Talk:Requests for comment/Expand two-factor verification as an option for all users on all wikis
Color badges on comments[edit]
Hi MF-Warburg, I see your point that people have right to choose their own way to express their comments but I also have right to organize content on my RfC. If they disagree with such change they can restore the original on they own without your or my n intervention. BTW thank you for caring about such details but I think that deciding about placement of a comment badge cannot be treated as self-expression. They were mainly created to ease navigation among numerous comments, not to help people with their self-expression. --Rezonansowy (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is contrary to Meta-Wiki custom. --MF-W 01:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with MF-W, and would also like to differentiate between your editing of other people's comments and MF-W's revert of that edit. You are not both editing other people's comments, just you are Rezonansowy. And it really isn't necessary. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- MF-W, why and what exactly is is contrary to Meta-Wiki custom? Ajraddatz, adding an appropriate icon to mark comment cannot be labeled as editing of other people's comments, because I don't change their point or any content. I've already stated why that badges are useful to distinguish support votes from the rest of the content. That is why they exist. Stating that it just really isn't necessary doesn't contain any argumentation. Guys, you don't support your POVs in any ways so I cannot discuss with you. --Rezonansowy (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- For as long as I have edited Meta, it has been custom to not modify the comments of others. Such modifications are not required for clarity - these are discussions and not votes. Closing admins or stewards do not require them, and users participating in the discussion are fully able to read comments without them. Users can use the {{support}} or {{oppose}} if they want to, but it is not mandatory, and there is no reason for you to modify their comments after the fact to include them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that no one should change other's comments but do you really call placing a green dot to highlight something a modification of other's comments? Changing somebody's statement is about content, not its appearance. There's a huge difference. And nobody thinks that green dots are mandatory and that's not the main point of this discussion. It's all about appearance. Trying to find a policy or its lack or custom for everything is unnecessary. --Rezonansowy (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your change has no benefit, only improving the visual aesthetic in your opinion. As I said, it is not needed for either the closing admin or discussion participants. In one case, you change "cautious support" to "cautious
Support", potentially changing the emphasis that the author wished to convey. Please revert your change, and stop making it in the future. I'm the second admin to revert you and you keep edit warring over this ridiculous reason. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your change has no benefit, only improving the visual aesthetic in your opinion. As I said, it is not needed for either the closing admin or discussion participants. In one case, you change "cautious support" to "cautious
- I agree that no one should change other's comments but do you really call placing a green dot to highlight something a modification of other's comments? Changing somebody's statement is about content, not its appearance. There's a huge difference. And nobody thinks that green dots are mandatory and that's not the main point of this discussion. It's all about appearance. Trying to find a policy or its lack or custom for everything is unnecessary. --Rezonansowy (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- For as long as I have edited Meta, it has been custom to not modify the comments of others. Such modifications are not required for clarity - these are discussions and not votes. Closing admins or stewards do not require them, and users participating in the discussion are fully able to read comments without them. Users can use the {{support}} or {{oppose}} if they want to, but it is not mandatory, and there is no reason for you to modify their comments after the fact to include them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- MF-W, why and what exactly is is contrary to Meta-Wiki custom? Ajraddatz, adding an appropriate icon to mark comment cannot be labeled as editing of other people's comments, because I don't change their point or any content. I've already stated why that badges are useful to distinguish support votes from the rest of the content. That is why they exist. Stating that it just really isn't necessary doesn't contain any argumentation. Guys, you don't support your POVs in any ways so I cannot discuss with you. --Rezonansowy (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
┌───────────────────┘
@Ajraddatz: Dear Ajraddatz, I temporarily reverted my changes because engaging in edit war isn't what I want. I believe that on Wikipedia projects we should discuss things using arguments to reach the consensus cases which require further discussion. I reverted you not because I think I'm right but because you didn't provide any real reason to make this edit. Your edit was labeled as: rv comment modification contrary to meta-wiki practice. There's no Customary law on Wikimedia projects you're not the police to enforce this law. We generally make decisions basing on strong arguments. Reverting people by claiming that "We just normally don't do it here" is not a reason. I responded carefully to all your claims, especially that the marking votes with red or green dots doesn't change them in any way. You did not respond for this answer and reverted me claiming the same – comment modification. If you reject the matter-of-fact conversation and carrying on with your action, your point of view (even if you're right) is nonconstructive. In fact, not me but you're engaging in edit war by making edits which are not constructive. Nonconstructive are subject to revert as they cannot be treated as apart of the case as they do not address its current matter in any way.
In your last message, you pointed out that my change has no benefit, only improving the visual aesthetic in [my] opinion. If my change is only improving the visual aesthetic then what is contrary to the practice? Improving the visual aesthetic isn't the same as modification of people's comments. Claiming that it has no benefit is also your opinion, the same like main, so you can't use as your argument.
Moreover, you claimed that I potentially changed the emphasis that the author wished to convey, but in fact you did it here. The source in your provided example is different than the original. You stated that I: change "cautious support" to "cautious 
Support". The original comment wasn't "cautious support" but "Cautious Support", so I didn't change anything in this comment.
In addition to it, this reason is not ridiculous. Changing the appearance (not the content) of comments will become an important topic as Wikimedia is adopting HTML5&CSS3 standards (which means further splitting of content and appearance), Flow discussions & Beta features modifying the website appearance. We should define (by consensus, RfC, debate, etc.) a border between the content and the appearance to not limit people's expression.
I won't make any change like this without reaching the consensus first but if we need to establish it, all parties to the dispute must communicate with each other. I hope that you see my point and I suggest we should start a Wikimedia-wide calm and substantive discussion about defining these borders.
BTW, wishing you guys all the best for the New Year 2018 🎉 --Rezonansowy (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is such a minor issue that I'm not going to spend more time arguing over it. I'd appreciate it if you tried to build a consensus first, and then implement your changes. Apologies if past replies (or this one) seem curt; I'm not just trying to dismiss your idea, I'm just confused by why you want it. Happy new year :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Security[edit]
Two Step Verification Public Available Wikipedia Rajeshmeenaias (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)