Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Block review of Piccadilly: refactoring comment)
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 413: Line 413:

:Or possibly limit the creation to exclude certain words (I.e hello, hi, guys), also, blocking at the request of a steward is mad, as the stewards can block for themselves, they are sysops too and I'd like to see their name in the block log if they authorised the block, as you don't see MacFan telling someone else to update the wiki. [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 11:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:Or possibly limit the creation to exclude certain words (I.e hello, hi, guys), also, blocking at the request of a steward is mad, as the stewards can block for themselves, they are sysops too and I'd like to see their name in the block log if they authorised the block, as you don't see MacFan telling someone else to update the wiki. [[User:Zippybonzo|Zippybonzo]] ([[User talk:Zippybonzo|talk]]) 11:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::{{oppose}} changing the block. We’ve given Piccadilly so many changes and so many warnings. Why must we give another? I think the partial block is a good alternative to a indef full block. And there’s nothing wrong with blocking on the request of a steward because maybe they can’t get to a laptop or they’re very busy. I’ve done it before and there’s nothing wrong with it. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 12:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:34, 11 July 2023

Community portal

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08

Extension of stewardship flag

Account rename

Shorten Steward/system admin inactivity

Alternate proposal: Merging CheckUser and oversight to steward

Hello community! I’d like to propose an alternative to the proposal above about merging the rights. Here’s what I’d propose:

  • Stewards are granted the suppression-log, view suppressed, and CheckUser-log rights for accountability;
  • The CheckUser and Suppressor groups remain existent and aren’t removed;

This would allow for accountability amongst stewards and still allow non/stewards to be granted those rights if absolutely necessary. X (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - That seems like a good and better proposal, which is why I withdrew my proposal. Drummingman (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support AlPaD (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as proposer. X (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose viewsuppressed as it poses a confidentiality risk, Support the rest. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you elaborate what you mean by “confidentiality risk”? @Drummingman requested I add “view suppressed” to list via Discord, so you may want to discuss with him. X (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason I want to include view suppressed is that the logs already show a (partially) suppressed version, but to check each other properly you need view suppressed, and otherwise you have to add suppression yourself. The rest has to do with trusting the stewards to keep suppressed versions secret, which hopefully is already the case. Drummingman (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's wrong with adding the rights in that case? I don't view that as a significant imposition, and it aids public and community transparency. Dmehus (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you should be able to just view suppressed revisions without the community knowing. Zippybonzo (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: per proposer. Whether non-stewards should be granted CU or SU is a question I will pose in another proposal if this one succeeds. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Zippybonzo. Dmehus (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So would you support it without view suppressed? X (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. There does seem to be unanimous consensus here to at least checkuser-log being added. Dmehus (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - CU and SU practice for bureaucrats are optional, but I don't mind with CU and SU remain existent and not removed and steward having the CU and SU rights. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 23:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible close?

Drummingman, AlPaD, X, Zippybonzo, Justarandomamerican, and Tailsultimatefan3891, I'm involved, and though I am fairly certain there would be no objections to me closing in this way, I thought I'd {{ping}} you all here to receive your assent to this being closed as follows, as successful with checkuser-log added to the steward group and all other user groups remaining the same? Dmehus (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Drummingman (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree Zippybonzo (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. AlPaD (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support proposed close and involved closure

Object to proposed close

  • I don’t see why suppression log cannot be added too, given that there was no opposition to that. X (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm confused. Why exactly would that be the only right added, given the fact that the only possible opposition to suppression-log is confusing as a (full?) opposition based on a partial opposition? Justarandomamerican (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    X and Justarandomamerican, I've refreshed my memory on what Test Wiki's Special:Log/suppress displays, which is what would be viewable if that user right were added to the steward user group. For all or most pages in (Main) namespace or most other namespaces, there is little PII leakage. Similarly, there is also little to no PII leakage when secretly changing specific revisions to a page. However, the issue I suspected existed, which is what I think Zippybonzo was alluding to in his !vote argument is for pages within User: and User talk: namespaces. Specifically, on pages where a user inadvertently edited while logged lout or where they created an IP user/user talk page instead of their own user/user talk page. If this user right were added, it would be very easy to associate the likely page creator/editor to the likely IP address. I realize Stewards are trusted by the community, but on the same hand, I also feel like it's a lot of information that could be gleaned without having to add one's CheckUser hat. Dmehus (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You really shouldn’t be considering your own opinions/interpretations when closing. ZippyBonzo only said they opposed adding the “view-suppressed”. There is full support for adding the other 2. X (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's why I am proposing this for discussion on a possible close, given the stated opposition and neutral comment from Tailsultimatefan3891. It's also possible others may re-consider their views. I would not close this until there is unanimity in the proposed close. :) Dmehus (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Definitely. Let's wait and see for a couple days then, shall we? Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. :) Dmehus (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I still object on the grounds that that's not what consensus was, as X said. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On a strict nose count, yes, I agree there is majority support for the original proposal, but not necessarily consensus given the ~60% net support ratio. It would be better to have a clearer consensus. This was proposed as an alternative, but happy to consider other alternatives? Dmehus (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, there’s a 60% overall support, but full support for adding the CheckUser and suppression log rights. Not sure why you would go against full community consensus like this… X (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A support ratio alone isn't enough to determine consensus here, as the lone neutral !voter was more like an abstention: They said nothing to imply that they even had an opinion. I agree with waiting, however. Justarandomamerican (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for stewardship X


Greetings, @Drummingman: @Dmehus:.

I have a query regarding tracking and identifying individuals who have accessed a particular user account and conducted unauthorized activities, specifically acts of vandalism. Considering the recent blocks on the user in question, I believe it is important to determine the individuals responsible for such actions. Is there a feasible method to achieve this? Sav • ( Edits | Talk ) 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t think any action is needed at this time, considering the account hasn’t edited since March. If the account were to start vandalizing again, a CheckUser may want to take a look, but now I’m not sure it’s needed. However, it’s ultimately up to the stewards. X (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with X. CU also no longer makes sense because the logs are only kept for 90 days. However, I did block the account indefinitely as a Steward action because it is indeed a site risk. Drummingman (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block proxy

Status:  Done

  • - A SOCKS4 open proxy. Port for this proxy is 38172. I am not an admin. Requested 19:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC).

Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block)

Block numberous proxies

Status:  Done

I am not an admin.

Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also block: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done X (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also block: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done X (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also block: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done X performed a range block including this, and a individual block for this proxy. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 20:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also block: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done performed by X. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 22:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also block: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Proxy bot

Rename Request

Hello! Would it be possible for a steward to rename me to Piccadilly? Thank you! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support as it will create consistency with other projects. X (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @MacFan4000: @Dmehus: @Drummingman: Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 15:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! Seiyena (My Contribs | Talk to me) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry

Block proxies, users, and IPs at the link below

Block proxies, users, and IPs: User:Tailsultimatefan3891/Block users and IPs requests

Note: I am not an admin. Tailsultimatefan3891 (talk) (contribs) (rights) (block) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change group membership for user Example

Add IPBE privilege

Moving from reCAPTCHA to hCaptcha

Potential RfS candidate

Hello. I'm considering running for Stewardship sometime in the near future. I would be assisted greatly by the Steward tools, given that my main edits and logged actions consist of preventing abuse. I also think the community needs another Steward due to the fact that we have 3 Stewards, and only 1 is fully active, and a person cannot manage every Steward-reserved matter by themselves. I would add additional coverage to spot and prevent complex disruption, such as by users who lack the skills necessary to edit. My question is, what does the community think? Add feedback here in the Survey section below. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would support. You have handled your tools well here and on other wikis, and are trustworthy. Piccadilly (My Contribs | Talk to me) 01:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not have any opposition to a potential run at some point in the near- to medium-term future. I would just recommend you articulate a clear need, invite questions from the community, and, perhaps, provide several situation-based examples to which you would articulate how you would handle those situations. As a Steward and an administrator of such elections, I will refrain from an expressing a view and stay neutral, so as to be impartial in any potential close. Dmehus (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“With Drummingman's recent election to Steward, they are quite active here. Combined with my own resumption of being semi-active here, as well as MacFan4000, I feel there isn't a sufficient need for an additional Steward.” How is that different here? “I am not comfortable granting restricted permissions to someone I don't know, at least not without some on-wiki confirmation that they've held restricted tools on a Wikimedia, Miraheze, Fandom, or other major wiki or wiki farm. For Test Wiki is a recent launch, initiated as a protest wiki by one user who took issue with the way Public Test Wiki and/or Test Wiki are run. I do not consider holding restricted permissions on For Test Wiki to be sufficient demonstration that the user can be trusted.” How is that different either @Dmehus? X (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The former: I have articulated a need for Stewards based on activity, as well as an individual need for the tools. The latter: I'm Justarandomamerican on Miraheze and Wikimedia, and collaborated with Dmehus on Miraheze. Note that this comment are my thoughts on the matter, not his. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, but @Dmehus has expressed that he doesn’t think we need another steward, so I’m asking for clarification. X (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said I think it would need to be well-articulated on what the requesting user plans to do. While ideally some sort of global role would be nice to demonstrate the user is trusted, I actually thought Justarandomamerican was a Wikimedia Global Rollbacker, but I think I was thinking of JavaHurricane, with whom I've also collaborated on Miraheze and Public Test Wiki. IMHO, it [rfc:2119 should] be some sort of local or global role on Miraheze, Wikimedia, or Fandom that demonstrates the user is sufficiently trusted. For Wikimedia, it can probably be a local role, whereas on Miraheze, I'd say either a Miraheze Meta Wiki local role, Public Test Wiki Consul, or a Miraheze global role (other than global IP block exemption). For Fandom, it should be a Fandom global community or staff role. Hope that clarifies. :) Dmehus (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not a global rollbacker on WM as I have no need for that right at the moment, but I am an enwiki and simplewiki local rollbacker. I'm relatively trusted to prevent abuse. Justarandomamerican (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would weak oppose, as you aren't super trusted on wikimedia, and there isn't a need, though I would consider supporting if you held a higher trust role on wikimedia (i.e template editor, massmessage sender, new pages reviewer, edit filter helper, page mover, file mover, autopatrol), or a high trust global role, as I'd rather see some form of trustworthy role, as rollback isn't that highly sanctioned. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The supposedly higher trust roles you describe are for a need and competency in entirely different areas: I'm not experienced enough to be a template editor, have no need to be a mass message sender, NPR is a user group assisting in dealing with content, not conduct, etc. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. I’d say wait. Given that my RfS just failed with multiple people expressing that they don’t think a 4th steward is needed at all. X (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there appears to be, given the fact that there are only 3 Stewards and only 1 is fully active. I plan on waiting a bit anyways. Justarandomamerican (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are plenty of roles that aren't for an explicit need, they show you can be trusted, you have 2500 edits on wikimedia, which isn't very many, and I'd rather you had higher trust levels on other wikis. Zippybonzo (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is making 2500 edits not very many? Only 30% of registered Wikipedia users ever make one. Justarandomamerican (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got around 6000 which isn't very many, I'd expect more like 7500. Zippybonzo (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was inviting you to explain why that isn't enough, as that's more than 99.5% of all registered contributors, and I am seeking the position for an individual need for tools to prevent abuse. Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don’t have a need for the tools, you have full access to the suite of admin tools which is enough to prevent abuse. I’m simply saying, that rollback isn’t that high trust, as they give it out to anyone who has a history of anti vandalism and meets the requirements, and 2500 edits is more than most users, but for a right giving access to look at IP addresses, I’d expect more trust on other wikis when the right isn’t entirely required. Zippybonzo (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could say that nobody actually requires the tools. Dmehus doesn't actually have a need to look up IPs, but was given the toolkit anyways. Cross-wiki trust barely matters in a small community, or even a large one. Nobody judges a scowiki admin candidate on the basis that they only have rollback on enwiki. Nobody judges an enwiki admin for only having rollback and patroller on metamiraheze. Why is this required when I have a track record right here of making perfectly fine decisions? Simply put: if a candidate has a track record of making good decisions on the wiki they are requesting permissions, they are trusted, even if they have a bit lower trust elsewhere. Rollback on enwiki? Sure, it's a bit lower trust, but it does add to a case of a totality of the circumstances trustworthiness, which I say exists based on my track record here and elsewhere. Justarandomamerican (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO a few of your decisions are far from good, which is why I’d want a right on another wiki that needs you to make good decisions. You still have no need for the right though, as there is 1 active steward, 1 semi-active steward, and a rarely active steward. Zippybonzo (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please point me to a diff of a poor decision I made so that I can improve. A semi-active steward and one rarely active steward? That's why I'm requesting, there needs to be at least a duo of active stewards to handle any requests, as 1 person who is active isn't enough in any circumstance involving CU evidence, LTAs, and other forms of abuse that cannot be combated with the admin toolkit alone. People need other people to ask for review actively, not just a pair of semi-active stewards.Justarandomamerican (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I also said an active steward as well, they are enough, the decision that was not great IMO was on FTW when you and X decided to take away IP privacy from abusive users, I’m not going to use it against you as I heavily doubt that you came up with the idea of it, but, there are a few conditions under which I’d support stewardship.
If any of the following conditions are met.
  1. The wiki grows to the point where MacFan, Dmehus and Drummingman can’t prevent abuse.
  2. You are more highly trusted on other wikis (not test ones or ones that just give out high trust permissions).
  3. You show that you can perform actions similar to steward actions without significant opposition.
However IMO, 1 is so close to being met, that I’d probably support. Though I do consider this discussion to be pre discussion canvassing, you are a pretty highly qualified candidate, who inevitably I would have to support. Zippybonzo (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relating to the privacy policy change, if you had a problem with the change, you should’ve said so in the waiting time before the policy took effect. I don’t consider this to be canvassing, given that they weren’t asking for support and it’s all public. I was looking on Wikipedia and it appears to be similar to wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. X (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did air the concern but it was ignored. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe your concern was addressed by compromise: We replaced IP addresses with ranges, which are vague as to specific location, and cannot be used to identify 1 person in particular. I understand the concern about privacy, but some form of amendment was required to prevent disruption, and immediately after your feedback I realized that blocking IP addresses may not be the best way to go about preventing disruption from sockpuppetry, so now the PP allows for range blocks of CU-found IPs, not specific ones like was originally planned by X. I used rather vague wording whilst discussing the topic of preventing disruption from sockpuppetry, resulting in a privacy concern. My apologies. I certainly didn't mean for specific IPs to be blocked. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amend Test Wiki:No open proxies to include colocation providers

Colocation providers also hide IPs, like proxies and webhosts, so they should logically be included. Change: "No open proxies, web hosts, or VPNs..." to "No open proxies, web hosts, VPNs, or colocation providers..." Justarandomamerican (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done as this is pretty uncontroversial and doesn’t warrant further discussion. X (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition of interface admin protection level

I am proposing that interface administrator protection is added to help protect sensitive interface pages, i.e the sidebar and sitenotice pages, and also for protecting highly used templates. Zippybonzo (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block review of Piccadilly

I'd like to determine whether consensus believes that Piccadilly creating a blank talk page for a test page is worthy of a 3 month block from talk namespaces. In my opinion a block from talk namespaces is unneeded but instead a final warning, and a filter to warn upon creation of talk pages with a size under 256 bytes (a signature and a few words). For the record, this wiki is a test wiki, not the English Wikipedia, meaning people can test, and they aren't random talk pages, they are talk pages of test pages. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or possibly limit the creation to exclude certain words (I.e hello, hi, guys), also, blocking at the request of a steward is mad, as the stewards can block for themselves, they are sysops too and I'd like to see their name in the block log if they authorised the block, as you don't see MacFan telling someone else to update the wiki. Zippybonzo (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose changing the block. We’ve given Piccadilly so many changes and so many warnings. Why must we give another? I think the partial block is a good alternative to a indef full block. And there’s nothing wrong with blocking on the request of a steward because maybe they can’t get to a laptop or they’re very busy. I’ve done it before and there’s nothing wrong with it. X (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]