Meta:Community portal

Is User:Anpang/Socks are stinky essay ready to go into mainspace
Is this in construction essay ready to go into the mainspace? It's still very short but I have seen many short essays in the mainspace before.  Anpang 📨 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so, but also, I don't see a problem with it remaining in your userspace. Not all essays, especially those with a somewhat humourous angle, should be in  namespace. Areas to improve include the "how to a spot sockpuppet" section. "Requesting a CheckUser" should not be given as the first step in such cases. Overall, it needs more elucidation. Dmehus (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Doug here that leaving it in the userspace is both entirely acceptable and quite desirable in this case. Actually, one thought I've been musing is a dedicated Essay namespace, allowing subcategorizations including for humor and apparent consensus involved (the highest level on that ultimately just becoming a standard mainspace help page). Per topic though, its content is indeed quite slim.
 * What has been done in the past has largely been absent of an organized approach, so pages in the mainspace that are too short should be considered as well. This was an intention of the meta project that I've unfortunately fallen behind on pushing or acting for. --Raidarr (talk) Raidarr (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

2FA to be required for certain local Meta Interface rights
Meta Interface administrators,

Following concerns raised by a fellow Interface administrator, it will now be required that 2-factor authentication be enabled on your account to edit sitewide JavaScript and other user's personal JavaScript. This requirement will be enforced via our configuration and if you do not have 2FA enabled, you will lose access to editing JavaScript pages and other user's personal JavaScript but you will not lose the ability to edit sitewide CSS interface pages. This change will go into effect shortly. Thank you for your understanding. Agent Isai Talk to me! 19:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This change requires consensus. I would most certainly be opposed to such a change. Also, JavaScript and CSS are treated the same. Naleksuh (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It also appears this change was authored by a user who multiple people have advocated for removal of their SRE permissions in the past. Why are they now making extreme changes to the config without consensus? Naleksuh (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I would've preferred that a community discussion taking place prior to implementation, it certainly doesn't need a Meta RfC. I suggested a short discussion at the talk page rather than here, so I'm not sure why Agent Isai posted it here. In any case, RhinosF1 has already implemented it in his SRE capacity. It applies only to Meta Wiki, and is a prudent best practice. Given that all existing Meta interface administrators are either (a) already required to have 2FA enabled as a result of certain global groups or (b) support the change (i.e., chrs, I think this is fine, so +1 from me as well. Dmehus (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be implemented as I can still edit at https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&action=edit - either the production deploy has not taken place yet or the unauthorized changes were reverted. Either way since I do not carry a smartphone this "security change" essentially disables interface admins, especially when this was just a random change with no related incident leading to it. Naleksuh (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Naleksuh, firstly, as a security best practice, you should not be making sensitive changes to sitewide CSS and JS while mobile. Secondly, without a request from a Steward or a Meta bureaucrat, and typically following some sort of request Stewards' noticeboard or Administrators' noticeboard, as your role is a sub-delegated role of a Meta bureaucrat. As to your first point, looking at the  history, it was not reverted, so it seems to have had no effect. Dmehus (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * you should not be making sensitive changes to sitewide CSS and JS while mobile Then you would support it being reverted, since this change means you must have a mobile phone with you in order to edit the CSS/JS. Naleksuh (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, and where does it mean you must have a smartphone to edit CSS/JS? Dmehus (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see your edit, so it seems that it has been implemented. Dmehus (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually save anything beforehand, just looked at if I could view the edit screen. It does appear I can save though. However, that's not the important part. The important part is that this change was arbitrarily made and, while having no meaningful security benefit, does hinder interface admins ability to do their job (since I do not carry a mobile phone, this would mean me resigning as an interface admin). It was also made without consensus for it randomly by one particular person. Based on all of the above, this random, unauthorized, all-negative change should be reverted. Naleksuh (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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)