Community portal/Archive 37
Establish a "Translator Wiki" for global translators
Before I get started, let me state one thing: I don't know if Miraheze already has such a wiki to help translators in wikis like MetaWiki discuss translation norms.
A simple description of the problem scenario: a translator of a language translates a page and is unsure whether there is a de facto specification for some aspect, which results in a translation that differs from the rest of the page and ultimately makes the content incomprehensible to users.
One possible version: a translator's space with a translator's noticeboard, a translation norm and a translator's teahouse to address this type of problem.
For this one possible scenario, it is also considered that for other wikis that may need to be regulated, a separate translator space may not meet the needs, so a wiki may be needed to solve the problem.
So,
Solution - Translator Wiki
Site address: translator.miraheze.org
Acting on:
1) Norms in proactively accepted global wiki
2) A teahouse for translators
3) Some of the common translation norms in force for the global wiki
Reason for establishment:
See A simple description of the problem scenario and One possible scenario .
The specific implementation of the translator's wiki and related policies are subject to discussion.
Thanks. Chisato (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not against giving translation more attention especially since I think the way it's done now is problematic at best, but I'm not sure an entirely split wiki is proportionate. This seems like it would fit in an expanded guide for translators to learn the basics and its talk page that functions as a translation noticeboard. The suggestion seems to be 3 pages tops of content and could be more concise than that. If in the general sense, there is TranslateWiki.net though I'm not entirely sure what goes on there and couldn't say if it helps this niche. --Raidarr (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Set up under the right condition, this could be a useful tool. However, it would require creation of the "Global Translator" group, which would have to be an RfC. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 15:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, so I'm keeping the namespace instead (the namespace can be changed to anything else like that depending on the discussion). Chisato (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't fully considered the 'global translator' thing. Honestly, we have such a limited and scattered group of translators in the first place that I would also oppose that role specifically. We don't even have a good way of holding the Meta translators we have accountable, I've seen enough questionable translations that I've been meaning to check them out but I lack the native understanding to know if the translated version is the same grade as the English understanding. Not enough wikis utilize the mechanic and in my frank opinion I think there's not much translation here does that can't be achieved by end users with one of numerous plugins on their browser. I'd revisit this if it is demonstrated that there is actually a need and for that matter, volunteering base to do it. And yes, establishing global translator as a group means this should be discussed in an RfC, but it is useful to discuss here so a concise RfC can be formed, if it is necessary. --Raidarr (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- (To BrandonWM and Raidarr) Actually, there is no need for a new global user group, which is a wiki for coordinating translations. However, this led me to consider a new possibility. For "multilingual wikis" (generally referring to wikis with the translation extension enabled), a new global user group can indeed be created for all "multilingual wikis" that voluntarily accept translator wikis for translation work management. A user group is granted to all users by default (the permission is translation), but the translation quality is obviously poor (especially fully machine translation), and those who have not improved will be reminded several times by stewards or "translate clerks", and then stewards or "translate clerks" can remove their translator rights. Chisato (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Notice regarding spambot accounts
There have been some worries expressed regarding the fact that registered spambot accounts who have not yet edited due to our abuse filters might be "sleeper accounts" and be reactivated at some stage and get through the filters. Additionally, for a while now users have complained that they don't know who the users in Special:ListUsers are and why they are attached to their wikis. And least importantly, it would be nice if we could have more accurate statistics for how many users we have not counting all the spambots. For this reason, the Steward team is considering a mass global lock of all accounts that: (a) fit a regex for known spambots (this is private as if it were public it could be exploited by them), (b) were created more than a year ago, (c) have 0 edits on any wiki. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. An account with no edits for a year? If it's a legitimate user, he can always pick a different user name and start over. Spıke (talk) 20:35 17-Mar-2023 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
logo scaling and format
Hi! Sorry if I'm asking something obvious. What is the best logo format to use, and should I scale in specific width or hight? is it ok if the logo is a vector with transparent. Now I use this file: https://static.miraheze.org/timelabwiki/5/50/This_is_Timelab_logo.png but it is not scaled correctly. Marieke Timelab (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Preferable resolution is 135x135px, format can be either svg or png. KatozzKita (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
My Infobox extends over the entire page
Hi!
I started a private wiki yesterday, and I began importing some templates from Wikipedia, especially infoboxes. I've noticed a problem: infoboxes do not line up on the right side of the article, but run the length of the page. It's not very nice and I'd like to fix it, but the problem is that I know almost nothing about wiki coding. Does anyone have a solution?
Thanks a lot in advance! and sorry for broken English :) L'Anonyme16 (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @L'Anonyme16: Wikipedia stores the infobox styling in
MediaWiki:Common.css
. The default Wikipedia infobox styling is
/* Infobox template style */ .infobox { border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; border-spacing: 3px; background-color: #f8f9fa; color: black; /* @noflip */ margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em; padding: 0.2em; /* @noflip */ float: right; /* @noflip */ clear: right; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em; width: 22em; }
- I instead place it inside the infobox which avoids the need to refresh my browser and updated immediately
{{Infobox | bodystyle = border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; border-spacing: 3px; background-color: #f8f9fa; color: black; /* @noflip */ margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em; padding: 0.2em; /* @noflip */ float: right; /* @noflip */ clear: right; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em; width: 22em; ... }}
- - PercyUK (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @PercyUK: Thanks for your answer! I tried to place this code into my infobox but it didn't change anything. That's weird. --L'Anonyme16 (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind. It works now. Thank you so much! --L'Anonyme16 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @PercyUK: Thanks for your answer! I tried to place this code into my infobox but it didn't change anything. That's weird. --L'Anonyme16 (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone unblock my IP address please?
Hello, I have a question: Can someone unblock my IP address please? The main reason for that is because I want to change my password, since I feel that it's hacked, especially since there are edits I didn't even do. But when I click forgot password, it tells me that my IP address is blocked. Can someone unblock it please? CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC) CJWorldGame32125 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- This should probably be put on the Stewards' noticeboard. Collei (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CJWorldGame32125:
What is your IP?If you don't want to share it, e-mail stewards. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 18:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
sibebar help ?
Can someone help me modify sidebar on this wiki? https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
Marieke Timelab (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- also interested in this! ZBlace (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what your specific question/challenge is you want to solve. Here's MediaWiki's documentation on how to customize the sidebar, if you have a more specific question we're happy to help...
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, it appears that there was a bad cached version of the page. I used the More >> Purge action to force a re-render and your sidebar changes now show up. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you!
- @Marieke Timelab any other help needed? ZBlace (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham are you sure it was cache issue? I tried purging it also but now did not get newest version :-(
- -- ZBlace (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bar contents are appearing, there are just issues with the source code as entered today. See attached screenshot, one of the issues is that they're trying to use inline links for partial text with [[ and ]], while MediaWiki only supports exact_pagename|text_to_display without brackets for the sidebar, to my understanding.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added code for you and @Marieke Timelab to test out for the sidebar, you can find it on:
- https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar
- It worked flawlessly on my personal instance, hope it helps! Cheers, --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you...
- Strange that sidebar would not support other type of links.
- -- ZBlace (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
*navigation *Commoning Art Practice *Reshaping Production **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotfactory|Knotfactory **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotplex|Knotplex **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotpot|Knotpot
Using Meta as a comparison
* navigation ** mainpage|mainpage-description ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges ** randompage-url|randompage * Requests ** Special:RequestWiki|miraheze-requestwiki ** Special:RequestImportDump|requestimportdump ** Special:MyLanguage/Request features|miraheze-requestfeatures ** Requests for reopening wikis|Request to reopen a wiki ** Requests for Comment|Requests for Comment * Noticeboards ** Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard ** Stewards' noticeboard|Stewards' noticeboard ** Meta:Administrators' noticeboard|Meta Administrators' noticeboard ** Meta:Community portal|Meta Community portal * Miraheze ** Special:MyLanguage/Help center|aboutsite ** Special:WikiDiscover|Discover wikis ** Special:MyLanguage/FAQ|faq * Donate ** Donate|miraheze-donate * SEARCH * TOOLBOX * LANGUAGES
<directs to page> | <display words>
MacFan4000's request for IRC Group Contact
Basically for the same reasons as in the above to requests. At least 2 or 3 new GCs would be a good idea so that we have active and available people who can deal with GC related requests. I am currently a GC for a different project, thus I am familiar with the policies and procedures , and am also already in the private GC IRC channel (run by Libera staff). I am reasonably active on IRC and can often be reached with a ping. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Additional comments given by user (if any)
Questions for candidate
- Below in the oppose section you said, "A private discussion between Miraheze staff members", do you feel private discussions should be a preliminary aspect of starting community discussions like this? It's interesting that 3 requests have come at once following a discussion that is not public and involving 2 groups you're labelling as staff when neither are Board appointed? Miraheze has had a long history of having a closed 'old boys' style club where decisions were made in private involving groups that either a) shouldn't be discussing community affecting things privately (stewards) or b) shouldn't be having a major influence on community aspects by definition (SRE). I find it slightly concerning that this line of proposals is coming out of re-igniting such a private and exclusive club. John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- We simply were talking about and agreeing on the fact that we really need to have another GC that has more availability. I want to make it clear that I did not start the conversation, though I did participate in it. Certainly it may have been a good idea for the discussion to have been held publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- So my point is more around why does such a channel where a community role and non community role co-exist that is utilised seemingly in such a way that public discussions can be usurped into a private environment to exclude the community from engaging in discussions/decisions initially that revolve around them? John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, one could argue that these requests would serve as a public discussion, and if people agree with the issue they can support the request and if they don't they can oppose it. The private discussion ultimately lead to public discussion through these posts. I see no reason that such a private channel could stay in existence so long as more of these discussions are held publicly and no final decision is reached in the private channel. In this case the only "decisions" that took place were me and UO individually deciding to post these requests. I will also mention that I wasn't even part of this channel until yesterday. Also re: your statement about the use of the word staff, I wasn't aware that there was any official definition? I used the term loosely. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you see no reason a private channel can't exist to have discussions that should be public but aren't because people who are 'lucky' to be in the channel choose to have such discussions? John (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I never said that. This was more to get support from other people before starting a public discussion. If nobody had agreed that the issue was valid i would not have been pursued any further. For community matter I would always ultimately want public input on the matter, and we are getting it through these requests. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- You say that's not the case, but then immediately go to say if this 'private channel' had not agreed it was a problem, you wouldn't have consulted the community - who are the ones who should decide if there is a problem in the first place. Or would you then gone into a public channel to start a discussion over what you had discussed in the private channel that no one agreed with you on? John (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Had I been the one starting the conversation, I would have done so publicly. Ether way I probably would have eventually some day posted this request. I had been thinking about it from time to time, but I don't often start discussions, nor do I very often participate in them. I also have no knowledge of any of the previous ones that took place in this channel. In this case requesting a role is a personal decision, and it was helpful to hear opinions before deciding to request the position. If I had decided I wanted even more opinions, I would have talked to more people. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- You say that's not the case, but then immediately go to say if this 'private channel' had not agreed it was a problem, you wouldn't have consulted the community - who are the ones who should decide if there is a problem in the first place. Or would you then gone into a public channel to start a discussion over what you had discussed in the private channel that no one agreed with you on? John (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I never said that. This was more to get support from other people before starting a public discussion. If nobody had agreed that the issue was valid i would not have been pursued any further. For community matter I would always ultimately want public input on the matter, and we are getting it through these requests. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you see no reason a private channel can't exist to have discussions that should be public but aren't because people who are 'lucky' to be in the channel choose to have such discussions? John (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, one could argue that these requests would serve as a public discussion, and if people agree with the issue they can support the request and if they don't they can oppose it. The private discussion ultimately lead to public discussion through these posts. I see no reason that such a private channel could stay in existence so long as more of these discussions are held publicly and no final decision is reached in the private channel. In this case the only "decisions" that took place were me and UO individually deciding to post these requests. I will also mention that I wasn't even part of this channel until yesterday. Also re: your statement about the use of the word staff, I wasn't aware that there was any official definition? I used the term loosely. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So my point is more around why does such a channel where a community role and non community role co-exist that is utilised seemingly in such a way that public discussions can be usurped into a private environment to exclude the community from engaging in discussions/decisions initially that revolve around them? John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- We simply were talking about and agreeing on the fact that we really need to have another GC that has more availability. I want to make it clear that I did not start the conversation, though I did participate in it. Certainly it may have been a good idea for the discussion to have been held publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- What steps would you take to ensure the community remains uninfluenced by such private and closed venues where the community can not suitably or appropriately assess need, necessity or content of such non-sensitive discussions? John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I did not start the conservation. I think this would be a better question for @Universal Omega: to answer. Maybe in the future we hold discussions like this publicly. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I asked explicitly what you would do. John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I would make sure that if I start a discussion like this I do it publicly unless there is some reason it absolutely has to be private. This one probably could have been public. If somebody does start one of these discussions in private we can make sure not to come to a final decision until public discussion has taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- I asked explicitly what you would do. John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I did not start the conservation. I think this would be a better question for @Universal Omega: to answer. Maybe in the future we hold discussions like this publicly. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Support
- Support Has both a good reason to request this right and it's already an IRC regular. OrangeStar (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Diversification with trusted users that are also IRC regulars is wise. MacFan4000 has proven to be both. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
- Comment: Why does everyone want this right all of sudden? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 10:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just 3 people have requested this. I guess originally it was because there was only one group contact, now it's because there are no group contacts. OrangeStar (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The original reason was because as of late, the only GC, John has not been on IRC much as of late, and thus it would be good to have somebody who is active and available. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not familiar enough with MacFan4000 to vote on this one, so abstain. | -- FrozenPlum (Talk / Email) 04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strongest oppose Apart from being rather inactive on IRC compared to CosmicAlpha and Reception123, I also find them to be much more problematic both with being more personal and ruder. Also this person used op permissions for personal issues once (disclaimer: I was the target; but it was still a personal issue). Plus, if CosmicAlpha and Reception123's requests pass, there will be no need for FOUR group contacts on such a small project. Please stop this "trend". Naleksuh (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not at all inactive. I am usually available if you ping me. It is frankly disappointing that we are unable to move past previous mistakes which can be learned from. I will note that I made this request following an internal discussion. I will also clarify for other voters that I did not misuse permissions. I was a channel moderator at the time, (and still am). I decided that because of what was happening, a ban was needed. Later another moderator disagreed with the ban and removed. Another moderator had told me at the time of the ban, that they were fully ok with it. It also was not at all for personal reasons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Internal to what? There's currently only one group contact. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- A private discussion between Miraheze staff members (SRE, stewards etc). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's another reason then. I would like to keep groups seperate and have them simply do what they are meant for; not draw some sort of "line" or have a private club. This is actually one of the reasons why SRE are no longer called sysadmins and a lot of their responsibilities were broken up into elsewhere. If you consider these past actions mistakes that you have learned from, I guess that's better than nothing, but there is certainly not a need for four group contacts, especially picked from people who already do far too many other things Naleksuh (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- A private discussion between Miraheze staff members (SRE, stewards etc). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Internal to what? There's currently only one group contact. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not at all inactive. I am usually available if you ping me. It is frankly disappointing that we are unable to move past previous mistakes which can be learned from. I will note that I made this request following an internal discussion. I will also clarify for other voters that I did not misuse permissions. I was a channel moderator at the time, (and still am). I decided that because of what was happening, a ban was needed. Later another moderator disagreed with the ban and removed. Another moderator had told me at the time of the ban, that they were fully ok with it. It also was not at all for personal reasons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Similar lines above, permissions have previously been used to be push a personal opinion/side of an argument rather than acting in a neutral capacity. Response to the question I posted as well does not provide me much confidence that they'll act in the community interest as they accepted a private channel to exclude the community from initial discussions is okay where the membership of the channel is decided by those not appointed to manage such a channel bit rather by virtue of their roles in either community or non community environments. John (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was a single incident. I have learned from that, and now would not make a such a ban without first consulting other moderators unless nobody else was around and it was extremely obvious that a ban was needed. I will restate though that it was not at all for personal reasons, from what I can recall, conduct was getting out of hand and discussions not directly involving me were getting heated. Once again it was not my decision to hold this conversation privately. I would always act in community interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- Respectfully, I find this to be a misread of today's situation. While I believe I understand your opposition to the existence of private channels more generally, private channels do have a role in coordinating relevant sensitive volunteer actions - the use of one such channel was critical in preventing widespread panic during the November/December outages as internal volunteer discussions about recovery were underway.
- Such a chat taking place in general channels during the incident would have been rife with interruptions, disrupted other necessary support conversations, and been prone to misinterpretations that would have further slowed progress/damaged trust in the Miraheze platform, though admittedly communications weren't perfect in spite of that use.
- MacFan's 'acceptance' of the channel in question was unrelated to this specific request for GC, but was instead prompted by UO rectifying a long-term disconnect in bridging similar Discord and IRC channels that serve the same legitimate coordination purposes.
- I do agree that brief discussion about "Hey, there's a need for more GCs, let's put this to the community to decide" probably should have taken place in general instead of a private channel, but the CN was viewed as the correct public forum to broach this for public debate.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree with NotAracham on this front. The use of private channels are employed in some scenarios when it comes to sensitive information, as NotAracham stated with the db141 outages. While that may have not been the case here, the conversations in question that were done in private channels and served as preliminary ideas. It was not as if the solution that came out of the discussion was to appoint 3 new group contacts without community input. The decision was made to ask for community input. The public has the opportunity to voice their opinions here, now. Just because conversations about Group Contacts were made in private channels does not mean that they were bad. Plenty of conversations are had privately for varying reasons. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I respectfully would disagree that the use of such a channel during the data recovery incident was useful. In my view (and SREs and the Boards), it contributed to a fragmentation of discussion and ultimately lead to the community being poorly informed and at times - misinformed about the situation. This was picked up by SRE and it was agreed that said channel should not be used in the future for such discussions. Therefore, I would argue the justification for the channels existence is moot if that's the primary example. John (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you proposing to delete/archive the channel? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not explicitly making such a proposal - I'm merely pointing out that public discussions should be public and private discussions private - to channel appears to be used in a way to hide the public discussions at times and publicise the private discussions that should be private. I imagine if we audit the channel, a lot of discussions would either be acceptable to be public or would be deemed private and as such should not be in such a 'public' channel. John (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I imagine a review of conversations can be undertaken then. I would ask though for you to reconsider your oppose of MacFan4000. Other than that mishap, they've been an exemplary member in the Miraheze community and are trusted. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not explicitly making such a proposal - I'm merely pointing out that public discussions should be public and private discussions private - to channel appears to be used in a way to hide the public discussions at times and publicise the private discussions that should be private. I imagine if we audit the channel, a lot of discussions would either be acceptable to be public or would be deemed private and as such should not be in such a 'public' channel. John (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you proposing to delete/archive the channel? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
ManageWiki help
How do I rename a permission group? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Edit your MediaWiki:Group-<group name> and MediaWiki:Group-<group name>-member pages. For example, if I wanted to rename the administrator group to "moderator", I'd edit MediaWiki:Group-sysop and MediaWiki:Group-sysop-member. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can file a Phabricator task requesting it and we'll hopefully add it eventually. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Unrelated, but how does deleting autoconfirmed break MediaWiki? I already did that and nothing bad has happened. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://landar.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=5222 Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- All your users will now be subjected to the anti-spam global filters because the autoconfirmed group is the one which exempted them from that. Agent Isai Talk to me! 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Doesn't matter. Only approved users can edit, and that group all ready has autoconfirmed permissions. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 20:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
sibebar help ?
Can someone help me modify sidebar on this wiki? https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
Marieke Timelab (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- also interested in this! ZBlace (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what your specific question/challenge is you want to solve. Here's MediaWiki's documentation on how to customize the sidebar, if you have a more specific question we're happy to help...
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, it appears that there was a bad cached version of the page. I used the More >> Purge action to force a re-render and your sidebar changes now show up. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you!
- @Marieke Timelab any other help needed? ZBlace (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham are you sure it was cache issue? I tried purging it also but now did not get newest version :-(
- -- ZBlace (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bar contents are appearing, there are just issues with the source code as entered today. See attached screenshot, one of the issues is that they're trying to use inline links for partial text with [[ and ]], while MediaWiki only supports exact_pagename|text_to_display without brackets for the sidebar, to my understanding.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added code for you and @Marieke Timelab to test out for the sidebar, you can find it on:
- https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar
- It worked flawlessly on my personal instance, hope it helps! Cheers, --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you...
- Strange that sidebar would not support other type of links.
- -- ZBlace (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
*navigation *Commoning Art Practice *Reshaping Production **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotfactory|Knotfactory **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotplex|Knotplex **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotpot|Knotpot
Using Meta as a comparison
* navigation ** mainpage|mainpage-description ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges ** randompage-url|randompage * Requests ** Special:RequestWiki|miraheze-requestwiki ** Special:RequestImportDump|requestimportdump ** Special:MyLanguage/Request features|miraheze-requestfeatures ** Requests for reopening wikis|Request to reopen a wiki ** Requests for Comment|Requests for Comment * Noticeboards ** Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard ** Stewards' noticeboard|Stewards' noticeboard ** Meta:Administrators' noticeboard|Meta Administrators' noticeboard ** Meta:Community portal|Meta Community portal * Miraheze ** Special:MyLanguage/Help center|aboutsite ** Special:WikiDiscover|Discover wikis ** Special:MyLanguage/FAQ|faq * Donate ** Donate|miraheze-donate * SEARCH * TOOLBOX * LANGUAGES
<directs to page> | <display words>
MacFan4000's request for IRC Group Contact
Basically for the same reasons as in the above to requests. At least 2 or 3 new GCs would be a good idea so that we have active and available people who can deal with GC related requests. I am currently a GC for a different project, thus I am familiar with the policies and procedures , and am also already in the private GC IRC channel (run by Libera staff). I am reasonably active on IRC and can often be reached with a ping. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 13:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Additional comments given by user (if any)
Questions for candidate
- Below in the oppose section you said, "A private discussion between Miraheze staff members", do you feel private discussions should be a preliminary aspect of starting community discussions like this? It's interesting that 3 requests have come at once following a discussion that is not public and involving 2 groups you're labelling as staff when neither are Board appointed? Miraheze has had a long history of having a closed 'old boys' style club where decisions were made in private involving groups that either a) shouldn't be discussing community affecting things privately (stewards) or b) shouldn't be having a major influence on community aspects by definition (SRE). I find it slightly concerning that this line of proposals is coming out of re-igniting such a private and exclusive club. John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- We simply were talking about and agreeing on the fact that we really need to have another GC that has more availability. I want to make it clear that I did not start the conversation, though I did participate in it. Certainly it may have been a good idea for the discussion to have been held publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- So my point is more around why does such a channel where a community role and non community role co-exist that is utilised seemingly in such a way that public discussions can be usurped into a private environment to exclude the community from engaging in discussions/decisions initially that revolve around them? John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, one could argue that these requests would serve as a public discussion, and if people agree with the issue they can support the request and if they don't they can oppose it. The private discussion ultimately lead to public discussion through these posts. I see no reason that such a private channel could stay in existence so long as more of these discussions are held publicly and no final decision is reached in the private channel. In this case the only "decisions" that took place were me and UO individually deciding to post these requests. I will also mention that I wasn't even part of this channel until yesterday. Also re: your statement about the use of the word staff, I wasn't aware that there was any official definition? I used the term loosely. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you see no reason a private channel can't exist to have discussions that should be public but aren't because people who are 'lucky' to be in the channel choose to have such discussions? John (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I never said that. This was more to get support from other people before starting a public discussion. If nobody had agreed that the issue was valid i would not have been pursued any further. For community matter I would always ultimately want public input on the matter, and we are getting it through these requests. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- You say that's not the case, but then immediately go to say if this 'private channel' had not agreed it was a problem, you wouldn't have consulted the community - who are the ones who should decide if there is a problem in the first place. Or would you then gone into a public channel to start a discussion over what you had discussed in the private channel that no one agreed with you on? John (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Had I been the one starting the conversation, I would have done so publicly. Ether way I probably would have eventually some day posted this request. I had been thinking about it from time to time, but I don't often start discussions, nor do I very often participate in them. I also have no knowledge of any of the previous ones that took place in this channel. In this case requesting a role is a personal decision, and it was helpful to hear opinions before deciding to request the position. If I had decided I wanted even more opinions, I would have talked to more people. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 23:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- You say that's not the case, but then immediately go to say if this 'private channel' had not agreed it was a problem, you wouldn't have consulted the community - who are the ones who should decide if there is a problem in the first place. Or would you then gone into a public channel to start a discussion over what you had discussed in the private channel that no one agreed with you on? John (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I never said that. This was more to get support from other people before starting a public discussion. If nobody had agreed that the issue was valid i would not have been pursued any further. For community matter I would always ultimately want public input on the matter, and we are getting it through these requests. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So you see no reason a private channel can't exist to have discussions that should be public but aren't because people who are 'lucky' to be in the channel choose to have such discussions? John (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, one could argue that these requests would serve as a public discussion, and if people agree with the issue they can support the request and if they don't they can oppose it. The private discussion ultimately lead to public discussion through these posts. I see no reason that such a private channel could stay in existence so long as more of these discussions are held publicly and no final decision is reached in the private channel. In this case the only "decisions" that took place were me and UO individually deciding to post these requests. I will also mention that I wasn't even part of this channel until yesterday. Also re: your statement about the use of the word staff, I wasn't aware that there was any official definition? I used the term loosely. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- So my point is more around why does such a channel where a community role and non community role co-exist that is utilised seemingly in such a way that public discussions can be usurped into a private environment to exclude the community from engaging in discussions/decisions initially that revolve around them? John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- We simply were talking about and agreeing on the fact that we really need to have another GC that has more availability. I want to make it clear that I did not start the conversation, though I did participate in it. Certainly it may have been a good idea for the discussion to have been held publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- What steps would you take to ensure the community remains uninfluenced by such private and closed venues where the community can not suitably or appropriately assess need, necessity or content of such non-sensitive discussions? John (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I did not start the conservation. I think this would be a better question for @Universal Omega: to answer. Maybe in the future we hold discussions like this publicly. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I asked explicitly what you would do. John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I would make sure that if I start a discussion like this I do it publicly unless there is some reason it absolutely has to be private. This one probably could have been public. If somebody does start one of these discussions in private we can make sure not to come to a final decision until public discussion has taken place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- I asked explicitly what you would do. John (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I did not start the conservation. I think this would be a better question for @Universal Omega: to answer. Maybe in the future we hold discussions like this publicly. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Support
- Support Has both a good reason to request this right and it's already an IRC regular. OrangeStar (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Diversification with trusted users that are also IRC regulars is wise. MacFan4000 has proven to be both. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Abstain
- Comment: Why does everyone want this right all of sudden? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 10:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just 3 people have requested this. I guess originally it was because there was only one group contact, now it's because there are no group contacts. OrangeStar (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- The original reason was because as of late, the only GC, John has not been on IRC much as of late, and thus it would be good to have somebody who is active and available. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not familiar enough with MacFan4000 to vote on this one, so abstain. | -- FrozenPlum (Talk / Email) 04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
- Strongest oppose Apart from being rather inactive on IRC compared to CosmicAlpha and Reception123, I also find them to be much more problematic both with being more personal and ruder. Also this person used op permissions for personal issues once (disclaimer: I was the target; but it was still a personal issue). Plus, if CosmicAlpha and Reception123's requests pass, there will be no need for FOUR group contacts on such a small project. Please stop this "trend". Naleksuh (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not at all inactive. I am usually available if you ping me. It is frankly disappointing that we are unable to move past previous mistakes which can be learned from. I will note that I made this request following an internal discussion. I will also clarify for other voters that I did not misuse permissions. I was a channel moderator at the time, (and still am). I decided that because of what was happening, a ban was needed. Later another moderator disagreed with the ban and removed. Another moderator had told me at the time of the ban, that they were fully ok with it. It also was not at all for personal reasons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Internal to what? There's currently only one group contact. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- A private discussion between Miraheze staff members (SRE, stewards etc). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's another reason then. I would like to keep groups seperate and have them simply do what they are meant for; not draw some sort of "line" or have a private club. This is actually one of the reasons why SRE are no longer called sysadmins and a lot of their responsibilities were broken up into elsewhere. If you consider these past actions mistakes that you have learned from, I guess that's better than nothing, but there is certainly not a need for four group contacts, especially picked from people who already do far too many other things Naleksuh (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- A private discussion between Miraheze staff members (SRE, stewards etc). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Internal to what? There's currently only one group contact. Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not at all inactive. I am usually available if you ping me. It is frankly disappointing that we are unable to move past previous mistakes which can be learned from. I will note that I made this request following an internal discussion. I will also clarify for other voters that I did not misuse permissions. I was a channel moderator at the time, (and still am). I decided that because of what was happening, a ban was needed. Later another moderator disagreed with the ban and removed. Another moderator had told me at the time of the ban, that they were fully ok with it. It also was not at all for personal reasons. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Similar lines above, permissions have previously been used to be push a personal opinion/side of an argument rather than acting in a neutral capacity. Response to the question I posted as well does not provide me much confidence that they'll act in the community interest as they accepted a private channel to exclude the community from initial discussions is okay where the membership of the channel is decided by those not appointed to manage such a channel bit rather by virtue of their roles in either community or non community environments. John (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was a single incident. I have learned from that, and now would not make a such a ban without first consulting other moderators unless nobody else was around and it was extremely obvious that a ban was needed. I will restate though that it was not at all for personal reasons, from what I can recall, conduct was getting out of hand and discussions not directly involving me were getting heated. Once again it was not my decision to hold this conversation privately. I would always act in community interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- Respectfully, I find this to be a misread of today's situation. While I believe I understand your opposition to the existence of private channels more generally, private channels do have a role in coordinating relevant sensitive volunteer actions - the use of one such channel was critical in preventing widespread panic during the November/December outages as internal volunteer discussions about recovery were underway.
- Such a chat taking place in general channels during the incident would have been rife with interruptions, disrupted other necessary support conversations, and been prone to misinterpretations that would have further slowed progress/damaged trust in the Miraheze platform, though admittedly communications weren't perfect in spite of that use.
- MacFan's 'acceptance' of the channel in question was unrelated to this specific request for GC, but was instead prompted by UO rectifying a long-term disconnect in bridging similar Discord and IRC channels that serve the same legitimate coordination purposes.
- I do agree that brief discussion about "Hey, there's a need for more GCs, let's put this to the community to decide" probably should have taken place in general instead of a private channel, but the CN was viewed as the correct public forum to broach this for public debate.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would agree with NotAracham on this front. The use of private channels are employed in some scenarios when it comes to sensitive information, as NotAracham stated with the db141 outages. While that may have not been the case here, the conversations in question that were done in private channels and served as preliminary ideas. It was not as if the solution that came out of the discussion was to appoint 3 new group contacts without community input. The decision was made to ask for community input. The public has the opportunity to voice their opinions here, now. Just because conversations about Group Contacts were made in private channels does not mean that they were bad. Plenty of conversations are had privately for varying reasons. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I respectfully would disagree that the use of such a channel during the data recovery incident was useful. In my view (and SREs and the Boards), it contributed to a fragmentation of discussion and ultimately lead to the community being poorly informed and at times - misinformed about the situation. This was picked up by SRE and it was agreed that said channel should not be used in the future for such discussions. Therefore, I would argue the justification for the channels existence is moot if that's the primary example. John (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you proposing to delete/archive the channel? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not explicitly making such a proposal - I'm merely pointing out that public discussions should be public and private discussions private - to channel appears to be used in a way to hide the public discussions at times and publicise the private discussions that should be private. I imagine if we audit the channel, a lot of discussions would either be acceptable to be public or would be deemed private and as such should not be in such a 'public' channel. John (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I imagine a review of conversations can be undertaken then. I would ask though for you to reconsider your oppose of MacFan4000. Other than that mishap, they've been an exemplary member in the Miraheze community and are trusted. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not explicitly making such a proposal - I'm merely pointing out that public discussions should be public and private discussions private - to channel appears to be used in a way to hide the public discussions at times and publicise the private discussions that should be private. I imagine if we audit the channel, a lot of discussions would either be acceptable to be public or would be deemed private and as such should not be in such a 'public' channel. John (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you proposing to delete/archive the channel? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 23:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
ManageWiki help
How do I rename a permission group? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Edit your MediaWiki:Group-<group name> and MediaWiki:Group-<group name>-member pages. For example, if I wanted to rename the administrator group to "moderator", I'd edit MediaWiki:Group-sysop and MediaWiki:Group-sysop-member. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can file a Phabricator task requesting it and we'll hopefully add it eventually. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Unrelated, but how does deleting autoconfirmed break MediaWiki? I already did that and nothing bad has happened. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://landar.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=5222 Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- All your users will now be subjected to the anti-spam global filters because the autoconfirmed group is the one which exempted them from that. Agent Isai Talk to me! 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Doesn't matter. Only approved users can edit, and that group all ready has autoconfirmed permissions. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 20:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
sibebar help ?
Can someone help me modify sidebar on this wiki? https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sidebar
Marieke Timelab (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- also interested in this! ZBlace (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on what your specific question/challenge is you want to solve. Here's MediaWiki's documentation on how to customize the sidebar, if you have a more specific question we're happy to help...
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, it appears that there was a bad cached version of the page. I used the More >> Purge action to force a re-render and your sidebar changes now show up. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you!
- @Marieke Timelab any other help needed? ZBlace (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham are you sure it was cache issue? I tried purging it also but now did not get newest version :-(
- -- ZBlace (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bar contents are appearing, there are just issues with the source code as entered today. See attached screenshot, one of the issues is that they're trying to use inline links for partial text with [[ and ]], while MediaWiki only supports exact_pagename|text_to_display without brackets for the sidebar, to my understanding.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 18:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added code for you and @Marieke Timelab to test out for the sidebar, you can find it on:
- https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar
- It worked flawlessly on my personal instance, hope it helps! Cheers, --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NotAracham thank you...
- Strange that sidebar would not support other type of links.
- -- ZBlace (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can see the source of Sidebar page *https://timelab.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&action=edit, then you can also see it is not interpreted/used in Sidebar menu at all, as if there is override with defaults..is that not problematic? --18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
*navigation *Commoning Art Practice *Reshaping Production **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotfactory|Knotfactory **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotplex|Knotplex **https://timelab.miraheze.org/wiki/Knotpot|Knotpot
Using Meta as a comparison
* navigation ** mainpage|mainpage-description ** recentchanges-url|recentchanges ** randompage-url|randompage * Requests ** Special:RequestWiki|miraheze-requestwiki ** Special:RequestImportDump|requestimportdump ** Special:MyLanguage/Request features|miraheze-requestfeatures ** Requests for reopening wikis|Request to reopen a wiki ** Requests for Comment|Requests for Comment * Noticeboards ** Community noticeboard|Community noticeboard ** Stewards' noticeboard|Stewards' noticeboard ** Meta:Administrators' noticeboard|Meta Administrators' noticeboard ** Meta:Community portal|Meta Community portal * Miraheze ** Special:MyLanguage/Help center|aboutsite ** Special:WikiDiscover|Discover wikis ** Special:MyLanguage/FAQ|faq * Donate ** Donate|miraheze-donate * SEARCH * TOOLBOX * LANGUAGES
<directs to page> | <display words>
ManageWiki help
How do I rename a permission group? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Edit your MediaWiki:Group-<group name> and MediaWiki:Group-<group name>-member pages. For example, if I wanted to rename the administrator group to "moderator", I'd edit MediaWiki:Group-sysop and MediaWiki:Group-sysop-member. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can file a Phabricator task requesting it and we'll hopefully add it eventually. Agent Isai Talk to me! 05:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Unrelated, but how does deleting autoconfirmed break MediaWiki? I already did that and nothing bad has happened. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- https://landar.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=5222 Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- All your users will now be subjected to the anti-spam global filters because the autoconfirmed group is the one which exempted them from that. Agent Isai Talk to me! 13:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Doesn't matter. Only approved users can edit, and that group all ready has autoconfirmed permissions. Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 20:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Could a rename option be added as a feature? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 05:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You'd have to delete the group and then make a new one with a new internal name. I wouldn't suggest you delete the administrators, bureaucrat, or autoconfirmed groups though as deleting those breaks ManageWiki and your wiki in general. Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Agent Isai: Thanks, how do I also change the internal name? Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
How to move forward from the "old-boys club"
Hello everyone. As you may know, the private club issue is one that has been going on on Miraheze for a very long time now. I am not the only one who has noticed it, many people have including the founder of Miraheze.
There is a continued issue of using Miraheze private platforms for discussions and treating them as consensus, often times either without a basis in policy for doing so or even opposite that (i.e. "consensus among administrators for X" which is an oxymoron because the purpose of sysops are to answer to the community).
It may be possible to simply note in policy that consensus which was not held publicly on-wiki is not consensus, and is nothing more than the actions of one person. An advisory to simply not have these discussions or release them on-wiki may also work.
The problem though, is that these are not discussions of a specific group, but rather just anyone in a so-called club. For instance, ridiculing someone for not knowing that examples of abusive messages from an IRC op discussion had come from someone who was not an IRC op. Even though they had no reason to be there.
The issues with pile-on attacks include:
- A user who blamed software failures on one specific wiki creator, citing a message that did not happen (even if it did happen, software bugs are software bugs and this does not mean an unpaid volunteer doing their job should be put on blast including to new users)
- An RFC on how to archive a thread on one specific person's talk page (not how to archive threads on talk pages in general, just one specific person's talk page)
- Multiple people noted in this discussion that it bordered on harassment
- More recently, the IRC issues including:
- Incivility, targetted attacks, and name-calling (VCP violations), including from a current global sysop
- When asked about it on-wiki, rather than apologizing they chose to repeat the insults. I did not respond to it because it was disrespectful and not to involve myself in VCP violations that I assumed would soon be cleaned up, but it has simply sat there because Raidarr is not me, this leads directly into the next issue:
- Creating a pseudo-whitelist of users who are allowed to violate the VCP
- Incivility, targetted attacks, and name-calling (VCP violations), including from a current global sysop
This morning I was informed by user John that he wrote to the Board about Zppix's consistent and targeted harassment against [me]
. The issue is, it is not just Zppix. While Zppix does have a history of this as seen in their user rights log, it doesn't solve the problem for anyone else nor does it address the overall issue.
I see multiple ways to solve this issue:
- Limit private channels to those who actually need them (i.e. anyone under NDA)
- Right now there are a bunch more channels such as ones for wiki creators and CVT. And there are people running around in other ones. Apparently I was supposed to know that the messages out of a chanop discussion were written by someone who wasn't a chanop.
- Restrictions on citing private discussions for public actions
- This has been an issue both with power-users and cases by individual (i.e. see the page history of Miraheze Volunteers)
- Removal of userrights for users involved with the private club
- I opened an RfDS for Reception123, however most of the voters simply said "Reception123 didn't say the things that Zppix said, Zppix said the things that Zppix said" without addressing anything else in the request
- This makes me concerned people in the so-called club will simply back up each other, resulting in this going nowhere.
- I opened an RfDS for Reception123, however most of the voters simply said "Reception123 didn't say the things that Zppix said, Zppix said the things that Zppix said" without addressing anything else in the request
Worsely, there has been a continued attempt to protect this group. For example, when evidence of harassment was posted by the user asked to review it, a removal of permissions request was started for that user. No, not the user who said the harassing messages, but removal of permissions for the user who brought them to light. And moreover, for ONLY that person, with no action against anyone else. For this reason, I have created two seperate sections, with the involved users section coming second.
Discuss what you think of these ideas, or, come up with your own. Naleksuh (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments by uninvolved users
- Support Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 19:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- What exactly are you supporting? This invites critical thinking with several paths of travel. --Raidarr (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Raidarr: "I see multiple ways to solve this issue" Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 02:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- And what are those ways? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @BrandonWM: They are listed by Naleksuh. %+Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- What are the ways you support? You seem to be supporting nothing right now because there's no rationale attached to your support message. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 04:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @BrandonWM: They are listed by Naleksuh. %+Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 04:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- And what are those ways? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Raidarr: "I see multiple ways to solve this issue" Bbbtest (talk | contribs | e-mail) 02:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- What exactly are you supporting? This invites critical thinking with several paths of travel. --Raidarr (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I find the way the proposed discussion is framed to be very problematic and can't/won't engage further with it for that reason. | -- FrozenPlum (Talk / Email) 04:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Comments by involved users
- Just to be clear here, facts are not moral judgements. Facts are facts. Saying that you are the most willfully ornery user on the platform is a fact. You constantly are rude and disrespectful to countless users. Raidarr did not violate the VCP in that case by calling you out, just like I am not violating the VCP by calling you out. If you consider everything directed at you that is not the most respectful thing in the world, then you need to reconsider what exactly your thought process is. Miraheze does not function without civility, and you have shown no ability to do that. Again, I am not violating the VCP here by calling you out. A fact is not a moral judgement, it is a fact. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 18:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you wish to comment on the fact that volunteers in the subject channel have harassed users? That is afterall a fact as well. John (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've been told before that I shouldn't speak about Nale's behavior when he's talking about someone else as it looks like people are ganging up on him, but this is not about what he says to any particular person, but more about his general pattern, and, more recently, John completely believing everything Nale says.
- This started after Nale wrote an email to John falsely claiming that he has been "harassed" and "gaslighted" in the server (Merriam Webster defines "harass" as "to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct" and "gaslight" as "to psychologically manipulate (a person) usually over an extended period of time so that the victim questions the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and experiences confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and doubts concerning their own emotional or mental stability" - keep this in mind).
- Nale has never been "gaslighted". He accused Agent of gaslighting him when Agent said that a message was posted in the wiki creators channel telling everyone to not approve wiki requests until a bug is fixed, not long after which he mass-approved every open wiki request and falsely claimed I told him to do it. It turned out the bridge bot had a bug - I never knew bots could gaslight someone.
- I also do not recall any instance of somebody creating an "unpleasant or hostile situation" for Nale. If anything, my first interactions with him when I was a new user felt unpleasant and hostile (these situations come to mind, but there are others: "You're the one being an asshole" directed towards me after he mass-approved wiki requests despite being told not to and "OK, I don't care what anyone else says. This is Dmehus all over again" when NotAracham wanted to change where the bot welcome messages are placed).
- However, as a result of Nale's false accusations, John - without consulting anyone else for their side of story - leaked messages that he was told not to post publicly and misattributed the author. He claimed that Reception123 wrote messages written by Zppix and claimed that Nale was being "harassed" in private - however, I do not understand how someone can be placed in an "unpleasant or hostile situation" because of private messages that they were never aware of and that were never acted on. Collei (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe everything Naleksuh tells me - why do I need to when I have been given the logs from the Discord server that shows Zppix making numerous poor attempts as humour over the course of years. Naleksuh has never provided me with something that I took at face value - in fact I've usually known about things before Naleksuh has even bothered to reach out to me as I have been active in the community for several years. The conduct at the very least breaches the VCP for 'Be Respectful' as do you think it's respectful to spend years threatening to ban a user, telling people to delete them from the database, excluding them from discussions because you have the power to do they besides everyone else telling you not to? You are funnily enough taking what people tell you at face value without having the evidence to back it up.
- "John - without consulting anyone else for their side of story" - I've spoken to people involved for years, I know their side of the story. I've overseen complaints about this conduct before, just because I didn't ask to speak to someone the other day does not mean I've never done it.
- "leaked messages that he was told not to post publicly" - no one has ever actually told me that. This isn't covered by my NDA as well so I had the right to post them. If people didn't want these being public, they should have said them a private venue, not a known semi public one.
- "and misattributed the author. He claimed that Reception123 wrote messages written by Zppix" I never said Reception posted them. I asked him his opinion on the anonymous comments.
- I'd advice you get your facts correct before trying to disprove mine. John (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe everything Naleksuh tells me - why do I need to when I have been given the logs from the Discord server that shows Zppix making numerous poor attempts as humour over the course of years. Naleksuh has never provided me with something that I took at face value - in fact I've usually known about things before Naleksuh has even bothered to reach out to me as I have been active in the community for several years. The conduct at the very least breaches the VCP for 'Be Respectful' as do you think it's respectful to spend years threatening to ban a user, telling people to delete them from the database, excluding them from discussions because you have the power to do they besides everyone else telling you not to?
- Nobody threatened to ban Nale, drop him from the database, etc. They were messages in private by one single user that were never acted upon. If you had evidence that these were actually acted upon or sent to Nale, it would be different. Maybe the humor would be more understandable if Nale was calling you an asshole, attacking new users for violating the "freedom" of readers by restricting a wiki to one skin, comparing NotAracham to Dmehus, attacking SRE for using hCaptcha, getting absurdly angry for BrandonWM closing a testwiki discussion, etc.
- People never exclude Nale from discussions. However, when Nale acts uncivil, annoying, and rude to both new and experienced users, everyone dreads discussing with him anyway. I hate having to talk to him on Discord. The slightest disagreement with him will become a multiple day argument. It is exhausting.
You are funnily enough taking what people tell you at face value without having the evidence to back it up.
- I am speaking from my own experience, not from anyone else's. Nobody told me to write this.
"leaked messages that he was told not to post publicly" - no one has ever actually told me that. This isn't covered by my NDA as well so I had the right to post them. If people didn't want these being public, they should have said them a private venue, not a known semi public one.
- To quote the channel description: "this chat and things said here should usually not be mentioned outside of correspondence with its members."
- I don't care about the NDA. That doesn't make it right. In fact, most forms of outing personal information are entirely legal and not in breach of any law or NDA.
"and misattributed the author. He claimed that Reception123 wrote messages written by Zppix" I never said Reception posted them. I asked him his opinion on the anonymous comments.
- The context they were posted in most certainly made it sound like they came from Reception123. Nale even started a demotion proceeding against Reception123 based on them. Collei (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Nobody threatened to ban Nale, drop him from the database, etc." Go back and read the comments I posted - that's exactly what they said? At no point have I ever said Naleksuh's actions have been acceptable - but volunteers are held to a higher standard - so surely they should y'know be held to a higher standard like policy says?
- "I am speaking from my own experience, not from anyone else's" - and so am I, so what's the problem that we have two different experiences where I've been privy to the full messages, the context, working with people, and you have not.
- "entirely legal and not in breach of any law or NDA" - so we agree that this isn't illegal and didn't breach the NDA. I may have violated trust and breached policy - but I did it to ensure those who harass people and breach the policy more severely can't get away with it. John (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Go back and read the comments I posted - that's exactly what they said? At no point have I ever said Naleksuh's actions have been acceptable - but volunteers are held to a higher standard - so surely they should y'know be held to a higher standard like policy says?
- I did read the comments. Zppix did not make a serious threat. They were sarcastic/humorous "threats", and Nale was never aware of them. Given that they were never acted upon and that Nale was never aware of them, they could not have reached the definition of harassment by Merriam-Webster.
"I am speaking from my own experience, not from anyone else's" - and so am I, so what's the problem that we have two different experiences where I've been privy to the full messages, the context, working with people, and you have not.
- Actually, this is just the begging the question fallacy, because your evidence of me not knowing the context is just an assertion that I don't know it.
"entirely legal and not in breach of any law or NDA" - so we agree that this isn't illegal and didn't breach the NDA. I may have violated trust and breached policy - but I did it to ensure those who harass people and breach the policy more severely can't get away with it.
- I quite frankly do not care about the law. Law does not equal morality. Collei (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Can we both cool it please? Aggressive disagreement isn't bringing us any closer to resolving this issue. I'll not be making any comments regarding any user's conduct at this time. However, I will say that I'm heading a discussion regarding the future of the private channel. I fully intend to wind down any official use of the channel, but note that it will likely be retained as a location for off-topic discussions or as a place of last resort for matters that don't go under NDA, but also don't belong in public.
- In regards to other matters brought up by the original post, "Restrictions on citing private discussions for public actions" is something I wholeheartedly agree with. If your edit is reverted please open discussions instead of reverting further, even if you are right. -- Void Whispers 21:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to be more respectful, but I did not think that was disrespectful. I am exhausted with what Nale has put me through here.
- Please also note that I got permission from Raidarr before posting my original reply here, to make sure it is civil. Collei (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I recall you sending me an initial message and agreeing that wasn't uncivil, but I don't see it here and at any rate I by no means reviewed what this turned into. I'm coming from the other side of the fence and I'd have to agree with John the way its being argued. I will reference both sides of 'private' vs 'whistleblowing' when I get to a response which is looking like I'll get it out either late today or tomorrow. --Raidarr (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I recall you sending me an initial message and agreeing that wasn't uncivil, but I don't see it here and at any rate I by no means reviewed what this turned into.
- It is
my original reply here
. I never said anything about you havingreviewed what this turned into
. Collei (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I recall you sending me an initial message and agreeing that wasn't uncivil, but I don't see it here and at any rate I by no means reviewed what this turned into. I'm coming from the other side of the fence and I'd have to agree with John the way its being argued. I will reference both sides of 'private' vs 'whistleblowing' when I get to a response which is looking like I'll get it out either late today or tomorrow. --Raidarr (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @John: In response to your original query to me, I am aware that some users have harbored feelings against Naleksuh in that channel. However, I want to note all that Naleksuh has put members of the volunteer team through. They also fall under the VCP as a wiki creator and Meta interface administrator. Users have used the channel to vent because they’ve not been able to do so in public channels, Naleksuh having frequented them up until their ban. Zppix to the best of my knowledge, having spoken with him, was not serious about banning users from discussions just because they can. It was simply venting about a problematic user, something that I’ve done multiple times privately and many others do too. While there may have been some frustration, there never was an intention to do any of the things that were said in the channel. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 21:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do you wish to comment on the fact that volunteers in the subject channel have harassed users? That is afterall a fact as well. John (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strongest oppose everything except for "Restrictions on citing private discussions for public actions". I am not involved, as I do not have access to the private channel, so I will post it here. Demoting everyone that has access to the private channel would demote literally the entirety of Stewards, CVT, SRE, etc. Aside from that, as I explained to you before (to which your response was "You're the one being an asshole"), you were partially at fault for mass-approving wiki requests when told not to (or at least when you were meant to be told not to - as has been explained to you, the relay bot broke). I acknowledge that it was incorrect to assume that you must've received the message, but you also falsely claimed that you were told by myself and others to get up at 10 PM to go through the wiki requests, when in fact the most recent message regarding it was NotAracham stating that several features on wikis that are currently being approved are broken, and to not approve any wiki requests until the bug is fixed. As for the other points raised, go down to the involved user sections where I countered those. Collei (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just a friendly note, I don't think the oppose/support templates are appropriate here. This is not an RfC, this is just a discussion. OrangeStar (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, he offered a bunch of suggestions and wants everyone to "discuss what you think of these ideas, or, come up with your own". Of course, my reply will be seen "a continued attempt to protect this group", but I don't care. Collei (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing to oppose, though. Either you have ideas or you don't. There has been no vote for a single idea yet. I'm sorry that you don't care about how your replies are viewed, though it does raise the question of what good it will do. Naleksuh (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I am opposing your ideas. Your post is based on an underlying assumption that I would agree there is a problem to solve, but there is no problem to begin with.
I'm sorry that you don't care about how your replies are viewed, though it does raise the question of what good it will do.
- I care how my replies are viewed if some logical reasoning is given to the replies. "Protect[ing] this group" is not necessarily a bad thing if people disagree with your interpretation of the group. Collei (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, what's your interpretation, then? John has shared his, I have shared mine, it could be your turn next. Naleksuh (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, please just leave this blurb in the 'involved' section next time it's moved considering at this point you've gotten into some spicy and frankly unwise, muddled discourse on the topic. It's an arbitrary distinction and there is no point edit warring on the semantic: it's the trap discussions like these invite and only diminishes what value they might have had. As long as the comment itself stands it shouldn't matter which section it is dropped in. I intend to leave a full comment on this myself soon but I had to comment on this tangent as it has become quite off base including the discussion with John, which I frankly believe you should cease. --Raidarr (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing to oppose, though. Either you have ideas or you don't. There has been no vote for a single idea yet. I'm sorry that you don't care about how your replies are viewed, though it does raise the question of what good it will do. Naleksuh (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, he offered a bunch of suggestions and wants everyone to "discuss what you think of these ideas, or, come up with your own". Of course, my reply will be seen "a continued attempt to protect this group", but I don't care. Collei (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just a friendly note, I don't think the oppose/support templates are appropriate here. This is not an RfC, this is just a discussion. OrangeStar (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I already agreed that the group should be disbanded. My resignation from SRE that I chose to stick to came from a multitude of reasons stemming from the events leading to this discussion, conduct of some volunteers, and recognition of my own actions surrounding recent events. I never ever agreed, and never willingly or knowingly took part in any of the, for lack of a better word to think of, "harrassment" that took place. I don't know if I'd characterise it as harassment exactly, as it wasn't said to the person directly, and as far as I know, meant as a joke for the most part. It was however disrespectful. Because of the numerous issues that has occurred I have also removed myself my being active on Discord or IRC, pending resolution to the future of the group, whereas I would then return to IRC and Discord. The fact that we operated without any community oversight or accountability goes against the core principles that is transparency in Miraheze. This is just some of my thoughts here and I may add more thoughts later, but I think it is very important that we be able to move past this in a more transparent way in the future. I don't agree with how it was put out to the community whatsoever, but I do think it's important for us to have community accountability and be respectful to all of our users regardless of their personal opinion on them, whether directly to them, or somewhere they can't see. I still however hold a very strong belief that if this went through proper channels, or even attempted to resolve between involved users, instead of posting a private chat, here, publicly things would have been a lot better, and we could have disbanded the channel anyway without the need for recent events. That is why I posted the revocation for John's Stewardship, because the way it was handled was unbecoming of the standards I had previously thought John was of. Either way, I just feel Miraheze is so highly prone to drama, I have not regretted my decision to resign from SRE at all so far, and it allows me to attempt to focus on the community and rebuilding trust and transparency between all the core groups of Miraheze. My hope is that eventually things can move completely beyond these recent events. Universal Omega (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, are you agreeing with the issue of an old-boys club? My concern in this discussion was people acting like the only harassment was Zppix's messages and nothing else, when infact there is a continued pattern of problems of targetting of pile-on attacks. Second, why do you say that you want more publicity while also saying John should have resolved it privately? Already by default it's a weird look to RfDS the person bringing to light abusive actions by another user, but with no proposed action for that user: this is a lot like trying to protect user 2. So, is it public or private? Can it be both? Naleksuh (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree there is an underlying problem. I also agree with transparency, but I think John should have at least talked with the users involved privately before posting publicly here. Not necessarily to hide it but to try and get the full context instead of posting things out of context here. I do not however agree that everyone even in the channel should have their rights revoked, as that would include most of CVT, and the entirety of Stewards, T&S, SRE, and the Board. Not everyone was involved in any sort of issue in the channel. And not everyone agrees with how things were treated. The channel should be disbanded but to say everyone should have rights revoked is wrong. Unless I misinterpretated what you meant by "Removal of userrights for users involved with the private club". But if that is what you meant, that is not even feasible for the continuation of Miraheze whatsoever, as it would effectively remove all advanced users in the core groups. To propose all be removed is absurd. Not even to protect members involved, but it just can't be done. I won't even try to defend myself or the group here, I know there was problems from users, I, and others could have been more vocal against it earlier, or even joking about such things, since like I said I never agreed with it. So I myself admit some wrongdoing in how a lot of things were recently handled. But how John handled things was no better. Things could have been talked about or confronted privately and then forwarded to the right channels immediately for reports. It was hardly necessary to post them above on something entirely unrelated, especially since at least from my understanding he has had them for quite a while longer than now, so my question was, why post messages from months ago, now, here. That was an issue as well, and as I have always held John in higher regards then that, that is why it was too far in my mind and I posted the revocation. I regret how a lot played out, but I still feel John went way to far with that, and internal conduct other than that was still not great hence another of the multiple reasons I resigned from SRE, and am no longer active on IRC or Discord until a resolution regarding the group is reached and things can move forward. To not associate myself with that, or to say or do something that would only further create conflict or issues within Miraheze. Universal Omega (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, are you agreeing with the issue of an old-boys club? My concern in this discussion was people acting like the only harassment was Zppix's messages and nothing else, when infact there is a continued pattern of problems of targetting of pile-on attacks. Second, why do you say that you want more publicity while also saying John should have resolved it privately? Already by default it's a weird look to RfDS the person bringing to light abusive actions by another user, but with no proposed action for that user: this is a lot like trying to protect user 2. So, is it public or private? Can it be both? Naleksuh (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I want to state for the record, that prior to the GC discussion, I had no involvement in the channel. I wasn't in it until a few days ago. Before that, I didn't even know it existed. From what I can tell, it has been around way, way longer than I have known about it. The leaked messages were also from discord from what I'm told, which I do not use, and I do not participate in or see anything that happens solely on discord. I believe that revoking rights from Reception123 or other users is 100% unnecessary. No doubt, mistakes were made, but this does not at all warrant removal of rights. I do believe that the channel will either be abandoned, or else its use will become fairly limited. My hope is that we can eventually move past these issues, and that Miraheze can continue providing services for years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFan4000 (talk • contribs)
- As an update, there was a conversation between the channel participants (no heavy involvement from me), and it has been decided that the channel will be abandoned. (Discord side will be archived and eventually deleted, IRC channel will likely get cleared out). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "the" channel, singular? There are multiple channels being talked about here. Which channel do you mean? Naleksuh (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "The cabal" so to speak. (#miraheze-cabal). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is only one channel used by Miraheze volunteers for off-topic chatter. All other channels are strictly for role purposes and all messages in those channels strictly pertain to that. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- THATS A REAL CHANNEL??? I thought that was a joke! Yes that never should have existed but better late than never. What about the other channels though, that are just "non-NDA private channels just to be private"? Naleksuh (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are none apart from things like the wiki creators chat or the CVT chat. Agent Isai Talk to me! 02:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "The cabal" is a joke. I believe that Doug renamed it to "the cartel", but someone changed the name to "the cabal" later. I do not have the time to read any other replies. Collei (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- THATS A REAL CHANNEL??? I thought that was a joke! Yes that never should have existed but better late than never. What about the other channels though, that are just "non-NDA private channels just to be private"? Naleksuh (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The complaint originated by John is isolated to the single channel in question, to my understanding. I find discussion of the channel's contents and usual tone to be mis-characterized but attempts to defend its continued existence would be a misuse of the time of everyone here.
- Role-specific channels (e.g. wiki creators, CVT) with a clearly outlined and limited purpose, which necessarily cannot be fully public in order to execute the duties of that role, should continue to exist. There are no complaints against contents of those channels (to my knowledge) and they are are necessary to support efficient function of those roles, though I'd invite suggestions for greater accountability of those channels if you feel that is needed.
- Private off-topic channels, however, are just too much of a liability -- anything like what previously existed invites doubt and appearance of conflicts of interest, whether or not doubt is warranted.
- I agree with the closure of the private off-topic channel (already mentioned by MacFan4000) as the only clear way to move forward from this chapter. This incident has also highlighted several policy gaps (and potential solutions) around volunteer well-being and resignation process that I hope will reach a positive outcome for stability of the project in the days and weeks ahead.
- --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 02:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think it's particularly unusual for volunteers to discuss with each other in private. Twitter's Slack has an off topic channel, for example. When people work together, yes there will always be a place where they privately discuss or vent about off-topic things, especially when the volunteers get to know each other over time.
- Yes, the messages were rude, but they were not harassment, and no action against Nale was taken due to their existence. Collei (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which messages? The ones by Zppix? This discussion is about a much larger issue and a continued pattern of incidents. Also for the 2394872394823794823948723th time please stop calling me Nale. My name is Naleksuh. Naleksuh (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not re-read this before sending it. There will be some grammatical errors, redundant sentences, or words that I mixed up. I'm too busy to look through this.
Also for the 2394872394823794823948723th time please stop calling me Nale. My name is Naleksuh
- I was never told that before, but I'll keep that in mind. It is not uncommon for people to abbreviate names. The name I go by in Grasscutters is
aether (collei's bf)
(referencing the Traveler x Collei headcanon in Genshin Impact), but people usually abbreviate it toaether
. I now know you prefer that I say Naleksuh, so I'll keep that in mind. Which messages? The ones by Zppix? This discussion is about a much larger issue and a continued pattern of incidents
- I've already talked about the stuff about blaming technical bugs on you. As for the RfC about how to archive threads on your talk page:
- The way you described it, I thought it was on the Requests for Comment page or something. That certainly sounded out of character for Reception123 and generally the group you talk about, so I looked, and it seems that the supposed RfC was on the CN. What you are doing now is essentially an RfC about how to treat this "group". If Miraheze is run by its community, then yes, there will be discussions in public relating to established users.
- And as for people that try to avoid you, single you out, or find you annoying: I don't think they should do that, but I also do not think that Reception123 (or anyone else, for that matter) needs to have their rights revoked. Naleksuh, you often say things that sound rude, and maybe you don't mean for them to, but over time, it makes you very difficult to talk to.
- Rather than say "we shouldn't have added hCaptcha", you start a long discussion that felt like an attack towards members of SRE rather than the action itself. Near the time that you got banned from IRC, you were being annoying towards BrandonWM because of how he defined functionary. Maybe you don't mean to be annoying or offensive, but what you say does make people feel uncomfortable or annoyed around you.
- Yes, I should not have said that I am biased against you. I should not have said something to the effect of "can you even read" when you mass-approved the recent wiki requests. You do have good ideas. However, the way you present them just makes people feel annoyed. I don't know a better way to put it than that. Collei (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- This thread makes it seem like all of the mentioned events are part of a coordinated effort by a group to attack you when that is evidently not the case. There are far too many things to do and better things to spend time on so why would basically every volunteer devote themselves to persecuting you? Agent Isai Talk to me! 04:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which messages? The ones by Zppix? This discussion is about a much larger issue and a continued pattern of incidents. Also for the 2394872394823794823948723th time please stop calling me Nale. My name is Naleksuh. Naleksuh (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "the" channel, singular? There are multiple channels being talked about here. Which channel do you mean? Naleksuh (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- As an update, there was a conversation between the channel participants (no heavy involvement from me), and it has been decided that the channel will be abandoned. (Discord side will be archived and eventually deleted, IRC channel will likely get cleared out). MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)