@GeneralNotability: if NDA is not required, that means we would be able to make a list of people that do and don't have 2FA enabled and release it freely, increasing the attack probability for those users. OTOH, group membership doesn't mean 100% that the user has 2FA enabled, and even if the user has IA somewhere, it's not guaranteed that they do have it enabled, even though it's required. The way it currently is seems the safest to me, only a few privileged users (obligatory disclaimer: of which I'm part of) have access to that, and it is logged so that any other steward or WMF staff can verify what they're doing. Furthermore, the difference between emails and 2FA is (among other things) that 2FA enrollment is only queryable by stewards/staff/sysadmins, all of which have mandatory NDAs.

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/754055 shows the max size, but doesn't show the number of addresses on the range, as for IPv6 it gets insanely huge (/19, the default max, equals 6.4903710731685E+32 addresses). If that's good enough, feel free to assign to me and close :)

Done at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/754055.

This has been done for a while.

@AGueyte there's a block form on the bottom of Special:Checkuser, that's probably the form in question here

In T303774#7776806, @MZMcBride wrote:

That's a good question. @Tks4Fish may know why we aren't using a dedicated bot account such as ST47ProxyBot on Meta-Wiki.

@Ladsgroup asked my fellow CUs, all good with "wikipedia-pt-checkusers" :)

@Tgr just that one pageview.

Now all should be done, sorry :(

This is caused by sending "modify": 1 when the IP is not blocked, and instead of fixing I added a test for that exact reason, go me! I'll submit a patch soon.

Wrong task number, sorry.

FWIW Pootymalooty is a locked LTA, who's phab account has been disabled.

@cmooney Sorry, I think I ended up asking in the wrong place.

@faidon are there any updates on this? We've been discussing tooling to help with steward workflow, but they are highly dependent on IPv6. If that is already a problem locally, globally it'd be even worse (especially considering India, where it's basically only IPv6). Thanks!

@Umherirrender I imagine you meant Special:GlobalBlock and not Special:GlobalUser (as that one doesn't exist), and it's precisely that :) It'll be useful for adding links like global contributions for that IP, filter and spam hits, links to tools like stalktoy, or to be used on user scripts. Personally, I have scripts that send me to Special:CheckUser on loginwiki, and it'd then prefill the IP for me.

Fixed per above

BTW I see here that I told Urbanecm on Nov. 23 about this page being down, but I'm pretty sure it was down even earlier when I tried to access it, just never reported as I thought it was temporary. On Nov I saw it was still broken, and told him, and today since it was *still* broken, I filed a task.

I completely agree with @Urbanecm here, and have said so previously at T266695#6650245: there is no point in hiding the data that is on the table from the scrutineers, it'd only make our job way harder to be done, which would probably result in a rubber-stamp of votes since asking for the data of every single vote is definitely going to get tiresome (this year's enwiki ACE already has 1633 votes). The accessing additional data part *is* already logged, with those logs available to the elections committee.

It's working again, thanks a ton!

This will be fixed with the patch for T296780, as that was already the default option for the API, and I added it to Special:GlobalBlock too, to keep things consistent and in accordance to what is actually wanted.

@Iflaq the patch has been deployed, as you can see on dates and times. Other messages will have to be fixed onwiki.

Let me echo @Huji's comments from T296085:

@phuedx and @Niharika: shouldn't this be limited to Staff, CU, Stewards and OmbCom members? The reasoning being the possibility of audit by the last two, that already have access to the CU log on all wikis.

In T294061#7462484, @jrbs wrote:

It sounds like what this needs is a brief indicator of what "Duplicate" actually means (matching cookies), perhaps only visible to electionadmins?

In T292685#7501346, @Huji wrote:

Here is a list of users who voted while blocked on fawiki and their votes must be struck:

@Huji I've sent you an email (the cu-l one), where I copied Stanglavine, and we can discuss it better there.

Deployed!

In T294093#7484203, @Iflaq wrote:

@Tks4Fish word mark uploaded on commons. The color has also been changed. If you can confirm it.

@Iflaq from my tests this one works better. Can you upload it to commons? And also, change the color of the tagline there to black too? As soon as that is done I'll upload the patch :) Thanks!

In T294093#7476030, @Juan90264 wrote:

Hi @Tks4Fish, if you don't mind, can I claim the task? I see that the task has been stopped for a few days now, and I know exactly what is the recommended height and width for wordmark and tagline. If you authorize me, I will proceed with resolving this task.

@Jdlrobson what should I do here? The wordmark's height is way more than the other project's, so setting it to the same height as other projects would make it too small to read, and setting it to the same width would make it too large. I see the following options, let me know if you have any other ideas:

@Iflaq does this wordmark also include the tagline (local version of "The free encyclopedia")? If it does, can you please upload a version with them separate from each other, as they are defined separately? Thanks!

Deployed!