Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
→Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right: scrutineers have been identified for the upcoming admin election |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 37:
Could someone edit [[2024 Sri Lankan presidential election|this]] page to show that AKD won. Idk how to edit elections [[User:Irindu10|Irindu10]] ([[User talk:Irindu10|talk]]) 15:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like it has already been done. In the future, it is better to ask this on the article's talk page (here, [[Talk:2024 Sri Lankan presidential election]]), as it is more likely to be seen by editors more knowledgeable on this specific topic. This page here is for more wide-ranging proposals, rather than to request specific edits. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 02:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
{{archive top|This is not a {{tq|concrete, actionable proposal}}. Information on the topic has been provided. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)}}▼
{{archive bottom}}
Line 80 ⟶ 73:
* '''Oppose''' I don't see the point - this involves spending a lot of effort fixing something that isn't really broken. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Pppery}} It is broken though - the page has no archiving, there are no signatures so replying is slow, the current emoji system for responding to issues is substandard, and it's hidden in an obscure location so no one can find it to help fix issues. Also, since there are no signatures, it's a nightmare chasing people to get further details of issues. What part of that ''isn't'' broken? —'''Matrix(!)''' <sub>ping one</sub><sup>when replying</sup> {''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''} 11:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*:: I'm just not convinced any of those are worth inventing a new wheel over - the system is not broken in the sense that issues are being reported and fixed. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Just because issues are getting fixed, doesn't mean it's happening efficiently. The current system is very inefficient, even if issues are getting fixed. It is still creating lots of friction preventing new users from fixing issues. —'''Matrix(!)''' <sub>ping one</sub><sup>when replying</sup> {''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''} 18:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
=== Implementation ===
Line 146 ⟶ 141:
::::*Either way, though, my point is that we can have a more lightweight vetting process focused ''specifically and exclusively'' on whether someone is likely to abuse the specific tools the WMF is worried about. Whenever alternative approaches to adminship come up, people bring up that WMF concern, and it's easily addressed. The WMF isn't worried about people abusing blocks, or unblocks, or weighing in at [[WP:AE]], or AE enforcement actions; and the (perceived, at least) high risk associated with those things under the current system is what actually makes people reluctant to promote admins and which therefore makes RFAs ''hard''. This is also self-perpetuating in that the fewer admins there are the more impact each one has, raising the stakes of RFA in a way that risks breaking it. The community and the WMF are worried about different things. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::*:I agree. This is a solvable problem. Also, it doesn't have to be solved in the first iteration. We could test the system on a couple of other userrights, and circle back to test some others later. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Wouldn't {{tq|revenge porn}} etc. be ''oversighted'', not just deleted? [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 04:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but admins often revdel serious problems first, before reporting to the oversighters. (Also, that's not usually uploaded locally.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 05:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
▲
== RfC on In the news criteria ==
Line 157 ⟶ 155:
by [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Agree with others that these new icons look dated. However, if we are discussing changes to lock icons, then I must say the the purple for upload protected is incongruously gaudy. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] — ''[[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]'' 20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable floatright"
|+ Current Protection icons
|-
! Icon !! Mode
|-
| [[File:Pending-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Pending changes protected|alt=White padlock]] White || [[#pending|Pending changes protected]]
|-
| [[File:Semi-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Semi-protected|alt=Silver padlock]] Silver || [[#semi|Semi-protected]]
|-
| [[File:Extended-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Extended confirmed protection|alt=Dark blue padlock]] Blue || [[#extended|Extended confirmed protected]]
|-
| [[File:Template-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Template-protected|alt=Pink padlock]] Pink || [[#template|Template-protected]]
|-
| [[File:Full-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Fully protected|alt=Gold padlock]] Gold || [[#full|Fully protected]]
|-
| [[File:Interface-protection-shackle.svg|40px|alt=Brown padlock]] Red || [[#interface|Interface protected]]
|-
| [[File:Move-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Move protected|alt=Green padlock]] Green || [[#move|Move protected]]
|-
| [[File:Create-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Create protected|alt=Blue padlock]] Skyblue || [[#create|Create protected]]
|-
| [[File:Upload-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Upload protected|alt=Purple padlock]] Purple || [[#upload|Upload protected]]
|-
| [[File:Cascade-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Cascade protected|alt=Turquoise padlock]] Turquoise || [[#cascade|Cascade protected]]
|-
| [[File:Office-protection-shackle.svg|40px|Protected by Office|alt=Black padlock]] Black || [[#office|Protected by Office]]
|}
:Pretty strong oppose trying to run a geolocation script on every load to try to make dynamic labels here. If anything (which I also don't like) labels should follow user interface language. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::I understand the differences, I was just suggesting (because I don't really speak any other language you could propose a specific version) Also, I will later add the letters on the shackles.
::by [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 19:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::and icons* [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 19:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::SVG file formats can be translated. See [[c:Commons:Translation possible/Learn more]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Oppose making the primary (only) differentiation be color, as that gives out less information then the current scheme and is useless for those without color viewing abilities. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::Agree with Xaosflux on this one. Furthermore, the two issues of the old icon scheme (color and "realistic" shading that doesn't look great on small icons), which were the reasons for the change to begin with, are present on this one too.{{pb}}Regarding the region-based symbols, it would make more sense to display them based on the language edition, and, since each language edition already sets its own standards for this stuff, there isn't much more we can do. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Agree''', but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") [[User:The Master of Hedgehogs|The Master of Hedgehogs]] <sup>([[User talk: The Master of Hedgehogs|converse]])</sup> <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Master of Hedgehogs|hedgehogs]])</sup> 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[:File:New Wikipedia Icons.png]] Well, here you go! (I made these, CC0 license) [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 17:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:Will those icons/colours work with dark mode? I also agree that letters are essential. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:Shackles? You mean locks? And they look more like [[handbag]]s to me. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 15:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::They're called shackles [[:File:Pending-protection-shackle.svg]] [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::See also [[Shackle]]. These are padlocks, and the upper U-shaped bit is the shackle. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
: Yet another solution in search of a problem. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::Per [[WP:WIKICLICHE]] we've been asked to not say this quite as much, due to supply chain issues – if we use them too much we could see a huge shortage down the road. But I hope I'm <ins>not</ins> generating more heat than light with this comment, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] — ''[[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]]'' 20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Never throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will contaminate your greywater collection system. Like other meats, babies are not compostable, so they should be sorted into the landfill waste stream unless otherwise advised by your municipal waste management authority. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 20:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Is the bathwater the same water I'm meant to bring this horse to? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:The pseudo-3D shading looks dated compared to the current flat icons. Most modern design systems (including [https://doc.wikimedia.org/codex/latest/ codex], which is the new design system for Wikimedia wikis) are built around flat icons. <span class="nowrap">--[[User:Ahecht|Ahecht]] ([[User talk:Ahecht|<b style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:middle;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK<br />PAGE</b>]])</span> 18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::What about icons such as featured, good, and audio? [[User:2I3I3|2I3I3]] ([[User talk:2I3I3|talk]]) 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[File:Good_article_fractal_star.svg|thumb|100px|Just for fun]]Still feel like a step backwards. The current "Good article" icon, on top of having less of a distracting shading and being more readable, is in a consistent style with a lot of our other icons. The current "Featured article" icon, although not consistent with the others, is pretty unique and recognizable in design, while this one looks like a generic star.{{pb}}Just for fun, I did once make a "Good article" star in the style of the FA one – not meant for any official implementation beyond [[User:Chaotic Enby/GoodArticleStar.js|my personal script]] of course, but it's neat to see how it would look like. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:These are not visual improvements whatsoever, unfortunately. They are clear regressions in design, and the current icons are fine. Our system is particular to the English Wikipedia, so it's perfectly appropriate for their design to be relative to the English language.<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
== Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right ==
{{Tracked|T301180}}
Hello! My name is Joe Sutherland and I'm on the Trust and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation. In the past, your community has shown interest in holding elections with SecurePoll — perhaps you already have through votewiki. We are now looking into making this available to local communities to run elections themselves. This will require the "electionadmin" right to be enabled on your project, which is a right that allows access to sensitive information.
As such, it is likely that you will need to run a Request for Comment (or similar process) to ascertain consensus for the implementation of this feature. To help guide such a discussion, [[metawiki:SecurePoll/Local_elections|we've put together a Meta-Wiki page]] with more information about what enabling the right will mean for your community.
If your community does discuss and decides to move forward with this, T&S would like to support you — please let us know via email ( ca@wikimedia.org ) if and when consensus is reached. Thank you!
P.S., this might be better suited for the technical village pump, so feel free to move it there if you like. [[User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland (WMF)]] ([[User talk:JSutherland (WMF)|talk]]) 20:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' enabling. This seems like a perfunctory step needed to facilitate the [[WP:administrator elections|administrator elections]] that we have [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_13:_Admin_elections|found consensus to conduct]]. Whether this separate RfC is even needed is debatable, but I think it'll be easier to just get consensus than to debate whether it's necessary. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 20:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This isn't a requirement holding for admin elections, arbcom elections (or any other type of elections) but (if I've understood correctly) it will reduce the amount of support we need from the WMF when we do hold them. I agree completely with Sdkb's last sentence. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This would help us host local [[WP:AELECT|administrator elections]] and [[WP:ACE|arbitration committee elecitons]] that aren't so dependent on the limited bandwidth of the stewards (scrutineers) and WMF T&S (for vote.wikimedia.org setup). By the way, are electionadmins basically checkusers within the SecurePoll tool (being able to see IP information for voters)? So we'd need to make sure that folks that receive that permission are a functionary and/or sign an NDA? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:P.S. Is there a ticket on Phab to separate election checkuser capabilities from election creation/editing capabilities? This might be worth looking into. The person that sets up polls doesn't necessarily need to be the same person that checks all the voters. And it may make sense to have a division here. For example, someone technical can set up SecurePoll, and existing checkusers could do the scrutineering. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 20:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I did some research and it looks like any admin can create a poll, but only electionadmins (scrutineers) can '''edit a poll''' or view checkuser-like data on voters. This split is a bit odd, as I think it'd be better if admins could also '''edit polls''' that they were added to when the polls were created, so I've filed [[phab:T377531]] to explore that idea a bit further. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 23:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' to help us implement administrator elections in a more practical way for both us and the WMF. However, will electionadmins be a new user group? They seem to combine characteristics of checkusers and bureaucrats, and I'm not sure whether it would work to bundle the right into either by default. On the other hand, Novem Linguae's proposal of splitting the user right could work better, with a technical-minded crat setting up the poll, while checkusers get the scrutineering right. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 22:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:If I'm reading the code right... yes, electionadmin would either need to be a new user group, or the permissions for it (securepoll-create-poll, securepoll-view-voter-pii) added to an existing user group such as the checkusers. The latter might be simpler than creating a whole new appointment process for electionadmins.
*:At first glance, I don't see a relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins. Electionadmins can't grant any user groups, unlike bureaucrats. Again, if I'm reading the code right, any admin can create a poll. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*The technical village pump is for questions about how to do X, whereas how to grant the electionadmin right requires a proposal for a policy, so this page is the appropriate place. Since the right provides access to voter information (as per {{section link|meta:SecurePoll/Local elections|What does the electionadmin right do?}}), a process is needed to establish who is trusted with this access. The options I can think of are by consensus discussion, by election, or by appointment (which would push the question up one level on how to decide what group does the appointing). Being part of an existing trusted group, such as those with the oversight right or the checkuser right, could be a requirement to become an election admin. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*:It might be simplest to grant the permissions securepoll-create-poll and securepoll-view-voter-pii to the checkusers. That way we don't need the overhead of a separate user group or separate appointment process. I think you have to specifically be added to a poll by the poll creator to see its PII, so there shouldn't be any security risk from giving all the checkusers the ability to be added to polls by the poll creator. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*This feels like a major oversight. The admin elections are modeled after [[WP:ACE]] but apparently nobody thought about the scrutineers that need to be approved and tooled up each year for ACE. I'm presuming this means the elections are on hold until we clear this up? [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*: No, I think the admin elections are going to proceed using the old process (of voting being done on VoteWiki) and this is only about the future. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Scrutineers have been identified for the trial admin election (see {{section link|Wikipedia:Administrator elections|Tallying}}). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If we're going to be doing regular admin elections it makes sense for the infrastructure to be local. '''[[User:Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">Pinguinn</span></span>]] [[User talk: Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">🐧</span></span>]]''' 00:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
| |||