IRC client saves logs of channels and private messages to a file, you will need them. Then read here. --Gryllida 23:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the fact that you are evading your IRC channel bans right? --Cameron11598 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Evading how and what? Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

By changing your nicks to agin access to channels from which you have a +b, also your ban from Wikipedia-en is a result of the community ban discussion on the English Wikipedia. --Cameron11598 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Evading is defined as rejoining a channel after a kick without prior communication with an op which confirms that you are allowed back in.

Do not join any wikimedia channels now

first message an op and reach agreement of the conditions of your return.

Continue to use the same nickname

It is implied and self-evident that you do this in the least painful way for both you and the ops.

Thank you.--Gryllida 23:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There was more than enough justification for the ban, you've proven to be a continual timesink on the community and we're not having it there. --Az1568 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you slow down please? This is not IRC. Thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What's your IRC nickname? --Gryllida 23:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida, your info above: that requires access to the same channel. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Just skip the steps which require it. Modified version of the steps:

1. (This is relevant) Take a look at the relevant channel page. It probably is at «http://lang_code.wiki_name.org/wiki/Project:IRC». They may have their own appeal process, their own set of rules, and appeal recommendations.
2. (This is relevant) After a couple days, message the op who banned you. Conduct yourself in a calm clear headed manner. Try to explain politely when the situation happened (mention the day, time, and timezone), and what you came up with after analysing the logs. Was it something you did wrong - if so, what? Was something misinterpreted? What would you do to avoid a similar situation happening next time? Don't feel shy to apologize; admitting mistakes is the key quality toward resolving such situation. Please be polite, even if you think it was unfair; ranting never helps.
3. (This is relevant if they have such process) If you're not happy with the outcome, wait a couple days, and then try the appeal process recommended by the channel. It usually is a good solution, especially if the channel is in foreign language and has good documentation.
4. (Skip this step) If there is none, use #wikimedia-ops, and make your case calmly and concisely. Again mention the channel affected, day, time, and timezone. Indicate what was the main point of disagreement with the op, and ask to interpret the situation for you. The ops might communicate internally and collaborate to give you better advice, so please be patient and don't leave! Set aside around half of an hour when you are around and would not be disturbed, preferably during daytime in the relevant timezone. This is a learning experience.
   1. Do the other ops agree with your interpretation?
   2. What hints can they give to help you analyse the situation?

   Then you would be able to come up with suggestions how to avoid such situation in the future. If your suggestions are good, your ban would be more likely to be removed, or its removal may be expedited.

5. (This is relevant) If you're still unhappy with the outcome, please provide the complete information to the channel founder - include time of the channel issue, nickname of the op, time of a relevant discussion in #wikimedia-ops. The founder can be found using «/msg chanserv info #channel». Briefly summarize your issue and wait for a response for 2-3 days, after which you may remind the founder about the issue one more time.

The DOs and DONTs are also relevant and are provided at the original page

The TLDR version is "wait a couple days, message the op who banned you, wait a couple more days, message the channel founder for help". --Gryllida 23:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida - I used the nickname GdB. How do I message an op? Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Type "/whois NICK" where NICK is the nick of the op. If the ops is online, "/query NICK" opens a query tab. Leaving a message there delivers it to the NICK. That is a private message, it does not go to any channel.

Tips:

• leave them a short and informative message and
• stay connected for a day or two after sending the message so that the op (who may be in another timezone) has an opportunity to respond, and
• do NOT use the freenode webchat when you have a ban issue with channels, it does not save logs of your conversations to a file. Instead use a personal computer and install an IRC client capable of saving conversations to files. (Test this by sending a message to yourself and seeing that it is present in the file.) and
• do not forget the couple days waits specified in the FAQ, they really help (in your favour)

--Gryllida 23:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida - I have no logs. I didn't get the opportunity to say anything on any channel except one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

freenode has many other channels: '/msg alis help list' lets you search them. They are programmer oriented though, not about Wikimedia. See the webchat tip above in regards to logs. You may also ask an op to provide the logs to you if you ask nicely and gently after waiting several days for the situation to cool down. I would in fact ask for the logs as a first step before making any other requests, so that you may re-read the logs and identify the potential problems with how you conversed in the channel before. --Gryllida 23:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no such data. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

AlexZ is a group contact, in other words there's no appeal above him. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida - I made a simple request in #wikipedia-en-admins to restore a draft. While I was answering a few normal questions from one admin, a group of others began harrassing me, basically the same as here. Before I could even read it all I was banned. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Having the logs from that could be helpful, although I do not know whether anyone would volunteer to provide them to you. I have not heard of this being done before, it's just something I would personally do if the context was in favour of spending time on extracting the relevant logs. Another thing that may help is conversing in non-Wikimedia channels so that you get a little more comfortable with live chat in principle (including its dynamics and hierarchy), but I think you've already been at IRC for many years, perhaps that needs some fine-tuning to adjust to new channels environment. Do not put the logs online however, that's a copyright violation. They would be for your personal use only. --Gryllida 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Vituzzu - if AlexZ is the same user as Az1568 above then this is bad, they are clearly not the right person for the job. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

They indeed are the same person, but condemning is going to be useless, they are the best we can get right now. Some years ago the group contact took weeks to respond. Having someone readily available (and human, meaning they are able to negotiate if you make your proposed solution attractive enough for them in the context of improving the channel environment) is already a plus. --Gryllida 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Vituzzu, perhaps the FAQ entry needs to be modified so that people who are banned by a group contact skip messaging the op and skip messaging the founder and only message the group contact instead? --Gryllida 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Az1568 - I did not edit Wikipedia for nearly a decade, so if users still spent time on me, I'm not to blame. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida - My proposed solution is that others do no harass me while I'm having a normal conversation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassment is a two side process, firstly someone writes something that may be interpreted as an attack, secondly the other person interprets it this way. Then the second person responds somehow, and god pray that their response is different from 'oww! you are terrible, that hurt!', as that's an easy way to break the conversation. From my perspective, being able to not respond to harassment entirely is a good skill. --Gryllida 23:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're able to access the logs you will find that it didn't go that way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to find them, I wasn't present in the channel. My access to the logs would require prior consent from all participants. I was only pointing out that if someone is harassing you, you can always just stop speaking in the channel and speak again when the people present in the channel are prepared to lead a balanced conversation.

I'm seeing the faq entry has been updated to include this information: "Bans set by a IRC Group Contact may be appealed by emailing irc-contacts-ownerlists.wikimedia.org." --Gryllida 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The bans by default expire in 24 hours. I suggest in the future you do not evade channel bans... and keep in mind that banned users are typically not allowed in the IRC channels of the projects they are banned in. So if you do return to #wikipedia-en, you will most likely be re-banned by an operator there. --Az1568 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Users that are blocked or banned on a project should still be able to access IRC. In fact, they may have more need to do so. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion. However the way #wikipedia-en runs is determined by its moderators not by you. I'd suggest using other channels when it is practical for you to do so, for now. If you can do this without hassles, that'd work nicely. (Many wikipedia contributors use #wikipedia, for example.) --Gryllida 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(For your information, that does not make harassment okay in long-term; the steps that I proposed are only a short-term reaction that saves the conversation or the channel from breaking apart when someone decides to be a pest. At the time harassment happens, you may continue a conversation with another channel member by prefixing each message with their nick. In long-term, messaging ops to report the Harassment is still a useful step.) Gryllida 00:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed my opinion. I have a request that has absolutely nothing to do with my user status, for which I need the help of an en-admin. But because of my user status, I have no other channels to get their attention. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They may also be reached by email, info-enwikimedia.org . This address is processed by volunteers, some of them are administrators as they may receive undeletion requests there from time to time. (w:Wikipedia:Contact us). --Gryllida 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It doesn't look that way from the page, but I'm giving it a try. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Gryllida 00:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Gryllida - Well, that was a waste of time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Left you a message on the chat. Gryllida 01:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Didn't get it. Someone quickly claimed the nick GdB after I posted it here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Upon contacting AlexZ (Az1568), as protocol requires, I was again harassed and banned from all channels. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You were banned by local operators for your inability to let the discussion of your deleted article die. This is the same behavior that got you banned from the English Wikipedia and I'm afraid you're continuing the trend. --Az1568 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) It's not my article, (2) I hadn't said anything for quite some time, waiting for your reply, (3) I have not been banned from en:Wikipedia for something even remotely this. It is rather the behaviour of you and others on IRC that is appalling. You are the ones that won't stop talking about my supposed ban, while I made it clear that I wasn't there as an editor. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am, however, an editor in good standing on many projects, so banning me from #wikipedia where I hadn't even posted anything is just bullying. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Take a hint and stop trying to promote your movie. And stop using meta to complain. You weren't even banned by Alex. You were banned by another op that was sick and tired of you. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately you're not the boss of meta. This is the right place to discuss disfunctional communication channels. Note that if you continue your harassment here, you have every chance of getting blocked. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Falsely accusing others of harassing you is why your talk page access was revoked on enwiki. Falsely stating that this is the right place for your rant is just...false. Give it up. It is starting to veer into the realm of pitifulness. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to post the logs. My en:Wikipedia talk page is here, so people can judge for themselves. The draft I am asking to undelete is not my draft. It was deleted for inactivity, nothing else. A full article on the same topic can be found on Wikisage here. If you see any promotion, go ahead and point it out. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Meta is not an appeals court and enwiki forbids proxying for blocked users. Stop asking please. Also posting to your pet project wiki is bordering on linkspam. --Majora (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Change my username

I asked this on my talk page as well.

I want to change my username because it does not reflect me at this moment, but my request was declined because I was blocked on a Wikimedia project. Why can I not change my username when blocked? Ups and Downs (↕) 19:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you know which renamer denied you? Have you asked them? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we avoid renaming users who are blocked on one or more wikis to avoid any confusion it would cause to the local communities. Even though the logs and everything move over, it can be confusing for someone to receive an unblock request from a user that they don't remember blocking. The underlying principle here is that account renaming is a perk, not a guarantee - it is typically reserved for users in good standing across the network. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: So are you saying that we should be unblocked on each of the wikis and then be blocked after the rename is complete? Ups and Downs (↕) 01:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

More of... 1) getting unblocked, or 2) convince us rename is necessary while you are blocked on a community where you’re(or were) an active member. (I recall someone who got renamed while he was blocked on the homewiki) — regards, Revi 02:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's not a question of asking them to unblock you, get renamed, and then be reblocked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@UpsandDowns1234: Based on my look, you are banned in 2 wikis due to your persistence disruptive editing in the past, the only way you can procedural your rename request is, when you are unban from English Wikipedia per SO in the future only. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: I see why I am blocked from those wikis. The first one was because I requested it here and other users agreed, the second one was a reciprocal block because they thought I was becoming disruptive there. And plus, a community ban from ENWiki, as Tony said, just means that the community must agree to unblock before an unblock takes place. I already followed WP:SO once, failed, so Primefac asked me to follow it again. In other words, I have to wait six months without any editing of Wikipedia, make useful contributions to other Wikimedia projects, and come back and show that I will stop disrupting Wikipedia. This is my second block, and the thing is, I have looked into Wikipedia's past and have seen Wikipedians who were much worse than me, like this user. So all you are asking me is to get unblocked from ENWiki to get my username changed. And my TPA on EN Wikipedia remains because a user that remains blocked after due consideration is considered community banned. Ups and Downs (↕) 19:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(adding) I was also blocked twice from wikiHow for 3-5 days for causing the same disruption, and blocked indefinitely from Wikia's Uncyclopedia project. This is all for the same disruption. So it is better to show that we are here to improve these projects by actually improving them, not disrupting them. Ups and Downs (↕) 19:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I also have been procedurally blocked from RCP on wikiHow, but passed the RCP test (see User rights log - the patrolblock userright removes the ability to patrol new pages). Ups and Downs (↕) 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You should stop your persistence disruptive behavior that you has did in the past, or else you will be forever ban. Why don't you just spend your free time to read and get knowledgeable yourself to familiarize the policies and guidelines which also provided the useful links content rather than engage an disruptive editing, and get block. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@SA 13 Bro: I think the main problem with my behavior is that I was very tendentious. When discussing whether to move the main page, Iridescent had to tell me 5 times that it wasn’t possible due to breaking links. Also, I have used the reason keep because of X. My conduct has blown up the encyclopedia more than I have helped it. And no, bans are not forever except in serious cases (such as sock puppetry). What does last for a while is the record until the editor actually comes back with good behavior. Ups and Downs (↕) 05:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion belongs on SRUC, procedural which the stewards control.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

IRC (continued)

The following discussion is closed: Closed per previous reason.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

---

My original question remains: what is the purpose of these channels? AFAIK, they were once intended to facilitate communication when other channels were less suitable or accessible. I remember lively conversations a decade ago. Now, even the most common channel #wikipedia showed no activity at all. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Guido den Broeder, the purpose of these channels is indeed to facilitate communication, however it is primarily for those who need assistance, those in good standing and who are constructive contributors. As you are currently banned on the English Wikipedia, you are not an editor who is in good standing. You were told how to solve your issue, namely by asking the deleting admin to undelete the draft, as none of us on IRC were able or willing to do it for you. Further you admit to being involved with the production of the subject of the article, which would violate the rules on paid editing and managing conflicts of interest on the English Wikipedia. #Wikimedia-ops is not the place to contest actions taken on the English Wikipedia. Now I'm going to address a claim you made above, you were not nor are you being harassed by anyone in the #wikimedia-ops or #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en channels. You got an answer you weren't happy with, and I understand that but now you need to drop the stick. --Cameron11598 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very insightful, and a good reason not to drop any sticks.

1. Since when is IRC primarily for those in need of assistance? That didn't use to be the case. They were OUR channels, not YOURS where we need to beg to get in.
2. Since when is IRC only for users in good standing? Before, blocked and banned users could use IRC to discuss their situation. They are users more in need of assistance than ever, since nowadays talk page access is quickly removed.
3. Since when are all the IRC channels only meant for en:wiki editors?

Is this what we want? Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Like the wiki, IRC is a socially driven construct. It's not that they don't want you because 'you are blocked', but they'd prefer to keep nagging out of the channel. I'd suggest to join and forget about your issues, instead, help others... Make them feel important, without showing them the importance of your person or your query... but...

...yesterday I advised to use non-webchat client so that chat logs are saved for future reference and for reflection, but today I saw that a webchat client was being used yet again. This is disappointing. I feel disappointed. I feel defeated. I feel discouraged. It feels like my help is not wanted or appreciated. I'm not sure whether you would value the advice that I could provide.

Perhaps you're unwell? Are you OK? --Gryllida 02:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Really. Is there nobody left who remembers that the wiki (and by extension, IRC) was supposed to be a work environment, rather than a minions-only social gathering where asking a normal, polite question is considered nagging and is met with a barrage of ad-hominem comments instead of a simple yes or no? Talk about feeling defeated. Btw, copy & paste works fine on Freenode, and everything you need to know about me you can find on my userpage. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

'No' was already said multiple times and any further asking is unnecessary and counter-work-productive. --Gryllida 00:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your log seems to differ from mine. But then, I'm not the one advocating making 'them' feel important. The moment users start feeling important, corruption sets in. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear: the draft can not be recreated now. I think you also have a confirmation by email.

Does respect and attention really cause corruption? Perhaps not always so. --Gryllida 02:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Asked and answered. The same thing can be repeated multiple times for the same conclusion. If you two wish to have a conversation, please take it to one of your talk pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated issues

• No, I don't get paid to edit Wikipedia. If I were, that would be mentioned on my user page.
• Conflicts of interest are very common, not in any way evil, and can be handled just fine. There are local policies for such occasions.
• It's not my article.
• I didn't ask for undeletion on #wikimedia-ops, I asked for access to the en:admin channel.
• I didn't get an answer.
• Yes, I was harassed. Post the logs.
• On nl:Wikipedia, an administrator demanded certain personal favors in exchange for my right to edit. When I refused, I got blocked. When I reported the incident to the police, their friends followed me to en:Wikipedia and made up all kinds of fake allegations to get me banned there. So I withdrew for many years. They were still there on my return last year and resumed their efforts on day 1. So my 'ban' is not in any way related to my standing as a user.

If you wish to discuss these issues, please open a new section. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

IRC (last time)

Irritating, when people misunderstand your good intentions. If you insist on expecting someone to complain, that's what you will see, whether it's there or not. It's not an effective way to run a forum.

I didn't come to complain, I didn't come to discuss my undeletion request as that's really none of Meta's business, I didn't come here to be your punching bag, I came for the exact question that I asked, "What is the purpose of these channels?", and nothing else. THAT is a topic for Meta.

Despite all the attempts to prevent me from contacting an en-admin, I managed to do so yesterday, just so you know.

The IRC channels could and should facilitate that. It would only take half a minute, instead of a week. The channels were set up for all things concerning the wiki. We even say that loudly and clearly here on Meta but it's not happening and you seem not to know, remember, or care.

That's not good. Maybe you need to read my essay again, so you know where we came from and where you are today. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that your question has been answered previously, and I believe that IRC adequately covers the purpose of the irc usage. The short word answer is "communication", and it is one of many means of communication available to users and administrators.

When you continue to put argumentative commentary into your reputed question, you get argument back, so if you wish to ask a simple question, then keep it to a simple question, rather than complicate it and appear to be being argumentative.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a forum, not a help desk. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are various people in conflict with you in multiple venues, one potential conclusion is that the issue might be the common denominator among all situations. Killiondude (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I avoid these venues as much as I can. Unfortunately, that is not always possible. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WMF is refusing to uninstall Flow on Commons

Commons established Consensus to uninstall Flow, as was done on EnWiki and on WetaWiki. The WMF has just posted a reponse refusing to uninstall Flow. Alsee (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T188806 --Gryllida 05:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: The WMF has opened a Phab task to build a superprotect level for Flow. Alsee (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please calm down. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah this is highly misleading. I've read what they wrote and they're going to basically get rid of Flow items from the wiki. Removing the extension itself would be technically problematic and as a developer I can vouch for that (it would most likely lead to things like broken history, lost history, and weird errors). I think at this point, @Alsee: you're climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Once they've done what they've proposed the parts of Flow the community may reasonably object to should be disabled, whether or not code is left on the servers to handle displaying history etc. is a technical decision that seems largely beyond the scope of non-technical-community consensus. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If the unwanted and useless software Flow is really so hard to get rid off at a project, it should never ever have been deployed in the first place. No, the "arguments" are mere straw-men by those, who fear for their pet project to be ditched completely (I hope that will be done sooner then later), and now another big project has demanded to be cleansed of this, that's not good publicity for those who desperately want this weak forum impersonation be kept alive. It's of course a lie that it can't be uninstalled, as it was done without any problem at enWP and here. Stop lying about this and start being honest, please. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was impossible, I said it was problematic, so don't suggest I am being dishonest. It may be a good idea for developers to explore whether enwiki should be put in the same state as commonswiki is getting with regards to this extension, I don't know the history behind that. It's really pointless to say random developers are lying about such things... What possible reason could I have for lying about this? I didn't even make the Flow extension, and I doubt those who did would lie either. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you really want to poison the relationship between the communities and those obviously far detached from them in the WMF by redeploying some completely unwanted trash on enWP again? It will again create the i9mpression, that they don't give a damn about the communities and just want to enable absolute power. It's the same pattern like in the superprotect disaster, where rogue devs acted with brutal, mindless and evil power against the communities just for their private vain. Those behaviour should lead to immediate sacking of those rogue devs, as they are not doing anything good at all for the wikimedia community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Edith says: Not all devs are far detached from the communities, but those, who enabled superprotect or dare to bring Flow back to enWP obviously are. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Or, maybe both groups are doing what they think is best for the project and network. I don't think the polemic and accusations on either side help. I'll remind everyone here of our civility expectations here, and request that some people put a bit more thought and care into their words. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So much ^^^ this ^^^. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that creation of Flow things be enabled for enwiki users, I'm saying it may be a good idea (as a general impression, I'm not familiar enough with that area to really push for it, and I could be wrong) for developers to review what the technical situation is - because I believe it's better to have generic configurations where possible that fit many wikis rather than a new one for each (I used to largely run the generic Wikimedia wiki configuration changes process for a while so had to put up with a lot of this). It seems to me that, basically, in the past, one wiki had one solution applied for a problem, and now another wiki has asked for the same outcome and the developers intended solution has been written, but it's different from the previous one - so perhaps it's time to revisit the previous case and maybe update it to ensure consistency, preferring whichever turns out to be the better solution. Wiki communities can't really complain about exactly how developers choose to implement things behind the scenes as long as the end result is their wiki looks/behaves/etc. the way they desire. I really don't think there's anything particularly controversial about this. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been talking to some people about this and it sounds like for this extension the authors already wrote scripts that (largely?) take care of migrating content to a format that can be understood natively by core without help from the extension, so maybe that'll be enough to put things in a state whereby the extension could be uninstalled (such that it no longer appears on Special:Version - by the way, even if your wiki doesn't load it, the files will still be sat in the extensions directory on the servers if another wiki loads it) - it may be worth that being discussed among developers if it wasn't already, but I still think those are technical decisions. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Alse, why did you post this on numerous wikis? And what is your vendetta against it? --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 18:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, wikis where Flow is currently installed may be interested in the procedures surrounding it. --Nemo 18:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Grants received by WMF

Is there any list of grants received by the WMF? I found the Benefactors page with major donors as well as scattered notes here and there about Google grants, but no comprehensive list of all received grants. Does this list exist in meta or maybe the WMF wiki? Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

After looking more in-depth into this, there seem to be some troubling policy aspects of fundraising in the WMF: there are a few cases of people being appointed as a members of the Board of Trustees, Advisory Board or as a Board Visitor after a major donation to the WMF. It seems this was not clearly disclosed in the resolutions or press releases. Isn't there any policy in place to prevent large organizations from buying seats at the WMF? Isn't there any transparency policy making it mandatory to clearly disclose this either? This seems even more troubling when major donations can be done anonymously. If all major anonymous benefactors were disclosed, would we find even more seats taken as a result of such donations? --MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that this has been discussed many times in wikimedia-l, see e.g. [1]. --Nemo 18:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I went through dozens of emails on different threads, but didn't find any clear response on these issues. Sure, there are some discussions about the Stanton Foundation and Kinght Foundation grants, but just related to the fact that these specific cases were particularly controversial. There are some minor mentions about "seat buying" related to Omidyar Network donation and Matt Halprin trustee appointment, which were just dismissed by the WMF, as well as one user complaining about Doron Weber permanent (non-voting) seat at the Board of Trustees as Alfred P. Sloan Foundation representative which, as far as I see, wasn't even answered by anyone from the WMF. These discussions about some specific issues are certainly interesting (and even entertaining), but I still do not see serious discussion about policies that ensure transparency and accountability to the community when it comes to major donors. --MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, WMF has often rejected such proposals and all the decisions in the last few years went in the opposite direction, see wmf:Resolution:Gift Policy Amendments Increase Threshold and Talk:Wikimedia Foundation board agenda 2016-05. There used to be some public reporting in this area; nowadays the best you can get is some totals in the "major gift" etc. section of the "Advancement" slides at Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/Quarterly check-ins. --Nemo 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. That's pretty nasty. I reactivated the Grants given to Wikimedia Foundation and I'm getting the grant list. I included everything I could get from press releases and now I'm going through Form 990 of public benefactors. --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary length

The edit summary length recently changes from 255 bytes to 1,000 characters for all wikis of all languages. This change was made to better support non-Latin language wikis but it was decided that all wikis would benefit from a longer edit summary. Project details and counterarguments for this change (including a proposal to lower the limit) can be found at Community Tech/Edit summary length for non-Latin languages. We encourage you to join the discussion here, on Phabricator task phab:T6714 or at this talk page.

Best, — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 01:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: We are planning to change the edit summary length to 500 characters in the coming weeks. See more details are join the discussion here or at phab:T188798. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 21:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual Wikiquote

Only because no one responds at Talk:Wikiquote#Why_a_separate_project? would I talk here about my proposal. Should we talk here or there, please?--Jusjih (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied there. --Nemo 20:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Need help a Project of other language

I need somebody who knows Persian and have no power in Persian Wikipedia to come and find out what is getting on at that project.

I progressed to an article, but some new users which had got admin ship powers recently didn’t like the article. They set off fighting, and just banned my account completely, based on fictitious evidence! I don’t recognize why they banned me! I need somebody who knows Persian but is not with any power in Persian Wikipedia so he/she checks the situation! Thanks, (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

They deleted my article: [2]

They terminated the delete poll they themselves made to remove my article: [3] They banned me!

& they removed my page & talk page: [4]

THIS IS A PROJECT OF THE GOOD WIKIPEDIA WE ALL LOVE. I need someone who knows Persian, and is not and admin or something there; to check the whole situation, what is going on? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot even edit my own talk page! I had done practically nothing. NOTHING AT ALL!

Just make an article which they deleted that…

Please someone who knows Persian, From Wikipedia Foundation come and check that project. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:(بحث و مشارکت). The managing of editing access on local projects is mostly up to that project. fawiki has a large number of administrators and other functionaries that are active. Additinoally they have an arbitration committee that you may contact: w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:هیئت_نظارت. The "foundation" does not deal with this type of issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

(بحث و مشارکت) I can't read Persian, but I took a look using Google Translate.

First, article deletions are not unusual. There are many policies and guidelines on what kinds of articles are acceptable. A lot of new users have their first article deleted, because they haven't yet learned the criteria for acceptable articles.

I am unable to see the article you wrote, and there wasn't much information in the deletion discussion. However it looks like you wrote about a criminal event. I don't know the exact rules on fa.wikipedia (each language makes its own rules), but in general we are particularly careful about that kind of article. We don't have articles on all criminal events, or even all serious crimes. Generally, a crime would have to get an unusual amount of news coverage for us to allow an encyclopedia article on it. It looks like the article was deleted because there wasn't enough news coverage. I also noticed that the deletion-discussion was ended after just 25 minutes. I don't know if that's normal on fa.wikipedia, but on English wikipedia that would be abnormally fast unless there were severe problems with the article.

As for your block, the block reason given was "Legal Threat". If you said anything that could be interpreted as a legal threat, then yes, it is normal and expected that you get immediately blocked. It is normal and expected that your talk page would be shut off. Editors and admins do NOT deal with legal threats, period. If you said something with no real intention of pursuing a legal case, then you screwed up. If you said something and you do intend to pursue a legal case, then you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation legal department. If you say anything on meta.wikimedia that sounds like a legal threat then you will likely be blocked here as well, AND your account may be globally locked. We do not deal with legal threats on-wiki, period. Any legal threats must be filed though the Foundation legal department. Alsee (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m here asking for help for someone to come and take a look at what’s going on there.

The "foundation" should have some independent people to deal with this type of case.

I’m not a new User; I know article deletions are not unusual; I’m talking close to a real serious situation and problem in Persian Wikipedia. I was asked someone who knows Persian to take a look of this particular problem.

I know article deletions are not unusual, they deleted my article without any rationality; they called for some lies against me and then banned me, and then removed my talk page & user page. Has this all been unusual in Wikipedia projects? No, I really don't think so.

At that point, THERE is no REASON for all these deletions, I’m asking here for someone to take a look at what is going on in Persian Wikipedia.

You can look for "پرونده پزشک تبریزی" in Google and find out the news coverage of this particular event for years, and Ok. They want to delete this page, No Problem, Why they can easily attack users and ban them, altogether, and shut up their talk pages?!

I didn’t do ANY legal threats AT ALL! That’s bullshit from them, and that’s why I’m asking a Persian knowing person to arrive and see all this.

There are serious problems there, please somebody help. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mardetanha, What’s going on in Persian projects?

1- What was my Legal Threat!?

2- Why the article got deleted like that?

3- Why I got banned in that project?

4- Why I cannot edit my talk page?

5- Why my talk page & user page got removed?

6- What kind of people are going to be added to Persian Wikipedia administrators in recent years?

7- Are you happy with all these which are going on there? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help me.

I got banned in Persian Wikipedia, I cannot edit my talk page, my talk page and User page got removed totally.

They claim that I had made “Legal Threat”! I didn’t do ANY threat, AT ALL.

I just made an article. This was not on Wikipedia. Which they removed that, the deletion-discussion was ended after just 25 minutes, and then they claim I had made “Legal Threat”! Then banned me so I cannot even edit my talk page, and then removed my pages totally!

I need someone from Wikimedia Foundation to come and check what is going on in Persian Wikipedia recently.

Can someone from Wikimedia foundation check what’s going on there, PLEASE? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

we had a RFA for mentioned articles it was deleted based community wish Mardetanha ^talk 08:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked user in Persian Wikipedia, The case WAS a legal threat or at least the behavior made it valid enough to look so, for anyone with steward access in here, the summary the user provided here was the reason of block and later discussions with another sysop in the project convinced us to take user's email and talk page rights away as well (as the legal threat was done in user talk page), aggressive language also helped deciding about if user is actually aware of the threat they're making or they're only unaware because they're new, furthermore, the block was applied correctly and it's been discussed locally, ping me if any other explanation is needed. (The user who gave this request is ignored in my preferences but I'm available to answer any other user.) Mohammad (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No legal treat at all!

And he had banned me based aggressive language!? Who is aggressive one who made an article or one who attack a user who had made an article, and ban him, and do not let him edit his talk page, and remove his talk page! Who is being aggressive?

I need you to open my talk page, and unban me, the Wikimedia foundation is more than what a person can do anything in it, and be free to dominate like that.

Please someone from the Wikimedia foundation come and find out what is going on at that place, (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: For Clarification regarding the block, The user was given a notice about the RfD. He removed the notice with a sarcastic edit summary. Then was warned about personal attacks (because of the sarcastic edit summaries and his tone). He then proceeded to remove the warning with the following edit summary: «(یک بار دیگر در صفحهٔ شخصی من چرت و پرت بنویسی میرم شکایت میکنن ببینم اینجا چه خبره.)» which translates to: «if you write nonsense in my personal page again, i will sue you to see what's going on here.». based on this edit, user was blocked indef. Like any other Wikimedia project, we enforce our No legal threats policy strictly. --Arian ^Talk 09:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha-ha obviously wrong, anyone can check:

شکایت = Complaint (a statement that a situation is unsatisfactory or unacceptable.)

That means I will go Complaint you in Wikipedia: Administrators' notice board, why should I Sue some one?! That’s a big lie.

Sue = سو, تعقیب قانونی کردن, تعقیب کردن

You see, there is no hope in Persian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation should think about independent people for such cases, especially in small projects which administrators are a small circle of people, gathering together.

I need a Persian knowing authority from Outside, to come and check such things, Wikimedia should think about this.

I’m still banned and cannot edit, even my talk page. I did nothing wrong. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

One user comes and told me I should remove the article, I said: “if you write nonsense in my personal page again, I will Complaint to see what's going on here.” Is it a “legal treat”? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mardetanha, Please open my talk page and unban me, also recover my article on my talk page. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

People! Is it a “Legal Treat”? [5] Please see this [6] link. They banned me, removed my talk page totally. & I cannot do anything there. (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I told I will compliment based on Wikipedia: Harassment which says: “A common problem is harassment in users pace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space.” Is it a “legal treat”? Why they banned me? Why they removed my talk pages? (بحث و مشارکت) (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Information about the Wikimedia Foundation global survey starting soon

Hello!

My name is Edward Galvez and I work for the Wikimedia Foundation. For those of you who do not know, the Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, plus providing programs and initiatives to support free knowledge globally.

In about one week, the Foundation is starting a global survey to learn about the experiences and feedback of Wikimedians. I am writing here, because I wanted to share with you a bit more about the project. The survey is called "Wikimedia Communities and Contributors survey" and is conducted annually. We will send the survey to editors across all the Wikimedia projects, as well as Wikimedia affiliates and volunteer developers. This survey is going to be our way of making sure that we can hear feedback from a significant number of users from across the projects. This research supports editors and Wikipedia’s mission. This is our second annual CE Insights survey, and we look forward to improving it every year.

You can sign up to be notified about the results of the survey, or to learn how you can help with planning the survey next year. If you have any questions or concerns about this project, please feel free to send them to my talk page on meta or email me directly at surveys@wikimedia.org in any language. To see the results of last year’s survey, and to see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support communities, you can learn more about this project, or read about frequently asked questions. You can also share your feedback on meta. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk)

14:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninstall Flow on all the wikis where it's unused

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T188812 resolved

Flow developers have recently stated that installing Flow on a wiki can produce irreversible damage (at least with the current code). Therefore, it's currently proposed that Flow be uninstalled from about 800 wikis where it's been installed and never used: phabricator:T188812. It's a simple configuration change that reduces maintenance costs and leaves everyone equally entitled to their opinions as before. --Nemo 12:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

phab:T188812#4062110 Done. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

How long has flow been around?

I was on the star wars wikia and they. Had something similar that was introduced in 2011 . Does and asking whether flow was introduced at the same time on WMF sites. 70.21.184.216 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You can check out mw:Structured Discussions/Rollout. Note that Flow seems to have been renamed Structured Discussions. Killiondude (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Global Infobox

How to create a global Infobox which can be used in any of the wikis? Copy paste code is tedious. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't, see phab:T66475 for development of this idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That is what Wikidata is for. Unfortunately, properties needs community consensus (takes 1-12 months), the data types are garbage, validation is an afterthought. The interface is written in JQuery so its painfully slow and barely works—without URL converters, summaries, or warnings of validation. The philosophy is to ungroup edits so the lazy automatic edit summaries work while blogging down everything else about MediaWiki, including rc patrolling. Vandalism is basically an ignored problem leading people to work around it. The only people who work on it are focused on biographies leading to deficiencies everywhere else. At this point I'm in favor of firing everyone and scrapping the codebase. —Dispenser (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So, everything is that bad with Wikidata? Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The site links/language links is function certainly better than bots copying them everywhere. Although, not supporting section redirects is still an issue. Dispenser (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh, very negative comment. Seems mostly like your personal opinion. Stryn (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You can bury your head in the sand, but we wont be progress make if we don't acknowledged our issues and weaknesses. Dispenser (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the law of transition of quantity to quality, Wikipedias was first (many languages) and now this quantity changes into a new quality (appearance of one language from combinations of Q, P and numbers). And when it will be possible to automatically display subcategories in its items tree, then this tool of static modeling of the world will become, perhaps, the best. Now some P* we can use as a (global?) navigation template, some Q* - as a (common, global?) infobox. --Fractaler (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge

The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

My new project proposal

WikiMiscellanea. (Am I doing this right?) Lojbanist (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikisongs

Hello, I wanted and want to start this new project, so I asked many wikipedia-musicsites of many languages. But nobody said something to the project. Nobody said that the project is bad or good! What I do wrong? --Habitator terrae (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why nobody answer me?--Habitator terrae (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not interested. Stryn (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Wikimedia Commons may take your plan.--Jusjih (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Wikisongs really something for Commons? I thing that Commons is only a project for picture and audio. But I want to do this with the wiki-software.--Habitator terrae (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Update about WMF’s Anti-Harassment Tools team work in 2018: Blocking tools

Hello all, thank you for the input over the past several months about the blocking tools. From all the participation in the discussion on Meta, our discussion with our legal department, and our preliminary technical analysis, the AHT team has decided to a) investigate two projects now, b) next build two small changes, and c) later in the year follow with a third project. The details are below.

First, the team will investigate and decide between:

• Project 1 - Block by combination of hashed identifiable information (e.g. user agent, screen resolution, etc.) in addition to IP range. We are still defining what “hashed identifiable information” means in our technical investigation, which can be tracked at phab:T188160. We will also need to decide how this type of block is set on Special:Block (likely an optional checkbox) and how this type of block is reflected in block logs.
• Project 4 - Drop a 'blocked' cookie on anonymous blocks. The investigation can be tracked at phab:T188161.
• If these projects are deemed technically too risky, we will pursue Project 2 - Block by user agent in addition to IP. User agents data is already available to Check Users.

Next, we will do two feature improvements, adding an optional datetime selector to Special:Block (phab:T132220) and improving the display of block notices on mobile devices (phab:T165535).

In a few months (likely around May 2018) we will pursue some form of Project 5 - Block a user from uploading files and/or creating new pages and/or editing all pages in a namespace and/or editing all pages within a category.

Additional ideas can be added to on wiki discussion pages or user blocking column on Phabricator for future discussions and decisions. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)