Inputwiki - Recent changes [en]

站点账号轮换策略说明

ValeLantern — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:36:07 GMT

[ProfileMax] 发布测试

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 29 October 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:

	批量发布作业按站点串行投递,同一站点同一时刻只占用一个浏览器身份(Profile),发布成功后回写账号最近使用时间,保证轮换计量准确。		批量发布作业按站点串行投递,同一站点同一时刻只占用一个浏览器身份(Profile),发布成功后回写账号最近使用时间,保证轮换计量准确。

			轮换器的实现与发布测试共享同一套账号池,压测示范站点为 [https://txwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page Txwiki]。

	<blockquote>账号池告警阈值:单站点可用账号少于 2 个时,应导入新凭据而不是压缩发布节奏。</blockquote>		<blockquote>账号池告警阈值:单站点可用账号少于 2 个时,应导入新凭据而不是压缩发布节奏。</blockquote>

发布质量检查清单

ValeLantern — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:32:57 GMT

[ProfileMax] 发布测试

New page

== 发布后质量检查清单 ==

每一篇发布成功的文章都要过以下检查,任一项不过都应进入修复流程。

=== 基础可达 ===

* 发布页 HTTP 状态码 200(重定向后可达);
* 页面标题与文章标题一致。

=== 链接与 rel ===

* 目标链接在页面 HTML 中存在且 href 与投放计划一致;
* rel 属性按投放计划携带(nofollow/sponsored 等),缺失记 missing;
* 无死链(跳转后 404 即 dead)。

=== 排版与内容 ===

* HTML→wikitext 转换无内容丢失(标题/列表/加粗原样保留);
* 段落无明显截断,末尾完整。

示范站点 [https://txwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page Txwiki] 的检查记录可在「发布 → 质量评分」Tab 查询。

站点账号轮换策略说明

ValeLantern — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:30:26 GMT

[ProfileMax] 发布测试

New page

== 为什么要轮换站点账号 ==

同一账号在高频发布节奏下容易被站点风控标记,轻则限速、重则封禁。把发布压力均匀摊到站点下的多个账号上,是保持长期可用性的基础手段。

== 轮换策略 ==

* '''最近最久未用''':每次发布优先选择 lastLoginAt 最靠前的可用账号;
* '''失败退避''':登录失败或写入被拒的账号直接进入冷却,下一次投递自动换人;
* '''凭据分层''':active 状态且密码齐全的账号才进入候选池,无凭据账号会被健康检查标 expired。

== 操作约定 ==

批量发布作业按站点串行投递,同一站点同一时刻只占用一个浏览器身份(Profile),发布成功后回写账号最近使用时间,保证轮换计量准确。

<blockquote>账号池告警阈值:单站点可用账号少于 2 个时,应导入新凭据而不是压缩发布节奏。</blockquote>

MediaWiki 批量发布指南(压测版)

ValeLantern — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:26:10 GMT

[ProfileMax] 发布测试

New page

== 为什么做批量发布压测 ==

批量发布的价值不只在吞吐量,更在于把「发布成功率」从主观印象变成可验证的指标:站点可用性、凭据有效性、落栈结果、以及发布后的回读校验,全部由系统记录并汇总成质量评分。

本轮压测使用 15 个 MediaWiki 压测站点,每个站点绑定一个专属发布镜像(指纹浏览器 Profile)与站点账号池,发布作业由调度器按站点串行投递,避免同账号并发发布触发风控。

== 账号导入与凭据管理 ==

* 站点账号密码在导入时即以 AES-256-GCM 加密落库,API 永不返回明文,只在投递时解密注入执行载荷;
* 每个站点保留原始创建时间与最近登录时间,账号轮换按「最近最久未用」进行;
* 无有效凭据的账号会被健康检查标记为 expired,不再进入投递候选。

== 发布流程与回读校验 ==

发布作业分两种模式:'''publish''' 直接落正式页面,'''draft''' 落到账号个人空间的沙盒页,用于在不动正式内容的前提下验证登录与写入链路。落栈成功后系统记录 revisionId,并用 HTTP 回读发布页:确认页面可访问(HTTP 200)、目标链接存在且 rel 属性符合预期。

<blockquote>发布结果(status/message/revisionId/articleUrl)与目标链接检查记录都会在「发布任务 / 质量评分」Tab 中按站点汇总,压测结论以这两处数据为准。</blockquote>

== 压测站点附录 ==

本轮参与压测的站点包括 youngwiki、eastwiki、hopewiki 等 15 个 MediaWiki 环境,完整站点清单见「发布 → 站点」Tab;示范站点为 [https://txwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page 压测站点 Txwiki]。

What Is Section 702? The US Surveillance Authority Renewed Before a Court Ruling Was Made Public

ValeLantern — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 19:47:29 GMT

New page

Section 702 is a provision of United States law that allows the government to collect the communications of non-Americans located outside the country for foreign-intelligence purposes, without obtaining an individual warrant for each target. Because it sits at the junction of national security and personal privacy, it is one of the most closely watched surveillance authorities in the US legal system, and every attempt to extend it prompts a public argument over oversight and civil liberties. The most recent renewal became especially contentious: senators said officials disclosed a court ruling concerning warrantless searches past the deadline for making it public, meaning lawmakers were asked to extend the program before a judicial interpretation of the practices at issue had come to light.

== What Section 702 Is ==

Section 702 is part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the principal US statute governing electronic surveillance for national-security purposes. Its defining feature is the way it handles authorization. Instead of requiring the government to justify every individual target before a judge, it permits agencies to target non-US persons who are believed to be located outside the United States, operating under targeting and privacy procedures approved in advance by a specialized court that conducts much of its work in secret.

Supporters present this design as a practical necessity: foreign threats move quickly, and a warrant-by-warrant process aimed at people abroad would be poorly suited to signals intelligence gathered at scale. Critics counter that the authority reaches further than its foreign focus suggests, because communications involving Americans can be swept into the same collection.

The structure of the law is also central to the recent controversy. Section 702 does not continue indefinitely; Congress must periodically vote to renew it. Ahead of the latest renewal, senators publicly complained that a court ruling addressing warrantless searches — searches of collected material that do not rest on an individual warrant — had been kept from public release beyond the deadline by which it was supposed to be disclosed. In the senators' telling, officials effectively concealed a significant legal interpretation until after lawmakers had committed to extending the program. Whether or not that characterization is accepted, the episode turned a routine reauthorization into a dispute about transparency, timing, and the public's right to understand how its surveillance laws are actually being read.

== Core Concepts ==

Several ideas recur in any discussion of Section 702, and they explain why the late-arriving ruling mattered.

'''Foreign targeting.''' The authority is formally aimed at non-US persons located abroad who are considered relevant to foreign intelligence. It is not, on its face, a license to spy on Americans.

'''Incidental collection.''' When an American communicates with a targeted foreigner, that American's communications can be gathered even though the American was never a target. This "incidental" pickup is a structural feature of collecting communications rather than intercepting specific people, and it is the main channel through which US persons' data enters the system.

'''Warrantless searches.''' Once material has been collected, agencies can search it. When analysts query that material for information about Americans without obtaining a warrant, critics describe the practice as a "backdoor search" — an end run around ordinary warrant requirements. The court ruling at the center of the renewal dispute dealt with precisely this category of warrantless searches, which is why senators argued that its contents were directly relevant to how members of Congress should think about the program before voting.

'''Disclosure deadlines.''' Significant judicial rulings that interpret surveillance authorities are supposed to be declassified and released to the public within a defined window. The premise is simple: a democracy should not operate secret law for long. The senators' complaint was that this premise was violated — the deadline passed, and the ruling remained unseen.

'''Sunset and renewal.''' Because the authority must be periodically reauthorized, Congress retains a recurring opportunity to revise or end it. That leverage is only meaningful, lawmakers who pushed for disclosure argued, if legislators know how courts have interpreted the program at the moment they vote.

== How It Works ==

In practice, Section 702 operates as a pipeline with several layers of review. Intelligence agencies first establish the procedures under which they will select foreign targets, describing how they will ensure targets are non-US persons located abroad. A specialized national-security court examines those targeting procedures, along with "minimization" procedures designed to shield information about Americans who are not connected to the intelligence purpose. Once the court approves the framework, collection can proceed against approved foreign targets without a fresh application for each one.

The collected communications are then stored and can be queried by analysts. Here the distinction drawn above becomes concrete: querying the database to pursue foreign intelligence about approved targets is the core function of the program, while querying it for a specific American's communications without a warrant is the contested practice that has fueled years of legislative debate. Oversight bodies audit compliance, and the congressional intelligence committees receive reports on how the authority is being used.

Transparency is meant to close the loop. When courts issue significant interpretations of the program, those interpretations are supposed to reach the public — and the legislators responsible for renewal — within the prescribed deadline. The recent dispute illustrates what happens when that loop breaks. According to senators, a ruling about warrantless searches surfaced only after its release deadline had passed, and after the vote to extend the authority. Lawmakers who wanted an informed vote were left to weigh the program's future in an information gap, and the renewal proceeded before the ruling could shape the debate.

== Common Questions ==

'''Does Section 702 allow the government to surveil Americans without warrants?''' Not by design. The program is supposed to target non-US persons located outside the United States. The complication is that Americans' communications can be collected incidentally and can then be searched without a warrant, which critics argue amounts to surveillance of Americans through the back door. The ruling that senators said was released late concerned these warrantless searches.

'''Why did the timing of the ruling matter so much?''' A renewal vote sets the terms of the program going forward. If a court has clarified whether warrantless searches of collected data are consistent with the law, members of Congress would naturally want to know before deciding whether to extend the authority unchanged. Senators argued that officials released the ruling past the deadline, after the vote, and that this deprived both Congress and the public of information they were entitled to have in hand.

'''What do the opposing camps want?''' Critics want warrant requirements for searches touching Americans' communications and stricter enforcement of disclosure deadlines, so that legal interpretations surface before votes rather than after them. Officials and other supporters want to preserve the program's speed and breadth, arguing that the collection capability is essential and that existing court-approved procedures and oversight provide adequate protection. The renewal fight is, at bottom, a disagreement about where that balance should sit.

== Frequently Asked Questions ==

=== What is Section 702? ===

Section 702 is the US foreign-intelligence surveillance authority described throughout this article: a provision of federal law that permits the government to collect the communications of non-Americans located abroad, without individual warrants, under procedures approved by a specialized court and subject to periodic renewal by Congress. Recent attention has centered on a claim advanced by senators — the basis for the account summarized here — that a court ruling on warrantless searches was made public only after its release deadline, and after the authority had been renewed.

=== What has changed recently with Section 702? ===

The most significant recent development is the renewal itself. Congress extended the authority, but the vote took place before a court ruling concerning warrantless searches was released. According to the senators who raised the issue, officials withheld that ruling past the deadline for its public disclosure, so the legal interpretation became visible only after lawmakers had already voted to continue the program. The practical result is that Section 702 remains in force, now accompanied by a fresh dispute over whether the public and Congress received the information they were owed before the decision was made.

=== Who does Section 702 apply to? ===

Formally, the authority applies to non-US persons located outside the United States who are targeted for foreign-intelligence purposes. Americans are not supposed to be targets. In practice, however, Americans' communications can be collected incidentally when they interact with targeted foreigners, and collected material can be searched without a warrant — the practice at the heart of the ruling that senators said surfaced too late. For that reason, the program's practical reach extends, controversially, to US persons even though its legal focus is foreign.

== References ==
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/10/us-officials-want-section-702-renewed-before-damaging-court-ruling-goes-public/ US officials want Section 702 renewed before damaging court ruling goes public]

[[Category:us]]
[[Category:section]]
[[Category:senators]]
[[Category:officials]]
[[Category:ruling]]

US Officials Urge Congress to Renew Section 702 Before a Secret Ruling Comes to Light

UmberValley — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 19:47:26 GMT

A dispute over timing and transparency has become the centerpiece of the latest United States surveillance renewal fight. Officials in the US government are pressing Congress to renew Section 702, the surveillance authority at the core of the country

New page

== At a Glance ==

A dispute over timing and transparency has become the centerpiece of the latest United States surveillance renewal fight. Officials in the US government are pressing Congress to renew Section 702, the surveillance authority at the core of the country's foreign-intelligence collection program, before the contents of a secret ruling connected to warrantless searches become public. A group of senators, however, says that ruling was kept from disclosure past the deadline by which it was supposed to be released, and they want lawmakers to see it before any renewal vote. The result is a standoff over sequence: officials want the authority extended quickly, while senators want the classified document brought into the open first.

== Key Facts ==

* Section 702 is a provision of US surveillance law that allows the government to collect the communications of foreign intelligence targets located outside the United States. Because such collection can incidentally sweep in the communications of Americans, the program has long drawn scrutiny over how that information is handled once gathered.

* The dispute now before Congress centers on a classified ruling that, according to the senators raising the issue, concerns warrantless searches — that is, searches of collected communications carried out without a warrant.

* The senators say the ruling was withheld past its release deadline. In their account, the point at which the document was supposed to be made public had already passed while it remained secret.

* Officials want Congress to renew the provision promptly, ahead of the ruling's exposure. Senators want the opposite order of operations: disclosure first, so that lawmakers can weigh the ruling before deciding whether to extend the program.

== Impact and Interpretation ==

The most immediate consequence is procedural. If enough members of Congress insist on reading the ruling before voting, the renewal effort could stall, leaving the program's future uncertain. The sequencing question therefore matters not only as a matter of transparency but as a practical determinant of whether the authority is extended at all.

The episode also carries weight for institutional trust. A release deadline that lapses without disclosure invites questions about how oversight of classified material works in practice. For critics of the surveillance program, the senators' account is evidence that internal deadlines are not enough to guarantee accountability. Defenders of the process would counter that classified material inevitably complicates legislative timetables, and that delay does not by itself signal bad faith.

How each side's posture is read may matter just as much. Officials' push for a swift renewal before the ruling surfaces can be viewed by skeptics as an attempt to lock in the authority before uncomfortable details emerge. Supporters would frame the same push as a routine effort to avoid any interruption in a capability they consider essential to national security. Because the underlying document remains secret, the public record consists largely of these competing framings.

In a broader sense, the standoff illustrates how secret judicial rulings shape publicly debated law. Decisions made in a closed setting can determine the practical reach of government surveillance, yet the lawmakers asked to vote on renewal may not see them in time — or at all. That gap between classified reality and public legislation is the underlying tension this fight has exposed.

== Related Background ==

Section 702 takes its name from the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the United States' foundational foreign-intelligence surveillance law, under which it sits. The provision was designed to let the government target non-Americans located abroad for intelligence purposes. It operates under targeting and minimization procedures approved by a specialized secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; rather than seeking an individual order for each target, the government works under court-approved rules that are reviewed on a recurring basis.

The warrantless-search question has been a persistent fault line in debates over the program. Once communications involving Americans enter the database built under the authority, agencies can query that information without a warrant. Critics in Congress have pushed for a warrant requirement before such searches of Americans' data, while national security officials argue that the ability to search collected material quickly is central to the program's value. The classified ruling at the heart of the current dispute touches directly on this contested practice.

Renewal fights over Section 702 recur because the authority is not permanent. Congress must periodically decide whether to extend it, and each cycle tends to reopen the same arguments about privacy, security, and oversight. The present dispute fits that pattern, with an added twist: under the framework governing such material, significant rulings are meant to be reviewed and released within defined periods, and the senators' claim is that this process failed. That allegation turns an ordinary renewal debate into a referendum on whether the information lawmakers need is being made available on time.

== Frequently Asked Questions ==

=== What Is the US Section 702 Provision? ===

Section 702 is part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the United States' core foreign-intelligence surveillance law. It authorizes the government to collect the communications of non-Americans located outside the country for intelligence purposes, operating under procedures approved by a secret intelligence court rather than through individual warrants for each target. Because Americans' communications can be collected incidentally, and because the collected data can be searched without a warrant, the provision is among the most debated authorities in US law. In the current dispute, the contested document is a classified ruling about exactly such warrantless searches. These details reflect the facts summarized in this article.

=== What Is the Latest Development in the US Section 702 Dispute? ===

The most recent development is the standoff over timing. US officials are urging Congress to renew Section 702 before the secret ruling on warrantless searches comes to light, while senators say the ruling was withheld past its release deadline and want it disclosed before any renewal vote. The ruling remains classified, and whether disclosure or renewal happens first is unresolved. These points are drawn from the senators' statements and the officials' renewal push as described above.

== References ==
* [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/10/us-officials-want-section-702-renewed-before-damaging-court-ruling-goes-public/ US officials want Section 702 renewed before damaging court ruling goes public]

[[Category:us]]
[[Category:section]]
[[Category:senators]]
[[Category:officials]]
[[Category:ruling]]

User:ValeLantern

ValeLantern — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:53:57 GMT

User account ValeLantern was created

User:UmberYard

UmberYard — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:53:56 GMT

User account UmberYard was created

User:UmberValley

UmberValley — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:53:54 GMT

User account UmberValley was created

User:UmberSpring

UmberSpring — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 17:53:52 GMT

User account UmberSpring was created