Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

RFC on this page[edit]

I just realized I failed to post a notice here of a discussion of this page, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC on WP:RESTRICT. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The new archive[edit]

Just some updates about the new archiving procedure.

  • I've just finished going through the arbcom section, it was quite a chore, but I believe it's done for now. I made a few WP:IAR decisions in edge cases, such as old sanctions on groups (I don't think arbcom has even done those for many years) where one user out of the group made a single edit just shy of a year ago, and a few other situations like that. If anyone objects to any of that, feel free to move them back.
  • I'm still hoping to get a bot to keep this up to date, since I can't think of any way to maintain this other than someone going through the entire list once a month or so, which will get easier as time goes on but I can assure is mind-numbingly tedious
  • I also kind of made up a new rule on the spot, that anyone subject to an "office ban" where the foundation itself has globally locked them out can just be removed whenever. (I only found one instance of this so far) I think that makes sense as a restriction here is no longer relevant and if they somehow manage to get the lock overturned we can always put them back on the main page. If anyone disagrees with that let me know.

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Turns out the community-imposed section is even more laborious. There's an awful lot of restrictions there on people who have been blocked or are inactive for more than five years. At some point we may want to discuss the utility of preserving this stuff indefinitely.
  • I think we should ask that unless a restriction is an iban, that users not be grouped even if they are subject to the same restriction. I've run into several where one user is blocked/inactive and the other is not.
  • I also think we should exempt userspace edits as I've run into a number of restricted users who have come back after a long inactivity just to archive their talk page and disappear again, so I've pretty much been doing this in practice with my edits today.
  • I'm out of gas for the moment, but if nobody else steps in I'll try to get this done in the next day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe the initial archiving is now done. Anyonw with some time to kill is welcome to double check. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Improving the interface[edit]

I am planning to make some changes to improve the interface of this page, in particular to reduce the clutter and make the listings more easily searchable. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with any of the changes. Alex ShihTalk 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the tranclusions as an improvement, Alex Shih. If there's information anywhere on the page about where to actually log the restriction, I can't find it. IMO this makes it harder for the not-so-technically proficient admin, and is making me hesitate to place editing restrictions at all. I don't mind clutter so much as I mind not being able to figure out what to do. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
I am the not-technically proficient admin. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen Drmies I don't disagree. But I think it's fair to say that the previous format was growing incredibly tedious (loading and scrolling, incredibly painful to log the restriction, at least for me) even after the changes made by Beeblebrox. I don't think transclusion changed anything (the appearance is the same), but I understand the point and made some tweaks to make it easier to find "log the restriction" for each category, if you don't mind, please take a look. In the meanwhile, requesting opinions from SpacemanSpiff, Primefac and KrakatoaKatie (sorry about the ping). Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That helps, Alex. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
I do like having the specific types on subpages. Navigation to those pages is a little odd at first, but once you know what you're looking for it's not too bad. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I think the layout is better than earlier but I still dislike the way the sanctions have to be logged (and this isn't new to this format), adding a table row is very painful (and I've created many lists on here). We had a similar problem on WP:GS/Caste where I copied over this format but it was turning out to be far too painful and we just switched over to a simple text. Some sort of a fill up form/gadget like for cite templates or even a script like at RfPP would be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff
SpacemanSpiff, if you like I can whip up some sort of template like {{new sanction}}, with the six params being the four columns. It would be a subst-only, basically allowing for easier adding of content. Would that work? Primefac (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Six params..? God. I fervently agree that adding a table row is pure pain. Though in my opinion, so are templates created for "easier adding of content", sorry. Why can't we have a simple list like Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Adding a sanction to that is very simple and comfortable compared to tables with columns and/or templates. I know computer nerds technologically proficient users are partial to columns and templates... but Alex and Primefac, there are also idiot admins like me and Drmies. Well, especially like Drmies. (I'm not including SpacemanSpiff, because he's probably a little smarter.) Bishonen | talk 16:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC).
Yeah... four params is one thing, six is a little excessive. As far as the actual format goes I'm rather indifferent, and if anything I agree with you that the table version "looks nicer" but is harder to modify. It is also, as I recently discovered, a terrible setup for "updating", since you have to either make a huge row or remove content entirely. If consensus is that we should do it ArbCom's way, then I'm happy to chip in with the transition. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bishonen, WP:DSLOG which is supposed to be more paperwork intensive is easier to update than this one, which is why I switched the format for WP:GS/Caste from this to that. If we can go with something like DSLOG that might make more admins amenable to closing these kinds of discussions! cheers.—SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I actually like the WP:DSLOG way too. Back in my mind I was thinking about creating sub-pages for each individual user sanctioned and create a button that links directly to a preload screen, but if we can do it the simple way and have each individual user having their own sub-section in one page (making it easier to access and update), I think that would make life easier too. Alex ShihTalk 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Informal proposal[edit]

Based on the above discussion, I'm putting forth an informal proposal to modify the logs. Consider it a pre-RFC poll, since starting an RFC for something that won't pass is silly. Please indicate whether you'd prefer DSLOG, GS/Caste, No change or other, along with any comments you may feel are relevant. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions[edit]

Light-Bulb icon by Till Teenck green.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)