Last modified: 2014-11-18 18:07:35 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 14396 - Clear new messages flag for anonymous users after a few months
Clear new messages flag for anonymous users after a few months
Status: NEW
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Interface (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 16 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-03 18:02 UTC by Luna Santin
Modified: 2014-11-18 18:07 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Luna Santin 2008-06-03 18:02:41 UTC
This isn't the most common problem, but I have seen it come up a few times where some poor soul on a dynamic IP gets a vandalism warning that's several months old and panics. Can also be an issue on shared IPs, but on a much shorter time scale. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether it would be difficult or easy to make the Orange Bar of Death eventually "time out" after a few weeks or months (possibly just for IP users), so I'll pop it up here for consideration.
Comment 1 Siebrand Mazeland 2008-08-16 23:17:09 UTC
Prio: normal->lowest
Component: general/unknown -> user interface
Comment 2 Gurch 2009-07-07 13:39:02 UTC
Was just allocated a new IP address and told that I had a "new message" from 2008, reminded me of this issue.

MediaWiki should really be doing this, I think, even if only as an option. It's pretty basic, and for new users it causes confusion and the appearence of hostility. A scan through any regular recent changes patroller's user talk page history, mine included, will reveal several messages from anonymous users questioning why they were warned for a change they did not make -- and inevitably, going to that user's talk page reveals a message months or often years old, intended for a previous user of the IP address. The same situation is repeated across various help pages. 

Even on the off-chance that it really is the same person a year and a half later, they're unlikely to care about or even remember whatever prompted the previous message. Especially on large wikis, where most messages sent to anonymous users are templates anyway.

I would recommend three months as the default timeout for the "new messages" flag.
Comment 3 Gurch 2009-09-10 12:29:59 UTC
Looking at the DB structure, the user_newtalk table has a user_last_timestamp field that I assume is intended to hold the timestamp of the most recent revision to the user's talk page, but which does not appear to be used. Think implementing this is dependent on that being populated.
Comment 4 Jason Quinn 2010-04-08 21:11:53 UTC
Another idea is to change the text of the message for IP edits such that the user is aware that the message may not apply to them.
Comment 5 Aaron Schulz 2010-04-08 22:59:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Looking at the DB structure, the user_newtalk table has a user_last_timestamp
> field that I assume is intended to hold the timestamp of the most recent
> revision to the user's talk page, but which does not appear to be used. Think
> implementing this is dependent on that being populated.

I don't think WMF projects have the column yet.
Comment 6 Gurch 2010-04-09 21:54:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Looking at the DB structure, the user_newtalk table has a user_last_timestamp
> > field that I assume is intended to hold the timestamp of the most recent
> > revision to the user's talk page, but which does not appear to be used. Think
> > implementing this is dependent on that being populated.
> 
> I don't think WMF projects have the column yet.

That doesn't prevent the feature being implemented in trunk.

Last time I checked, however, I couldn't find the field in use *anywhere* in the code, and I assumed someone had proposed a schema change that got through but then forgotten about the feature. Has this situation changed?
Comment 7 Jan Kucera (Kozuch) 2011-12-30 15:54:00 UTC
Because of votes rasing importance/priority according to following scheme:
15+ votes - highest
5-15 votes - high
Community must have a voice within development.

Regards, Kozuch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch
Comment 8 Quim Gil 2013-04-02 05:03:22 UTC
Is this still an issue? Are there complaints about this problem nowadays?
Comment 9 Quim Gil 2014-04-09 06:00:58 UTC
A year of silence. I wonder whether this is still a problem nowadays, or whether messages for IP addressess do get deleted after certain period.

Changing priority to Lowest in order to reflect the fact that nobody is working or planning to work on this.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links