Obvious.

@Aklapper Thanks, though I've no clue as to why user-password needs to be blanked or scrambled by an admin in an effort to block a malicious actor.

I note T219277. Something seems to have happened, over the recent days:-(

@Krenair Weird, why's that? Why can't we expect that people might forget their passwords sometimes?

Please put this on hold until I sort out some things with the closure.

@Slaporte :-Re-reminding you that you have been pinged multiple times over here and that you have commented over other Phab tasks since. Also, paging @CRoslof and @Jrogers-WMF. If you are discussing these stuff internally (and it is taking such a long time), you ought to have the courtesy to (at-least) make a minimalist statement over here.

A core tool for copy-vio-detection over en-wiki. Raising priority to UBL.

Will be looking to develop a better interactive alternative.

I am not very acquainted with the legal intricacies but with GDPR and all that stuff; this ought be tackled on a high-priority basis esp. that the interface stores real name, college name et cetera.

Someone has now removed the spam-request.

I am ambiguous. Whilst enabling of resource access among editors is un-doubt-ably noble, we need to remember that there are not infinite subscription tokens.

That seems a decent idea.

I feel that a centralized venue is better for it's potential to attract most heads and all that.

@Samwalton9 Can you add some clarity on the locus of accessing unauthorized resources? Can you detail a hypothetical circumstance, wherein an end-user faces the scenario, that this ticket wishes to solve?

@Samwalton9

What exactly does this wish to solve? With the introduction of Citoid; references can be generated quite easily. You insert the URL or the DOI or ISBN or the book/research-piece title and there comes out a full-fledged reference.

How was PiWik chosen for the purpose?

Duplicate of T206627. Please see this note as to setting up a priority level-- Unless somebody is convinced to do the stuff; setting an increased priority is meaningless.

This is very important.

In T95129#4912084, @MZMcBride wrote:

What needs to happen to move this task forward? An e-mail to legal@wikimedia.org?

@Jdlrobson @Etonkovidova Why not go with a confirmation button; as executed via this script?

In T216312#4959100, @Legoktm wrote:

Please see https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/cloud-announce/2019-February/000134.html - the general issue is known and it'll take a bit of time to address.

@TBolliger Can you kindly clarify the rationale behind the decline?

@Aftabuzzaman @Bodhisattwa Any qualms, if I join in?

In T124396#4202388, @Aklapper wrote:

@Kudpung: Regarding expectations, there is no need for others to add comments when there are no questions. Others are not obliged to comment on every task.

There is an expectation that the developers will bother to spend a few ounce of resources into issues of urgent-need that has been solicited by the community.(Do not point me to the SantaClaus wishlist!)
Otherwise, you need to send the message out to the community in unequivocal terms that:--We, developers are free to work on any issue of our liking and at a pace of our choosing.The community shall be grateful, if some developer chooses to chime in at a ticket.
In other words, do not have any expectations from us, except as to SantaClaus wish-list.

No need either to ask rhetoric questions like in T124396#4201888 when you already know the answer.

Is English your first language? The comment by @Kudpung solely intended to emphasize the lackadaisical state of affairs from your side, wherein practically none of the improvement requests for NPP, spanning over years, has been taken care of.

In T61088#4684006, @JJMC89 wrote:

{{Orphan}} is placed on articles, not talk pages.

@Insertcleverphrasehere :--There's no need for this, IMHO and the current option is quite fine as NPP is primarily meant to screen new articles.At best, when NPR flag is granted, he/she can be alerted that the tool lets him/her review newly created redirects too.

@Insertcleverphrasehere :--Just noting that this can be easily done through Twinkle, by customizing it (adding the template to the call-list) from it's user-specific preference panel.

This would bring Curation in line with Twinkle and go a step further:

RFC closed as Snow Opposed.

I too seek for the attention of developers onto the issue.This ought be easily doable or do I think.

I don't see any ComTech member on this thread yet, (despite them being constantly kept in loop by Tony and a few others as to the progress of the RFC) and the responses from Martin and Akllaper are non-satisfying to say the least.

Since, this would supposedly require a toggle of the switch to the in-trial-version, I think it shall take a week (next Thursday) at maximum....And, I would highly appreciate a fast-tracking.

What's the progress on this?

Hmm...Has anybody got a definitive idea about the expected time-frame for the deployment at en.wiki?

Facing the same problem as described in the above screenshot.Microsoft Edge/Win 10 (Dev build-Fast ring).

This shall be one of the foremost tasks in the development panel.Scrolling endlessly to get to where I left a certain-time-span back is ''dumb''.It has a huge benefit and there is no noticeable bane.

In T168697#3378285, @Aklapper wrote:

@WingedBladesofGodric: Welcome to Wikimedia Phabricator. Please see the Etiquette for some remarks on constructive discussion in tasks. Thank you! :)

You developers may well devote yourselves to do your own task 'properly''--rather than trying to decode the errors of an closure--esp. without having the courtesy to ping the closure or those who were involved. Also, this may be prudential to tell you that votes don't matter, their contents matter.