This seems straightforward: the major change is an opt-in requested security change. Unless I have misunderstood anything, I see very little reason to suspect this would be controversial in any way.

Something like this for Tech News going out on Monday?

Agree this is interesting and relevant for Tech News, but we would at the very least need that documentation for internationalisation first.

Something like this for Tech News?

The discussion on Swedish Wikipedia has been archived since March and is not going to be continued. If community consensus is desired someone would have to start a new discussion.

Noted.

Ah, great. (:

@Nikerabbit Two differences though:

@Urbanecm Something like this? (With links.)

Noted. A good example of why I always ask. (: I'll add it to the newsletter going out on Monday as on early heads-up.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for from us, @jbond but if you just want a sanity check: makes sense to me and the requesters are known and trusted members of the community, both involved in the relevant area.

@Krinkle I've been reading mw:Manual:$wgMiserMode but to make sure I don't misunderstand anything: compared to the original announcement, is there anything that should be added except "in wgMiserMode"?

I'll include this in Tech News too.

But that would be later?

Makes senes to me. I certainly feel a definite resistance to using anything but normal, as that would imply I've decided this task is very different from my normal tasks.

How would you – roughly – phrase this in Tech News in a couple of sentences?

Will this go out in .8 as planned?

@Masumrezarock100: Yes, the next release, early next week, will check both projects and not allow users to use the suggested edits functionality anywhere if they've been blocked on either project. (:

We take it seriously, of course. We really don't want to add to the burden of patrollers more than absolutely necessary, though of course all editing comes with a certain amount of edits that aren't really helpful. No way around that, unfortunately. (:

@Bencemac As @Dbrant says, we've tried to act on these complaints and hopefully that will rectify problems like these. But in general, I would recommend that you treat them as any other edits – it's a tool like any other, and the suggestion in the name of the tool is that they edit, not what they write.

Since this will happen just ~12 hours after Tech News is delivered on 26 November, I'll include it in the newsletter being distributed on Monday instead to give people a proper chance to see it.

@Jdlrobson Thank you. Simplified the sentence structure and added it to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2019/47 which will be delivered to the wikis on Monday November 18.

I honestly don't know if there's a good candidate. Sakti? Dan Foy? (Probably not Dan, they were disconnected a bit through the project.)

When would this happen?

When it comes to re-enabling the feature ... we should be aware there's a fair number of reverts of good-faith edits because people don't grasp what the wikis are about, but our workflows should mainly avoid running into them as we're streamlining what people can do here. If we have already paused the functionality in a first step, then unpaused, and then it gets disabled, I've got no good idea for where to go from there.

Regarding the helpful links: No, as far as I can tell, we've got a new use case here – the wikis have been solving this in different ways, and maybe we could manually compile a list but that would be basically going around everywhere asking people what their best page would be, and then getting wildly varying results. We're tying to get people to set something up, but for the time being I'd assume that if we want something we'd have to write it ourselves.

OK, adding it to the issue going on Monday, and we'll figure out if it should be in "later this week" or "future news" before the issue gets delivered.

(My comment edited to reflect this.)

Roughly when would we expect this to be in production?

As far as I can tell, this is resolved. Checked in with them a while ago and there was no request for my help.

If we've got es, zh, fa we might want to look at en, as an outlier, and maybe ... uk and/or vi? Just looking at it from the outside, they're about a size that would be interesting, small number of CUs.

I've no good solution for this at the top of my head, but I'll ask around.