Page MenuHomePhabricator

[SPIKE] Determine what – if any – issues ought to block the deployment of the Reply Tool as opt-out at en.wiki
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

The Editing Team committed [i] to reviewing the issues volunteers at en.wiki have experienced with the Reply Tool and determining which – if any – they see as worthy of blocking the tool's deployment as an opt-out feature on desktop (T279397).

This task is intended to be a record of the tasks the Editing Team reviewed and the determination we've made about each one. We will share this review with volunteers at en.wiki [ii][iii] to learn whether volunteers at en.wiki have reached different conclusions than we have about whether an issue ought to block the Reply Tool deployment or not. We will also seek to learn whether there are issues we did not review that we should.

Issue Review

TicketEditing Team AssessmentNotes
T268558Not blocking, but idealThis ticket is actively being worked on. Ideally, we will be able to fix this issue before the Reply Tool is deployed.*
T250295Not Blocking, but idealThis ticket is actively being worked on. Ideally, we will be able to fix this issue before the Reply Tool is deployed. Tho, we cannot guarantee this will happen as a design review is needed before this can be deployed.
T302257Not blocking, but idealDuplicate of T268558
T302296Not blockingThis issue should be resolved on 3 March, when the train with this fix arrives at en.wiki
T276510Not blockingNew functionality that can, in the meantime, be achieved using the existing source editor. More in T276510#7736182.
T25310Not blockingThe DT-specific aspects of this issue have been addressed. More details in T25310#7736161.
T301427Not blockingAlthough, this ticket is actively being worked on.
T278357Not blockingBased on what we've talked about on-wiki [iv], signing comments with ~~~ or ~~~~~ seems rare.
T278355Not blockingAlthough, this ticket is actively being worked on.*
T279578Not blockingWe assume people use subst templates within with replies relatively infrequently. As such, we think that for now, people needing to use a subst template within a reply can either use the source editor modify the comment they posted or bypass the reply tool entirely and use the source editor to post the entirety of their reply.
T283631Not blockingDuplicate of T279578.
T291421Not blockingAlthough, this ticket is actively being worked on.*
T282983Not blockingAlthough, this ticket is actively being worked on.*
T301845Not blockingFix deployed
T291073/T302742Not blockingEditing Team plans to address this issue within the next ~3 months
T249293Not blocking
T269310Not blockingEditing Team has explored this idea. Tho, more work needs to be done in collaboration with template editors/authors for this issue to be resolved. Also see T300454.

*While there is a proposed solution in place that would resolve this issue, we are not yet certain whether the solution being proposed to resolve it is sufficient. As such, we do not yet know when the patch(es) to resolve this issue will be deployed.


i. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#c-PPelberg_(WMF)-2022-02-22T22:23:00.000Z-L235-2022-02-20T18:00:00.000Z
ii. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals#Bugs
iii. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project
iv. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages_project#Partial_signatures

Related Objects

Event Timeline

Assuming no "blocking" tasks arise before launch, the community-consensus-needed tag can be removed from T296645

Regarding T278357, intentionally signing with 3 and 5 tildes is rare (but not non-existent), but typoing 3 or 5 when intending 4 is relatively common. The intent of that ticket is to more gracefully deal with those instances by not adding a duplicate signature when it happens, changing the logic from "there is no signature here, I will add one" to "there is a partial signature here, I will add the missing part".

Regarding T278357, intentionally signing with 3 and 5 tildes is rare (but not non-existent), but typoing 3 or 5 when intending 4 is relatively common. The intent of that ticket is to more gracefully deal with those instances by not adding a duplicate signature when it happens, changing the logic from "there is no signature here, I will add one" to "there is a partial signature here, I will add the missing part".

@Thryduulf: I appreciate you commenting here to clarify the distinction you are making between people typing 3 or 5 ~ intentionally or mistakenly.

I've updated T278357 to emphasize the most commonly due to a typo bit in the task description.

Ideally, the Reply Tool would help you avoid making this mistake all together and/or rectify such a mistake for you without you needing to do anything, as you've described.

With the above said, I do not think T278357 ought to be considered a blocker considering people can rectify mistakes of this kind using source editing.

Assuming no "blocking" tasks arise before launch, the community-consensus-needed tag can be removed from T296645

@Xaosflux: assuming you agree in thinking no "blocking" tasks have surfaced [i], what do you think about doing the honors of removing the Community-consensus-needed tag from T296645?


i. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#c-PPelberg_(WMF)-2022-03-05T00:40:00.000Z-7_March_Deployment