Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/05

Make VFC installation a Gadget

It has been raised many times recently that the loading of the script being semi-"broken". The issues could be summarized as:

• Using global function addPortletLink which had recently been removed in favor of mw.util.addPortletLink. (eg. @LX and Wcam: case)
• Somehow importScript returns HTMLScriptElement which replace the whole page into [object HTMLScriptElement] after clicking the link. (eg. @EugeneZelenko: case)
• Module mediawiki.util loads unreliably with module user (which contains the user common.js), and cause a race condition where mw.util may be undefined and mw.util.addPortletLink would fail. (@Speravir: )
• Importing old unmaintained user scripts which there is little we can do about them.

The current installation process is entirely done by adding some lines in user's own js files (usually their common.js), and this has various issues:

• Low significance: MediaWiki devs do not usually consider anything in the User: namespace a blocker.
• Code duplication / Low maintainability: When issues like those that happened recently, to fix them, every single common.js that are broken must be modified.
• Ownership: Pages in User: namespace are generally considered a property of a user, and modifying someone else's common.js for bugfixes may be frowned upon.
• User unfamiliarity: Not everyone is perfectly comfortable to mess with code. When many people encounter issues in those JS code, they are likely to have a hard time solving them.

Given the popularity of this script, I suggest to make the installation a gadget; to install the tool, instead of adding the few lines to your common.js, you check a checkmark in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and save the preferences, and the "Perform batch task" link will appear in the sidebar as expected. This shall shall help solve the issues mentioned above. However, there will be downsides:

• Enabling the gadget does not automatically resolve all the issues in common.js if you don't remove the original lines in common.js.
• Enabling the gadget without removing the original lines in commons.js (if it works) will result in two "Perform batch task" links that both work at the same time.
• Link text "Perform batch task" will not be customizable (some people call it "Mass nomination") (will be done with a global variable (i.e. window.something)
• Advertising a tool that can be used for mass-vandalism. We could limit its visibility in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets to "autopatrolled" only, but they may discover this tool anyhow given its wide usage.

If the community decides that doing so is beneficial, I will be happy to implement it. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support--Wcam (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Support. I guess those who want customisation could still disable the gadget and install it the old way, and with a little bit of development, it should be possible to make the gadget customisable through personal js content, just like how AjaxQuickDelete allows you to add extra buttons. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support (ec) Great idea, and the same question arose recently in Commons:Forum (German). But the tool should be slightly rewritten then to make the string appearing in the side bar individually adjustable. Now I can change it on my own on inclusion in my common.js – and In fact I did ( 'Perform batch task' → 'Visual File Change'). — Speravir – 18:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC) (Oh, you wrote about this … — Speravir – 18:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC))

  Hmm, it could be done with some global variable, but I'll test that later. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Raymond 19:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I just asked for this. --Stepro (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support--Oursana (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It's long overdue! Also great advertisement for great tool :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Racconish^☎ 10:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support very good idea Pyb (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support if we disable the gadget for new users (autopatrol), otherwise  Strong oppose, as there is no need to advertise a tool that can be used for massive vandalism --Didym (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  It can be hidden from the list for non-autopatrolled so it is not advertised to them, but there is no way to prevent the script in its current state from being used by them. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  Which is also true for the current situation, of course. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  There are many trusted users across other WMF projects, which does not have yet autopatrol rights on Commons. To not let them deprived of this tool, there could be added such a message "You are fully responsible for the actions you do using this tool. Don't abuse this tool, otherwise you might be blocked!" when VFC is loaded on some page. --XXN, 14:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support, preferably only displayed to autopatrolled users. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support but only trusted users, as accordingly COM:AWB.  Neutral but unfortunately it seems a very high technically tool and the maintainer is inactive. -- User: Perhelion 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support   — Jeff G. ツ 06:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --XXN, 14:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Arthur Crbz (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Hide it from the list for non-autopatrolled. - Revent^talk 00:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, a week has gone by, significant support, and not much concern besides that only autopatrolled shall see it. Implementing... --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

---

 Done. New install instructions at Help:VisualFileChange.js#Step_0:_How_to_Install. (Well, in general the proposer shouldn't close a proposal, but I don't really see who else will do it) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If someone would oppose because the closer is also the opener, then consider this closure as mine then. ;) ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for switching to a gadget and for letting me know about it. --Nemo 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on enabling two-factor verification for all users

There's an RfC on enabling two-factor verification (2FA) for all users across all Wikimedia projects. Please vote and comment! --Rezonansowy (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, this is a proposal to expand the optional ability to have all users to enable 2FA on their accounts. —MarcoAurelio 10:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove yellow background from Tags

Hello, I propose to remove the yellow (Tag: 2017 wikitext editor) background from tags. Tags are widely used on commons and thus it is strange to have yellow stuff recent changes etc. Users can later change the color in theyr own common.css if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support as proposer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support works for Wikipedia but not for Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I don't know what would be the benefit for this, the yellow background is not strange for me. Unless this would be more color-blind friendly, I would not support for now, nor oppose. --★Poyekhali!!! 02:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support why use a different system than WP ? --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose helpful feature. --Ailura (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ailura: I didn't proposed the removal of the feature, just to remove/change the yellow background to white. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The yellow background is the part i like. --Ailura (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support: This should probably rather be addressed upstream, but the yellow (warning!) colour imo certainly is an unnecessary visual disruption.    FDMS  4    16:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  … says the user whose signature background color is a strong visual disruption. ;-) --Leyo 16:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  Getting disrupted by my signature makes everyone a better person :) .    FDMS  4    14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)