Commons:Requests for comment/New extensions

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objections to avoid bureaucratic overhead where it's not required (or similar). –Be..anyone (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

---

New software features — these are often MediaWiki extensions — are installed or enabled at Wikimedia Commons regularly. In the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has enabled extensions on Commons without any request from the Commons community. Examples inlcude Scribunto (aka. Lua), VisualEditor, UploadWizard, Media Viewer, TemplateData and Hovercards. Some of them are well-accepted, others caused slightly more agitation.

On the other hand, members of the Commons community have also requested that extensions be installed for Wikimedia Commons. One example is the translate extension.

What we are striving for with this RfC?

This RfC is aimed to determine how to match the "community consensus" requirement in future for configuration changes. We are curious about your ideas concerning translation and internationalization of our discussions.

Please sign (~~~~) below the subject(s), you support and specify what you like using a few words in up to 5 sentences. Feel invited adding new alternatives if you believe more people would prefer that new option.

Extension installation

Extensions changing user rights, adding new user rights

Some extensions introduce new user rights or changes to them alter user rights. What should happen, when user rights are changed?

Let's have

A Village pump discussion or a conversation on a project page

1. Seems to be sensible. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Extensions imposing edit restrictions on users

We have separated this option. We believe that before a change that is restricting one user's edit rights is installed, we should discuss how to implement that. Although it usually affects only a small number of users who is willing to run maintenance tasks in these areas, we would like to know your opinion here.

Let's have

A (multilingual) formal RfC at Commons:Requests for comment

1. This is the preferred option but idealistic; needs a lot of preparation efforts and participation is often lower than on the Village Pumps. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A Village pump discussion or a conversation on a project page

1. A village pump discussion advertised in the watchlist seems to be reasonable. This is also current practise. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Configuration generally

Changing user rights, adding new user rights

Is a debate at Proposals Village pump sufficient for important changes? Also we would like to know how you would like to get these discussions advertised.

Let's have

A (multilingual) formal RfC at Commons:Requests for comment

1. This is the preferred option but idealistic; needs a lot of preparation efforts and participation is often lower than on the Village Pumps. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A Village pump discussion or a conversation on a project page

1. A village pump discussion advertised in the watchlist seems to be reasonable. This is also current practise. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes needed so administrators are able to edit, move and delete all publicly visible pages and abuse filters

It occasionally happens that, due to software changes or extensions installed, administrators, who are formally elected at Wikimedia Commons, are not able to edit or delete all publicly visible pages. This has been found troublesome in the past and there was no consistent ruling by the server administrators whether administrators were then required to obtain community consensus first to restore their abilities or not.

Let's have

None of these

1. Because administrators are already elected to administrate this site. Bureaucratic overhead is not required. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.