Meta:Babel/Archives/2012-04
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Local account locking
While we do have a global account locking system, I've discovered a way that local account locking can sorta be implemented. For technical details, see mw:User:Jasper Deng/Account locking. This would be very effective for fighting (LTA) socks, especially when a steward isn't immediately available to lock the accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Whilst this looks to be some interesting code and possible feature, the main reason that global account locking is done is for that exact purpose - to stop LTAs using their SUL account across multiple wikis and vandalising on all of them. Would I be correct in saying that this local account lock would stop them from only being able to login on that particular wiki? If so, then blocking would usually suffice. The Helpful One 00:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's just a stopgap measure that can be used before a steward is available to lock the account.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so it's effectively the same as a local block (but a little bit stronger)? The Helpful One 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, with the added effect of disallowing things like DDOS-via-preferences/purge. The setup I have is basically the same as the hardest-possible-block (sans autoblock) with the added effect of not allowing even the reading of any pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need to be logged in to read pages on the majority of our wikis? The Helpful One 00:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The special pages are the ones I was after with that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need to be logged in to read pages on the majority of our wikis? The Helpful One 00:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, with the added effect of disallowing things like DDOS-via-preferences/purge. The setup I have is basically the same as the hardest-possible-block (sans autoblock) with the added effect of not allowing even the reading of any pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so it's effectively the same as a local block (but a little bit stronger)? The Helpful One 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's just a stopgap measure that can be used before a steward is available to lock the account.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I guess what THO is getting at, which I sort of agree with, is that I don't particularly see a use-case for this. Especially since it would be for just one wiki. Killiondude (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then again, it does have its uses. One use could be that if this happens on 2/3 or more wikis, a steward bot could automatically lock the account globally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Bots and locking accounts globally doesn't sound like a good idea, there's too much potential for false positives and disruption if the script breaks. There are usually enough stewards on for someone to respond relatively quickly from my experiences on IRC. The Helpful One 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- ...but many local sysops don't use IRC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Bots and locking accounts globally doesn't sound like a good idea, there's too much potential for false positives and disruption if the script breaks. There are usually enough stewards on for someone to respond relatively quickly from my experiences on IRC. The Helpful One 01:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then again, it does have its uses. One use could be that if this happens on 2/3 or more wikis, a steward bot could automatically lock the account globally.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- A solution in search of a problem, stewards are available quickly in #wikimedia-stewards, anybody can join there thru the webchat. If there are no stewards, then we should elect more, but I don't see that as being the case currently. Snowolf How can I help? 02:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- What problem?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- My point precisely :) Snowolf How can I help? 03:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- What problem?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Category:Unfree images
Meta-Wiki does not have an exemption policy. All the images at Category:Unfree images are copyright violations that ought to be deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- If Meta-Wiki doesn't allow unfree images, wouldn't it be a good idea to remove local upload? Free images should be on Commons anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, the page Meta:Copyrights needs either to be updated or deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Basically I agree but the experiences suggest it might be prudent to have a room for local uploading. For instance, I saw external people who got involved in a past Wikimania (i.e. potential partner) bid upload photos to meta, not commons. They were not necessarily Wikimedia savvy and it might have been inconvenient for them to go to Commons and meta and hence might be discouraging. Meta serves maintenance and administration, not daily editing. I agree on that those unfree images should be properly licensed or deleted in a long term, but in a short term, specially in case their right holder uploaded them, I think some lack of information can be tolerable in expectation to sort out finally: we don't expect all same mind people from the external of this community are as Wikimedia savvy as we wikiholics. --Aphaia (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, the page Meta:Copyrights needs either to be updated or deleted. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open
1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)