Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-08-30/Discussion report

Discussion report

Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

Two major Meta proposals

Two global proposals were drafted this month with wide impacts for many Wikimedia projects. One is a planned community consultation (à la

here and a previous Signpost Discussion report

).

The drafting page lists the following planned questions for the consultation:

How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset?
1. Large ones with an elaborate conflict resolution body as the ArbCom on the English language Wikipedia
2. Medium-sized ones with a working process for conflict resolution but not elaborate or fully formal
3. Small ones where neither follow up on all edits is done nor a proper conflict resolution mechanism exists within the community
Can the Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans, as written (circa June 2019), be used? If not, what changes need to be made to its text?
How should partial and temporary Foundation bans ideally be implemented, if they should be?
1. For what types of behavior should the Foundation issue partial or temporary office actions?
2. Should partial and temporary office actions be appealable?
3. What duration(s) should be available for partial and temporary office actions?
4. What other considerations should be taken into account when using partial or temporary office actions?
5. To what extent should the community be allowed to participate in the discussion about temporary Office Actions? What if the temporary Office Actions were challenged by the local community?

Discussion of the draft is currently closed, and the consultation is expected to begin soon.

The other

CheckUsers, or other users with advanced permission will still be able to see IP addresses. The page says IPs "should be exposed to as few people as possible", but that they will be provided where necessary. Many users have expressed

opposition to this plan because it would make it harder for wikis to fight abuse. The WMF is still working on ways to hide IPs without creating this issue.

In brief

As a follow-up to the move of the years 1–99 to "AD 1", etc. (as well as some higher-numbered pages with special significance, like 911 and 404), it has been proposed that all the other years up to 999 be moved according to the same pattern.
The appropriateness of private hearings, particularly whether evidence must be disclosed to accused parties, is being
discussed on the village pump. This request for comment came up as a result of the Fram arbitration case
.

Strategic recommendations from WMF working groups have been released here.

← Previous "Discussion report"

Next "Discussion report" →

In this issue

Discussion report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

@Pythoncoder: - nice summary, it might be worth noting that the partial/local ban consultation is specifically intended to start sometime shortly after the 7th September (when ARBCOM rules on the FRAM case)? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they add my proposed question about the issue of private accusations, evidence, and adjudications interfering with the ability to learn the standards to which editors are expected to adhere, and with the checks and balances against retaliatory and abusive accusations. I got it in well under the deadline. I am also not very happy about referring to "the Office Actions policy" as if it had ever gone though the policy process, which it has not. I guess they thought "formerly proposed" had too many negative connotations? EllenCT (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Office Actions is still marked as a global policy; thus, the WMF's characterization in the quoted portion is accurate. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 2006-2016 policy was announced, discussed, approved and adopted. The 2017 and 2019 edits were not. EllenCT (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a link to discussion leading to the use of "AD" to denote years, instead of "CE" which seems to be preferred by non-Christians, for whom it is not "the year of their Lord." Edison (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever way you look at it though, Edison, it still won't change the fact that international counting of the Common Era coincides with the creation of Christianity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Talk:AD 1/Archive 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to?. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is surprising that Wikipedia's position is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Lord, so we have to use BC/AD ("Before Christ"/"Year of the Lord" rather than BCE/CE. I hope someone gives me a nudge on my talk page when this comes up again. Edison (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia's position is that it should name things in the way they are usually named in reputable sources. (And as an atheist, I don't like the assumption that I'm living in a "Christian Era". I'd probably dislike it even more if I followed some other religion.) Maproom (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Maproom: That's not what the acronym stands for... --Yair rand (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About