From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Read only time on 05-May-2021 at 06:00 AM UTC


Some services will be in read-only for a short time on 2021-05-05 at 06:00 AM UTC.

During the restart time (expected to be around 60 seconds or so) all the components and extensions that use the x1 database will be read-only.

Things that might experience some issues when creating new writes:

  • New short urls cannot be created
  • Email bounces from lists might not get recorded
  • There might be issues with new translations
  • New items on the notification list might fail, some notifications may not be delivered
  • Reading lists might not record new items added to "bookmark" or "read it later" feature

Details: T281212 & T281375

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this read-only time.

-- Kaartic [talk] 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I just realized I should've posted this in the WM:FORUM. Just posed it there. -- Kaartic [talk] 18:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The blocking policy is unfair

Seriously, we need to stop judging people by age. I'm currently blocked on Wikipedia because of this. My block was for disruptive editing and breach of agreement, and they said I was too young!!!

Here's my proposal: You may know me as the man who got blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of a controversy surrounding my past actions. The reason why I was blocked was because I screwed up an AFD discussion and a dispute resolution, and then I was reblocked for ACCIDENTALLY breaching an agreement to not go on other Wikipedia user talkpages. An admin told me that I wasn't cut out to be a Wikipedian, and that I needed several years, but here's the thing: He's wrong. I am, and no one will unblock me until six months have passed. It's just that things got too out of control. As stated earlier, I'm desperately trying to get unblocked, since that block was highly unfair and and shouldn't have been placed on restrictions, and was wondering if rehab would be a choice instead. This would be called the "JTZegers rule".

It would go like this: A template would show up on the user talk page saying "You have been sent to rehab due to disruptive editing. Until an administrator takes you through the rehab process, you have been blocked to avoid further harm." It would then send the user to a rehab request system. If it is denied, then it would say "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing because no administrator has the ability to rehabilitate you." If it is, then the rehab process begins! If they break any rules during rehab, then they will also be blocked for "violating the Wikipedia policy during rehabilitation". Good idea? --JTZegers (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@JTZegers: This is Meta:Babel, it is for the discussion of Metawiki processes. English Wikipedia is its own entity, and has its own consensus on what is their blocking process, and its rules. enWP also has its appeals processes, so please utilise them over there.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: But I'm blocked over there, as I mentioned before. I got blocked at the wrong time. I was trying to do so much, but it all went downhill from there. That's why I have to discuss it here.--JTZegers (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said also has its appeals processes, so please utilise them over there. … And it is still totally off-topic for this page about metawiki issues (hint:read the heading of the page is always a good idea). Going off-topic in the wrong places may be part of your issue. Takes some time and be self-reflective and less righteous; you need to do more listening.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Revoke changetags permissions from the "Users" group

Due to persistent abuse of the changetags permission, which can be seen in the tag log, I suggest it be revoked from the "Users" user group. There should be no need to apply tags to arbitrary revisions for most regular users. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
11:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: What are your thoughts on reassigning it to autoconfirmed? I don't see much use for this, but I feel we shouldn't make it inaccessible. — csc-1 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Arccosecant I mean, that would definitely be better than the status quo. Anyway, I really don't think this feature needs to be used; the only other wikis I know where non-admins are allowed to to this are wikidatawiki, mediawikiwiki, frwiki, and testwiki. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
"Users" prob don't need this (and really autoconfirmed prob doesn't either) - but if removing it should be readded to: edit filter manager, admins, and bots. — xaosflux Talk 23:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Question Question: @1234qwer1234qwer4: are you seeing actual misuse of "changetags" here? (Please show a more exact example) Notably the applychangetags permission for registered users allows tagging an edit with an existing tag. — xaosflux Talk 10:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
10:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: that's some very odd tag vandalism! Editing tags just isn't something that editors should normally be doing here - so sure I'd be fine removing from users, adding to sysop/bot/edit filter manager. — xaosflux Talk 10:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support, but keep for autoconfirmed and bot user groups just in case. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Weak Oppose, because it is needed for everything including autoconfirmed and bot user groups. I think we should crack down on the vandalism more, just in case.--JTZegers (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@JTZegers: Most suggested just removing it for not autoconfirmed users. How is it 'needed for everything'? --Zabe (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zabe:Well, I think we should keep it for autoconfirmed users but crack down on the security more.--JTZegers (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, but should this not be global? If not autoconfirmed, I think it would be OK to allow patrollers to change tags. Leaderboard (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard I am not fully sure I understand you correctly, but there appears to be a tool in use at Wikidata that applies tags manually after the edit. Until that is fixed, revoking these permissions everywhere does not seem optimal. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
08:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, from a Meta point of view autoconfirmed or patroller (since I'm not sure of the need for an average user to change tags) would be OK. Leaderboard (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support, but as already told by others I would keep it for autoconfirmed. --Zabe (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I changed my mind and I think autopatrolled or so would be better to restrict it to. --Zabe (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zabe: Why do you think that autoconfirmed users need to be editing the tags? Personally I hardly see any need for anyone to edit the tags. Thinking about need and trust, why not just give it to any of the advanced rights that are applied by humans, rather than inherited by existence. Otherwise I don't particularly care as tags are pretty much irrelevant to how I work, or the work that I do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:When taking a look at the log, basicly there was never a tag change that wasn't vandalism or a test. But this is also the reason why I wouldn't completly remove them, my idea now was that I don't want to ban the tags completely from the wiki, as this also denies us a potential use of them in the future. changetag is not a powerful permission, so I have no problem making it generally available to all autoconfirmed users, similar to the permission to move pages. The only problem with this permission is vandalism, which should have been largely resolved with the proposed restriction to autoconfirmed users. But I also wouldn't mind limiting the permissions to the admins right now. --Zabe (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
A clear difference to the page move example is the rate limit. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe is move not the best example, but the point is, that the permission is assigned to autoconfirmed users while most of them don't 'need' that permission. --Zabe (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Support Meh! The move log and the tag log show a different story. While I don't particularly give a hoot about the tags and what they say, on a theoretical NEEDS level I don't see any local need for general users to change tags here at metawiki. Evidence is that they are either not changed, or abused here by general users. Show me examples in the logs where there has been true valued changes by general users. As the changes are not readily visible, and not easily reverted, to me the logical answer is to tighten their use. The case for change seems evident, I don't hear a good case of status quo, or for autoconfirmed, I would say autopatrolled above would be my threshold. It most definitely needs to be applied to bots, that is a no brainer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
And we had another abuse of the feature just two days ago with over 300 log actions (though the abuser was removing tags they applied themself, resulting in only 84 tags that still were to be removed). I have blocked the user, Anhy999, but the issue of course still persists. I think we have enough consensus to restrict this at least to autoconfirmed users (though I would personally prefer something higher like autopatrolled). Does that mean we need to open a task on Phabricator? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
17:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
yes, phab:T283625 --Zabe (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we can rather restrict this to autopatrolled or something. --Zabe (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that removing it from the 'user' user group and granting it to 'bots' and 'autoconfirmed' users should be good for now. We can revisit this later if they are abused again. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry MarcoAurelio, but I still see zero argument for it being required for autoconfirmed, let us go straight to bots and autopatrolled. If there is a need to revisit it to soften it, then we can however, there has been no reasonable or practicable argument so far.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio This looks like abuse from an autoconfirmed user (who is blocked on enwiki already). I've asked them on their talk page to make just in case, however. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
18:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Given how scarcely this permission is used I'd simply leave the applychangetags and changetags privs in hands of the admins and bots at this stage. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Do it already. I just had to block another user for abusing this feature. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
11:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Summary I am proposing to close this proposal as accepted, though solely with the action being to remove the right changetags from the group Users: and NO reallocation of the right to any other group. If there are no objections, then it will become a phabricator ticket to that effect and this discussion the consensus for that change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
So you are proposing that not even administrators can change tags? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
12:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, I thought that it was already part of Admins. Yes, we will need to have the ticket add it to Admins.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: adding to +sysop and +bots is my suggestion (in case we have some sort of cleanup job we need a bot to do sometime). — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Summary I am proposing to close this proposal as accepted, removal of the right changetags from the group Users: . The addition of the right changetags to the groups "Bots:" and "Admins:" (see special:listgrouprights for current rights spread.)  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Why not add it to patrollers as well? Leaderboard (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Because I don't see that consensus above. I am pushing for that clarification rather than it floating around without direction/half-pregnant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard Do you have any example for when the right would be necessary for a patroller? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
changetags has been limited to sysops and bots (gerrit:694686, T283625). --Zabe (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio As far as I understand it, applychangetags is what allows users to tag edits as mobile edits, rollback, and SWViewer edits, so that was quite outside of the discussion for a reason. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
08:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)