I think you should decide whether to have non-Commons images or not. If no, local upload isn't necessary. If yes, people will ask what you want to upload locally - we've had issues with shoddy copyright practices in smaller projects that allow uploads.
Mon, Feb 13
Seems like. Also, the concern I noted before about this privilege allowing one to potentially sidestep editing restrictions on user CSS/JS pages needs to be resolved.
Tue, Feb 7
Sun, Jan 29
To my understanding, big part of the issue with this is old contributions in the databases that can throw up if reassigned.
Jan 26 2017
What I mean is that changing the content model of a JS page causes it to lose its protection; see links in T85847#2959070
Jan 25 2017
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Userrights_on_Hindi_Wikipedia is a requisite reading; folks are wary that such a "localization" of the desysoping procedure may open the door for such things.
Maybe one could roll such a task together with the one to create a global contributions list, that is to make a dedicated wiki that combines all logs and changelogs of the individual non-private projects. Probably something "epic" in size, though.
Jan 23 2017
Perhaps one could log actual save attempts (which are POST requests, I believe) that trip the blacklist like normal and not log mere requests (which are GET requests, I believe) such as accessing a blacklisted edit page URL.
Why would editing a/moving to a blacklisted title be a GET request? Does the titleblacklistlog trigger upon merely clicking the edit button?
@Cenarium : About that Gerrit patch, does it hide all IPs or just these who try to make an account? Because my understanding is that only the latter scenario can cause a privacy leak. A mere edit in contrast would be a-OK.
Jan 22 2017
Putting a note here that at least on enwiki, changing the content model of a userjs page away from js can open it up for public editing. See last discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=757400754
Does this function account for content model changes?
Jan 19 2017
Well, the issue is still that this task will result in Wikidata content appearing as if it's enWikipedia content.
I'll admit, I don't see how the discussion there addresses the concern indicated here at all. Maybe in a distant future it would, but nothing for the short term.
Jan 18 2017
Speaking as one, the notion of identifying all Wikimedia admins is fairly unrealistic. Logistical effort aside, there are plenty who for many reasons will not share their personal information with the WMF. And there would be concerns about ageism as well, probably.
Jan 17 2017
This might cause an IP information leak if a filter catches accounts based on a narrow enough IP range, as the hit log would associate the account with the IP range that the filter catches.
Jan 15 2017
I'd probably prefer B. I don't think logged actions and edits should bury each other. Other people may disagree.
Jan 9 2017
On the enwiki, templates are created, put in use, merged and deleted all the time. It may be more complex to manage them on a shared repository for other projects, but "no real way" is simply wrong.
Jan 7 2017
Well, it wasn't quite accurate that the maintenance burden was not a factor - in fact, the first RfC on enwiki was started in part because some collections were questionable.
Jan 6 2017
So in other words, a two pronged fix: Have the watchlist display the latest non-bot edit and prod the operators of bots who roll back unconstructive edits to have the bots mark the rolled back edit(s) as bot edit(s), so that these edits are hidden as well.
I don't think that all reverts by a bot by default imply that the reverted edit can be hidden. Since rollback is usually applied to vandalism and vandal edits are the problem case to hide here, I'd limit the "hide reverted edit" function to rollback so that different reverts can be treated differently if need be.
@MZMcBride : Point #1 is right. Point #2 would need a bit more discussion, especially about whether "revert" means "any revert" or just "rollback".
Jan 5 2017
The fact that (with the exception of Ilmari_Karonen farther up) nobody has proposed a patch to fix the issue, and Ilmari_Karonen's patch has the issue Quiddity mentioned. Someone with dev skills needs to write another code patch.
Jan 2 2017
If it matters, my impression was that Gather was insufficiently socialized and that the maintenance burden for the communities involved was underestimated.
Dec 31 2016
Seems more like a task for a database-involving project, thus tentatively added DBA under the assumption that supervising database actions happens there.
Dec 15 2016
Besides, requesting a global rename and editing on meta wiki are distinctly different things.
Dec 14 2016
Not sure if this is the right place, but is it clearly marked somewhere that such descriptions are not part of enWiki?
Perhaps in a new wiki. A bit concerned that the extensive inter-site dependencies such a repository would create (a bad edit in the repository affects hundreds of projects) clash with the self-governance philosophy of Wikimedia projects. There are already some conflicts when Commons removes images that are in use in other projects.
Dec 9 2016
Nov 30 2016
Nov 17 2016
editinterface in SUL means all admins, seems like. I've seen concerns that one can easily lose access to an account with 2FA and opposition towards making it mandatory for this and other reasons, so probably needs a consensus first.
Nov 8 2016
Anecdotally and from a non-Wikimedia experience, most sockpuppeteers (try to) evade their blocks rather soon after it happens, usually within a month and almost always within 3 months.
Oct 31 2016
Oct 26 2016
Hmm, if that goes live where will the repository be?
Oct 24 2016
Oct 20 2016
Added the Operations tag under the assumption that it's an operation question whether such a change is needed at all. In any case, we'd need some careful analysis of how fast editors have to work.
Oct 14 2016
As a compromise, one could encourage people to delete the local versions once they have been imported into the central repository.
Oct 9 2016
I am guessing having a plan for replacing all currently in use magic links with template'd links would be desirable.
Oct 3 2016
All but the last file have a notice at the top right corner that implies they come from https://www.whitehouse.gov/ and thus are usually public domain as works of the US federal government. However, having source information is necessary, also because some videos there may include copyrighted material from others.
Oct 2 2016
Maybe want to check how frequent edit summaries satisfy/don't satisfy the criteria in T2738#34571 so that we know how robust that fix is.
Oct 1 2016
I have my doubts that most communities care about how high their condition limit is, seeing as it has (almost) no effect on the actual project and is mostly a technical variable.
Sep 24 2016
Um, for ''which'' project do you want this? Also, setting page-specific licenses and allowing non-commercial ones seem like two different propositions.
This has been marked as high priority for almost a year; is it a realistic priority?
Sep 22 2016
Depends on what $wgAutoblockExpiry says, which seems to be 24 hours on Wikimedia sites.
Sep 20 2016
My impression was that the Meta Wiki block here is used to prevent appeals/edits when they have no chance of ending well. Is there a need for a three layer (blocked everywhere but Meta - blocked everywhere but Meta user talk pages - blocked everywhere) system over the two layer one which seems to be the current system (blocked everywhere but Meta - blocked everywhere)?
Sep 12 2016
Only thing I know of that would need special logging systems is T68450#2530241 which is a proposal and not (yet) an extension.
Sep 11 2016
Well, that needs some infrastructure to ferret the content to and fro the other projects - and to third parties - for starters.
Massblocking accounts seems like something conceptually unrelated to checkuser, so yeah moving it out of CU makes sense.
Sep 2 2016
editcss, editjs and editinterface are sensitive permissions. Was this aspect discussed and is it really a good idea to have usergroups encompassing these permissions being assigned by administrators in general?
Aug 27 2016
How would that be different from regular page deletion, then?
Aug 25 2016
Is there a community consensus supporting such a proposal?
Aug 22 2016
To my understanding, translating GET to POST via JS is not a problem, applying GET directly to the request is, see T135170#2310146
Is there any problem about this change other than the extra confirmation step?
Aug 8 2016
Sometimes account creations that were held up by the titleblacklist are overridden by an administrator (due to false positives, say). In such cases, logging an IP of an accountcreation attempt may connect it to the future user of such an account. Which was already mentioned in T68450#696668.
Aug 6 2016
Came across this task a while ago. In my mind restricting the visibility to OS or CU is not an acceptable solution; aside from the issues @MarcoAurelio mentioned in T68450#1656957 (and that such a log would keep an IP-account connection listed indefinitely, while CU only keeps it for 3 months at this time), the scope of this log is much broader than just identifying the IPs behind a blacklisted username.
Aug 4 2016
It serves as circumstantial evidence. Also, I've seen people being warned on enwiki for "following around" other editors and thus either engaging in harassment or violating interaction bans or the like.
Would logging the list help with the stalking/hounding issue? That is, there is a (public or semi-public) log where people (either everybody or administrators) can see who is being watched by who.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/List_of_Internet_entrepreneurs seems to display fine from here. Logged in on my administrator account, that is, but it looks correct when I open it up in private mode as well (where logins don't work).
Jul 28 2016
Jul 25 2016
That seems like a copy of the enwiki policy. I have to wonder if the editors of the enwiki page have been attributed and whether the policy complies with fair dealing - the enwiki policy is based on US fair use which is broader in scope than Indian fair dealing.
Jul 20 2016
Some Wikipedias also have copyright policies which use only laws within a given jurisdiction. For example, the German Wikipedia uses copyright laws in Switzerland, Austria and Germany and the English Wikipedia solely US law. Which means that not all files which are free for these projects are also OK on Commons.
Jul 18 2016
<not a lawyer disclaimer>
Jul 17 2016
@MarcoAurelio: Far as I know, "All rights reserved" would only work if no content is ever copied/derived between the private wikis and the public ones, otherwise you'd end up with a license violation (if copied public->private) or a copyright violation (if copied private->public). One also wonders if using copyright to enforce private-ness is a good idea at all.
Jul 13 2016
Some major copyvio incidents have happened with users having such permissions, at least on enwiki. So I'd say the risk is fairly real.
Jul 10 2016
The uses and functions of CU are pretty well documented in public venues (how long information is available and what kind of information is available) far more accessed than Phabricator, so I second the notion that a private discussion offers no security benefits.
May 11 2016
Presumably, to create a way to override that block.
May 10 2016
You may want to ask the stewards on Meta if they can give him the "confirmed" user permission; according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights OAuth Consumer proposals can be made by confirmed users.
Apr 30 2016
Cascade protection intentionally allows only those people to edit who have the "protect" right. Otherwise one could protect a page simply by transcluding it in a cascade-protected page even without having the "protect" right.
Apr 23 2016
On Commons, usually a subpage of "Commons:Deletion requests/Page under discussion" is used for a deletion request, with a tag being placed on the page being discussed. Same on English Wikipedia, save for different names.
Apr 15 2016
Aye, we don't have bots checking images for copyright violations.
Mar 24 2016
Mar 22 2016
On enwiki, one can ask for feedback in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard
Mar 14 2016
Is the non-deployment to global wikis a community (i.e needs permission) or a tech (e.g large wikis creating performance problems) issue?
Mar 12 2016
Regarding TitleBlacklist and AbuseFilter, are they needed to block account creations?
Feb 28 2016
Feb 27 2016
Greetings, @Aabdullayev851. As a general rule site requests need a community consensus (or for very small projects, a reasonably publicized proposal with no opposition, if memory serves) for setting changes - is there such support somewhere?
Feb 24 2016
Feb 23 2016
Is it in scope (or technically possible) for the tags to also indicate the original file page on the original wiki?
Feb 22 2016
At least one "hide" log entry does exist, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20160201000000&limit=50&type=&user=Future+Perfect+at+Sunrise&page=&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1
Feb 20 2016
Feb 15 2016
Feb 13 2016
Tentatively associating this project so that the task isn't orphaned.
My impression from other tasks along these lines is that shutting off anon page creation is not generally done even when there is consensus for this as it violates fundamental principles of Wikimedia, c.f Limits to configuration changes, T47066: Disable anonymous page creation at tr.wikipedia and T44894: Please restrict anonymous users from creating new pages at sw.wikipedia.
Feb 12 2016
Feb 10 2016
It's a magic word that translates system messages.