Meta:Community portal

Draft proposal for Meta codification
As I have already set out in a previous Community Noticeboard post that was positively welcomed by Raidarr I have now created an initial draft proposal to codify some existing rules and conventions into policy here on Meta. I have explained there why I believe this is necessary to be done. I would like to invite all users that form part of the Meta community to add proposals that they think should be codified to achieve more clarity and to otherwise develop or improve the proposals I have already set out. If there are no additional proposals I intend to move the draft into RFC space in a few days but I hope that others will contribute to this draft. DeeM28 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is sufficiently broad, open, yet also fundamental on meta that perhaps it would merit a sitenotice to collect input. Certainly when the proposal starts, but perhaps even in this stage. I'll probably have feedback on the wording soon in the meantime, either here or on the talk for the draft. --Raidarr (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a few changes to the wording but perhaps it can be improved even more. If there's not much activity a sitenotice during the drafting stage might be a good idea. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a short sitenotice for the draft itself. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty good idea in terms of concepts (I do hope makes an appearance today at some point, but it's like 3:36AM as of this writing in his area right now). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the idea behind continuing to edit the draft and even in doing so changing what the RfC is. Obviously I will be opposing 1 and 4, but what good would editing the RfC do? So people can edit them or remove them? Naleksuh (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While reviewing the Community portal archives, I stumbled upon this thread made by Recepetion123 in which he proposes the codification of a "main policy" of which the draft is located at Main policy/Draft. The draft mentions 2 things that may seem trivial to us but perhaps would be useful in codifying such as what is on topic for Miraheze Meta. By convention, we delete pages that don't directly relate to Miraheze or Meta (i.e. pages for wikis, etc.) but this isn't codified (as far as I can see) so would codifying that perhaps be useful too? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as this conversation of "codification" has been going on for some time, I'm not all that convinced that Meta conventions are consistent enough to reliably document and codify any standards at this time. Meta has realistically failed to develop any sort of "community" and has become stuck as a procedural hub. I think it is for this reason that Meta does not see the engagement necessary for observable trends, standards, and expectations to take hold in any form of a code. As anxiety inducing as it can be, the current "flow state" of community (dis)approval toward administrative actions is probably the best possible space for Meta to exist right now. dross  (t • c • g) 07:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also meant to note in this that Meta has proven itself to be very fluid. Users not only come and go, but every group of users to inhabit Meta so far have proven to possess entirely different cultures. Meta has always changed with these users. Codifying standards in the current state where turbulence is the norm would create additional unnecessary bureaucracy to the processes which exist here. dross  (t • c • g) 07:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dross that unfortunately Meta has not developed a 'community' per se, and that's a shame. At the same time though, while I don't think we need to codify everything some particularly controversial things need have clear community endorsement in order to stop repeated arguments taking place about whether they're convention or not. If there's no interest to codify any other things, I would personally think it would be good to proceed with the RfC as it currently is to at least codify these principles which have proven to be controversial and in dispute. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to all for the comments, suggestions and modification you have made to the initial draft. Because there have been no additional comments or suggestions recently I have decided that it is a good time to begin the voting period and have created Requests for Comment/Endorsement of Meta conventions accordingly. DeeM28 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Inability to use Meta on STB
The page is blank when I go to meta.miraheze.org on my STB. Cigaryno66331 (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is only me as I am not completely up-to date with all new technologies but what is an STB? --DeeM28 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Change ConfirmEdit
WARNING!: The MediaWiki developers suspected that ReCaptcha was cracked by most spambots. I think Miraheze must use SimpleCaptcha (math operation) or FancyCaptcha (words in an image). Cigaryno66331 (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. We are already aware of several problem with reCAPTCHA, both technical and ethical, and there was an ongoing RfC to change it that was improperly closed, which is currently being proposed for reopening. You can discuss that here: Stewards'_noticeboard. Naleksuh (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a note, ReCaptcha 2.0 has been cracked by spambots. We use 3.0 so we aren't affected by the crack. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We should use SimpleCaptcha, FancyCaptcha, MathCaptcha, or QuestyCaptcha Cigaryno (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Enable the 2017 wikitext editor on Meta
Should we enable the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature or use it as the default editor in Meta? Cigaryno (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need to change the editor from how it works now, which allows for both visual and source. --Raidarr (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Its VisualEditor, but inside there is source editing. See mw:Special:MyLanguage/2017 wikitext editor for more information. Cigaryno (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2017 wikitext editor could be enabled in Special:Preferences. Cigaryno (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about bots
I will create a bot and I need to find a page to request bots to be approved. Cigaryno (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Cigaryno, bots approvals are requested at Requests for permissions. Thanks. Startus (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I created a bot password but the account still does not exist. Cigaryno (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A bot password is the password you use to sign into an account as an automated script, it's not a separate account. In order to create a separate bot account, you should use Special:CreateAccount while logged in. — Chrs (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Move Tech:MediaWiki appserver to Tech:MediaWiki
I want to move Tech:MediaWiki appserver to Tech:MediaWiki? Muhammad Alfarezal (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not delete Tech namespace Muhammad Alfarezal (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * why do you want to change it at all? If you do not have a clear reason, it's best to leave it alone. Preferably either a) you have a clear organizational reason, ie, category work, or b) you're in SRE (the group that benefits from anything in that namespace) and have practical reason to modify the setup. --Raidarr (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm moving page from Tech:MediaWiki appserver to Tech:MediaWiki. Muhammad Alfarezal (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, why? --Raidarr (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ – not enough deletion. Muhammad Alfarezal (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you are posting. --Raidarr (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)