[10:42:12] [discord] Is it possible to request that my wiki to be exempt from inactivity? [10:44:17] [discord] it is possible, depending on the reasons behind it [10:55:38] [discord] Well okay then. I hv a good reason then. [10:56:02] [discord] Since it focused on a tv show, with no ep airing anytime soon (got one but it is weeks away), so I hv nothing to add. [10:56:25] [discord] So I could said “No new episodes premiering coming soon so there will be no updates”? [10:56:37] [discord] So could I said “No new episodes premiering coming soon so there will be no updates”? (edited) [10:58:54] [discord] in that case I would say the main questions are 1. is the wiki comprehensive for what it is (ie, complete and up to speed on the episodes) and 2. does it have any readership/audience, realistically, on top of there being no reason to update it for an extended period (I will say, if updates are expected in some weeks then that is probably well within dormancy reason unless you mean many weeks away) [11:14:35] Hello [12:27:23] Hi, I have a wiki and am wondering how long it can go being inactive before it's deleted. [12:44:06] Hello Guest47! If you have any questions, feel free to ask and someone should answer soon. [12:46:42] Hello, I received a report from a user while running a local wiki. [12:47:04] [discord] a report of what [12:47:08] He received this message while signing up and said he couldn't sign up. [12:47:13] Visitors to this wiki using your ip address have created three accounts in five minutes and exceeded the allowed account creation limit within this period. Therefore, visitors who use this ip address now can no longer create accounts. [12:47:35] His ip is not even in a global shutdown. [12:48:30] [discord] he'll need to message cvt@miraheze.org mentioning the IP he is connecting from if it's a continuous issue, otherwise iirc the automatic block should expire in 24 hours if it's a usual 'too many accounts 'error [13:25:32] [discord] Yep. The only thing we could do is keep visiting the site doing nothing with no ep airing soon. There are one, but again, it was a spoiled ep, most details was leaked so the info had been filled. There are a few editors, but just a few because Miraheze SEO is worse then Fandom. [15:42:11] Can the ReCaptcha RfC be closed by an uninvolved steward? [15:42:53] It’s probably been long enough and the page hasn’t been edited in days, which infers that most editors have either put their input already or don’t really care to add anything. [15:59:53] There's nothing to close it as [16:00:19] One closure was already reverted, and consensus is that it should remain open until an alternative is found [16:00:32] If you want it closed, participate in the proxy discussion? [16:32:47] that can't be the consensus. RfCs can't remain open until the stalemate ends, that's not how it works [16:32:54] many RfCs have been closed as no consensus [16:33:08] so if activity fades the inevitable conclusion will be that the RfC should be reclosed [16:33:46] and in fact, there is consensus *against* change IMO given that the vote is 9-5 for the first proposal [16:34:02] so I find it hard to justify keeping it open and attempting to claim that consensus to keep it open indefinitely exists [16:35:57] Actually that's precisely why it was reopened [16:36:01] Did you not read the overturn thread at all? [16:38:10] It was, but *now* the consensus is clearly against change [16:38:32] And the overturn thread didn't say it should be open indefinitely until consensus is reached, because that's not how RfCs have ever operated [16:38:46] when a discussion has become stale and no new points are made or new votes then it's safe to say it can be closed [16:39:18] I'm not saying it should be closed right now, but at some point it should be [16:39:45] and no, that point doesn't need to be when a 'solution' is found because again 9-5 people have voted against Proposal 1 and have indicated that they agree with ReCaptcha 3.0 [16:39:52] (some of them at least) [16:52:45] Consensus is a tricky subject because like Reception has said, there may never be a consensus on what to do. ReCaptcha RfC is a perfect example. In that case, wouldn’t we close and implement whatever the majority requests? It may not be full consensus, but at least it’s a majority vote. [17:02:48] Miraheze cloak yay [17:05:23] No, consensus is against change to QuestyCaptcha [17:05:52] BrandonWM: Reception123 has made multiple comments that go against what is displayed on the page, this pattern traces back for about a month. You should definitely read the SN thread [17:13:07] I’ll read it. [17:19:07] Naleksuh: well someone did make a good point that the RfC should've first asked whether people want ReCaptcha or not rather than just proposing alternatives [17:19:43] I'm not sure what you're expecting. If people have voted against your proposed options what more should we wait for? [17:31:05] "my proposed options" I didn't even open the RFC [17:31:13] Your gaslighting attempt is unsuccessful [17:32:05] Please maintain some civility. [17:32:14] Everyone. [17:32:24] Just don’t fight. It’s Sunday. Chill. [17:32:45] `RfC should've first asked whether people want ReCaptcha` -> Maybe so, but I think it is implicitly stated in the SN post and in the opposes for hCAPTCHA [17:33:21] In my view, the RFC is open as there is consensus that reCAPTCHA is a problem, and *not* just China issue. Reception123 is the only person I know who has no problem with reCAPTCHA [17:41:28] Naleksuh: please do assume good faith. My apologies, I genuinely forgot you didn't open it since you've been very active on it [17:41:47] though you did propose very similar options in your initial RfC so I wouldn't exactly say my comment was completely unfair [17:42:00] Naleksuh: how am I the only person? Have you not been reading the other comments? [17:42:40] You are [17:42:44] "I've never had any issues with recaptcha", "I do not believe that the current set up of ReCaptcha is perfect but instead of insisting on a new and less sophisticated Captcha it would in my view be a preferable solution to try to improve the current setup of ReCaptcha.", " The current system works well and does the job. " [17:42:49] these are all comments not made by me [17:43:07] so I'm sorry but what you're saying is simply not true and I don't appreciate attempts to spread untruthful things about me [17:44:09] That's all I had to say here and I don't think there's any point continuing. You clearly hate ReCaptcha we're all clear about that, but you can't attempt to argue I'm the only one who supports it and you also can't keep the RfC open indefinitely based on your personal beliefs which are at odds with the current consensus on the RfC. [17:45:20] It is not at odds with at all; there is consensus for a replacement. Also, you tried to claim that people only want a replacement because of China and nothing else, but you can read that this is not the case in the proposals of hCaptcha which works in China, which would have been successful if it really was China-only [17:45:42] Also, the proxy issue is still not resolved [17:52:18] Where is the consensus for replacement as I can’t see that on the RfC [17:54:59] SN and hCaptcha [17:56:38] Link to the SN thread where consensus is for a switch please, with the hCaptcha thread it’s against the switch to hCaptcha. Even if there was consensus to switch, without consensus as to what to *propose* to SRE, it wouldn’t go anywhere [17:59:54] `Even if there was consensus to switch, without consensus as to what to *propose* to SRE, it wouldn’t go anywhere` [18:00:07] Yes, that's why the RFC is open. To decide what to switch to [18:00:14] And why a premature close was reverted [18:01:34] But the current consensus on the RfC proposals are against switching to any, there’s no active discussion on it either [18:01:55] If there is going to be consensus, new proposals need to be added. [18:03:53] If no new proposals are going to be added, given it’s stale, I do intent to close it within the next 24 hours at most [18:09:12] New proposals to what? [18:09:25] There is no consensus against proxy blocking, but we need to sort out the details [18:26:42] Proxy blocking is a discussion that needs to occur naturally, it’s not an RfC matter unless you’re proposing a policy change to the existing policy. We already block proxies [18:26:58] New proposals to changing captcha system as currently all have consensus against [18:31:37] `We already block proxies` Not really. 99% of proxies are unblocked [18:31:47] I'm aware that policy says they should be blocked, but they are defacto not blocked [18:31:58] That's why the proposal name is "Actually block them" not just "block them" [18:35:06] So it’s a service request, not a policy change [18:35:35] I never said it was a policy change [18:35:49] Service requests are best placed on SN/CN not in RfCs as they’re for policy changes. [18:36:18] In this specific case, proxy blocking would be an acceptable alternative to reCAPTCHA, so that's why it's there [18:36:53] We do proxy blocking [18:37:12] It’s in policy and we block numerous proxies in line with detection and policy [18:38:31] Not enough. 99% of proxies are not blocked, and that's why there is a spam problem [18:38:49] The reason why Wikimedia doesn't have this problem without installing Google spyware is because they actually block proxies [18:39:01] So it’s a service request that needs to be on a notice board, not in an RfC. [18:39:14] Unless the RFC decides it is an alternative to reCAPTCHA [18:39:40] It’s not an alternative to general spam prevention methods [18:39:54] It works in conjunction [18:40:08] Wikimedia is using proxy blocking and one of the default MW CAPTCHAs and it works fine [18:41:16] Let me reword this perhaps, the RfC is going to be closed soon by me unless a new proposal is added to it for discussion as the current 2 gave consensus against and the third is a service request, not a policy change [18:42:16] It isn't a service request on its own though. It is a service as an alternative to reCAPTCHA [18:42:32] Is it a policy change? [18:43:33] It is a change to reCAPTCHA policy [18:43:53] We don’t have a recaptcha policy [18:44:02] Good, so it can be removed then? [18:44:46] No, recaptcha is a spam prevention method put in place by SRE in response to spam [18:45:24] The community are free to suggest alternatives for SRE to consider- however this hasn’t occurred. [19:05:22] I have not encountered an issue with ReCaptcha. [19:05:44] And there are so many proxy ranges it’s extremely difficult to block them all. [19:08:17] It's actually extremely easy [19:09:32] How? [19:09:44] Wikimedia did all the work for us XD [19:09:58] Mainly in CIDR ranges. For individual IPs, you can nmap them [19:10:10] Also what do we do about this new global rename RfC? It’s a draft but people are adding comments [19:10:54] @Naleksuh Talk to Raidarr, MrJaroslavil, or Dmehus about it. If/when they have time they can global block em all. [19:10:58] I never liked the idea of a draft at all [19:11:16] MrJaroslavik is not a steward, and Dmehus is very close to losing steward permissions [19:11:22] Raidarr can block if they want to [19:11:31] My preference for draft RfCs would be for them to be in the own user’s namespace [19:11:44] Dmehus is close to losing permissions? [19:13:42] I wasn’t aware [19:29:38] [discord] recent drama [19:29:59] [discord] [[w:WP:Supervotes]] [19:29:59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Supervotes [19:30:02] [discord] [19:44:07] would one of the stewards/sysadmins be willing to share statistics on the turnaround time for rename requests over at [[Requests for Comment/Create a group named global renamers]]? [19:44:07] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Create_a_group_named_global_renamers [20:05:29] That would be amazing. [20:05:49] # of requests, how long it typically takes to execute said request. [20:09:17] [discord] Rename requests can take up to a week, possibly 2 if they are forgotten which unfortunately happens [20:10:12] [discord] It's one of a few things I want to set reminders for myself on since there is no notification for new submissions [20:11:44] [discord] As for mass proxy blocks I am holding off for voids automated approach since verifying/executing blocks will take a fair while [20:15:30] [discord] So it seems we lack active Stewards to attend to the request then [20:16:37] [discord] So it seems we lack active Stewards to tend to the request then (edited) [20:18:52] [discord] well, time to go fix up that draft [20:19:55] [discord] Might as well as long as we don't have enough active Stewards [20:22:16] Raidarr : Void's automated approach is wrong [20:22:21] It left out like half the blocks [20:22:30] I can make one which is verifiable and correct [20:37:08] In that case I’ll change my vote [20:37:43] [discord] BrandonWM: technically speaking, since the RfC is a draft, no one should be voting yet [20:37:52] [discord] especially since further amendements are incoming [20:38:17] [discord] yeah we might just want to strike all current votes [20:38:37] [discord] though I was thinking of just making them into Proposal 1 which would pretty much encompass the RfC as it is [20:40:21] [discord] I didn't even vote on that RfC. [20:40:50] [discord] yeah it got opened when it most certainly should have been a draft [20:41:06] [discord] currently working on rewriting it because the stats Raidarr gave, it seems like a good idea [20:41:11] [discord] currently working on rewriting it because with the stats Raidarr gave, it seems like a good idea (edited) [20:41:50] [discord] I'm technically worried that dmehus might face some hot water. [20:46:57] About what [20:49:21] [discord] @DarkMatterMan4500 ^ [20:50:08] [discord] The stuff you guys were concerned, especially the supervoting. [20:50:59] [discord] He's in hot water [20:51:19] [discord] If trouble carries on, he will face action [20:52:09] [discord] He should at least pull himself together and not do that. [20:52:54] [discord] I hope so [20:54:00] [discord] He has some catching up to do. If I was a Steward, I would perfectly explain it, even if it means facing some tough questions. [20:54:16] [discord] He has some catching up to do. If I was a Steward, I would perfectly explain my own actions, even if it means facing some tough questions. (edited) [21:04:55] There's not really much to explain [21:05:07] Also dmehus already attempted one explanation in which they avoided accountability [21:05:45] [discord] And it's becoming apparent that it's becoming the thing that we all vowed to destroy. [21:06:28] [discord] ? [21:06:49] [discord] It's just a saying. [21:07:13] [discord] I get that [21:07:28] [discord] I get that, but what are you referring to by 'that'? (edited) [21:17:32] [discord] Referring to the whole dmehus drama. [21:18:32] [discord] I had a bot that used to do it, I lost the code to it, and I havent gotten around to redoing it [21:27:52] @chrs do you mind if I edit the draft RfC [21:28:26] BrandomWM: mind waiting a moment? [21:28:36] about to save new proposals [21:28:55] also you shouldn't vote yet since this is still a draft [21:30:12] [discord] there we go [21:30:38] Am about to add a new proposal [21:30:45] [discord] what is it? [21:30:51] we can just add the “globalrename” permission to GS [21:30:58] global sysop [21:31:33] Could work [21:31:43] and the two proposals are not mutually exclusive [21:33:21] [discord] no, that was actually rejected a while ago [21:34:23] there was pretty strong agreement that the roles shouldn't be tied together [21:36:21] Ah okay [21:36:45] BrandonWM: we really shouldn't revert people's votes just because it's a draft [21:36:51] they obviously shouldn't be voting yet [21:37:05] but reverting is kinda worse if the proposals are fleshed out decently [21:38:21] BrandonWM: you should probably revert that [21:42:39] Revert by reversion? [21:42:43] *my [21:43:11] yeah, thanks for understanding [21:43:42] Will do [21:43:44] doing [21:43:46] this is pretty close to being done drafting, mostly just waiting to check for added proposals [21:45:27] If it’s done let’s just add it in [21:45:36] Who are the authors of the RfC [21:46:36] pretty much me [21:47:23] but letting it stay a draft for a bit gives more of an opportunity for feedback [21:47:46] Okay [21:47:54] yeah I don’t have any negative commendz [21:47:56] *comments [22:22:16] Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa [22:22:20] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Stewardship#Revocation_of_Dmehus'_Steward_rights [22:22:20] [url] Requests for Stewardship - Miraheze Meta | meta.miraheze.org [22:22:27] hold up one second [22:23:22] Seriously? [22:34:08] BrandonWM: yep [22:56:55] [discord] oh god [22:57:47] [discord] i literally can't support nor oppose [22:57:53] [discord] Why [22:58:29] [discord] i think I'mma take some time to think about this instead of jumping right in [22:58:48] [discord] Yeah, a lot of people are thinking this through right now [22:58:51] [discord] How unfortunate [23:03:47] [discord] It's easy either "last chance" or "I've had enough". [23:03:49] [discord] No? [23:04:46] Bo [23:04:53] *no [23:04:59] its not that simple [23:05:17] [discord] It's something that should be thought out [23:10:00] Dmehus has made mistakes but not enough to justify removal [23:10:09] not nearly enough [23:10:11] [discord] debatable [23:10:25] [discord] Depends how you look at it [23:10:34] what about his contributions though [23:10:41] [discord] I don't think another Steward has ever seen as much scrutiny and backlash as Doug [23:10:53] yes he’s made mistakes but what about the stuff he’s done for Miraheze? [23:12:07] [discord] Depends on how you weigh both things. Some may view his contributions as very valuable, especially as our only active Steward for a while but others may see that his mistakes are bigger than his contributions and have had enough [23:12:22] [discord] Ultimately, the decision is up to one and depends on how you view and weigh both [23:24:42] How do you plan to vote? [23:25:40] I’m still undecided [23:34:21] anyone have feedback to give on the [[Requests for Comment/Global renamers]] draft? [23:34:21] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Global_renamers [23:34:39] Nope [23:37:00] [discord] RfP should be RfGR [23:37:22] [discord] It's going to be a Meta group so RfP is appropriate [23:37:40] [discord] oh [23:37:43] [discord] alright [23:37:45] [discord] then no [23:37:48] yeah it's like wiki creator in that regard [23:38:10] [discord] the "global" got me a bit confused lol [23:40:02] I can see that [23:40:38] the renames are performed across Miraheze globally, but the requests/queue and such are only on meta [23:44:17] @raidarr FirstNoelle I guess has been accused of being a sock of Apex [23:44:27] could you run a CU [23:44:49] it would appear that's already being done [23:45:00] if you check the meta feed [23:45:42] [discord] confirmed [23:46:37] Ah my mistake [23:46:40] oh wow okay [23:46:53] oh and just for reference, Apex was uploading porn to testwiki.wiki a few days ago [23:47:01] What the fuck [23:47:07] excuse my profanity [23:47:15] `I was testing image uploading and since I didn't have a lot of time, I chose the first image I came across.` [23:47:21] s/`/"/ [23:47:21] chrs meant to say: "I was testing image uploading and since I didn't have a lot of time, I chose the first image I came across.` [23:47:26] s/`/"/g [23:47:27] chrs meant to say: "I was testing image uploading and since I didn't have a lot of time, I chose the first image I came across." [23:47:49] which of course happened to be a pornhub screenshot [23:47:58] and a wierd one at that [23:48:50] [discord] uh [23:48:58] [discord] okay [23:50:00] [discord] I must admit I'm starting to consider lta designation [23:50:47] proof: https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AScreenshot_20220623-110055.png (history page, not the actual file) [23:50:48] [url] Permission error - Test Wiki | testwiki.wiki [23:52:32] [discord] with regards to the rename group: I think the main answer to the current slowness is to add a) a recurring notice on my end so I'm reminded to review it every few days *or* integrated global notifications to stewards when a new request comes in so it's much harder to forget, even if it's an opt-in thing [23:52:46] [discord] adding a new group for it entirely is beyond overkill [23:52:51] [discord] we don't need proof Chrs [23:53:38] [discord] BrandonWM: no need (re: loginwiki) [23:53:39] [discord] also who takes screenshots on there [23:54:32] [discord] It would be nice if rename requests showed up in the RC [23:54:45] [discord] Of course, one can only dream for WMF to do that [23:55:02] SelfCloak: and who claims said screenshots to be the "first image I came across" [23:55:06] [discord] so unless there's a positive note from sre for an integrated solution I'm just going to have to do better scheduling [23:55:12] Agent: yeah that would be nice [23:55:42] [discord] I want to try and put things on a basis of either twice a week, once a week, or long-term every couple weeks agendas [23:56:16] [discord] objective being nothing small gets left behind and everything larger is at least prominent on menu