Page MenuHomeMiraheze

Differentiate sitenotices for different cases
Open, LowPublic

Description

Currently, when a wiki is closed (regardless of the way, i.e. script, ManageWiki) there is only one sitenotice that appears which says "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or or logs made within the last 60 days.".

In some cases, wikis are closed for other reasons via ManageWiki, and it can be confusing for the sitenotice to claim that they were closed due to inactivity. The same goes with private wikis, which cannot be adopted, but the sitenotice claims that they can be.

Therefore, we should have 3 sitenotices for the different instances (1: script closes for inactivity, 2: wiki closed via ManageWiki, 3: wiki closed with script; private). (and then of course if the closed wiki also becomes inactive the script will change the message again)

Event Timeline

Reception123 created this task.
John added a subscriber: John.

This is done via mw-config.

CreateWiki doesn’t add any notices.

MacFan4000 added a subscriber: MacFan4000.

Changes to ManageWiki will be needed

In T4164#79542, @John wrote:

This is done via mw-config.

CreateWiki doesn’t add any notices.

Reception123 added subscribers: RhinosF1, Zppix.

@RhinosF1 @Zppix Is this something you would maybe be interested in?

In T4887 I am trying to say the messages are all fine... the problem is you don't say what date you are counting from.
60 days starting when?
January ??, 201? .
Add a hard, firm, anchor date.

JohnLewis> actually, it may be possible to differentiate '''future''' manual closes, but settings wiki_closed = 2 and having a check so if its 2, we set another $cw var to show it

FYI on how this could be done. For now blocked on community consensus due to the fact that it's unclear from the Dormancy Policy whether closed wikis can be adopted and if they follow the same rules.

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Is there a discussion anywhere regarding this?

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Whether it's blocked on community concensus or not, about whether manually closed wikis can be adopted. I personally believe it should still be differentiated and to say that it was manually closed rather then it was closed after time

Private wikis vs public wikis is now Done.

What remains to be done is manual closure vs script which is still blocked on community consensus.

Whether it's blocked on community concensus or not, about whether manually closed wikis can be adopted. I personally believe it should still be differentiated and to say that it was manually closed rather then it was closed after time

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

@John, if I am understanding your and @Universal_Omega's concerns correctly, differentiating the sitenotice for wikis manually closed as opposed to automatically (i.e. by a script) would allow people to easily understand if they can adopt that wiki. This should decrease the number of RfAs that cannot be undertaken and reduce Stewards' workload.

In T4164#136761, @R4356th wrote:

@John, if I am understanding your and @Universal_Omega's concerns correctly, differentiating the sitenotice for wikis manually closed as opposed to automatically (i.e. by a script) would allow people to easily understand if they can adopt that wiki. This should decrease the number of RfAs that cannot be undertaken and reduce Stewards' workload.

Policy does not say manually closed wikis can't be adopted., only private wikis can't be adopted.

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

In T4164#136920, @R4356th wrote:

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

That’s not policy or convention by any means. I would happily allow someone to adopt a closed wiki as we have been doing for years.

In T4164#136920, @R4356th wrote:

But Stewards always close such requests as not done. See this (archived) request, for example.

If this is about manually closed wikis, I'm just going by what @Void has told @Reception123 and I that convention is that manually closed wikis aren't eligible for adoption. This convention may not be universal among all existing stewards and, to be honest, I've also had discussions with @John that we could/should perhaps replace the entire request for adoption process with a request to reopen wiki process, and require any permissions grants to undergo a local election. I would tend to favour that process, instead of the two processes, one of which is only based on subjectively assessing the quantity/quality of the requestor's contributions.

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

While I get what you're saying and aiming to achieve, I feel that might end up complicating things. We should aim for clarity, yes, but we should also strive for simplicity, and I just don't want to see the sitenotice try and discuss all potential reasons for why the wiki is closed. We could take out the reference to no edits or logged actions in the past sixty days, but then we may lose a bit of clarity. Do you have a proposed revision in mind?

In T4164#136760, @John wrote:

Why differentiate something which isn’t different? If they are treated identically, then issue is then the specificity of the message not the functionality. As far as I am concerned currently, regardless of how a wiki is closed means nothing - therefore why should they be technically different?

Keep in mind this message is a Miraheze thing, not an extension thing. Therefore this issue is a Miraheze problem not an extension problem - so unless there’s a real use case for it to be different, you’re spending time making a change for no gain, no benefit for something no one is using.

What I'm saying is to change it for manually closed wikis to be less confusing, not change the adoption portion of it, right now it says that "This wiki has been closed because there have been no edits or logs made within the last 60 days." For manually closed wikis this is inaccurate all I'm saying is to make it so it doesn't say no edits in lass 60 days but rather that it was manually closed.

While I get what you're saying and aiming to achieve, I feel that might end up complicating things. We should aim for clarity, yes, but we should also strive for simplicity, and I just don't want to see the sitenotice try and discuss all potential reasons for why the wiki is closed. We could take out the reference to no edits or logged actions in the past sixty days, but then we may lose a bit of clarity. Do you have a proposed revision in mind?

How would making it more accurate complicate it more? I'm saying to use a different sitenotice for manually closed wikis which is the exact same as script closed, but without the time part of it.

Universal_Omega changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Mar 26 2021, 16:06

Stalled on RfC.

Even though I am the original proposer of this task, I now think that it should be declined.

My original thought behind this wasn't related to a potential RfC at all, it was mostly because I thought it was confusing for users to see that their wiki was closed "for inactivity" when it was actually closed manually. It seems that that is quite a narrow purpose since anyway in the end the outcome is the same.

Additionally, on the Phabricator guideline page stalled is defined as "Tasks that are waiting on an external entity to respond before any further action from us can be taken." In this case there is no current RfC in place and there are no plans to immediately hold one either. Even if there was an RfC, the likely outcome would be to preserve the status quo.

I think the best way to proceed is to decline this right now, and it can be reopened if there is a change, or if someone strongly disagrees with this decline.

With the DP RfC passing at the end of 2021 and clarifying that wikis that are closed manually can be reopened by a simple DP request (unless there was community consensus to close) and also with the more prevalent closing of wikis for violating the CP by Stewards, differentiation is back on the table. The following cases are proposed

  1. A wiki is closed manually. - sitenotice to indicate that it may be reopened via the process, unless closed following a community discussion - determined that it is manual by the fact that closure was done when wiki_inactive_timestamp/wiki_inactive wasn't eligible.
  2. A wiki is closed automatically - status quo
  3. A wiki is closed by a Steward (for global policy violations) - sitenotice to indicate that a Steward has closed the wiki for violating the Content Policy or other global policies. - determined by the fact that the closure was done from metawiki. NOTE: There is a small possibility of false positive if a Steward has to close a wiki because the local bureaucrat is inactive and that's what the community wants.