[08:51:06] Has there been an official Miraheze statement on scraping and/or high-volume usage that I may have missed? [08:51:33] Asking because the other day I had to argue with someone against scraping VLW 💀 [09:05:15] [1/2] There's no concrete policy. We don't allow user agents that impersonate real browsers (leaving contact information in the UA is required so that we can reach the bot operator if needed). We have ratelimiting rules for clients that send too many requests in a short time. We disallow AI scrapers from OpenAI and the like. If someone wants to fetch page content once every 3 second [09:05:16] [2/2] s I don't think we'd have a problem with that unless they do it 24/7. [09:19:39] [1/2] ig that makes sense. For the record I just needed to see if there were ever a statement from the MH team. I don't think the person I argued with is going to scrape VLW (they are a volunteer for another Vocaloid-based volunteer project, the project in question wanted to know if they could sync lyrics with VLW), I alr gave them an alt solution and the lead for the other project (not the [09:19:40] [2/2] volunteer) didn't like the "just scrape VLW" approach lmao [10:00:56] maybe an instructional page that can just be linked instead of needing to explain every so often would be in order [10:49:19] We have https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Tech:User_Agents and we can probably create another page which documents what the tech team does in general. There aren't any concrete numbers or guidelines. Some things that generally fine and some are not, with a pretty big gray area in the middle. [16:40:43] [1/3] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_permissions [16:40:43] [2/3] just performed user close on a request, please check up on it if it was made in error, user barely have any interaction on meta and I don't think I see them on discord here [16:40:44] [3/3] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1225560610628964423/1484592536877138062/99F3EB27-5721-434B-8F2D-7F64F8D25ABD.png?ex=69beca0b&is=69bd788b&hm=2f5bd5a2a6d0c690e976bd1c7f66bb4dff12d7a0384576cf3f4d0d00e08cc35b& [16:41:14] cool [16:41:23] I would've but idk if I was allowed orrrrr [16:41:35] ngl just be bold [16:41:45] im scared...... [16:41:49] if there is something wrong they can just revert it [16:42:39] I've never been punished for trying to make miraheze better by being bold (eg. putting policy banners until a steward told me I should not and reverted themselves, ik it wastes some time for them) [16:43:13] I hope the stewards will allow user closes for requests like this appears in the future, as it is not defined here https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Meta:User_close_policy [16:43:14] I guess [16:45:04] Eeeeeeeeeh, on principle I don’t like closing in the clear face of the UCP, but also since this type of request is often just reverted entirely I don’t have issue with the result [16:45:28] its hard to be bold [16:45:43] people are so intangible at times, you know [16:46:37] I think that's why I haven't applied for WR yet [16:49:57] yeah I really think an rfc is needed to widen up the ucp requirement, it's hard to be bold for some if it's not outlined [16:51:03] we could also ask for a notice on the community board [16:51:22] true [16:51:40] Feel free to raise the topic on CN [16:56:01] fearless you think we could draft an RfC? [17:02:28] it's definitely allowed in the case of a wiki reviewer due to minimum edit count and account age [17:02:37] administrator is a more grey area [17:02:47] we could [17:02:51] i'm just busy rn crys [17:03:01] but i'm happy to take a read when you're done with it [17:03:10] why is it more grey area tho? [17:04:51] oh I'm entirely talking about if you're going by the books, administrator has no minimum requirements so it's more difficult to call, whereas if a user doesn't meet the WR requirements then the request can immediately be closed [17:05:03] true... [17:05:38] it's still obvious enough for me if the request was like this [17:06:26] and plus if 3 users disagree with it, it's closed, so even there is still some grey area, at least it's resolvable [17:44:19] @justanotherdarkmodeuser draft has been started [17:44:27] send link crys [17:44:38] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/User_close_policy_amendments_(2) [17:44:47] i'm uh, busy helping making a wiki for a new game i've just found out rn lol [17:44:59] oh cool [17:45:01] what is it [17:45:08] https://syncblade.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page [17:45:26] will make a proper advertisement in #server-invites later [17:46:00] wow its actually unblocked [17:46:18] you're using timeless? [17:46:56] huh? what do you mean [17:48:00] the skin I mean [17:48:04] are you planning to use timeless [17:48:26] I've just created it, so give me some time to figure things out [17:48:30] I'll read the draft [17:49:00] its not very good yet [17:50:43] [1/2] add the examples of not having enough edits on meta/account isn't old enough [17:50:43] [2/2] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1225560610628964423/1484610152236580915/4B6C9BA8-60EF-4390-96A4-0AEACD00EB2C.png?ex=69beda73&is=69bd88f3&hm=15158f77289a05e59a788808b9a83f2162b2638449b2d7e7d6e915c2c3b4410c& [17:51:03] the examples? [17:52:14] [1/4] I meant add more examples to this part [17:52:14] [2/4] something like [17:52:14] [3/4] "such as a malformed request with no reason given, account doesn't have enough edits, or the account isn't old enough" [17:52:15] [4/4] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1225560610628964423/1484610531896852562/1F8379D1-4285-4882-925C-9AD9C55506B8.png?ex=69bedacd&is=69bd894d&hm=3c26e6cff1a770fce3468568e58f9e539903fae4c1561a151f1ef444298fe458& [17:52:34] whats that attachment you're sending [17:52:41] school PC can't open [17:52:50] 😭 [17:53:07] which proposal [17:53:12] 1A or 1B [17:53:13] attachment is the first proposal [17:53:17] 1a [17:53:35] i thought images would be sent, good 2 know [17:54:14] but 1A's thing is that if its wiki reviewer and its obviously malformed autoconfirmed/confirmed can close instanely [17:54:31] just adding more examples so the argument is stronger [17:55:04] whereas 1B is just if for Wiki Reviewers age+edit requirement is not fulfilled even if there is a reason autoconfirmed/confirmed can close instanely [17:55:11] instanely [17:55:48] oh yeah, I forgot about that part, it's 1 am so pardon the degraded performance [17:56:05] SLEEEEEEEEEEEp [17:56:08] ppspsasdaz [17:56:10] ZZZZZZZZ [17:56:12] zzzzzz [17:56:48] "but user does not have minimum edit + age requirement any autoconfirmed/confirmed user can close per policy" honestly I'm kind of on edge about this because of @_arawynn's WR nomination request https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_permissions [17:57:40] <_chrs_> some thoughts re the RfC idea [17:57:41] true [17:57:45] yeah go ahead [17:58:19] gonna sleep now, checking tmr [17:58:24] i have an exam tmr so [17:58:32] <_chrs_, replying to justanotherdarkmodeuser> good luck! [17:59:27] SLEEEEP [18:00:40] I bet Chris is typing [18:00:42] Chris [18:00:45] CHRS [18:00:50] there we go autocorrect [18:01:00] He is, I still need to talk to the wiki admin before sleep [18:01:21] <_arawynn, replying to justanotherdarkmodeuser> I would probably re-word it into "user doesn't meet more than one requirements" [18:01:22] sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep [18:01:31] hi awawynn [18:01:34] btw I meant to ask [18:01:45] could you take a look at my reviews subpage? if you have any comments [18:02:38] <_arawynn> Hi there and sure, give me some time [18:03:32] that's fine [18:03:34] here you go [18:03:36] gimmie a sec [18:03:45] <_chrs_, replying to _chrs_> [1/2] having UCP as a seperate policy page is arguably a bit excessive given that it applies to exactly two different things (namely: WR and meta sysop), so one thing to consider might be "mark UCP as historical, and in its place, insert into [[Meta:WR]] and [[Meta:Admins]] a line that "requests which are malformed, made by users who fail to meet the minimum criteria, or [18:03:45] <_chrs_, replying to _chrs_> [2/2] have attracted unanimous NOTNOW-type opposition may be closed by any user" [18:03:46] [1/2] [18:03:46] [2/2] [18:04:13]