Meta:Babel/Archives/2021-04

Remove flood flag from own account

What do you think about the suggestion to give a user who has the flood flag the permission to remove it from his own account? This way users (who are not admins) could remove the flood flag themselves when they are done and not have to ask a bureaucrat. Regards --Zabe (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zabe: when is this situation occurring (which would require said bureaucrat's to be flagging non-admins as flooders at all)? — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
probably never, which makes this suggestion unnecessary, you're right. --Zabe (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Zabe (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

oathauth-verify-user for 'crats?

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T265726

'crats are assigning interface-admin permissions. The WMF requires 2FA for interface-admins, but 'crats can't check if a user has enabled it. What do you think about the general idea of giving 'crats the 'oathauth-verify-user' permission in order to check if a user has 2FA enabled? Regards --Zabe (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you meaning this as a discussion about globally or locally changing that checking ability? If this is a proposal I would prefer that it be taken to Meta:RFC. If it is a global change being suggested then this is not the page and lieu of anything else it should be at an RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to hear a few thoughts first. Maybe I missed something, maybe this has already been discussed somewhere. I know that an RFC should be used for a change. --Zabe (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. When I wrote the code to add this right, we discussed it at phab:T209749 and concluded that we could not (yet) grant it to anyone (i.e. it was just adding the functionality) pending legal approval. At phab:T251447#6097985 legal approved granting it to stewards, so they got the right. phab:T265726 is an existing request to grant the rights to crats and is still waiting for legal approval. I would hold off on starting an RFC until legal approves --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I just realised that I had already subscribed to that task. --Zabe (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: with WMF, and phabricator  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

CurIDLink gadget

Hello,

In December 2015, Base has enabled by default CurIDLink gadget. This gadget adds a “Link by ID” link in tools menu. This seems me duplicating permalink link which is already available. Do you use this tool? Do you agree to remove default-enabling of this gadget? You will be still able to enable it manually. --Pols12 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, we had a discussion back then. The "Link by ID" allows to link the latest version of a page, which was perceived to be a useful native URL shortener. I personally use it regularly because pages on Meta often have very long titles.
Since the introduction of the w.wiki URL shortener, maybe people have different needs now. So it makes sense to discuss the matter again. However, the curid is a far superior method of URL shortening, because it doesn't lose any information and it's guaranteed to work as long as MediaWiki exists. Nemo 15:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I would think that we don't have the need for it to be ON by default. There is not that necessity, nor value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I use this along with URL shortener and Permanent link but it's use cases are low compared to other two so I agree that it doesn't need to be enabled by default. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pols12: kept the gadget as it is still being used, stopped if from being on by default. special:diff/21421624  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: partially actioned  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Global bot policy changes

+suppressredirect for patrollers

As suggested by Novak Watchmen, patrollers might benefit from having suppressredirect rights. While patrolling recent changes, it is not uncommon to stumble upon a page created in the wrong namespace or with an implausible typo. Being able to fix these without leaving a redirect would reduce additional work by administrators. Besides, some wikis (such as English WIkibooks or the Serbian projects) already have the right included in the patroller user group. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I rarely see these in the speedy delete queue, which also rarely has any backlog - seems like a solution in search of a problem. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: These are two pages from today. --Novak Watchmen (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
closing this as there is no consensus for the proposed change --Zabe (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Zabe (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove MediaWiki handbook from MetaWiki

MediaWiki handbooks has been moved to MediaWiki wiki for years (2011?). There, pages have been updated and translated much more than here.

On MetaWiki, we have many outdated pages. Sometimes some contributors update them, migrate them to use Translate extension to easily maintain translations, or updates translations. This work is painful and mainly useless because it has been made twice (both here and on mw-wiki).

Some pages (like Help:What links here) now only contain an interwiki redirect. I propose to use this trick for all handbook pages. What do you think? -- Pols12 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Matmarex (in 2018), MediaWiki softwares links to MetaWiki instead of MediaWikiWiki at 3 places: “the help links for history action, Special:Import and Special:RecentChanges” (this is not true for the last one which now links to MediaWiki wiki). Pols12 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pols12: If pages are now at MWwiki and **not customised for the Wikimedia wikis** than make the changes with {{interwiki redirect}}. It has never taken any special authority.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that has been my conclusion seeing I had not received any comment here. I will apply this way. Thank you for answering! -- Pols12 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Verified accounts on meta?

Hello,

I am working with archivists that edit the German and French Wikipedias regularly as part of their job (sometimes also English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons), and they have been encouraged by colleagues to get what is called on de-wikipedia and fr-wikipedia a verified account. To avoid having to go through the process twice, I was wondering if such a process exists on meta. Thanks for your answers! --Flor WMCH (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Flor WMCH: in general, no. As accounts are global in nature, having an account on a content project will automatically create an account here on the meta-wiki. The Global username policy applies here, including the guidance about "name(s) of a political, military or religious figure or event". — xaosflux Talk 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: OK, thanks!--Flor WMCH (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Flor WMCH: To remember though that global user pages are here, so these suers should be encouraged to create a user page here. We don't (yet) have a means for a verification stamp here, though I don't think that we would be adverse to something being created to assist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)