Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration/Archive 5

DPL upgrade

DPL is at version 1.8.6 [1], has several potentialy useful bugfixes and a significant possibility of performance change with the new catching function. Backsword 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One could have hoped for a bit more response, however unexiting version upgrades are. Backsword 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am always in favor of upgrades. -- Wyn talk 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? --Antioch 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief list of what is fixed and changed and their specific impact here might help with the evaluation. I'm sure the details are available somewhere, but what they will do for this site will be unique to our particular situation. There should also be an evaluation for applying it to GW2W... --Max 2 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename or merge user accounts

Renameuser and User Merge and Delete would be useful, or at least nice, extensions to have, I think. The first one essentially renames an existing account to a new account (that doesn't exist beforehand) and optionally moves userpages too, while the second merges two existing accounts together. Both retroactively update histories, and contributions are moved/merged as applicable.

Some added flexibility and choice for users in regards to their account names would be useful and save effort - instead of having to create accounts, change preferences, move pages, confirm emails, and all that, a bureaucrat could simply go to a special page and job done. Since users have changed account names in the past, and I know some users might want to do that in the future (myself included), I think they'd be worth installing. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also! This could be used to sort out things like the Raptors-Entropy situation on GW2W - I think both extensions can delete the old (i.e. the moved) account, meaning it can be re-registered. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tested both extensions with Brains some moments ago and both worked fine; the Renameuser extension is also used on all Wikimedia wikis. I could imagine a similar (but easier) system as they use, to request renames/merges. We could make it similar to the Editing bots project page, where people can add their requests and prove that both accs are owned by one person (in case of merges). The bureaucrats would then, based on their discretion - similar as with the approval of bot flags - accept or decline those requests. Especially in case of multiple renamings they could so easily say no (I would not like to overpolicy this then).

So yes, I would support installing both extensions to add convenience to users and allow easier attribution for multi-accounts. poke | talk 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I support that rename user should be installed in the case of my username it needs to be changed due to...reasons I will not mention. Dominator Matrix 00:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently adopted a new username, and would be very interested of merging my old username with my new one. --Arduin 11:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would expect stricter critera than 'one persons wishes' in order to move or merge a user against that persons wishes. Backsword

My primary concern would be if this is needed. Just having an extention comes with a cost. If sufficent need can be demonstrated, I see no other reason to not install. Backsword 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why "stricter criteria than 'one persons wishes'" should be necessary. This whole thing is so that if someone wishes to change their username, they can in a way that allows them to maintain their contributions. I mean, ask Brains why he proposed this in the first place.... -- Wyn talk 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not to have this, but it shouldn't be abused willynilly, but I suppose it would be up to the BCrats on who gets a merge or not. --Antioch 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Atleast this user might have use for this. I bet there are others as well. This would be a really nice feature to have in this wiki. Only problem, though not a big one, might be the recognizing the people who've been here a long time and they're accepted to change their name. But i think people can get over it. - J.P.Talk 21:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Pling would really appreciate this too. --snograt 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably why :D --snograt 21:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please save the poor Brain12. - J.P.Talk 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stricter criterias or any criterias at all are really not necessary, as everything would be up to the discretion of the bcrats. So every user who wants a change should reason it the way they want to convince the bcrats. If there are personal reasons or not doesn't really matter. And I would suggest having recent name changes listed somewhere (CP?) so that everybody knows which name changed to whom. Also old names should generally keep a redirect. poke | talk 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone owns an account, and wants it renaming, I totally fail to see why there should be any criteria. If it's completely inappropriate for some reason (can;t think of any, but meh) then the crats won't do it. Agree with poke here. Ale_Jrb (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(Completely unrelated, but just an example for an inappropriate request: "I want to change my name to 'Brainsl2', so I look like Brains12." - that would be really bad and just quickly being objected by the bcrats :P) poke | talk 23:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If an account is merged or renamed with one of these extensions, is the old account name still tied up, or can someone else swipe it? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like poke's idea to keep redirects, it's almost like the situation we have already. I mean users like Eloc Jcg who has redirect account named only as Eloc. And DrogoBoffin has Drogo and Drogo Boffin as his redirects. I think merging users to single user should release the deleted users for other to use. Of course merging the contributions etc. that comes along with this are good to have, but i don't like the idea of leaving redirects behind... - J.P.Talk 10:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point of the redirects. If I had a name like DrogoBoffin and I wanted user:Drogo to redirect to my page, I would create that account specifically to have the redirect. I wouldn't edit from it or care about its single contribution of making the page a redirect, so this account merge thing wouldn't happen. The extension is a tool for people who want to change their account name (the one they edit from) or merge accounts they've edited from. Redirects from shorter/easier names will still exist, and have absolutely nothing to do with this extension.

Even if I merged User:Drogo and User:DrogoBoffin to preserve contributions, I'd probably recreate User:Drogo just for the redirect. -Auron 10:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i got it. - J.P.Talk 11:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The renameuser extension changes the name of the account, so effectively the 'old' account is left open for anyone to register. Mergeuser has the option of deleting the account which has been merged into another (so if I merged User:A into User:B, I could delete User:A). -- Brains12 \ talk 12:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I that case, I believe the mergeuser extention would be a better option. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears there is a serious bug with this wiki, as the words "against that persons wishes" in my previous statementappears to have become invisible to several users. Backsword 05:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So, do you really think the bcrats would rename somebody against that users wishes? That's hilarious. poke | talk 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean there, Backsword. "in order to move or merge a user against that persons wishes." -- do you mean that we should be able to move someone without their permission? If so, the old discussion-consensus method will always work, and bureaucrats could use their discretion if they find that the community wants such a move. However, I can only think of one situation where this might have to be applied (and I have to stress that might). -- Brains12 \ talk 13:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought it up yourself, and it is clearly something that can be done, there would need to be some sort of rule about it. I could easily see a scenario where a popluar users asks a bcrat to give them a name that is registerd but appears unused. There is also the case with someone having an established edit history when their name is found to be unsuitable. Requiring concensus for each specific case may work, I don't think a specific procdure needs to be laid out, given that it should be a rare occurance. Backsword 05:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it will be installed any time soon ^^ - J.P.Talk 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been installed already (happened with the update), but it's undergoing some... testing (check my sandbox for details). -- Brains12 \ talk 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuke (Mass delete)

Nuke could come in handy for those situations where massive vandals result in the need to wipe pages. (Massive ad-attack for example). It is beta, but is used on enough wikimedia sites to be considered safe. So yay or nay? Dominator Matrix 00:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a single instance since the wiki started where this might be useful. Correct me if I am wrong. I just don't see any need for something like this if there has been no need in the past. --Lemming 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a sibling mass delete. That could be useful to, but only sending ideas here. Dominator Matrix 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that whilst sysops are entrusted to have deletion powers, their accounts are still open to hack attempts, or just plain psychological breakdown! :) Having a tool that allows easy mass deletion just makes it worse if either of those happens. In this situation you then have to weigh the pro's and con's, and unless you can think of a single situation where either of these tools would have been beneficial then I don't see the need for them really. --Lemming 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad we don't remove the tools from sysops when they're not using them to help guard against such a thing. But back on topic (sort of), does installing too many plug-ins slow things down? And to me at least, the ### Drug name bots have been becoming more frequent, so is it possible that mass page spawn attacks could follow? In which case, the tool might prove to be useful after all. --Freedom Bound 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an incredibly weak argument against.

On the other hand, while we've definitely needed this tool in the past, I don't think we'll need it any longer (generally fast response times with bans + account creation log make detecting mass vandals easier). -Auron 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there goes someone using the weak argument to support their bullshit on the wrong talk page. Didn't see that one coming. -Auron 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing that comes to mind when I think "mass deletion" is the move vandal issue we had a while back, but we came up with an effective method to stop that - putting extra restrictions on moves and whatnot. As Auron said, I doubt we'd need it in the future - if we have a mass creation vandal, it doesn't really get any further than making three or four pages. However, I'm not exactly opposed to it, but likewise I'm not for it either. Basically, "meh". -- Brains12 \ talk 00:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We had multiple "mass deletions" in the past already (somebody remembers the Weapon galleries? There were over 1000 images tagged for deletion), or the first run of the historical guild archiving with Wikichu (when there were no sysop rights). All those situations were fun and I wouldn't say we were not able to handle it. With the support of some sysops we were able to delete all those pages in less than a day, and that is completely fine. I doubt we will have related situations in the future; mass deletions would require some community backed decision and in that case where we have a list of pages, we could also simply use Wikichu.

@FreedomBound: Special pages extensions don't slow the wiki noticeably down. poke | talk 07:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the wrong mentality. We should look at prevention, not reaction. Backsword 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Backsword. I think we don't need this, thanks poke's Wikichu and the admins we have. - J.P.Talk 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Editcount

Yes yes, this has been discussed before, but there is no reason not to install this. Mini Me 19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GWWT will never accept. Vili 点 01:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vektor Grafix

→ moved from User talk:Emily Diehl

Oh hai. What're the chances of you letting the wiki accept .svg files? I've been puddling around with Inkscape and I could probably make some GW-related stuff (it'll never get done) if you let us upload them. I've never maintained a wiki, so I assume it's something really easy to change (as in check a box or add ".svg" to a text file easy), but if it's not then don't worry about it. —Jette 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The MediaWiki manual page for doing so suggests that some work is involved in getting it working, but it might be worth it. We could probably ask Biro to upload SVGs of the various icons he's done rather than have 3 different sizes. - Tanetris 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the page, I didn't know where it's "supposed" to go but I know Emily is the wiki's mom, so I just put it there. Biro actually did upload .svgs, but they aren't on the wiki itself. Lemme find that page... oh, here it is. —Jette 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No comments on this?  :< Come on, I have a 200mb copy of Illustrator collecting dust, and clogging up my context menu. Bloody Adobe. I'm beginning to think the rootkits that come with the modified pirated versions would be better than this... —Jette 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with this. I have some (crappy) svg's too :3. If there's a consensus here, we should create a request page and let Emily/Anet handle it from there. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you guys are cool with it I am. I doubt that many people watch this page anyway, and I can't imagine how it could be a bad thing -- SVG files are smaller, scalable, and supported by just about every modern browser. We might be able to get Wikichu or another bot to replace some of Biro's graphics with the svg versions, which I can go dig up now, in case Emily wants to handle it. I'll put a request on the page. —Jette 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being against it but images are cached whenever you use on on a page. Whenever the size you display is different from the original size a thumbnail is created and stored on the server, so that wouldn't change just by using SVGs. Additionally most of the icons we use are not really useable as SVGs simply because they are optimized to their published size (such as the profession icons which got optimized to the sizes they are uploaded in), so we couldn't use one "general" svg for all instead. poke | talk 20:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The beauty of vector graphics is that you can resize it all you want and it won't lose detail. There's no such thing as optimizing vector graphics for a given size as it would look just as good in any size. You could make it 16x16 and it would still be as crisp. What might gimp it is that MediaWiki makes PNG-versions of any SVGs in use, for the sizes in use (which I believe is what poke was saying.) Eg, if you were to use a SVG with a 16px width in once place and 32px width in another, MediaWiki would make two PNGs with the respective sizes and send requested one to the browser instead of the actual SVG. Also, while sizing down to 16px would not make it blurry or lose detail in any way, the conversion from SVG to PNG could depending on how well MediaWiki does it. I personally don't think it's a problem though, and I don't see why we would be unable to use the SVG instead of the PNGs (except if MediaWiki actually does have crap conversion.) — Galil 22:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vector images can be resized the way you want, but because they are rendered as bitmaps to be displayed, there is a limit in detail that can be displayed, even with vector images. So you definitely have to optimize vector images for special sizes to make them look good in their rendered form. poke | talk 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about mediawikiz, I just make arts. Also, seriously starting to RAEG @ that "we cannot process your edit due to bla bla bla" you get when you preview an edit. —Jette 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gibberbots

Would it be too much to ask for a simple captcha that applies to anonymous and non-autoconfirmed users only? It'd stop our gibberbot problem once and for all. Also, where do those come from and why do we keep getting them? What is their purpose? —Jette 09:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To destroy the wiki!

GuildWiki got a solution am i right? - J.P.Talk 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikia has a blacklist which prevents certain links from being used in edits, plus some other measures I'm not familiar with. But I don't know if that constitutes a "solution", since GWW has always been a much more popular target for vandalism....and I don't think we ever got gibberbots anyway. Vili 点 10:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

looking at Wikia's special:version, they have AntiBot and "AntiSpamInput" (developed by wikai and only v 0.4 so there's not an actual extension available yet), they also have a spam blacklist like Vili said, so you can make it so edits with things on the blacklist can't be saved (such as using lots of <big> tags or linking to certain websites) ~ PheNaxKian 11:10, 18 September 2009

Sure! We don't have gibberbots! - J.P.Talk 11:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous users are actually required to fill in a captcha if they post a link to an non-whitelisted external site here.. poke | talk 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the bots never put an external link, just gibberish.  :/ Hence the name. I wonder what kind of half-assed programmer made these things anyway. No creativity whatsoever. If you want to take down a wiki, you fire a laser at it. —Jette 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to irritate, you do something incomprehensible. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

everyone's favourite subject

So, Checkuser, eh?

Recently, sockpuppetry/alleged sockpuppetry has become an even bigger 'in-thing'. As well as the usual troll-sockpuppetry, it's extending into RfAs, and while I think reasons > people, it's still creating a substantial amount of drama. While it can't inherently resolve them, it can provide more information for Mr Whomever Userchecker to work towards a resolution. Basically, cut down the drama a little and provide some good ol' fashioned justice.

It's installed on all Wikimedia wikis, so it's safe and whatnot. -- pling 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You should get it. At least then you will know who all my socks are. Honestly, a lot of people sock without proxies. Misery 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't know if I'm allowed to throw my 2 cents in here, but I will anyway (I was linked after all). Checkuser is a very useful tool to help guard the site against socking, it prevents a lot of spam/trolling, and can really prevent the whole "oh I'm banned, but I'm still going to contribute" bullshit. It's worth getting, imo. DAMN YOU MISERY! I SWEAR REVENGE! Karate Jesus 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this ---) [2]. So it'd be helpful towards the sysops , admins, etc. Except with the reasoning that there are others that live in same home. Unfortunate for me, the ip/isp erm router doesn't do a sub thing for husband's computer and mine. While he does get on wiki, Thankfully, he doesn't post to it or i'd be 'accused' of another 'sock'. I think it should be used towards those that do vandalising, etc. Moreso, harm than good. -- riyen ♥ 21:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As said, I don't care; request it if you like :) However one thing: Who'll get the rights? Only bcrats? poke | talk 07:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer it be a separate usergroup. There are some people I wouldn't mind as bcrat who I wouldn't really trust with checkuser. If/when we get the tool, we could have a separate request for checkuser or something - the process doesn't matter to me much, just that we get the tool. -Auron 07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or bcrats get the rights per default and other sysops per bcrat discretion and request.. poke | talk 07:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious but... what would be really the problem with giving access to all sysops? I don't see how it could be abused more than any other sysop tool.

Maybe just make a special page a la sysop discretion log (admin view only) where you can keep track of any action taken based on the extension, so you guys can police yourselves.--Fighterdoken 07:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I know on PvX there is a built in log for checkuser so you can see everyone who has been checkuser'd if you have it. Misery 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a whole lot of bureaucracy around it - the log will suffice. As to who gets it, I was thinking bureaucrats and sysops. -- pling 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks useful. I say do it, if people try to abuse it for some amazingly stupid reason then they lose the right to use it. And I'll flip out and change my IP again. –Jette 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? is socking now going to be illegal? or is this just to be used in cases of disruption/ban avoidance? -- Wyn talk 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The latter. I'm hoping that if the people with access to checkuser stumble (or otherwise) upon a non-disruptive sockpuppet, they'll keep it private. On wiki and off. -- pling 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, ideally, this would be used only when a user is being an ass and the admin blocking him/her has reason to believe he/she will try to come back to the website. We could create a policy that allows for a little administrative discretion, but largely can only be used either A) while blocking or B) after a consensus by the community if it needs to be used on something else, for some weird reason. –Jette 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Or by request, to prove I am not Pling's sock I could ask to be checkuser'd for example. Although I'd expect Tanetris to not reveal that I am in fact Wynthyst's sock at that point. Misery 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are some cases where blocks wouldn't be involved, like the ones above. However, I don't like the idea of a policy categorically 'allowing' or 'disallowing' its use, or 'allowing' admins discretion to use it (which seems to me to be a little contradictory). To me, that seems like we're starting off by disallowing it all, then giving a few exceptions. Considering we haven't been able to apply the tool yet, and we don't know the full extent of when and how the tool can be used, making a policy allowing or disallowing its use is premature and, well, not a good idea. I'm reminded a bit of admin and blocking policies, and they weren't perfect. -- pling 15:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I was referring more to a "we could" in the event people got all butthurt about privacy. –Jette 15:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"We could create a policy that allows for a little administrative discretion" - Uhm, we hopefully don't need a policy to explain that admins have discretion to begin with... poke | talk 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We already have such policy in any case. A new one would be redundant really.--Fighterdoken 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support adding checkuser, and would be fine with bureaucrats and sysops having it. I'd also be ok with a separate usergroup, depending on how that's handled. – Emmett 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any valid arguments against having Checkuser. I can see why Auron is against giving all sysops this tool (and I quite agree), but it does have the potential to stop quite a bit of drama. NuVII 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections. There is no artistic merit or license to be had in socking that couldn't be achieved better with some other form of character presentation where-in the audience is "let in on the joke" beforehand. --ilr 23:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't stop the 'drama' as trolls will find ways, but it will stop them from 'accussing' people of 'socketry', etc. It would show the proof needed and basically, 'put a sock' in someone's mouth. It would help Administrators to judge on bans, etc. and determine the results needed to do what they need to. It would be more of a benefit than harm to this community. -- riyen ♥ 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hey look, I made an irony sandwich. Karate Jesus 19:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I oppose checkuser on the grounds that people will find out that I'm Emily Diehl. elix Omni 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's cool, I'm James Phinney. ;o You guys are totally getting trolled with GW2, btw. –Jette 22:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser? Sure. No problem. --Dominator Matrix 22:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely add it ^_^--Unendingfear 05:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been installed. So far, the bureaucrats and Poke have it, but I'd imagine it'll be extended when there's consensus or something. As I said before, I'm hesitant to surround policy/bureaucracy around it - however, it should still be noted somewhere for informative purposes, possibly at GWW:ADMIN, that (certain?) sysops/bureaucrats are able to check IPs and account usage. -- pling 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, i still support that all admins have access to it. The tool is not more potentially dangerous than any other available, and by being elected we already are trusting admins with not misusing them.

Regarding bcrats, it could be useful for certain cases, but i guess Auron is right on the point he makes, so maybe only grant them access when arbcomm is running.--Fighterdoken 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Who should have the rights?

New section cuz I want it that way.

I'm in favor of allowing all sysops checkuser rights along with bureaucrats, unless if there are some arguments against. NuVII 20:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

^ -- pling 22:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- FreedomBound 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

^ --Dominator Matrix 00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

All sysops and Bureaucrats should have this as it shouldn't be a special section of it's own as seen here. -- riyen ♥ 02:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why admin discretion wouldn't work. I'm perfectly fine with giving all admins Check user status. I'd also prefer to have a log of some sort, and, if all sysops get it, doing a quick checkuser when an account is banned should be standard procedure to root out circumvention. — Why 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

checkuser has an in build log (only viewable by those with checkuser =p). I would imagine that should suffice. ~ PheNaxKian 11:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good enough. Power to the sysops! — Why 15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite.php

I've already placed a RFC, but I thought I should cross-post it here. Should we put forward a community request for cite.php? Please discuss it at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration/Cite or Cite.php rather than on this talk page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)