I have a wiki set up on a TLS-only vhost. There is a companion vhost on
port 80, that makes a permanent redirect from / to https://host.name.tld
This works fine, and the wiki can be browsed, edited &c.
However, I've noticed that sometimes, I had to purge a page manually, to
get rid of red links to pages. Today, I noticed what I belive is the cause.
A massive buildup of jobs in the queue, that didn't execute, until i ran
In the apache log file for vhosts without a log setup, I notice that I have
a lot of POST's like the one below, matching the number of unrun jobs.
host.name.tld:80 512.512.512.512 - - [05/Aug/2014:09:48:24 +0200]
HTTP/1.1" 301 830 "-" "-"
So it looks like the post to execute a job goes to the non-secure URL for
the site, even though $wgServer is set to TLS:
$wgServer = "https://host.name.tld";
This leads to two questions:
1) Why strip https from the server URL?
2) Why isn't the redirect from port 80 to port 443 honoured? The vhost is
set up with Server Name Indication, but I don't think that's the cause,
since I don't see the POST resent in the default servers log file.
3) What to do about this?
I have a wiki running MediaWiki 1.23 and Semantic MediaWiki 1.9.1 in a
development environment (so lots of page creations, deletions, settings
changes, etc). At some point during my development today, after I changed
some settings in PostConfiguration.php regarding namespaces, I found that a
page which I had deleted was still showing up in the Category page of which
it was a member (when it still existed). Clicking on the link to the
deleted page takes me to the deleted page (correctly stating that the page
was deleted, but I could restore it if desired).
I have tried things like re-creating and deleting the page, running
refreshLinks.php, runJobs.php (until the job queue was clear), and
SMW/UpdateJob.php, but none of these have fixed the problem - the phantom
page is still showing in the Category page.
Can anyone give any insight as to a) why this might happen, and/or b) any
other ways I can try to correct the problem?
Hi All sorry my question may be funny, But I need your helps.
I have installed mediawiki in one of the servers of the company that i work obviously it is in localhost of that server, now I want to know the URL I should use to access that mediawiki from our internal LAN.
Would you please help me ? IT IS VERY URGENT FOR ME.
Aye, these are valid points, and there are very real issues with what we
have (and don't have) currently.
But why do we need a separate organisation to address them? Why can they
not be addressed at home, on mw.org? Why hasn't any of this
consolidation happened already, before adding another level of complexity?
Some comments inline, too, but they're less relevant to my main
On 04/08/14 16:27, Derric Atzrott wrote:
> This reply is as I understand the situation to be. If anyone else can
> provide a bit more insight into things, or correct me where I am wrong,
> I would be grateful.
>> What would be the purpose of this organisation and separate community,
>> exactly? Has there been any demonstrated need or even want for such an
>> organisation amongst the community it would proportedly serve?
> This is something that has been in the works on Wikitech-l for some time
> now. The folks on Wikitech-l and the WMF have come to the decision that
> they can't really dedicate the resources required to handle third parties
> properly (someone correct me if I am wrong on this).
I thought that was what the release managers were supposed to be doing.
I could be wrong.
> They are going to be working with the folks over at Debian, among other
> places, to get the vary Linux distributions packages up-to-date and keep
> them up-to-date.
> They are also going to be giving the installer a little bit more love than
> it currently has, and working on additional database support. The WMF is
> paying them for their work. Its a contracted deal to offload some of the
> development and release tasks that primarily benefit third-party users to
> someone who can actually dedicate the time and effort to listen to third-
> party users.
But is there any reason these would need to be off mw.org etc and out of
the existing communities? Why they would need an entirely new community?
How would that help?
> Given the luck that enteprise has had in the past at getting some features
> added to Mediawiki (without coding them ourselves that is), I believe that
> a need has definitely been demonstrated. As an enteprise user myself, I
> personally want this and like the idea, so while I can't speak for
> everyone, at least one person in the community wants it.
In open source, that's how it works - unless you get lucky or it's
fairly generic, you need to code specific pieces you need yourself, or
explicitly pay someone else to do it. Developer time isn't free, even if
they are donating it.
A new organisation would not change that.
>> I ask in particular because as a third-party sysadmin myself, it's hard
>> enough following all the relevant discussion and information that
>> concerns releases as it is already.
> I think the idea is that they will be consolodating these as much as
> possible. Though, I will say that I think they should keep using this
> list as the primary list for enteprise instead of having their own
> mailing list as well. Unless the enterprise list is to be deprecated.
> It would be nice to just be able to subscribe to two lists as a
> third-party user, mediawiki-enteprise-l and announcements-l.
If you have custom extensions, large scale, and/or like to keep up to
date, wikitech-l is pretty much a requirement too, since architectural
changes and whatnot are discussed there, and they will affect how you do
things even if you don't have a particular stake in the outcome.
If you do, however, the only way to ensure your voice is heard is to
speak up for yourself, or hire someone directly to do so. This is
unfortunate because some discussions (such as the Architecture Summit)
can be particularly time-consuming and potentially costly, but my
experience there and on various lists (with the WMF, with the Marks, and
others) has been that nobody else will speak for you unless they have an
explicit reason to do so. Someone else paying them to do so is not such
a reason, because people answer to the people who pay them, not random
people out on the sidelines.
>> Adding another organisation on top
>> of that, with its own lists and websites to check and follow, and
>> another layer of community to go through to get things upstreamed, seems
>> highly premature when we can't even consolidate the basics (release
>> notes, date announcements, even testing) at home.
> I suspect that they will be more able to help third-party users get things
> upstreamed. Or at least that is my hope.
> They should also be handling release notes and date announcements entirely
> now for third-party users (assuming I've understood correctly). I think
> that this will lead to more consistent and easier to understand release
> notes and announcements.
> I can't really say anything about testing. I'm not terribly familiar with
> any of our testing infrastructure to be honest.
These things can easily be done without a new organisation and
community. They just take time and resources regardless of where they
The new organisation and community would also take time and resources.
On top of that.
>> Considering we also have no guarantee that any new organisation would be
>> more receptive to the needs and concerns of the third-party end users
>> than the WMF is currently, and there would still be things we would need
>> to go to the WMF directly about anyway (thus making it even harder to
>> figure out where to go for something), I find this all very worrying.
> They are being paid to be more receptive, so I hope that they will be.
> I should hope that they will also be able to act as a liason between
> third-party users and the Mediawiki development community.
> Personally, I don't find it worrying, I actually find it quite refreshing.
> Its about time third-party users were treated as first-party citizens! :D
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
Aye, we need better. But it's been a year already with a much more
contained scope, and even that has proven far more difficult than those
involved expected, with subsequently little progress. In light of this,
extending the scope seems highly premature.
Hence worrying. I want the better to actually happen.
I was wondering if this was possible before I invest a lot of time into it.
I am using an instance of MediaWiki as an internal knowledge base. I have
a variety of categories for different functions. I was wondering if I
could do one of the following:
1.) Integrate with Active Directory. If the user is in the Wiki-ReadOnly
group, they can only read pages and NOT change them. If they are in the
Wiki-Write group, they can read & edit pages.
OR (the gold state)
2.) Have different read and write groups for each category. For instance,
I use the wiki to document how we go about malware analysis and would like
some people to be able to see this to use as a reference when working a
case, but most people do not need to see this.
Is this possible?
the Wiki Release Team invites you to get involved in a much needed effort to build a separate entity that cares about the third party use of MediaWiki. We ask for your involvement and participation because, as a community, we need to drive MediaWiki!
Be a part of something big!
1. Join our mailing list of interested people on wikireleaseteam.org 
2. Attend our first meeting :
Sunday, August 10, 2014 at 11:30AM GMT
Hammerson Room and/or webstreaming
3. Help us help you by providing feedback and comments as we work through an environmental scan and development roadmap
With the formation of the release team, a first step has been taken to separate the releases from the deployment process. Now is the time to tackle the task of building and working our way towards an organisation that cares for MediaWiki as a software product. This organisation will foster the MediaWiki third-party community, facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources among the third-party users, advocate the third-party needs, and advise the MediaWiki development from the third party perspective.
Spreading open knowledge is not just about content, but also about tools. However, third party users of MediaWiki have very specific needs that are naturally of minor interest to running Wikimedia sites. These include the installer, support for different platforms and databases, integration with other software, extension dependencies, and packaging, just to name a few.
Our mission, far from being complete, is just beginning. With your help and involvement we can make an impact to improve MediaWiki for the third party community.
Mark Hershberger and Markus Glaser
Wiki Release Team
Is there a way to have autocomplete in the search box on the complete page name (entered text anywhere in the page name) instead of only on the beginning of the page name? Sorry if this question has been asked before!
The default block duration for AbuseFilter is indefinite.
$wgAbuseFilterBlockDuration can be set to alter this.
My question is: can we make it different for IPs?
The use case here is RationalWiki, which is currently getting a very
tedious troll coming in from Tor. We don't actually want to switch off
Tor and other proxies except in dire circumstances, but we would quite
like the AbuseFilter (whose rules we have highly tuned) to block its
positives for, say, a few days. (Usernames, they can stay indefinite.)
Is there a way to do this - different behaviour for usernames and IPs?