Meta:Babel/Archives/2020-02
< Meta:Babel | Archives
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2020, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Interwiki "Your notices" seem to be persistent
I was directed here from the Wikipedia village pump. In the last few days, my "Your notices" icon has had a badge "82", which turn out to be Wikisource pages that I created having been linked to Wikidata. I tried clearing them from the Wikipedia dropdown, from w:Special:Notifications, or by logging in at Wikisource and clicking the blue dots one by one. But they refused to go away on reload. I did discover that my Wikisource Preferences/Notifications had "Connection with Wikidata" checked, and unchecking it does remove the badge. But if I put that checkmark back, the underlying bug is still there: the notifications don't respond to attempts to mark as read. Clearly not a big issue because I can suppress it, but is this a real bug? DavidBrooks (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: this will probably belong on phab, but a few questions. Did you have that enabled in a local preference or a global preference? If local, on which project? Can you provide an example of one of the specific notifications? — xaosflux Talk 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: If you mean the "Connection with Wikidata" checkbox, it was disabled in my Wikipedia preferences and enabled in my Wikisource preferences - by that, I mean Special:Preferences, Notifications tab, blue checkbox (and also "Show notifications from other wikis" is set, of course). I don't think I know how to set prefs globally. I don't recall ever touching those values, but I may have done years ago, so I can't be sure these are defaults. I've re-enabled the Wikisource setting, and strangely the badge now says "57". Maybe there's a days-long backlog in applying my mark-as-read? DavidBrooks (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: if you go to wikisource:en:Special:Notifications, can you click on "Mark Group as Read"? — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: That was one of the ways I tried to clear them (click on the "Unread" selector first). But that said, I just tried it again and the "OK, I read it" seems to have persisted this time. Either an incidental recent fix, or a seriously delayed asynchronous process? I'll check back in later today to see if they reappear. DavidBrooks (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: Is everything ok already? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: Yes thanks. The notifications slowly drained away over a period of days. I had a while back created some EB1911 pages by transcluding from Page space, and they all seemed to have been hooked to Wikidata at once. There are editors who created thousands of EB1911 Wikisource articles in the long past; I wonder how they are faring. DavidBrooks (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: Thanks for the update, if you need more help do come back here again. Happy to help.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Camouflaged Mirage: Yes thanks. The notifications slowly drained away over a period of days. I had a while back created some EB1911 pages by transcluding from Page space, and they all seemed to have been hooked to Wikidata at once. There are editors who created thousands of EB1911 Wikisource articles in the long past; I wonder how they are faring. DavidBrooks (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: Is everything ok already? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: That was one of the ways I tried to clear them (click on the "Unread" selector first). But that said, I just tried it again and the "OK, I read it" seems to have persisted this time. Either an incidental recent fix, or a seriously delayed asynchronous process? I'll check back in later today to see if they reappear. DavidBrooks (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: if you go to wikisource:en:Special:Notifications, can you click on "Mark Group as Read"? — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: If you mean the "Connection with Wikidata" checkbox, it was disabled in my Wikipedia preferences and enabled in my Wikisource preferences - by that, I mean Special:Preferences, Notifications tab, blue checkbox (and also "Show notifications from other wikis" is set, of course). I don't think I know how to set prefs globally. I don't recall ever touching those values, but I may have done years ago, so I can't be sure these are defaults. I've re-enabled the Wikisource setting, and strangely the badge now says "57". Maybe there's a days-long backlog in applying my mark-as-read? DavidBrooks (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Add my tag to the project
Im not good at editing and im On an iphone can someome please help — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jchassery (talk)
- @Jchassery: I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, would you please explain in more detail? — xaosflux Talk 18:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jchassery: Any news?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done No news after 2 pings. Do reply Xaosflux question in a new thread if you need help.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Meta:Vandalism to become an official guideline
This is linked into block notices, warning notices but as a proposed guideline seems weird. I looked through the content, seems fine. Any objections for it to be listed as a formal guideline?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Meh, Meta:Policies and guidelines is kept very short and works - I don't think we need a "official guideline" to define this. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure we need an official policy/guideline on what vandalism is. Meta intentionally keeps the number of formal policies low, and has avoided being overly prescriptive in areas without a clear need. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz and Xaosflux:So shall we just remove the proposed guideline part on top. Doesn't have much usage IMO?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that works for me. The page description already says that it's an information page, and it should be sufficient at that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Thanks. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that works for me. The page description already says that it's an information page, and it should be sufficient at that. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz and Xaosflux:So shall we just remove the proposed guideline part on top. Doesn't have much usage IMO?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Request withdrawn for it to be a guideline, and removed the proposed guideline tag. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Main page now used on Minerva/mobile
Last week, the change to switch over mobile/minerva to use the standard main page was enacted. From now on all main page content will be presented there unless indicated otherwise. Thank you to everyone who helped out. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was switched. The previous thread was archived but it was noted the switch was successful. Thanks TheDJ for the suggestion.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2FA tester local group on meta
Per Ruslik0 idea on Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users, I propose a 2FA tester local group on meta which meta sysops + stewards are able to grant and remove the oauth-enable, and depreciate the global group.
Support as proposer.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)- Support. Ruslik (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support, per comments on RFC. —Sgd. Hasley 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not against this idea by any means, but I think it is worth noting that Babel is intended for Meta general discussion. Proposals like this would go to either Meta:Requests for comment (local) or to Requests for comment (global); this has global implications so I think the latter is more appropriate. ~riley (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @~riley: I started here on the advice of Ruslik0. This is sort of phab changes and for the raising of autoconfirm to 5 edits was also held here which resulted in a phab change. I think this is a local meta group, so a meta local RFC will be suitable (but then there is already one for the enabling of all the 2FA on meta already), so then it can be a subsection of that RFC but will make that more complex. For the depreciating the global group, it's unfortunate I put it in such way, it should be redundant as stewards will no longer grant the global 2FA tester group, so the group is still there, but not granted. What will be granted will be the local 2FA group instead. Hope this clarifies, and will be happy to move all these to a RFC if it's needed. Feel free to discuss with me here or on IRC. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good idea.--AldnonymousBicara? 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ruslik0, Hasley, Aldnonymous, and ~riley: Per above feedback that RFC is more appropriate and IRC conversation, I started Meta:Requests for comment/Create a 2FA tester local meta usergroup. Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. I fail to understand what is the problem we are attempting to resolve. We currently have 398 accounts in the global group. To deprecate the global group we'll need to remove all of them from the group and later delete it. There's no way to do this with a single click, nor transparently (sure a sysadmin can fiddle with the DB and do it). Is this worth the effort? (assuming we don't want to re-add them later to the local group). Secondly, what kind of benefit do we achieve from switching from global to local? Are we stewards overwhelmed by the number of requests that can't cope with them? I don't think so. Do a local group (which we'll need a Phab task each time we need to change a comma of its config, as opposed to CentralAuth groups) provide any benefits in comparison to the current global group? Maybe set it to auto-expire, but work is being done right now by Melos to implement expiring user groups; and I'm not sure we want to set this group as expiring either. And lastly, are rubber-stamping going to end (one of the reasons offered) being this a local group? Unlikely. So overall and with all due respect no convincing reason has been offered in this discussion nor in the RfC as against the current status quo. My advice is to let this stay until such time 2FA gets rolled to everyone by default (when it is safe to do so) and then yeah, nuke the global group as deprecated. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)- Oppose - why though? I don't understand what's wrong with the global group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just a quick response here, I think this thread can be closed as the RFC is on, sorry for starting here and not a RFC. Some response to the opposes above. I am basically open to whether leaving it per status quo or changing. The primary consideration of a local group will be Ruslik0 idea in the 1st RFC which states the issue of rubber stamping as well as more hands can help. This can be in response to Ajraddatz concerns. As per the points raised up by MarcoAurelio. Thanks for all the inputs. My RFC have an option we let both groups remain, though newer users who requested 2FA will be added to the local group only. As of phab concerns, yes, there are, I think since this is just 1 right with 2 groups (meta sysops, stewards) removing and adding it, the code will be simple enough. Rubber stamping won't end I guess, but the idea is basically more people rubber stamping it and to relieve some load off stewards shoulders. Just some thoughts, sorry that these are very brief as it's quite late here, will try to expand when I have the time. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that moving it to a local group will prevent rubber stamping. A clear set of criteria for granting the permissions would be more useful in that regard. I don't think the stewards are particularly burdened by these requests (indeed, back in the old days when I was a steward, people answered these requests usually within minutes). In principle I don't object to steward rights being devolved, something I have always supported (see global abusefilter editing permissions), but I think a clearer need should be established here first. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz:. I am actually quite neutral in this, as some stewards had said they are tired to rubber stamp, if I can help, why not? On the other hand, having the local group doesn't mean rubber stamping will stop, is just more people having the stamp I guess. I think a way is for all stewards to comment here or a list to see if it is a net positive for this right to be devolved. If so let's do it, if not then I think we can close this and the other RFC for all meta users to have 2FA automatically as moot? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- The rubber stamping argument is a non sequitur to me. If the consensus is to grant each and every request that comes to us then I may change my opinion at Meta:Requests for comment/Enable 2FA on meta for all users and let all users activate 2FA themselves, customizing the local intro message adding a big ol' fat warning in the lines of: be warned that if you mess up or don't know what are you doing don't come crying to us later. Creating a local group to continue with the rubber stamping is pointless and not worth the effort. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Ajraddatz:. I am actually quite neutral in this, as some stewards had said they are tired to rubber stamp, if I can help, why not? On the other hand, having the local group doesn't mean rubber stamping will stop, is just more people having the stamp I guess. I think a way is for all stewards to comment here or a list to see if it is a net positive for this right to be devolved. If so let's do it, if not then I think we can close this and the other RFC for all meta users to have 2FA automatically as moot? Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that moving it to a local group will prevent rubber stamping. A clear set of criteria for granting the permissions would be more useful in that regard. I don't think the stewards are particularly burdened by these requests (indeed, back in the old days when I was a steward, people answered these requests usually within minutes). In principle I don't object to steward rights being devolved, something I have always supported (see global abusefilter editing permissions), but I think a clearer need should be established here first. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Just a quick response here, I think this thread can be closed as the RFC is on, sorry for starting here and not a RFC. Some response to the opposes above. I am basically open to whether leaving it per status quo or changing. The primary consideration of a local group will be Ruslik0 idea in the 1st RFC which states the issue of rubber stamping as well as more hands can help. This can be in response to Ajraddatz concerns. As per the points raised up by MarcoAurelio. Thanks for all the inputs. My RFC have an option we let both groups remain, though newer users who requested 2FA will be added to the local group only. As of phab concerns, yes, there are, I think since this is just 1 right with 2 groups (meta sysops, stewards) removing and adding it, the code will be simple enough. Rubber stamping won't end I guess, but the idea is basically more people rubber stamping it and to relieve some load off stewards shoulders. Just some thoughts, sorry that these are very brief as it's quite late here, will try to expand when I have the time. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no reason to change the state of affairs, or at least I haven't seen one in this proposal. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sigh, this is such a circular argument - don't let people have 2FA becuase it isn't supported, but let anyone who wants it have it if they wave a magic chicken. At this point we should probably fall forward or fall back -- expand it, or stop adding "testers". We really don't need any more "testing", and the people signing up to be "testers" aren't participating in tests at all - they just want to opt-in. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
