Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
→Filter 89: new section Tag: 2017 source edit |
|||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
@[[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]]—Courtesy ping if you have ideas. Thanks. —[[User:3PPYB6|3PPYB6]] ([[User talk:3PPYB6|talk]]) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
@[[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]]—Courtesy ping if you have ideas. Thanks. —[[User:3PPYB6|3PPYB6]] ([[User talk:3PPYB6|talk]]) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
:This is the result of the filter filtering for the <code><nowiki><br></nowiki></code> tag, which is a very common indicator of spam. This is actually unnecessary (already in another filter), so I've removed it and extended the exempted groups. {{ping|Kazrok4545}} I've temporarily disabled the filter pending clarification on its intent, were you intending to do something akin to [[Special:AbuseFilter/88|filter 88]], or was this intended to be an addition to [[Special:AbuseFilter/52|filter 52]]? — <span style="font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Arcversin|Arcversin]] ([[User talk:Arcversin|talk]])</span> 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:30, 19 April 2022
| The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one. | |||
| Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 | |||
Mind if I suggest something?
Instead of having your access to the admin tools after 1 month goes by without activity, why not just have it be 3 months instead? I'd say that 1 month is a bit too short, and I'm not sure how one month would be enough of a reason. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Supports
Support I like this idea, and can't see any drawbacks to it. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)- Support I think it should be extended. LisafBia (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. I am one (as you are three) 23:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I absolutely agree with that! AlPaD (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose We're giving out adminship and 'cratship as if they were candies. Isn't that good enough? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's definitely good but it would save bureaucrats some work by not having to re-add user rights so often and also save everyone else the hassle of having to ask for the rights again after just a short one-month hiatus. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk · contribs) Being honest, revocation of an advanced permission after 1 month just seems too short, and I'd recommend at least 3 months, as it's usually fair, in terms of how we all operate on the Public Test Wiki on Miraheze. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's definitely good but it would save bureaucrats some work by not having to re-add user rights so often and also save everyone else the hassle of having to ask for the rights again after just a short one-month hiatus. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the policy be updated now?
Seeing as this has majority support, should one of the bureaucrats update the policy to reflect the new time? Or do we have to get a Steward's approval for policy changes? Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 14:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
CheckUser request
These 2 users are blocked intefinite on Chinese Wikipedia and locked on Wikimedia foundation, this action is suspected and 想舞花 had approved 七海娜娜米's request for adminship even though another bureaucrat had rejected it. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The third line should have been & !page_id == 702. Currently it's checking for spam edits on TW:RFP... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging @Dmehus. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can't admins edit the filters themselves? I know that on another wiki that was possible. Just saying. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Filters with restricted actions (namely, blocking) can only be edited by Stewards. — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can't admins edit the filters themselves? I know that on another wiki that was possible. Just saying. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- It would actually be
page_id != 702, since this is an equality check. Also, it's generally good practice to surround any negation that isn't a single function with parentheses, like so:!('x' in y)— Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In regards to User:Seiyena.
- Noting that the aforementioned abuse filter has been deployed. — Arcversin (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Lift protection on MediaWiki:Common.css
Could the steward-only create protection on MediaWiki:Common.css be removed? I'm trying to deploy some styles to get the {{mbox}} series of templates properly working. — Arcversin (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I also thought the other day I was going to work with styles, but it was blocked. — Regards, Kazrok4545 Talk 13:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we're getting a few false positives here; I fixed a typo on an AbuseFilter warning and apparently I was disallowed. See my abuse log for reference.
@Kazrok4545—Courtesy ping if you have ideas. Thanks. —3PPYB6 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is the result of the filter filtering for the
<br>tag, which is a very common indicator of spam. This is actually unnecessary (already in another filter), so I've removed it and extended the exempted groups. @Kazrok4545: I've temporarily disabled the filter pending clarification on its intent, were you intending to do something akin to filter 88, or was this intended to be an addition to filter 52? — Arcversin (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)