Page MenuHomePhabricator

Add gadgets-edit and gadgets-definition-edit access to stewards and interface administrators
Open, Stalled, Needs TriagePublic

Description

Can the gadgets-definition-edit and gadgets-edit permissions be added to the stewards and interface administrators groups for WMF projects? While this isn't really live yet, edge cases have arisen that currently require contacting WMF staff (the only group with this access) to make adjustments.

See example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=909187898#Add_maintenance_template from enwiki

Event Timeline

Xaosflux created this task.Aug 3 2019, 6:54 PM

Curiously I was speaking to @Krinkle a couple of weeks ago about Gadgets-2.0 and he told me that no gadgets-* should be assigned to anyone yet.

Aklapper removed a project: Epic.Aug 3 2019, 7:44 PM

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

Krinkle added a comment.EditedAug 3 2019, 9:33 PM

When the Gadgets 2.0 project is done, I expect it to be illegal for that namespace to contain wikitext content or redirects. I'm not 100% sure, but I think at that time, this page would need to be moved, as it couldn't exist in its current form (not even as redirect).

I think this should have happened in 2015 when the namespace was created. And actually, it did happen. "Gadget:Invention" was moved to "Gadget Invention". But, it was moved with a redirect (instead of without). I don't know what we normally do in case of a content-model-restricted namespace (e.g. pre-existing "Schema:" pages on Meta, or "Data:" pages on Commons). But it's also quite possible we haven't run into them previously yet.

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

Agreed :) And as long a these pages can exist that should be fine to do. But, I would recommend we then in relatively short time delete the pages in question, and then restore the current state of things (with these rights not granted to anyone, and that time including not to WMF staff).

Pppery added a subscriber: Pppery.Aug 3 2019, 11:43 PM
Viztor added a subscriber: Viztor.Aug 5 2019, 5:51 AM
matmarex removed a subscriber: matmarex.Aug 5 2019, 9:12 PM
DannyS712 added a subscriber: DannyS712.

When the Gadgets 2.0 project is done, I expect it to be illegal for that namespace to contain wikitext content or redirects. I'm not 100% sure, but I think at that time, this page would need to be moved, as it couldn't exist in its current form (not even as redirect).
I think this should have happened in 2015 when the namespace was created. And actually, it did happen. "Gadget:Invention" was moved to "Gadget Invention". But, it was moved with a redirect (instead of without). I don't know what we normally do in case of a content-model-restricted namespace (e.g. pre-existing "Schema:" pages on Meta, or "Data:" pages on Commons). But it's also quite possible we haven't run into them previously yet.

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

Agreed :) And as long a these pages can exist that should be fine to do. But, I would recommend we then in relatively short time delete the pages in question, and then restore the current state of things (with these rights not granted to anyone, and that time including not to WMF staff).

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

Restricted Application added a project: User-DannyS712. · View Herald TranscriptOct 23 2019, 2:27 AM
Jony added a subscriber: Jony.Oct 23 2019, 3:17 AM
Elitre removed a subscriber: Elitre.Oct 23 2019, 9:22 AM

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

And these namespaces have, as far as I can tell, been unable to be used since their introduction in 2015.

So, to confirm, are there any issues with granting this to stewards and/or interface-admins?

If I understood @Krinkle right, this should not be done? What I don't understand is why we keep the Gadgets namespaces on Production if we cannot use them and we must not use them.

They are reserved to avoid communities creating pages that later have to be moved.

DannyS712 changed the task status from Open to Stalled.Oct 24 2019, 12:02 AM
DannyS712 moved this task from Unsorted to Next on the User-DannyS712 board.

When the Gadgets 2.0 project is done, I expect it to be illegal for that namespace to contain wikitext content or redirects. I'm not 100% sure, but I think at that time, this page would need to be moved, as it couldn't exist in its current form (not even as redirect).
I think this should have happened in 2015 when the namespace was created. And actually, it did happen. "Gadget:Invention" was moved to "Gadget Invention". But, it was moved with a redirect (instead of without). I don't know what we normally do in case of a content-model-restricted namespace (e.g. pre-existing "Schema:" pages on Meta, or "Data:" pages on Commons). But it's also quite possible we haven't run into them previously yet.

Well if it can hold reader-facing content (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no ) it shouldn't require employees to update it.

Agreed :) And as long a these pages can exist that should be fine to do. But, I would recommend we then in relatively short time delete the pages in question, and then restore the current state of things (with these rights not granted to anyone, and that time including not to WMF staff).

If I understood Krinkle, it should be okay. @Krinkle can you confirm if this would be okay?

greg removed a subscriber: greg.Oct 24 2019, 4:55 AM

I would personally treat those namespaces as reserved for future use, which should contain 0 pages. By granting the rights we might make some wikis use the namespace for gadget description pages or anything like that.

I would personally treat those namespaces as reserved for future use, which should contain 0 pages. By granting the rights we might make some wikis use the namespace for gadget description pages or anything like that.

The Gadget namespace already has pages in it. The argument that "the namespace has to be empty for technical reasons" has been unanimously rejected at RfD in 2017

When the Gadget system migration continues, I expect these pages to be deleted without warning or redirect. I recommend not getting used to using these titles as they will not remain. Keeping these around will only make them more widespread and result in more issues when the time comes.

If our trusted stewards and interface admins feel better with this user right, go ahead, but I would really like for WMF to not to have to put energy toward cleaning this up again in the future. It's time and energy better spent on other things :)

What about just stewards, to both reduce the eventual impact of deleting all of the pages without warning, and to reduce potential issues?

Agree with Urbanecm here. On enwiki, AFAICT there's one single page in the whole namespace (two if you count the talk), so I have a hard time imagining there's much content elsewhere. In the end does this task just devolve to allowing a dozen or so people on enwiki to add an {{R from...}} tag or two? I think it's fine to grant to intadmins (and stewards) but it's only going to end up with more content somewhere.

@Krinkle regarding "When the Gadget system migration continues," ... the parent task is 8 years old. Agree this isn't really that important to deal with, but it seems that G2.0 has been abandoned.

I think this task should redefined as how to handle pages containing reserved prefix, with example of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadget:Invention,_Travel,_%26_Adventure&redirect=no

The issues we have with reserved prefix:

  1. Title - Displaytitle magic word should support overriding the title to have "Gadget:" (e.g {{DISPLAYTITLE:Gadget: Invention, Travel, & Adventure}})
  2. Search - Improve the search to better respect DISPLAYTITLE - for example T65975
  3. Links - maybe have a fallback machnism in case a page doesn't exist in reserved NS?
Krinkle removed a subscriber: Krinkle.Oct 25 2019, 2:47 PM
DannyS712 removed DannyS712 as the assignee of this task.Oct 25 2019, 4:35 PM
DannyS712 removed a project: User-DannyS712.