From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 September 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Deploy FileExporter to Meta

Hello. This is a request to deploy mw:Extension:FileExporter on Meta-Wiki. The extension allows users to transfer files from Meta to Wikimedia Commons. It'll help me reducing the backlog of freely-licensed images that we host locally to be moved to Commons instead of doing so by hand, as I've been doing. This extension is enabled in arwiki, dewiki, fawiki, kowiki, mediawikiwiki and sourceswiki. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm going to ping @Lea Voget (WMDE) just in case she has any objections. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've sent her an email. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I've received her reply. She said there are no objections so as long as the community doesn't object in the next days I'll code a patch for enabling the feature here. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Provided the extension is stable enough, sure. Let's do it. --Vogone (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've used the feature at mediawiki and in my experience is working well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with what Vogone said above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, IIRC it doesn't actually "do" anything "on meta" so its not really risky. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Inactive local bots

Hello. We currently have several inactive bots. I'd like to ask whether the community thinks bots inactive for N ammount of time should have their flags removed. I'm for one year of continued inactivity with previous notice to the bot operator before taking the permission from the bot. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this, as long as the tasks for which the bots have been approved are still valid. I see no point in the bot operator having to ask for yet another bot approval for the same tasks should their operators intend to resume them. --Vogone (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
On Ladino Wikipedia and Incubator, I was able to deflag several bots that had been inactive three years and longer, most of which were principally dedicated to adding or removing interwiki links. (I got community approval, and provided notice, before doing so, of course.) That's technically still a valid task, but in general the task is complete now. Why not start there, and see where it leads you? (And you could make the caveat that any bot deflagged under this notice can have the bot reactivated on operator request only, provided the operator is in good standing.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it is useless to inactive bots to keep their flags, as they are not clearly doing any tasks. In case of a bot returns to activity, the operator may request bot approval again, and the fact that it previosuly had the flag, wouldn't make it hard to get it again. One year is effective for me too, notifying the operator about this. Esteban16 (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we have any "read" bots that are only here for highapi access, but we are a bit lower volume so I'd rather see 2 years on this. — xaosflux Talk 13:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Severely inactive batch

  • Some of these are severely inactive, I suggest de-flagging the following in a week barring a response from their operator here:
Bot Last Edit Operator
SanniBot 20130926 Stryn Sannita
Thehelpfulbot 20130828 Thehelpfulone
AvocatoBot 20130724 Avocato
FischBot 20130622 Pyfisch
Snowbot 20130305 Atcovi Snowolf
TranslationsVolBot 20121030 No current operator - WMF former staff
BOTijo 20120505 Emijrp
DougBot 20111219 Doug
Lucia Bot 20110821 Beria
SoxBot 20080724 Soxred93 (X!)
Millbot 20060223 Millosh
DrTrigonBot Never (requested in 2012) DrTrigon
xaosflux Talk 13:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You can de-flag my bot BOTijo. Emijrp (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks for your reply. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
SanniBot is not my bot. Stryn (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Stryn: thanks for the note, looks like bad template placement on that page and a revisionuser hack from Template:Bot!, updated accordingly to User:Sannita. — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Snowbot isn't operated by Atcovi either (Snowolf instead, as it can be seen in the permission request). It seems the bot template simply takes the last editor of the bot's user page as "operator" unless otherwise specified. --Vogone (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Fixed to User:Snowolf. — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You can de-flag my bot as well, even though I see no point in deflagging it just because inactive. --Sannita - not just another sysop 15:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks for your reply. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Jalexander-WMF Hi James, probably of your interest if someone maintains TranslationsVolBot? — regards, Revi 14:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects not working in Chrome

I found that most Wikimedia projects do not work in Google Chrome. It says the connection is "not" secure and it won't let me access (it says it "uses" HSTS). Homewer, they work fine in Firefox. -- 20:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

have you tried to clear the browser cache? Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you always browsing not logged in? In case you are a registered user this might be some script you are using globally. --Base (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Does not work, same error again. -- 21:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi 190, this is working for me on the current version of Chrome. It is possible someone is intercepting your traffic. Can you examine the SSL certificate and see if it is signed by GlobalSign Organization Validation CA, which is in turn signed by GlobalSign Root CA. — xaosflux Talk 02:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Unfortunately, it's signed as the first, which Chromium does not trust, but Firefox does. -- 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Check your certificate stores to see if you have R1 and R3 from GlobalSign. In many cases, chrome products will rely on the OS certificate store, as opposed to Firefox which has its own certificate store. If your OS has a "root certificates update" pending, this could cause your issue. Do you mind sharing your browser and os version information? — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (Google Chrome version 69.0.3497.100). The cert is G2. -- 17:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi 190, here is the cert chain I see:


If you don't trust the GlobalSign certificates, you will need to resolve that on your end. You can manually install them from the link above. — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Yet no effect, just the same error. It is missing the "root" certificate. -- 19:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Did you go to the globalsign site, download, and install the root certificates? — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Unfortunately, Windows won't trust GlobalSign Root R3 even if I installed it. Firefox, on the other hand, works correctly. Here's an image. I know it's in Spanish, but here's a translation to English. -- 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi 191, go to GlobalSign and reinstall R1; then restart your computer and try again. — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)