Meta:Administrators' noticeboard

Moderation extension
I've enabled the Moderation extension.


 * Should autopatrolled or autoconfirmed users, or both, be auto-moderated?


 * Who should have the ability to moderate edits? Administrators, or administrators and patrollers? Dmehus (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think autoconfirmed users should be auto-moderated unless sleeper socks begin to spam Meta in which case autopatrolled would be better. As for who should be able to moderate, I think patrollers are trustworthy enough to help moderate edits. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 20:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . Please do not add extensions as a Steward on Meta without the consent of a bureaucrat. John (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should not have been enabled. Both because we do not need a repeat of the report extension business and because stuff like this should have community consensus or at least a Meta crat. Naleksuh (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, ESPECIALLY not as this extension makes a very dramatic major change to the way the entire premise of wikis operates. This would need a massive consensus to be enabled, not just enabled by a bureaucrat and definitely not by a non-bureaucrat steward. Naleksuh (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We've rate limited IP edits for now and we're working on some less impacting mitigations using what's available to us. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  21:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More changes from another non-bureaucrat! Naleksuh (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That has been far from clear, given the role Meta Wiki plays as the central coordination wiki, and the historical practices in which Meta Wiki has operated. Indeed, we have even had SRE performing ManageWiki changes in the past, though I agree with Agent Isai that an RFC is not necessarily needed. It can be either an RFC, or a community discussion at Administrators' noticeboard or Community portal. Dmehus (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is the sort of thing that needs an RfC to be enabled. — Arcversin (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not a full blown RfC but definitely an AN discussion. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, definitely an RFC. This extension seeks to change the entire way the wiki operates. Naleksuh (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The extension's primary use is generally only for temporary site protection, not permanent protection. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 21:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if so, there would need to be an RFC to establish the conditions for use, what group skips moderation, what group can moderate, etc. Also, turning on moderation is kinda like giving in to the vandals. — Arcversin (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who remember this?--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, a Meta bureaucrat did authorize that extension to be enabled. Subsequent discussions informed the decision to revert the change. I don't see a direct comparison there. Dmehus (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record... There was not consensus for adding that extension... As like in this case...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The discussion you linked to was the subsequent discussion. In the previous discussion, several participants, including myself and Reception123, all agreed with enabling the extension, and the Meta bureaucrat viewed that as either (a) sufficient consensus to enable or (b) non-controversial enough so as to not require a fuller discussion. Subsequent to that, a couple users dissented, so a fuller discussion was had. Southparkfan's close was complicated, but essentially said consensus tended to be trending toward enabling, but was not yet there in terms of some of the logistical items. In any case, the extension was subsequently removed pending a third, fuller discussion, but since then, due to the extension's limited feature set, there's been no desire to re-propose enabling it. Dmehus (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, I see no change in your behavior has occurred... In that discussion/request was only Redmin, you and Reception, it really is not consensus and i will be quiet about your favourite "non-controversial"... Extension was enabled about 30 hours after request...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with MrJaroslavik. That report thing was awful and thank god it is removed. We do not need a repeat of that. Naleksuh (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's be smart about this and not try to cancel Doug over something as trivial as enabling the moderation extension (which he definitely shouldn't have enabled to begin with), or over something that occurred about a year or so ago. I may disagree with Doug on certain things, but having this weird obsession about his past actions is just absolutely not needed here, and is practically an unhealthy habit. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not "cancelling Doug". Simply saying that someone should not have did something is not cancelling, it is simply holding someone accountable for their actions. The only way to avoid that is to do nothing. There is no "cancelling", this isn't 4chan. Naleksuh (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone repeats their mistakes and continues his arrogant behavior (on-wiki), should we remain quiet? Please stop defending him at all costs...--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop defending him at all costs There are two ways to interpret this. Are you saying that they were defending at all costs and need to stop, or that they should stop at all costs? Naleksuh (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DMM don't want see issues and defending Doug always, so i guess it's first option.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is a shame that this topic must once again be repeated after the last time which caused a lot of issues and argument. First of all I think that some people here have been overreacting and have turned this 'scandal' a bit more personal than it should be. I think that the main issues here is that there is no written policy about this and that invites for confusion and for people not to know: 1) when a Steward can enable an extension (if ever) 2) when a Bureaucrat can request to enable an extension without prior community consensus 3) when Community consensus is required to enable an extension. In my opinion in this case I do not think it was necessary to enable this extension as Steward however in an emergency it may have made sense for a Bureaucrat to authorise it without prior community consensus. This is however just an opinion which demonstrates that it may be unclear to people when extensions can be enabled which is why a policy would be best. If people agree I would be willing to attempt to write one for this. To conclude however I do not believe that Stewards should be enabling extensions in the vast majority of cases as there is no justification for it generally. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there is no policy... It was discussed year (?) ago and he know about it. Issue is not on my/our side, issue is on his side, he is repeating same mistakes as like before (desysop, de-steward requests and others discussions)....--MrJaroslavik (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DeeM28, I agree with your thoughtfully considered points. Meta Wiki is a special wiki for a couple reasons. For one thing, it is the primary public facing website for Miraheze. For another, Meta Wiki is used for global administration of wikis, global blocks, global account administration, and wiki administration and creation. As such, Meta bureaucrats, a locally elected role, cannot have ManageWiki access. Part of the confusion here stems from the unclear historical practices. Indeed, in the past, it was somewhat common for Site Reliability Engineering team members, a non-elected technical role, to perform certain actions, particularly when Stewards were not active at the time or because it was unclear. My understanding was that I should normally obtain a Meta bureaucrat's authorization to enable an extension, notwithstanding cases of crosswiki abuse where the IP hopping was persistent, sustained, and blocks were ineffective. So that's why I enabled the extension, temporarily, and started this discussion to see whether the community agreed with that and to define how it should operate. In any case, the extension configuration would have taken too long to configure, so was just about to revert the addition when I saw John had reverted it for me. I hadn't realized he was even available, otherwise I would have asked him (Reception123 had already gone to bed) for his thoughts or if he thought there was a better approach. Going forward, though, I'll ensure that a Meta bureaucrat authorizes any extension changes or asks that it go to a community discussion first, even cases of counter-vandalism mitigation prevention reasons. Dmehus (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's definitely fair to ensure from now on that a Meta bureaucrat authorises any extension changes and that would be a satisfactory resolution to this dispute/thread. A Meta bureaucrat would then decide whether the extension should can be authorised by them alone or whether a discussion is needed, and if they feel like the latter is needed, then they would let the Steward know that they don't authorise the change. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think ^ from Reception is a reasonable take, although in my opinion there are only two valid scenarios that would entail a Steward's managewki intervention.
 * One is an emergency. Immediate action to stop an unprecedented extreme issue. I believe any Steward should be able to take action as soon as they can. The scenario of this thread was not an action I believe justifies that.It meant well, but it needs to set a higher bar.
 * The second is non-emergency, at which point surely the given Steward can afford to wait. If they can wait, they can discuss first and act later, attaining consensus in the normal manner or if it is still urgent, still by making the inquiry in a public venue. Anything from 'somewhat important' to say, a Meta RfC where a steward should be requested to enact a ManageWiki change result.
 * I don't think there's really room where a Steward should request a bureaucrat/bc-steward for input that doesn't also entail community discussion and the first case should be absolutely temporary until a community discussion removes it/ratifies something longer term. I do agree in a wider principle that a) stewards should discuss with each other where available and b) if a meta bureaucrat, especially a meta bureaucrat + steward is available, they should be consulted if there is evidence they are just about immediately available even in an emergency which did seem to be the case here and would have avoided the current fuss. I don't think this was handled optimally, but if we can draw a clear line here and Doug follows it, the issue needs to go any further than that. But it's clear that as a community we have various different opinions where to draw the line for action, so right now I'd find it hard to come out with a concrete advisory if I were treating all statements here as equal. --Raidarr (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this sounds a bit fair. And regarding what Naleksuh and MrJaroslavik said above: No, I wasn't trying to defend what Doug did about a year or so ago or the fact that he questionably enabled that extension (which really shouldn't have happened to begin with), nor was I attempting to silence you guys from having an opinion (I mean, anyone is welcomed to vent out their frustrations, and/or voice out other concerns for that matter). If I may also add that you and Naleksuh had every right to point out what he was doing wrong, but perhaps try to keep an open mind (which I know for a fact that you and Naleksuh are indeed open to any potential ideas that might work), but it does annoy me that I have to repeat what I said from a year ago, and seeing the latter has been more aggressive than usual, which really left me baffled. All in all, you might want to consider looking at the reply I left here a bit more carefully, rather than jump to conclusions saying that I'm defending his actions. The recent action he did make really did baffle me, and I had absolutely no idea what his thought process was in enabling that said extension. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Interface administrator for Arcversin
I'm pleased to be able to submit this request for Meta interface administrator for Arcversin, as it's a role tailor made for him given his extensive CSS and JavaScript knowledge. His primary focus will be on maintaining, de-Wikipedifying, and customizing existing (including, but not limited to, Twinkle) and new gadgets. He understands that changes to MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js have widespread impacts to everyone, so should have at least a brief discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, typically one in which a Meta administrator would have participated, and that Meta administrators are those locally elected functionaries which will add local sitenotices to discussions, though they may delegate this function to non-elected interface administrators in their discretion. I will let Arcversin add to his rationale for requesting the permission, confirm that he has a strong password for his account, and then let any bureaucrat grant the permission. Dmehus (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that my account has a strong password (and 2FA). In the immediate future, I plan on preparing a version of MoreMenu for use on Miraheze. — Arcversin (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this would be reasonable, especially to gather the grassroots support for becoming a full administrator. The primary issue of trust I don't think is a problem here, and I support it as a method towards deeper and more prolific involvement. --Raidarr (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable request with a sensible use case and made by a trusted user who has JS and CSS knowledge. ✅. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Twinkle has already been de-Wikipediaified, there's nothing more to do there. Although I am the primary person responsible for it there is certainly no reason why any other interface-admin cannot edit the associated pages. But there's not any de-Wikipediaifying or maintenance to do right now, so I'm not sure why that was brought up as an example. Arcversin, if there is something not working with Twinkle, any reason why it has not been brought up to me or somewhere else in a public forum I could have seen it in beforehand? Naleksuh (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Twinkle is working just fine, I believe Doug was just using that as an example since it's pretty well known. — Arcversin (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Can OrangeHoney be added as a gadget
Can this be added as a gadget? (i will add more to it) It's basically a lite version of MoreMenu (not inspired by MoreMenu at all). MoreMenu has small and incorrectly aligned text in some labels for some reason, so this fixes it.

(why is Move the only one with big text?)  Anpang 📨 10:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed a security exploit (Cross-site scripting to be exact) in the script you linked, specifically, the URL of the current page wasn't being escaped before inserting it into the page to be used as a purge link. This would allow someone's account to be hijacked if they clicked on a specifically crafted link. — Arcversin (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh.  Anpang 📨 01:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Woman Zeke making legal threats
In Special:RequestWikiQueue/23290, User:Woman Zeke made legal threats towards Miraheze and/or his fellow editors. — Arcversin (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While it is clear that it's a legal threat, it's very vague/non-specific and doesn't seem serious at all. Therefore, I don't think it's currently necessary to add more to your response on the request for them to stop. If they continue or escalate that could be dealt with then. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 16:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Reception123. This is just trolling, in my view. If the user continues to create nonsense wiki requests, they can be blocked for a period of time, along with a final warning, not to engage in spamming the wiki request queue. Dmehus (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense considering this wasn't made within the context of a BLP article or similar. — Arcversin (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking to Agent Isai privately regarding that account the other night, and it looked pretty odd. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In reply to DarkMatterMan4500's comment, it's indeed odd that this account was created nearly a year ago to the day, but has made almost no global edits until recently and only just recently demanded Miraheze create a wiki for them, not specifying what their wiki is about or really, well, anything. I have to wonder if it's a sleeper sockpuppet of someone, but no idea who.
 * In reply to Arcversin's comment, yes, that's absolutely true, but also if it were a serious enough legal threat, we have the Trust and Safety team that review complaints, assess their legitimacy, and respond accordingly. Dmehus (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the flag for MirahezeBots
Could any bureaucrat kindly remove the  flag from MirahezeBots on Meta Wiki, in line with the Bots discretionary guideline page? The bot is clearly not active on Meta Wiki, having made fewer than five (5) edits, and no log actions, in the preceding twelve (12) calendar months, the most recent of which was more than six (6) months ago? Even if it were suddently active again, this level of activity does not qualify, in my view, for, or does not necessitate having its edits suppressed from RC. Dmehus (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Note I have separately ✅ the  flag it'll require to update its OAuth consumers. This should be sufficient, consistent with Void-bot. Thanks. Dmehus (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

News section
Can admins add:

to the News section of the main page, and archive
 * March 2022: Miraheze now has 6,000 wikis!

Silicona (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * December 2019: Miraheze upgraded to MediaWiki 1.34!