Wikimedia CH has a GLAM partnership with the ETH Library
https://www.ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich/organisation/departments/eth-library.html
They plan to upload ~300.000 high-resolution pictures during the year using GWT. That's why we need to add the following domain to the wgCopyUploadsDomains whitelist (also on beta) of Commons:
www.e-pics.ethz.ch
Or if possible something more robus like:
*.ethz.ch
| Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open | None | T60224 Add domains to $wgCopyUploadsDomains (tracking) | |||
| Resolved | Luke081515 | T123109 Allow GWT uploads from ethz.ch |
Change 262893 had a related patch set uploaded (by Mdann52):
Add 2 sites to $wgCopyUploadsDomains
jenkins merge failed so it probably needs a rebase.
then it should be added to a SWAT window at wikitech:Deployments. (is that right @greg?)
There is never a timeline for shell requests. Since Reedy left, your only chance if you're in a hurry is to do the SWAT dance.
Couldn't whitelisting domains be made a regular routine for someone to do every 24 or 48 hours?
Waiting times of up to 3 weeks for just copy-pasting a domain into a list are hilarious and difficult to communicate to GLAM institutions...
Giving write access to more people to the whitelist might be a solution... ?!
We need to get a proper set of guidelines put together to determine which of these requests are okay and which are not before I am happy with dealing with them routinely.
Deployment access is not going to be given out just so that people can deal with CopyUploadsDomains requests.
We need to get a proper set of guidelines put together to determine which of these requests are okay and which are not before I am happy with dealing with them routinely.
Who is "We"? - Could the GLAM-Wiki people help with setting up guidelines or doing the screening?
Deployment access is not going to be given out just so that people can deal with CopyUploadsDomains requests.
Wouldn't you just need a whitelist somewhere in a place where you trust the security settings and the access management and give access to it to a bunch of people whom you trust to curate the whitelist adequately? - You could then automatically (or manually) write the new entries into your very secure place where you don't want to give access to other people, couldn't you? (I'm just asking naively, I have no idea of the actual security setup, user rights, potential risks and implications, etc.)
The deployers and other people helping process Wikimedia-Site-requests. The guidelines should probably be set by Security.
The issue isn't really about getting more people able to press the button, I think it's uncertainty about what sites being whitelisted implies in terms of trust, security, etc.
ok, you still need to do the other part:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments | wikitech:Deployments ]].
@jeremyb
I have added the deployment request in https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deployments#Week_of_February_1st. Hope this is OK like this.
Thank you for your explanations but what is the concrete path to have things working correctly next time? This is not a new situation, I have done many times this kind of request in the past but this is the first time it goes so long/wrong. From my POV, something has been broken. Now as a volunteer, I fell put in a position where I have to do many additional things unrelated to my GLAM projects (launch the creation of GWT white-listing request validation process, scheduling things on SWAT, stoking people to get thumb up, etc.). Wouldn't that be a better approach that I focus on the work with GLAMs I'm working with and the WMF employees focus to get Wikimedia-Site-Requests handled correctly?
I agree this is a broken process.
A simple solution would be to have a live white-list on the GWT pages on Commons. New suggestions for the white-list can then follow a standard process of linking to beta-testing, a GLAM organizations website where there is some explanation of the upload project, or a project page on Commons with similar explanations about the scope of the project and who is going to remain responsible for all uploads (and problems created). If necessary, then when agreed on the Commons white-list, we can raise a "rubberstamp" task request here on Phabricator.
GWT users are active on Commons, not on Phabricator, and having this complex additional hurdle just feels meaninglessly bureaucratic.
I can raise this on the GWT email list, and as a process it could be added to the GWT user guide if acceptable to the right dev people (I no longer know exactly who that is).
I have unfortunately to re-open that ticket because "*.ethz.ch" does not match "www.e-pics.ethz.ch". We always get "Copy uploads are not available from this domain.". After investigating a little bit with Mediawiki source code it seems that "*" does only match characters between ".".
As a consequence it looks like we should put "www.e-pics.ethz.ch" instead of "*.ethz.ch". Can someone change the configuration that way please?
Change 273776 had a related patch set uploaded (by Luke081515):
Correct one Domain at $wgCopyUploadsDomains
@Luke081515
I have put this in the SWAT Agenda https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deployments&type=revision&diff=335549&oldid=334732
@Luke081515
Thx, this looks good on commons.wikimedia.org, but beta (http://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Special:GWToolset) seems to not have been updated, so impossible to test.