Could be useful, but so long as I could dump in a list of names to the input box that would be a good start.

Perhaps it could start similar to how Special:MultiLock works?

Sort of, however this is to allow on-demand loading of information we may not have already loaded anywhere. Perhaps 10.1.1.2 contributed somewhere and we have info on that, but we want to get the info for 10.1.1.0/24 or 10.1.1.2 -- that isn't being captured today because it hasn't been seen yet, even though an action such as a block may be more appropriate on the range. The workflow on that is to go find local projects where this may have been gathered, and or go back to leaving our sites and using external services directly.

Personally, if I'm considering placing a global block it would be useful to be able to query this information in one place (such as from metawiki) instead of having to go to local projects to do it, or going to external sources such as spur.us to do it. There isn't private info involved here, but putting a guardrail of administrator could be OK (as administrator is the level that would be reacting and placing blocks).

While ideally developers wouldn't deploy anything community impacting that is contentious having a way to identify that the impact of a request would benefit from community discussion doesn't seem like a bad thing.

So back to the list, I can also see reasons why when blocking a network globally we wouldn't want to block 'send email' locally -- as that will prevent use of Special:Contact (which is used for appeals as well).

The task description literally asks to "remove" an option.

Note: also tested after removing recovery email address from requester, so they have no email address.

I just went through the user story here is the current results:

In T380743#10353058, @Urbanecm wrote:

As of now, completing this task means submitting the block will always trigger two blocks: one global, one at meta-wiki. With the "also block locally" checkbox, this makes sense, but after this change, not so much. Can we whitelist blocks partially?

Also, note the form has an associated API, which the stewards make an use of.

Blocking on needing community discussion, I can't see why staff would need to mandate removing technical options from volunteers.

I think this needs wider discussion, not a discord chat - especially if the ask is for some reason to actually remove technical capabilities (as opposed to just changing the webui (and api?) pre-filled check boxes).

In T8808#1666317, @Billinghurst wrote:

I am misunderstanding the request as when I go to special:import I see in both the xml and the interwiki import the following options

Import to default locations
Import to a namespace:
Import as subpages of the following page:

with a radio button to identify the type of end game. Are we looking for a fourth option of "brand new name"?

Added to the DEC 2024 stewards meeting agenda where legal is usually present

As the WMF-Legal project tag was added to this task, some general information to avoid wrong expectations:
Please note that public tasks in Wikimedia Phabricator are in general not a place where to expect feedback from the Legal Team of the Wikimedia Foundation due to the scope of the team and/or nature of legal topics. See the project tag description.
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal for when and how to contact the Legal Team. Thanks!

Thanks, looks like a lot of back-end may be usable for both if someone takes this up!

I think this is a duplicate of T374718

This is certainly still an issue in vector-2010, able to reproduce and still getting user stories raised in VRT.

This does appear to be the expected behavior - but wondering if perhaps "unclosed html comment tags" could be included in lint errors for cleanup?

In T77877#10243873, @Jdlrobson wrote:

Thanks for the note! The follow up work here is to add an indicator about the number of the image in the top right ( T77877#10203938 ) I haven't created that ticket yet though. When we do that we can also add classes to the media viewer so that editors who want to opt out can disable the behaviour using their local CSS. I'll create this next week if nobody beats me to it.

Agree that removing candidates that have withdrawn prior to voting beginning is appropriate. C678 may be best for handling the whitelist that he is generating.

Note, at the time there were 7 pages, of which 2 were redirects

So here's the thing - workflow wise, "Special:Contact/Stewards" just goes to our VRT queue, the same way if you just email the queue address directly; which is open to anyone - who can trivially spoof anything. That VRT queue also sends a mail receipt - so yes, you can use this form - or just plain email - to get VRT to send a receipt to anyone else. VRT doesn't have any special indicators for authenticated sources of mail and it is quite rare that we would open and examine the envelop headers.

In T224059#10225614, @Ammarpad wrote:

When this task was filed it was not possible to disable editing the sender name and email address. After T324175, these fields can now be independently locked from editing, so the issue is now purely form configuration not ContactPage extension limitation.

It it's still needed to disable these fields, this is Wikimedia-Site-requests otherwise it should be closed as needing no action.

@JJMC89, can you speak for stewards to answer these questions?

1. Should https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contact/Stewards require login to work?
2. Should users be able to edit the email address field?

You will get 3 columns, values -1,0,1; labeled however you want them. One of them must be specified as the default. Unless otherwise specified in your rules, it should be the abstain/neutral one. (So if all someone does is open and submit the ballot, it is all abstains).

FYI: SP doesn't support the feature being asked about "add a column sorter for options" - a feature request would be needed for that:

Yes, generally WMF will set up the election and will load the candidate names when provided. Then an election admin can add the electoral roll (voter whitelist), or the roll can be given to them to do.

Users are continuing to report this problem:

FYI, most of the 2023 enwiki arbcom settings can be seen in the public onwiki config files here: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/SecurePoll:1436

Normally the WMF resource does this task on votewiki, as they also need to deal with the encryption stuff

@Novem_Linguae you want to use the same mechanism as the 2023 enwiki arbcom election correct? If so that was:

Readers reporting this is still going on, clicking on an image: "...it starts large, then when I click it becomes smaller, then if I click again, it chooses a third medium size..."

The inverse of this needs to be able to happen as well - automatically revoke this from any user that is no longer in the required groups on any prod wiki

A reader reported similar problem on en.wikipedia in ticket 2024100510006742

Yup, <templatescripts> (akin to <templatestyles>) seems much cleaner.

Just noting that with one of the original examples resolved in another task, an example with >25000 mentees IS completing on a basic api fetch: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=jsonfm&list=growthmentormentee&formatversion=2&gemmmentor=Dreamyshade

No rush

In T330071#10190666, @Urbanecm_WMF wrote:

FYI, I just deployed the fix for that one to production. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=jsonfm&list=growthmentormentee&formatversion=2&gemmmentor=Blaze_Wolf now works. I'll try to readd and then re-remove the user to the list of mentors, to see what happens the reassignment. Hopefully, this was all it needed, but if not, we can investigate further.

In T265726#10170351, @Ameisenigel wrote:

Could we re-open this Task? According to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy/Exceptions the legal issue should be resolved.

Still seem to be having issues with this. On 2024-08-07 on enwiki, we removed a retired mentor, User:Blaze Wolf :

Agree on change from onhover to onclick to open this, it is overly intrusive

Initial community discussion (not very well attended, but well advertised) does not have support for flagging actions/edits as 'bot'.

That other tasks suggests there are triggers that will let this work already, perhaps they can be repurposed?

(Straying off topic of this ticket which if it is a duplicate should certainly be merged in)

@Tufor (see image below) - however if you are referring to how it looks when it is NOT poped-up, that should be a different bug report (I agree it looks really bad there, as in the image below)

<gripe>Prehaps - ticket may be another victim of our lack of an incident management system.... </gripe>

For example, oops don't stray a few pixels from trying to use the coordinators indicator:

At the very least perhaps this should require an unclick instead of an onhover, as attempting to hover any of the other indicators in the area is likely to lead to continual popups of flagrevs even if you have no desire to use that function at the moment.

Just tried, browser print to Letter and A4 both seem to be on the same page now. PDF writer is still completely different - using a larger font it seems, splitting the infobox to multiple pages - but much closer to the 'old behavior'. This user story does seem to be solved now, however there may still be some oddities going on with the pdfmaker.

That may work project wise, but is there a different issue of why this browser-print-to-a4 doesn't match electron print to a4?

For webui, this would be on-demand and certainly could be restricted to privileged users (suggest reusing some existing permission related to ipinfo) so I wouldn't expect the rate limit to be much of an issue, likely could use existing general webui rate limiter. API - would need more discussion, and starting with webui only would solve the initial user story of looking for a replacement for other deprecated gui tools.

Possible integration with T349534

A PDF reader shows:

"Electron PDF seems to think it's dealing with less than 720px worth of space"

OLD VERSION:

Recent user story matching this at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wikipedia_Library&oldid=27444592#Automated_message_that_I_am_eligible_for_the_Library,_but_then_-_I_am_not_eligible,_after_all

May be a subset of T354117

See also https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wikipedia_Library#Automated_message_that_I_am_eligible_for_the_Library,_but_then_-_I_am_not_eligible,_after_all

Thank you for the update!

Confusing request left for enwiki community at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&oldid=1245192151#Cleaning_up_MOS%3A_links - can someone clarify there in a way that is very clear to editors about what is changing, what is breaking, etc.

Similarly the mobile web interface does not have the "watch this page" option, but only when using source editor publish screen - in VE publish screen it is there. Suggest this gets solved at the same time as the original story here by bringing parity to the publish controls regardless of editor selection.

c.f. T372024 about if this account should be +system, +bot

Just need to test this now

Is this resolved in production? We are still having readers complain about this problem:

Yes, then it grew in to self-service. AFAIK, the ones manually from Legal still just come to the VRT queue?

Thanks for opening this, this workflow certainly needs to be improved.

Simply allowing multiple, overlapping protections on a page would solve for this and other use cases.

Also, you could script callling Special:Createlocalaccount for an account to import it to a local project

Note: initial comments suggest not to use 'bot' assertation, feedback welcome on the link above.

@HMonroy can you provide additional information on this ask? Is this only about a specific UI element, not the underlying blocking capability?

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_bot_status/AccountVanishRequests opened

Using the existing last modified and license sounds like an easy win (and helps to propagate the open license as well).

See also T157844

2FA audits are being performed by WMF/stewards against required groups - so this may be solved. The results of such audits are not published publicly.

Note https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy/Exceptions has been updated to remove a hurdle for 'crats to be able to do this; at this point would need a new task - the "MediaWiki:Verifyoathforuser-text" message should likely be initiated along with such a request, to put in a warning to users that the results of that query are non-public information - at the very least for WMF wikis (if worded generically enough could be reusable).

any objections to at least initially flagging this account as bot on metawiki while this is being worked on?

Not a bug, existing feature, updated documentation.

Thank you for the update, regression marker withdrawn. Updated the documentation at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Editing

(removed teahouse item, as it is no longer running at reference project)