Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2012-13

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search
Attribution note - this page was created by copying relevant text from Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki and pasting it here. Therefore, for attribution, check the edit history of that article, thanks.
NOTE: this Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2012-13 page is an archive
of older discussions. Please place new comments on the
currently active talk page of this archive, thanks!

— * 2012—2013 * —

Might need a IP range block

There is an anonymous user that is vandalizing the site. They have done so from two IP addresses in this range: 216.66.128.0 - 216.66.207.255. Is it possible to place a range ban on these IPs? TeraS 21:08, 16 April 2012 (PDT)

Okay, I've had enough and I used the nuclear option on the anonymous user that has been causing mass attacks on the site. I've banned their IP range for one year as a temporary measure. Further action or modification I leave for Mark to decide on. TeraS 15:04, 17 April 2012 (PDT)

Universal Edit Button on mainpage

The main page features the Universal Edit Button for Firefox, but that extension is no longer supported (it was unsupported more than 1 year ago). You may want to remove it from the main page. --Ciencia Al Poder 13:11, 13 April 2012 (PDT)

I'll leave Mark to decide on this happening or not. TeraS 12:05, 4 May 2012 (PDT)

Firefox has been changing so rapidly that I have not put the effort to find someone to upgrade the button. Chrome button is working - so maybe just highlight that for now? Best, MarkDilley

Recentchanges accesskey

A sysop should edit MediaWiki:Sidebar and change this:

  • recentchanges-url|RecentChanges

to this:

  • recentchanges-url|recentchanges

That way it uses MediaWiki:Recentchanges, so it will display the proper localized text for every language and the link will automagically have the accesskey (r). Edit MediaWiki:Recentchanges if you want the link title to remain "RecentChanges". Thanks! --Ciencia Al Poder 13:17, 13 April 2012 (PDT)

So done. TeraS 12:02, 4 May 2012 (PDT)
Thanks! ~~ MarkDilley

split resources into two sections in the sidebar

I just split the resources sections into two sections. Hope this is ok. If not - just revert. Cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2012 (PDT)

Great! Love the separate section for the help pages (and thanks for fixing my help language errors). Should the 'Recent Changes' be in the toolbox section rather than the community section. And can the orange 'refresh' be toned down a little - I feel it is a little overpowering at the moment. :-/ Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 07:10, 26 September 2012 (PDT)
Cool that you like it. I think that Mark wants to have "Recent changes" in that spot. That's why I did not change this. I just changed the colour of the purge button to something less striking. However, if you feel that it still should be changed you may adjust the background colour. Cheers --[[kgh]] (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2012 (PDT)
For me, Recent Changes is where community has grown. To see what everyone is doing, it is pretty inspiring. Ultimately, I would like to talk via Recent Changes, using the summary affordance. Best, MarkDilley

It's happening again

Well, it appears that the individual who was vandalizing the site in March of this year is at it again. I've blocked their user account, but I suggest that Admins watch for the next while as I am sure they will return again. TeraS (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2012 (PDT)

And again it happened. I have protected several critical pages to stop editing as a result. Is it possible to restrict editing by new users? Say max of 10 pages or something? Just an idea... TeraS (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2012 (PDT)
I think no. But MediaWiki contains the option to add them manually to the editors group (this is currently - and by default - done automatically). But then, some admins have to observe the RSS feed for newly registered users and then, just after enabling them (for editing), watch them... It's also just an idea... --Wolf | talk 05:42, 30 September 2012 (PDT)
Actually, I've seen wikis implement edit throttles for non-autoconfirmed (new) users, the user is only allowed to make a certain amount of edits within a certain period of time. I think that would be a better idea then having the admins manually authorize each and every new account created. Elassint 30 September 2012
This makes me curious. Is it done by a regular MediaWiki extension? Can you point on this example wiki, any further description? --Wolf | talk 06:44, 30 September 2012 (PDT)
I liked edit throttling - will see if I can dig up anything on it. (Thanks for pinging me on this Wolf Best, MarkDilley

I really think that we need to look at appropriate MediaWiki keyword filter extensions. I briefly raised this issue here. Personally, I'm not sure that total 'open editing' is compatible with our current protection against spammers/vandals - in our current software config. Yes, we do have active sysops who can help out - but I'm sure that after our latest bombardment, and the gallant efforts of TeraS - this is likely to lead to grumpy sysops . . . because we seem to be constantly 'fire-fighting', rather than letting the software do the work for us. WikiIndex should not be used for blatant promotion of religious opinions, sexual disfunction drugs, or financial help products (unless they are clearly referring to an established and fuctional wiki). Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 06:49, 30 September 2012 (PDT)

On a related note, WikiIndex's system administrators should really install the CheckUser extension and give bureaucrats/administrators/a new group access to the Check user special page (the privacy policy may need to be adjusted), because right now, it's all too easy for a vandal to register multiple accounts from the same IP address and vandalize. With the CheckUser extension installed & properly configured, administrators (or other privileged users) can get the user's underlying IP and ban it in case of persistent vandalism.
For this particular vandal, blocking the IP range 216.66.0.0/16 might help. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2012 (PDT)
Thanks for your thoughts Jack. I think I blocked the IP range OK (here - did I do it correctly?). I'm only a sysop, so I don't think I can access the relevant IP tools to check these types of features. Can you recommend any specific MW extensions we can use to block specific words or phrases - for both username creation, and body text editing? AbuseFilter, as recommended by Elassint here looks promising, but it appears way to complicated for me :( Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 07:29, 30 September 2012 (PDT)

I think words / phrases / websites can be blacklisted, will that help right now? MarkDilley

Our current system is 'reactive', and relies on crats with specific expertise on editing said blacklist AFTER we have been bombarded (of which I have no expertise, and other sysops which do appear to have, arn't crats). But as we are at the moment, I don't see how we can blacklist 'usernames' . . . . JugglingTooManyBalls.com :p Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 08:49, 30 September 2012 (PDT)
I agree, but that is the system we have now. Look forward if we can come up with a plan of action - preferably Meatball:SoftSecurity. (I still don't know what the difference is between a bureaucrat and sysop - much prefer flat wiki with way less the control being wielded with MediaWiki) - Best, MarkDilley
On MediaWiki, it is detailed at Special:ListGroupRights. Basically, a bureaucrat is basically the top-tier level of management - and obviously have by far the greatest range of controls of the wiki site. Sysops are the next level down, and obviously have less controls (sysops can protect pages, delete pages, block users, and edit the MediaWiki namespace - but not much more). Sysops have no way of interrogating say blocks of IP users, sysops can't say re-name user accounts, and sysops have no way of installing software extensions. We really DO need a couple more bureaucrats here . . . my nominations are still for TeraS, emijrp and Jack Phoenix. :-)
Meatball:SoftSecurity goes over my head . . . I'm only experienced in MediaWiki, whereas I suppose 'wiki old-timers' might be more experienced in other wiki engines. OK, I've just re-read the Meatball article. I agree in principle with its sentiments . . . we already assume good faith, along with all the other related values, and we also work 'UnlockedDoors' principle. But they leave us very vulnerable. OK, we have different sysops who operate in different timezones, but if a determined spammer/vandal wishes to flood WikiIndex, a lone sysop can be easily overwealmed (and will often 'spoil' an otherwise constructive editing session for said sysop). 'Peer Pressure' wont stop religious vandals or online loan spammers - they have NO consience! Best, Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 15:37, 30 September 2012 (PDT)

The religious vandal RETURNS again!

It's back - check the Special:Log/newusers - look at 21:48, 29 September 2012 - so dispite me blocking an entire IP range as above, they return yet again. Tera has already blocked the latest creations - but this isn't really acceptable. PLEASE, consider urgently installing an appropriate MW extension to automatically prohibit username creation for specific terms. Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 00:23, 1 October 2012 (PDT)

Just looked at the "spam"

I don't think it is spam. I think it is an attack on the wiki because so many pages are being protected (previous to the "attack"). I agree with the sentiment - obviously not the methods of voice being chosen. Best, MarkDilley

I call it vandalism, repeatedly so Mark, not spam but regardless of that, it was disruptive to the purposes and goals of WikiIndex. It attacked pages that were important to the functioning of the site in several instances as well. The time spent in fixing their attack was substantial and in the end, this sort of action should never occur. Setting that all aside, and yes I understand the desire for an OpenWiki, there has to be a point where some protections are needed. At the minimum we should all understand the function and use of BlackList which can limit the damage. Sorry for this mess Mark and all, at least it was less than it was earlier this year. One other thing that I do not understand, just how do you figure out the IP of a user here? That would be something useful for me to have knowledge of. Anyway, thanks for the support all, best always... TeraS (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2012 (PDT)
'Spam' or 'vandalism' - pedantic, but whatever name-tag you wish to give it, that last episode was forcibly destructive to WikiIndex. And I don't agree at all that "so many pages are being protected" - yes, OK, I personally have protected most of the high-importance templates (but most of the lesser templates have no edit protection). But for the namespace articles, with the exception of the WikiIndex front page, you can probably count on one hand the number of namespace articles which are protected. And I also don't see how protecting pages can increase an attack of spam or vandalism! Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 08:56, 1 October 2012 (PDT)

We need to have a very clear look at this. If you look correctly at the RecentChanges (the 'Recent changes options' days may need to be manually increased in the url to view the full history) - along with the Special:Log/newusers, on 29 September 2012 at 21:48, the prolific religious vandal/spammer created FOUR user accounts within a minute! Surely, that in itself shouldn't be possible with correctly configured MediaWiki software. This user then appeared to lay dormant for four hours - presumably regularly checking the Special:RecentChanges and Special:WhosOnline, and when I had finished for the evening - at 01:54 (UTC) on 30 September 2012, this evil vandal spammed 93 separate pages (some twice), the last one at 06:24 (UTC) - under two different usernames. If you check Special:Log/block, you will see that Tera blocked the first of their usernames - User:ABIDEEN0 at 02:18 (UTC), 30 September 2012 - and there was a brief respite in the spamming. Then at 06:07 (UTC), 30 September 2012 - User:ABIDEEN1 continued spamming in the same prolific manner, until they were blocked by Tera at 06:25 (UTC), 30 September 2012. Two further accounts were blocked by Tera User:ABIDEEN01 (06:57, 30 September 2012) and User:ABIDEEN10 (06:58, 30 September 2012). As a result - a WikiIndex sysop is going to have to manually revert 93 separate articles/talk pages, then apply appropriate protection. Is that really how you want the sysops here to be working ... reverting 93 edits? Tera deserves a medal for battling with that! Sysops have RealLives, and shouldn't be railroaded into all this firefighting - when the software can be configured to do the job for us automatically! Frustratedly yours! Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 08:56, 1 October 2012 (PDT)

Can we maybe a bot to do that? Also, I've created a template to view those info.
  1. ABIDEEN0 (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls)
  2. ABIDEEN1 (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls)
  3. ABIDEEN01 (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls)
  4. ABIDEEN10 (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls)
--YiFei | talk 03:15, 4 May 2013 (PDT)
I've noticed User:ABIDEEN0 first attack Talk:Welcome and then user pages and user talk pages of admins. Why's that? To get notice from them? That's bad for him. --YiFei | talk 19:25, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Maybe we take down the who is online function. Please start a page called Upgrades needed or something to clearly state what you think needs to happen, in terms of software mods / additions. Once we have a plan we can get it implemented. As far as an OpenWiki - what I think may be happening is that a person is vandalizing the wiki because any pages are being protected. So, do we have a fight with that person, who can create accounts as much as they want, or do we put a wet blanket on them? ~~ MarkDilley

I'm not sure taking down the WhosOnline would work in isolation. Anyway, I quite like using that function. Maybe we can restrict it to say Sysops and Autoconfirmed users? Maybe another tweak would be to change the 'Autoconfirmed' to a manual authorisation by a Sysop (or does that need Crat rights?) - can this be changed?
I've created WikiIndex:Upgrades needed - it is only a 'skeleton' at the moment, but from small acorns . . . . :p
OpenWiki - I don't think anyone is doubting or questioning your desire for an open wiki - I think the fact that we are all sticking around and continuing to help grow WikiIndex sorta vouches for our general support to your founding principles. But I'm still failing to understand your logic that protecting pages attracts vandals. That kinda logic may apply to say . . . telling your 13 or 14 year old kids not to take a swig of vodka from the bottle at the back of the parents cocktail cabinet when they are left alone! The recent vandalism is simply a fanatical religious extremist (probably a muslim), who will attack any easy target - such as open edit wikis. As far as protection standards, 'talk' pages should never be protected (at all, IMVHO), namespace pages should never be protected - unless specific pages are actual targets. But high-use or high-importance templates (as recommended here), along with the front page and policy pages should have appropriate protection.
And I'm not sure I understand your wet blanket analogy! But surely, we should be 'one person - one account' (apart from bot accounts). So basically only one username can be created from one IP address. Best, Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 12:23, 2 October 2012 (PDT)

vandalism strategies

Please text me at 313-942-9454 and I can jump in to help ~~ MarkDilley

WikiNode Sidebar link broken

FYI, it's currently pointing at 'INVALID-TITLE' Chris Garner (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for flagging this up - should be fixed now. Hoof Heartedtalk2HH 09:13, 7 October 2012 (PDT)

Wikis visible only when logged in

I notice that some Wikis (including LGBT History UK) don't show up in the list of pages for a particular category/tag when I'm logged out, but do when I 'm logged in. Can you explain this, please? --Ross Burgess (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (PDT)

Which category are you specifically referring to, I am trying to recreate this bug. Best, MarkDilley
Mark, I think Ross was referring to the LGBT History UK article, and probably one of the categories relating to it - maybe Category:LGBT. From my own perspective, I also notice WikiIndex looks very different between when I'm logged in and logged out - a specific example, when logged out, the sidebar reverts to the basic 'default' MediaWiki sidebar (looses the resources and help pages sections). Also the position of the search box changes. Maybe something to do with CSS pages . . . or maybe our local spam whitelist only works when logged in, but when logged out, the blacklist takes over . . . though I am not a programmer, so am just clutching at straws. Best, Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 08:10, 1 November 2012 (PDT)
Weird, I log out and get the same sidebar as logged in... We should try to track the bugs WikiIndex:Bugs. MarkDilley
The sidebar reverting to the MediaWiki default (as opposed to WikiIndex's customized version of the sidebar message) is a bug usually caused by cache failure (i.e. MediaWiki was unable to retrieve the message's contents from memcache or whatever caching system WikiIndex uses). --Jack Phoenix (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Massive spam user creation

I blocked a huge number of spam accounts that were all added within two minutes here. I am wondering if there is a means to stop multiple user creations from the same IP address which appears to have happened.TeraS (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2013 (PST)

Here is some information on range blocks. If we can confirm it is the same IP, then we'd have to apply a range block. Unfortunately, we'd need the checkuser right, which only those with bureaucrat rights can grant. Arcane (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2013 (PST)Arcane
Spamfilter some in mediawiki, something that helps. Regards.- --Csuarezllosa (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2013 (PST)
Is there a way to put a limit on the number of accounts thst can be created during a certian time period from a certian IP? That might help. -ela —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.228.150 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This would be great ~~ MarkDilley

I've been noticing this kind of behaviour on many different MediaWiki sites - and whilst I think the spam-bots have cracked the mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist - I don't think that is our problem. Our MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (along with MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and our local My spam blacklist) works only when someone creates or edits an article whereby their edit contains a URL - this does nothing to prevent account creation.

We really need a couple more extensions specific to account creation, namely mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist, mw:Extension:Bad Behavior and mw:Extension:Check Spambots - but sadly, Mark seems very reluctant to implement any upgrades (and I'm not really sure why) :-( And we also need mw:Extension:Nuke to mass-delete these rogue accounts in one click.

these are discussed on Upgrades page right? ~~ MarkDilley
Not very reluctant, very busy and we at WikiIndex don't have a dedicated developer type person to do it, so to upgrade or do anything under the hood, we have to find that person, anyone out there? hint, hint. ~~ MarkDilley
Ahh - OK - sorry :( - wasn't aware that we didn't have any devs :( I'm certainly not a dev or programmer (just an enthusiastic MediaWiki user!), so I personally can't help. But I can suggest two or three folks here whom are very proficient MW devs, whom all three should be promoted to bureaucrat status here (as a minima) - kghbln, Yaron Koren (thou Yaron seems to be a little dormant recently) and Jack Phoenix (I'm shocked to find that Jack isn't even a Sysop on here!). And I also think that Emijrp should also be prompted to crat (I'm not sure if he is a MW dev per se, but he is simply awesome with his MW bot work and other work such as backup stuff). Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 03:20, 15 April 2013 (PDT)
Many thanks for these ideas. ~~ MarkDilley
On the subject of bureaucrats - I'm not sure why Emufarmers is a crat here, as he isn't exactly contributing to WikiIndex in any meaningful manner at all - see here (click on 'diff' to see exactly what he has contributed - or the lack of!) ... Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 03:20, 15 April 2013 (PDT) (me neither ~~ MarkDilley)
18:09, 22 April 2013 MarkDilley (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Emufarmers from bureaucrat and administrator to (none) (not sure what happened here, looks like a breach in security - Emufarmers2 gave the bureaucrat status, but how?)
Seems User:Enufarmers2 have never been created and never got sysop permissions. See Special:Log/Emufarmers2 and http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AEmufarmers2&year=&month=-1 --YiFei | talk 07:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorted - User:Enufarmers2 now blocked as a sockpuppet. Don't understand how it happened though! Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 03:47, 5 May 2013 (PDT)
Yea, I don't know how that happened, I am assuming there is a security breach, or was - when it was done. ~~ MarkDilley
Ray King pays me to take care of tech stuff for the wikis he hosts (including this one). I don't generally follow discussions here unless he asks me to; I only saw this discussion because someone else notified me about it. Emufarmers (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (PDT)

Arcane is correct when he states only bureaucrats can examine checkuser - which is whats needed to examine IP ranges. And it has been mentioned on a few previous occasions that we need more ACTIVE bureaucrats on this wiki - ideally a bureaucrat for each major timezone (so one from US timezones, one from European timezones, and one from Russian/Asian/Australian timezones) - so for example, whilst the US is asleep, an Aussie or European crat can be on guard. We need crats who are here virtually every day - which is why in the past, I've pushed for TeraS being a crat, Wolf used to be our European crat (but seems to be on a sabatical), and I'm not sure if we have any regular users from Russia/Asia/Aus/NZ.

I am still really fuzzy on what things I can do as a bureaucrat rather than a sysop. ~~ MarkDilley

Another suggestion would be to make registration under real names (without CamelCase) compulsory. I accept that may deter folks, but as it stands at the moment, I have great difficulty in trying to determine the difference between an 'acceptable alias' username, and that of a pure spambot. If forcing real names is not an option, then just ban CamelCase name registration, ban underscore, special characters and numbers in username registration - if someone desparately wants to be known by fancy characters and the likes, they can overcome that by creating a signature in their profile, or even creating a new user page with an incoming redirect. Maybe if we had mw:Extension:Renameuser, then any accounts created could be then subsequently changed to something more preferable to the individual.

I like for people to use real names, however I don't like to force people to do that. ~~ MarkDilley

A final suggestion is to enable confirm e-mail for account creation. Ha-ha . . . I hear my ears burning with Mark's ethos of open editing! Well, we will still have open editing from IP editors (and those have to go through Captcha on every edit they make) - the whole reason spambots create accounts is so that they bypass the edit Captcha. Having to confirm e-mail will virtually eliminate spambot account creation. One big problem with this - something is wrong with the whole WikiIndex e-mail system . . . I've never been able to get e-mail working, and others have also reported this . . .

(-; ~~ MarkDilley

At the end of the day, if the status quo remains, then all of us sysops are effectively just janitors clearing up the crap on a day-to-day basis. My $0.02 / £0.02 worth. Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 14:11, 7 March 2013 (PST)

obviously we don't want to burn people out (more than has already happened) - so will put thoughts on Upgrades page. ~~ MarkDilley
E-mailing features not working as intended is obviously a bug and one that should be fixed as soon as possible. While requiring e-mail confirmation (from some or all users) is a good idea and in no way against the spirit of "everyone can edit", it should be noted that spambots and/or their human operators are very much capable of confirming (obviously single-purpose, spam-only) e-mail addresses. It should come to no surprise that most spambots use free e-mail services, such as GMail, Hotmail or Outlook (dot com); therefore requiring users of these services (for example) to confirm their e-mail address would be a rather good idea and one I'd definitely support. Just don't think it's a magical fix to all of our spam issues because well, it isn't. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

RecentChanges is just looking like a spammed wiki! :( --YiFei | talk 11:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Incoming traffic

I don't know if Alexa.com has a window on the cause of our spam issue??? Open this link, then click on the 'Clickstream' tab. It basically states the two most significant sites people were viewing before they visitied WikiIndex.org. One of those was MediaWiki.org (no problems with that site), and the other was 'GasyMagnifik.com' - which is a French SEO site (look at its traffic analysis on Alexa - interesting to note the 'webmaster rank' and other SEO sites - both upstream and downstream, and also its demographic). Is there anything we can do to stop incoming traffic from gasymagnifik.com ??? Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 04:43, 8 March 2013 (PST)

Looks like their post www.GasyMagnifik.com/des-wiki-et-des-backlinks-une-histoire-de-seo.html – "The wiki backlinks: A History of SEO" – has a link to us... ~~ MarkDilley
Interesting .... is there any way to add something like "nofollow from gasymagnifik.com" (or similar)? It's also interesting that they link to us via a hyperlink, yet for WikiMatrix they just have a plain-text (non-hyperlink) url – and WikiMatrix get considerably less spam than us. Oh, I removed the above hyperlink - don't want any more potential spam from them! Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmintalk2HH 02:05, 15 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't think so. Most Chinese can't understand German (which includes me). --YiFei | talk 07:40, 4 May 2013 (PDT)
Now it's google and Wikipedia. --YiFei | talk 19:41, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css and .js

Do you think MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.js necessary? Now, the default skin is Vector, not Monobook. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Of course. It's not like either of those pages are doing any harm by sitting there. Besides, I use MonoBook. Elassint 16 April 2013
Then I think it is a good idea to move them to pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js since some of us use Vector.--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (PDT)
Naturally those two pages are necessary as there might be a good reason to implement some CSS or JS that is specific to the Monobook skin...but alas, the current content of those two pages should probably be moved to their appropriate Common equivalents. The MediaWiki:Monobook.js page implements the redirect button for the editing mode (action=edit) and MediaWiki:Monobook.css has some button styles and whatnot, some of which may be Monobook-specific. Thoughts? --Jack Phoenix (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

NAMESPACENUMBER

This is better for Template:NAMESPACENUMBER (with more existing namespaces, info from mw:Extension default namespaces):

15 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Never mind. It's not needed anymore. --YiFei | talk 06:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Noarticletext

This works (the first link originally broken):

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

Or try if there's any similar titled page: no page(s) found --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks for the report, I've fixed the search link in that system message! --Jack Phoenix (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Why not an interface for the complex scripting languages

Hi. I'm Brahfous from Algeria. We like your Wiki. We speak French and some English but we speak mainly arabic. We'd like to collaborate and share the site in Algeria and in the arab scripting countries like Iran, Pakistan, etc...

Can you create an interface (common if it's not possible for one language, i.e: cxs.wikiindex.org) for complex scripting languages ​​like Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Armenian etc. ... It would be more convenient and economic to edit in these languages.

Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brahfous (talkcontribs) 14:11, 10 May 2013‎ (UTC)

See WikiIndex:Upgrades needed#General housekeeping and there's why in mw:Extension:Translate. :( --YiFei | talk 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We had in the past created a German site for WikiIndex, I believe, de.WikiIndex.org [1] - is that what you are asking for? ~~ MarkDilley

an interface like that

Yes I meant an interface like that but only for the complex scripts (Right to Left scripts) not for the Left-to-Right scripts like German or russian etc. It's easily possible... Brahfous (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2013 (PDT)

Could you set up a section on the Upgrades page to describe what subdomain you want and how the wiki can be configured for right to left? Best, MarkDilley

Logo size

Is there a standard maximum size for a wiki logo? I've just created TranzWiki but the logo I've uploaded seems much too big: should I upload a smaller version, or is there a way of controlling the size as displayed, like "thumb" on Wikipedia? Ross Burgess (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

About 100 to 200 px, like http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=TranzWiki&diff=170327&oldid=170319. --YiFei | talk 22:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Define "standard". :-) Wiki engines and skins are different, but most MediaWiki installations use either the Monobook or Vector skin (as those are available out-of-the-box) and the standard logo size for those skins is either 135 × 155 px or 150 × 150 px. Other custom skins may require different logo dimensions, but due to the complex nature of MediaWiki's skinning system, the majority of MediaWiki users won't even bother thinking of writing their own skin system. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Misleading number of pages

The TranzWiki page again. I've quoted the number of pages as 125, to agree with http://gires.org.uk/tranzwiki/index.php/Special:Statistics - but the actual number of pages (not including talk pages, redirects, etc) seems to be much more than this (I've counted up to 425 by going through the "Popular pages" route). Any suggestions as to what could be going on? Ross Burgess (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

It's probably related to the way how articles are counted, i.e. what qualifies as a valid article. See mw:Manual:$wgUseCommaCount and its modern-day equivalent, mw:Manual:$wgArticleCountMethod. Simply put, in order for MediaWiki to consider a page as a valid article, it has to have at least one internal wikilink (that is, with the default settings; you can change this behavior by changing the value of the globals I mentioned earlier). --Jack Phoenix (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like account spam is increasing

What can we do about it? Looks like YiFei has solution for edit spam after account creation... but what is next for this issue? Best, MarkDilley

My solution only block new users (that is with no edit) from creating new pages in User: and User talk: namespaces. I'm not sure whether there there is a smarter solution (some of the spammers don't even edit). --YiFei | talk 10:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we ask to get that upgrade done? ~~ MarkDilley
Well, I proposed the install of the NoBogusUserPages extension on the upgrades page, which should cut the problem down by half according to Jack Phoenix, so we could try that first and see if it helps before doing anything more severe. Arcane (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2013 (PDT)Arcane
Please add or highlight this on the Upgrades page? Best, MarkDilley

Should be better right now. User:Abuse filter is automatically blocking accounts. --YiFei | talk 12:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any kind of guide to using the filter? TeraS (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there's only three ways -- testing, examining and trying to learn the filters of wikimedia projects. I prefer to setup a localhost wiki to do the testing. --YiFei | talk 13:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Abuse Filter is quite a geeky piece of software, but there is some documentatiion about using it on MediaWiki.org; see mw:Extension:AbuseFilter#Abuse filter management and the pages linked there. --Jack Phoenix (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies, I just would like an understanding of how things work, even if I never actually make a filter. Thank you again! TeraS (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The spammers don't even bother to spam us. It would be better if they test my new filters. -YiFei | talk 07:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Change block policy

There seem to be an unwritten policy about blocking every person that does not edit for hours. I wonder if it's useful/correct for the following reasons:

  1. There is no evidence that the person is a spammer.
  2. If they are:
    1. Filter 4 would disallow/block spammers like ChristieP (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls);
    2. Filter 9 would disallow/block spammers like Liffpsype (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls);
    3. Filter 7 and/or 8 would disallow/block spammers like ABIDEEN0 (talk | contribs | deleted | block log | uploads | logs | abuse log | ls);
    4. Even they don't, we can wait until there's evidence.
  3. If they aren't:
    1. Sadness;
    2. Hate;
    3. Never helping our community again.

So I'm requesting to change and write this policy. --YiFei | talk 08:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy that is here at WikiIndex - I do know that several people who regularly patrol RecentChanges block these accounts. I think this is a good discussion to have. Best, MarkDilley

Pre-emptively blocking all accounts registered at a given timeframe does seem outright wrong to me. Thankfully we have tools like CheckUser and LookupUser which can be used to determine who is and who isn't a spambot. Usually spambots share some/all IP addresses, i.e. one IP can be used to register like 10+ user accounts at once. In addition to that, LookupUser (which can be used to view the real name and e-mail address of a registered user account) can help in spotting spambots as they very often use free services (like Gmail, Hotmail, Outlook.com or disposable, one-use mailboxes) with gibberish names; it's probably obvious that nobody's real name is "trbvpLR" and "ichualp5x@[some e-mail provider]" doesn't sound like the e-mail address of a real human being.
Also, we probably should discuss about implementing Manual:$wgEmailConfirmToEdit (i.e. setting $wgEmailConfirmToEdit = true; in the wiki's LocalSettings.php). While spambots sadly can bypass this relatively easily, it would stop the most obvious and laziest spambots. But would it be too much of a nuisance for humans? Personally I think not, as most sites out there require an e-mail and also require you to confirm your e-mail address before the site can be fully used (say, before you can post on a forum, for example)...what are your thoughts on the matter? --Jack Phoenix (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I would like the confirm email before editing option as it would at least slow them down and stop a lot of them I think as well. As for what I have been doing in the past, I haven't banned the accounts on sight but have waited for a time, which varies I admit, before banning them if their usernames and or emails appear on a google search as being spam ones. I also run the accounts through FPSpamlist to see if they come up and if they do, I ban them as to me that is enough proof to prove they are spam. However, if the consensus is not to do so, then I will not. However, I will add that we should be prepared to have to keep up with the new filters and as well be prepared to deal with increased spam appearing here. Nothing is perfect, it never can be, but we should be ready. TeraS (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If we have to confirm email, Sean (if still here) would never be able to edit until he gets his email confirmed (which is not possible right now). Also I don't see how LookupUser would work, most of the spammers' should be blank or the same as the default settings. --YiFei | talk 00:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am curious, have we had spam other than account creation spam since the upgrades and Abuse Filter? Tera, could you add the tools you use before you block an account, I like that idea a lot. Jack can you say a little more how CheckUser and LookupUser work?

For the first question, there's like Category talk:Gay. Most of them are disallowed and recorded in Special:AbuseLog. --YiFei | talk 00:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot get account

Hello, I tried to set up a login tonight but could not get/did not see the captcha so I was not able to complete the login/account. I hope I am putting this in the right spot; I apologize if I've typed this in the wrong area.

You can email lakealice9 at gmail as I probably need to give you my login credentials or find out how to get the captcha.

Thank you in advance for your time, RobinMacI172.242.3.179 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Created, password sent by email. --YiFei | talk 06:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Abuse Filter

It makes sense to me to have the User:Abuse filter as a minor edit - so it is not in Recent Changes. What do folks think? Best, MarkDilley

Symbol support vote.svg Support but how? --YiFei | talk 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)