Community noticeboard

TheTopTens
I remember discussing why I couldn't use this as a source as it was blocked by the spam filter when I tried to use it. I was told it had been blacklisted and that if I wanted to change that, I should create an RFC. However, I cannot find the discussion. Does anyone know where the discussion is, and more importantly, whether or not this information is true (as in, it is blacklisted and I should create an RFC if I want to change that)? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Spam Blacklist is managed by the Counter Vandalism Team exclusively so an RfC would mandating a change would be overly blunt. If you have any suggestions for CVT regarding the spam blacklist, feel free to start a discussion on the Stewards' noticeboard. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but can you verify the URL thetoptens.com is being blocked somehow? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember people discussing about TheTopTens, but I believe it's already blocked somehow? (Correct me if I am wrong about that.) --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Recap from Stewards' noticeboard/Archive 31:
 * "TheTopTens was banned from being linked to as it is full of abuse and unmoderated."
 * "[W]e have considered the fact that the community doesn't want wikis to be able to link to an abusive and unmoderated website."
 * ''"Creating pages about TheTopTens isn't banned, only using the actual link will be prevented (if I understood what you meant correctly)."
 * "[This site] is quite a spammy website and has been the source of numerous Content Policy issues, so as others have said, I would advise against it."
 * "Specifically, it was added as a result of this [August 2020] discussion for hosting harassment towards Miraheze users."
 * --Routhwick (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Global Sysops and opt-out - thoughts?
Before deciding whether to open a formal proposal I wish to gather the thoughts and opinions of the community on the question of Global Sysop opt-outs. Here is an extract from my vote in the current Global rollbackers RfC which explains the situation:

"I do not very much believe in the opt-out concept that exists for Global Sysops because of the fact that Global Sysops also enforce global policies so by having an opt-out wikis are able to restrain the people who are able to enforce policies. It is as if a city could "opt-out" from national police and only allow local police to enforce laws - it does not make much sense ... I strongly support any proposal to abolish the strict opt-out concept and instead replace it with a system where wikis can opt-out from enforcement of local policies (such as vandalism, local blocks, etc.) but cannot opt-out from enforcement of global policies under any circumstances". DeeM28 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think a limited opt out might make more sense for something like global rollbackers who better resemble platform minimods that may for whatever reason be undesirable in local affairs. I agree with the sentiment that when it becomes a global policy issue, opt out does not make sense. Even with vandalism it can reflect back on the platform.
 * I would say, the circumstances where a global sysop can really go all the way handling global policy are limited beyond account locks. More fine situations or enforcing wiki-wide consequence often requires Steward exclusive tools or advanced investigation. In those scenarios it's preferable to just bring in a steward who has the appropriate 'punch' to ensure results. But the steward activity issue is not gone, either. It's not a role to lean on too strongly. I'm finding myself slipping into a more 'doug role' of skipping time between actions as time goes on, activity wise. I'd like a degree of that responsibility to be available to GS, though we don't have the manpower to do that. So I only have observations, not a conclusion. --Raidarr (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say a balanced approach sounds better than the current situation where Global Sysops can be completely restricted. It's true that most of the time for global policy violations they're complex enough to need Stewards but I myself as Global Sysop have handled a lot of issues like CoC violations or copyright violations so I do think that such issues shouldn't be opted out of. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even with vandalism it can reflect back on the platform. This is why there is no Steward action opt out. Even GSysOps are a form of "minimods". If an opt-out community is truly negligent to the degree that it affects or threatens the wider Miraheze community or image, Steward intervention is still discretionary. dross  (t • c • g) 22:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To come back to this, an option with more nuance may be to allow Stewards to revoke opt-outs on wikis which have had in the past issues with respecting global policies. DeeM28 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Permission request to access Miraheze.org (basic)
Hi there. I am having trouble figuring out how to gain access to read/view the Ark Omega Miraheze.org pages. I could access them originally, but now I keep getting the following message:

Permission error You do not have permission to read this page, for the following reason:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Confirmed users, Members, Administrators.

Please advise how I might gain access to view these pages. Thanks.

WillyQuick777 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That means that the wiki was made private. You'll have to contact the administrators on why that is. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Bot accounts
How do you add bot accounts? Teddythedev0 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that Requests for permissions is for asking for rights on this wiki so unless you're asking for rights on this wiki, that's the wrong page to request things.
 * To add bot rights to a user on your wiki, go to Special:UserRights and assign the bot flag to the bot. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Teddythedev0 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My wiki is still in review. Teddythedev0 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its called Animevortex. if you want to approve it. Teddythedev0 (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Request to add the graph and kartographer extension to imt.miraheze.org
I would like to enable graph and maps embeding in imt.miraheze.org. I've turned on the pre-required extensions jsonconfig and codeeditor. Can a steward make the necessary change in the configs? Thanks Uceppi (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What configuration change do you need? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

How can I change the talk page to StructuredDiscussions-board
I am working on a wiki called mh:duchess:DuchessDoesMiraheze Wiki and I wanted to add the StructuredDiscussions-board style on the user talk pages but it's not on the list so please help. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To do that, go to Special:ManageWiki/namespaces -> (Main) -> Talk and change the default content model of the page to StructuredDiscussions. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 02:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks DuchessTheSponge (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait this is my exact problem since I tried that once but it's not on there. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On some older pages, you'll need to manually change the content model via Special:ChangeContentModel Agent Isai  Talk to me! 06:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

WHEN I TRY TO CHANGE THE WIKI ICON THE SETTINGS RESET
WHEN I TRY TO CHANGE THE ICON (OR ANY OTHER SETTINGS) FOR MY WIKI, ONCE I SAVE THE SETTINGS AND RELOAD THE PAGE, THEY RESET :( Ghostie222 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Chill out, dude. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IM NOT YELLING ITS JUST HOW I TYPE! :] /G Ghostie222 (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How do i rename my database?
I want to change my wiki name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddythedev0 (User talk:Teddythedev0 • Special:Contributions/Teddythedev0) 15:36, 24 August 2022
 * Please remember to sign your posts by adding . To request a subdomain name change (changing the 'database' name), please make a request on Phabricator, thanks.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to Add RFCS?
If it is, How do you do it? Teddythedev0 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What is RFCS? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean RFC's Teddythedev0 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is but why do you wish to make a new Request for Comments? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dunno? Teddythedev0 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Local interwiki administrator amendment proposal
The reason why interwiki administrators exist is because there is a risk that if an untrustworthy or rogue user has access to the interwiki table, they can insert malicious links and make it seem like an innocent wikilink and a user could then click on it and be directed to the malicious website. With the current system, on wikis with few users a single support is all that is needed for someone to be elected as local IW which undermines the whole idea of it being a trustworthy user. Therefore, I propose the following one issue amendment as allowed by the RfC policy: Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On wikis with less than active users (5 edits in the last 30 days), local interwiki administrators cannot be elected. Global interwiki administrators handle all requests.

Support

 * 1)  per above. The whole idea of having to elect a local interwiki administrator doesn't make sense if only one user can participate in the election and make it successful. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I strongly support this as the current process is too lax in this regard. As I mentioned in my comment to an oppose vote, it's easy to rack 500 local edits or even 1,000 local edits through various ways. CommentStreams logs a new edit whenever you comment or edit a comment, Translate logs one to two edits every time you translate a new unit (not a page, but instead a translation unit which may be as small as a word as a big as a paragraph), and more. Using the last method I mentioned, I could probably rack up a thousand edits in a day if I wanted to. The whole reason that interwiki isn't bundled into the default bureaucrat group is to add a safeguard against a malicious actor adding a malicious link into the interwiki table. The current process essentially allows for this safeguard to be bypassed in essence as anyone can basically be named local interwiki-admin with little to no votes in a small community. It would be best if local interwiki-admins can be named only once the community is big enough for meaningful local elections. A local election in a small wiki is merely a spectacle, a show at this point, it has no real substance if no one's going to vote in the end and the user will likely end up winning. Stewards also don't vet local candidates for competency or for knowledge of the policy, etc., while global Interwiki administrators are scrutinized for their knowledge of policy, competence, and more. For this reason, I think it's best to restrict the ability elect interwiki-admins until a community is big enough. A user can request a global IWA or Steward add a new entry into the table easily and there's no real big downside to this.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the above. ZeusDeeGoose (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  It has been demonstrated by a previous Request for Comment in which I had the pleasure to participate that there are two opposing takes about editing interwiki links: that there is not as much danger to it as suggested or on the contrary that it is easy for local staff to insert dangerous links. These are legitimate questions but this is a single proposal and this is not what is at stake here. It is evident that in the RfC that I cite above the purpose of Proposal 5 was to permit local interwiki administrators if they are trusted by the local community. I believe that it is nonsensical that as is suggested above a single vote is all that a user requires under the current rules to become interwiki administrator. It would be very simple for that user to create an undetected secondary account or to even ask an acquitance to vote for him or her and would be against the whole current interwiki administrator framework which requires trusted users. In conclusion as part of this framework the current status quo does not make sense. Some may point to the fact that there is an edit requirement. My answer to that is that just because someone has made a lot of edits that does not mean that they would not be willing to insert a dangerous link knowing that no one would find out. There is also the fact that a lot of minor edits can be done or even automatic edits. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  The current requirement (1000 global edits/500 local edits) for applying for a local interwiki administrator is already sufficient as (i) most users with malicious intent won’t bother to reach such a requirement; (ii) as of now I cannot see an urgent need for this, as I see there is very little requests for local IAs. When reviewing the request, stewards takes responsibility in reviewing the candidates’ contributions, as well as testing their competence to determine whether the links are malicious, and can reasonably decline a request (this is same will other local elections). Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That really isn't the case with the local elections process though. Stewards do not check or review the "competence" of a user or their contributions, it's sort of a "oh, an election, okay" type process. It doesn't make sense to allow interwiki-admin on small wikis as 500 local edits can be achieved easily using many ways (for example, using the Translate extension to "translate" an article. Each new translation counts as an edit; or by using a bot, etc.). The reason that  isn't bundled with bureaucrat as is the case on vanilla MediaWiki is to allow for a safeguard against adding malicious links into the table and passing them off as plain looking links. If a user can achieve 500 contributions and get a friend to vote (or, if no one even votes, no one) in an election, that basically bypasses this safeguard, the right might as well be bundled into the bureaucrat group. It's not fair to say someone was "elected" when in reality, no one was around to really vote on the proposal or a friend voted in the proposal and that's it. That process is way too lax and can easily be abused. I think global interwiki admins or Stewards can handle requests just fine, there's no issue there really. If a wiki grows above this size, local interwiki administrators can be voted in as needed.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that it might as well be added with bureaucrat? Why would someone spend time to add a malicious link after getting 500 edits just to be blocked/locked? Interwiki isn't to look like a wikilink, it's to allow for easier linking to websites. If you wanted to make it look like a wikilink, you could just use . --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  It'll be helpful to add IW links without a need of another Interwiki Administrators, where completion can take well over a day, as opposed to requesting the IA right. With nobody there locally, nobody else can really vote, so in my opinion, if it's advertised for a good amount of time on the site notice, that should be good enough. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 01:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns in regard to the turnaround time for the group then why not consider running for it? Complaining doesn't equal anything but action does. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 01:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) per above

Support

 * 1)  5 users seems to be the right threashold, as under that it seems unlikely that a proper consensus can be formed as to whether someone is fit to be IW. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This limit appears to be reasonable and we do not want to unfairly prevent local interwiki administrators from operating on wikis which have some level of community as opposed to the single vote example given above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Between 5-10 active users seems like a decent community size that can form consensus about IWs. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  per vote above. --DeeM28 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki sidebar and icon dissapeared after adding custom CSS?
I've recently created my wiki and when I tried adding in custom CSS the wiki's sidebar and icon dissapeared. I have not touched anything related to either the sidebar or icon in the CSS file, so why are they gone? Bones404 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What's the URL to your wiki? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * brutalorchestramodding.miraheze.org Bones404 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't upload files and edit in LGBTA+ Wiki
I can't upload files and edits in LGBTA+ wiki now.

This is what was displayed when I tried to upload a file:

Moderation

Success: your image has been sent to moderation.

Once approved, it will be visible to other users. TMNBFF (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That means that that wiki's admins use the Moderation extension which means that an admin must approve your edit before it's published. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 16:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sort by Protection
How can I reorder the various permissions in the protection settings? Kyou (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please ask to Phabricator.Thank you. by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 05:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The file shown is written in Japanese.Here are translated sentences.
 * 全ての利用者のみに許可→"Allows only all users"
 * 登録利用者のみに許可→"Allows only registered users"
 * 自動承認された利用者のみに許可→"Allows only autoconfirmed users"
 * 拡張承認された利用者のみに許可→"Allows only extended confirmed users"
 * 管理者のみに許可→"Allows only sysops" by Buel ·Talk·Wikimail 05:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 拡張承認された利用者と管理者に許可ではないですかね？ Kyou (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)