Last modified: 2014-11-14 02:02:38 UTC
Like https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27078 for en.wikipedia. When doing a Checkuser query a "reason" can be entered. Normally for each CU query a reason _must_ be entered, but sometimes they got forgotten. Please enable $wgCheckUserForceSummary for de.wikipedia Thank you
Hi Filzstift. Normally for any configuration change, local consensus is required. Could you discuss the matter on the Village pump page of your wiki to confirm that this change is wanted by the community, and paste the link to the discussion here? For more information about how to request these kinds of changes, please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes and feel free to forward that link to others who may want similar changes made in the future. Thanks!
Filzstift: Please answer comment 1.
Hello Andre: This only affects the Checkuser group. Only these can edit this form and view the cu-log. It makes no sense to start a project discussion to get an community consencus for a setting they never will be affected. You can close this ticket.
Why is this not enabled by default on all Wikimedia wikis anyway? Perhaps we should send a mail to checkuser-l and see what the CUs from across the projects think about it?
(In reply to Glaisher from comment #4) > Why is this not enabled by default on all Wikimedia wikis anyway? > > Perhaps we should send a mail to checkuser-l and see what the CUs from > across the projects think about it? Glaisher: Would you do that?
Andre: only CheckUsers have access to the mailing list (most outside mail is rejected). I will send this to the mailing list. As a steward, I would find this helpful; I've accidentally hit Enter a few times and left a blank summary, which is obviously not optimal when handling private info. The summaries are used if there is an investigation by the Ombudsman Commission, so this would help in that regard too.
enwiki CU checking in: Seems fine to me, this is standard protocol, and it would prevent silly errors. Negligible/no negatives.
Fine for me as enWS hat, meta hat, and as a steward. There is an expectation that CU has a reason for a query, as reinforced by one of the recent OC reports. I don't see that it should be an issue to justify a reason for a query.
I don't see any issue forbidding to get a consensus of interested users (mainly CU, but maybe also person from Ombudsman Commission, frequent CU requesters, etc.). I so opened a quick discussion on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Set_.24wgCheckUserForceSummary_to_true_on_Wikimedia_wikis [[meta:Wikimedia Forum]] is defined as 'a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects.'. We're in this scope.
I'm somewhat sceptical of the community-consensus-needed keyword being used on this bug...
I'm not convinced either, but we can have a discussion on meta. to be sure nobody has reasonable arguments to object to it before the next deployment window.
(In reply to Alex Monk from comment #10) > I'm somewhat sceptical of the community-consensus-needed keyword being used > on this bug... Feel free to correct me by removing it. :)
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #12) > (In reply to Alex Monk from comment #10) > > I'm somewhat sceptical of the community-consensus-needed keyword being used > > on this bug... > > Feel free to correct me by removing it. :) To remove the keyword wouldn't represent faithfully the current discussion. Visibly, while us technical people consider it trivial, not valuable to debate or without any reasonable argument, the first two new opinions gathered are no objection / weak support. An argument given to only weakly support the move is the lack of possibility to bypass the summary on confirmation (like $wgDefaultUserOptions forceeditsummary).
Change 173015 had a related patch set uploaded by Glaisher: Set wgCheckUserForceSummary to true by default https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/173015
Change 173015 merged by jenkins-bot: Set wgCheckUserForceSummary to true by default https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/173015
Deployed.
It might also be useful to send another mail to checkusers-l informing that this has now been done (and not to use vague summaries in the reason field as Elfix pointed out at meta). (In reply to Nik Everett from comment #16) > Deployed. Thanks Nik
(In reply to Glaisher from comment #17) > It might also be useful to send another mail to checkusers-l informing that > this has now been done (and not to use vague summaries in the reason field > as Elfix pointed out at meta). Already sent notifications to CU/Stewards/OC about the change to a mandated field Thanks Glaisher > > (In reply to Nik Everett from comment #16) > > Deployed. > > Thanks Nik +1 Nik
