Talk:Miraheze Meetings

Someone to bookmark this page for translation? --YellowFrogger (✉ Talk  ✐ Edits ) 01:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is Agent Isai continuing to add material shilling one specific logging bot? Meetings can be logged using any logging bot. There is no need to demand a specific bot, both for availability and consistency in policy. The bot referenced is also an unofficial bot run by a group which Miraheze is gradually severing ties with. Therefore it needs to be removed. Naleksuh (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect and quite frankly, it is very petty and extremely immature that your hatred of MirahezeBots for an incident which occured a while ago prompts you to attempt and exterminate every mention of it and wipe it off the face of the earth. We use the bot not only on #miraheze-meetings but across the entire #miraheze namespace. If you have issues against MirahezeBots and it's staff, please kindly resolve it with them rather than dragging the Miraheze community into it in your fit of rage against them. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Agent Isai on this one . This response of yours is somehow leaning towards a personal attack against him, and I do not like that tone of aggression that you are spewing out. We've only scratched the surface on how much aggressive you've become from today. In fact, I've noticed the aggression dating all the way back to January, and even on Meta Wikimedia, where you're pretty much blocked there for the exact similar personal attack you're making here. Please remember to be civil. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never suggested wiping it off the face of Earth, I simply said one specific bot should not be built into policy. That's all. Naleksuh (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: A non-op has used MirahezeBot to op themself. I retract the previous statement, this bot needs to be expeditiously removed. Naleksuh (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MacFan4000 has ChanServ flags which allow him to op himself. Him choosing to do it via MirahezeBot versus  was simply a choice and was not an abuse of power at all.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Which verbiage is preferred?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * This is a user editorial dispute, for which Meta administrators are best placed, as neutral observers, to assess any consensus, if any. With regard to the three proposals, four users prefer Agent Isai's version; however, two of those parties were participants in a preceding discussion on IRC. Stewards would be well placed to assess consensus here, if Miraheze Meetings were a global policy, but it is not that. It most closely resembles a Miraheze community essay, initiated by the team lead for the MirahezeBots project. The latter two users don't really specify a reason for preferring that version. So as to whether there is consensus? That is not clear, but for the time being, there is a mildly preferred "I like it" personal preference-style preference for Agent Isai's version. With regard to the related discussions proposed by Naleksuh, grammatically speaking, it is actually more correct not to end bullet points with periods, which Agent Isai said he had no strong objections to, if I remember correctly, in conversations with me on IRC. So, that will be done. Void's suggestion of incorporating a mix of Naleksuh's preferred wording together with Agent Isai's wording as an explanatory note that using MirahezeBot's MeetBot module is the preferred form of logging, which Agent Isai said he'd have no objections to, so this will be done also. Given Naleksuh is neutral to the wording fixes identified by the given diff below, this is thus rendered moot by incorporating the suggestions described in the preceding sentence. Dmehus (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a minor editing dispute to Miraheze Meetings, with one user preferring this version and another user preferring this version.

To resolve the dispute, please make your arguments for why each version is preferred, or propose a revised version in Option C.

Thanks.

Dmehus (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Option A: Agent Isai's version

 * 1)  There's nothing wrong with the current verbiage so why change it? It accurately reflects our current use of MirahezeBot to log meetings and so I don't see a need for it to change.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 03:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Pretty obvious answer here. For the record, Naleksuh needs to not be so aggressive over something as silly as removing MirahezeBots from public view. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Not really sure.  Anpang 📨  03:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Option C: Something else
For this option, please simply state your revised version in a bullet point, and continue by making your argument for why.


 * 1) This is two completely seperate issues. People are forced to !vote on periods on bullet points, bots, and other wording changes all at once. Instead, let's ask ourselves questions about what should be on the page, instead of binary only two options. Naleksuh (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A sitenotice to this loaded RFC has been added. Please allow actual discussion first. Naleksuh (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I understand the concern you have for the MirahezeBots to still remain, your response you gave earlier pretty much gave me a bad impression, and left me on a sour note, especially with this personal attack that was made directly at Agent Isai, and that won't give you that much resolve anyway. If you are left in doubt, then maybe perhaps you may ask the question. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That diff does not depict a personal attack. A personal attack is when you comment on a person or their characteristics rather than actions. That diff is me commenting on actions.
 * Yes, that's a great idea. Why don't we discuss individual sections instead of "only two options"? I'll add that now. Naleksuh (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Administrative/Procedural Comment: This is not an RfC. This is a discussion to sort out what is an editing dispute. At issue is two proposed wordings. Option C was presented as a perfectly valid third option, which allows users to either discuss a blend of Options A and B, or more substantively the content of the page. I'm not sure how you how can say it is a binary outcome, when the two obvious disputed outcomes have been neutrally presented, and a third option which allows for more fulsome discussion is also presented. Dmehus (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DarkMatterMan4500 has removed all discussion on the specific merits of the text in this diff Special:Diff/238978, restoring the loaded poll. It's also worth noting that none of the people who chose a specific option are discussing all of the changes, either just one or none at all. Naleksuh (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a reason why I restored it, and that's because you placed the upper text on the bottom again, when had it right the first time. It wasn't supposed to malicious or anything of that sort. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, because I misplaced one line of text you reverted the ENTIRE edit? Instead of just moving it? There is no need. Naleksuh (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting out of control to the point where this discussion is becoming a hostile environment for potential voters, and I must remind you again of civility. There is no need for such aggression, and this must NOT continue going forward. I may not be an admin myself, but as a local community member, I must ask you to please consider what I'm telling you so far in terms of civility. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer the question. I would also consider ALL CAPS AND BOLD to be a form of aggression. Naleksuh (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I only wrote it once. This isn't going to get anyone anywhere if this were to continue. I'll be off to bed shortly, and I'd highly advise you to drop the stick, and carry on with the discussion above, rather than this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still gives you no merit to not only overwrite an administrator made poll to remediate an issue but also delete support votes made in favor of keeping Option A and thus suppress the voice of the community. If you want to add new suggestions, do feel free to make a new section. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Bullet points

 * Personally, I've never ended bullet points with periods. Why do other people? Naleksuh (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullet points contain sentences which contain full stops though.  Anpang 📨 03:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Miraheze Bot

 * People are welcome to use whatever bot they want to log, including MirahezeBot. The issue is that the text demands that one specific bot be used. Which is impossible if say that bot is offline or has been removed or isn't capable of logging to the needs. I see no reason why it can't just say "logging using a bot". Why name that specific bot? Naleksuh (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are so what's the issue here? It seems you're misinterpreting this line to say "Only MirahezeBot can log and no one else!" versus it's true meaning which is that the official log which is then posted on Miraheze Meetings after a meeting must be made using MirahezeBot and even then, this is flexible and if needed, the official log can be supplied by someone else in lieu of MirahezeBot as happened during the second meeting where I forgot to begin the logging. If anything, I'd be fine with it changing "must" to "should" if needed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what it says. What else does All meetings must be logged using the Meetbot module of MirahezeBot mean? What's wrong with just saying they must be logged? You can log them however you want, but currently it is demanding that bot. Naleksuh (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How are you interpreting this as restricting who can log? The reason we use MirahezeBot to log meetings is because it's the most convenient and allows us to also bundle in minutes, what's wrong with that? If you wish to log using your own IRC client (as quite literally everyone on the channel does), you're more than welcome to! Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But you're saying that they must be logged using that specific bot, implying that that bot is required for a meeting. What happens if that bot isn't available? That's why it should just say it needs to be logged using some type of bot and that will be fine. Naleksuh (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If the bot isn't available then oh well, we can use someone else's logs and upload them for everyone's viewing. As I suggested, I'd be more than happy to change the wording from "must" to "should". Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think must to should is a distraction, unless there's something saying it doesn't have to be logged at all. The purpose is that particular bot. We shouldn't be naming specific bots in policy, especially ones that are not officially run and currently in the process of being alienated. Naleksuh (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again. Why can't it just say logged using a logging bot? Why must it name that specific bot? Naleksuh (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Because we do use MirahezeBot to host the official log and we won't be changing that. Agent Isai Talk to me! 03:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We? Please see below. Naleksuh (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We as in those who operate the meetings, such as Stewards, Global Sysops and SRE. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 03:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want on IRC but there is no extra authority for "those who operate the meetings" on what the page says. I also don't think it's wise to have no backup plan. Naleksuh (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well what if that logbot were also offline one day? What would we use then? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the policy, the RfC, which established require MirahezeBot to be used for logging? Dmehus (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of any RFC, but it almost certainly didn't, it was likely just inserted. Naleksuh (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake...I thought for sure I'd seen an RfC that led to the creation of Miraheze Meetings. It was just an initiative started by RhinosF1, then, more recently, revived by Agent Isai, so as to more fulsomely discuss a variety of Miraheze happenings and events with the community on IRC Dmehus (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That explains a lot. Yeah, I could have expected it in that case. Naleksuh (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not remove that from a specific rule of the meetings and instead classify it as an informational statement (though a rule should exist(?) for having the meetings logged in some fashion). I'm thinking it would be perhaps more acceptable to state that it is instead current process that MirahezeBot is used for collecting and providing logs. -- Void  Whispers 04:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what I was thinking. Provide a neutral statement, but then ellucidate that as a subordinate point, note, or footnote as one possible, even preferred, option for logging. Dmehus (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That could totally work. As I suggested, we can change the current wording from "must" to "should" or overhaul that point to state that logging is required but that we currently use MirahezeBot as our log provider. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop with this "we" business. This is a public page and all Miraheze users are welcome to weigh in. I agree with Void that there should not be any rule regarding MirahezeBot or similar. It would make more sense for the rules to denote logging and logging only, and the MirahezeBot information can be either put somewhere else or omitted entirely, depending on the decision on whether or not to remove MirahezeBot (which is a seperate issue and not one related to declaring meetings, but does affect whether logging can continue to be used). Naleksuh (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wording fixes Special:Diff/238889

 * Personally, I don't see what the wording "fixes" are here. Nothing about it seemed broken. But I'm neutral on whether or not to keep it. Naleksuh (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section