Meta:Community portal

Header colors
As you all know, Template:Header is used as a header on many pages. For the sake of variety and to clearly distinguish pages, what header color do you all think different page types should use? For example, I was thinking perhaps using green (the default) for documentation pages, purple for anything clerical (request pages, noticeboard, etc.), and yellow for talk pages. Any other suggestions? Agent Isai Talk to me! 08:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not picky on the particular tone, but I do strongly recommend it always remains a subtle color to use. Perhaps something can be done with the header line; reducing the colorful of the background, but making the line a subtle distinction. --Raidarr (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the colors should remain the same regardless anyway. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was planning to create a Community portal pretty much today. Do you have the power to read thoughts? Anyway, how like this will it be done? --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 18:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Leave it the way it is, these colors match up a lot. --YellowFrogger  ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the plan, to use a combination of light, pastel-ish colors. My reasoning for such a standardization is because all RfX and noticeboard pages already use purple and to prevent all pages from looking bland, I wanted to see if anything could be done so that Meta doesn't look so unstyled. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 18:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Inactive bots
and have been inactive on this wiki since 23 December 2020 and 4 February 2021 respectively. Should the rights be removed? --Magogre (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * After reading the bots information page itself: Bots, I didn't see any part that inactivity of the tools with the bit can cause the revocation. Therefore, we will see the opinion of seconds. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 03:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. So far as I know, there is no inactivity policy regarding bots. Magogre, you could propose removing the flag via regular means but I don't see a need to do that unless it is being misused. Naleksuh (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there is no policy regarding inactivity of bots (and that is why I posted here). The bots have been inactive with zero edits in the last year (Void-bot has zero edits overall). Why do they need the flag, if they are inactive. --Magogre (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not they need it, usergroups are added and removed in line with policy, that's why they exist! Naleksuh (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, therere is no policy regarding removal of bots which are inactive, so I don't need to be in line with no policy. The consensus here is what I am looking for to proceed with what to do with them (whether to remove or not)! --Magogre (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot is correctly identified as such and while it is not active on Meta, it serves a crucial role on . It is advisable just to let it be imo, and instead focus on other applications such as the noted administrator inactivities as something that could reach the policy threshold or other forms of Meta cleanup with a more visible impact, something which I intend to contribute to myself in due course.. Raidarr (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Void-bot indeed performs a great task on cvtwiki by logging actions by CVT. But it is completely inactive here (no single edit or log action since December 2020). TranslationHelper did a great job on Meta but gradually fell inactive. Redmin said the bot is no longer need and as such it will be inactive and they are fine with removing the flag. However, void hasn't responded yet.On a separate note, I am drafting an RFC related to user groups on meta that will cover the inactivity clause and other changes to user groups on Meta-Wiki. --Magogre (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in contributing to a draft for this to clarify/combine language in certain areas. --Raidarr (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a discussion and vote can be made here on the Community portal to amend the bots policy to add an inactivity clause. For both bots in question, we can probably ask Void or Redmin if their bots still needs their flag. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the bot flag is requested via RfP, which is usually done via community voting. To remove it then you will have to do the same thing, to see the votes of the community. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 04:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to request on RfP, policy doesn't say that anywhere, if I am not wrong. A discussion here would be valid too. --Magogre (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So that's why Agent mentioned that you could implement a vote about bot inactivity, which interfered with these two bots mentioned by you. --YellowFrogger ( talk ) ( ✔ ) 04:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave both of them a note about their bots and this discussion. For the ammendment of policy, if anyone has any ideas they may start a discussion here or on RFC. Magogre (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if there is no written policies about inactive bots in my view it is perfectly reasonable to request that a bot is removed by a bureaucrat if it has not been active in a long time and if the owner of the bot does not respond to messages. DeeM28 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was planning. It is clear that TranslationHelper isn't going to be active (confirmed by bot owner, though off-wiki) I don't know how to proceed with the Void-bot after they said they might need the bot for some purposes but not until May this year (though my personal preference is to remove the flag as they have to file the approval request anyway, it might be granted again if its task will be approved). Waiting for some other comments, if any, before requesting bureaucrats on AN to remove the rights. Magogre (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Magogre, the Bots policy permits revocation by Meta bureaucrats for discretionary reasons. If the bots are not active on Meta Wiki, this would be reason for removal. The correct venue, however, would be to request revocation at Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, the two bots you mentioned have been on my "to do list" to request removal. I believe Void-bot may have had the  flag on Meta Wiki for functionality it no longer has. Any user rights it needs for updating OAuth consumers and things are included within the   group. As for TranslationHelper, it seems pretty evident it's no longer active here. In short, I concur completely with DeeM28 100% in that if revocation criteria is not specifically codified, removal is subject to the applicable user group's discretion, which, in this case, would be, principally, Meta bureaucrats. Dmehus (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone back though Void-bot's code, and I was honestly surprised to see that it hasn't needed to touch metawiki since at least early 2019. There may have been a few things since then, but yeah it does not seem to need the flag. I also don't think I'll be needing it any time soon, so it can probably be remove until I can come up with an actual reason to do something on Meta. -- Void  Whispers 02:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Void. Yeah, if there's any missing OAuth-related user rights that should be added to the  group, I think we can add them, but I'll link Reception123 to this thread when he's up. Dmehus (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both removed. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is User:Anpang/Socks are stinky essay ready to go into mainspace
Is User:Anpang/Socks are stinky essay ready to go into mainspace?  Anpang 📨 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)