[03:47:49] Hey Raidarr could you unlock my account please? [03:48:05] I'm ready to come back from my break. [03:58:40] Oh for fuck's sake [03:58:43] That was a 3 day "break"? [03:58:48] Okay, global ban proposal time. Give me a minute. [13:32:17] Hello Guest46! If you have any questions, feel free to ask and someone should answer soon. [16:46:10] Why do I keep getting 502 bad gateway errors on Miraheze? [16:49:16] [discord] cache regeneration work that is supposed to help performance going forward, but does result in disturbance in the meantime [19:00:40] Hmm, it appears someone has reinstated block evasion on Meta :| [19:00:52] hm? [19:00:58] reinstated block evasion? [19:01:00] how does that work? [19:01:45] @raidarr: That is finished now, unrelated at this point. I will further investigate the overall causes later on, after the upgrade. [19:02:19] Oh I see what you mean. While the evasion itself isn't appropriate if the comments are appropriate I don't think we need to remove them [19:02:31] I think it's fair to allow the person subject to the CB express their view/defend themselves [19:03:05] I don't think it's fair to allow block evasion. If they want to participate in the discussion that's a valid reason to request unblock; but if the line isn't drawn here, where is it? [19:03:10] [discord] The block is self requested too [19:03:21] I reverted because either way people's comments shouldn't be removed [19:03:58] Actually, they should, if they are made in violation of a block. [19:04:11] If anything, I believe we should unblocked Apex temporarily to allow them to comment on their CBAN RfC and then reblock again once that passes or fails, per the terms of their previous self requested block [19:04:20] Reception123: ^^ (I disagree) [19:08:13] I don't agree with the evasion but I think it would be an issue to not allow a user who is going to be banned indefinitely by the community to express themselves [19:08:34] so even if done incorrectly and the IP should probably be blocked, the text should remain IMO [19:09:04] but yes, the proper method would obviously have been to request, but I think it would be a bit much to revert this, have Apex request and then he'd just readd the same sentence [19:12:46] Comments should be allowed, block evasion shouldn’t. Messages can be passed on via a third party, but block evasion is just block evasion [19:13:10] Reception123: to be clear the comments were removed after they were unlocked, and a comment from raidarr had also been removed [19:13:23] So the comments already in place should remain - as to remove them and resubmit them is just bureaucratic [19:13:42] yeah that's essentially my view too as I explained above [19:14:13] and at this point I don't think there's much use in telling Apex they shouldn't block evade... given their history [19:15:03] JohnLewis : MacFan4000's message above is deliberately crafted [19:15:19] hm? [19:15:29] that makes no sense [19:15:32] Regardless of whether or not they were unlocked (I haven't checked-- maybe they were unlocked, maybe they weren't) they are still blocked on Meta. And Raidarr's comment was removed because removing a comment means you must remove its replies [19:16:10] Naleksuh: I agree that they're still blocked, but if you're suggesting the comment should be removed and only re-added after they were properly unblocked that sounds unnecessary and bureaucratic as John pointed out [19:16:25] so what's done is done now, there's no sense in removing the comments and it doesn't amount to sanctioning block evasion [19:16:37] as the comments are made with the specific purpose of defending oneself in an RfC [19:17:34] also the local block was self requested [19:38:33] [discord] I wasn't accounting for meta block in my response, procedurally yes apex is blocked from meta and that comment should not have been made - it should be noted that a meta unblock needed to be cleared by iirc 2 meta admins, he couldn't just go ahead and request unblock immediately in the way he could arbitrarily request unlock (and yes, the unlock was done upon request). If it would be satisfactory I can reformat the commen [19:42:27] Just a reminder that we will be setting read-only on all wikis in ~18 minutes [19:47:32] hello! I cannot export a data dump. I'm getting "you have not configured $wgDataDump" https://spcodex.wiki/wiki/Special:DataDump [19:47:33] [url] Permission error - SPCodex | spcodex.wiki [19:47:55] I was hoping to get a dump before the MW upgrade [19:55:48] unfortunately we won't be able to look until after [19:56:22] unless CosmicAlpha there's an easy fix? [19:59:57] musikanimal: try now. [20:00:05] working! thank you [20:00:16] well here it goes! [20:01:06] So good to go then musikanimal? [20:01:11] it's queued up, but I'm not sure if the upgrade happening in parallel will cause problems or not. We shall see [20:01:30] it usually takes ~5 minutes, if y'all are willing to wait [20:01:46] CosmicAlpha: ^ [20:01:53] don't let me hold you up too long. I should have done this earlier today [20:02:15] we just merged the pull request to set read only [20:02:30] Unfortunately we already started. Sorry if this causes issues for you. [20:02:38] no worries! [20:02:49] thanks anyway [20:03:39] .op [20:03:39] Attempting to OP... [20:10:12] First set of wikis going now [20:10:28] ~1/3rd of wikis will have no reading [20:11:50] Looks like all down tbh [20:12:45] Yup, 503 on all the ones I tried [20:13:01] yeah, if the db server with mhglobal is down then all will be down i belive [20:13:20] yeah [20:13:27] Does each wiki have its own fileset or something? I thought there was one installation of mw for all wikis [20:14:01] a single installation but the databases are split between multiple servers [20:41:27] Oh, there's no custom 503 page :/ [20:42:49] This looks like a custom 503 page to me https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/4CkrYbyP/Screen%20Shot%202022-06-15%20at%204.42.08%20PM.png [20:44:28] it's always been custom [20:44:55] (I opened the original PR to add that current design) [20:45:14] MacFan4000 : I meant a custom 503 page that says Miraheze is upgrading to 1.38 [20:45:19] Instead of what it always says [20:46:09] oh, yeah we don't go to the trouble because we don't normally have to be rebooting servers, but right now we're doing upgrades and reboots [20:46:30] package upgrades that is [20:48:42] I wanted to grab a specific section on https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard - now I can't :( [20:48:46] Is it on the wayback machine? [20:49:56] [discord] Servers should be up soon [20:50:18] we are using this upgrade window for multiple upgrades. Usually for MediaWiki upgrades don't require complete downtime like this, and are still readable. In fact I'm not sure we have ever done upgrades like this before. Or at least not everything we are doing, and not all at once. [20:50:18] I found it on the wayback machine [20:59:07] [discord] how complete is the SN on wayback? [21:05:57] There was an archive just yesterday [21:11:22] How long do RfCs stay open for? [21:11:43] Normally a week [21:11:46] It can vary [21:11:50] Big ones have lasted months [21:11:59] Rubbish ones have been closed in minutes [21:12:29] I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this, but can the one about my global ban please be closed? [21:13:09] You're allowed to ask [21:13:30] [discord] At this current rate, it'll be closed against you so I wouldn't request that [21:14:03] I don't think it's going to change into being in my favor, to be honest. [21:14:40] And I just would rather that discussion about me be over. [21:15:02] [discord] the global ban is certainly something [21:15:38] [discord] You never know [21:15:45] [discord] You shouldn't give us so easily [21:15:46] It's definitely not what I want, but apparently others think it's necessary. [21:16:05] the downtime doesn't affect metawiki? [21:16:13] [discord] i will abstain [21:16:25] ugochimobi: meta is down too [21:16:43] someone is marking revisions as patrolled? so I wonder [21:17:10] oh, that was quite a long time [21:17:12] the complete downtime should be over now, we have moved on to the MW upgrade, wikis should be up in Read-only at this point [21:17:33] [discord] welp [21:17:33] [discord] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/435711390544560128/986741274944102460/unknown.png [21:17:35] MacFan4000: thanks! [21:17:41] [discord] first unsigned comment in a while [21:17:57] And even if the proposal were not to pass, I think it's best if I do take a "forced" break from Miraheze for awhile, considering what people have brought up. So I would rather that RfC be closed. [21:18:03] ApexAgunomu: I could see it being closed and treated as suspended as an option [21:18:20] Essentially allowing it to be reopened if you ever returned [21:18:22] hmm [21:18:39] That's happened on Wikipedia with arbcom before [21:18:49] JohnLewis: is that reasonable ^ [21:19:00] interesting! [21:19:03] I don't agree with that at all. I already planned to make this proposal but didn't when ApexAgunomu requested a self-lock for a "break". When that "break" turned out to be 3 days I created it [21:19:15] I say just let it be passed. [21:19:19] There have been plenty of breaks and false attempts to change with this user, I don't see why this one would be any different [21:19:34] I'm beginning to think it might be for the best. [21:19:41] I'm not proposing a break [21:20:10] I'm proposing they be forced to accept that if they ever return, the community must decide the conditions [21:20:15] Via full RfC [21:20:29] With a strong recommendation they wait a while [21:20:42] They agreeing to effectively ban themselves [21:20:52] Rather than wait out a full discussion [21:21:17] [discord] I gave John an additional prod, given the trajectory so far I'd be willing to consider it [21:22:15] [discord] yeah it's clear, so we can go ahead and do that once the site is back up [21:22:18] I just would have the discussion be resolved once and for all, and go ahead and enact the ban. [21:22:38] raidarr : What do you think is clear? [21:23:45] Like I said, maybe it's what I need to force me to take awhile away from Miraheze. [21:24:19] Naleksuh: consensus for a community ban [21:24:40] [discord] community ban closed as successful, unlock comes with a community rfc upon request to stewards for the process to restart [21:24:51] OK, that makes sense. [21:24:58] [discord] I'm thinking of a 3 month minimum written explicitly [21:25:09] I would go with 1 year [21:25:21] I'd go with 6 months [21:25:26] [discord] we [21:25:43] [discord] we'll let it be what it turns out, point is an unlock isn't happening until successful community vote in favor [21:25:56] I'd say 6 minimum tbh [21:26:00] 1 year ideal [21:26:30] Can we agree on 6 moths to a year? [21:27:11] [discord] I can put a 6 month minimum advisory, and either way that doesn't preclude you from waiting longer to satisfy the 1 year advocates [21:27:34] Okay [21:30:21] [discord] we don't have an explicit guideline on miraheze third parties - discord, irc - and so I believe if the ban extends to them or how that's managed should be up to the discord/irc teams respectively to agree on until we can better codify that relationship [21:30:46] [discord] Global ban applies to all Miraheze platforms to the best of my understanding [21:30:54] [discord] I have plans to work out a discord rfc to bring that more in line with the wider platform, so that may be cleaned up soon [21:31:15] Global bans id say apply to all platforms [21:31:26] [discord] An RfC on global bans would be nice in order to formally clarify procedure [21:31:36] [discord] Even if that's explicit in the global bans page, that page wasn't necessarily ratified as policy? [21:31:54] [discord] Concur that we should have an RfC that can clear up global bans as they apply to miraheze [21:31:55] They are fairly rare which makes precedence hard [21:32:13] PlavourSeol was long banned from everywhere before they got a community ban [21:32:19] They'd always been banned on discord [21:32:36] [discord] Global bans doesn't say anything on off-wiki/non-Miraheze hosted platforms [21:32:41] I wasn't around for the other [21:32:59] [discord] yeah, so it falls to case by case discretion; the precedence I see in locks at least is that they aren't necessarily applied cross platform unless the issue reaches other platforms [21:33:17] JohnLewis: what do you think? Do global bans apply on IRC and Discord? [21:33:20] [discord] both discord and irc have a bit of administrative autonomy [21:33:53] To be honest I would think that if a Miraheze issue was serious enough to warrant a global ban, it would make sense to apply to discord and irc [21:34:25] ToU bans are global bans too but I don't know if we apply them on Discord and IRC too [21:34:47] would make sense if we did [21:34:52] [discord] even rarer a scenario [21:35:06] [discord] if the tou ban was for underage then it should absolutely apply [21:35:41] [discord] in fact if we have good evidence of that then it by rights should be forwarded to discord ts [21:36:13] ToU bans don't apply to IRC and Discord, so community bans never really "did" but I suppose it is administrative autonomy so if its enforced, its not really something that would be argued with given its a community backed ban? [21:36:32] raidarr: I used to pass info to discord [21:36:34] I wouldn't argue it as a GC at least [21:36:40] But I'm not as active now [21:36:54] If we had evidence that was publicly available [21:37:01] Libera don't have a minimum age [21:37:08] But I've banned from here before [21:37:29] [discord] So it's at the discretion of local platform administrators then [21:37:39] [discord] Apex ban on Discord lapses tomorrow [21:37:59] [discord] so in essence up to discord/irc team discretion [21:38:26] Should I rejoin the discord? I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't if I'm banned [21:38:39] [discord] we're going to need to work on how that's organized, especially if we expand to yet other platforms [21:38:59] [discord] ie, as a very low priority I'm wondering how to get the miraheze reddit out from southparkfan as apparently the only operator there [21:39:15] [discord] contact reddit maybe [21:39:17] [discord] heh, me and CosmicAlpha were scheming something a few days ago about that [21:39:23] We have a Reddit? [21:39:26] [discord] We're planning to adopt the subreddit [21:39:26] [discord] yea [21:39:30] [discord] Yeah but it got banned [21:39:32] [discord] r/miraheze [21:39:33] [discord] we should have an organized approach before going to reddit about it [21:39:37] [discord] including an idea of who properly operates it [21:39:50] [discord] :p [21:39:50] [discord] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/435711390544560128/986746882757910558/unknown.png [21:39:55] [discord] Our plan was to adopt and then have an RfC once in a volunteers control [21:39:56] [discord] my idea for discord for example is to have it formally owned by the board of miraheze [21:40:03] [discord] ~~blame spf~~ [21:40:10] Agent: well it's unmoderated because no one knew of it [21:40:13] [discord] Well, it sort of already is 😆 [21:40:28] [discord] well by proxy yes, but it's sloppy as is [21:40:35] [discord] ndkilla transfer ownership to me so i can ban you [21:40:41] [discord] Void is owner now [21:41:06] [discord] oh yeah [21:41:07] [discord] forgot [21:41:08] [discord] there's only a couple aspects that would change in practice, the idea is future proofing, access control and cleanliness in cross-platform issues [21:41:22] I have r/mirahezelimited, and r/mirahezeltd. Mainly just created them to prevent someone else from doing it. And the r/miraheze one was closed because of it being unmoderated [21:41:44] [discord] I'm sure that closure won't be too bad as long as we can organize contact [21:43:33] [discord] it will either happen pretty quickly or the request gets ignored for months [21:43:54] [discord] what would that look like in a technical sense? a "board" role account? [21:47:04] [discord] interesting idea, I was just thinking of having a steward-board member be the owner, and if none exist a board member is designated as owner [21:48:08] [discord] for other components I was thinking stewards for convenience could the be administrators running day to day bits and moderation would exist as it does now [21:49:12] [discord] I'd rather we restrict admin to Stewards only [21:49:28] [discord] Steward equaling automatic adminship isn't something I'd feel comfortable with [21:49:59] [discord] my typing is off, I meant 'stewards could be the administrators', so tying the two together [21:50:44] [discord] and the only exception being if there are no stewards on the board, the board representative would have to have administrator access by proxy - but day to day would be deferred to probably moderators mostly and administrators [21:55:07] we do have a couple other social media accounts that we don't really use [21:57:28] [discord] lol yes, our famous Instagram account [21:57:39] we also have tumblr [21:57:45] [discord] what you guys posting on ig [21:57:48] [discord] Since whenb [21:57:51] [discord] Since when? (edited) [21:57:52] [discord] pics of the servers [21:58:03] and linkedin fwiw [21:58:08] [discord] o [21:58:21] [discord] All I have access to is Twitter \:P [21:58:23] [discord] and I'm CES [21:58:25] [discord] lol [21:58:29] Agent see the link in -sre-security [21:58:34] [discord] Looking [21:58:55] [discord] #miraheze-sre-security [21:59:04] Yeah [21:59:07] MacFan4000: seen, wow [21:59:11] [discord] that would make sense, basically the only things admins can do mods can't is managing server/webhooks + access all hidden channels which for the most part stewards can [21:59:53] i have access to FB as well, and I can probobly get into tumblr as well [22:00:17] [discord] the other part about stewards and hidden channels is confidentiality; there is no confidential expectation to be a mod while for admin, there at least should be [22:01:01] [discord] I see two hidden channels which claim to be NDA bound [22:01:12] [discord] shhhh [22:01:15] [discord] They shouldn't exist [22:01:24] [discord] We're in violation of the Discord RfC lol [22:01:26] [discord] the rfc would also have to address hidden channels since technically hidden channels are simply not discord rfc compliant [22:01:47] [discord] but for the most part said channels are dead anyway [22:01:50] [discord] betterdiscord moment? [22:02:10] [discord] Well, you're not missing out on much \:P [22:02:25] [discord] betterdiscord and discord tos... yeah, we won't continue that bit [22:02:29] [discord] Even our more active secret channel isn't always that active [22:02:45] [discord] Most of the real interesting stuff is discussed via DMs [22:03:05] [discord] oh yeah [22:03:06] [discord] legend has it there is an entirely different discord of shadowy hooded figures who run miraheze [22:03:19] [discord] ah yes, the company discord [22:03:23] [discord] Super secret cabal [22:03:32] [discord] would that be a cartel or a cabal? [22:03:41] [discord] funny part is they rarely take action against it [22:03:47] of course on IRC /msg alis list miraheze lists most of the miraheze namespace channels including some private ones [22:03:50] [discord] Whole different server [22:04:45] [discord] but alas, TINC [22:06:06] * mhbridgebot [discord] stares at the channel list [22:06:19] [discord] cabal chat is in your imagination [22:08:11] [discord] we cant join though [22:08:17] [discord] afaik [22:10:36] [discord] there's even the obscure public ones like #-interwiki-feed [22:10:53] [discord] we have #-phabricator [22:11:02] [discord] Some of the obscure public ones happen to have some of the most interesting convos [22:11:38] [discord] like how the feed channels sometimes get used as chatrooms [22:12:19] [discord] miraheze-overflow [22:12:42] [discord] not sure if i've ever seen conversation there [22:13:56] [discord] oh i forgot about wikicreators [22:21:08] [discord] it's a slightly third party channel iirc, a wiki creator founded it [22:27:47] [discord] it did have that whole argument over management of it a while ago [22:28:16] [discord] don't know of it being treated differently though [23:56:22] 3/6 MediaWiki servers now out of Read only, rest coming soon