Meta:Babel/Archives/2012-04

Local account locking

While we do have a global account locking system, I've discovered a way that local account locking can sorta be implemented. For technical details, see mw:User:Jasper Deng/Account locking. This would be very effective for fighting (LTA) socks, especially when a steward isn't immediately available to lock the accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst this looks to be some interesting code and possible feature, the main reason that global account locking is done is for that exact purpose - to stop LTAs using their SUL account across multiple wikis and vandalising on all of them. Would I be correct in saying that this local account lock would stop them from only being able to login on that particular wiki? If so, then blocking would usually suffice. The Helpful One 00:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a stopgap measure that can be used before a steward is available to lock the account.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so it's effectively the same as a local block (but a little bit stronger)? The Helpful One 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, with the added effect of disallowing things like DDOS-via-preferences/purge. The setup I have is basically the same as the hardest-possible-block (sans autoblock) with the added effect of not allowing even the reading of any pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to be logged in to read pages on the majority of our wikis? The Helpful One 00:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The special pages are the ones I was after with that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess what THO is getting at, which I sort of agree with, is that I don't particularly see a use-case for this. Especially since it would be for just one wiki. Killiondude (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, then again, it does have its uses. One use could be that if this happens on 2/3 or more wikis, a steward bot could automatically lock the account globally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bots and locking accounts globally doesn't sound like a good idea, there's too much potential for false positives and disruption if the script breaks. There are usually enough stewards on for someone to respond relatively quickly from my experiences on IRC. The Helpful One 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...but many local sysops don't use IRC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A solution in search of a problem, stewards are available quickly in #wikimedia-stewards, anybody can join there thru the webchat. If there are no stewards, then we should elect more, but I don't see that as being the case currently. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What problem?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

My point precisely :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unfree images

Meta-Wiki does not have an exemption policy. All the images at Category:Unfree images are copyright violations that ought to be deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If Meta-Wiki doesn't allow unfree images, wouldn't it be a good idea to remove local upload? Free images should be on Commons anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the page Meta:Copyrights needs either to be updated or deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically I agree but the experiences suggest it might be prudent to have a room for local uploading. For instance, I saw external people who got involved in a past Wikimania (i.e. potential partner) bid upload photos to meta, not commons. They were not necessarily Wikimedia savvy and it might have been inconvenient for them to go to Commons and meta and hence might be discouraging. Meta serves maintenance and administration, not daily editing. I agree on that those unfree images should be properly licensed or deleted in a long term, but in a short term, specially in case their right holder uploaded them, I think some lack of information can be tolerable in expectation to sort out finally: we don't expect all same mind people from the external of this community are as Wikimedia savvy as we wikiholics. --Aphaia (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open

1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GedawyBot's edits on sl.wikiversity

Why aren't GedawyBot's edits being flagged as bot edits on sl.wikiversity? See the recent changes on that new project. Mathonius (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I already made a request for bot status.--M.Gedawy ^Talk 04:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't have that page on my watchlist (until now). Thanks! Mathonius (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal about Meta-Wiki's future

Hi. Please see Wikimedia.org and mailarchive:wikimedia-l/2012-April/119713.html. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IPv6-related RFC on enwiki

I'd like a few opinions at en:User talk:Jasper Deng/IPv6 which is within the scope of the IPv6 initiative.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Help you can give please?

No understanding given by user rude is English Wiki HELP DESK on. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fuzzy butternut (talk)

What is your question? How can we help you? Mathonius (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/7

Hi. I disabled Special:AbuseFilter/7 just now. The reasoning for doing so can be found here: Special:AbuseFilter/history/7/diff/prev/342 (admin-only link, I think). Please fix the filter before re-enabling it. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Link isn't admin-only. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to make an exception for the case when a user edits his/her own page. Ruslik (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely disabling is problematic, and to me it is not particularly helpful when one looks at the low false positives and the amount that it does catch. I have put the filter to warn and tag, but not reject, until someone has updated it. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have updated, and hopefully successfully, to get it to ignore each contributors' own pages. I did have troubles successfully testing through tripping other similar filters, and it is probably worthwhile looking to amalgamate or specifically separating any overlap in the filters by someone more clueful than me. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Transfer to Mediawiki.org

Last year Category:Pages to be exported to MediaWiki.org was tagged historical. But the category isn't empty, the transfer process doesn't seem complete, and Meta:MetaProject to transfer content to MediaWiki.org doesn't know about this "historical" status. What's happening here? Rd232 (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject never ends, so to say, because what we want to move may change with time (see the recent move of PWB documentation). Perhaps the category was marked historical to signify that the main backlog has been cleared (the remaining pages have been rejected, as far as I can see). --Nemo 10:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would expect the category to be empty if it's no longer in use. Items that have been rejected should not be in it... (not that I can see why they have been rejected for moving, if they have been). Rd232 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global_bans#Ratification

Please see Talk:Global_bans#Ratification for a suggested ratification process. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)